Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

48 wrote:

Might want to take a look at what the Japanese marathoners are doing. On the whole over the past couple decades men and women have consistently outperformed the US in terms of quality and quantity.

From the thread titled the Japanese might have Lydiard correct:

Some teams do a lot of intervals, and some teams just focus on the tempo runs. Coach Suzuki (Mitsui) has lowered the longest long run down from 45km to 36km, but the pace is faster. When Tosa ran 2:23 at Nagoya in 2004 to make the Olympic Team, her longest run was 32km, and it was slow due to injuries.

Check out Bob Hodge's website for the training schedule of Takayuki Inubushi during the 3 months before his 2:06 in Berlin in 1999. Interesting stuff.

(1) Lots of jogging.

(2) Long runs that are at a moderate pace.

(3) Insanely hard interval workouts at the right time.

Lots of interesting reading. Personally I'd rather be able to sit down together and talk all this stuff over some hot ovaltine. There are certainly things you can do as a runner (or athlete of any kind) that will elicit improvements in how your body deals with stress, and that is what it is all about -- learning to deal with stress imposed on various body systems. Some of that "training" (the word we use to describe the effects of repeated bouts of stress) may not appear to be particularly specific, while other things are obviously specific in nature. Some of the not-so specific work (strengthening exercises, for example) may not make you a better runner, but allows you to run more or run faster with less chance of injury, and the more stressful running makes you a better runner. What intensity, how much, how often, and with how much recovery time are all variables that are not necessarily the same for every individual; thus the benefit of a good coach-athlete relationship. And the best doesn't happen over night. No doubt there are some pretty basic rules to follow; for example, if you want to run better, you need to do some running (bowling every day will not do that job real well for you). You take what proves successful and apply it to the next runner and hope they are similar in responses. Sorry, time is up, gotta go try a new approach I heard about.

"You were doing OK until here. Efficiency, by JDs definition, applies to the metabolic efficiency at the cellular level, not the biomechanical level."

Efficient You are partly right about this one. I did define effiency in the wrong way I was thinking of running economy (again many different definations for this one). As I said before I looked back over Daniels running formula. I didn't find anything to do with effiency. Maybe you have a page# for me. He did speak of running economy in terms of oxygen use and speed compared to body weight. Not a big Daniels fan so I don't go much past the book.

"What Martin & Coe call aerobic conditioning, USATF calls aerobic efficiency. Different names for the same thing."

Thanks for the real definations Coe used. But, what we were debating was the defination of aerobic effiency. This mean that you inferred Coe and daniels conditioning to be aerobic effiency because you are comparing it to the USATF. If you compare it to someone else, Like Kennedy as I earlier brought up, it would mean aerobic capacity. And again Aerobic power and and aerobic capacity were two different things according to Bob as well.

So far If you compare any of the terms they could possible mean the same thing as any other term. Yes that is one of the goals of the USATF Education is to make these terms uniform. However, so far the efforts have been pretty futile. I went to a seminar and don't recall Vigil using the term effiency either. Not all coaches (especially Foriegn) are willing to agree with the terminology just beacuse USATF says to. Since all of us use Coaches outside of this country it makes it that much more difficult to communicate.

wellnow wrote:

Two examples of top marathon runners doing very hard sessions faster than 10k pace are Khalid Khannouchi doing 12x1000m in 2.42 with 60 seconds recovery, and Paula Radcliffe doing 6 x 1 mile on the road in 4.40 -4.45 with 90 seconds recovery.

I really don´t know how you work with data and numbers. Knowing that Khalid khannouchi he is focus on marathon with some incursions on road runs and since he doesn´t run on track since long ago, that´s not hard to admit that when he was in top shape as when he did 2:05 earlier marathon WR he would have the talent to run something as 27:30 10k that´s a 2:45 kilo pace. As the 12x1000m workout in 2.42 is just 3 seconds fast than estimate 27:30 this goes very close to the zone of 10k intensity. As Renato Canova points out for middle distances (3000-10000), speed in between 98 an d 105% of the speed of the race that is specific training.

The same with Paula Radcliffe. With straight 30min 10000m PB and while doing 6 x 1 mile on the road in 4.40 -4.45 with 90 seconds recovery she is very close to her own 10k pace intensity.

So you need to review your your conclusion because the workouts you present both are examples 10k workouts of top marathon runners really indeed and not very hard sessions faster than 10k pace, as you state.

I believe the USATF stuff draws heavily from Martin and Coe. M&C's conditioning is the same as USATF's efficiency.

It is desirable to have a uniform vocabulary for all of this. Despite your pessimism about USATF's efforts, I applaud them and think they are making good progress. These things take time, not to mention effort and money. Each year the volume of coaches communicating with a standard vocabulary grows. There is still work to be done in this area. but at least they are trying to do something about it. They deserve a pat on the back for their efforts.

Why do you think that it is that Vital?

Say your VO2 max is 65ml/kg/min and you run your marathon at 50ml/kg/min. Ideally you would not need your Max VO2 to be above 50 until you wanted to run faster. In this case you would need to increase your Vo2max. I think that we can agree that noone can run marathons at 100% and VO2max is a contributing factor. We are just discussing how big of a factor it is. For the example above I would say that the law of specificty says that it is more important to train your body at a vVO2 of 52-55ml/kg/min. This would increase the submax VO2 without causing much change to the Max. It is also interesting to point out that If we look at elites they are able to run closer to their VO2max than non-elites. This can be inturpted in different ways but I believe that it is because of the amount of running they do at VO2submax paces.

Of course these are all averages. Does anyone know of a study where the VO2 of marathoners is taken at different points in the race. How close do you get to your VO2max during the marathon? That would also help decide how big of a factor it is. I did find a summary of a studt that attemped to find the Determinants of marathon running success. But the definination of running economy and aerobic capacity are absent making it hard to determine the meaning.

It stated that a world champion marathonmer was used and

"When compared with other marathon runners this subject demonstrated little superiority with respect to either aerobic capacity or the energy requirements at various running speeds." (I take this as he did not have a Superior VO2 max to the other runners so something else)

"The findings of this research suggest that marathon running success is dependent upon running economy and the ability to utilize a large fraction of a well developed aerobic capacity." (a little confusing after the above statement. I think it means that having a high aerobic capacity (VO2max) was very important for all tested subjects although it was not the difining factor that made this person a world champion)

Just one study but it seems to suggests that there is a more important factor than VO2 (or atleast VO2max) in the marathon. Whatever the champ had and the others did not. Maybe I will make a trip to the the library to see if I can find and make since of the whole article.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pq57045280564282

Coach Mook wrote:

Not a big Daniels fan so I don't go much past the book.

Ouch! The good doctor offers his most welcomed insight and then you diss him in the very next post? Not nice.

Coach Mook wrote:

"The findings of this research suggest that marathon running success is dependent upon running economy and the ability to utilize a large fraction of a well developed aerobic capacity." (a little confusing after the above statement. I think it means that having a high aerobic capacity (VO2max) was very important for all tested subjects although it was not the difining factor that made this person a world champion)

Just one study but it seems to suggests that there is a more important factor than VO2 (or atleast VO2max) in the marathon.

That is not surprising or confusing in the least. Given that marathon pace is closely associated with the anaerobic threshhold -- which is "a large fraction of ... aerobic capacity" -- it makes perfect sense. Therefore the most important factor for a marathoner may be anaerobic efficiency, i.e. the ability to buffer H+ at relatively high rates of speed.

Of course extremes can confuse the issue, just as can using mean data. I have tested runners while running at marathon race pace for 20 miles and was surprised to see running economy (can't use the word efficiency because that relates work done to energy expended, and the speed of running is only part of the work being done, thus the word economy to relate speed of running with VO2 associated with that speed) did not change over that period of time. I have also collected expired air samples from a runner during an actual marathon race, with similar findings. No doubt economy, VO2max and fractional utilization of VO2mx while at marathon pace are all contributing factors in a marathon. There are other factors as well -- ability to avoid dehydration, ability to not run out of carbohydrate fuel, and to avoid over heating -- that are not so critical for runners in shorter events. I like vVO2max (I better, since I invented the term) because it brings together VO2max and economy, either of which, alone, is pretty useless. Improving either of these two variables improves vVO2max. Another benefit of vVO2max is that is can bring out the flaws in some labs' equipment -- I have seen labs give a runner a VO2max of over 80, which is a value that can be used to promote the importance of that lab ("our lab has the highes VO2 ever tested," etc). HOwever, if you can get them to turn over some submax, economy, data, it often turns out that the submax VO2s were also very high, indicating terrible economy. vVO2max helps identify these types. This latter explanation is very much the reason I came up with vVO2max -- I got tired of seeing runners with 80+ VO2max values perform at rather mediocre levels. Terminology is certainly a problem, but it will probably not be solved because many times those who are most infuential in establishing standards are just that, most influential. Thank goodness there is not a set of perfect training recommendations -- that would end the need for the coaching profession, and then it would be perfectly clear that genetic ability and psych factors would determine every winner. Oh no, did I just say coaches would all have to be psychologists?

Thanks for the great post(s), jtupper. You always seem to think of the (many) things that I forgot. It's humbling but also most informative. I know we all really appreciate your contributions.

Alas, I agree that the terminology will likely never be standardized. I think that is too bad as if often seems that misunderstandings on this board center around different definitions for the same training term. Oh well, I guess that keeps us talking to each other, even if it means we are trying to figure out what others are telling us.

jtupper wrote:

I like vVO2max (I better, since I invented the term)

Wrong. Everybody knows it was Tinman !

Since Lydiard isnt your father may i consider Tinman as your son ?

Obviously your max has to be reasonalby higher than your marathon pace. But if you have found that Running Economy did not change much during the course of a marathon, Why is it important to have a higher vVO2max? Especially if you are never reaching a level near your max. Would it not be more important to have a higher submax?

I know that these energy systems have less to do with each other than the ones we are debating, however, An analogy may be, being heavily focused on increasing 100m speed for the 800m runner. Why would you do that? You don't use that energy system in any abundant quantitiy. I guess if you feel you are topped out at every other physiological level you should do that but otherwise there are more important factors to work on. At the Elite level It is not important to run sub 11.00 in 100 a 100m dash. It is however important to to run 8 100's in about 13.00.

Why maximize something that is a small percentage of the race. It is not the most effient way to train. The most important things to train are the factors that will effect the race the most. In the marathon it is not the vVo2max or the VO2maxes. Again Are they important, yes, but increasing the specific submaxes that you run at are more important. The specific submaex are race pace. No formulas required! (not a burn on JD)

I suppose it might make since to shift focus to VO2max once you are closing in on it with your VO2submax. but shortly after you would need to get right back into increasing race pace work to do much with the marathon performance.

You do know that jtupper is Jack Daniels do you not? The way you just responded suggests that you don't ... Just a heads up.

uh, why would renato have his marathon runners do steep uphill sprints that only last 10 seconds? that isn't very specific to the marathon is it?

-because of neuromuscular stimulation, and because of the power that it gives your legs. So of course you want to take it up a couple notches and go up to vV02max and do some workouts there at that pace/intensity. It gives you "horse power," a feeling of extra gears in the legs. And above when someone stated that Paula R. doing mile repeats at 4:40-4:45 is basically her 10k pace...actually it is closer to her 5k pace (notice that 30 flat is only 4:50 pace)...quite the difference for a marathoner. If you can get your V02max as high as possible (without sacrificing your LT or aerobic endurance, why won't you throw in 3-4 5k-10k paced workouts before your race? It should improve your biomechanical efficiency, and on top of that possibly your running economy at MP. Then it may depend on the runner- there tends to be a correlation between those "born marathoners" who have relatively low V02maxes, but every high lactate thresholds (and running economy) at paces at a very high percentage of their vV02max. On the other side of the marathoning spectrum you've got guys who run blistering 10ks, have high V02maxes, and yet their LT lags at a way smaller percentage of their vV02max. Both runners may still run 2:10....and their training may differ in this regard (ie how much V02max type of work they do).

you do know ... wrote:

You do know that jtupper is Jack Daniels do you not? The way you just responded suggests that you don't ... Just a heads up.

It was evident from the thread Coach Mook doesn't know who the players are on the message board.

What do you make of the Russian Marathon Study posted on the previous page S. Canaday? Specifically the conclusion that

"the most common mistake was trying to raise the speed potential with the use of 400 - 1,000 m repetitions at speeds significantly higher than would be performed in a marathon race. All athletes who tried this speed work failed. It is felt it disrupted more than enhanced established performance capacity."

I agree that training at 5k and 10k pace in the months before a marathon is beneficial, but in the last month perhaps focusing on marathon pace (+/- :03 - :05) is best?

I think it depends on the runner and all those other "unknown" variables: ie tune-up races, nutrition, the yearly training cycles, FT:ST muscle fiber ratios, mental toughness, resistence to heat, glycogen loading, fuel utilization, etc.

First off, I'd don't like to say that you are increasing your "speed" by doing V02max work. If you want to work on speed, you think true sprint speed...all-out, uphill alactic renato canova style. The V02max work is to target the heart, get the cobwebs out of the lungs, and remind the legs that they can shift gears faster than marathon pace.

So IMHO training at 5k-10k pace months before a marathon is helpful (ie the old program running a fast 10k and then just moving up and up)- but so is putting in a couple V02max workouts 3-4 weeks out from the marathon. I wouldn't do a V02max workout within 2 weeks of marathon race day though. Pfitzinger's marathon plan has some of this in it.

I'd go out on a limb and say you don't need to have any marathon paced runs whatsoever....and still pull off a good marathon. You might train at half marathon pace, 10k pace, ultra pace, etc and still be good to go. The long run is the single most specific workout that I think determines marathon success (that and of course volume in weekly mileage and over your life time). If you do your long run at a steady pace and then hammer the last hour and experience "hitting" the wall or running out of glycogen then you are training the body for the most important demands of marathoning in my opinion. So maybe you get going 10sec/mile faster than MP at the end of this long run....maybe you only get within 20sec/mile of MP at the end of this long run. Well, as long as you trigger your liver to store more glycogen for the next time around you are in good shape in terms of fuel utilization...your system is more efficient.

I'd be careful with that Russian study though because it mentioned that the runners had run great times at shorter races in their build-up (ie 20k). In theory, (as mentioned once by Renato I think) you should not be able to PR in the half marathon (if you have run a lot of those and are approaching your limit) when you are in ultimate marathon shape. That is how specific marathon training could be.

I'd rather go "under and over" MP pace by doing things like:

10 by 800m at 5k pace w/2min rec.

or

4 by 1600m at 10k pace w/3min rec.

or

2 by 5 miles at 10 mile race pace w/5min rec.

( all faster than MP)

to slower:

Long runs of 2hrs up to 2.5 hours w/ last 10 miles at 15-20sec/mile slower than marathon goal pace (or as close to MP as possible)

Easy runs about 45-1:30/mile slower than MP pace

If you run at MP all the time you might get "stale"...the muscle fibers get tired of responding to the same old stimulis over and over. Although getting in a few workouts at MP pace is still a good idea.

Good discussion so far. My take on the original question:

To bring about adaptation which transfers to improved performance, training must be specific and provide sufficint overload.

Using a 800m runner as an example, the most specific activity you can do is simply to run 800m as fast as you can. If you start with an athlete at a relatively low level and do this a few times then they will initially improve quite rapidly. However, eventually as a result of adaptation this will fail to sufficiently overload all the various performance limiting factors and no further improvement will occur. What the athlete must do now is use activities which, although less specific, provide a greater degree of overload. For example, our 800m runner could produce a greater overload of the aerobic system by running long repetitions (eg 1000's) at slower than race pace. A still greater degree of overload could be produced by a 20-25 minute fast continuous run, or by a 60 minute moderate run. As the duration increases, the degree of overload increases while the degree of specificity is reduced because the speed gets further and further away from race speed. In the other direction the athlete could run 2-3x400m fast with a 10 minute recovery, flying 60/100's with full recovery, short hill sprints, and at the extreme, free weight training to produce a progressively greater overload of the muscles force generating capabilities with a simultaneous reduction in the degree of specificity. This indicates that at some point athletes must move away from event specific training (during the early stages of the macrocycle) in order to allow sufficient overload of the systems which ultimately determine the level of performance before returning to event specific work which it should now be possible to perform at a higher quality. This specific work simply 'integrates' the qualities you have previously developed (through reorganisation of the CNS?)and may not necessarily produce measurable physiological change.

Therefore, to answer the original question - No, event specificity is not more important than the development of the various physiological qualities. You need both. Whether or not you need to try and design sessions targeting specific physiological parameters (i.e. LT, VO2 max) instead of simply using terminology such as medium duration / long duration endurance, speed endurance / speed / power etc) is another question. I'm personally more inclined to use the later.

The marathon is a fuel consumption event.

The reason those athletes failed when they did VO2max type work in the weeks leading up the marathon is that they taught there body to use fuel at a more rapid rate basically.

That's why stuff like that should be done further out from the marathon race. It has it's benefits but in the weeks leading up to the marathon you want to get fuel consumption right, so marathon specific work is the way to go.

you do know ... wrote:

You do know that jtupper is Jack Daniels do you not? The way you just responded suggests that you don't ... Just a heads up.

I tried to warn him.