I asked the light. lmost same question to you sir?
how many, length of recovery, how often? Would they be ok before tempo runs or after slow runs, when would be best?
thanks
thanks also to my prior questions
Also what exactly do you call it when you get heavy legs at the end of a run, if it's not lactate acid. Give me a term please. I still don't get it-- a tad slow on the uptake..
[quote]wellnow wrote:
Richard_ welcome to my thread.
...I would like to point out one very important issue that you don't understand. The reason why runners like me are able to run 100+ mpw with regualar hard sessions is not because we are naturally gifted with superior recovery or physical talent.
It's the other way round; we have superior recovery because of the training we do.quote]
Hi, wellnow.
Thank you for the welcome.
I've enjoyed reading your thread both because physiology has a strong appeal to me and because I agree its important to let the running community know that our knowledge and understanding of exercise physiology is different today than it was 80 years ago. I See value in accurately knowing how the body really works.
As much as I'd really like to agree with you on the point of training leading to superior recovery vs. rate of recovery governing training, I'm afraid I can't. I'm unconvinced that the evidence supports increased rates of recovery with increasing volume. It's an area we will have to agree to disagree on.
On that topic, you might have a look at a really interesting study that compared elite runners to untrained subjects - a Pros vs Joes study if you will. The study examined untrained wrist flexor muscles in both groups and found significant differences between the 2 groups. Elites were doubly blessed - they were able to achieve and maintain a higher work load and they also recovered much faster than the untrained subjects. The fact that untrained muscles were tested means the differences were due to genetic differences, not training differences. Here's a link to the article I wrote on the study:
url=http://www.powerrunning.com/Exercise%20Physiology/How%20Different%20Are%20Elites.htm
or here is the study citation:
Park J, Brown R, Park C, Cohn M, Chance B., Energy metabolism of the untrained muscle of elite runners as observed by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy: Evidence suggesting a genetic endowment for endurance exercise Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA Dec 1988, 85, 8780-8784
I believe this particular study places an exclamation point on the theory that rate of recovery is as variable as most other human factors.
Best regards,
Rich
I guess Cool Running really is history, eh?
Nobby,
You raise the question in reference to Jeremy Wariner - "If you're number one in the world in 400m why would YOU want to move up the disance?"
I can't pass this question up. I think this is part of our mind-set in the U.S. today. It is part of the mental training that I feel we could improve on.
My response is very simple - why can't I be number one in both? The training is not that much different is it?
I very much agree with all of your comments. Can sure relate to the Lee Evans experience.
jonathon wrote:
I can't pass this question up. I think this is part of our mind-set in the U.S. today. It is part of the mental training that I feel we could improve on.
My response is very simple - why can't I be number one in both? The training is not that much different is it?
Now that's interestin... Yup, you're right. Why not become next Juantorena? Good one. You got me on this one! ;o)
I think the mentality problem is actually, "I'm number one in the US...so why try harder?" In fact, this is exactly the question Peter Snell and I will be bringing to Japan next month. We'll be meeting a coach of #1 female Japanese 400m runner and #2 Japanese 400H guy. She moved on to semi-final at Osaka and that was it. Same with the 400H guy. Can they do better in 800 in the world scene?
Indeed that question remains, although "what's up with speed?" was asking a very different question.In my opinion (if I may speak on "wellnow"'s behalf), this thread is about clearing up some of the mis-used terminology when people talk about the physiology, rather than any immediate "quick-fix" changes to your current training.I think that the hope is, once more coaches have a more accurate model of what's happening inside their athletes, that will trigger the next genius coach, or physiologist, to find further optimizations in training, leveraging the new, accurate knowledge.To stick with your analogy, you can't make the engine better at all, if you think a gasoline engine is powered by rubber bands. If you want to make further steps in improvement, it is necessary to take the first step.
The question remains wrote:
[quote]The Light wrote:
As for the rest, you want a clear answer? How about a clear question?
[quote]
The question remains the one people keep asking. How does this insight affect what training people should do?
Otherwise it may add understanding to how training works but without making anyone able to train more intelligently.
Knowing more detail on how an engine works is purely academic unless you can learn from it how to make a better engine then the knowledge becomes power (or at least useful).
I'm flattered that you ask me, but I don't feel qualified to give you the crisp answers you seek. I don't think the order of speed or tempo runs matters so much, so long as there is sufficient recovery after your work days.
Lest I be accused a cultist, I will point you to 3 different authorities, that I have read and liked: Greg McMillan, Jack Daniels, and Lydiard.
For developing speed, McMillan (see
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/training1.htm
) describes optimal training paces for "Speed Training" and for "Sprint Training". (Be forewarned, he does use the term "Lactic Acid", but the right physiological adaptations and related improvements should come just the same.)
The "Speed Training", or "Aerobic Capacity Intervals", is between 400m and 2000m, at 3K-8K race pace. Recoveries are about half the distance, or about the same time as the interval.
The "Sprint Training", or "Anaerobic Capacity Intervals", is shorter, betweem 100m and 400m, at mile race pace, with longer recoveries of twice to five times the duration.
Daniels recommends something very similiar, but calls them "VO2max Intervals", and "Repetitions". He gives tables with the right paces, as well as a structured 4-phase approach to training, which can be adapted from 6-24 weeks (or more).
As far as I can tell, Lydiard (see
http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/
for practical details) doesn't make a clear distinction between these two, but calls the interval work "Repetitions". The speed development starts with his "Hill" phase, followed by "Track Training", and then a "Sharpening" phase. I like to think of Lydiard's hill training more like weight training for the legs. The "Hill phase" is not just including lots of hills in your regular runs, but specialized circuits of slow springing, bounding, or steep hill running, combined with recoveries and fast leg speed running, as well as fast downhill running for lengthening your strides. The "Track training" is more conventional and the speed work is comprised of "Repetitions", and race distance related "Time Trials". The "Sharpening" brings everything together, putting the finishing touches on your training in preparation for your racing.
There is good science and bad science. There always has been, always will be.
The ideas I present here have been around a long time, they have been tested, they are examples of good science.
When coaches talk about aerobic and anaerobic, then it would help if they actually knew what they were talking about. Why use scientific terminology that you don't understand? That should not go unchallenged simply because you are afraid to speak out.
Richard, you have drawn the wrong conculsion from that study, you are missing the point that elite runners are physically fitter all round than Homer Simpsons.
Of course elite runners have much stronger forearms than untrained subjects. Elite runners are compulsive excercisers. Speaking for myself I have always done excercises that are going to strengthen my forearms, all my life. In fact I am so confident about my forearm strength that if any of the young soldiers around here (I train on an army campus) dare to laugh at my skinny frame when I run past them during their outdoor beer drinking sessions, I always challenge them on the spot to an arm wrestling competition. And as you can imagine, these young soldiers are not couch potatoes.
Richard I have to agree with others that your lack of knowledge and experience of training prevents you from applying your knowledge of physiology effectively.
I welcome your input of physiolgical information. Many runners here can learn from you, but you can learn a lot from the many here who have huge amounts of training knowledge and experience.
"Richard, you have drawn the wrong conculsion from that study, you are missing the point...."
Richard_ tends to do that most of the time.
what gives on speed? wrote:
I asked the light. lmost same question to you sir?
how many, length of recovery, how often? Would they be ok before tempo runs or after slow runs, when would be best?
thanks
thanks also to my prior questions
Also what exactly do you call it when you get heavy legs at the end of a run, if it's not lactate acid. Give me a term please. I still don't get it-- a tad slow on the uptake..
What do we call the heavy legged feeling at the end of a run? That's a very good question, I will try and come up with an answer to describe why it happens. In the meantime, keep calling it Heavy legs, and if anyone asks, tellem wellnow gave you permission.
How do we develop pure speed?
Regular short sprints 10-15 seconds, about once a week. How many? you are going to have to decide that for yourself, based on how you feel. When you can no longer maintain the same speed, end the session. If you feel your hamstrings tighten, end the session and be careful over the next few days.
Start by doing them uphill this cause less chance of injury, and as you get fitter, use less steep hills until you can do them regularly on a road or track. Be careful sprinting on grass, if there are any unseen bumps or dips, you can very easily injure yourself.
I use about one minute recovery, and as I get fitter, I reduce the recovery to 30 seconds, but that suits me, I am an endurance runner with a good kick. It would not be enough recovery for a very fast sprinter, they would do very different workouts.
A lot of young runners are convinced that the reason they can't keep up in races is because they lack speed. This is nearly always a false assumption, it is the endurance that they lack.
If you really lack a kick then you will often be outkicked by those who are still with you at the finish but have superior speed, but don't ever let them beat you without a fight, you have to test them and you have to test yourself. And don't let it put you off real speedwork.
Watch the best cross country runners, they start very fast, and then they keep going very fast. Speed must not be developed at the expense of endurance. You can develop both in a gradual improvement over several months.
[quote]wellnow wrote:
...you are missing the point that elite runners are physically fitter all round than Homer Simpsons.
Of course elite runners have much stronger forearms than untrained subjects...[quote]
I have to admit to being surprised that you have dismissed the results of the study with essentially a wave of your hand. Personally I don't believe research results can be explained away solely with an opinion. Minimally some credible facts and/or data are required to even attempt to begin to dismiss study results.
Thank you Mr. Light so very much!
Thank you Mr. Light so very much!
Mr Light, forgot the question mark on my name but it is me again thanks.
Mr. Wellnow thank you very much too!
I understand endurance. My problem is pure speed!
While you are podering my other question here is another. What do you call pure speed development? I don't think it's anerobic capacity. That would be the ability to hold my top speed longer. I want to improve my top speed and hold it longer.
By the way I run at least one 25 minute run at 6:20-6:15 pace per week and do all of my easy runs in the 7:30p range. I also do one short Vmax run per week usually 2.5 miles per week. 30-35mpw for the longest time. Yes I'm a girl. But my 2 mile time isn't that great.
My prep coach was a space case and was disinterested in helping.A couple of coaches on here have offered to help some charge to much some have fair prices. But how is one to really know if they've got a grasp of the situation.
Directed to: what gives on speed?
Am I missing something here? Are you trying to find out how to improve pure speed?
If so, see if this doesn't make sense.
The only way to improve PURE SPEED is:
1. Do 3 or 4 short sprints. Anywhere from 20 to 60 meters. (Even the fastest 100 meter dash runners are not as fast over the last 30 to 40 meters)
2. Use running starts. (If you are not a 100 meter dash runner, blocks are not necessary if you are just trying to improve PURE SPEED.
3. Take full recovery. (You cannot work on PURE SPEED if you are tired. Once you are starting to get tired it becomes speed endurance - not PURE SPEED.)
4. Make sure you are running on the balls of your feet.
5. Focus on real strong arm action.
Hope this makes sense!
I understand that this is a thread on definitions but I noticed there were smart people on here and I thought you guys could help me out thanks to one and all.
To mr/ma'am "Will try to help"
Thank you also.
What do you consider full rest for 20-60 meter sprints?
Only 4?
Richard_ wrote:
[quote]wellnow wrote:
...you are missing the point that elite runners are physically fitter all round than Homer Simpsons.
Of course elite runners have much stronger forearms than untrained subjects...[quote]
I have to admit to being surprised that you have dismissed the results of the study with essentially a wave of your hand. Personally I don't believe research results can be explained away solely with an opinion. Minimally some credible facts and/or data are required to even attempt to begin to dismiss study results.
Whoa there Rich, you are jumping to conclusions not me. I'm telling you that elite runners are compulsive excercisers, I guarantee that you won't find an elite runner who doesn't have strong forearms. But you are making an assumption that such strength is due to their physical genetic makeup, whereas I am saying that the basic all round fitness of elite runners comes from their personality traits.
Yes it's genetic, but not in the way you think it is. You are a slow runner because you don't train enough to be a fast runner. If I could give you the incentive to follow my training plans, then you would eventually become a fast runner. But sooner or later you would lose motivation, because you don't need to succeed in the sport the way the best runners do. They absolutely have to be among the best, they are driven to that goal and won't accept anything less. They aren't satisfied with a few wins here and there, they know that such satisfaction breeds complacency.
You can see the same drive in the most successful people in business, it's a personality trait. Many of the best businessmen and women have had a poor education or are dyslexic, but they still succeed because they have that drive.
I enjoy reading some of the physiology that you present, but your website is excruciatingly painful for me to read because the ideas you present are those of a novice. As I said yesterday, Rich, there are many posters here who have huge experience of running and coaching and you may eventually, in 20-30 years time have similar insights and knowledge that they have. In the meantime, you should learn from these experts.
By all means, Richard, share the ideas of the best physiologists, but please consider that many of the criticisms of your work are valid.
what gives on speed? wrote:
Mr Light, forgot the question mark on my name but it is me again thanks.
Mr. Wellnow thank you very much too!
I understand endurance. My problem is pure speed!
While you are podering my other question here is another. What do you call pure speed development? I don't think it's anerobic capacity. That would be the ability to hold my top speed longer. I want to improve my top speed and hold it longer.
By the way I run at least one 25 minute run at 6:20-6:15 pace per week and do all of my easy runs in the 7:30p range. I also do one short Vmax run per week usually 2.5 miles per week. 30-35mpw for the longest time. Yes I'm a girl. But my 2 mile time isn't that great.
My prep coach was a space case and was disinterested in helping.A couple of coaches on here have offered to help some charge to much some have fair prices. But how is one to really know if they've got a grasp of the situation.
I am sorry to read about your bad experience with a coach, but these things are sent to try us. I would say DON'T pay for coaching, why should you when there are so many here who can help you?
Internet coaching is not ideal, that's why I won't do it, I will only offer general advice, real coaching is much more personal. There must be someone who lives near you who can help you, without wanting payment even if you live in a fairly remote area?
About definitions, I actually do think that true anaerobic capacity is the ability to hold top speed longer, thus 100m pace.
According to Olbrecht, anaerobic capacity is determined by maximum lactate production. I disagree, because I don't agree that lactate is a "product of the anaerobic system"
That's what scientists used to say in the bad old days when lactate was though to be a dead end metabolite, rather than an aerobic substrate.
gotta go now, back on monday
To: what gives on speed?
You have two questions -
1. "What do you consider full rest for 20 - 60 meters?"
Response - 5, 6, 7, minutes. (your choice.)
2. "Only 4?"
Response - Try to run 6 X 40 meters with the above recovery. Record the times. Probably the 4th, and certainly the 5th and 6th will be slower. You are no longer working on PURE SPEED. For PURE SPEED, about 3 is all the body can handle. We will let the physiologists and exercise scientists evplain why. I can only give you my experience. You may have a different experience.