How much Lactate Threshold work per week?

I commend you on the detail there, I coach at the college level and don't have that many percentages and calculations getting thrown around.

You're a new runner so some of the "rules" are a little challenging to apply universally. Almost anything right now is a stimulus for you so the first step is just picking a starting point that you know you can handle. After that its just taking it one step further as you go. Eventually, you'll look back on those small steps and realize you've gotten a lot better.

Onto your question specifically, I think you're looking at the calculation backwards. It doesn't make a lot of sense to base your total volume on how many minutes you spend at LT regardless of ability. Most programs will look at total volume then choose the percentages they want to spend at a given pace/intensity.

In a lot of cases those two things could look the same, but if you added one more rep or made a rep 1 minute longer then you're already forcing the rest of your week to be 25% higher mileage.

Either way, being relatively new to the sport you're going to be disjointed from these types of formulas making sense. Start with what you can handle (for both a LT workout and for weekly volume) and keep those decisions separate from one another for now.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Let's say the recommended volume is 32minutes (i.e., two 4x4min sessions per week). At 10% total running volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 4hrs 48 mins. At 20% total volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 2hrs 08 mins.

Let's say the recommended volume is 48minutes (i.e., three 4x4min sessions per week). At 10% total running volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 7hrs 12 mins. At 20% total volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 3hrs 12 mins.

To continue this line of thought, what if we were to do 64minutes of this repetition volume; i.e., four sessions per week of 4x4min reps...four 'quality' sessions per week! At 10% total running volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 9hrs 36 mins. At 20% total volume, the remainder running in the week (at 'easy' pace) would be 4hrs 16 mins.

Thus, we could do (how readily?) a total of four quality sessions of lactate threshold work per week (totaling 64mins of volume), with easy running totaling <4.5 hrs the rest of the week, and still remain within the 80/20 intensity rule of training.

I think 10% of weekly mileage is a typical maximum recommendation.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I do hope you consider this line of training thought, which you consider a paradigm shift (i.e., looking at it backwards), more carefully. The old-school principles of training were laid down in-stone before this relatively recent era of the ubiquity (i.e., somewhat affordable) of accurate heart rate monitors.

To embrace this paradigm shift requires one to train by heart rate and time, rather than by pace and distance (though the latter two are still evaluated during the process).

oldschoollrc wrote:

I think 10% of weekly mileage is a typical maximum recommendation.

But look at the incredible leeway that meets the 80/20 rule: Anywhere from 4+hrs (20%) to 9.5hrs (10%) with 64mins total Lactate Threshold work per week. The 'polarized training' approach typically follows 20% or 15% or 10% 'quality'.

A key consideration here is what exactly are we defining as 'quality'? These 4x4min reps with, for example, 3min rest, are 'quality'? The scientific literature says, "Yes".

oldschoollrc wrote:

I think 10% of weekly mileage is a typical maximum recommendation.

20-25% is the upper limit depending on exactly what you count as tempo run work. For example a marathoner could be running like 100mpw with a 16 mile run with 10miles at mp pace, 4x1.5 miles at HM, and a 25 min tempo run. That would be basically all of their quality work (other than strides). Ingrebestein's training would be an example of guys doing like 2hours our of what I assume is like 10-12 hours of running/week.

For a guy in their first year doing 4 sessions seems a bit over kill. Do 2 session 5x4 in a week is plenty. Work up to 6 if it becomes too easy.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I do hope you consider this line of training thought, which you consider a paradigm shift (i.e., looking at it backwards), more carefully. The old-school principles of training were laid down in-stone before this relatively recent era of the ubiquity (i.e., somewhat affordable) of accurate heart rate monitors.

To embrace this paradigm shift requires one to train by heart rate and time, rather than by pace and distance (though the latter two are still evaluated during the process).

Let's not put words in my mouth. I didn't call it a "paradigm shift." Heart rate training isn't new.

The only point I addressed was that I believe choosing a number of minutes at threshold shouldn't dictate the number of minutes you then run that week. I don't believe time at LT is predictive for what optimal weekly volume should be at "easy pace"

This is already starting to sounds like a JS thread so I'm going to leave it at that. Best of luck with your athletes.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Ingrebestein's training would be an example of guys doing like 2hours our of what I assume is like 10-12 hours of running/week.

For a guy in their first year doing 4 sessions seems a bit over kill. Do 2 session 5x4 in a week is plenty. Work up to 6 if it becomes too easy.

Thank you for your input.

But why do we need to restrict volume of 'lactate threshold' work, whether a new runner or a pro (Ingrebestein's)? For example, would you tell a relatively new runner (less than a year into it) to not run more than 8hrs per week? Should a new runner be restricted to 90/10 rather than 80/20? Why so, in light of the fact that the new runner is going to be running at a lot slower than a pro when running at LT pace.

V wrote:

I don't believe time at LT is predictive for what optimal weekly volume should be at "easy pace"

Thank you for responding, for I want to clarify the following point. My purpose is not to try and define the amount of "easy pace" volume one should be doing based on an amount of 'quality', but rather, I just demonstrated that what could be perceived as 'overkill' in 'quality sessions' actually falls well within the bounds of typical 80/20 'polarized training.

This is already starting to sounds like a JS thread so I'm going to leave it at that.

I do hope you continue to at least follow-along. I'm not JS, nor do I subscribe to his nonsense in wrecking this forum.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

If one is trying to perform 4 minute reps whereby the HR average does not rise above 91% HRmax, and the maximum heart rate in each rep is to be kept at or below 93%...

I'll now provide some details on my 1st 4x4min session this week. I wear a Garmin chest strap. For this session, I created a 'workout' in Garmin Connect, possessing the following steps:

1. Warmup until Lap Press;

2. Run 4:00, Target HR 150-154bpm*;

3. Recover 3:00;

4. Repeat Steps 2-3 4x;

5. Cool Down Until Lap Press.

*Note, my HRmax is 171bpm, so the target was, in effect, set to 88-90% HRmax. Keep in mind there is some lag time before the watch gives an alert signal for an out-of-target condition.

Here are the session results:

Rep 1. Average Heart Rate 149bpm (87% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 159bpm (93% HRmax);

Rep 2. Average Heart Rate 150bpm (88% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 155bpm (91% HRmax);

Rep 3. Average Heart Rate 151bpm (88% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 157bpm (92% HRmax);

Rep 4. Average Heart Rate 152bpm (89% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 160bpm (94% HRmax).

Here is a plot of the Heart Rate recorded for the duration of the session:

The observed spikes in the heart rate during the repetitions occurred when I purposely spiked my pace.

Note in this session that the ratio of 'easy running' to repetition volume (according to time, not distance) was ~3/1. (Total running time was 65 minutes, easy jogging time was 49minutes, repetition time was 16 minutes.)

I started to introduce some 4x4min sessions into my training last year, after doing some research found on the internet:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDsRNeVynk

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Here are the session results:

Rep 1. Average Heart Rate 149bpm (87% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 159bpm (93% HRmax);

Rep 2. Average Heart Rate 150bpm (88% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 155bpm (91% HRmax);

Rep 3. Average Heart Rate 151bpm (88% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 157bpm (92% HRmax);

Rep 4. Average Heart Rate 152bpm (89% HRmax), Max Heart Rate 160bpm (94% HRmax).

Here is a plot of the Heart Rate recorded for the duration of the session:

https://ibb.co/9Hp4Znv

The observed spikes in the heart rate during the repetitions occurred when I purposely spiked my pace.

The slight increase in both the Average Heart Rate and the Max Heart Rate observed in the last repetition was primarily due to my increasing the pace, rather than due to excess fatigue. Indeed, I kept the Average HR below the preconceived target of 91% HRmax, though I did exceed the Max Heart Rate target of 93%.

The point I want to make here is that after doing a few of these repetitions in the past, I invariably started creeping up my pace, trying to outdo the distance reached in a previous session. I turned the workout into a race, rather than being patient and let the fitness come to me. If I'm going to attempt 3 (or 4?) of these sessions per week going forward, then I need to be disciplined enough to reel-it-in.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

The slight increase in both the Average Heart Rate and the Max Heart Rate observed in the last repetition was primarily due to my increasing the pace, rather than due to excess fatigue. Indeed, I kept the Average HR below the preconceived target of 91% HRmax, though I did exceed the Max Heart Rate target of 93%.

The point I want to make here is that after doing a few of these repetitions in the past, I invariably started creeping up my pace, trying to outdo the distance reached in a previous session. I turned the workout into a race, rather than being patient and let the fitness come to me. If I'm going to attempt 3 (or 4?) of these sessions per week going forward, then I need to be disciplined enough to reel-it-in.

Simple answer is do 4 of the sessions for a week and see how you respond. I think you would get better results with 6x4 2x/week instead. Slightly harder sessions with longer rest between them but I am unaware of any good studies on that. I would also argue your rest is absurdly long for this level of intensity. 45-90s should be plenty. As it is right now you are basically fully recovered by the time the next one starts which reduces the training effect. And yes racing tempo/interval workouts is a know issue. Don't do it.

And when you read that study do make sure to note what the study group is. Historically studies on untrained people show that just about anything works.

You are raising excellent points. The tried and true has been one repetition workout, one tempo, and one long run per week, right. And now, I guess(?) I'm going to try a plan built strictly around the 4x4min, with running easy filling in the remainder, and see how it goes.

Why four reps? Why four mins per rep? Why 3 minutes per recovery? The answer is because there is significant scientific investigation into this particular protocol (as there has been on other protocols developed by other scientists wishing to make their mark).

I'll have to go back and revisit their studies and look in more detail, but I think they looked at sedentary individuals and also trained athletes.

The idea you raise of consolidating the repetitions into fewer sessions per week may(?) make sense, since it provides more recovery days. But conversely, maybe there is something to be said for spacing the work out over more days, and just keeping the reps to four per session?

Edit: There should have been a question mark after the second sentence in the above response, rather than a period.

Run at threshold pace until you reach a place with no people or electronics. Stay there.

A reasonable amount of time would be 20-25 minutes total a week. No need to be doing 2 or 3 days a week focusing on threshold for a new runner.

If you want to run 4 hours per week, then your looking at 34 mpw if you average 7 minute pace. Do you think you need to be running 3 sessions a week if you’re only running 34 miles?

I don’t.

To make gains you need to stress a system, but this screams over stressing. Just like lifting weights, if you hit arms every other day week in week out you compromise mass.

Threshold is only one part of the equation, 5k is also largely determined by vvo2 as well. By running threshold sessions 2-3 times a week where does that leave you in terms of the rest of your training? You won’t have time to fit anything else in.

but he didn't wrote:

Run at threshold pace until you reach a place with no people or electronics. Stay there.

I believe you do wish to be helpful by provide prescient and sublime advice.

But please understand. For now, I want to try something with some scientific backing. :-)

I will say though, I tried a few of these 4x4mins last year, before introducing a bona-fide tempo workout. I have to admit, that tempo work may have jump-started me out of a plateau. However, to be fair to the 4x4min, as I said earlier, by that time I had started racing them, in effect, throwing the protocol out-the-window.

Except my easy running is more like 10min pace. I train by time (and heart rate). :-)

Why not. As i showed earlier, the total 'quality' is still well within the 80/20 rule (per time consideration regardless of distance consideration).

You are raising decent points....but when running at or below threshold, with ample recovery between reps, then that should definitely factors into total stress being placed on the system.

Here is something I include in my program. I monitor my heart rate practically 24/7, so I see my sleeping (very rested) heart rate daily, and I also pay attention to Garmin's 'Body Battery' metric. Unfortunately, since I sleep erratically, I don't see that metric regularly get completely charged to 100%.