How much Lactate Threshold work per week?

At this point, before I get too far into this venture, I probably should do some type of pre-study fitness test that I can compare with later. I suppose trying to find a low-key race is more appealing than a TT on the track. Any other suggestions?

The problem with a race, short of a having access to a repeated park run, is that the courses and weather are typically different. A solo TT on the track is probably going to have to suffice. Ughhh.

You have to remember in most of the studies they aren't doing threshold work. They are doing 5k pace work (i.e just a bit slower than vo2 max) . In a well trained runner LT is at like 90-95% max heart rate. In untrained (and for this purpose people running like 30 mpw are basically untrained) runners it is down at 80-85%. And when dealing with people with no training background, you can't exactly do really hard sessions which is why they are short and the rest is long. And doing 15-20 mins of vo2max type intervals with ~1:1 type rest is a pretty standard session.

Maybe high frequency of moderately hard sessions is better than a couple of harder sessions but I am suspect of that especially for well trained athletes. Nobody can give you the exact answer on frequence, intensity and volume that will maximize your results. But a lot of people have found 20-40 mins of work at roughly 60 pace, 1-2x per week has worked wonders. If you are handling that fine and want to try more, knock yourself out. I know if I was 19 again, I would spend a summer seeing what double threshold works would do for me.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

The problem with a race, short of a having access to a repeated park run, is that the courses and weather are typically different. A solo TT on the track is probably going to have to suffice. Ughhh.

I don't think I want to cut too much into my training for recovery from this TT, so a 5k is prob too long, and I'm apprehensive about something as short as a mile (injury, nausea, etc.), so maybe a 3200m....or howabout distance covered in 12minutes! That's the old Cooper Test, correct?

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

I know if I was 19 again, I would spend a summer seeing what double threshold works would do for me.

But I'm 60, and its been a fine-line traipse between injury and niggles since I started last May. My goals were:

(1) reach previous age-grade fitness within one year.

(2) become a national class runner (per age-grade) within two years.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

But I'm 60, and its been a fine-line traipse between injury and niggles since I started last May.

I do aerobic x-training, in lieu of or in addition to easy running, in order to try an stave off injury. If I include that training time in the total training volume, then my intensity minutes should be well under 20%, even performing four sessions of 4x4min per week.

I'm considering instead doing something like a 4x4min every other day, thus seven sessions per 14 days.

M(1/2 marathon time)+HM(1/2 half marathon time)+10K(420/5K PR)+5K(7-12min)=total minutes per marathon race.

1 long run=marathon time in minutes

Example:

Marathon time=153min

Mpace workouts=76.5min

HMpace workouts=38.5min

10Kpace workouts=25min

5Kpace workouts=12min

L(long run)=153min

E(Easy runs)=300min

HM+10K+5K workouts total time (above marathon pace)=1/2 marathon time

It is based on principles:

1) 5% speed above/below target - time double less/higher

2) Canova "funnel"

Enjoy.

Marathon?!?

I set a goal to become a national class runner (per age grade, that is 80% performance) within two years. Mulling it over, I figure my best shot in doing so is in the 5k, or maybe something as short as 1 mile. But I don't have the wheels to consider anything shorter than that, though that could be cool if I did.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Marathon?!?

I set a goal to become a national class runner (per age grade, that is 80% performance) within two years. Mulling it over, I figure my best shot in doing so is in the 5k, or maybe something as short as 1 mile. But I don't have the wheels to consider anything shorter than that, though that could be cool if I did.

5K:

3K(1/2 5K time)+threshold(2x5K pb time)+5K+mileage to support quality

Canefis wrote:

M(1/2 marathon time)+HM(1/2 half marathon time)+10K(420/5K PR)+5K(7-12min)=total minutes per marathon race.

1 long run=marathon time in minutes

Example:

Marathon time=153min

Mpace workouts=76.5min

HMpace workouts=38.5min

10Kpace workouts=25min

5Kpace workouts=12min

L(long run)=153min

E(Easy runs)=300min

HM+10K+5K workouts total time (above marathon pace)=1/2 marathon time

It is based on principles:

1) 5% speed above/below target - time double less/higher

2) Canova "funnel"

Enjoy.

Source?

Canefis wrote:

5K:

3K(1/2 5K time)+threshold(2x5K pb time)+5K+mileage to support quality

I'm sorry, it is quite late, and I'm a bit distracted on a research paper, so I don't know what your code means.

I have some good news and bad news with regard to my research project (i.e., the 4x4min interval training) being discussed in this thread.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

I'm a bit distracted on a research paper....

Here is a very interesting paper on 4x4min intervals research:

Aerobic high-intensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate training.

DOI:10.1249/MSS.0B013E3180304570Corpus ID: 13738485

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

I have some good news and bad news with regard to my research project (i.e., the 4x4min interval training) being discussed in this thread.

Firstly, the good news is that the paper I linked to previously looked at healthy, non-smoking university students that:

(1) were engaged in endurance training and leisure-time physical activity at least three times per week; and

(2) the group (~10 people total) doing the 4x4min protocol started the study at an average VO2max of 55.5 +/- 7.4. My current VO2max (not VDOT) per my Garmin is ~52, so the subjects in this study were likely more fit than me.

More good news: after 8 weeks of performing the 4x4min sessions three times per week, their VO2max increased to 60.4 +/- 7.3, a whopping 8.8%!

Now the bad news: they conducted their 4x4min sessions at 90-95% HRmax, which is considerably more intense than what I posted (with results and HR graph) earlier.

Based on personal experience, I think 4x4min at 90-95% HRmax would be a tough session to complete three times per week. Personally, I don't know if I will be able to hold up.

The paper also states, "Training responses of 5–10% have been shown using 4x4 min training interventions twice per week for professional youth soccer players (8) at a similar fitness level as in this experiment."

Maybe they meant Reference (9) instead of Reference (8), because each read as follows:

8. HELGERUD, J. Maximal oxygen uptake, anaerobic threshold and

running economy in women and men with similar performances

level in marathons. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 68:155–161, 1994.

9. HELGERUD, J., L. C. ENGEN, U. WISLØFF, and J. HOFF. Aerobic

endurance training improves soccer performance. Med. Sci.

Sports Exerc. 33:1925–1931, 2001.

Maybe I can look more into these references later.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Now the bad news: they conducted their 4x4min sessions at 90-95% HRmax, which is considerably more intense than what I posted (with results and HR graph) earlier.

In the 4x4min session conducted earlier today, the average Heart Rate for all 4reps was 150.5 (88% HRmax). Assuring the HRmax average for the rep is at least 90%HRmax would be, I think, putting the reps (at least) around current 5k fitness pace. That extra 4-5bpm average per rep is teetering above lactate threshold. Even with the 3min recovery, I think it will be a considerably tougher session than what I did earlier today, particularly when stacking three of those sessions together each week, for several consecutive weeks.

Ha! These guys are at my university (NTNU). They keep promoting the 4*4 nonsense. The national skiing association (their cc skiing coaches) and Ingebrigtsens don't take them seriously. I suspect

their studies are short (how many weeks) and not relevant for long-term development of world class runners. It is some old stuff in new wrapping really , but they get a lot of funding.

bengel wrote:

Ha! These guys are at my university (NTNU). They keep promoting the 4*4 nonsense. The national skiing association (their cc skiing coaches) and Ingebrigtsens don't take them seriously. I suspect

their studies are short (how many weeks) and not relevant for long-term development of world class runners. It is some old stuff in new wrapping really , but they get a lot of funding.

Hey, wow, thanks for chiming in! Are you familiar enough with Ingebrigtsens' training to provide some info on it, like paces, volume, etc.? Why do you think Ingebrigtsens don't take them seriously? Maybe they got info from them, no?

They evidently work with professional football (i.e., soccer clubs), based on the info provided in one of their talks here:

Even if it's "not relevant for long-term development of world class runners", I don't fit into that category, lol.

I am not sure, but the normal consensus is that elite runners do between 1,5-2 hours of high intensity training each week

FinJ wrote:

I am not sure, but the normal consensus is that elite runners do between 1,5-2 hours of high intensity training each week

But if you read and mull over the discussion in this thread so far, I hope you can understand that there is some imprecision in what exactly is the definition of "High Intensity".