How much Lactate Threshold work per week?

CoachB wrote:

I once heard Joe Vigil say at a clinic that top runners should run at least 35% of their weekly volume at 85% of vVO2 max.

This is slower than OP’s pace musings, probably more similar to M pace or easy tempo or Sub T or whatever people call fast comfortable runs these day, but its still a large number.

Vigil was (at least at one point) an advocate of long runs around around marathon pace (mile pace +60s) . If memory serves a base week for a 10k/marathoner was along the lines of

a) 5x1 mile at ~10k pace (he actually started a bit slower and build up to faster paces as competition approached)

b) 8-12 mile MP run

c) 20-30 min threshold.

Right now the debate about polarized training for runners is that it doesn't match what a lot of elite guys are doing. There are a lot of elite runners who are doing a ton of threshold training (HM->MP) and just a bit of the higher intensity (5k/10k). What is the disconnect? It could be classification (i.e. you count those threshold runs as high intensity), sampling (i.e. if you only look at the 12 weeks before a race, you will see less threshold and more high intensity for track runners), reporting (if a kenyan says they did a 15k run in a hour, what type of run is it? You don't know if they ran a steady 15k or if they started off at 8:00/mile for the first 5 and then ran the last 4 in 20 mins). And so on. You can sort of map what elite athletes do back to science to figure out why it works but it isn't as easy to go the other way.

There are studies that put vVo2max at the pace you can sustain from anywhere from 4-12 minutes, but most of them are 6-8 minutes. The reason you can get away with using 10-12 minute race pace instead is because training at 95% Vo2max is about as effective as training at 100% for the 5k and longer events. There’s virtually no difference in performance. However, there is a difference when it comes to performance in the shorter events like the 1500m. You would have to train at 100% Vo2max to really see the performance benefits.

Kicker wrote:

There are studies that put vVo2max at the pace you can sustain from anywhere from 4-12 minutes, but most of them are 6-8 minutes. The reason you can get away with using 10-12 minute race pace instead is because training at 95% Vo2max is about as effective as training at 100% for the 5k and longer events. There’s virtually no difference in performance. However, there is a difference when it comes to performance in the shorter events like the 1500m. You would have to train at 100% Vo2max to really see the performance benefits.

Everyone defines the terms slightly different and also measures stuff a bit different but sure. The point was vvo2 comes from Billat and that she was using a 6 min test because it gave the best approximation. Cooper was long before the term vVO2 was coined. None of these tests are better than any other one. You could build a training plan around a 6 min test, 10 min test, or a 15 min test.

Before a race being a bit more race specific makes sense (i.e. running a 3k, do 6x600s at 3k pace. Running a 5k, 6x1000 at 5k pace) and if you are doing a 1500m the benefits of the anaerobic portions probably matter more than the aerobic gains. Especially if you have done very limited training at those paces recently. And running close to race pace tends to help efficiency.

But lets say 97% (call it 5k pace for elite guys) is as good as 100% (call it 3k pace). Is 93% (~10k pace) as good as 5k pace if you can do 20% more volume? What about backing off to like 88% (i.e. HMish pace) and adding in even more volume? How tolerable are those workout over 16+ week periods? Those are much tougher questions answer.

Kicker wrote:

There are studies that put vVo2max at the pace you can sustain from anywhere from 4-12 minutes, but most of them are 6-8 minutes. The reason you can get away with using 10-12 minute race pace instead is because training at 95% Vo2max is about as effective as training at 100% for the 5k and longer events. There’s virtually no difference in performance. However, there is a difference when it comes to performance in the shorter events like the 1500m. You would have to train at 100% Vo2max to really see the performance benefits.

What is your evidence that you need intervals at 100 percent VO2 to maximize 1,500m potential? Unless you are just talking short reps like 200s, I don't think you need any 3k pace workouts to run your best mile.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

What is your evidence that you need intervals at 100 percent VO2 to maximize 1,500m potential? Unless you are just talking short reps like 200s, I don't think you need any 3k pace workouts to run your best mile.

I have never seen a mile program that doesn't include workouts that have you running at 100% vo2max. If you do something like 8x400 @1500m pace with 75s rest, you are doing a vVO2 workout like Billat pushed (30/30, 60/60 and 180/180 are the ones she used). You can call the workout whatever you want but you are going to be running at 100% vo2max for a while. 3k pace is normally the slowest pace that does 100% vo2max. You can train faster. I would definitely argue that the anaerobic tolerance is the bigger benefit of those workouts than any improvement in vo2max, LT, or efficiency but you still need to do the work.

For people racing 5k+, the benefits of that LA tolerance component go way down. There still appear to be some efficiency gains from running fast but it seems (and this isn't a well studied topic) that you can get most of them from things like short hills or 150s where you aren't generating a ton of LA.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

What is your evidence that you need intervals at 100 percent VO2 to maximize 1,500m potential? Unless you are just talking short reps like 200s, I don't think you need any 3k pace workouts to run your best mile.

You would be mistaken. 1500m pace exceeds 100% Vo2max, so it works that stimulus, but the intervals are too fast to do a sufficient volume at Vo2max in a given workout. The idea is to train at the slowest possible speed while staying at 100% Vo2max. Less than 100% isn’t optimal for improving 1500m performances and exceeeding 100% introduces too much of an anaerobic component and not enough volume can be done.

As for a source, here:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

I have never seen a mile program that doesn't include workouts that have you running at 100% vo2max. If you do something like 8x400 @1500m pace with 75s rest, you are doing a vVO2 workout like Billat pushed (30/30, 60/60 and 180/180 are the ones she used). You can call the workout whatever you want but you are going to be running at 100% vo2max for a while. 3k pace is normally the slowest pace that does 100% vo2max. You can train faster. I would definitely argue that the anaerobic tolerance is the bigger benefit of those workouts than any improvement in vo2max, LT, or efficiency but you still need to do the work.

LA.

If you’re treating Vo2max workouts as lactate tolerance sessions, you’re doing them wrong. There’s a time and place for both of them, but don’t treat them like they’re the same thing. Lactate tolerance and improvements in anaerobic capacity are not the primary function of vo2max workouts, nor do they provide the larger improvements in them. For a 4:00 1500m runner, the event is about 81-83% aerobic (ball park). Being able to use a lot of oxygen with a high Vo2max is the really important factor. Lactate work is important too, but it is not where the most gains are made.

Kicker wrote:

If you’re treating Vo2max workouts as lactate tolerance sessions, you’re doing them wrong. There’s a time and place for both of them, but don’t treat them like they’re the same thing. Lactate tolerance and improvements in anaerobic capacity are not the primary function of vo2max workouts, nor do they provide the larger improvements in them. For a 4:00 1500m runner, the event is about 81-83% aerobic (ball park). Being able to use a lot of oxygen with a high Vo2max is the really important factor. Lactate work is important too, but it is not where the most gains are made.

If I call my 60/60 workout vvo2 and you call it lactate tolerance, does the training effect change? You are training at 100% vo2 no matter what you call it.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

If I call my 60/60 workout vvo2 and you call it lactate tolerance, does the training effect change? You are training at 100% vo2 no matter what you call it.

The speed you run at matters. If instead of 1500m speed, you ran at 800m speed, it is also above 100% Vo2max, but the anaerobic component is much greater, so the training effect absolutely would change.

60/60 is a good Vo2max workout if you actually run it at 100% Vo2max. Exceeding that speed changes the purpose of the workout and the training effect. It teaches muscle fibers to rely more on energy derived through anaerobic pathways instead of oxidative ones, so you don’t get as good of an aerobic stimulus.

Kicker wrote:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

If I call my 60/60 workout vvo2 and you call it lactate tolerance, does the training effect change? You are training at 100% vo2 no matter what you call it.

The speed you run at matters. If instead of 1500m speed, you ran at 800m speed, it is also above 100% Vo2max, but the anaerobic component is much greater, so the training effect absolutely would change.

60/60 is a good Vo2max workout if you actually run it at 100% Vo2max. Exceeding that speed changes the purpose of the workout and the training effect. It teaches muscle fibers to rely more on energy derived through anaerobic pathways instead of oxidative ones, so you don’t get as good of an aerobic stimulus.

The difference between 3:40 min pace (i.e. 1500m pace) and 6 min pace (vvo2 max pace) isn't enough to lose sleep over. You aren't getting vastly different training results. Again the point is simply that every mile program I am aware of trains at 100% vo2max. You want to argue if they doing it in the most effective way possible, go for it. I have seen enough variations that have had success that I am not one to believe in the one true path.

For HM and up, you can sort of get away without doing any training there. The 97% or so that 5k pace is plenty and sprints covers your bases well enough.

It’s actually a huge difference, but I don’t think I’m going to convince you. Is the difference between threshold/HMP and 10K pace not enough to lose sleep over? Because that’s really a similar difference compared to the difference between 3:40 race pace and 6-8 minute race pace. It doesn’t seem like it in terms of absolute time difference, but the percentage differences in terms of Vo2max are close to the difference between threshold and 10k pace.

The recovery times are also different. At 100% Vo2max, you could run a 60/60 workout and it would be fine. A great Vo2max stimulus. You could even run a 60/30 workout and that’d work too. At 1500m race pace (3:40 for this example), it might be more like 60/120 or 120/360 (2-3x length of interval recovery) if you’re going based on jack Daniels recommendations. If you’re trying to work on Vo2max, then the recovery is too long, so it’d be lactate tolerance work and not Vo2max work. Not saying you can’t run those workouts, just that what you’re calling them and what their actual functionality is is different.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

The average pace of a 12-min Time Trial has been considered in the scientific literature as one's Velocity at VO2max.

Pretty sure Billat (i.e. the person who coined vvo2) used a 6 min test for vvo2 pace.

Billat did NOT coin the term vvo2. She says in one of here papers that Jack Daniels did.

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Here is a video from a fine high school coach, obviously steeped in USATF coaching principles, and he refers to the Cooper test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqo5AbcELFM

You are confused about the difference between vVO2(Billat) and vo2 (the cooper test). Horwill used a 15 min test. They are all close enough approximations that you can use them to calculate paces.

No confusion on this point; if you had actually looked at Coach Pollard's video which I linked in the post you responded to, he discusses the difference in his explanation starting @ timestamp 11:00, and specifically starting @ timestamp 11:33.

Thank you so much for your contribution to this thread. I appreciate your insight and experience in general, and in this case, with the Garmin Predictor. I wasn't considering the possibility of a better time after a bit of a taper. And congratulations on reaching mid-National Class in age-grade performance. Maybe actually being able to get to the starting line is half the battle for us grand-masters.

I think a good advice when it comes to training the individual lactate threshold is to start at a volume and a stimulating pace that can easily be done up to the present shape.Ingebrigtsens are not the only world class top runners we know.Kipchoge doesn`t run double thresholds and still he has the world record at marathon . Kamworor doesn`t run double thresholds and still he had the half marathon world record.

What`s really important to know about lactate threshold training is that it seems to be a very important and crucial factor to reach individual optimal ability.

Kicker: I am a fan of the 30/30 and 60/60 workouts at 100 percent VO2 max (3k-ish pace). I just don't like longer intervals than that. Too hard to recover from.

Seppo Kaitenenn wrote:

Kicker: I am a fan of the 30/30 and 60/60 workouts at 100 percent VO2 max (3k-ish pace). I just don't like longer intervals than that. Too hard to recover from.

They are good workouts, very manageable. The only drawback between that and longer intervals (assuming equal time of running for both workouts) is because you spend more time at Vo2max with longer intervals. Reaching Vo2max takes some time, so stopping and starting somewhat frequently causes you to reach Vo2max for a short period and come right back down, then reach it again for a short period. For longer intervals, there isn’t as much interruption, so you reach Vo2max and then holder it for a greater percentage of the interval and spend a greater amount of time at Vo2max overall.

800s and 1ks are tough but doable. 1-3 x mile is very hard but possible depending on ability level. The faster you are, the further your mile is from Vo2max, so the more you can do. A 4:00 miler might be able to do 2 or 3, whereas a 6:00 or 7:00 miler would only do 1 and it would basically be a race so it might not even be advisable for them to do it that way.

I agree that they take longer to recover from, so if you choose to do them they must be done sparingly and carefully within your overall plan.

Not to split hairs, but for people who run the mile faster than 6 minutes, doing work at mile pace is supramaximal. Depending on the athlete, this could be 105-110% of vVO2 max pace.

The Wizard JS wrote:

I think a good advice when it comes to training the individual lactate threshold is to start at a volume and a stimulating pace that can easily be done up to the present shape.Ingebrigtsens are not the only world class top runners we know.Kipchoge doesn`t run double thresholds and still he has the world record at marathon . Kamworor doesn`t run double thresholds and still he had the half marathon world record.

What`s really important to know about lactate threshold training is that it seems to be a very important and crucial factor to reach individual optimal ability.

Nothing magical about doubles. It is just a way to get a lot of work in. If look at kipchoge training, he has lots of days where he is running 2:50-3/km (at like 6k ft) for like 40-60 mins. Is that better or worse than breaking it into 2 sessions? Who knows. But either way you are getting a lot of work right around threshold paces.