How much Lactate Threshold work per week?

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

For the sessions, I would like to see more steady splits. The feb 27 was good all day, the march 1 PM was more variable. Maybe the 1st and 3rd was too fast and you paid for it the second and fourth? The last of March 1 AM was interestingly high. Did you increase the speed or just experience some other effect?

This is what happens, when running up the hill, and the alert goes off, it is a challenge for me to slow down and hold back, and to get the Heart Rate back under the High Alert. Maybe ego comes into play.

Nonetheless, you can from my last post that a few bpm higher can really spike the Training Intensity of sessions performed near the second Lactate Threshold (LT2).

Consider when I started racing these 4x4min sessions last summer, as I mentioned earlier the thread. In early November the EPOC training load of one 4x4min session was 220, comparable to the intensity of a 5k race!

Maybe (probably) I need to be more patient, and reel-it-in, instead of trying to train so hard. That is partially what prompted this thread, to come up with a working plan. But will I meet my first goal by May?

The 4x4 method suffers as I see it from the limitations of research to cover the long term effects of training. It has been shown many times to increase endurance and performance in also well trained groups over a short controlled period, but this do not prove that the long term effect is the best. I think the science is unflawed, but the conclusions are made without full support. Training is what the long term effect is in combination with all the other training. Science has been too caught up in short improvements and ineffective indicators of performance. It would be impossible to do very long studies for highly performing athletes in combination with other training. the number of variables would be large and the conclusions few.

This knowledge is what the best trainers have and is not necessarily proved by science.

If you take any group of people (maybe not the worlds best) and do a 6 week trial doing 2 workouts of intense 4x4, One would see increases in VO2max and performance. Or to say it differently, if you take any group and give them peaking training they will perform better in the short term, but not necessarily in the long run

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

I think the science is unflawed, but the conclusions are made without full support. Training is what the long term effect is in combination with all the other training. Science has been too caught up in short improvements and ineffective indicators of performance. It would be impossible to do very long studies for highly performing athletes in combination with other training. the number of variables would be large and the conclusions few.

Great take!

Nonetheless, in the TED talk, I think he referred to an 85yr-old example having the Cardio fitness of an average 20 yr old, hitting the 4x4min a couple times a week.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Nonetheless, in the TED talk, I think he referred to an 85yr-old example having the Cardio fitness of an average 20 yr old, hitting the 4x4min a couple times a week.

I think we crazy serious hobbyrunners try to find the optimal training the same way as the best in the world. In that sense 4x4 might not be the optimal over time, but it is unquestionable if intense interval training is efficient or not. It is ! So we could do very well with 4x4.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

(A) A maximum of 168bpm was pegged a couple of times in the all-out 12-min Time Trial on Feb 23, last Tuesday. Prior to that, I assumed it was 171bpm which I pegged for about 20 seconds last year in a 5k race, when running up a short but unexpected hill about midway through the race.

(B) Yes, particularly in light of the fact that I keep the heart rate in the proper zone, and slow down as necessary in order to do so.

(C) Yes, I could probably run 16 minutes contiguously on a track at near the same pace as 4min reps on a track, keeping within the same heart rate zone; the average HR of the continuous run would be slightly higher.

t.

Just checking you weren't using an age table.

But think about this. You think you probably could run for 16 mins at a pace that you should be able to run for an hour. That sounds a lot more like a 30min race pace than an hour race pace. You also talk about needing 3 mins to clear lactic. If you are at LT, there shouldn't be much.

Things spike rapidly in terms of difficulty in those 20-30s of pace between LT and vo2max pace.

You can get away with doubles because you are doing really low volumes. Normally you would do 20-40mins of LT (or CV which is what I think you are doing). You are just doing that same volume in 2 workouts rather than 1.

It is not what you call CV. It is slower than CV. I'm not training by VELOCITY, anyway. Training by heart rate for the purposes of intensity modulation is more intelligent than training by pace (or RPE, etc.), because it can readily take into account changes in terrain, changes in shoes, changes in weather, etc.

Yes, I could reduce the recovery times. Yes, I could up the intensity. Yes, I could consolidate two 4x4 sessions spaced out over a whole day, into just one session in the morning.

I'm an older dude. I no longer get 'the runner's high'. I don't enjoy anymore going out for a long run like I used to when I was younger. Instead of a 1hr+ longish steady state 'easy' run, I can fashion the run around one of these easier 4x4min sessions, and thus, make the whole more process more engaging, and the time goes by faster.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Instead of a 1hr+ longish steady state 'easy' run, I can fashion the run around one of these easier 4x4min sessions,

By this statement, I meant an easier 4x4min (where the average HR and max HR in the rep is kept below 90% HRmax) rather than easier than an easy steady-state longish run. Throwing in a 4x4min session, even a less intense 4x4min session, is a more intense session than an easy steady-state aerobic run performed at 70% or below HRmax. The latter would have an EPOC load less than 40, even though the Time-on-Feet between the two sessions is kept the same.

The velocity part of critical velocity is just a way to make it a term more relative to running. Really it’s just an intensity that you can hold for 30-35 minutes, not necessarily a speed (direction in running is assumed to be forward, so speed is just as accurate). The same holds true for lactate threshold. It’s an intensity you can hold for about 50-60 minutes. A typical volume for CV work is 15-20 minutes and threshold work is typically 20-30 minutes (or possibly longer for faster athletes).

I saw that people struggled with the 4 x 4 method long-term. I assumed that they blindly followed the protocol and didn’t think about how it should fit into an overall weekly training scheme. Running closer to Vo2max pace than threshold every week could cause burnout if they just didn’t know how to gauge their effort. The number of days per week that the protocol is run should really be limited to 2x/week, maybe 5x within a 2 week cycle, but that could get dicey if the intensity isn’t properly managed. I’ve seen some forums where people tried to run 4 x 4 everyday, which is just a recipe for disaster. Some poor soul got 12 days into that and got rewarded with a lot of fatigue, both mental and physical.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

It is not what you call CV. It is slower than CV. I'm not training by VELOCITY, anyway. Training by heart rate for the purposes of intensity modulation is more intelligent than training by pace (or RPE, etc.), because it can readily take into account changes in terrain, changes in shoes, changes in weather, etc.

Yes, I could reduce the recovery times. Yes, I could up the intensity. Yes, I could consolidate two 4x4 sessions spaced out over a whole day, into just one session in the morning.

.

Let's make it super simple. Can you run for an hour at this intensity level (LT), 35 mins(CV) or 15(just a bit below vo2max)? Obviously pace at intensity changes depending on circumstances.

Training by heart, velocity, perceived effort, power, and so on all have advantages and disadvantages. You should be using all of them as appriate.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

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.

In the first paragraph on page heading '94' of the following paper, she says, "Daniels et. al. introduced the term 'Velocity at VO2max'..."

Although you got this one wrong, you are likely more versed in the scientific literature in this area, and I appreciate your contributions to this thread on topic. Thank you.

In the following paper, the Norwegians conclude, "The single most important physiological parameter that describes the amount of work carried out during a soccer match is maximal oxygen uptake, which is most effectively trained at an intensity of 90-95% of maximal heart rate, normally by running." ...

...

"A work intensity of 90-95% of (maximal heart rate) is higher than the anaerobic threshold. Activity during pauses is thus important to reduce lactate build up in the muscles and subsequently in the blood. The high intensity--close to VO2max--also limits the length of the working periods and the number of intervals that it is possible to carry out. Helgrud et.al. used 4x4min intervals, which seemed to be very effective for soccer players with a VO2max in the range of 55-65ml. Better trained subjects would probably have optimized training responses through somewhat longer interval periods or a higher number of intervals, and the opposite is probably true for less trained subjects."

Note, I fall into the category of an 'older' and 'less trained subject'.

hgsddg wrote:

Let's make it super simple. ...

Apropos; I think I'm arriving at a training block plan (subject to change) for these next 10-12 weeks, which started (I guess) last week, and the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle will apply:

Mon....4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr total time on feet (TOF);

~1hr X-train;

4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr TOF.

Tues....~1hr X-train.

Wed....4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr TOF;

~1hr X-train;

4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr TOF.

Thurs....~1hr X-train.

Fri....4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr TOF;

~1hr X-train;

4x4min (HR targets 85-90%)...~1hr TOF.

Sat....~1hr X-train;

Alactic Hill Sprints(?)

Sun.....rest

This weekly schedule amounts to:

6hrs (approx.) of TOF jogging & running 4x4min reps; and

6hrs (approx.) of X-training.

Some Time Trials and/or races will possibly be inserted on occasion, to gage fitness progression. These will likely be done on a weekend, in which case Friday's session will be a rest day or X-train day.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

...This weekly schedule amounts to:

6hrs (approx.) of TOF jogging & running 4x4min reps; and

6hrs (approx.) of X-training.

Most of the 4x4min sessions will be performed on a course incorporating 'the hill'*, or the track.

-------

*"five-time world-record holder Henry Rono...Finally, stting on a barstool...opened up, and the conversation went something like this:

"Tooooz-day... Sal-luh-zahhh.... trrraack," said Rono, shaking his head "no."

"Tourrrz-day.... Sal-luh-zahhh.... trrraack," again shaking his head no.

"Saaa-tuhh-day.... Sal-luh-zahhh.... trrraack," emphatically shaking his head no.

Dina listened intently.

"Dee Heeeeel!" shouted Rono, with his arm extended straight and pointing uphill.

The Dina figured he was privy to a rare inside glimpse into the training that made Rono a legend, leaned forward at the bar to finally coax out the name and location of the secret incline.

"Henry, what hill?" he asked earnestly.

"Steve," Henry waved his arms maniacally, ..... "ANY HEEEEEEEL!"

Source:

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

"A work intensity of 90-95% of (maximal heart rate) is higher than the anaerobic threshold. Activity during pauses is thus important to reduce lactate build up in the muscles and subsequently in the blood. The high intensity--close to VO2max--also limits the length of the working periods and the number of intervals . Better trained subjects would probably have optimized training responses through somewhat longer interval periods or a higher number of intervals, and the opposite is probably true for less trained subjects."

Note, I fall into the category of an 'older' and 'less trained subject'.

I’m questioning your decision to do the 4 x 4 method three times per week, including days where you have double 4 x 4 days. The soccer players in the study only ran the intervals twice per week for 9 weeks. You just said that you fall into the category of “less trained subject,” so you should be doing a similar volume or less volume.

Since you’re older, recovery is also more important for you. A typical schedule for a teen or 20-something runner might include 2 “harder” days per week. I’m including tempos, threshold workouts, and other intervals into that “harder” category. As you get older, you can still run fast, but you have to space out the workouts more. You might run a harder effort every 4-5 days instead of every 3-4 and see good results.

True, but didn't you pick up on my lowering the heart rate targets to 85-90%, instead of 90-95% per the study? That is a huge difference. Key is whether I can keep it in check, gauging the effort with the HR monitor.

BTW, if you think that forum (link?) discussion "where people tried to run 4 x 4 everyday" would be helpful, I'd be happy to check it out.

I did pick up on that, but it’s still a lot of volume. 96 minutes of 85-90% throughout the week... that’s a lot, even for a pretty fit runner. To put this in perspective, when I was in around 15:00 5k shape on 60 mpw I averaged closer to 50 minutes/week at that type of intensity. I might do 5 x mile @threshold (26-27 minutes worth) + hills + strides, then come back a few days later and do a 4-5 mile progression run (22-27 minutes) . If I had to run another workout like that during the week, I doubt I could sustain it. More isn’t always better. Jack Daniels has often said if you’re given two options, one being to do more and one being to do less, you’re usually better off with the more conservative one. He had a series of lecture videos you can find on YouTube where he says exactly that. If you can’t find it on your own, I’ll send you the link. I’ll try to find that other forum again as well.

Believe me, I'm listening to every word, because I don't want injury derailment, but I bolded some points for emphasis.

"If I had to run another workout like that during the week, I doubt I could sustain it." .

As I said earlier in the thread, I doubted I could sustain three-to-four 4x4's per week, IF run @ 90-95% intensity, per the study.

You say you were doing those workouts "@threshold", meaning your LT2 point, yet I'm suggesting some level of repetition intensity below that.