Seiler 80/20 vs threshold

I agree, no certain facts, but there is a correct way to establish more precise definitions, which get us most of the way there.

1, Define 'Anaerobic training'?

2, Explain:

"maximize the aerobic capacity of as much of the muscle as possible, including the fast muscle fibres"

In both absloute measurement and weight relative measurement?

Jon Magne Trollheimen wrote:

I agree, no certain facts, but there is a correct way to establish more precise definitions, which get us most of the way there.

1, Define 'Anaerobic training'?

2, Explain:

"maximize the aerobic capacity of as much of the muscle as possible, including the fast muscle fibres"

In both absloute measurement and weight relative measurement?

1. Anaerobic refers in this logic to the energy processes where lactate is produced, primarily from the fast twitch muscle fibres. Below Threshold, the slow twitch fibres are mostly used using fully aerobic energy pathways. When the fast twitch fibres are employed, they rely to a large degree on lactate processes, but the aim is to increase the mithocondria of them to maximize their contribution using aerobic processes. It has been established that the the point where the the fast twitch are increasingly activated is above 1h race pace the "threshold" pace. Even if one measures the blood lactate to be at say 4 mmol during for instance 60s/30s intervals, I would still say there is a higher degree of anaerobic work than for 3min/1min intervals at 4mmol since the pace naturally will be a litte lower, the force needs are a little less and less fast twitch fibres are activated. The lactate meter would measure the load in terms of lactate levels and not how much contribution from the anaerobic energy processes.

2. To maximize the mithocondria content of the activated and running-specific slow and fast twitch muscles to increase the specific speed endurance. I am not caring for the VO2 max reading even if that will also increase and just am after maximizing the endurance which happens through increased use of O2 in all fibres.

Not sure if this clarified anything :-)

Threshold pace, or more accurately Ventilatory threshold is about 10% Anaerobic and about 90 or more % of VO2 max. VO2 max pace is probably around 15% Anaerobic.

Fast oxidative fibres use Lactate also as energy substrate. Fast Glycolytic fibres use less Lactate and send the rest out in the bloodstream to other cells.

Mitochondria increase in size, not number. It is unrealistic to expect your absolute oxygen uptake to improve with training because this is a basic biological function, supplying our energy needs regardless of fitness.

What is realistic is an increase in weight relative oxygen uptake with endurance training because of a slight reduction in muscle mass, but an increase in power from more efficient technique. If Maglischo tested one of his swimmers in running efficiency this would be apparent. Some people gain weight in Winter and lose it in Spring and Summer, but it is not all fat, some of it is extra muscle mass. Healthy calorie intake is extremely important and this should be talked about more.

Bigger Mitochondria = faster recovery. Faster recovery allows more training. More training = bigger Mitochondria. This can take several weeks to reach a plateau. This is why traditional training techniques have evolved. We have to develop adaptions specific to the racing we are aiming for.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

First off, I want to thank you for you responses.

Second:

Do you by any chance have the studies that show burnout from too much VO2 max training? I know that many people say that this exists, but many pro triathletes (Lionel Sanders for example) do very hard workouts year round. Essentially, I am not arguing the benefit of threshold work, tempos, etc., but asking if a few tabata exercises on top of the other work would provide benefit.

Hard workouts don't need to be vo2max or highly anaerobic. For example doing 5x1 mile @10k pace is a hard workout. It also isn't very anaerobic or even at vo2max pace.

At the other end things like 8x400 @1500m pace with 4 mins rest(daniels reps) is a fast workout but it isn't hard.

The problem people have is in the middle. Things like 6x1k at 5k pace is the type of thing that most people can't do weekly for more than about 8weeks. Maybe you could do it every 2/3 weeks and be fine.

And becareful about comparing swim/cycling workouts to running. You can get away with a lot more when you aren't doing weight bearing work.

Thank you all for your responses!

Would I burn out from 2 weekly tabata bike sessions? Would it be helpful?

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Thank you all for your responses!

Would I burn out from 2 weekly tabata bike sessions? Would it be helpful?

I just read through this whole thread and the discussion has been quite interesting. I appreciate some of the more scientific responses some of you have given.

OP, I can't answer this question from the scientific side. However, reading through your questions and your own goals, I can't help but think you are waaaaay over thinking things and maybe getting a little too lost in the details.

You want to develop a huge aerobic base so you can run at NXN late next fall. It is April right now. Between now and September just run. Run a lot of miles. Make most of them easy. Make some of them faster (tempo, progression runs, fartleks of varying distances, etc.). If you want to jump into some fun summer road races, go for it. If you want to get on the bike some, go for it. I would personally use that for extra aerobic work, but more for fun than anything else. As a runner and a cyclist, I can say that specific bike workouts don't help my running. Those workouts seem to impair my running form and efficiency a bit.

Thank you!

It never occurred to me that biking could mess up my running form.

I will scratch the goggins itch through hard strength work and focus on mostly easy miles and some threshold/tempo stuff.

What about high intensity swimming?

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

What about high intensity swimming?

I wouldn't do it.

Think of it this way, intensity in training is about developing a certain energy system in a certain motor pattern. So you have said you want to be fast at running. When you up the intensity in anything, do it with running.

High intensity swimming could target the same energy system you want to target on the run, but you're doing all of it while horizontal in a swimming pool and a huge chunk of your effort is coming from your arms. That's not going to help you run fast.

If you want to swim or bike, that's fine, but add it in as easy days to up your lower level aerobic training.

Still, for most of us, the best thing to do is add more easy running.

20 to 100mpw over 6 months isn't going to work for most. If you're at 50 or so now I'd recommend staying there and seeing what you can do. You've already more than doubled the mileage. Cardiovascular adaptations start to take effect about 2 weeks, muscle a month, bones maybe 2 months, and tendons/ligaments about 4 months. Think about that in terms of adaptation and injury.

Maybe add see very easy swimming or biking if you can tolerate it to build base. But remember, body only sees total stress, be it running, biking, school, poor sleep, relationships, etc.

Adding hard work and volume at the same time is also pretty much guaranteed to wreak you.

Best of luck with whatever you end up trying

Do you think that hard lifting would then be beneficial for injury prevention?

I have only scrolled through this thread so maybe I missed it, but what is your running background (age, years running, PRs)? Are you running track?

Going from 20 mph to 100 mph in less than a year (with workouts mixed in and added cross training) and aiming for NXN seems very ambitious.

ddidididid wrote:

qewjfwibvwier wrote:

A majority of the top middle distance and distance runners do threshold training and/or tempo runs. Do them. Don't overthink this. Eliminate them from your training at your peril.

If you read the polarized stuff they aren't doing tons of anaerobic work. They are doing work at 90-100% hr(i.e. about HM-3k pace). Realistically good luck at trying run like 10 miles(about 15% for a 60mpw) at 5k pace and up without breaking down after 8 weeks.

And a lot of what runners consider threshold work (hour pace) is right at the edge of what is considered high intensity work. If you train at 90% versus 88% intensity isn't something we can measure. The polarized crowd is against those hard steady runs(say you MP is 5:30 and easy run is 630. They don't want you running 6 min miles) that some people like.

I think there is some value in running at below MP if it is a workout day. I think the problem with running this pace comes if you do it on an easy or recovery day. In that situation you aren't recovering. The Ingebrigtsens do longer reps at sub-threshold paces, perhaps slower than MP, for their morning sessions. You see a lot of groups do longer tempos at slower then marathon pace as well.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

What about high intensity swimming?

I heard a podcast with a top triathlete answering the question about what he would train if he went for pure running. He would skip swimming whatsoever, then he would keep some biking to up the volume, and run normal high volumes of miles. That is, the sum of running and bikeing would be more than what runners do.

Thanks for sharing.I found a lot of interesting information here.

qewjfwibvwier wrote:

I think there is some value in running at below MP if it is a workout day. I think the problem with running this pace comes if you do it on an easy or recovery day. In that situation you aren't recovering. The Ingebrigtsens do longer reps at sub-threshold paces, perhaps slower than MP, for their morning sessions. You see a lot of groups do longer tempos at slower then marathon pace as well.

Intensity is tough to measure. My info has the ingebridgstens running those long thresholds at 255 pace(and 3.5 mmol) which is approximately MP pace. Some of the polarized papers use HR of 85% as the cut off for the 20% which for runners would include most of what people here would consider threshold work.

Some people definitely do work in that zone between MP and Easy running. It isn't like it is going to ruin you. But the argument is you would get more return on your energy by going faster.

That brings said you can find papers where pyramid does about as well as polarized. There was one where half ironman people did either 85/5/10 or 80/15/5 and the improvements were the same .

A reasonable take away is that the old school build aerobic capacity most of the year and then do 8-12 week peaking cycle with more intensity is pretty solid. Getting those 60+mpw is going to matter more than is you do 10 miles at 6 min pace or 30 mins at 540 pace or 6*3 min at 520 (paces approximate). When it is time to race you want to match your training more closely (a 3k guys needs those fast 800s a marathoner is probably better off with more threshold type stuff) to your event.l

ddidididid wrote:

qewjfwibvwier wrote:

I think there is some value in running at below MP if it is a workout day. I think the problem with running this pace comes if you do it on an easy or recovery day. In that situation you aren't recovering. The Ingebrigtsens do longer reps at sub-threshold paces, perhaps slower than MP, for their morning sessions. You see a lot of groups do longer tempos at slower then marathon pace as well.

Intensity is tough to measure. My info has the ingebridgstens running those long thresholds at 255 pace(and 3.5 mmol) which is approximately MP pace. Some of the polarized papers use HR of 85% as the cut off for the 20% which for runners would include most of what people here would consider threshold work.

The session you are referring to is the afternoon session. The afternoon sessions that the Ingebrigtsens do are shorter reps at a faster pace (400s, K's, etc). I am referring to the morning sessions that are longer reps at a slower pace, closer to MP or slower (2k, 3k, etc).

I'm curious what people think about the difference between "MP" vs. what you can actually run for a marathon. For example, Jakob Ingebrigtsen's predicted MP is 2:55/k (2:03 full), but no way he could run that without specific training. I think this would be true for most shorter distance runners, especially high schoolers. So if the pace you're calling MP is more like 20-30k pace, isn't that actually fairly intense?

Ho Hum wrote:

I'm curious what people think about the difference between "MP" vs. what you can actually run for a marathon. For example, Jakob Ingebrigtsen's predicted MP is 2:55/k (2:03 full), but no way he could run that without specific training. I think this would be true for most shorter distance runners, especially high schoolers. So if the pace you're calling MP is more like 20-30k pace, isn't that actually fairly intense?

I think the way the Ingebrigtsens do it the pace correlates more to lactate levels. So if Jakob's MP is 2:55 pace it doesn't necessarily mean he can run 2:55 right now. It means he is hitting the corresponding lactate level and training zone.