Training experience at different training paces around Lactate Threshold

ViperDom wrote:

I think those terms defined by the OP (LT & CV) are pretty loose considering one is an approximation of an effort that is more specifically measured with a blood test and has an appreciable amount of subject variability. and the other(CV) is basically a made up term that has evolved to mean whatever the coach wants.

Another theory is that the optimal pace/effort to train at is specific to your event. Like more pace related. This way your skipping the "pretend to know the science" and just Gettin-R-Done.

How about Over-Unders ?

For example:

A 1/2M runner would do intervals with 10k pace work, M pace float/rest

A 10k runner would do intervals with 5k pace work & 1/2M pace float/rest

A 5k runner would do intervals with 1-2mile pace work, 10k pace float/rest

CV is a clear defined term in science.

'A 5k runner would do intervals with 1-2mile pace work, 10k pace float/rest'

Would you describe that as training possibility ? This is a race to me.

Yes

It's not clearly defined at all in that paper, or anywhere in any literature. The poster you're replacing to is correct the terminology is loosely defined.

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

I also heard that another guy in their training group that ran 5k in the Olympics said after the Norwegian championship in 10k that he was not trained for 10k due to his training. What he prob meant was then that 2 times weekly 5x6 or 6x5min at sub-threshold pace + 30min of 1k work at LT pace and the 25x400 or the 20x90s was not long enough for 10k. Very interesting comment. If you ask Canova he would give you 2k an 3k reps at CV to condition you.

For me the feel of LT effort and sub-LT effort is what matters and I can vary the rep length depending on if I want more aerobic conditioning or more specific speed resources.

Thanks for sharing.

I have also the feeling that we need also a longer interval length.

The Easy Interval Method goes sub-threshold and has 4-5 minutes interval length. Here also a longer interval length is missing.

Canova talks about his 'Fundamental Tempo' pace, which is progressing in duration to 60 min @5k x 1.2. This is at 80% VO2max an interesting intensity effort.

Yes I found an old Canova reply on what role and rep length different paces should be for a 5k runner. He did reps for 10k pace at close to 10min and for slower paces (1.1 x 5k pace and slower) he used only continuous. I think in theory the best conditioning is if you can do it continuously, but then the recovery need increases. Ingebrigtsen training is very clear on the principle that as much fast running with the lowest recovery need, so they do rep work.

There are different paths to the same goals

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Yes I found an old Canova reply on what role and rep length different paces should be for a 5k runner. He did reps for 10k pace at close to 10min and for slower paces (1.1 x 5k pace and slower) he used only continuous. I think in theory the best conditioning is if you can do it continuously, but then the recovery need increases. Ingebrigtsen training is very clear on the principle that as much fast running with the lowest recovery need, so they do rep work.

There are different paths to the same goals

Yes i absolutely agree. The question is, is there an optimal recovery time, in between the ON intervals, that the body can recover without losing the effect of a continously training?

So choosing the right recovery duration is maybe very important too.

Splitting hairs

Bald heads

No results

Clueless rambling

The falcon dies on the snowy, pebble beach

lexel wrote:

The question is, is there an optimal recovery time, in between the ON intervals, that the body can recover without losing the effect of a continously training?

No. Don't overthink it.

Early in the training cycle, we do a 6 minute run for distance to estimate vVO2 max. Then we spend a lot of time running threshold type stuff at various percentages of that speed.

We call 70-80% of that speed “steady state”

75-85% equals tempo for us.

80-90 equals threshold.

90 equals CV

So. If a kid ran 1910m for 6 min. He was right around 75 seconds per lap. 90% pace would be 75 + 7.5 or around 82-83. 80%pace would be 75+7.5+7.5, or 90 pace. Etc.

We start early with short segments at these paces and gradually lengthen them out. Early in the training cycle, we might aim for 20 min at tempo effort, then gradually work toward 30 min. We’ve recently been able to push our steady state efforts all the way out to 70 min. My varsity guys, who were all 1900-1950 on the test at the beginning of august recently ran 6:30-6:40 pace for 70 min.

This season, the focus has been on more, longer, sustained efforts at the lower intensities. In previous years we would have done more threshold or CV intervals.

Coincidentally, we did intervals that were supposed to be approaching CV last Wednesday and my team really struggled. It’s funny, because this years team is way fitter in terms of the ability to cruise along at Sub LT paces. It was really hot that day as well, so that was probably part of the problem.

One of the things CV does is allows threshold work while also acclimatizing the athlete to slightly elevated lactate levels. I’m expecting that as we do a few more of these sessions, they will feel markedly easier for my kids as their ability to buffer lactate increases. We usually start with that stuff in mid August. I delayed it this year because I’ve felt that we sometimes get a little stale by the end of the season, so I wanted to focus more on long, comfortable stuff and just really let the kids get good at moving oxygen.

lexel wrote:

Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:

Yes I found an old Canova reply on what role and rep length different paces should be for a 5k runner. He did reps for 10k pace at close to 10min and for slower paces (1.1 x 5k pace and slower) he used only continuous. I think in theory the best conditioning is if you can do it continuously, but then the recovery need increases. Ingebrigtsen training is very clear on the principle that as much fast running with the lowest recovery need, so they do rep work.

There are different paths to the same goals

Yes i absolutely agree. The question is, is there an optimal recovery time, in between the ON intervals, that the body can recover without losing the effect of a continously training?

So choosing the right recovery duration is maybe very important too.

Training adaptations are different and gradually changing over different intensities, recovery strategies, etc. I think there is no one optimal thing, it is many approaches with well thought through content that together reinforce each other and works. ON/OFF can be done in many ways...

shine box(go get it) wrote:

Splitting hairs

Bald heads

No results

Clueless rambling

The falcon dies on the snowy, pebble beach

lol. The most input to this thread came from you :)

Thanks for sharing your insigths.

I have a threat here the Easy Interval method. Have that integrated in my training, not all, and one big reminder to me is that you get better at that pace/effort/intensity at which you train.

So the Canova method, building a base to be able to do later the race specific work (for your goal race) seams very reasonable to me.

Your athletes struggled at CV, because they were not used to it. However, i am sure you have built a good base for them and they will adjust quickly.

Btw: You have overlapping intensities for your paces, i would not do that. It is confusing.

The intensities overlap on purpose. I had a threshold test on a lab back in the day and it was only at 83 percent max. For sub T stuff, I would have had to be at the low end of the intensity range. For others, sub T might be at a relatively higher percentage.

The pace charts just get the kids in the ball park. My 800m types usually have to use the lower end of the pace range while my aerobic monsters can use the higher end.

lexel wrote:

shine box(go get it) wrote:

Splitting hairs

Bald heads

No results

Clueless rambling

The falcon dies on the snowy, pebble beach

lol. The most input to this thread came from you :)

You our welcome. Take it to heart.

Is there a general recommendation for using 5k XC race times to estimate threshold and CV pace? I usually use the Tinman calculator but was wondering if there were other recommendations.

CoachB wrote:

we did intervals that were supposed to be approaching CV last Wednesday and my team really struggled. It’s funny, because this years team is way fitter in terms of the ability to cruise along at Sub LT paces. It was really hot that day as well, so that was probably part of the problem.

Well duh!

CoachB wrote:

One of the things CV does is allows threshold work while also acclimatizing the athlete to slightly elevated lactate levels. I’m expecting that as we do a few more of these sessions, they will feel markedly easier for my kids as their ability to buffer lactate increases.

Lactate isn't buffered. Lactate production is a buffer. It consumes protons. Stop posting pretend Bioenergetics.

CoachB wrote:

I wanted to focus more on long, comfortable stuff and just really let the kids get good at moving oxygen.

Kids move oxygen naturally. Why would you think they might be lacking in this ability?

You three are full of pseudoscience nonsense.

I know you won't stop, but others need to be warned.

Flavian wrote:

Is there a general recommendation for using 5k XC race times to estimate threshold and CV pace? I usually use the Tinman calculator but was wondering if there were other recommendations.

The first step is to subtract a few seconds from 5k XC pace to 5k road pace to do the calculation. How much this is, i do not know.

If we say a 5k road race was at 95% VO2max, LT is between 83-88% VO2max (Daniels). As better you are as higher it is. So 5k race time multiplied by 95/86 (as example) would be 1.1 * 5k pace for LT pace.

Canova takes the multiplicator 1.08 which is 95/88. But this is applicable for really good runners only.

CV is typically around 90-92% VO2max. So the 5k pace multiplicator is 95/91 around 1.04.

Thanks for sharing.

The question is: Is training at M better as E? If that is not the case than training at M creates unnecessary more risks, because risk of tipping over the edge (wrong pacing) and dramatically increaseing the recovery time .

Is it really necessary to risk that? Wouldn't be a sub-threshold training (at your E pace or even slower) a better and much safer variant? Especially for kids?