Is long slow distance the best at building VO2max?

VO2max depends on both peripheral factors (muscle mitochondria, enzymes etc.) but moreover central factors (cardiac output).

If you only operate the heart at 60-70% of max cardiac output (i.e. LSD), there is only modest stimulus to increase cardiac output. Thus, most people advocate doing interval training at VO2max (= cardiac output max).

I honestly do not know where to start...

If you take a beginner (no exercise) and have them run or even walk, they will likely see an increase in VO2max long before they see any capillary density. Mitochondria responds fairly quickly, but blood plasma responds even faster.

However, at some point, the stimulus is not sufficient to induce improvements in VO2max. At that point, you need to up the intensity and the more efficient method is to train at VO2max. However, even running at LT pace would also likely see improvements in VO2max but at some point in one's training that is not going to increase VO2max either. (It might add to the pace at VO2max, vVO2max).

However, I think that even at high intensities you will still get capillarization.

It is all about a mix of intensities, IMHO.

So you're saying that at some point, LSD running will take your body to homeostasis regarding vascular development. To achieve further development, you have to run harder.

Would that mean that highly trained athletes should devote a smaller percentage of their running to long slow distance? Would they be running slowly for recovery from hard days but not so much for capillary density, since their capillary network would be so extensively developed that LSD would add little to it?

And if a highly trained runner cannot get further improvement from LSD, would that mean that the overall intensity of their training would increase and their mileage would decrease?

Take a 70kg runner. Cut off his arm. His Vo2max will automatically increase.

Don't worry about Vo2max, worry about running and racing. What so called "vo2max training" mostly does for the trained runner is increase SPEED at Vo2max while Vo2max itself changes very little.

Alan

So I take it that you do not believe in the benefits of long, slow running. But if vo2max is dependent on the heart's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles involved in running, it would seem that an extensive capillary network would be critical.

If you accept that premise, the question is how do you achieve capillary density? Hadd thinks that you do it through long, slow running initially but that a well-trained athlete wouldn't have do it as much, since his capillary network would already be developed.

Maybe that's how Rod Dixon and Steve Jones managed to race well at the marathon on 60-70 miles a week. On the other hand, you can find plenty of discussions on this forum that cite some world-class distance runner improving further from running long and slow.

As luv2run has already indicated it is hard to simplify this whole thing. Certainly the muscle cells and vascularization thereof respond to timeof putting them under stress. Whatever is stressed in the body stands to benefit from that stress -- provided there is sufficient recovery time for the beneficial building/rebuilding to take place. Since VO2max does depend on both central and peripheral factors, both of those factors need to receive adequate stress for them to increase their specific function. Yuo need the easy running and you need some harder running to challenge the central system of delivery. The easy running does more than elicit cellular changes. For one, it inproves your body's ability to utilize fat as fuel and to learn to spare glycogen. You learn to deal with the effects of build up of heat and the loss of fluids (and you learn to replenish fluids as well, which is not often needed in higher-intensity training). your body also learns to build resistance to injury by haviing to spend long periods of time on your feet. All the little things that lead to improvement come together to make yuo a better runner. Definitely improving economy is critical, as is the improvement of speed -- heck, if you can't run a 400 in 70 seconds you are going to have a tough time running a 4:40 mile. Then you have the whole fact that people are not all the same and some react better to one type of training than does another person. A recent study in Spain showed that runners who did over 80% of all running at an easy pace improved 10k time much more than did an equaol group that did only 70% of the same total mileage at an easy pace. You can argue forever if all things were considered. What was the beginning level of performance of the two groups. How much total mileage they did, past experience, etc. Researchers have shon that runners who were averaging 150 k per week were more economica than those who averaged 100 or less. What does that prove? Maybe those who did higher mileage were already more economical and that's why they were comfortable with more mileage. In addition, the econoomy tests were run at rather slow speeds (slower than race pace -- even slower than marathon race pace. I have personally tested runners of different mileage totals and found that the higher mileage runners were more economical, but only at slower speeds, and as the test speeds were increased the 800/1500 runners were easily the most economical (and lower mileage runners). To me that just says that you becomoe most economical at speeds you spend time at, but economy is only part of ths picture. All any runner or coach has to do to say such and such is the way to go is to have one very successful runner doing that particular such and such. I prefer to try to describe what does what for your body and let coaches and runners figure out how much, how often and when during a season works best. We know that running more makes you better, but how much more is too much? -- probably varies, jsut as does every other aspect of training. Sorry to drag on , enough. No proof reading so pardon any mistakes

Some very good posts indeed.

Here's a shot at a simplistic explanation:

VO2 max is determined by the CV system's ability to deliver blood and the muscle's ability to extract and utilize the oxygen in that blood.

Of these two factors, the CV system is the major determining factor.

Increasing blood delivery is primarily a function of increasing maximal stroke volume. The best way to do this is to exercise at or near VO2max. A good example of a workout for this would be 1200 m to 1 mile intervals.

LSD does work to improve economy increase capillarization and increase mitochondrial density. However, it does not increase maximal stroke volume once you get to a point where you're in half-decent shape. As an example of this, some stuff from Holloszy's lab showed that you can almost double mitochondrial density with high volume/low intensity training, but only a 5-10% increase in VO2max is realized.

As stated, VO2 max is related to performance, but it's far from the major determining factor. The key is how well you can hang at a given percentage of VO2max, and (as jtupper has shown) the actual velocity you are at when you are running at VO2max.

Hope that helps.

Here's a shot at a simplistic explanation:

VO2 max is determined by the CV system's ability to deliver blood and the muscle's ability to extract and utilize the oxygen in that blood.

Of these two factors, the CV system is the major determining factor.

Increasing blood delivery is primarily a function of increasing maximal stroke volume. The best way to do this is to exercise at or near VO2max. A good example of a workout for this would be 1200 m to 1 mile intervals.

LSD does work to improve economy increase capillarization and increase mitochondrial density. However, it does not increase maximal stroke volume once you get to a point where you're in half-decent shape. As an example of this, some stuff from Holloszy's lab showed that you can almost double mitochondrial density with high volume/low intensity training, but only a 5-10% increase in VO2max is realized.

As stated, VO2 max is related to performance, but it's far from the major determining factor. The key is how well you can hang at a given percentage of VO2max, and (as jtupper has shown) the actual velocity you are at when you are running at VO2max.

Hope that helps.

Thanks once again.

I just registered and I have a question for the enlightened posters out there. What does it mean when your heart rate is high? I understand that with increased fitness your heart rate should decrease over the same speeds. But even when I am fit my heart rate always seems high. In my high school cross days my coach never believed me when I gave him my pulse count. Yesterday I checked my heart rate at the end of a 30-minute tempo run. It was 194. Sure I was tired, but I could have run harder and longer had it been a race. Is it good or bad that I can maintain a heart rate that high for a long time? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Thanks for the excellent replies. I always appreciate Jack Daniels's generous input on a thread of this nature.

So Jack, do you agree with Macker that capillary density is only minimally related to VO2max and that VO2max is NOT the most important factor in a long race?

Macker's post has long, slow running playing a minor role in developing a runner's endurance. But your post cites evidence that more long, easy running is generally better than less of it.

jtupper,

could you post the reference to that study from Spain please?

thanks

Living in the Past wrote:

Thanks for the excellent replies. I always appreciate Jack Daniels's generous input on a thread of this nature.

So Jack, do you agree with Macker that capillary density is only minimally related to VO2max and that VO2max is NOT the most important factor in a long race?

Macker's post has long, slow running playing a minor role in developing a runner's endurance. But your post cites evidence that more long, easy running is generally better than less of it.

I'm not in the same league as JD, but it's obvious that capillary density is important for VO2 max. You can have the largest stroke volume in the world but if you can't get the blood to the working muscles, they can't absorb the O2. Capillaries are the final delivery point of O2 rich blood. If you don't have the caps you can't deliver the blood.

Case in point: I knew a swimmer who had a great resting pulse rate and was tested and had a huge heart. He sucked as a runner. Some of it may have been weight. But, most of it I think, is that his heart had no where to pump the blood. His swimming muscles were capillarized but not so much his running muscles.

Your explanation makes sense to me. From what I've read, it is the capillary network that is the limiting factor, not the capacity to use the oxygen that is available. In other words, oxygen delivery rather than oxygen utilization.

So that gets us back to the question of whether long easy runs are the cornerstone of a runner's training. If running aerobically for a long duration forces the body to adapt by increasing capillaries in running-specific muscles and if capillary density is crucial to vo2max, then LSD should be a cornerstone for most people.

Here's another question for Jack Daniels. How many days of recovery from tempo running do you need to get the benefit? One guy recently posted on here that he had done a 25-minute tempo run on a Friday evening and was going to race a 10k on a Sunday morning. I thought that the race would partly negate the effect of the tempo run, since the race effort would tear down the running muscles before they had recovered from the tempo run.

I did 6 100-110 mile weeks at 7:30 pace instead of 6:00 pace and dropped my 10km PR from 30:15 to 29:20 on the roads. Felt amazing. B

A friend who did this gave me the information and I failed to ask where it is (or would be) published. Sorry, but not really able to respond much to other questions as there are other pressing problems I need to attend to. Hope we can sit down and all talk things over some time

Living in the Past wrote:

Macker's post has long, slow running playing a minor role in developing a runner's endurance. But your post cites evidence that more long, easy running is generally better than less of it.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Actually, I think that LSD is critical for development of mitochondrial density and capillary density, which may be MORE important for performance than developing VO2max. I think the misunderstanding may be in the difference between VO2max and endurance performance. Does having a high VO2max help? Yes, but it's not as correlated with performance as LT or velocity at VO2max. In general I'd say high intensity/short duration if you want to improve VO2mx and build a nice base of LSD and periodize for performance. Hope that clarifies.

More of a personal question:

I am finishing my 5th week of summer base training for my first year of college xc in the fall. I usually my daily runs of 9-10mi at 6:15-6:35 pace/mile. Should I slow down once or twice a week to 6:50+ to be able to run further?

I've done 45-60mpw the last 4 weeks. Ran 16:20 for 5k last fall and 4:16 this past spring for the mile.