Lydiard Long Runs, HR & Lactate Threshold Query

Bump..Great topic. My thought is the use the OBLA for longer runs / longer intervals ie. 3k-5k distance. See the comments in Daniels books regaridng marathon pace training runs.

I'm no Lydiard expert, though I do consider myself a student of his methods. My take:

1. Both. I think it's reasonable to shoot for 2mmo/l or a little less for your overall average pace for the week, but I like the idea of spending some time each week at 4 mmol/l and then enough time at 1mmo/l or lower to recover.

2. a) Eventually. At age 33 it's certainly something to think about (I'm 35). Geb and Tergat seem to not have any problems with their thresholds dropping though, and they're both in the same age ballpark.

b) Most definitely. With the kind of training you're doing I wouldn't be surprised to see both threshold numbers go up if you continue the regimen over a few seasons.

Did you do any hills, speedwork or sharpeners following this build?

Thanks salkowskim,

1) I have certainly improved my times over the long run distances by around 15-20 sec per mile for roughly the same ave HR, so it's worked out well.

2) a) Re' the change in lactate, I meant to say with respect to HR, does the lactate threshold change? So, does the target HR stay the same for the threshold, or with changes in fitness, will the target HR change? Something I got confused with when reading some of the postings by Hadd.

2) b) Just introduced very hilly circuits in my long runs over past 3-4 weeks, and doing some springing exercises. Will start some track sessions for anaerobic work this week. For this period, I will reduce the ave HR of my long runs to around 135-140. Lydiards runners did their long runs at a slower speed during this phase than the conditioning one.

Will see how it works out!

Anyone with other comments?

Does the Lactate threshold change? Yes it most certainly does change according to how you train.

For instance, the oft quoted onset of blood lacate accumulation (OBLA) of 4 mmols that you quoted is very much higer in a middle distance runner, maybe 10 mmols or more, since a middle distance runner needs to be very efficient at this lactate level.

For a Marathon runner, you need to be most efficient at 2 mmols of lactate, which means concentrating on and around that pace more, and much less emphasis on the higher lactate levels, although 10k pace is also important for a Marathon runner.

The best information on this subject on this here website is by Renato Canova, much of it can be found in the very long thread at the top of the page.

I think the better your fitness, the closer your LT heart rate gets to your max heart rate. In other words I believe with enough training your heart rate zones for both of the thresholds you mentioned would be in a higher range, as you will become more efficient at processing lactate and transporting oxygen across the cellular walls of the muscles.

Not always, you can have high heart rate figures at those zones, and still be inneficient.

reason wrote:

Not always, you can have high heart rate figures at those zones, and still be inneficient.

Sorry if I mistakedly implied that. You are certainly right about high heart rates at threshold zones not necessarily equating to efficiency. What I was trying to get across is that as you are able to bring your heart rate at threshold closer to your maximum heart rate, you are generally getting more effiecient.

Incidentally, I agree with you on the importance of spending a great deal of training time focused on the 2 mM/l area.

I don't like the term threshold at at all. Given the huge variations in blood lactate for supposed OBLA, the term threshold is meaningless.

What is threshold?.......... How long is a piece of string?

Is this Jamie the Flying Scottsman? If it is, I owe you a several e-mails. My apology. How are you. And Salkowski, Happy New Year! I owe you a couple as well!

It's a very technical question but, to be honest with you, I like the reason's response best and so would Arthur. He just didn't have enough insight to physiology, though he knew enough to be dangerous, nor did he have patience, to talk too deeply into this type of topic.

He would tell you, and I got this feeling from talking to people like Snell or Magee, that the faster you can run aerobically, the better. But if you start to struggle, back off.

All those testings are great to give you some insight but you just simply can NOT go by those numbers. There are way too many exceptions and variables. We all have good days and bad days; personal emotions come to play; kids being sick, work being extra stressful, weather... I'd even say the kind of shoe you wear would make a difference as well! To me, more of a reason why you should train by how you feel most of the days to sharpen your senses.

Also, I very much believe including some hills even during conditioning is extremely important. Going up the hill, feeling good, then your heart rate or whatever you're trying to establish steady consistency would be out the window. But keep it to your "feeling good" effort. More often than not, that would be your best indication.

good comments as usual nobby. you have said what i dislike about many coaches these days. they leave out how a kid is emotionally. it is a big factor in coaching.

Hi Nobby,

yes it's Jamie the Scotsman, but not so much of the Flying I'm afraid! Trust you are well.

Thanks for the comments regarding "how you feel" when you are running aerobically.

When I'm training, I don't relate to the speeds that I'm doing (i.e. not fixated on 6 min per mile or 5.30 etc.) but try & stick to the max aerobic HR. I've found that in the past this worked out best for me. Don't know if it's because I'm not so controlled when not using one, and tend to speed up, but bottom line is that the most success I've had is from using the HR monitor. I had always set this to a max of 152 for me from my test in 1993. Now, however, with the results from the more recent test, I'm wondering if the levels change over time i.e. in a similar fashion to the max HR? Should I now replace the 152 max with 144 max or should it be 156?

Thanks for the comments everyone - good to get your thoughts on this if there are any more.