Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

Coach K wrote:

I don't think most coaches would agree with this defintion. VO2max workouts are done at near 100% vVO2max which is well within the anaerobic zone.

You are absolutely correct, my good man!

Of course, all intensities involve both of these energy systems, so there is always an overlapping of aerobic and anaerobic contributions. Since the anaerobic threshhold occurs at approximately 85-90% of max VO2, when one is training at 100% of max VO2 one is receiving a significant anaerobic contribution. While such training is done primarily to enhance the aerobic capacity, there are certain anaerobic adaptations taking place simultaneously. So to say that max VO2 work takes place at a pace below one that is anaerobic in nature is false.

Now to the original premise of this thread. I'm afraid the original poster misunderstands the concept of what he/she calls "event specifitiy." There is indeed a very important "Rule of Specificity" which all good coaches adhere to. However, this poster interprets this concept much too literally. Would you have someone training for a 5K race go out and do daily all out 5K runs. Of course not! That is not what specificity in training is about. Rather it means we must work the specific energy systems and biomechanical components necessary for a 5K race. This includes improving aerobic efficiency and capacity, anaerobic efficiency and capacity, core strength, proprioception, etc. All of these components represent a specific need for successful 5K racing.

Is there a place for 5K race pace work? Certainly. But there is also a paramount requirement to develop the other components necessary for success.

Good luck to each of you!

There is room for all kinds of training. If we knew for sure what training to do then everyone would be doing the exact same kind of training...but we do not and not all runners train the same.

It would make logical sense to run pace work at some point in time. The body adapts to a stress in a very specific way to deal with that stress better the next time.

Of course it's impossible to test this. You could take a runner and train him one way one season and another way another season, but the comparison would be faulty because a runner goes into a race with all the training they have ever done, not just the training they've done in the last 12 weeks.

Alan

You make an excellent point Alan, not enough runner's think in terms of the globality of their training. that is something Renato often stresses. Another poster mentioned working on running skills across the board and adding more and more specification throughout the training periodization. That is very important. I'm an 8/15 guy and during my initial base phase I run miles like a 10k guy and add in so 60 meter hard effots a couple times a week as if i were preparing for a 200. AS fall progresses my training becomes more 5k specific as i gradually move into 1500 preparation. Likewise, my short sprints become more intense mini workouts in spikes leading into a good 2 or 400. Finally, when I can start the spring strong in the 1500 and my 400 catches up, i'm in prime pouncing position in the 8 once the hay is finally in the barn and have a good 5-6 races under my belt. It works out marvelously.

Some combinations of effort level and duration are more cost-effective for building general fitness than others, whether or not the speed involved happens to line up with any race pace. The zone just below (slower than) the ventilatory threshold is the most cost-effective for regular continuous running. The zone near the respiratory compensation point is the most cost-effective for long repeats (3-15 minutes) with rest periods each about one-fourth of the previous run period. The zone near max VO2 (about 95%-97% of max HR) is best for medium length repeats (2-4 minutes) with rest periods each about 60%-90% of the previous run period and with about 15-20 minutes of total time accumulated at the necessary speed (which usually results in about 10-12 minutes accumulated at the desired HR). This protocol is the most cost-effective for increasing stroke volume and for mitochondrial biogenesis.

As target events near, some sessions can be orchestrated to address metabolic pathways/energy systems and involve race pace. Still other sessions can work on race pace and don't have to address any specific energy system. Becoming familiar with meting out effort at race pace (and what to expect in terms of feeling at various points in the event) is at least as important at this stage of the year as raising the stroke volume or maintaining the "threshold." Preparing for various race tactics can't be completely ignored either.

By and large, though, addressing energy systems in a cost-effective and repeatable fashion is far more important for basic fitness. Touching on a wide range of paces througout the entire year, albeit with greatly reduced intensity during the non-competitive seasons, is also desirable.

That all sounds good. It would be interesting to see how all that translates into figures. What sort of weekly mileage are you doing at points (1) (2) and (3) shown above?

What typical times for your 400, 800 and 1500 does this lead to?

Thanks.

Marius wrote:

I have to disagree. The belief to train more pace specific in order to perform better is probably one of the most common mistakes coaches do for 5/10k at least.

They fail to realize that the internal system/metabolism is far more important to optimize than the outer system. A high LT can best be trained with LT sessions and a high LT (unless you are a pure marathon runner) is almost linear to your performance in the 5k/10k.

You must do pace spesific also - but just part of the year and usually is is a matter of finding out how little is enough vs how much more can be done.

Marius

Hey Marius! Thanks. How are you? Great to see you here, and I thought a lot about you during this thread so far, because I have read your articles and followed your training.

Marius you loved the 5000m. In a nutshell, what would you change for Marathoning. Would you do the same kind of LT / VO2 work if you were Marathoning.

Cheers

Darren Skuja

Posting at Letsrun as Skuj since 2004

OldXCguy wrote:

Hey Skuj, do you work? Just wondering, because you seem to have even more free time than I do (and I work full-time).

:)

Shiftwork. Quiet shifts, sometimes! :)

The Professor, I have missed you. Wow! First Marius, now you! :)

I'm sorry, but "100% VO2max" paced sessions are NOT "well within the anaerobic zone", although of course, it's close enough that certain anaerobic adaptations are present. There is overlap. But 115% VO2 max pace is "well within". Not 100%. 800m-1500m pace is well within. 3000m-5000m pace borders it.

Of course I am not looking at "specificity" every day, or in a vacuum. I just propose that race-specific sessions are the "fulcrum". All other sessions support / enhance these sessions, rather than sessions being entirely based on the key physiological events.

Skuj wrote:

I'm sorry, but "100% VO2max" paced sessions are NOT "well within the anaerobic zone

Indeed they are. There is a significant anaerobic contribution present at 100% vVO2max.

I would also say that what Marius says about training seems to support that many of the best runners utilize things like LT and V02max zones. I think the coaches that don't understand these zones have their runners kind of train blindly...by just telling them to "feel" the demands of race pace and not telling them what system they are working on.

If you want to train the LT system, and the runner doesn't know what pace/intensity to run the only scientific way to do it right is to get out a lactate meter and take blood samples during cruise intervals.

Before I ran a PR in the marathon I didn't really do any training runs at Marathon goal pace. I ran about 20 sec/mile slower on long runs, and I ran about 15-20sec/mile faster on Tempo, LT runs. I did traditional V02max workouts a little slow...like 8k race pace, but high mileage tires your legs out. No race pace training, but workouts that were specific nonetheless.

Wiz wrote:

There is a significant anaerobic contribution present at 100% vVO2max.

I agree with that statement. Perhaps we are debating semantics? Significant yes. But "well within the anaerobic zone"? No. Slightly anaerobic yes. Deeply anaerobic no.

Of course you could do nothing but easy mileage and PR in the marathon. The marathon has a large learning curve and relatively few race attempts when compared to a 5k. You could do nothing but easy mileage and race a 5k once a month for a year and probably have 12 PRs...of course that might not be optimal training, but you will probably PR. The body learns by repeating a stress. The more you run a race the better you become. How long would it take someone to race 12 marathons? Long time. Sometimes performance has more to do with repeating the stress and less to do with the actual training. Moreso with races that you can't repeat but once every 4-6 months.

Alan

I think the proportion of VO2 Max, speed work, and LT workouts to total volume you do dictate you event specificity.

Marius wrote:

I have to disagree. The belief to train more pace specific in order to perform better is probably one of the most common mistakes coaches do for 5/10k at least.

They fail to realize that the internal system/metabolism is far more important to optimize than the outer system. A high LT can best be trained with LT sessions and a high LT (unless you are a pure marathon runner) is almost linear to your performance in the 5k/10k.

You must do pace spesific also - but just part of the year and usually is is a matter of finding out how little is enough vs how much more can be done.

Marius

Marius, why dont you try to sell your idea to the worlds top 5/10k runners like Bekele Gebre or the best european as it is Dieter Baumman in the 5000m or to all that train the opposite that you did. Effectively for most of them the specific pace event done along the season is the important one training key and not LT runs. Why are they the best if their training is so wrong.

I wait the day that with your training a runner like K. Bekele will run 25:50 with LT runs.

I agree that there should be a great deal of race pace work, but not at the demise physiology. You can accomplish many things physiologically at race pace. The importance of it depends on the event. For 3k/5k I believe that VO2 max stuff is very important but less important for all races outside that parameter. In longer races Threshold workouts become more important and in shorter races anerobic endurance work becomes more important. However we use all of these systems in each distance so there is a time and place for train with them.

I agree that training for race specificity is very important. but with the sample workout provided you are only providing one part of specificity (race pace). By running 2x3000 at 10k you are doing almost half race distance with rest. There would be no physiological point to this workout unless maybe you are in a tapering period in your training. Specificity and physiology can be worked together and should be worked together. Instead of doing 2x3000 you can do a 4x3000 and gain a more physiological stimulous in which your body may compensate. You can do this by allowing just enought rest to complete each interval at race pace. You are not trying to race a 10k or two every week but you are putting your body through similar stresses. As another poster mentioned some see specificty as just racing and others may see only one part such as race pace.

I don't have the exact quotes in front of me but Lydiard said that the goal of traing is to develope enough stamina to carry you through the race at the nessesary speed... I went to a coaching seminar where Scott Simmons was one of the presentors in January. He stated that training should be geared toward meeting the demands of the race. Both are saying generally the same thing but use different philosophies to get there.

After recently having a philisophical discussion with another coach we decided that there was one thing we can be sure of, there is more than one way to skin a cat...

Marius are you basically disagreeing with Canova and Cabral?

Skuj wrote:

Wiz wrote:

There is a significant anaerobic contribution present at 100% vVO2max.

I agree with that statement. Perhaps we are debating semantics? Significant yes. But "well within the anaerobic zone"? No. Slightly anaerobic yes. Deeply anaerobic no.

Perhaps it's all semantics, but if we think of "slightly anaerobic" as the level slightly above the absolute blood lactate at which it starts to accumulate, I would suggest "slightly anaerobic" would be in the 5-7mM range. At vVO2max, lactate is typically in the 10-14mM range, so I would say it's "well within the anaerobic range".

american+lydiard= not knowing pooply do!

specificity is always the goal. But it is a good idea to start with overall less specific work and as your training progresses it should get more and more specific.

so you may see people do lt, vo2 ,but (outside of your club runner) professional runners get more and more specific. its no different than weight lifting. all the books say squats and bench. but of course at the end of the season you are doing sport specific movement based resistance training.