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

Skuj wrote:

Obviously a sprinter must sprint, and a Marathoner must do long runs.

Over the last few years, with the success of Phitzies book and some others, I have noticed a greater surge towards "VO2max" workouts and "LT" sessions. I understand how these are physiologically important.

But there seems to be a surge away from something that used to be more valued: Pacework For The Goal Distance.

Over the last few months I've noted more and more comments like a 10k-er saying "10k pace isn't in that really usefull zone" or a Marathoner saying "Marathon Pace does absolutely nothing for me."

Since when did "Goal Pace" fall so far out of fashion? Is Horwill and his 5-pace theory "so Seventies"? Is Canova and his Event Based training not catching on?

Isn't 2x3000m at 10k pace more important for a 10k runner than a classic VO2max 12x400m with 1min recovery or a 30min tempo at 15-21k pace?

I believe in the multipacing models, and we cannot isolate one particular workout, but, in a nutshell, shouldn't the CORE of training be sessions that explore Goal Pace for the Goal Distance? Shouldn't they be The Most Important Sessions, and "Physiology be damned"?

Discuss.

(PS: I was just reviewing The Grand Locked Thread with Mr's Cabral and Canova et al. There's a bit of garbage and infighting here and there from various well known letsrun personalities, but Damn!, that thing is the best document I have ever seen on Training. I think I'll print it all and make my own book, before wejo starts successfully charging to view it.)

Cheers

Darren Skuja

http://www.cvrr.ca

Renato Canova wrote:

Skuj, of course the top runners of 800m must be fast, but the question is "how much fast", and "how much resistant".

I give you an example, looking for the top 80 all-time for 400, 800 and 1500m :

400 800 1500

10 44.05 1:42.62 3:29.29

20 44.20 1:42.98 3:30.18

30 44.30 1:43.22 3:30.77

40 44.38 1:43.38 3:31.13

50 44.46 1:43.57 3:31.49

60 44.51 1:43.70 3:31.76

70 44.58 1:43.88 3:32.06

80 44.62 1:43.95 3:32.37

How many athletes are in both 400 and 800 ? Juantorena only.

How many athletes are in 800 / 1500 ? Many.

So, an athlete able running 1:43.0 and 3:30, for having the same level of speed (looking for his international position) had to run 44.20, and this is not possible. So, in any case, they are surely FAST, but their speed is not at the same level of their SPECIFIC ENDURANCE.

Methodologically speaking, IS IT POSSIBLE RUNNING VERY FAST THE SHORTER DISTANCE OF THE MAIN DISTANCE THAT YOU PREPARE, NOT THE CONTRARY.

This is true for all the events. A lot of long runners of 10,000 improve when decide to prepare HM. A lot of runners of 1500 improve when move on 3000m too, WITHOUT REDUCING THE SPEED OF THEIR FASTEST TESTS.

The phylosophy of training is very simple : NEVER WE HAVE TO REPLACE ONE TYPE OF TRAINING WITH ANOTHER, BUT WE HAVE TO ADD WHAT WE DON'T DO.

In my life, I had a lot of athletes, from different Countries, coming to me already with very good PB. We must always remember THAT A PB OF AN ATHLETE IS DONE BECAUSE OF 2 REASONS : HIS TALENT (and we cannot do anything in this direction, this is a gift of God, Mama and Papa. Who doesn'have, cannot have), and HIS TRAINING. So, when we want that some athlete can improve, WE MUST NOT CHANGE WHAT HE DID, BUT ADD WHAT WE DIDN'T DO.

If I see a talented athlete able running 1:45 and 3:35, using a lot of speed and very little endurance, and I see that he's talented for moving to longer distances, I work for changing his mentality, and, step by step, I put in his training something extensive, at high speed. So, my goal for the next year is not to run 1:44, but 1:45 again and 3:31. After his 3:31, the next year can run easy 1:44 (some example : Mansour Bilal, or Rashid Ramzi, and in the past Cram, Aouita, William Chirchir, Bahla).

Look the example of Paula Radcliffe. She was, for years, the most aggressive runner of 5000 / 10000m, because her lack of final speed. She was always in front af the races, but, with the Ethiopians, when there were 4 athletes in the last lap, she was no. 4. So, the solution it was to move to longer distances.

Paula spent, if I well remember, 5 or 6 years for moving her PB in 3000 from 8:31 to 8:28, using a lot of speed for becoming faster in the last lap. She NEVER became faster.

After moving to long distances, of course with the correct system of training (not long run only, but extension of the intensity), she ran London Marathon in 2002 in about 2:18. That's was in April. In June, her first race on track of the season, she ran 3000m in 8:23. Somebody can think that the long run was damageous for 3000m ? If you have 5.0 of improvement, suddenly, after preparing ALSO (not ONLY) Marathon, and 3.0 in 5 years THINKING TO PREPARE THE SPECIFIC EVENT, which is the reason ?

The reason is that YOU WERE ABLE TO ENHANCE THE SPECIAL BASE FOR YOUR SPECIFIC TRAINING. When you have more endurance, if you are able to maintain the same top speed that you have, AUTOMATICALLY YOU RUN FASTER THE SHORTER DISTANCES.

So, I want to emphatize the importance of the AEROBIC TRAINING for supporting the SPECIFIC TRAINING : may be that there is not a DIRECT influence on the performance, but there is of sure a DIRECT INFLUENCE on the QUANTITY OF SPECIFIC TRAINING. More quantity of specific. more specific endurance. But, for doing it, YOU NEED TO INCREASE YOUR SPECIAL ENDURANCE.

jtupper wrote:

If you look at the R (respiratory exchange ratio) that is produced during different intensities of running, this will give you the breakdown of CHO and fat used as fuel. If burning only CHO the R value is 1.00 (R is arrived at by dividing VCO2 by VO2 and when using only carbo for fuel you produce 1 molecule of CO2 for every molecule of O2 used in the chemical equation. When burning only fat, the ratio is .70. So looking at a person's R value tells you what is being used as fuel. At rest we all tend to have an R value of about .85, which indicates 50% of each type of fuel. When running easily the R value tends to stay in the .85-.90 range. At typical marathon pace the R is in the area of .92 to .95. When running about threshold pace the R is close to 1.00 (maybe .98 or so; I need to look at some threshold tests and don't have it on the tip of my tongue). Bad news is that you only have about enough stored carbohydrate fuel to make about 17 miles on nothing but carbohydrate (R of 1.00). On the other hand with an R of about .92 you can make it the full 26 miles because the fuel is not all carbohydrate. Anyway, you can figure, if you run with an R of .85, you should be able to make about 34 miles (if you accept 17 as the 100% carbo limit, this suggests twice that far on 50%). I have a table that suggests how far you can get when functioning with various R values. Then there is the matter of taking in some fuel during the run and how much farther you might expect to get when at an R that is higher than the one that won't let you get 26 miles. Naturally the data presented certainly may vary some, but I hope this gives an idea of what runenrs are up against. It certainly should make it a little clear why going too fast leads to bonking before the finish, because you will bonk when reduced to only fat as fuel.

It does seem an R between .92 and .96 would be possible, if some energy is taken in during the rce. However, looking back at the data I have (but only on 6 runners) I found that the R drops steadily over the course of the 2+ hours that we did the testing, with values dropping steadily from an average of .93 (30 minutes into the run) to an average of .86 at the 2-hour point and .83 during the final 20 minutes , all while still going at the same pace and not feeling that bad (1 guy was hurting and had .81 toward the end, but I think it was more a heat problem than energy.) Looks like to body does sense a loss of stored glycogen and increases the fat contribution to try to conserve glycogen. So pace was held constant even during the drop in R. You must get expired air to get an R value so there would have to be some way of connecting R with perceived effort, which doesn't seem possible if these runners we tested all kept the same pace up while R was dropping. We didn't ask for periodic ratings of perceived exertion. I imagine this is a good area to do some research in, and how low must the R go before actually finding it necessary to slow down. Naturally being able to run a good pace with a lower R value would be good, but another research project necessary to figure that out.

Relative to the question about no longer hard runs in my elite program, I agree with the post that referred to the combined MP + T + MP + T running that is quite demanding and lasts a long time. I guess it depends on what is considered a hard long run, but always considered that MP+T thing about as hard as you can get and still be long