Really, whats the difference phisiologicly?
Really, whats the difference phisiologicly?
Great question. Back in the day we didn't know any of this shit. You ran just about as hard as you could every repeat but always saved a little to rip on off on the last one which was balls to the wall. I guess that would be what is referred to as an anaerobic interval workout.
Example would be 5 times a 1000 in 2:35 to 2:45 with 4 minutes recovery.
Nowadays you hear a lot of success with guys who train these vo2 max type workouts. There is always going to be two different types of good runners. Those who are talented enough to do just about anything training wise and still run well. And those who have to do things a little differently. For a lot of guys a lot of aneorobic sessions run them into the ground. A different type of workout would be like 6 times 1 mile with 1 minute recovery in 4:55- 5:10.
I never thought that anything was gained in doing repeats slower than race pace but I never proved to be star who knew all the answers.
My question would be that there probably is a mix of both types of sessions in a competitive cycle. What is considered the best ratio? One of each type per week? Or one type for so many weeks then another for so many weeks.
Or just re-read Jack Daniels book again with Bob Kennedy on the cover. He probably explains it best.
re-read? How do you know i read it the first time?
The energy spectrum is continuous, so therefore aerobic melds into anerobic, so to speak. George Brooks, PhD and others have shown that there is always O2 present even during the hardest bouts of exercise, but the muscles are demanding more energy than can be produced in the slower aerobic process. Hence, as the exercise intensity reaches high levels, energy is produced more and more by anerobic processes.
In practical terms for runners, anaerobic intervals are basically at any pace that is faster than your 3k race pace. VO2 max is achieved at a less than all-out speed, roughly 80% of maximum sprinting speed or at about the pace one generally runs the 3k in. Verenique Bilat, PhD of France recently showed that VO2 max pace may be at a faster pace than we thought. She said that the pace that you can run an all-out 6 minute run is the fastest pace that you can run to achieve your Max VO2. Any faster and your body becomes inefficient and actually reduces the amount of O2 used by the body a little bit.
Regarding training, if you want to maximize effect for VO2 max, run longer repeats in the 2k-5k race pace range. Anyting between 3 and 6 minutes is helpful. I personally believe that 3k pace is best and longer repeats are ideal. When doing anaerobic intervals, if you are a distance runner, just run them at 1500m-mile pace, jog the same distance as your last rep and then go again until you are tired, but not wasted. I suggest 300m-600m reps.
How often you do each is an individual matter, to an extent. Some people adapt well to fast running workouts, others are destroyed by them. Do one, recover with sufficient aerobic mileage and do another just 3-4 days later and track your response after that to see if that type of training makes you better or worse. In most cases, a little goes a long way. It is better to be consistent and do workouts that are within your ability range than try to be a super-hero. Caveat, never forget that the one thing that all runners doing the 3k and longer need: distance work all year long.
All of what you said is basicly what my coach tells me. No one workout works only one energy system. A guy who does anaerobic intervals every day is going to have more aerobic fitness than someone who sits on the couch all day.
Im just now starting my true "interval phase" with 2 workouts a week. A non race week will have a Wed. long interval workout ex. 2000,1600,1200,800 with 3:30,3:00, and 2:30 recoveries, or 3-4 mile with 2:40-3:00 rest. And a Sat. short interval workout. 20-24X200 with 100m recovery jog, 16X300 with 100m rec jog, 12X400 with 60 sec recovery. The total volume remains the same but the paces and recoveries are the only difference. A 3 mile xc race with a hard mile or 4-5 200's afterwards will take the place of a long interval workout. Just wasnt sure where VO2 max turns into anaerobic. I guess it all just sort of melts together.
I think the difference is in the rest. If you are recovering fully before the next interval than you should stay in the aerobic zone. You may dip into the anaerobic zone towards the end of the workout but if the rest is high you should stay mostly aerobic. Anything like 1:1 rest or greater should do the trick. Now, if you are running quick and taking short recoveries than you are going to go anaerobic quicker. If you do something like 6x1k with 1:30 recovery at 5k pace you will get some serious lactic acid build up in the legs. That's how I interpret it, JTupper is the man to ask here.
A long recovery tends to allow you to run more anaerobically. A short recovery forces your body to use your aerobic system more (and slows you up to paces that it can support). Do your 6x 1k with 2:00 recovery and then slowly work on reducing the recovery and you are working your aerobic system more.
With anaerobic intervals are you training your ability to run anaerobically, to run with a high level of blood lactate. You can see this on a graded exercise test on a treadmill. Once you reach Vo2max the workload is increased without an increase in Vo2max, so you are working anaerobically, you are using lactate as a fuel source. This shows up as an RER value well over 1.0 The longer and faster you can run with a very high RER then better your anaerobic system is. If one person finishes the test with an RER of 1.26 and another finishes with an RER of 1.15 the first person is better an running anaerobically. Running fast and long anaerobically is a must have for 800/1500 runners and for the end of longer races like the 5k/10k. The more blood lactate you can tolerate the better you will be able to run at the end of races and in middle distance races. In order to train this lactate tolerance you have to run very fast (faster than 3k pace) with long rests (around 1.5 times run time). If you take shorter rests it's likely you won't be able to run very fast as you will have built up too much blood lactate too soon. During these workouts you're almost at a constant state of high blood lactate.
Alan
Good post. Alan, what distance of interval would you use and how much total mileage for the session?
Bump
I would use distances from 200-1000 meters for a total distance of 2-3 miles. 10 x 400 would be a great workout.
Alan
Alan is right, but I think Lydiard is on to something when he points out that those type of purely anaerobic workouts are the icing on the cake - they take effect quickly after a few sessions and then stop paying dividends quickly (Lydiard says 4 weeks - I think I am inclined to think just from observation that folks get benefit for longer, but I am not sure how much longer, before the loss of other variables offsets the anaerobic improvement). I think Malmo, Lydiard, JK, Hodge and many others have hit on the best combination for the year-round racer - paying most attention to higher volume overall and higher volume workouts most of the time BUT also doing SOMETHING about your speed with some regularity (JK's alactic intervals or like in Malmo's log where he does a decent-volunme AM run and in the PM does a relatively short set of 200's with full recovery and stops the workout when it starts becoming a fatigue liability that will cut into the next day's volume) so that when you are approaching a real peak race you have both the nervous system training (from the alactic "something about your speed" work) and the strength to put together to do anaerobic power-type intervals effectively for a realtively shorter period until you start losing the strength you built up. I have accidentally done this without knowing what I was doing (just blindly following others I was training with (and had good results in the past - but once the peak comes, it is over in my experience and you have to know when to quit). When I have been in programs that started the sorts of intervals early for indoor, I improved quickly but always peaked in March and just couldn't squeeze any more improvement out of them without going back into a base/strength phase.
From having not "done something about my speed" for so long from injuries and understimation, I can tell now how important it is, that is, the inability to run a 5k fast enough (in terms of the nervous system's ability to fire for a prolonged time) to max out the cardio aspect of such a short race. You get in a situation where you can't race a 5k much faster than you can run a 10k without it - or even a 10k much faster than a 10-miler.
Regarding longer intervals that are not anaerobic Mark Wetmore says: 'There is complete recovery between between each hard effort so that no significant oxygen debt is accured.'
Regarding anaerobic intervals Wetmore says: 'short, fast repeats with precious little recovery'.
Regarding aerobic capacity training, Coe writes: 'Adequate recovery and rest between running intervals is essential to permit reduction of blood acidity toward resting levels. As fitness improves the rest may be decreased. Subsequent recovery will occur typically within 4-5min.
Regarding longer intervals Jack Daniels writes: 'Amount of time between repeated runs should be equal to or a little less than the previous workbout'
Regarding anaerobic training, Lydiard writes: 'You run until the oxygen debt incurred makes you tired, indicating you have lowered your blood pH'
When I talk about doing higher volume and longer intervals with shorter recovery, I am not talking about running them at the sort of paces that are involved in longer anaerobic intervals. Say, for a 15:10 5k runner, for example, running 12 x 2 min. hard with a decent 1 min jog recovery at :73 pace is a completely different workout than doing 6 x 800m with a 3 min. recovery in 2:17 each. I think both are important workouts - one builds strength and can be of benefit year-round and integrate into an overall strength/mileage plan the other is quite stressful and is very important but can't be done year round and still accumulate benefit. I do both sorts of things at different times of the year (though, admittedly, not enough of the latter at the proper time).
I don't have a copy handy, but I am curious as to how Pfitzenger makes this distinction as I remember his book as seeming to offer the best explanation>
Forgive me if I'm still fuzzy, but I'm trying to
understand what's being discussed here :
short intervals = aerobic workout (VO2 max) ?
- is this because your not giving your anaerobic system time to kick in ?
longer intervals = anaerobic workout ?
- is this because your anaerobic system kicks in at some point ?
The start of the thread asked about anaerobic intervals. The terms anaerobic and aerobic can be misleading because during any type of run both systems are used to some extent. A better name for anaerobic intervals is lactate tolerance intervals. The goal here is to increase your lactate tolerance, that is to increase your ability to run long/fast with a high level of blood lactate. There seems to be two approaches mentioned to do this: very fast intervals with little rest or very fast intervals with longer rests. The problem with the first one is that with little rest you won't be able to run many intervals thus the total time spent running at a high blood lactate may be reduced. You could slow the speed down but then again the blood lactate won't be as high and you'll miss the whole point of the workout. In the second example you're running very fast intervals and getting longer than normal rests. The problem here comes from the short rest in that the blood lactate during the recovery may drop too much so that you have less of a carry over effect going into the next intervals.
Examples: Fast intervals/short recovery: Lets say blood lactate reaches 8 mM during the interval drops down very little during the short rest then shoots up to 9 mM during the next interval, then 10 mM, then 11 mM (these are purely fictitious numbers). Fast intervals/long recovery: Lets say blood lactate reaches 8 mM during the interval but drops down quite a bit during the long rest then shoots up only back to 8 mM during the next interval, then 8 mM again, then 8 mM, then 8 mM, then 8 mM, then 8 mM. The logic I'm working with here is that the total combined blood lactate is nearly the same in both workouts (37 vs 40) but during the first workout there is only 3 repetitions compared to 5 repetitions in the second workout so more time is spent at a high blood lactate during the second workout.
Workout examples:
20x200 faster than mile pace w/200 recovery
10x400 faster than mile pace to mile pace w/300 recovery
5x800 mile pace w/600 recovery
3-4x1000 mile pace to slower than mile pace w/800 recovery
Unless you're a 800/1500 runner these workouts shouldn't be the main focus of your training. In fact doing a workout like this once a month during the in-season would be just fine. In the normal 3 months in-season I could see a runner doing the 200s in the pre-season (in fact there's no reason why a runner couldn't do 200s like this year round once a month), 400s at the end of the first month, 800s at the end of the second month, and 1000s about 2 weeks before the peak competition.
Alan
"The goal here is to increase your lactate tolerance, that is to increase your ability to run long/fast with a high level of blood lactate"
And I think another function they serve is to teach your nervous system how to run fast. I have found that doing short intervals hard doesn't necessarily translate into being able to maintain turnover for longer distances in terms of having a nervous systems that can execute that rapid turnover for several minutes at a time. No matter how many sets of 200's I do, I feel like in a 5k sometimes that I am almost running a fartlek - trying to get my legs to turnover as fast as my lungs will allow and my form starts falling apart, so I relax and slow then realize I am not really hurting and then try to nudge in the spurs again. I am not sure that 200's are adequate to solve this problem but perhaps the longer intervals Alan describes with enough recovery so that cardiovascular distress doesn't interfere with the ability to run them fast enough to train your nervous system to run smoothly for extended periods at those fast paces.
I find the 5k is a tough race to master for a given overall fitness level because so many variables have to be sharpened that are hard to bring together in the same training block. It seems to require alot of finesse to get every element together optimally at the same time.