If Tim Noakes "Central Governor" Model is Correct AND there is NO Lactate Threshold, HOW should this effect my train

hey Tinman can you reply to me as well?

that's pretty much it isn't it light. Next would be how to put those 3 factors into a training program.

This page might have a lot of useful stuff on it

http://s12.invisionfree.com/Hunter_Reports/index.php?showforum=38

But this more recent article comparing the base training for the top 20 of all time 800m runners is fantastic

http://z12.invisionfree.com/Hunter_Reports/index.php?s=739b534f97073694da5d5bddc11fd7d1&showtopic=432

from Sim:

"This is great stuff thanks mate. I would like to question a few things to help further my understanding if you don't mind.

Firstly one thing i like to do is compare where things are so linking HR to other values is great, please more of that :)

[quote]Tinman wrote:

LT = Lactate Treshold;

MLSS = Maximum Lactate Steady State."

---------------------------------------

I prefer to think of LT as the intensity (velocity or power - watts or joules) achieved at 1 mmol above resting value. So, for most people that would be about 2 mmols of lactate per liter per minute. HR for that would depend upon fitness. But, generally, that places a person in the 80-85% of HR max range. Unfit runners will be well below that but your average 17-21 minute runner will be right in that range in most cases, I have found. In my opinion, one should use 80% of HR max when not in good shape and 85% of HR max when in fairly good shape when doing LT work tempo work.

I prefer to think of MLSS as peak constant lactate during a 30-minute test, if I want to compare studies or consider the physiology of performance, but in reality I don't use it as a coach. Instead, I use 87-92% of HR max when training runners. I think it is by far more practical and useful. When they are not in good shape (condition), I use the lower end of the range. When they are on good shape, I use the upper end of the range as the measuring tool for training intensity.

Take care,

Tinman

runfastcoach@gmail.com

excellent.

so resting blood lactate is about 1mmol

LT is about 2mmol, HR 80-85%/max

MLSS is about 4mmol, HR 87-92%/max

Where would VO2max be in relation to these?

Also where would the AeT be?

cheers again

sim wrote:

excellent.

so resting blood lactate is about 1mmol

LT is about 2mmol, HR 80-85%/max

MLSS is about 4mmol, HR 87-92%/max

Where would VO2max be in relation to these?

Also where would the AeT be?

cheers again

------------------------

sim -

Yes, you are right.

VO2 max is 99-100% of HR max. But, you can train VO2 max when unfit at much lower intensities. Very fit runners must train close to peak HR to elevate VO2 max. And, even then, there are limitations in how much oxygen can be transported to muscles because cardiac output (heart capacity) has upper limits in chamber size, pericardial sac viscosity and pressure, etc.

Lactate at VO2 max is typically above 8 mmols of lactate per liter per minute. The actual number varies quite a bit. Most 800m-1500m runners I've tested reach 10-13 mmols at VO2 max while 5k-10k runners typically are 8-10 and marathon runners even lower, it seems.

*I've tested 1500m runners who reached nearly 15 mmols at VO2 peak, by the way.

ON the other extreme, runners who could not get above 6 mmols of lactate at VO2 peak. One master's runner reached just over 5 mmols at VO2 peak the firt time I tested him (on a Monday) and 4 days later he reached over 8 mmols. During the time-frame between tests he mostly rested or jogged around. (Note; on Monday, after the first test, I suggested he should more carbohydrate foods and back off on his training so that he'd perform better next time.) I didn't know that the next day he'd schedule a second VO2 max test - for Friday!)

AeT is an acronym for aerobic threshold (by Mader, Madsen, and later by McClellan, Whipp, et al, as I recall - I'd have to look it up to refresh my memory). It originally meant 2 mmols of lacate while anaerobic threshold (an outdated term) meant 4 mmols of lacate per liter per minute. So AeT by the original defintion was akin to what I call LT - the workload associated with 1 mmol above resting value.

Resting lacates typically are near 1 mmols (.9-1.2 being common). When you eat affects this reading, though. I once drank a Coca Cola about 45 minutes before a blood draw and my resting lactate was over 2 mmols. One way to get rid of that problem is either make sure you don't eat in the 4 hours before the test or you simply jog about 10 minutes before the test and your lactate will drop down near 1 mmol.

Cheers,

Tinman

Hi tinman,

to continue from before if i may:

resting blood lactate is about 1mmol (0.9-1.2)

AeT/LT* is about 2mmol, HR 80-85%/max

MLSS** is about 4mmol, HR 87-92%/max

VO2max is about 8mmol HR max (8-12/15mmol)

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intenisty bove that which it does not 80-85% of max HR)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies at a constant rate which is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

My next question would be how does HR compate to intensity?

Also how does one determine max HR?

cheers

Sim

(amended)

Hi tinman,

to continue from before if i may:

resting blood lactate = 1mmol (0.9-1.2)

AeT/LT* = 2mmol, HR 80-85%/max

MLSS** = 4mmol, HR 87-92%/max

VO2max = 8mmol HR 100%max (8-12/15mmol)

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intensity above that which it does not; roughly 80-85% of max HR)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies to a constant level at which work is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

-------------------------------------------------------

How does that look?

My next question would be how does HR compate to intensity?

Also how does one determine max HR?

cheers

Sim

(apologies 2nd amendment)

Hi tinman,

to continue from before if i may:

resting blood lactate = 1mmol HR 40%/max? --(0.9-1.2)

AeT/LT* = 2mmol, HR 80-85%/max --(is there a mmol range?)

MLSS** = 4mmol, HR 87-92%/max --(a range?)

VO2max = 8mmol HR 100%max (8-12/15mmol)

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intensity below that which it does not accumulate)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies at a constant level at which work is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

-------------------------------------------------------

How does that look?

My next question would be how does HR compate to intensity?

Also how does one determine max HR?

cheers

Sim[/quote]

from sim:

-----------------------------------

"My next question would be how does HR compate to intensity?"

------------------------------------

Reply:

HR and intensity tend to rise similarly but % HR max and % VO2 max are different. They are far apart at the lower intensities and merge as the near 100%. At 60% of VO2 max HR is around 70% of max., for example, but by time 95% of VO2 max is reached % HR max is just a couple of percent different (higher).

--------------------------------------

"Also how does one determine max HR?"

--------------------------------------

Reply:

If you have no health problems and you are under age 40, I recommend doing a 20 minute warm up run, some easy striders, and then running about 4 minutes at full effort. After about 3 minutes you'll likely be within 2-3 beats of maximum and by time you reach 4 minutes you'll have peaked. Look at your heart rate in the first 10-15 seconds after you finish, too. It might rise just a tad. Jog a nice long, slow cool down. Note; you need to test your HR max. when you are fresh, hydrated, and well-nourished with carbohydrate food sources.

A practical tip: if you train when fatigued or low on carbs then it's likely your CURRENT HR max. will be lower than when you are fresh. One reason using HR percentages can be tenuous is because of the reason I just stated.

Always, always a runner mist account for variables if using strict numbers or percentages. In essence, all good training must balance the truly measurable things like pace, power, etc., with perceived exertion.

Personally, I like to make running effort simple and use a scale of 1 to 5. 1 is light, 2 is easy, 3 is moderate, 4 is somewhat hard, and 5 is hard. So, if I am doing base distance running, I'll mostly use levels 1 and 2. If I am shooting for tempo work, I'll use level 3, which is moderate. If I am doing MLSS work I'll be at level 4. If I am pushing VO2 max I'll be at level 5. You could double the scale I presented and that would give you smaller increments. The old Borg Scale works great, as does the Noble scale (a modified Borg scale that Noble, a student of Borg's, created).

Cheers,

Tinman

thanks again,

I guess i am mainly looking at the elite end, mostly because that is where my interest lies but also because the variability in that population is smaller.

Can you help me fill out the remainder of the table or to amend it in some way?

-------------------------------------------------------

rest = 1mmol(0.9-1.2), HR ??/max

AeT/LT*= 2mmol(??), HR 80-85%/max

MLSS** = 4mmol(??), HR 87-92%/max

VO2max = 8mmol(8-12), HR 100%max^

*when blood lactate begins to accumulate (at an intensity below that which it does not accumulate)

**when blood lactate accumulation steadies at a constant level at which work is repeatable for a significant length of time (30-60min)

^a sliding scale where HR=VO2max=intensity at maximum effort whereas 60%VO2max=70%HR and 95%VO2max=97%HR.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I am confused about 100% VO2max being equal to maximum HR being equal to maximum intensity. Can you help?

It would also be good to add the paces for each level. What do you know about that?

And i agree with you about choosing levels of effort over physiological bases. I assure you i am doing this the other way around. Trying to see whether the paces i use are reflected in the physiology. Thanks for the refs by the way.

sim

sim wrote:

1. What is the difference between LT and MLSS and Lydiard's 'best aerobic pace'?

Sim

SIM:

It's been a lot of "fun".

I'm no Steve, Spaniel or Tinman but I'll chip in my 2 cents for just this question.

I don't know about other programs but it seems the difference would be that Lydiard's best aerboci pace would be a lot more "feeling-based" than number-oriented.

Oh, and someone commented about Roger Bannister's opinion on Snell's training... Bannister, of course, as the first man to break four-minutes for the mile and naturally I have great admiration for him; but it's not like he coached many great British runners or anything. You can argue with Snell but he absolutely without any doubt believes in Lydiardism training and still is a strong advocate of it. He didn't like distance work much but he still did it and he believes he gained the benefits from it and he doesn't think he did what he did without it. In fact, he would tell you that, if anything, he thinks Arthur track schedule being somewhat bogus (which I don't completely agree) and marathon conditioning is all-important. And for someone who says his mile time was weak; just think how many mile races he ran at his prime. Incidentally, his 1500m at Tokyo Olympics was the first 1500m race he ran. And the mile world record at Wanganui was his first "serious" attempt for the mile (this is a bit weak argument but...) after he joined the Lydiard school. No rabits, no WR bonus, on the grass track. You may want to take those things in consideration as well.

It seems most training programs have a large element of "feel" to them-particularly tempo runs. It's about feeling the flow and running smoothly yet powerfully as much as it is about blood Mmol concentration or whatever. What is the best aerobic pace with respect to 5k pace? I have seen Snells logs that say he ran 5:30-6:00 pace a bunch, so is 1:00-1:30+ slower then 5k pace a good estimation or is that too fast?

I disagree with a lot of what Bannister has said (such as that "no runner, before or since, has trained as hard as Sebastion Coe did under his father"), but of course you need to respect a man that did what he has done, both in athletics and medicine. Which reminds me, Snell and Coe have a lot in common. Both thought of themselves as 800m runners who also ran the 1500m/mile and happened to win Olympic Gold/set world records. I guess the fact that Snell had a very similar 800m/mile ratio to Coe despite his stature is a tribute to his training...

When I had a gig with Peter in Japan last month, he had a chart of training paces on his PPT presentation. He based that on VO2Max more than anything else. For someone with VO2Max of 70 (his was 71), "easy pace", or 1/4 effort, would be 4.4 min./km which I think is about 7-minute-pace. Hard effort, or 3/4 effort, would be 3.8 min./km. He would start out his 22-miler at around 7-min. pace and worked his way down to 2:10. If he started out his pace based on minute-per-mile, this wouldn't have happened.

Interesting. Slower then I would have thought but it clearly worked!

thanks Nobby

it has also tended towards the nasty, which should disappear!

I want feel to be the basis of my coaching. I think it is what i am doing. This little table is not going to be the rules i base things on, it is going to be for comparison. I guess i a trying to get a feel for this extremely large middle distance world.

Can you be descriptive of the feelings attached to the 'best aerobic pace'? What is it that one is trying to pressure? Those paces you mentioned in the second post seem close together. Where would they fit on the little table? Also is 4.4min/km 4 minutes 40 seconds? Thanks.

For what it is worth i see Snell as awesome and i think the synergy between such an athlete and such a coach in Lydiard can only be mirrored by Elliot and Cerutty. That is in my experience. (Petrov/Bubka outside MD)

There is a thread asking who has the most powerful stride ever. Juantorena and Snell appear to be the favourites and looking at video footage of both i would agree. I just wonder how Juantorena would have gone with Lydiard setting his program and correcting that inefficient forward lean he had.:)

sim

fUrCeOsNhN wrote:

...I have seen Snells logs that say he ran 5:30-6:00 pace a bunch, so is 1:00-1:30+ slower then 5k pace a good estimation or is that too fast?

Where did you see Snell's log? I'm just curious because he presented his own training leading up to 3 world records in 1961 (actually WRs were early 1962). His fastest Waiatarua (22-miles) was done in 2:11 so that's pretty quick; but he presented his "usual" marathon conditioning and said his Thursday 18-miler was usually in almost 2-hours. His hardest workout might be a 10-miler in 55 minutes but he only did it once a week (when he's in shape). He said he would start out Waitak in 2:30 or so and worked his way down to 2:15~2:10. In other words, the pace came to him; he didn't chase the pace based on his 5k time.

Sim:

Great to have made an acquaintance. Read (or skimmed) many of your comments with great interest. A lot went over my head though! ;o) I competed in Canberra decathlon championships in 1978 and I was 6th! Well, 7 entered and one dropped out. I at least led the 1500m!

I knew someone was going to bring this up; 4.4 min./km is 4:24/km. I know, I hated it myself but Peter did a quick calculation during the tour (we had 3 clinics in Japan) and that's what he had on his chart. It should be 7-minute pace, is it not?

As far as "feeling-based" is concerned; I've asked this many times to Arthur, asked Peter as well... When it comes down to it, we could not describe it any better than: "Run till pleasantly tired, knowing you could have run a bit faster or a bit further if you had to. If you are completely 'stuffed' next day, then you did it too much..." For time trial, Dick Brown might say, "Challenged, but in controll." I often tell my runners, when doing some long reps, "Think about the start of a 5k race..." or, for the last rep, "Okay, think like we're coming around the final bridge of XXX 5k race, you have a half a mile to go..." To me, this seems to work very well. Depends on the stage of development, or their biorhythm (aren't you proud of me that, as a foreigner, I can spell "rhythm" correctly!?), the actual pace might be different. And besides, they NEED to know the "feel" in the actual race. Nobody is checking their blood during the race to tell you your lactate level.

Nobby

great to have (cyber) met you as well. It would have been good to get to your clinic with Snell recently and to have met you in person. Do you have another in the pipeline? Love the fact you are a decathlete! I was in Canberra in December with a bunch of my young decathletes for a competition. Great venue.

This whole feelings based training is the real key to high performance i believe. I must admit i am finding it impossible without experiencing it myself. The memories from my teenage years are not sufficing. It seems there is only one choice! To run.

If you were to equate the mins/km to any of the physiologically based thresholds where would they be?

sim

"Here is Peter Snell's Base Building prior to the 1964 Olympics:

Snell's Base Building from 1964 (between April 18 and June 28):

15 miles, 1:30-1:40 (~6-6:30's)

11 miles, 1:08 (~6:10's)

18 miles, 1:55 (~6:25's)

10 miles, 54-55:00 (~5:30's)

15 miles, 1:30-1:40 (~6-6:30's)

22 miles (~6-6:45's)

10 miles, 54-55:00 (~5:30 pace)"

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Special/LydiardResponses.htm

"Long even-paced running at strong speed increases strength and endurance, even when it is continued close to the point of collapse."