How many quality sessions can the body handle in one week?

Wellnow ... long time,

This is the question I responded to:

"Well what I've always wondered was about the recovery. If you do that 5x1k how is the body affected between a 30s rest or a 3m rest. Obviously a lactate acid buildup, but beside that. Is it not worth it to have such a long rest between reps? Obviously more time between reps also make the workout easier and you will recover quicker from it. Is there a place where I can read about or does anyone know a lot about the nature of recovery between reps?"

And that is the question I answered and then followed up on when prompted. I do know a fair bit about the physiology of the recovery between reps and the ensuing physiological response during subsequent intervals, therefore I commented.

Feel free to elaborate on the significance of stride length if you would like. You comment on stride rate, but to change stride rate, you also need to manipulate stride length, so, elaborate if you will.

You will note BTW, how I dismissed the lactate as inconsequential. I imagine you disagree.;)

Steve

Steve, as I mentioned yesterday on another thread, my comment on stride length is relevant to the OP's question about how many sessions per week and for how long.

Frequent sessions improve running economy, because the athltete learns to glide rather than bounce in their stride, and thus, strdie length gradually improves, leading to faster running for the same effort.

I agree about dismissing the lactate as inconsequential in a long session, and for the same reason, VO2 max is inconsequential too.

I belive that we reach a plateau of cardiovascular fitness very quickly with regular training, but improvements continue for many years because of improvements in running economy, whereby we gradually learn a more and more efficient stride.

So in answer to the original question, the hard day/easy day principle is a very good one, because it helps to improve stride efficiency which is the main attribute of the World's fastest runners, which slower runners lack.

I asked a similar question on another thread but didn't get a response....

Why can practitioners of other endurance sports like swimming, x-country skiing, biking etc. handle MANY more hard days per week (even with hard intervals) than runners can? Why do runners have to be so careful and burn out so easily compared to these other sports?

It seems that the limiting factor isn't the heart/cardiovascular system getting too stressed or having too much "lactic acid" in the blood because these other sports are getting their HR way up (and I presume lactate too) in their MANY intense sessions.

Is it just that there's more muscle damage to the legs in running? Is it something else (like the pounding destroying more red blood cells)?

Yes, in many cases, the legs can take a pounding in running. This is mainly from the eccentric muscle contractions which become a problem during sustained fast running or too much running down steep hills.

However, you can learn to do lots of fast workouts in each week by becoming more economical. This is why the top runners can do so many awesome workouts. Of course they do get sore legs often, as do cyclists and this requires a recovery period or a change of schedule. I think that one of the biggest mistakes an athlete can make is to follow a training schedule too rigidly, you have to be flexible to allow for those days when things are not flowing smoothly.

It's also true that lactate doesn't cause fatigue.

Actually, there is actually no such thing as production of lactic acid in your body at any time, this was and is a misunderstanding of biochemistry, which will take many decades to be redressed.

The question of red blood cells being damaged, foot strike hemolysis, is a debateable one. I don't believe it is a problem for most runners, since red blood cells are constantly being replaced in a healthy body. The old red blood cells are due to be replaced anyway, so you don't want too many of them circulating in your blood at any one time, because they are less efficient at oxygen transport than new red blood cells, ( this may be one reason why altitude training is effective, because it promotes the production of many new RBC'S)

Thanks, wellnow.

It would seem then that even during a base building phase, one should practice fairly often the movements and speeds associated with faster workouts and races to come later.

wellnow, I never took biochem, but how could there not be any lactic acid in the body? I assume you just meant "production of lactic acid"?...as there is a production of lactate (which can be used as a fuel to some degree I've read) and then when anaerobic processes occur the positively charged hydrogen ion attaches to the lactate and thus making it an "acid."

I agree with you...training schedules must be flexible- and faster workouts can be used almost every week out of the year to develop economy and muscle memory at race-pace.

Then the point of foot strike hemolysis...why doesn't it contribute to foot-strike anemia? Damaged red-blood cells can result in clinical anemia and it seems to be a problem with many runners....esp. the 100mile/week types. You can lose iron stores through other ways, but the foot strike impact is going to not only hurt your RBC count, but also bring your total hemoglobin down. The number of athletes on iron supplements as a result of anemia is higher than many would imagine.

running website:

http://www.geocities.com/sagecanaday/

face reality guys wrote:

3-4

3-4 here also

help me understand wrote:

Thanks, wellnow.

It would seem then that even during a base building phase, one should practice fairly often the movements and speeds associated with faster workouts and races to come later.

You're welcome. I agree with your statement.

It takes so long to develop a long efficient stride, that it is important not to get too far away from the mechanics involved in racing. I believe that some form of speed work is essential in base training in order to maintain a good stride length because this applies to all of our running paces.

It is true that the anaerobic processes, which are ocuring all of the time in our bodies, produce hydrogen ions.

It is also true that production of lactate consumes a hydrogen ion, but the lactate molecule can't give up its hydrogen ion into solution, thus it doesn't function as an acid. How other hydrogen ions follow lactate is a question which I am waiting to be resolved.

Regarding foot strike hemolysis, I am skeptical of anemia diagnoses of many athletes, who often have a "false anemia" whereby the amount of sweating that they do contributes to an increase in blood plasma, making the red blood cell volume (and hence hemaglobin count) appear to be low.

To properly evalutate an athletes iron stores, would take many tests over a long period of time, by a Doctor who really cares about accurate diagnosis. Without such proper diagnosis an athlete can be conned by nutritionists into parting with money for unnecessary supplements.

wellnow wrote:

I belive that we reach a plateau of cardiovascular fitness very quickly with regular training, but improvements continue for many years because of improvements in running economy, whereby we gradually learn a more and more efficient stride.

Since economy is less subject to improvement in cycling than in running, wouldn't cyclists see only minimal improvement after reaching an early fitness plateau?

That was a rhetorical question, because I do think that cyclists can make huge addtional gains after reaching an early plateau, that it has to do with stress adaptation rather than economy, and that the same adaptation applies to runners, although runners no doubt also improve through economy.

It seems to me that stress adaptation is more important than economy. Otherwise, cyclists wouldn't improve as much as runners do.

I have been thinking about this a lot over the past few days. I think that cyclists do make big gains in economy, just as runners do, just as rowers do, and tennis players etc etc.

All sports involve a very high degree of skill, and you can never be too skilled. Experienced cyclists sometimes refer to the art of pedalling. How else could Andy Hampsten have ridden as well as he did, with a VO2 max of just 66?

Regarding the question of stress adaptation, isn't this something we all have to learn also? Bike racing is exceptionally stressful and learning to cope with this must make a huge difference in a rider's ability to adapt to higher speeds.

My thoughts on running economy and the number of sessions per week are that we can just keep improving week after week, year after year if we do lots of consistent high intensity running, because our running action gets smoother with practice, and so we recover faster also.

Young distance runners need to be practising those 60 second laps over and over. It's such a cop out for young guys to say that African runners are more talented, you are only as talented as your fitness, and speed endurance is a learning process as much as it is a physical process.