Is aerobic base training dead???

that's training for 5K to marathon.

Bob Schul disciple wrote:

I'd like to hear some informed criticism of the following post (Hadd?):

http://elitetrainingsolutions.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/aerobic-base-training-is-dead-the-scientific-proof/

... I understand the blog is not directed at distance runners per se, but considering training sucesses of Bob Schul who incorporated an interval based program, I wonder if we all need to re-examine what works in training for

Thanks, in advance, for your sincere interest and responses.

The article even states that it doesn't apply to cross-country and long distance running only to sports which require short bursts of speed, not sustained distance running.

1. Is there a place for 30 second sprints with long rests and other anaerobic work? YES, probably more so than most runners realize. Never lose sight of speed as speed effects everything.

2. Should we do away with sustained aerobic running? NO. There are adaptations that occur with sustained aerobic running that do not occur otherwise. Also, if short sprint training and just running fast everyday was the way to go then our training wouldn't have remained in the 1880s,

As an athlete who is a distance runner you really have two fitness levels to worry about:

1. General Running Fitness: What's the quickest way to get into shape? Sprints. Go to the track. Sprint the straights, jog the curves. This is the part of training most people forget about. You should do something for this anaerobic speed every single week of the year. Why? Because it teaches your body the fundamental basics of how to run effeciently. When most people start a running program they just try to run longer everyday. Your first run from an extended break should include sprints. This is make further runs easier. General Running Fitness would include base mileage, short sprints, hill repeats, and fast continuous runs.

2. Specific Running Fitness: Most of us do this very well. Most interval training, tempo runs, etc. This is running with a race based goal. In order for the specific running to be successful you need to have some general fitness behind it.

Go back to what Lydiard advised. He was big on incorporating short sprints year round. Go :15 on, 1:00 off. Full rest.

The big problem with current training theory is that it barely touches on resistance training. Every other sport on the face of the planet sees resistance training as key, yet running is still stuck in the 20th Century.

Why do you think that Torres chick could swim fast and keep up with those kids in the pool at age 40. Look at her body. That is the body of a woman who does some serious resistance training. Swimming and distance running have been held back by coaches stuck in the 20th Century.

Alan

Bob Schul disciple wrote:

I'd like to hear some informed criticism of the following post (Hadd?):

http://elitetrainingsolutions.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/aerobic-base-training-is-dead-the-scientific-proof/

... I understand the blog is not directed at distance runners per se, but considering training sucesses of Bob Schul who incorporated an interval based program, I wonder if we all need to re-examine what works in training for

Thanks, in advance, for your sincere interest and responses.

There's a lot more to success at racing than VO2max. When anyone succeeds at any level of the sport worth talking about while rejecting all aerobic training as this guy suggests, get back to me.

Thanks, Dan,

I did cite Bob Schul. His training was largely based on interval training, and he remains the last American Olympic champion at 5000 meters.

I'm not suggesting an "either/or" scenario -- rather, a question of degreesand priorities.

Alan -- thanks very much. I strongly agree with your notion of more resistance training for distance runners, and Dara torres certainly represents a great example of an athlete redefining her sport and her potential at over 40.

I just wonder if we are not spending a lot of training time on the roads inefficiently when we could alter out priorites to use our time better to get faster?

What do we mean when we are talking about resistance training here? Doing exercises with rubber tubbing or running up hills?

Personally Tudie, I would take an inclusive view on resistance training, meaning, anything from hill work to rubber tubbing to free weight training would apply.

Bob Schul was one of my subjects in a major research study and I understand a little about his and other trainng, and I also realize races under various conditions are won by a variety of runners. Bob won that race with his great kick. Would he have if the pace had been faster? We will never know. You can think of lots of races that are won by a particular person because of the conditions or how the race goes -- women's marathon in Beijing maybe? Another concern is use of the term "interval training." How many definitions of that are there? In the current discussion it sounds like interval training means anything that is not steady and relatively slow. It's always nice to see the results of studies that show us the way. Many try to prove why what we do works; others try to show us what to do. The question always becomes for whom does it work best?

Bob Schul disciple wrote:

I'd like to hear some informed criticism of the following post (Hadd?):

http://elitetrainingsolutions.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/aerobic-base-training-is-dead-the-scientific-proof/

... I understand the blog is not directed at distance runners per se, but considering training sucesses of Bob Schul who incorporated an interval based program, I wonder if we all need to re-examine what works in training for

Thanks, in advance, for your sincere interest and responses.

No, we don't need to re-examine what works in training. Roger Bannister showed that you can run a sub-4 mile using an interval-based approach. Likewise, Schul got down to 3:58 for the mile and 13:38 for 5k with his interval approach. If you have genetic potential, there is not denying that intervals can produce some fast times.

But running has advanced since then. The 10,000 meter world record is now back to back 13:09's! The 5,000 world record is 4:02 pace for each 1600!

Let's ask Bekele and Geb if aerobic base training is dead. I'd sooner listen to them than a guy who ran 13:38.

It is really really simple. Beyond simple. Yet people always want to complicate it:

What do the fastest distance runners in the world do?

They might have different types of speed workouts. They might periodize differently or not periodize at all. They might race with different frequency, do different types of cross training, etc.

But all of them, every single one do aerobic training. Period. Lydiard figured this out 50 years ago and still people don't get it.

Who has won an Olympic gold medal at a distance event with Mihaly Igloi type training since Schul himself? This was right around the time that Lydiards athletes and methods were taking the world by storm. You think the timing is just a coincidence?

They don't hand out gold medals for the best "scientifically proved" training program.

French researchers found that the addition of two weight-training sessions per week for 14 weeks significantly increased maximal strength and running economy while maintaining peak power in triathletes. Meanwhile, the control group – which only did endurance training – gained no maximal strength or running economy, and their peak power actually decreased (who do you think would win that all-out sprint at the finish line?). And, interestingly, the combined endurance with resistance training group saw greater increases in VO2max over the course of the intervention (2).

-Scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland found that replacing 32% of regular endurance training volume with explosive resistance training for nine weeks improved 5km times, running economy, VO2max, maximal 20m speed, and performance on a 5-jump test. With the exception of VO2max, none of these measures improved in the control group that just did endurance training (3). How do you think they felt knowing that a good 1/3 of their entire training volume was largely unnecessary, and would have been better spent on other initiatives?

-University of Illinois researchers found that addition of three resistance training sessions for ten weeks improved short-term endurance performance by 11% and 13% during cycling and running, respectively. Additionally, the researchers noted that “long-term cycling to exhaustion at 80% VO2max increased from 71 to 85 min after the addition of strength training” (4)

The take-home message is that running is more than just VO2max, anaerobic threshold, and a good pair of sneakers; it’s also about localized muscular endurance and nervous system efficiency. And, you can’t have strength endurance unless you’ve got strength. Build a solid foundation and you’ll be a complete runner.

The problem with that article is that the author doesn't realize that what he calls "anaerobic intervals" is actually aerobic training.

But then most people don't know the difference between aerobic and anaerobic anyway including 99.9% of letsrun posters.

However here is something to condider, I reckon that Haile Gebreselassie's aerobic capacity is likely to be lower than it was 10 years ago, so how does he run so fast?

Because the main improvements over time come not from improvements in aerobic capacity, they come from improvements in neuro-muscular coordination and contractility, in other words the ability to maintain an efficient powerful stride for longer.

That's the real truth people, that's what intelligent posters should be discussing. NOT AEROBIC DEVELOPMENT!!!!

Dear jtupper,

thanks so much for your time on this. My use the term "intervals" I suppose references a wide range of paces -- but I am interested in priorities of training: not to exclusion of all aerobic work, but just what percentile of time should really be devoted to it in contrast to work at threshhold paces and at anerobic paces. What one's goal distance is here I presume is a defining factor as well.

Schul seemed to accummulate quite a few miles doing intervals that were more often than not under 400 meters in length -- and often not at maximum effort. However, he seemed to have a strong aerobic base even though some proponents of traditional base training claim that anaerobic work will deteriorate one's aerobic base.

Who is right?

Sincere thanks.

Can you be more specific as to what strength/reistance training is? Upper body weights? Leg weights? Plyos? Sprints?

Bob Schul disciple, jtupper knows as well as I do that high intensity interval training is mostly aerobic in nature. However the term "anerobic intervals" used to describe this type of training is wrong.

This term is derived from the term "anaerobic threshold" which is a rather misleading term and has been replaced with "lactate threshold"

Howvever the notion that above this supposed threshold we are "going anaerobic" is false. You are breathing harder and harder at these paces because you are exhaling more and more carbon dioxide. You are NOT running out of oxygen. So these fast paces still aerobic running.

When practising these fast paces with tempo runs and interval training, you are learning to be more economical at these paces, so that you can extend the distance you can run at a certain pace hence race faster. These developments are more of a learning process than a physical development, hence the intelligent coaches mantra: "train, don't strain"

You have to look at all of this with a grain of salt -

"French researchers found that the addition of two weight-training sessions per week for 14 weeks significantly increased maximal strength and running economy while maintaining peak power in triathletes."

So their maximal strength and running economy increased. That's great, but are they faster?

"Meanwhile, the control group – which only did endurance training – gained no maximal strength or running economy, and their peak power actually decreased (who do you think would win that all-out sprint at the finish line?)."

Again, it's too bad their peak power decreased. But this is meaningless if we're not talking about running speed. And to answer your question about the all-out sprint, it's usually the guy who is in better shape aerobically who wins. The "stronger" guy has to use his anaerobic reserves just to keep up and then doesn't have them at the end.

"And, interestingly, the combined endurance with resistance training group saw greater increases in VO2max over the course of the intervention (2)."

For the third time, simply measuring these variables on their own is meaningless. There is no gold medal for VO2max.

Moving on...

"Scientists at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland found that replacing 32% of regular endurance training volume with explosive resistance training for nine weeks improved 5km times, running economy, VO2max, maximal 20m speed, and performance on a 5-jump test. With the exception of VO2max, none of these measures improved in the control group that just did endurance training (3)."

OK, FINALLY we are measuring 5km times. All that other garbage is meaningless. I guarantee I could beat someone like Ritz in a 20 m sprint or 5-jump test but that doesn't matter in a distance race, does it?

My question is why there was no improvement in 5km times for the control group that did only endurance training. Nine weeks is a long time. I actually just started my season last week and my peak race for the fall is in 8 weeks. I expect to be about 45 seconds faster over 5km at the end of those 8 weeks (if past history is any measure).

If the endurance training given to the control group was so ineffective that it produced zero improvements in 5km time over 9 weeks, then I could see how cutting that regimen by 32% wouldn't really harm anything either. Then adding strength training - yeah, it will help.

A better study would have been one in which the endurance training for the control group was EFFECTIVE and lead to 5km improvements. Then let's see what happening when you cut 32% of an effective plan and substitute it with something else. That could be interesting.

"University of Illinois researchers found that addition of three resistance training sessions for ten weeks improved short-term endurance performance by 11% and 13% during cycling and running, respectively. Additionally, the researchers noted that “long-term cycling to exhaustion at 80% VO2max increased from 71 to 85 min after the addition of strength training"

This makes sense. If you add strength training it can only help. My beef is with running less in order to make room for this.

"The take-home message is that running is more than just VO2max, anaerobic threshold, and a good pair of sneakers; it’s also about localized muscular endurance and nervous system efficiency. And, you can’t have strength endurance unless you’ve got strength. Build a solid foundation and you’ll be a complete runner."

I will agree with this statement, but again, I don't think you've shown that SUBSTITUTING strength training in place of running is better.

Strength training should be specific. Lydiard scores again with hill-training.

One of the smartest coaches out there said it best:

The secret is to ADD not REPLACE.

I think his name was Renato C.

Thanks "wellnow"!

so, are you stating that tempo running -- as defined as sub-anaerobic paces that are in the range of one's lactate threshold -- represent not only an aerobic development, but also a neural conditioning of one's body (as has been suggested by Frank Shorter) -- one's leg movement patterns -- at these paces?

If so, then is there little need to train at easy aerobic paces (70-75% of HRmax for example)besides flushing one's system from a hard run? Does this not contradict Hadd/Maffetone thought regarding cappillary development, or can a runner optimally develop aerobically at these faster, sub-anaerobic paces to the exclusion of slower running?

Forgive me for coming across in a potentially over-rationalized manner, but this debate has been ongoing in my mind, and my own research has led me to some contradictory conclusions.

Thanks so much.

Aerobic capacity is a poor indicator of endurance performance. What matters is what's going on peripherally, in the muscle. On that note, John Hollozy long ago found a 100% increase in mitochondrial density in rats that were run 2 hours per day. I seriously doubt you get that kind of increase in muscle oxidative capacity with 30 second intervals.