tinman, can you clarify your email address?
jzs
tinman, can you clarify your email address?
jzs
Sometimes I type really fast, sorry.
Te following workouts are typical of what we have used with our athletes with excellent results...We are at altitude (6500+) and normally do this work away from the track on dirt trails/roads or dirt/grass loops...we adjust times for altitude--but I have not adjusted them here. Nothing earth shaking or magic...just illustrating the idea of doing workouts that try to accomplish the same goals but keep athletes from getting too stale doing the same thing over and over...
A cycle of LT workouts might be:(I will use a 31:00 10k as an example)
1. 3 miles @ 15k pace---5:09 to 5:15
[short recovery jog 2-3 minutes]
2 x 2000 meters @ 6:12 [5 mins between reps.]
2. 3 x 2500 meters---trying to run each in 1/4 the time for
current 10k shape [3-5 minutes jog]
We typically run a 4th rep---but as group...trying to be
"fast" and stay together as much as possible--not timed
and usually somewhat slower or even as a group fartlek.
3. 4 x 2000 meters @ 6:12 [2-3 minutes between]
4. 4 miles @ 5:09-5:15...3 mins easy...2 miles of
fartlek over a rolling course @ what feels like
race pace [2 mins hard, 1 min easy]
5. Long LT runs...for athletes running 75+ miles/week and
long runs over 12 miles--- 40-45 minutes @ 5:25 down to
5:10 per mile...for athletes doing less mileage the runs
are 30- 35 minutes.
As you see we mix in some work at what approximates 15k pace with current 10k pace. We try to keep these workouts close to 25-30 minutes (except the longer LT efforts) of LT pace running and adjust reps and distance accordingly.
Reps at current 10K pace +/- 5 to 10 seconds for 200 minutes?!?!
Maybe 20 min?
Tinman:
Below you state that 80% of the kcals come aerobically and 20% comes anaerobically. Do you mean 80 percent of the ATP that is formed is formed aerobically and 20 percent of the ATP is formed anaerobically; or do you mean that 80% of the glucose (and other substrates) that is broken down is broken down aerobically, while 20% of glucose is broken down anaerobically? My guess is the former.
Considering how 36-38 ATP are synthesized when aerobic (via glucose) metabolism takes place, while only about 2 ATP are synthesized when anaerobic metabolism takes place, the difference of whether you mean 80/20% ATP or 80/20% glucose is significant.
Another factor to consider when thinking about the below, is that according to the lactate shuttle theory, some lactate (oxygen debt) will be taken care via oxygenation as exercise takes place. Therefore, another reason is provided for why it would be wrong to assume that post exercise respiration rate accurately shows how much oxygen debt is being paid off.
And thanks for the post. I've been mislead by those aerobic vs. anaerobic energy production charts that can be found in various places.
-Originally posted by Tinman:
I wish I head all my research folders in front of me. My ex-wife burned most of my work folders from the late 80s and early 90s but if someone out there can find the research done by two scientists in Montreal who showed (using radio-isotopes or phoshpate marked isotopes) the actual aerobic an anaerobic energy values during an all-out 90 second run you would be amazed at how much of the actual energy contribution conmes from aerobic metabolism. Karpovich also had some good info. about kcal use relative to energy contributions for various time-distance activities. He might, for example, have shown in his research that 80% of energy derived from 60 seconds of all-out running comes from aerobic kcals and only 20% comes from anaerobic kcals.
OBN wrote:Tinman:
Below you state that 80% of the kcals come aerobically and 20% comes anaerobically. Do you mean 80 percent of the ATP that is formed is formed aerobically and 20 percent of the ATP is formed anaerobically; or do you mean that 80% of the glucose (and other substrates) that is broken down is broken down aerobically, while 20% of glucose is broken down anaerobically? My guess is the former.
Considering how 36-38 ATP are synthesized when aerobic (via glucose) metabolism takes place, while only about 2 ATP are synthesized when anaerobic metabolism takes place, the difference of whether you mean 80/20% ATP or 80/20% glucose is significant..
Double talk, simply double talk. OBN you said, in my IMO, the same thing in different words. tinman had it right the first time.
Wow, I forgot about this thread. It has been awhile since this has been a hot topic. It hurts my tired brain trying to think about it. I better get some sleep. Anyone ever have brain freeze from reading to much lestrun.com? Tinman
Yes, I have.
JZS:
Maybe you ought to read my post again. I wasn't stating something again, I was asking Tinman a question. Didn't you notice the question marks?
It isn't double talk simply because you don't know the answer to the question. And if you do know the answer to the question, then what's the answer.
English please?
VO2 max = ?
Everyone knows that long distance running is not good for the body. Look at sprinters. They have muscle mass and strength. Long distance runners are weak and lanky with very little muscle mass.
Not having read the whole thread, I have a few things I want to say:
1) I have no idea if Rupp and Farah are clean. Yes, the thyroid thing gives me pause, too. On the other hand, no, I don't think Rupp's progression is suspicious. He ran 3:34 last year, so this mile PR was a big jump on paper only. As for running sub-13 and sub-27, well, I think those breakthroughs were overdue. They certainly didn't come after years of "struggling." Rupp's college years saw huge consistent development, and now I think he's showing the strength that comes from years and years of uninterrupted training.
2) I think it's one thing to "ask the question" about an athlete's cleanliness. Making vague accusations based on your personal inability to believe a time without any real credible evidence is bullsh*t, however. Looking an athlete like Solomon and saying "He had a breakthrough season, what's he on?" is the same thing Glenn Beck does when he says "Oh, well I'm not SAYING Obama is a Manchurian candidate out to destroy us all, I'm just ASKING what if he Is?" "Asking the question" can be a veiled personal attack and any adult should know that.
Are there suspicious things about athletes? Maggie Vessey tested positive for a banned diuretic- was it an innocent mistake or something more sinister? That's a good question to ask. I don't have any insight. When Tegenkamp, a few years ago, mentioned he was having blood-spinning done to help a tendon heal, was he doing something that's banned? Good question. Does Rupp's asthma/thyroid medication have an effect similar to banned substances, allowing his TUE to cover his use? I don't know either, but it's a good question.
Saying "Rupp couldn't run sub4 in the mile until 2009, now in 2013, he's faster. WHAT'S HE ON?!?!" is not asking a valid question, it's nothing more than a attack.
3) These boards are disgusting. The Brojos do a horrible job moderating, and seem to think elite athletes and coaches quitting the board in disgust is fine, and even evidence of "real dialogue" or something. Jack Daniels used to post all the time and answer questions and foster substantive debate. He was open about his research and his experiences with athletes most of us only got to read about. He also got run out of town on a rail. Lots of other great posters dealt with the same poisonous atmosphere and got shouted down by a mob of trolls. I don't know why the Brojos don't at least try to do a better job, instead of lauding anonymous people launching personal attacks and justifying it by saying so-and-so is a "public figure." As much as I find ADuck personally annoying, I largely agree with his points about this board being less and less civil and useful.
4) I don't think the Brojos understand that being a jerk and fostering "controversy" isn't doing squat for the sport. TMZ and Entertainment Television doesn't elevate journalism, the Sunday pundit bitchfests don't elevate political discourse, and the bunch of mean posts and pseudoarticles meant to attack athletes (I'm thinking the feature on Webb being mad after a race) certainly don't elevate running as a sport here.
Anyway, those are my 4 cents. Troll me as you willNot having read the whole thread, I have a few things I want to say:
1) I have no idea if Rupp and Farah are clean. Yes, the thyroid thing gives me pause, too. On the other hand, no, I don't think Rupp's progression is suspicious. He ran 3:34 last year, so this mile PR was a big jump on paper only. As for running sub-13 and sub-27, well, I think those breakthroughs were overdue. They certainly didn't come after years of "struggling." Rupp's college years saw huge consistent development, and now I think he's showing the strength that comes from years and years of uninterrupted training.
2) I think it's one thing to "ask the question" about an athlete's cleanliness. Making vague accusations based on your personal inability to believe a time without any real credible evidence is bullsh*t, however. Looking an athlete like Solomon and saying "He had a breakthrough season, what's he on?" is the same thing Glenn Beck does when he says "Oh, well I'm not SAYING Obama is a Manchurian candidate out to destroy us all, I'm just ASKING what if he Is?" "Asking the question" can be a veiled personal attack and any adult should know that.
Are there suspicious things about athletes? Maggie Vessey tested positive for a banned diuretic- was it an innocent mistake or something more sinister? That's a good question to ask. I don't have any insight. When Tegenkamp, a few years ago, mentioned he was having blood-spinning done to help a tendon heal, was he doing something that's banned? Good question. Does Rupp's asthma/thyroid medication have an effect similar to banned substances, allowing his TUE to cover his use? I don't know either, but it's a good question.
Saying "Rupp couldn't run sub4 in the mile until 2009, now in 2013, he's faster. WHAT'S HE ON?!?!" is not asking a valid question, it's nothing more than a attack.
3) These boards are disgusting. The Brojos do a horrible job moderating, and seem to think elite athletes and coaches quitting the board in disgust is fine, and even evidence of "real dialogue" or something. Jack Daniels used to post all the time and answer questions and foster substantive debate. He was open about his research and his experiences with athletes most of us only got to read about. He also got run out of town on a rail. Lots of other great posters dealt with the same poisonous atmosphere and got shouted down by a mob of trolls. I don't know why the Brojos don't at least try to do a better job, instead of lauding anonymous people launching personal attacks and justifying it by saying so-and-so is a "public figure." As much as I find ADuck personally annoying, I largely agree with his points about this board being less and less civil and useful.
4) I don't think the Brojos understand that being a jerk and fostering "controversy" isn't doing squat for the sport. TMZ and Entertainment Television doesn't elevate journalism, the Sunday pundit bitchfests don't elevate political discourse, and the bunch of mean posts and pseudoarticles meant to attack athletes (I'm thinking the feature on Webb being mad after a race) certainly don't elevate running as a sport here.
Anyway, those are my 4 cents. Troll me as you will. I hang around here for the weekly training thread and the occasional gem. They get tougher to find each year.