Why are speed workouts early on in the season bad?

uyjtr wrote:

Gastin Aerobic/Anaerobic Ratio

Marathon 97.5/2.5

10K 90/10

5K 84/16

1500m/mile 84/16

800m 66/34

400m 43/57

OK, I missed point of all this rush about "Oh, it's aerobic now!"

OK, it's aerobic, so what? Research clearly shows that our training, previously intended to be anaerobic was, in fact, aerobic. So... nothing changed?

tomtom wrote:

OK, I missed point of all this rush about "Oh, it's aerobic now!"

OK, it's aerobic, so what? Research clearly shows that our training, previously intended to be anaerobic was, in fact, aerobic. So... nothing changed?

Who are you quoting with that "Oh, it's aerobic now!"?

Now as we know that aerobic training is even more important, we should try to minimize the anaerobic component in our aerobic sessions, and also reduce the frequency of anaerobic work if that is too high.

But I'll repeat my question, does one follow from the other? From these figures of what happens in racing, do we know "that aerobic training is even more important"? These updated ratios tell us something about what happens during a race, and nothing about the training requirements for that race.One point that "tomtom" made is: if racing is more aerobic than we thought, well, so was our training. We don't need to "try to minimize the anaerobic component in our aerobic sessions", as it was already more aerobic than we thought.Training plans today weren't derived from poorly measured aerobic/anaerobic values (something most athletes can not measure anyway), but by many millions and billions of experiments of trial and error. Therefore, updating aerobic/anaerobic tables shouldn't change the way you train. It just changes the way you describe the training.

uyjtr wrote:

...

Now as we know that aerobic training is even more important, we should try to minimize the anaerobic component in our aerobic sessions, and also reduce the frequency of anaerobic work if that is too high.

and another though:

maybe point of doing long, long miles is not to upgrade our aerobic capacity?

every time we make step while running, some synapses send signal to our muscles. With every step, we increase accuracy of this signal (i.e. all synapses burn at once), we increase number of synapses in proces.

It was proven counted times, when you got tired it's not your muscles asking you to stop, it's your brain. Get extremely tired marathoner, inject him with crack and he will fly.

OK EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT AEROBIC/ANAEROBIC!

ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!

The percentages of each are really irrelevant, it's an academic debate and anyway, a marathon is actually LESS aerobic and MORE anaerobic, than those academics realize, (their biochemistry knowledge is feeble) so we can't trust the figures we see published.

But really, the debate about aerobic this anaerobic that will not help anyone here to understand the training requirements better, because what is important is to train at EVERY PACE IN THE RIGHT PROPORTION AT THE RIGHT TIME.

This means that to get antwhere near your potential, you have to do an enormous amount of fast running, not just a lot of mileage.

Of course speed is important during base training, it won't damage your endurance, if you do the endurance training.

Once the base training is going well, a runner of any age should be able to train hard almost every day for several weeks. Then gradually the emphasis can shift to very hard days less often.

Don't they have freedom of speech where you're from?

I think that's all I was saying -- that the percentages in racing are irrelevant, and tell you nothing about training.

We already know, from the evolution of training in the last century, how to incorporate important principals like periodicity, and specificity, and super-compensation. With luck, we can also correctly diagnose symptoms of over-reaching to prevent over-training.

I thought that's what you were saying, but I had to make a less vague statement than yours.

Freedom of speech is just fine with me, but when everyone is jabbering the same old same old, someone has to shout some common sense.

Regarding your other points, I think that one of the biggest factors is fear of doing hard sessions. The way to get around this is to do fartlek sessions where you can run fast without pain, and to do structured sessions where the pace increases, allowing a much higher workload with normal fatigue levels.

The point of doing "long, long miles" is to build endurance - the ability to endure long bouts of running. This is physical and mental. Physically, we can speak of muscles, mitochondria, blood vessels, liver, heart, brain, nerves, bone strength, joints, etc. The mistake is that with something as complex as running, always thinking you are only making one adaptation at a time. For example, to claim "it's not aerobic or anaerobic, it's neuro-muscular" is to repeat the same mistake. It's all of that, and more.

tomtom wrote:

and another though:

maybe point of doing long, long miles is not to upgrade our aerobic capacity?

...

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

The point of doing "long, long miles" is to build endurance - the ability to endure long bouts of running. This is physical and mental. Physically, we can speak of muscles, mitochondria, blood vessels, liver, heart, brain, nerves, bone strength, joints, etc. The mistake is that with something as complex as running, always thinking you are only making one adaptation at a time. For example, to claim "it's not aerobic or anaerobic, it's neuro-muscular" is to repeat the same mistake. It's all of that, and more.

True, but the neuromuscular adaptions are by far the most important in a well trained runner, since our aerobic and anaerobic capacities reach a maximum aroung the time we stop growing. What I mean is that a slow runner can become a very fast runner even though the aerobic/anaerobic capacities may actually decrease.

Crack huh?...hmmm...im listening!

To paraphrase: These findings suggest that our previous research is incorrect in regards to the demands of the events and also in regards to the effects of training. so one could justifiably argue that "speed work" (which i will use in place of the more correct, speed endurance) is more aerobic than previously thought just as others will say we need more mileage. and therefore this changes nothing.

A lot of the problem isn't that we spend too much time doing "speed work" or "aerobic training", its that we don't work on the peripherals enough first. As you stated, and as is well supported by science, neuromuscular efficiency is improved with repetition (ie: mileage). Also, the ability to recruit more muscle fibers is improved with power training, in the form of plyos, hill sprints (think Canova) and proper strength work. And the other aspect of this foundational training is general strength, flexibility, and coordination in order to improve our movement patterns and increase our work capacity.

So we need to spend more time improving these outliers early in a season/career to maximize the capacity for improvement from the "speed work" and "aerobic training" when we do it and increase the volume of it we can handle.

Both Coe and the Africans are great examples of this. Coe placed more emphasis on cross country work early in his career and worked on his 400 meter speed while at university then became more event specific coming into his peak age. and the Africans lead a generally active lifestyle, with lots of soccer (which is a great overall athletic foundation builder) and often reach great volumes of aerobic training before ever working on their ability to run fast.

This is not to give priority to any type of training over another, rather this touches the training needs and the judicious application of methodology over ones career.

Our ability to increase volume and maintain it is better than ever but we will only maximize this volume if we are practicing a more "perfect practice" while doing it and this will only be done by neglecting nothing and incorporating everything appropriately.

welInow wrote:

OK EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT AEROBIC/ANAEROBIC!

ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!

YOU SHUT UP, NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

But I'll repeat my question, does one follow from the other? From these figures of what happens in racing, do we know "that aerobic training is even more important"? These updated ratios tell us something about what happens during a race, and nothing about the training requirements for that race.

One point that "tomtom" made is: if racing is more aerobic than we thought, well, so was our training. We don't need to "try to minimize the anaerobic component in our aerobic sessions", as it was already more aerobic than we thought.

Training plans today weren't derived from poorly measured aerobic/anaerobic values (something most athletes can not measure anyway), but by many millions and billions of experiments of trial and error. Therefore, updating aerobic/anaerobic tables shouldn't change the way you train. It just changes the way you describe the training.

[quote]

I´ll repeat my answer that I made for another poster, about same question:

Question was: Practically, what would constitute the proper training breakdowns in mileage or days per week with those Gastin splits?

This depends from an individual. Someone who has great speed naturally with mediocre endurance for his/her event will need a lot of QUALITY aerobic work and less "anaerobic training", for example. Same training will not work for everyone as we all know.

So we should not plan the training based on these figures.

Again, these "new" splits just shows that aerobic training is more important at every distances than has previously thought. And yes if you want the as effective as possible aerobic training we can try to minimize the anaerobic component in our aerobic endurance training. It´s not optimum if you blast out some fast 400s, for example, even though the last part of every rep is clearly aerobic dominant. By using active recovery you also can lower the use of anaerobic system in the beginning of a repetition.

I'd go further -- it depends completely on the individual, and not at all on what Gastin, Jarver, Berardi, Vigil or anyone else thinks they measured in different race distances.I agree we should not plan the training based on these figures, neither now, nor before, nor ever.We may, in our own thought processes, conclude that aerobic training is more important, but, by the same token, we were always doing more aerobic training than we thought we were. The trimming of anaerobic training you suggest is indicated, has already occurred retro-actively, and will occur automatically without any training changes.Practically, it changes nothing, and nothing should change. If fast 400m intervals are not optimum now, it means they never were.Has anyone shown a link between certain ratios measured in a race, and ratios required for training? I say the training ratios are overwhelmingly determined by individual responses to training.

Basically what you are saying is that you need to know your athlete and what works for him, agreed. I was thinking the same thing that you mention about the 400's and that is a great point also. Still, we need to keep reading, attending clinics and learning and don't be afraid to try something new. Coaching is an Art, Science and an Experiment. What works for one of your athletes might not work for another, I have learned that over my 20 years of coaching, don't "pigeon hole" your athletes.

uyjtr wrote:

welInow wrote:

OK EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT AEROBIC/ANAEROBIC!

ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!

YOU SHUT UP, NO ONE HAS DENIED THAT ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!

*******************************************

You're missing the point. Enough of the pseudosicence about aerobic/anaerobic. Think about neuromuscular coordination.

WelInow,(Sorry it's a little off-topic) Did you read "Brain Training" by Matt Fitzgerald? If so, did it help? What'd you think? If not, you might like it. He gives a pretty good background and overview of the role of the brain, and explaining the purpose of neuro-muscular training. I'm reading it now, but I'm only about half way through.

welInow wrote:

... Enough of the pseudosicence about aerobic/anaerobic. Think about neuromuscular coordination.

What´s the point in " ALL RACING IS BOTH AEROBIC AND ANAEROBIC!"?

pseudosicence?

Enough about neuromuscular coordination.

200 meters or less doesn't seem to tax the body as much as 250 meters+. Just look at the world records in the 100, 200 and 400. The 100 and 200 paces are very similar and actually before bolt the 200 consisted of two faster 100's then the 100 record. However, the 400 is considerably slower because you are out gasses that last 150. So you can do strides/sprints of 250m or less and not tax the anaerobic system which I have found that after working 6 weeks I fall off the wagon and am shot.

nice job wrote:

200 meters or less doesn't seem to tax the body as much as 250 meters+. So you can do strides/sprints of 250m or less and not tax the anaerobic system which I have found that after working 6 weeks I fall off the wagon and am shot.

I agree with this. You need to run fast to activate and train more muscle fibers. If you do fast running throughout the year, you don't have to go into a training phase with untrained fibers. I don't think distance runners have to run as fast AND hard as most people think.

As far as the argument of speedwork interfering with the base phase, I think if the fast running is "hard" enough so it effects the amount or quality of the longer slower running, there is some truth to that.

Keep it short, quick, and "easy" during the base phase.