Is "Physiological Zones" Training Outdated?

Wellnow is right. The aerobic dogma that we can continually improve aerobic conditioning is false. But it´s Lydiard that says the aerobic capacity it´s quite infinite.

Wellnow is right also about neuromuscular coordination. We can improve. But the problem is that all other systems that contribute to run improvement trough the exercise of that systems are also limited as the aerobic condition it is. Besides when we improve we don´t know what´s the percent of contribution from the neuromuscular coordination or the biomechanics or the percent of the Central Governor for the performance.

May be it´s another myth but some evidence shows that after some short period of training coordination it´s impossible to take from that kind of train performance improve.

The only single activity that able to improve all systems it’s interval training.

From the cardiovascular system to the several kind of muscular fibers. From the neuromuscular system to pace coordination or biomechanics and from speed to endurance. From aerobic capacity to anaerobic capacity. From strength to strength endurance the single workout that covers the largest range of training spectrum and that´s effective and maximizes your potential with minimize effort duration it´s the interval training.

Skuj wrote:

If we can get past the very strange editting of this thread, I might have a lot more to say. Some very good posts have disappeared. WTF?

Say it anyway Darren.

Very good Maardn, thanks.

the informer wrote:

I agree with you and wellnow. The question I have is how do we improve this stride efficiency/capacity/whatever you wanna call it? Can someone please address that question from the neurological perspective?

How do we improve stride efficiency? We need to have a good balance between pushing against the ground using muscle strength, and using muscle and tendon elasticity to spring off the ground. The perfect combination of pushing and springing is impossible to master, since you can just keep getting better and better at doing it time after time.

The accuracy of every movement of every muscle used for every stride can never be perfected. So one way of motivating yourself is to tell yourself that you are going to try and keep improving your efficiency every time you run, whether it is a hard run, or an easy run, uphill, dowhill, whenever wherever.

Picking up the pace gradually, will help you to improve strdie efficiency. So will stopping before you get tired.

Of course, you also have to practice starting fast sometimes, and holding on when you are tired, but you don't need to train this way very often. Most run, should be progressive from slow to fast.

More mileage obviously helps improve endurance, but I can't tell you how many miles to run or what pace to average.

maardn DK wrote:

I really don't think that many physiologists are aware of how important the role of the CNS is.

I'm fairly certain that they are aware and have been for quite some time. A good example is the Martin & Coe book mentioned in the first post. Peter Coe was well known for advocating multi-tier training. He knew very well the advantages of touching on various components of training early and often. I'm guessing he had Seb doing his fair share of 200s and the like. :-)

I think that coaches and physiologists are vaguely aware of the importance of the Central Nervous System, but how aware are they of the fact that it affects every movement you make and the recovery processes?

It is unrealistic for a well trained runner to expect to improve their 'physiological zones' but rather to mainatain these adaptions, but speed endurance has no such observable limits in terms of neuromuscular coordination improvements.

wellnow wrote:

I think that coaches and physiologists are vaguely aware of the importance of the Central Nervous System, but how aware are they of the fact that it affects every movement you make and the recovery processes?

That would only be known to the coaches and physiologists who took high school biology.

The question is if the "training" is out of date, not the science it's based on.

While pseudo-physiologists debate about exactly what's happening inside the body, today's athletes and coaches still succeed using training plans at varied intensities designed to improve endurance, stamina, speed, and form, as if the focus were on improving various thresholds and capacities.

Has the training changed significantly with new thinking debunking VO2max and lactate thresholds? As athletes mature, should they/do they deviate from a "Daniels Formula" style plan to some revolutionary plan designed to improve the CNS?

To be out of date, the training has to be replaced by something radically different.

Old schooler wrote:

wellnow wrote:

I think that coaches and physiologists are vaguely aware of the importance of the Central Nervous System, but how aware are they of the fact that it affects every movement you make and the recovery processes?

That would only be known to the coaches and physiologists who took high school biology.

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

It should be common knowledge. Why isn't it?

rekrunner wrote:

The question is if the "training" is out of date, not the science it's based on.

While pseudo-physiologists debate about exactly what's happening inside the body, today's athletes and coaches still succeed using training plans at varied intensities designed to improve endurance, stamina, speed, and form, as if the focus were on improving various thresholds and capacities.

Has the training changed significantly with new thinking debunking VO2max and lactate thresholds? As athletes mature, should they/do they deviate from a "Daniels Formula" style plan to some revolutionary plan designed to improve the CNS?

To be out of date, the training has to be replaced by something radically different.

But don't you think that racing speeds have improved 'radically' in the last 100 years? Don't you think that this process will continue over the next 100 years?

These improvements have nothing to do with improving the 'physiological zones' since those parameters are easy to develop.

Training according to a mythological 'lactate threshold' or VO2 max zone is misguided. Improved efficiency comes from learning to cope with inevitable glycogen depletion, learning to hold a pace and/or increase the pace despite this depletion.

wellnow wrote:

It should be common knowledge. Why isn't it?

I think it is.

wellnow wrote:

Training according to a mythological 'lactate threshold' or VO2 max zone is misguided.

It's not mythological if it can be measured in a laboratory.

What appears in the blood doesn't show what is happening in the muscle.

Lactate comes from glycogen which is a finite resource, so it's impossible to exercize for any length of time at a constant workload and produce the same amount of lactate.

There has been far too much pseudoscientific nonsense bandied about on the subject of lactate metabolism. This doesn't help athletes or coaches.

If you are really old school, you know that running by feel beats 'scientific training' This is why Renato Canova no longer uses lactate testing. He tried it for a while, and the results confirmed what he alread knew; that his athletes were indeed running fast times.

Sure, results have improved, and will likely continue to improve, but I say "training" hasn't radically changed, in the last 50 years. Before that, we had many experiments which lead to modern concepts of interval training, periodicity, peaking, tapering, and long term development.Training by physiological zones, however, they are described, is effectively a recommendation to train at a variety of different paces. This aspect is certainly not "out of date". Every modern coach and athlete today, trains at a variety of different paces, which brings different combinations of stimulus to the body.I agree that attempting to link it to physiology in the first place, is misguided, or at best, necessarily incomplete. After all, athletes usually train to race faster, not breathe more oxygen. But describing training that works, with old or incomplete science, does not invalidate the effectiveness of the training.

wellnow wrote:

But don't you think that racing speeds have improved 'radically' in the last 100 years? Don't you think that this process will continue over the next 100 years?

These improvements have nothing to do with improving the 'physiological zones' since those parameters are easy to develop.

Training according to a mythological 'lactate threshold' or VO2 max zone is misguided. Improved efficiency comes from learning to cope with inevitable glycogen depletion, learning to hold a pace and/or increase the pace despite this depletion.

I agree with all of that. However, we often read here the concepts that training at 6 minute miles gives more "aerobic benefit" than running at 7 minute miles. This concept of aerobic benefit is misguided, but extremely common. It makes 99.9% of runners train too hard.

so what to do? slow down?

I agree with that. Long, slow distance does not make long, slow runners.

Really? That's kind of the same reason I defend "physiological zones". Not so much because I believe the physiology, but because it prevents me from training too fast. I never measured a drop of lactate, nor a liter of oxygen, but nevertheless, I bound my workouts using things like LT-pace, loosely estimating by 1 hour race pace or 85% HRmax, and speed work at my V02max pace (roughly my 3-5K race pace). These are usually upper bounds, so that I don't run tempo runs or speed work too fast. These benchmarks are more terms of convenience to express what I mean to others who understand the terms.Using several "estimated" physiological benchmarks allows me to distinguish between recovery, endurance, stamina, speed, and sprint workouts, so that one doesn't become another by lack of control.So I'm not all that concerned if a lactate threshold doesn't exist, as a static threshold, or I can't find my VO2max plateau.For self-coached non-experts, I think a good explanation of the variety of workouts and intensities is McMillan's description of the 4 key training zones:http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/training2.htmand 12 key workouts:http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/training4.htmBut to go back to the original question, I don't think anyone has shown a different training approach that makes multi-zone training outdated.

wellnow wrote:

I agree with all of that. However, we often read here the concepts that training at 6 minute miles gives more "aerobic benefit" than running at 7 minute miles. This concept of aerobic benefit is misguided, but extremely common. It makes 99.9% of runners train too hard.

Too much bad science in the McMillan articles for my liking. Why do so many coaches think they have to try and explain stuff they don't understand?

Here's some stuff we should be discussing:

When we run downhill, knee lift is low, but the feet kick forwards noticeably (have you noticed that)

When we run uphill, knee lift is high, the feet don't kick forwards noticeablbly

When running on the flat, there is a subtle combination of the two techniques. In all running, a powerful push allows a longer stride, which gives more speed, which gives a heavier landing which allows an even more powerfull push, etc etc........

There is no limit to how good a technician you can be.

Dontcha think?