Antonio, Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25 is just 3% slower than her half marathon. You could argue that her half marathon could have been faster though.
Antonio, Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25 is just 3% slower than her half marathon. You could argue that her half marathon could have been faster though.
Sorry, J.O. You'll notice from a previous post I used "buffer" in quotations, as I know that is the "everyday vernacular" used by most on this board. If I had said "the H+ produced from the dissociation from lactic acid to lactate, is buffered by HCO3-", is that more appropriate?
The point of my original post was that the "net" lactate you see when measuring blood lactate is a combination of lactate production and removal (call it buffering, oxidized, pissed out in urine, whatever...it disappears) and you can have a similar net blood lactate concentration at slightly different intensities of exercise. I believe Renato backed up what we see in the lab and in the field with some of his very elite distance runners.
jT
J.O. wrote:
Renato, why would the top guys use MORE glycogen and produce more lactate in a marathon? I don't agree with you.
They are producing less lactate in the early stages and using more fat, earlier in the marathon than less well trained runners, this means that they have slightly more glycogen available towards the end of the race.
But they have to have good legs on the day. We have seen how many of the best marathon runners can have good and bad days, just like any other runner.
This is also an interesting topic of conversation, and I'm not sure the answer to it. Intuitively, the top guys will be running a given speed at a lower relative intensity, and so their RER will be lower and thus a lower proportion of total energy is derived from carbohydrates. However, there is also evidence to suggest East Africans use a higher proportion of CHO at the same RELATIVE intensity compared to American or European runners. The benefit to this is for a given volume of O2, the top guys get more energy (about 5 kcals/L O2 at an RER=1.00). But, the downside is by using a higher proportion of CHO, they will be glycogen depleted sooner.
The top guys are also a LOT more economical than the rest of us. Typicall caloric costs are between 0.85-0.90 kcal/kg/km at marathon pace (I can only speak to the 2:12-2:16 marathon guys, but I can only imagine the 2:05 guys are even better than this). Compare this to 1.1-1.15 kcal/kg/km for your "average" 30-32:00 10km guy.
The answer to Renato's and J.O.'s questions may be 3-fold:
1. Top guys use a higher proportion of CHO at a given relative intensity in order to maximize the energy yield per liter of O2
2. They have the ability to either store more CHO prior to the start of the race and/or a greater ability to refuel during the race.
3. They are a LOT more economical and thus their energy requirements, and thus CHO demand are a lot lower than everyone else.
jT
jtupper-ware wrote:
Sorry, J.O. You'll notice from a previous post I used "buffer" in quotations, as I know that is the "everyday vernacular" used by most on this board. If I had said "the H+ produced from the dissociation from lactic acid to lactate, is buffered by HCO3-", is that more appropriate?
The point of my original post was that the "net" lactate you see when measuring blood lactate is a combination of lactate production and removal (call it buffering, oxidized, pissed out in urine, whatever...it disappears) and you can have a similar net blood lactate concentration at slightly different intensities of exercise. I believe Renato backed up what we see in the lab and in the field with some of his very elite distance runners.
jT
Sorry no, there is no dissociation of 'lactic acid' since there is no proton to disociate, see Robergs et al "Biochemistry of exercise induced metabolic acidosis"
I agree with your points about lactate removal. You use the term oxiation, which I agree with, although a certain poster lurking hereabouts thinks that oxidation of to lactate lactate involves oxygen (it doesn't of course it's electron transfer).
I agree that Renato's runners use more glycogen and thus more lactate in races shorter than a marathon, but in the marathon itself, glycogen must be spared somewhat, even in the first sub 2 hour race. In fact even in a 58 minute half marathon, some fat will be used towards the end.
Interestingly, fast twich oxidative fibers can used fat as well as glycogen/glucose for fuel, a point I have not seen anyone ever make here on letsrun. Feel free to refer me to any post showing otherwise.
Regarding the RER point, it depends how efficiently the musle fibers are activated/deactivated, before acidosis.
Very widespreaded reactions!
What is most interesting for most of the letsrun-followers is probably what the consequences are for training. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENT APROACH OF TRAINING IN THE CASE OF THESE ATLETES, compared too 10 years ago? How do they reach that higher ability of 'buffering'?
Renato said already in his 'boston analysis thread': Their level of intensity NEVER goes under 85%.
If there is a different aproach, how do atletes like Geoffrey come to this aproach (he is not coached by Canova like the case of Mosop, correct me if I'm wrong)?
As has been cited on this site before, I think the shift in marathon training philosophy is a result of more guys taking up the marathon at a young age and very often these guys are very competent in the shorter distances, like the 10km.
You don't see marathoners training long, slow distance as much anymore. As Renato and others will say, there is a time and a place for it, but the SPECIFIC phase is becoming of far greater importance: faster than marathon pace training runs, a lot of running at marathon pace. It's not so simple to just run 140 mpw and think you're going to run FAST. Specificity is the key. Whether that means learning to "buffer" lactate, increase cell permeability, improve economy or a combination of all 3 (or more) factors...
I also believe we're understanding the physiology of the marathon a lot better. We now know what some of these sub 2:10 guys can tolerate in terms of relating it to a physiological intensity (3mM, 4 mM, 6 mM or whatever it might be) and coaches and physiologists can now more easily "fine tune" the training based on the known physiological demand. Previously, we were doing a lot of "guess work" based on what we THOUGHT the intensity was or what we believed was their rate of CHO oxidation. We now have a very good idea what that might be, so more of the guessing game is removed and we can better focus on SPECIFIC workouts related to the SPECIFIC physiological demand of the event.
My theory is: if you don't know the physiological demand of the event, how are you going to design a periodized plan to deal with that unknown demand? Great coaches like Renato, Cabral and others have a great handle on this for all their athletes.
jT
J.O. wrote:
Antonio, Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25 is just 3% slower than her half marathon. You could argue that her half marathon could have been faster though.
I don´t doubt that Paula marathon WR is a outstand result.
However for soem reason she wasn´t able to win the marathon olympics or marathon of big games.
Also on her marathon HM pb she wasn´t helped by 2 male pacers as she wasn´t in the 2:15 something very wired in a woman run separate from the men field as London does.
Anyhow thanks for the information.
Do you know that Ernest van Aaken in the seventies did write that the woman can do best marathon RESISTANCE RATIO than man due to more lipid percent relate to the man that on her can act as "fuel"/energy for the marathon run ? With this Paula result i think he is right somehow.
J.O. wrote:
Renato, why would the top guys use MORE glycogen and produce more lactate in a marathon? I don't agree with you.
They are producing less lactate in the early stages and using more fat, earlier in the marathon than less well trained runners, this means that they have slightly more glycogen available towards the end of the race.
But they have to have good legs on the day. We have seen how many of the best marathon runners can have good and bad days, just like any other runner.
If what you say is true why do long runs ? No need, because then the marathon run energy question would be to "produce less lactate using more in early run stages" and this would be done while train by short runs and not on long runs where the runner attempt to continue while to keep on the pace after the depletion point, that some call the "wall".
Paula ran in 1:05:40 in the Great North Run in 2003, when already her shape was no more the same of her Spring. Looking, also, at the time run by Susan Chepkemei (1:05:44) and at their normal gap, it's easy to suppose Paula could run in 65:00 flat or faster in perfect conditions. If we consider this value, 4% of 65:00 means 67:36, therefore a full marathon in 2:15:12, very close her 2:15:25.
And, if we look at Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop, giving them a value of 59:20 (Moses PB and, of course, a time Geoffrey could run), we can calculate 4% in 61:42, therefore a full marathon in 2:03:24.
This new ratio is valid for HM, too.
Zersenay Tadese has a PB in 10000m of 26:37.25 (2:39.7 per km), and 4% slower means 2:46 per km, therefore 58:26 in HM when his WR is 58:23.
So, we can say that, for top runners SPECIFICY TRAINED, the index of 4% is already reality, and I suppose in short time can become possible for many runners, if they are able to change their training.
26:17.53 / 13:37.35
1577.53 / 757.35 = 2.08296
8.296 / 2 = 4.148 percent
Thank you coaches so much for sharing some of the "trade secrets" you use to make your guys so fast. It is very interesting how the shift is occuring from incredibly high mileage, to high mileage but with a much more specific focus on science and lactate pacing. Great stuff! Makes me excited about the science.
Renato Canova wrote:
So, we can say that, for top runners SPECIFICY TRAINED, the index of 4% is already reality, and I suppose in short time can become possible for many runners, if they are able to change their training.
Hi Renato,
Is the primary change you are referring to more Long Fast Runs? Specifically more training done at around marathon pace or a bit slower? With adequate recovery after the training.
You mentioned a training in the other thread such as 40km in 2:07.
Thanks
The 40km in 2:07 was a reference to a training running you mentioned Mosop did in his Boston Marathon Preparation.
Renato Canova wrote:
Paula ran in 1:05:40 in the Great North Run in 2003, when already her shape was no more the same of her Spring. Looking, also, at the time run by Susan Chepkemei (1:05:44) and at their normal gap, it's easy to suppose Paula could run in 65:00 flat or faster in perfect conditions. If we consider this value, 4% of 65:00 means 67:36, therefore a full marathon in 2:15:12, very close her 2:15:25.
And, if we look at Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop, giving them a value of 59:20 (Moses PB and, of course, a time Geoffrey could run), we can calculate 4% in 61:42, therefore a full marathon in 2:03:24.
This new ratio is valid for HM, too.
Zersenay Tadese has a PB in 10000m of 26:37.25 (2:39.7 per km), and 4% slower means 2:46 per km, therefore 58:26 in HM when his WR is 58:23.
So, we can say that, for top runners SPECIFICY TRAINED, the index of 4% is already reality, and I suppose in short time can become possible for many runners, if they are able to change their training.
Renato, it is all well and good to shoot for this 4% ratio, but Mutai and Mosop have not given evidence that they are able to reach it. If we accept the 59:20 for both, then a 5% ratio yields a 2:04:36 result, which is much closer to the mark than 2:03:24. Remember, it is probably easier to come closer to the 4% ratio if you have poor basic speed, and probably also if you are an elite woman marathoner...
Funny how everyone get on the hook with "turbo diesel" explanaition.
Or should we rather call it a strong boost, like the kenyans...
J.R. wrote:
26:17.53 / 13:37.35
1577.53 / 757.35 = 2.08296
8.296 / 2 = 4.148 percent
12:37.35 not 13:37.35.
26:17.53 / 12:37.35 Kenenisa Beleke 5000m and 10000m WRs.
Follow the same 4% resistance ratio, to be able sub 26:00 10000m needs to be able to run sub 12:30.
12:30 + 4% (30secs)= 13:00 * 2 = 26:00
Antonio Cabral wrote:
J.O. wrote:Antonio, Paula Radcliffe's 2.15.25 is just 3% slower than her half marathon. You could argue that her half marathon could have been faster though.
I don´t doubt that Paula marathon WR is a outstand result.
However for soem reason she wasn´t able to win the marathon olympics or marathon of big games.
Also on her marathon HM pb she wasn´t helped by 2 male pacers as she wasn´t in the 2:15 something very wired in a woman run separate from the men field as London does.
Anyhow thanks for the information.
Do you know that Ernest van Aaken in the seventies did write that the woman can do best marathon RESISTANCE RATIO than man due to more lipid percent relate to the man that on her can act as "fuel"/energy for the marathon run ? With this Paula result i think he is right somehow.
Paula won the 2005 World Championship, where she basically made the others look like hobbyjoggers.
...where she basically made the others look like hobbyjoggers.
That's a stretch. Ndereba shadowed her for most of the race.
Let´s continue with the same RESISTANCE RATIO analysis for 500m and 10000m.
The list of all runners that double 5000m-10000m world record since the past till today.
14:36.6 Hannes Kilemainen (FIN) 31:20.8
14:28.2 Paavo Nurmi (FIN) 30:06.2
14:08.8 Taisto Maki (FIN) 29:52.6
13:57.2 Emil Zatopec (CHE) 28.54.2
13:35.0 Vladimir Kuts (USSR) 28:30.4
13:16.6 Ron Clake (AUS) 27:39.4
13:16.4 Lasse Viren (FIN) 27:38.35
13:06.20 Henry Rono (KEN) 27:22.75
12:39.36 Haile Gebrelassie (ETH) 26:22.75
12:37.35 Kenenisa Bekele (ETH) 26:17.53
Curiously all of them rank 4% to 5% RESISTANCE RATIO. What changes is that each new one is faster than the previous one.
If you look to the list from Henry Rono in the 80s only Africans did rank as 5000m-1000m world double. However even the early Europeans did near the same RESISTANCE RATIO/index than the recent ones.
What this means ?
It means that Renato Canova is right once again. Genetics or altitude living whatever doesn´t contribute to natural endurance talent, if so every past non-african runner wouldn´t rank near the same RESISTANCE RATIO THAN the recent one africans. Thwe recent one long distances performances are better and faster mainly because better modern training methodology able fast pace. Once again we see that there’s no collision between speed/fast pace and extensive training. As far the extensive training process expands, the specific training expands, the runners gets faster pace ability.
By training I mean not simply the training schedule, but also what and how is done during the daily routine life that you might agree it´s not genetic.