Renato, Antonio, anybody: Shortest Race Using Lactate As Fuel?

Interesting post.

First of all it´s not the first time i read something quite similar from mr. Peter Thompson. In one article he refers the Brendan Foster later career and Australian Benita Johnson that both uses intrevals with active recovery.

The man is right to some point. He tells the little story of Gersheler and Reindell and what they did as intervals is the Freiburg intervals. Freiburg is the name of the German place where both Gersheler and Reindell did build they intervla training methodology. Of course that to name of the successful runners who did it in the 50s and 60s doesn´t finish. It´s not just the Barcelona-Spanish Tomas Barris: He is just one.

Of course that the site does some vital information to the understand of the interval training, but not all is correct in my opinion.

The main mistake is that he names "new interval training" when in reality it´s the older format of interval training, the one of active recovery. The active recovery it´s the primitive, the original interval training, that after some period - as soon as the runners and coaches they taught that if they speed up the interval sets, while expand the intreval recovery lenght and turn the interval less active - just stand - they will get more benefits. There they turn the original intreval training into repetition training really.

Another point that is wrong on the site is that he says the in Freiburg-Gresheler intreval training the distances are 100m-200m and sometimes 300m and 400m. It´s not true. Gersheler used long interval training during the winter season as 600m-1000m-1500m-2000m depending of the runner target event. Even the 800m specialist is advised by the Gersheler interval method to run long interval sets.

Finnaly the 2 main mistakes, in my opinion. One is a conceptual mistake, the other one mistake in application.

One He says that the "NEW" interval recovery based in lactate and not as cardio-vascular estimate. It´s true, but how could be based in lactate if in the old days of the original interval training we don´t got the lactate apparatus and we don´t have that muscular system of observation in the field. However, the training CONSEQUENCES of the interval training with analyzing the cardio-vascular system or he lactate ARE THE SAME precisely. This is why i disagree that he thinks he discovered something new and entitled new interval training when from the point of the physiology he got a new tool of investigation that is the lactate concentration, but from the point of view of the training methodology, with this pretentious "new" interval training just repeats the ORIGINAL interval training.

the second point it´s the operational, the application. IF YOUR TRAINING METHOD RESPECTS THE TRAINING INDIVIDUALIZATION, namely by fiber type approach, there i disagree with this "new" interval training. Different runners with different fiber type, they shall train intervals differently. THE RICH INTERVAL TRAINING METHOD SHALL INCLUDE BOTH, INTERVALS TYPE, THE ONE OF ACTIVE RECOVERY ( the real intervals, not new just original ones) AND INTERVALS WITH PASSIVE RECOVERY as well, the ones named REPETITION INTERVALS.

ps - Renato Canova doesn´t prescribe intervals from the Freiburg/German school. The site of New Interval training misses one point in the history of the interval training that is a condition of the interval training. It´s the use of micr-cycles, what means to repeat in each micro-cycle the same interval training workout. But Renato disagrees with such thing. He doesn´t use micro-cycles (weekly or so) and he tries to change the intervals format every new interval training.

Thanks, Antonio.

I found a post from Renato with some variable-pace sessions for a 4 minute miler:

After these periods, the athlete is ready for using, once every 10 days or 2 weeks, a specific training of change of speed.

I give here some example of this type of training, regarding an athlete able running one mile in 4:00 :

a) 2 - 3 x 3000m (500 in 1:15 + 500 in 1:40 + 400 in 58.0 + 400 in 1:18 + 300 in 43 + 300 in 1:03 + 200 in 28 + 200 in 42 + 100m in 13 + 50m easy + 50m max) = 8:37 / 8:40, rec. 5/6 min (when we want to work for improving your METHABOLIC SYSTEM)

b) 3 - 4 x 1000m (alternating 100m in 13 / 100m in 17) = 2:30 rec. 5 min (when we want to work for improving your ability in LACTIC TOLERANCE)

c) 3 - 4 x 400m alternating 25m max speed / 25m without pushing, with final time of 49 / 51 sec (depending on the type of runners) (when we want to work for improving your ABILITY IN RECRUITING WHILE FIBRES ARE FULL OF LACTATE)

I remember one training from Said Aouita, that I saw in 1984 in Tirrenia before winning Olympic Games in LA :

3 times 1200m alternating 150m in about 18.5 / 19 and 50m without pushing, in about 10 / 12 sec., with final times between 3:02 and 3:04, recovering 5 min.

I know that this type of training was alreday used by Alberto Juantorena, preparing Montreal 1976, when he was able winning 400 and 800 in the same Olympic.

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1025300&page=3#ixzz1uEM7cVGm

But I'm still wondering what is the shortest race where you can use lactate as fuel?

Yes, you right.

We got many possibilities with this kind of intervals with active recovery.

From the classic 30-30secs (30secs at vVO2max pace) with 30secs easy run with active recovery to the 800m-800m yasso marathon training we got a large spectrum of training possibilities with this active recovery intrevals. We got Ricky Wolhuter intervals and many more.

As you also state, this kind of active recovery intervals it doesn´t confine just to be a stimulus with one single physilogic direction, it doesn´t confine of training one system. During this kind of intrevals, you work your might improve you biomechanics, your cardio-vascular and respiratory systems, your muscular system, your energetic and enzimatics, your mithocondria, your lactate tolerance and your lactate clearence as well and more.

This is teh reason why mr. Thompson is not very correct when he says that this kind of intervals is lactate work essential. yes it´s lactate but othere systems working as well, and we need to do both kinds - the original intrevals, and the repetitions as well.

I have no experience using this workout type with shorter distances races so will defer to Antonio and others on that matter but it is worth noting that this workout concept is used regularly and becoming more popular with many distance coaches.

Essentially this appears to be what Canova refers to as "alternations" where the pace is alternated between 2 paces throughout the run to tax the body/system and then ease off just enough to allow for some modest recovery/adjustment before repeating.

As Antonio points out this type of workout has been around for a good while but has recently been brought back to the front of attention.

Bowerman and Dillenger used it at University of Orgeon with their famous 40/30 workout where multiple laps on a track were done with 200 in 30 followed by 200 and 40.

It has been written about and become popular again with many coaches. I consider it one of the best under-utilized workouts for lowering thresholds.

I use the workout regularly in my training of half marathon and marathon runners under the name "wave workout" - in which I have the runners alternate either 800's or 1600's at 3% faster than and 5% slower than lactate threshold or aerobic threshold paces for many kilometers.

Example: 8k continuous run alternating 800 meters at 3% faster than LT pace and 5% slower than LT pace. If LT pace is 5:00 per 1600 than we woudl be alternating 800's in 2:26 and 2:39 for 8k.

or 16k continuous run alternating 1600 meters at 3% faster than AT pace and 5% slower than AT pace. If AT pace is 5:15 then altenrating 1600's in 5:08 and 5:33 for 16k

Besides the physical/metabolic benefits - increasing the permability of cell membranes thus enhancing their ability to "get rid of" lactate accumulation - there is also a significant mental benefit for distance runners as the numerous pace changes requires the runner to stay in the moment and focus only on the segment they are in. This learning to focus and staying in the moment is critical for the runner in the late stages of the race.

I have found this to be a great workout type, when used in conjunction with straight tempo runs, for keeping improvements coming over time in both thresholds. With one emerging elite runner we have been able to reduce their lactate threshold pace by 15 seconds over the last year using a "wave workout" once every 3-4 weeks.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Is, in fact, some of the lactate produced during a 400 race used as fuel late in the race?

Yes, after about 200m or so, lactate will be used more and more as the anaerobic systems are producing less and less fuel.

Renato touches on it here as well: http://athleticsillustrated.com/interviews/renato-canova/

Thanks. I agree.

Alternations, you say. In the latin languages (italian, romanian, french, spanish and portuguese it´s named what we might translate to english to alternation.

My methodology uses INTERMITTENT that in reality is the same that alternation fast/slow or hard/easy without stop. On the other side you have CONTINUOUS something with quite mean pace without change of pace.

Now, the intermittent/alternation might be divided/discriminated in several definitions: fartlek is one, interval training with active recovery is another,

in-out, etc, yasso (800m/fast-400m/active jog)

You are right again that what is the original idea of interval training, did disappear and somehow was been replaced by REPETITIONS, intervals with passive (walk, stand) recovery.

One main reason why the interval training (the one of active recovery) was forget is because some methodology of that period sees the intermittent training as anaerobic training mostly, when in reality one of the main applications of the interval training is to improve aerobics and from that the active recovery. This wrong idea that the interval training might be anaerobic mostly was been accepted by many coaches, namely the famous Arthur Lydiard, and his reject to run intervals during the fundamental/introductory/marathon block is build upon this mistake of interval training interpretation.

As in coach and train "monkey see monkey do" we got a horde of followers that they repeat that mistake on and on. Fast training, anaerobic training, too much acidity they say, when it´s not really.

Of course that another use of NON-CONTINOUS TRAINING (repetitions) is anaerobic training, but not necessary. In reality, if the workout done is done at the speed pace that high lactate and high anaerobic is created, the best solution is do PASSIVE interval recovery and length the recovery.

However during the "dark age" of interval training, when it was been popularized the repetitions and the intervals with active recover were forget, we got some runners, some coaches, and some training methodologies that did use the interval training during the interval training "dark age". You named Bill Bowerman Dillenger and that fartlek kind and intrevals kind. You also quote some other interval training usage.

But we might name many other use, from Emil Zatopec, to Gordon Pirie or Barris, Igloy training, Lydiard training from the period he uses intervals (kind of 400s with 200s or 400s active recovery) french Michel Jazy coicah by an Yougoslave and late by Frassineti and if we investigate many many other coaches did use it, despite it wasn´t hippy.

One problem is that the original interval training did is about frequency. People from that period taught the intreval traini so rich, so good that they did it 4-5-6 or 7 days a week, and apart from some warmup and cooldown they

didn´t nothing at all as stimulus, where the intreval training, the modern one - here we shall name the modern one - is done one in each 10 days to 2-3 times a week maximum, and all the rest is continuous runs, sometimes twice a day runs, and not intervals all the way all the time.

Whats the difference between AT pace and LT pace? Aren't they basically the same?

Lactate is oxidised aerobically, so yes during a 400m race some of the lactate is used late in second half of the race, more and more as the anerobic contribution diminishes.

During lactate production, ATP is also released anaerobically and this provides most of the fuel from 50-200m

Vingtsix wrote:

Whats the difference between AT pace and LT pace? Aren't they basically the same?

My question still remains....

Also, I think you are calculating your 3% faster and 5% slower times wrong?

Vingtsix wrote:

Whats the difference between AT pace and LT pace? Aren't they basically the same?

My question still remains....

Also, I think you are calculating your 3% faster and 5% slower times wrong?

I´m not Renato but have find this terminology crazyness often, in my opinion there´s no difference. Lactate threshold in a better term in my opinion, anaerobic threshold is a bit old fashioned knowing that there´s some anaerobic metabolism going even when you sleep.

MPR wrote, in part:

I use the workout regularly in my training of half marathon and marathon runners under the name "wave workout" - in which I have the runners alternate either 800's or 1600's at 3% faster than and 5% slower than lactate threshold or aerobic threshold paces for many kilometers.

Example: 8k continuous run alternating 800 meters at 3% faster than LT pace and 5% slower than LT pace. If LT pace is 5:00 per 1600 than we woudl be alternating 800's in 2:26 and 2:39 for 8k.

or 16k continuous run alternating 1600 meters at 3% faster than AT pace and 5% slower than AT pace. If AT pace is 5:15 then altenrating 1600's in 5:08 and 5:33 for 16k

Read more:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4565397#ixzz2iM1fQZd2

So I believe MPR is making a distinction here between LT pace = lactate threshold pace and AT pace = aerobic threshold pace. MPR, if you are still out there correct me if I am misinterpreting your writing.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

So I believe MPR is making a distinction here between LT pace = lactate threshold pace and AT pace = aerobic threshold pace. MPR, if you are still out there correct me if I am misinterpreting your writing.

But there´s not so many runners with aerobic threshold pace 5.15 pace mile like in the example.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

So I believe MPR is making a distinction here between LT pace = lactate threshold pace and AT pace = aerobic threshold pace. MPR, if you are still out there correct me if I am misinterpreting your writing.

Exactly, I'm curious to what he mean the difference are?

Also, did he calculate wrong or am I bad at math?