Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?

The recruitment of fast twitch muscle fiber during the latter part of a long run being recruited is false. Yes if you do pick up the pace and sprint or do strides after a long run you will recruit those muscles. But the non science based idea of recruiting those muscles because the other are tired has no factual basis. Sorry Trackhead you have been mislead.

What!!????

You mean Mo Green hasn't been going out for a 20 mile run every weekend?

I trust the doctor of exercise phys. who also holds some impressive athletics laurels.

What energy systems do you travel through during a 2.5 hr run?

An Mo runs about 35mpw.

All Antonio is saying is that the long run is less important than accumulated mileage.We put to much magic into particular work-outs but what matters most is work that closely resembles what were trying to accomplish.Specific training. Antonio is not saying that long runs are bad but what matters is specific work first and any way to get aerobic support without overtraining comes second.That can come from just running or from longer runs.You tell me what matters more.Alot of people think the sky is falling if they don't get that magic long run.Consistent aerobic support is much more important.Look at the history of distance running.Antonio knows what he's talking about.

I'd be very interested to read what data you have that shows that is NOT what we do.

Johnny,

I agree nobody cares about mmols but the pace at which this mmol occurs for sure. Not vague if you know what pace it occurs at, understand? Yes very fixed until influenced by training or nature, other times by diet & whatnot, just like daily pace.

Before going to New Dehli together with Ahmed Hassan Abdullah (Albert Chepkurui) and John Korir(that are in Torino for training, we leave next Wednesday, 29), where we meet also Robert Kipchumba and Rita Jeptoo training in Kenya, and the Ugandian team training in Kapcherwa, I read again some of these very interesting posts, that are going to overtake all the other discussions before. I am happy for this, because it means that, when there is a TECHNICAL and METHODOLOGICAL argument, many are really interested in understanding and in explaining their experiences.

I promised that, after WHMCh, I can post the full season of Shaheen (but also of some other athlete, for example Ahmed Hassan, if he wins a medal in his first HM, after winning Bruxelles with 26:59). Of sure, I need some time for writing everything, but I can explain his training and also the reasons of it.

At the beginning of November (5-6-7) I am, together Peter Thompson from GBR, the rapporteur of some methodological type of training for middle and long distances, during the yearly conference of European Association of the Coaches.

I have to prepare expecially a work regarding the differences between the training of a European runner, and an African (under the cultural, social, physiological, psychological and methodological point of view). I can send to someone that can post the work all what I prepare, that is also what European Coaches can have.

Awaiting that moment, I want to explain something about my normal phylosophy of training.

a) I think that the level of aerobic training must be connected with the specific training. The AEROBIC SUPPORT cannot be too much far from the specific speed that athletes have to use normally in their competition. So, we cannot speak about AEROBIC ENDURANCE only in one way.

In my opinion, EVERY SPEED SLOWER OF MORE THAN 80% OF THE SPEED OF THE RACE HAS NO MEAN OF TRAINING, BUT OF REGENERATION BETWEEN THE REAL WORKOUTS.

An example : if I run a Marathon in 2:10 (3:05 per km pace), 18.5 is 100% of the speed every 100m, so 80% of the speed is 3:05 + 37.0 = 3:42. From this speed TRAINING FOR BUILDING RESISTANCE BEGINS, not slower.

But, if I run 10000m in 28:20 (2:50 per km), my 80% is 2:50 + 34.0 = 3:24. If I run slower than this speed, I go for a regenerative work, not for a real training.

This is true in the field of the event DIRECTLY INFLUENCED BY THE THRESHOLD. But, when we speak about LACTIC EVENTS (like already 3000m SC, or 1500, or of course 800m) the aerobic level that we need must be more or less high, in order to support the LACTIC ENDURANCE and/or the LACTIC CAPACITY, that have a specific role in the specific event.

What is for me LACTIC ENDURANCE ? Is the quality connected with the ANAEROBIC THRESHOLD and with the LACTIC CAPACITY at the same time.

What is for me the LACTIC CAPACITY ? Is the quality connected with the LACTIC ENDURANCE and the LACTIC POWER at the same time.

May be that my terminology is different from your, so I try to explain me with an example.

I am able running, at 4 mmol, at a speed of 3:10 per km, and when I try to run 600m at my max speed, I can run 1:20.

With this attitude, my type of training can be :

a) What I want slower than 3:40 (till 2:30) : GENERAL RESISTANCE (not specific, also for Marathon)

b) From 1 hr to 1:30 at 3:30 : AEROBIC RESISTANCE (in part specific for Marathon, not specific but general for the other events)

c) From 40:00 to 1:10 at 3:10/3:15 : AEROBIC POWER "1st level" (speed for Marathon, specific for HM, special for 10000m, aerobic support for steeple and 5000m, general for 1500 and 800)

d) Intervals at 105/110 % of the AnT (2:52 > 3:00 per km) using distances between 1000 and 3000m : AEROBIC POWER "2nd level" (speed for Marathon and HM, specific for 10000m, special for 5000 and steeple, aerobic support for 1500 and 800m)

e) 10 / 15 times 600m in 1:36 / 1:38 with short recovery (1:30, for example) : LACTIC ENDURANCE (connected with AEROBIC POWER "2nd level" and LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE)

f) 6 / 8 times 600m in 1:27 / 1:30 with medium recovery (2:30, for example) : LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE (connection with LACTIC ENDURANCE and LACTIC CAPACITY)

g) 3 / 4 times 600m in 1:23 rec. 6 / 8 min : LACTIC CAPACITY (connected with LACTIC SPEED ENDURANCE and LACTIC POWER)

h) 1 time 600m in 1:20 (max speed) : LACTIC POWER.

The different speed are connected between, but for every speed you can find the direct support only from the speed immediately slower (for endurance), and from the speed immediately faster (for speed).

So, every speed is a different mean of training. The difference between the old and the modern system, is that in the old we considered only 3 big groups of speed : AEROBIC very slow, developing volume at low intensity, LONG RUN at AnT level, developing endurance at medium intensity, and SPEED ENDURANCE, running short intervals very fast.

Now, we can see that the connection among so far speeds are very little, and is difficult to improve : there is no connection between running 400m in 55.0 and the marathon, but there is also no connection between running 2 hours at 4:00 or 3:45 per km, and 1500m in 3:35.

So, we use now more speeds in training, very close, giving them a different mean. RUNNING AT 3:20 is VERY DIFFERENT from running at 3:10, BUT FOR THE MOST PART OF THE ATHLETES IS HE SAME (Long Fast run at personal sensation).

Running on the track 5 times 3000m in 8:20 for a runner able to do 26:30 in 10000m, is something UNDER RHYTM, but is a SPECIFIC SUPPORT different from long run. When you are able running it, you can run 10 x 1000 no more in 2:42, but in 2:36, for example. SO, THE DIRECT INFLUENCE OF THE SPECIFIC SUPPORT ON THE SPECIFIC TRAINING IS VERY BIG.

So, personally, I don't have care about mmol and the classic ideas of Thresholds, but I look at THE SPECIFIC SUPPORT for every distance.

But at the end of October I can explain better my phylosophy, when I have some more time.

Renato, as always thank you for the information. Perhaps I can add something to the terms you used so that others can understand.

This is as you say for most; a general, regenerative speed. I do think, however, that more time need be spent at this speed that you might seem to indicate. For instance, when you have Hassan or Shaheen do easy running, are they runnin for an hour at 3:40 per kilometer (~5:54 per mile). Perhaps for me that just seems fast because I have not run 12:48, but even still, you are posting this speed for an apparent 14:30 5,000 meter runner (is my guess at 3:10 pace for 4 mmol). So for someone running 4:40 mile pace in a race, I do not know if running 60 minutes (or whatever distance is the easy run) at 5:50 per mile is good recovery, especially if this is during hard, event specific training. Perhaps you do include more of this, but just from above as it is labeled (not specific for any event, even the marathon), that this work is underestimated for bringing recovery.

Just marathon endurance, I am sure, so probably everyone uses a variation of this term.

This is likely classic "Lactate Threshold Velocity" as you observe it is specific preparation for half marathon, or about one hour race speed for top elites. Someone like Paul Tergat, whose fastest half marathon was 58:51 (on a course 49 meters short; it would still be under 59:00 with those extra meters even still), has his threshold velocity around 4:29-4:31 per mile.

I think this speed is very important to use in all training for every event, even if you look only at the great athletes who find this by trial and error (El Guerrouj's program includes "Aerobic endurance" from 2:50-3:10 per kilometer at all parts of the season, at this threshold speed or somewhat slower for him).

For the 14:30 5,000 meter runner I hypothetically predict from these numbers, this speed might be called "velocity at VO2 Max" by some, or about the speed maintainable in a 10-11 minute all-out, even paced race, somewhere between 3,000 meter and 5,000 meter race pace. I agree this is specifically important for 10,000 meter runners. I recall Gebrselassie mentioning his workouts of 5x2000m at 63-64 seconds per lap, something slower than this speed but approaching the general level (and probably faster at the end of his work).

This is quite a lot faster than the VO2 max speed, perhaps at close to 1500m speed for the athlete above (14:30 5,000m). Perhaps, in reflection, one of the speeds above could be considered at the "isocapnic buffering zone" between lactate threshold velocity and vVO2 max speed. This is normally used in intervals (at the isocapnic buffering zone passing the threshold for a short time, or really, becaus you said some of your athletes have a threshold at 6mmol, the "steady state of effort" after which there is a spike in lactic acid levels, is more appropriate terminology).

I would say this is "anaerobic tolerance" or lactate tolerance speed bordering on "lactate clearance. I do not know the relative endurance of this hypothetical athlete (at about 67.5 seconds per 400 at 5K pace, it could be his 800m speed is 60 seconds per lap with very good endurance (as it seems) or 57-58 seconds per lap at 800m pace with poorer endurance spread over his events).

This is certainly lactate clearance and also using the creatine phopsphate "alactic" system, at least during the beginning of these repetitions.

And this I will assume is creatine phosphate training, because with only 80 seconds of running it will "flood" the muscles but not use them in a continuous state of lactic acid overflow. So your term makes the best sense. The athlete can run 80 seconds for 600m (13.3 seconds per 100m) so perhaps he can sprint 400m in 51-53 seconds (depending on power and speed endurance).

Yes, I look forward to discussing this again and thank you for the information.

Enjoy New Delhi and best wishes for your athletes.

If I understand Renato correctly then a 15'00 5000m runner would always stay within 3'36/km or 5'47 per mile when developing aerobic endurance. Using his guidelines this would fall between aerobic power level 1 and aerobic resistance, so if you choose to run this pace it would be for about 45'-50'.

As a 5000m runner the aerobic power level 1 would be the aerobic support for that event. So I'd guess that this is where the bulk of aerobic endurance work would be done. So this means doing 40' to 70' of total work at a pace of about 3'17/km or 5'18 per mile for this 5 km runner. Being the traditional AnT pace I would guess splitting it in long intervals of 10'-20' with short recoveries would make up the higher volumes of 50'+.

3'08/km or 5'02 per mile would be the second level of aerobic power which would provide the special endurance for the 5000m event and would be done in intervals of about 1 to 3 kilometers.

Finally 3'/km or 4'50 per mile would be the specific work for a 15' 5km runner.

Beyond the pace of 5'47 would be regeneration which would mean that you'd better off running your easy/recovery runs at a very slow pace and running more work within 80% of 5km pace.

This may have already been answered, but why is a 600m TT the basis for the Lactic paces? Why not 800m or 400m pace?

Understanding, just take a look at some existing data showing that muscle recruitment could be the cause for the slow component VO2. This could happen on a long run where the glycogen stores are depleted, where type 2 muscles fibers come into play, causing an overall increase in O2 needs due to the overall increase in muscle mass being utilized. The slow component of Vo2 is minimized by training, possibly by training the type 2 fibers to perform more oxidatively. The jury is out on these specific mechanisms, however I believe that there is some solid science behind the theory.

I would have to agree. As a proponent of long runs I also know that they are not necessary Year round.

I have seen/heard Arthur Lydiard & Arch Jelley tell athletes to take a day off and just take "easy runs" until the motivation returns.

I can remember a 2:14 Marathoner that Arch Coached in the early 80's who when asked about long runs and what he learned about them. His answer was "When to back off, and take a rest and recover"

Even if you look at many of Arthur's schedules (other than

"long distance Track" & marathon) you will see a predominance of 90 min Aerobic runs.

The one and only Jack Foster could run up to 3 hours on rugged hill country but would be very careful with recovery over the next few days. Many times riding his bike the day after a particularly tough workout.

I feel that this 2 hours or more, even 22 miles has come from Arthur's "teachings". The only reason they appeared in his schedules (something he really never wanted in print as all his athletes were treated differently)is because in the "good old days" the long runs around the Waiatarua course from his house just happened to be that distance or time.

If one looks at John Walkers "buildup" in 1975 you will see long runs were 18k and his longest run 27k.

my guess would be that it has to do with the maximum amount of time that you can operate with the majority of your energy derived from glycolytic sources, even though instanenous use will be different.

Renato,

Thank you very much for explaining this.

Can someone maybe even Mr Canova if he has time tell me if I am right in my way thinking and interpreting what he has said.

For a 1.48 800 runner this would mean that running slower than 64 second 400m pace (80 % of 800m pace)would be worthless in developing general resistance for the event. The rest of the running should be either faster or as easy as I want?

I think that's in reference to event specific work. There are other energy systems to be addressed, I believe. Renato, correct me if I am wrong.

Renato Canova wrote:

In my opinion, EVERY SPEED SLOWER OF MORE THAN 80% OF THE SPEED OF THE RACE HAS NO MEAN OF TRAINING, BUT OF REGENERATION BETWEEN THE REAL WORKOUTS.

An example : if I run a Marathon in 2:10 (3:05 per km pace), 18.5 is 100% of the speed every 100m, so 80% of the speed is 3:05 + 37.0 = 3:42. From this speed TRAINING FOR BUILDING RESISTANCE BEGINS, not slower.

Numbers don't make sense to me.

Under your math 6:10 per km, 3:05 + [5 x 37.0] is 0% of speed? that doesn't make sense, your numbers don't work.

My math says that 80% of speed of 3:05 per km should be as follows:

1000m/185seconds x 0.8.

That would be 185 seconds for 800 meters or 231.25 seconds for 1000meters, or better stated 3:51.25 per km.

Have you been calulating your athletes paces wrong all along, or are the percentages you stated incorrect?

All he is doing is race pace X 1.2 - not that hard.

Your wrong

0.8x18.5=14.8

18.5-14.8=3.7

18.5+3.7=22.2 (22.2 seonds is 80% of 18.5 speed over 100m)

22.2 x 10(number of times 100m goes into 1k)=222 seconds

=3.42 (Renato is right)