Frank and KnutK, your posts are clearly written and interesting, thankyou.
However, at the moment it is hard to go away with some sort of "take home message" with respect to improving one's training.
Firstly, Knut K has written a great post about the training he did to run 27-40 odd for 10k. This seemed to consist of a lot miles (100-140 miles per week) run at relatively easy speeds - about 7mins per mile for most runs. Then Frank has commmented that KnutK perhaps did too much hard interval training. I guess that this was in some sort of specialised period just prior to his track races which has not been poste but maybe I have missed something in this massive thread.
Secondly, Frank is advocating running hard day in, day out, only running easily when you actually feel tired - "Near specific race speed". For middle distances (800m-1500m)I wonder how this is possible but I am guessing that Frank is referring to more of "anaerobic threshold training" day in day out. I think that the confusion lies in the fact that many people seem to have rather different definitions of what intensity "anerobic threshold training" really is (it seems to vary from marathon pace to 10 k pace according to various people), and also that this intensity may vary drastically depending on the condition of the runner but it would be helpful if we could have some sort of clarification. On the face of it, from what I understand this seems to be very much in line to what Arthur Lydiard advocated - "fast aerobic running" day in day out in the build up phase.
Finally, Ne-now has pointed out that runners such as Dieter Baumann ran in fact easily for most of their basic training with just a few specific workouts each week. I guess this seems to be more in line with what Renato/Antonio have been discussing.
Different strokes for different folks ?
Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?
Report Thread
-
-
This is part of a post that Kevin Sullivan made on the old T&F Media about the training of Bob Kennedy and others in the Kim MacDonald group (actually in debate with Marius):
"I don't dispute that there are many Kenyans, Morocans,etc. that can train at AT for 5-6 sessions a week but what about the ones that don't train this way? Specifically I am thinking of Kim MacDonald's group.
I was recently at a seminar here in Ann Arbor with Pascal Dobert as the guest speaker to talk about training with the Kenyans. Pascal is in this Kim MacDonald group and stated that they run 3 hard sessions per week max, much of it on the track. And from the examples of workouts that he gave, it seems to directly contradict the types of workouts you say are supposedly the right way to train.
Additionally, Pascal said that their non workout days are run "hard", and when questioned further said this is almost always sub 6 min/mile but not sub 5 min, which again is considerably slower than the 4:40 pace you get to in your training. They do a long run of 16-20 miles as well.
Obviously this group has had much success (Komen, BK, G Hood, Pascal, Seneca L, Kiptanui, Noah N, etc.) and from what I learned from Pascal, they are doing it very similarily to the way most North Americans are being trained at the moment. He said the biggest difference between college and post-collegiate training was the intensity and distance.
Note the part about non-workout days being done "hard." If you do the math, you have guys running 5K at 4:10 pace doing easy days at, say, 5:30-5:40 pace, which fits neatly with what Renato says about training slower than 80% of race pace not being specific. This group includes middle distance as well as long distance people. Along the same lines, El Guerrouj's coach (Kada) has described running slower than 3:00/km as "jogging" and both Coe and Morceli ran their slower, longer runs in this pace range.
Maybe the difference here between 5:30 pace being "slow" today and 7:00 "back in the day" being normal is part of the reason for the differences in performances. -
This thread is TOO LONG! I hope it gets deleted soon.
-
Does anyone know how fast Time Broe does his general distance runs?
-
Radish eater wrote:
This thread is TOO LONG! I hope it gets deleted soon.
shut up buttwipe. You can shove your rhetoric up your posterior. -
Dear Frank
You said that you did respond to Knut, but that´s to my email box that your post it arrives since you did reply to a my own post ! Check out that in your 3/4/2005 8:30AM that says - reply to Antonio Cabral.
Besides since i read this Forum that´s common that someone else replies to another person that isn´t the one that the post is directed and ther´s a large participation in the discussion than simply to persons. Check out that in the past you did the same in the past, you did post when i was discussing with someone else. Also the fact that if this is a open forum and lots of people reads, otherwise the post reply would go only directly to the one that you respond and isn´t fix in the threads. Finnaly the fact that your comments about meter use have to do with this original thread “the best way to improve ana that one more reason because I did reply to you, since your contribution I imagine that could be decisive to the discussion.
Now, with all respect, what troubles you is that i did ask an inconvenient question about your affirmation that - some coaches don´t use the lactic acid meter correctly - at least in Norway - that´s why i said that i´m not a Norway, not because you don´t know - of course that you know - but to justify that the fact that I´m a foreign my doubts doubles about what you said. You wlll see why.
My post main interest about your the info meters pretence wrong use it would be if that could corroborate the doubts that our best portuguese scientists and coaches we do have have about lactic acid meters – we think that´s very inaccurate. People responsible for the portuguese medicine drug test institute among others – to contest categorical the use of the acid lactic meters. I need to made you know that our Portuguese institute have an international accreditation and is world certificate as only a few in the world. Second the Director of that institute that conducts that investigation that covers dozen of top class runners, with lactic acid takes in the field priority not in the lab, and that study covers a large spectrum of cases and situations and it take years, in a large experiencing the most of the modern meters products that exists in the market and they conclude that acid lactic test machines they are inaccurate and now they are able to contest categorical the use of the mmol data. In fact not just the several testes conducted in the same occasion from several machines the same product seller showed different values, as different marks gives you different mmol data, in some values distance that in some cases are more than 1.5mmol – and that changes so many times that in a estimate variant that´s a 0.9 range variant estimation which is tremendously.
To made you know some resume of their conclusions I send you some simplistic true examples. In a concrete workout 4 meters data from the same company and the blood sample take is done in the same time in the same body part from several team experts – different values. The meter that you did get the lowest value – in a new blood sample test now that´s the one that gives you the highest value. Now they repeat that operation on and on systematically and they get the same conclusion. Another case several maters from different companies and they get different values in the tests. Another fact, sweet changes the data values. Another fact, some seconds after you did stop a workout or a set you get one value, after 1 minute after you did stop you will get an highest value, 2 minutes after the stop the date that´s even higher. That may sound simplistic to you. Of course that english that´s not my mother language and that I say that after 2 minutes the mmol is high that may seem ridicoulous to the experts but I know what I say – is that if you take the bolld sample right after you stop the result of that concentration is not correct. -
Dustin,
Like you i am scratching my head at the differences here. On the one hand we have the high volume at slow speed and on the other we have near race pace every day. This is a big range of physiological stimulus and unless some information is missing from the individual posters i am finding it difficult to reconcile even on the basis that different people require different training.
Much of my experience is based on what i have observed in east africa. Near race pace most days and a good supporting volume. I need some help to get my head around the lower intensity, higher volume stuff. Renato/Antonio/Jack D ???
RR -
Rift Runner wrote:
I need some help to get my head around the lower intensity, higher volume stuff. Renato/Antonio/Jack D ???
RR
A case study provided by John Kellogg (Weldon and Robert's coach):
"There is a point at which you optimally build fitness; if you go beyond that point very often, you begin giving some of it away. Your ideal frequency of threshold running (as well as your ideal mileage) simply depends on how often you can do it comfortably without needing a very slow recovery day (or series of recovery days). But it should also be regulated according to a few general rules:
1) Your age/running experience
2) Time of year (base training or competitive season)
3) Your long-term goals or lack thereof (also influenced by age)
I'll use Bruce Hyde as a case study, since he's followed things pretty much according to plan since his last season of high school.
During off-season training, Bruce would run at a "high-end" of aerobic effort only about twice per week when he was younger. On other days, he would either run very slowly the whole time or would add some short strides for mechanical efficiency. At first, he would (like most runners) go too hard, either testing himself as if to find out if he was any faster than he was a few days before or simply getting carried away and wanting to hammer it too often. As he became more experienced, he finally found the feeling you're supposed to find. It took some discipline on his part (and some constant prodding) to keep him from going too fast at times and giving too much away, but he finally embraced the high-end pace as the correct one for proper development. With maturity, he was able to progress to the point where he was hitting that high-end pace more often during his base phases. He still only does so about 4 times per week at most, and he only goes there 1-2 times per week during the competitive season when higher intensity is added (running very easy on in-between days so as to make this routine as safe as possible and repeatable for years).
Bruce took the 2003-2004 school year off academically and was able to get 5 months of pure base training which was uninterrupted by the normal college routine (this is a detrimental routine of tapering for a bunch of mostly meaningless races 3 seasons per year, running those races, recovering from those races - or staying run down - and never allowing complete development to take place). His mileage went way up from his previous levels (average of 106 per week for one 10-week period, highest of 125) and he was able to focus on threshold running as the staple of his preparation. In fact, he was getting ready for a marathon that he later decided to skip. At one point, he ran a 22-miler with 18 miles of that at an average pace of 5:20 per mile (several of those miles were hillier than anything on his target marathon course). From a training perspective, this aerobic development and this alone is what made him a better 1,500m runner. All his race-specific "workouts" were the same as they had been in previous years (although faster with the improved fundamental conditioning), so the specificity had next to nothing to do with improved performances - it was only the mileage and the consistency of threshold running over a period of months that made the difference.
You might know how the story played out after that: Bruce went on to run 8:03 for 3,000m in his first race the following season, a huge breakthrough into national class territory for him. He backed that up with a 4:02 mile, another big PR, and showed he could race with more seasoned runners when he used a 26.9 last 200m to place 4th in the USATF indoor 1,500m with another PR of 3:42.44 (equal to about a 4:00.25 mile). He sat out the outdoor season, again developing more aerobic endurance (up to a 142-mile week, with a few others in the high 120s), and returned to school for cross-country, winning the HEPS crown, the Northeast Regional title, and All-American honors at NCAAs.
Although Bruce Hyde is obviously a talented runner and not everyone can make themselves as fast in absolute terms as he is, that's an example of the personal improvement anyone can achieve with steadily increasing mileage and more consistent high-end running. Of course, everyone is different, so you have to experiment to find the right mileage and the right amount of threshold running for your current tolerance, body weight, and state of development. But these are universal principles - they work across the board. If you keep safely and steadily trying to push the boundaries out as the years go by, you may have some inevitable setbacks during the discovery process, but you'll find what's right and you'll continue to make an overall improvement for years to come.
Interesting story: Bruce had blood lactate measurements taken during a test about a year ago, and the physiologist was going on and on about how runners he tests are never able to accurately ascertain their true LT. They always think they're running with less distress than the measurements really indicate; i.e., they've passed their LT long before they feel like they have. But Bruce was just as adamant that his coaches (Rojo and me) had ingrained in him that same truth - that true maximum steady state is a more relaxed and controlled effort than runners realize and that they all pay lip service to the concept of LT but to a man they lack discipline and they go too fast. The physiologist had heard that story before and insisted that every runner with any head knowledge of LT thinks the same thing yet they always get too carried away with the pace and misjudge the effort. Well, Bruce proved him wrong. His true LT turned out to be precisely where he felt it was. The physiologist was impressed and remarked that, in his experience, no one had ever nailed it by feel. Here, finally, was someone who not only knew about "maximum steady state," but actually had an internal dialogue which was sensitive enough to put it into practice.
That's the kind of self-government you're looking for during threshold running. You want to find a pace you could theoretically hit for a portion of a run several days in a row before you need a complete recovery day or two. Trial and error (and factor analysis) indicates that actually hitting that high-end pace more than 3 times per week will expedite your fitness at a small cost to long-term development (also dependent upon how much higher-intensity work is being done). The take-home message in this is that if you're a newcomer to the sport or if you're younger than your prime racing years (25-35 years old for most long distance runners), you will be better served (at least from a statistical standpoint - obviously not everyone responds in exactly the same manner) by including more easy running in your base training regimen. If you are an older, experienced runner who is in (or past) your prime, you may be better served by running at a maximum steady state more often (4-6 times per week). If you're a high school or college runner who wants high school or college glory but doesn't plan to go a whole lot farther in the sport after those years, you'll also probably be better off running at a high-end pace several days per week, as long as you've done enough preparatory running to be ready for it.
" -
the defending champion meets sergey's challenge and responds
-
observer of taking up space wrote:
the defending champion meets sergey's challenge and responds
You keep counting people's word outputs, bud, if that's how you spend your time. Hopefully you can find something better to do with that wonderfully developed brain of yours.
I have not heard any critique yet from you about the volume of Renato or Antonio's posts that far exceed mine, but then, stupid people normally overlook logic, don't they? -
yes you certainly do :)
-
observer of taking up space wrote:
yes you certainly do :)
Good way to avoid the question; I continue to wonder why you contribute nothing yet keep posting. -
i'm incognito
-
bump
-
This article may be pertinate to this conversation:
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9902/wghacsm.html -
Excerpt from POLARIZED TRAINING AND HYPOXIC MUSCLES: Highlights of the ACSM Annual Meeting http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9902/wghacsm.html
Training
A high point was Stephen Seiler's contribution to the symposium on practical aspects of lactate measurement (#2041). On the basis of his experience with elite cross-country skiers and rowers, he argued that top endurance athletes do comparatively little training at or near lactate-threshold intensity (blood lactate concentrations of ~4 mmol/L, corresponding to intensities of ~85% of maximum oxygen consumption). Instead, their training is "polarized" around this intensity, in the sense that they do a few sessions per week at intensities well above 4 mmol/L and the rest at <2 mmol/L. He described the lactate threshold as the "lactate black hole", to emphasize his idea that too much training at this intensity tends to reduce the quality of higher intensity work-outs and ultimately leads to training monotony and overtraining. Carl Foster, who chaired the symposium, then outlined running programs of the famous Jack Daniels. Most of the training in Daniels' programs is below threshold intensity and the rest is at or above, which could be considered polarized training. Axel Urhausen, one of the speakers at the symposium, commented afterwards that he and his co-workers induce an overtrained state for research purposes by prescribing daily training at the lactate threshold.
Periodization--the structuring of a training program throughout a season--was the subject of only two free communications. One of the perennial problems of periodization is whether you should do base (low-intensity) training before quality (high-intensity) training in the months leading up to a competition, or whether you should do both together. In a 12-week training study in which the event was a simulated 80-s cycling time trial, sub-elite cyclists were randomized to sequential or concurrent training programs with the same total volume. The slowest cyclists gained more from the sequential approach, whereas the fastest cyclists did better with concurrent training (#789, Reid and Sleivert). Incidentally, world-class cross-country skiers and rowers use concurrent training for 10 months of the year, according to Seiler. Another periodization problem is how best to taper the training load in the days immediately before a competition. Sub-elite cyclists training exclusively at 85% VO2max tended to get a bigger improvement in a 20-km time trial following a 7-day taper in which volume was reduced to 50% rather than 30% or 80% (#387, Neary et al.). -
Observer of taking up space wins the lifetime non-achievement award for inventing exceptionally stupid awards, subtracting from a great discussion, and generally comporting himself like the typically moronic high school freshman that infests these boards regularly.
-
Especially, the ladies team have increaced their frequency of intense exercise the two last seasons. However, they are still quite much behind runners when it comes to how often and how much intense training thay are doing.
Few cross-country skiers understand that it should be more or less the same training strategy as in running. Cross-country skiing is a relatively small sport compared to f. ex. athletics, and they are still behind concerning the development of different training systems. -
Dear Antonio,
It was a mistake sending that email to you:))
I'm aware of all these points you are describing. However, we have done such studies of meters in Norway too:
Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2000 Aug;60(5):367-80. Related Articles, Links
Examination of four different instruments for measuring blood lactate concentration.
Medbo JI, Mamen A, Holt Olsen O, Evertsen F.
National Institute of Occupational Health, Oslo, Norway. [email protected]
Information on the performance of different instruments used to measure blood lactate concentration is incomplete. We therefore examined instruments from Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI 23L and YSI 1500) and three cheaper and simpler instruments: Dr. Lange's LP8+, Lactate Pro from Arkray in the KDK corporation and Accusport from Boehringer Mannheim. First, a number of blood samples were analysed by standard enzymatic photofluorometry (our reference method) and, in addition, by one or more of the instruments mentioned above. Second, measurements using two or more identical instruments were compared. Third, since Lactate Pro and Accusport are small (approximately 100 g, pocket-size), battery-driven, instruments that could be used for outdoor testing, the performance of these instruments was examined at simulated altitudes (O2 pressure of <10 kPa) and at temperatures below -20 degrees C, while screening the instruments as much as possible from the cold. Most of the different instruments showed systematically too high or too low values (10-25% deviation). The observed differences between instruments may affect the "blood lactate threshold" by 2-5%. We found different readings between "equal" YSI 1500 instruments, while we could see no difference when comparing the other instruments of the same type. Lactate Pro gave reliable results at both -21+/-1 degrees C and at simulated altitude. Accusport gave reliable results in the cold, but 1.85+/-0.08 mmol L(-1) (mean+/-SD) too high readings at the simulated altitude. Of the three simpler instruments examined, the Lactate Pro was at least as good as the YSI instruments and superior to the other two.
***********************************************************
We are also aware of the physiological respond of lactic measures, during different type of training. Many studies have been done previously of scientists in East and West Germany, concerning this task.
However, I just wanted to point out that a value from a meter maybe false, or even will mislead both the coach and his athlete if he is not aware these methodical challenges. -
Dear Dustin Hoffman,
Yes, my comment concerned only KnutK's workouts at the track during preseason/during season.
Secondly, "near specific race speed" = track training.
I appologize that I was not clear concerning "runining fast as often as possible" = training near anaerobic threshold.
Of course, this may even be hard for top runners, and may even be impossible to carry out every day. However, if the body respond and can handle it it may be better than jogging.
I have been in Kenya every year for the last 12 yrs. I have stayed from 7 days to 9 months.
During my stays in Kenya, I have carried out different studies of the Kenyans' training. We have performed measurements, both during training and in the laboratory, both at sea level and at altitude.
Kenyans carry out 2-3 race specific track seasons per weeks. Normalluy this starts after the national cross-country championship. When the Kanyans run slow easy runs, then it is really easy. However, it is not true that rest of their training consist of easy exercise. They often start easy, but increase their speed progressively during the session, running the last part relatively fast, near their anaerobic threshold (blood lactate <3 mmol, measured with the Lactate Pro Lactate Meter).
