"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".
**********************************************************
This is wrong:
Norwegian rowers train most of their intensive training near anaerobic threshold.
The very best cross-country skiers in Norway, like Bente Skari, Bjørn Dæhlie, Vegard Ulvang and Thomas Alsgaard training consisted of easy training with lactate 1.5 mmol/l (more than 95% of the total training volume). Their intensive training was carried out with high intensity. However, lactate measurements during traininig show that these athletes often trained less hard during these type of training than the second best skiers at the national team. Skiers like Dahlie, Alsgaard and Ulvang did also carry out quite fast long runs too, near their anaerobic threshold.
So the only black hole here is Stephen Seilers' data.
Mr. Renato Canova: Could You Please Answer a Question About Effective Ways to Improve the Lactate Threshold?
Report Thread
-
-
Exercixe intensity near anaerobic threshold fits the exercise intensity demand during skiing at race speed too.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 May;35(5):818-25. Related Articles, Links
Energy cost of free technique and classical cross-country skiing at racing speeds.
Welde B, Evertsen F, Von Heimburg E, Ingulf Medbo J.
Faculty of Education, Engineering and Nursing, Nord-Trondelag University College, Rostad, N-7600 Levanger, Norway. [email protected]
PURPOSE: First, to measure the O(2) uptake ([OV0312]O(2)) and the blood lactate concentration during cross-country skiing at competition speed. Second, to compare these entities for the free technique and the classical technique. Further, to establish the subjects' [OV0312]O(2max) and the [OV0312]O(2) corresponding to the onset of blood lactate accumulation (OBLA, 4 mmol.L-1) during skiing, and finally to relate these entities to those of treadmill running. METHODS: Five high-level female junior cross-country skiers with a mean [OV0312]O(2max) of 63 mL.kg-1.min-1 served as subjects in five tests: examination of the [OV0312]O(2max) and the [OV0312]O(2) corresponding to the OBLA during up-hill cross-country skiing (both styles), inclined treadmill running, and a 6-km simulated cross-country ski race (both styles). RESULTS: The [OV0312]O(2max) obtained during up-hill cross-country skiing did not differ from that during treadmill running, nor did it differ between the two skiing styles. The peak heart rate was significantly lower during uphill cross-country skiing than during treadmill running. During the simulated competitions, the [OV0312]O(2) averaged 84% of the [OV0312]O(2max) or 95% of the [OV0312]O(2) at the OBLA found for uphill skiing. CONCLUSION: High-level female junior cross-country skiers are unable to ski at intensities close to their [OV0312]O(2max) or maintain an average intensity above that corresponding to their OBLA even during races lasting less than 25 min. Thus, training at intensities around the OBLA may be particularly relevant for cross-country skiers.
PMID: 12750592 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] -
I made my original post describe what I believe was a general way of training for European distance runners in the 70’s. I also used the Norwegian experience as an example of why few runners from our country run as fast as the best did in the 70s. It was never my intension to make this a discussion of my own training neither as a runner nor as a coach, or of Norwegian distance runners’ training specifically. Since I have gotten some interesting comments and questions back I will try to deal with some of them.
Regarding my schedules of track work in spring I agree with Frank’s statement that some of these have been to intense. Why have I made this mistake? The main reason for this is my own experience.
All through my running career I really improved with really intensive track work for a period of 4-6 weeks. To mention two example in 74 I ran 8.10 3 000m in a good race late in march. This was before my track training had started. After 3 months with 2 of them with focus on track work I ran 13.20 for 5000m. In 76 I did not even have the best Norwegian time in a 2900 m leg in a really in the beginning of May, but ran 13.20 and 3.38 by the end of June after my track training period. Both in 74 and in 76 my training on the track consisted of two days a week with 4-6 km fast running.
Exactly what I did varied between the years and from week to week, but the general pattern was one day of intense sort work say 15*400m average pace 60 with 60 sec rest, and one day were I did longer intervals say 4*1200m in 3.09 (one lap slow running as rest) plus 4*200 m with 200m jog. Basically I ran these workouts all out and the times steadily improved. I also ran one really hard run between 40 and 50 minutes a week and always kept the mileage high during these periods. It was during these periods I separated myself from most other Norwegian runners I trained with
For some reason I always improved rapidly on this once I had the strength. For a long time I tried to get all the runners I helped to get this development. I have found that this works for some but far from all runners benefit from this type of schedule and I am now much more careful with this than earlier.
To add to the story of my mistakes: I also tried the method of once a week in 1500m pace during winter combined with aerobic running. I found that this was the safest way to make these type of schedules not work. It seems that the speed work following this strategy very easily gets way to fast early in the track period.
So to sum up: I did intensive hard track sessions basically going all out from 4-6 weeks in what for me was a fast pace. I have since learned by experience that this do not work for many runners and they have a need for a far more careful approach.
As you see I do not believe in a “ one size fits all” approach to this. It would be interesting if someone with knowledge about Dave Morecroft’s training commented on this based on Dave’s training which I believe included very intensive track sessions. After watching Dave run 13.00 by himself with no pacesetters and having left the competitors after 1200 m he will always rank as one of the top European performers over 5000 even though he timed his 82 top shape wrong.
To your comment that you do not think I could have run faster with less commitment because I would have killed myself by speed work I just have to say that this is of course a possibility, but the evidence from what I did do not support this so I have a hard time to understand on what basis you make this statement. Anyway, this is just speculations hardly interesting to many people, so I suggest we drop this subject of discussion.
It is always a possibility that the \\\\\\\"intensity- factor\\\\\\\" explains my problems with my sinuses ( I never had very much of an injury problem). Anyway I just had a small operation to handle that problem as it has caused me trouble all the time even though I never run hard anymore, my son and my daughter also have the same problem. So if the “intensity-factor” played a role I think it had good allies. -
I read about Dave Moorcroft's training in a long time ago and I can't even remember what the name of the book was, but you're right, his training was very intense. 3 speedworkouts per week ( I assume this was just prior to the track season ), with long recoveries ex. 5-6x1000m in 2:27 with 6.5 min recoveries, or 8x300m in 39 with 3 minute recoveries, or 10x150m with 90 sec. recoveries. His mileage on the other days was usually 5 miles am and pm with a 15 mile long run on Sundays.
-
Knutk:
What was your mileage during the various phases?
Cheers,
Jens -
Knut,
From distance I think that you may have ran faster if you had not pushed your self as hard as you did, if not I'm afraid that you may have "killed" your self, even with less commitments.
I'm sure that many runners in Norway, despite your small "mistakes", could have learn more from you, but I'm sure that not to many have asked you seriously?
However, I think many runners in Norway at the moment is far less commited than you and f. ex. Øyvind Dahl, and others, was when you trained seriously. However, they still run 40-50 sec slower than you, Knut. Maybe they need to be more commited to their running?
I think, at at that time, Knut and some few of these other runners, trained better than most of the runners in Norway are doing today. -
SCIENTIFIC METHOD ?
Dear Frank
I´m very happy that you participate in this little discussion with an open atitude. People did many posts after my last post to you. Most of them are about the use of acid lactic meters and training frequence in pace intensities. And what I see here? Is that physiologists, men of science, coaches –they don´t agree one with each other and they fight each other with articles, papers, data, quotes from others, individual conclusions. This is tougher than a hard run my friend. XC Junkie quotes Will G Hopkins PhD. Then Frank quotes and says - 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 – No Frank quotes the East and West Germans and later on the discussion passes for skiing sport that´s may be really interesting but that we haven´t in Portugal, how can I know about skiing in a running discussing ? – if that would be a running training experience…
Well, now after a few posts it makes sense to me my doubts about meters and my ask to Frank conclusion that - Not many coaches or athletes have enough knowledge about it, at least in Norway.
Frank, not just “many coaches” and not just “in Norway”, the best scientists all over the world they haven´t not a unique single conclusion, ther´s no unanimity, even among scientists. So, what in a earlier post by Frank seems to be as take for granted, based in the science, the same science that Frank based is statements denies Frank conclusions.
One other fact that´s amazing is that most of the times scientists and people that are physiology believers when they get any new conclusion all the rest changes to be outdate, and even undeniable conclusions that a few minutes ago they were correct, instantaneously they change to be wrong. How do you want that Knut run more anaerobic threshold runs and less intervals if in the 70s someone different coach claims that´s not the best way, he were confronted with the “last physiologic knowledge” that said that the HARD-EASY day that´s the best, or that apart from the workouts we need to run steady-state easy runs. I guess that if you did lived that 70s decade you will do the same. Now, after some 30 years that´s easier to ask “Knut don+t yoy think that would be good that….”. In the next 30 years we will have this same discussion and I guess that I can ask to you “Frank you you did you prescribe many threshold runs. If someone want´s to study and comment the past, we need to use that past knowledge, not recent knowledge, This is an absurd.
This weekend I taught a running scene over a track that makes me wonder how will we decide? I taught a runner and a coach. The coach did prescribes the track workout, but the runner says – Coach, please i´m really tired, I can´t start that workout. But the coach replies – No you aren´t tired because I take your mmol and you have 0.5 and based in all science that I know you are ok.
This is the state of science –anti scientific really ! The questions about workout frequency, or about training pace intensity I have no doubts at all. Why? Because I base my conclusion in my own experience and not in doubtful scientific conclusions, and what´s my final test to see if that works/fits into the runner training are the runner season improvement and place classifications according each runner talent.
I agree with you that we need to look for the fast pace daily that you are able to hold on.
But this is simply a concept. The reality is that are runners that are able to train everyday in that threshold pace, but there are others that really they need recover runs to hold on workouts.
Ther´s no a single training way, as ther´s no a single training direction. I coach runners improving dramatic with no LTM – lactate management training at all, and they aren´t able to run threshold runs frequently, and they are good runners. I´ve seen runners that train everyday faster than others but they don´t show major improvement or they aren´t talent runners. So, I think that you are right – if the runner wants to improve and is able to train faster – and if he does´t feel tired – that´s perfect, but I think that you are wrong if you want to impose that as unique rule. Even runners with similar PB´s they have different training capacities. There are the kind of - fast runners – those that are able to run short intervals in a good average range, the kind of – pace runners – those who feel comfortable and steady in race pace event –this is showed by very good race event pace splits in workouts, and those that are the kind - slow runners –those that feel more comfort in training in intense paces but slower than race pace. Each one type neds a different training schedule despite the principles and the concepts are universal and the same for all cases. -
Frank, Can you give us a little summary of Marius Bakken´s training? Are you coaching him ?
-
No Frank was kicked off team Bakken, because of the iron-injections. If I recall right, the norwegian olympic org wouldn't sponsor Bakken if he didn't drop his coach. Bakken got a new coach Enoksen, but dropped him (not the same training-system). Now self-coach, but I think Frank is his "secret-coach".
-
"It would be interesting if someone with knowledge about Dave Morecroft’s training commented on this based on Dave’s training which I believe included very intensive track sessions"
KnutK,
There is a VERY detailed article about David Moorcroft's training in this magazine. I personally don't know anything about David Moorcroft's training except for this article.
It is online in PDF format (just scroll down until you get to the article "David Moorcroft, analysis of a champion") :
http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/spring1999.pdf
Hope this of interest. -
Frank Evertsen wrote:
".... On the basis of his(Seiler's) 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.......".
**********************************************************
This is wrong:
Norwegian rowers train most of their intensive training near anaerobic threshold.
The very best cross-country skiers in Norway, like Bente Skari, Bjørn Dæhlie, Vegard Ulvang and Thomas Alsgaard training consisted of easy training with lactate 1.5 mmol/l (more than 95% of the total training volume). Their intensive training was carried out with high intensity. However, lactate measurements during traininig show that these athletes often trained less hard during these type of training than the second best skiers at the national team. ....
So the only black hole here is Stephen Seilers' data.
Frank,
First let me say thanks for your contributions here, I find them interesting. But I have several comments/questions for you:
1) You seem to take exception with Seilers' research that most top X-C skiiers (lets stick with skiing here, I except your views on rowing) "do comparatively little training at or near lactate-threshold intensity." Fine. BUT.......then you mention, to defend your position, your understanding of the training of the top X-C skiiers of Norway which, in your opinion, consists of "MORE THAN NINETY-FIVE PERCENT" of volume at easy paces and low lactates. Um.......I don't get it. Doesn't that SUPPORT at the main thrust of Seilers' views, the part of his research that says: "COMPARATIVELY litte training is done at/near lactate threshhold" ??? (Your own examples state 95% or more of their training is not near threshhold! :-) )
You do go on to point out that these skiiers more intense work was "less intense" than some lower-level skiiers, which I guess is meant to imply that such intense work for them may have been near Lactate threshhold. But still, even if that were true, that would only account for 1-5% of training volume for them (by your own #'s), so..........the example you have brought up (concerning the training of Dæhlie, Ulvang and Alsgaard) does little to back-up your views that
A) training at/near Lacate Threshhold as often as possible is essential,
B) that training "easy/slow" is not very useful, and
C) that Seilers is wrong about top X-C skiiers not doing a much ("COMPARATIVELY) Lactate Threshhold training
Right???
(I am NOT saying your views are wrong at all, just that the example you brought up does not fit well with your views and the arguments you are trying to refute in my opinion)
2) Why do you think that while O2 consumption was similar in 2 styles of X-C skiiing and up-hill running, HR was much higher in running.... Why is that??Does it have something to do with the fact that the arms are more essentially involved in skiiing than running(that may be backwards thinking).....or is it simply that the act of leaving the ground involved in running (overcoming gravity each step beyong even what the hill presents) is the most costly in terms of all-out effort? I am curious about this (and think my guesses are probably wrong). -
Rift Runner wrote:
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
But i agree with Frank ! Of course that we shall train daily as faster as we are able to train - this is true as a training concept. We may look for more intensity and insert taht in the look for more training frequence, BUT
threshold runs that needs to be considered as specifics despite that may be done very frequently. In an extreme example just thinks that a 800m runner he is able to run daily or twice a day or simply day-in day out a 800m time trial - but all in race pace or quite close to his own 800m race pace. We all know that to train like that is no way to a efecetive improvement. If you train in threshold paces mainly or daily ther´s no overcompensation, thus you need hard workouts to create overcompensation the key of training. Thus, thershold paces that are simpy the running suport not the essencials in a training schedule.
That would be find to train Race Pace daily - the same race pace event distance or if you aren´t able less. But simply we aren´t able.
Here you have another training concept - repetitions - to maximise the distance you run in race pace event, by doing pauses. But training it borns from the need to prepare you for the run and a look for improvement and progress. The training question is - How can you do more volume/intensity or less volume/intensity To improve your run performance ? Here is also a training But the fact is that no one is really able to run threshold runs daily closer and closer to race pace. We need to train in multidirectional style. Thus if we do all the same daily in a quite constant near the same pace - that´s not a training model, that´s wrong. To be consider as training defined we need to cover distances faster (and shorter) than race pace event - speed - and also longer but slower than race pace event - threshold. Thus we need to have a multidirectional training not unilateral. Any unilateral training or that tends to unilateral - that´s wrong concept.
Anyone can argue that the kenyans do that or that the Esat africans do that or that anyone else from europe or america is quite irrelevant - they can be WR or Olympic gold but they train wrong according the training principles.
Thus the need to recover - and days to an overcompensation. The training that simply looks for daily runs runned faster as you can in a threshold pace - desoite you aren´t tired (with no acid lactic concentration) is not correct. In that formula ther´s no training overcompensation. the key to all training. In my opinion we need to train as fast as we are able BUT ALSO to consider several pace intensities and if we consider severalk paces intensities and the faster ones than race pace or simply race pace (high acid lactic concentration) or if we consider longer runs (also high acid lactic concentration due to the runduration) we need to consider recover - not simply whe we feel tired, but because as consequence of our training workouts we need schedule recover sessions in a pace slower than we are able to do daily. After a hard workout (that needs to be palce in every schedule) we need the compensate recover. Anaerobic threshold as a daily training or as a training paradigm that´s very wrong independently than the distance event that you are training. One of the rules of the improvement that´s the exercise diversity as a basic training concept and to use specifics when you need to exercise specifics. No way someone else can convince me that i´m wrong or we need to revise all training concepts, and if so, may ne one day we will conclude that rest that´s the best training. But with the actual knowledge what are the physical effects of the activity we need to have the recover concept insert in our schedules. All training that´s like in the space spiral, but in a spiral we return (get back) to the same point we did start. All training that´s web and flow. not like a line. To use anaerobic thershold as a training front line that´s wrong - despite very good and quick positive results and well succeed experiences. Lactate mangement training - is no more than the suport training and the backyard - not the front line. -
Now I have one comment for Antonio:
I can appreciate SOME of your concerns/scepticism/critiques about scientific contributions to running/athletics, but I do not share your apparent overall dislike/distrust of it. I think sports science contributes a lot to athletics. Yes, people can DEFINITELY get too bogged down with scientific gadgets, and yes people can get too confused with too many complicated scientific terms/ideas, etc, but......there is still (despite these pitfalls) MUCH to be gained from sports science.
And I also think, Antonio, that you paint too big of gap between scientific and so-called "practical" methods of training. I think there is a less of gap. YOU are using "scientific" method in all of your training methods too: trial and error, observation of what works, search for training knowledge, experiements, tests, hypotheses, etc. All of that is still at its most basic level "science." It is surely true that sports scientists may sometimes overcomplicate things, and may also have many disagreements, BUT......coaches and runners who claim no interest in the "science" of sport ALSO have such disagreements! You regularly disagree with other coaches and athletes on training methods, correct???
In short, despite its flaws, today's more advanced scientific study of running and the human body makes essential contributions to the training ideas for most of the world and is really not that different at its core than what more traditional coaches have been doing for decades: testing ideas, seeing what works, trying to understand why it works or does not work, and attempting to advance the perfection of training methods (trying to make athletic training a more exact practice). Science is not "god" (it can be wrong of course), but neither are experienced so-called "traditional" coaches gods. Look at Lydiard! Many on this board seem to think he was some sort of "coaching-God," but I know you did not think so ( I know you respect him, but I also know you think some overemphasize his contributions). So science or not, no single training schedule is perfect (on THAT we can ALL agree). But science helps us fight through myths, and often figure out what works and why.
I prefer science over untested opinions. (but of course bear in mind, that most traditional coaches ARE USING science in its most basic form to test their ideas and come up with their opinions. So again, the gap is not that large between modern scientific study and traditional methods) -
Lance
Thanks for your reply.
I need to confess 2 things. One is that you are right that sometimes i do some extremism about negate science but i´m no more than play the devils role. Second is that i´m not the kind of the blind, deaf and dumb guy that refuses to based any idea in science knowledge.
Lance. One thing that science teaches us is not to be preconceived – that means to take for granted – before really knows the concept. Or to be preconceived is to classify someone or something with our pre-concepts, that we take a long ago, to eliminate the possibility that someone is right just by the fact that he thinks differently than you.
But with all respect and politeness that I have for you Lance – people like you that are so preconceived and science addicted to consider that´s what I say that´s classic and traditional way of coach – which I think that you includes me - and a modern one based in science – you need my extremism. This is a very preconceived way to see things Lance, that´s science that´s modernity and that experience is that basic and traditional. But science is also based in experience, trial and error, all science is based in thesis + hypothesis e + synthesis and this scientific method comes from the ancient Greecs in logic. Thus science as seen as a method that´s very old, older than running training. Older coaches are more much more recent than science practice.
I hope that one day you will see me as modern and not old, because my ideas are ahead of the science and also ahead of the past coaches. If that´s not science or classified as that – that´s a pitty – but in the limit or they are right or they are wrong. I know that for you this is basic – but that´s the true. Do you want to know why called “traditional coaches” they disagree often than in science. One of the reasons is because in the so called science mostly we agree with he can´t prove by yourselves. We need to be trust in the other. This is no distant than what you think from the coaches that based their methods in trial and error unlike you may think. This is even worst – someone believe in a concept that never experienced and simply did read in anywhere.
To break preconceives that´s not basic or old or traditional, that´s what the science need now. That could be simple to your mind, but that´s not simplistic – that´s the best way to improve training and coaching knowledge. Please lance, don´t refuse this or my ideas, just think of them without catalogue that. A basic idea is by the meaning of the word – something that sustains during a long period, and not for a couple of ideas as most of the science ideas. The base that´s first premise of everything that´s correct, that haven´t nothing with of simplistic – just simple. Very deep and right ideas are very simple and basic or you don´t agree? Or only the complex ideas are that
That´s very curious that in my country i´m considered a very complex coach, because a few times I see things different than the mainstream. Te call me a “man of science” that investigates always deep and that try to break past concepts. No one in my country would say that i´m traditional or basic or simplistic or that i´m anti-scientific coach. But when I say the same ideas in a different context – a foreign country – i´m considered a man of experience and trial and error.
You are right once again. I really use scientific method because I ALSO use "scientific" trial and error, observation of what works, search for training knowledge, experiments, tests, hypotheses, etc. not I JUST use. But most of what people says that´s science they don´t use that. You ant to know their method. They learned form the school or the university or they read the articles and instead of going to test, observation, etc they simply take that as granted. In the true science you can´t be confident in what the other says, need to test. I see so many people that thisnks that they base their knowledge in science and they simply REAPEAT what some told him. Everybody uses the lactic acid meter – but they simply read what the propaganda says about that and they think that´s a scientific attitude, that the training is more scientific, but isn´t. the need to test the machine, or according their own scientific rules something that you didn´t perceived (or experienced by yourself) can´t be considered science, Or am I wrong? I know that the meters are fallible and not accurate because I followed the samne experience that they did with lactic acid meter, but someone that simply did read in an article that´s worst than the coach basic that simply uses what you call basic – at least he experiments and takes conclusions by what´s perceived by his own. Of course that i´m not doing a pamphlet against science, but you need to review lots of the science items. Science also have a big margin of unknown – no one have full knowledge.
Besides science is a discipline or a knowledge method but that´s also a way to make opinion makers and and power – institutions, academic power etc.
Don´t forget that we are follow a discussion about meters machines and science support. I´m no such a naïve that I tink that all science is virgin and lives in purity, and that´s an exception in the all the rest of the society. Running that´s a sport but also an industry. Lactic acid meters are a product to buy and to sell. Scientists aren´t independents in their analysis, if the money that´s in the game. Money talks. There are scientists that they are payee to say that that product that’s the best – with all “scientific data support. Academics they have interests in follow some conveniences. I know what´s are most of the past East German scientists….
Now to finish. don´t tink that coaches disagreement that´s different than science disagreement. Coaches they easily agree each other more than the physiologists as an example. The scientists they discuss and fight the same subjects for years and years and decades and decades with no final conclusion. Most of the times you think that´s definitive and without that a new knowledge arises it comes someone with a different theory from the same scientific subject. To tell you the true that´s nothing different than the coaches that based their knowledge in the experience. The different is that when I some to my own conclusion that´s wrong I change quickly than a scientist. To be considered science you need science community agreement and acceptance and that´s are lobby groups and lobby of interests and power, not science in his purity.
I also think that diversity of opinions that´s benefit to any issue improvement. As I think that to co-exist several training methods and coaches with different opinions in the same training issue that´s very interesting and I would not judge that as a mess. But science looks for the unanimity of thinking. All science is based in the simplistic If AB then A isn´t =B. Isn´t that “basic” ?. Training is more complex than science and we need to use our “feeling”. Everything that deals with human beings and relationship – as to coach – needs more than science. And training can´t use science logic or science method exclusively.
I would be happy that you or anyone else knows my deep sincere opinion - not that you agree with me. My only intention about this post is that you make you know what i think that you don´t know about me, but now i think that you kno a lot about my position about this science issue, let´s talk about run. I´m preparing a little post about the all time american best cross country runner, now that´s the WCC champs will b in 2 weeks. What´s the name of the male all time american best cross country ? I guess that you agree with me. We don´t need no science for that, that´s basic, but that´s true (LOL). -
Cabral, I can't make anything out your posts. Maybe they are just over my head. But you really stick to your training program for answers. Eventhough different people seem to respond to different training stimuli differently based on the different fast to slow twitch muscle fiber ratio.
Racer, You give one example of a Bruce hyde increasing his mileage and them attaining a higher level of fitness. But I don't know that the coorelation really existed. They only way to prove that Hyde wouldn't have run better off less mileage at a faster pacer would be to train him that way. Otherwise you don' have anything to stand on as far as using him as an example.
In both cases the point is the same, different people will respond to different types of training. Some may have the mental and physical attributes to do high mileage like 100+ miles a week. While other may have the mental and physical makeup to bang out a hard pace and lots of intervals a week. No one has proven in this discussioin anything to the contrary and no one has proven one is better.
Now one could argue that over the evolution of running and world records that many of the elite today do both. The most successful Kenyans run hard on most days and do high mileage. So maybe the answer is to achieve ultimate success you need to attain a high amount of mileage for the economical benefits of high mileage and do the pace of your runns harder each year. But in the end each person has an upper limit. Whether it be time constraints, mental constraints, or physical limitaions. -
The problem that I have with many of the "scientific" studies I've seen is that they often have little to do with practical training concerns. Often they're conducted over 12-16 weeks or less and often they use untrained or relatively inexperienced runners, and often the scientists involved have little or no experience with top class running. One study, as an example, on the peak performance website purports to show that high intensity training is better than high volume training as a result of a study in which runners increased their volume by 100% for 4 weeks, then ran a time trial, then later they increased intensity for 4 weeks then ran a trial. Guess what, after the higher intensity training the runners performed better. But this is a terrible study for a lot of reasons. First of all nobody really trains like that, nobody instantly doubles their mileage for 4 weeks before an important race. Also, it's obvious to most experienced runners that cutting mileage and increasing intensity will give you better short term results, but most runners have a career longer than the 4 weeks in tht study. It doesn't necessarily follow that high intensity/low volume is the best plan in the long term. This is just one example, I could give many more, but you really have to take these studies with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that all scientific studies are incorrect or have nothing to offer, but you have to be very careful in taking them as the unchallenged truth.
Really, I think experience is the best teacher, there's no substitute for having 'been there and done that'. -
I agree with you.
( I will reply directly to Antonio also soon, and I also basically agree with him, but replying to him will take more time. His posts take longer to digest! :-) But much of what I write below can be directed to him too )
Many scientific studies are flawed, this is a fact. But so too are conclusions based on one's "own experience" or the experience of a coach.
But I do see that one's own experience is usually more useful than some short-term study on a small group of non-elite runners, because
A) we are "all an experiment of one"
B) our experiments on ourselves do last longer than most studies
But how do we decide which "training experiments" to try on ourselves??? I would say we pick and choose from the examples of past champions, great coaches, our own experiences and what science tells us (even the most "anti-science" person will trot out various technical and "scientific terms"). But we can only really try a few long-term experiments on ourselves. No one person can try out all the various ideas/training plans that exist. And this is where science comes in handy, testing and comparing many of the different ideas out there. Yes, these are often flawed studies. But just like the flawed conclusions of "experienced" coaches, one must wade through these poor studies/conclusions, dismiss them when necessary, and eventually (hopefully) find some useful/thought provoking studies/conclusions. They are out there.
Lastly, "running science" attempts to not only tell us what works, but WHY. This is often not as important to me personally. I usually care more about which training methods appear to be better, not necessarily the minute physiological reaons why one method is superior to another. BUT......sometimes knowing the WHY is important, and when one knows the WHY, he can come up with other ideas that were provoked/brought into his head because he understood more clearly the WHY behind a superior method.
This is where scientific knowledge about running also comes in quite handily. -
Dan Moriarity:
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. What many people
tend to forget is that the real experiments are carried
out over the years by elite runners. Accumulated experience
and wisdom tell you that high volume with "aerobic quality"
is the way to go. Perhaps the excersice physiologists should
follow elite runners over long time instead of creating
fuzz by writing another "breakthrough" paper showing the
wonderful effects of four weeks of high intensity.
Experienced runners and coached have known this for years,
but they also know that you cannot train like that for
an extended period of time.
Jens Andersen -
Mr. Seilers' data is mostly incorrect, since it is only partly true that the training that is characterized as "easy", isnt easy at all. When their collegues at the national team, cannot keep the speed of these very best skiers during, during so called easy training, then it is for sure not easy! The tops skiers carry out frequently such sessions near their lactate threshold. However, many skiers write this as "easy" training in their notebook. (This explaination was deleted by mistake in my previous email.).
Frequently measures of lactate during camps, show also that the best skiers' exercise intensity is not as high as for the poorer ranked skiers. During camps these best skiers often set the pace during training, and their pace may not fit all the other poorer ranked skiers.
Conclusion: Easy is not always easy, and hard is not always very hard.
Mr. Seilers' statement concerning overtraining, I'm sure he do not have any data that may support his statement.
I think it may have something to do with the fact that the arms and upperbody is more active during skiing, and that these also may affect the distribution of the blood. -
Dear Antonio,
I cannot se that we disagree concerning the fact that different athletes need different training.
However, I have quite long practical expirience as a coach, I dont see any conflict between the physiology and the practical terms of endurance training.
All kind of training may improve, both the running ecomomy, the maximal oxygen uptake, and the lactat threshold. The approach may be different and individual, but basically I believe that easy training and 2-3 high intensive and anaerobic intervals per week, may be the only key to improve your results.
I have seen to many runners in Norway, running easy and doing very high intensive intervals to believe that this is the main key formula.
I hope we may meet some day to discuss these topics, Antonio.
