From an old post of mine, and thanks to Paula Ribeiro to help me on the translation.
LACTATE CASCADE
Why train to rise the anaerobic level is a good training direction in every moment of the season ?
Why train at moderate pace aerobic mostly for a long period or “ad infinitum” and miss the interval training and anaerobic usage is wrong ?
We know (from Dudley's graphs, mine and John Hadd thread “2 kinds of runners. Which are you?”)
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=2375989&thread=2375989
)
that as we run faster we get to recruit more powerful (FTa and FTb) fibres that we did not recruit when we were "only" running from easy slow aerobics up to LT pace.
And because we are recruiting them, we will cause them to adapt "more aerobically" than they were before (more capillaries, mitochondria, aerobic enzymes, etc). And we know that this kind of FT training recruit tends to lead to a "slight" rise in VO2max because of so doing what is not crucial but got some interest. We can see this from elites who have gone into "peaking" mode. We see quicker race pace, better running economy, some of the ingredients that lead to rich performance.
I repeat. Train at faster paces than the aerobic one in every phase of the season preparation it will cause the muscle fibers to adapt “more aerobically” they were before.
So, ther´s a beneficial contribution to higher up the aerobic condition and meanwhile it´s done, once in a while anaerobic training shall be done in every phase of the periodisation namely during the introductory phase. Reason of efficiency.
If I want to use a pamphlet sentence to produce some sound bite I will say “aerobic first is stupidity”. It means that the training methodology that doesn´t respect the norm of moderate adaptation and uses to train aerobics exclusively, aerobic straight during a long period, lost in efficiency. The anaerobic training as well as the aerobic might be introduced and progressed in both pathways from easy first to late tuff stimulus.
But I don´t wish to discuss this adaptation at this point, valuable and all as it is. I know that we might use that high train stimulus spread along the season, which means constantly the way you combine aerobic stimulus with anaerobic stimulus.
If you understand this adaptation this way you will understand that every season phase of the periodisation might include anaerobic training and go anaerobic despite the main goal of one period of training is to raise the aerobic system.
To improve the power to create lactate transporters and better get the pyruvate/lactate out of those muscle cells which cannot deal with it internally), you MUST create very high lactate conditions within the cell. You MUST accumulate tons of pyruvate, like the cell is gonna burst with pyruvate/lactate, which will best stimulate your cells to create transporters in order to get rid of it.
A world top class runner needs to produce some 25% more pyruvate than an average class athlete for the same blood lactate, which means that the best runner, the higher ability to top performance the more you need to train at faster paces regularly. That justifies that most of those that did well without intervals, without train at his fast/speedy pace are average runners and not world top class.
Don´t take this my anaerobic kind of prescribe as “blindy prescribe”. That is the usual critic to those like me that we do. I´m aware that the anaerobic stimulus depends upon the total charge (how fast and how much), the frequency (how much in each period of reference) and demands recovery and training regeneration what normally can be done by aerobic training of low key right after the anaerobic session.
Don´t ever rich long distance training approach does aerobic training during high anaerobic training periods to restore and regenerate in a correct aerobic-anaerobic balance ? Therefore during introductory periods that the main goal is high up the aerobic condition, the anaerobic training might be done meanwhile you high up the aerobic condition with no decrease of the aerobic system.
The coach comment that do deny the interest of anerobic training, what they want to mean is the kind of training it´s wrong, it´s named “sexy training”.
Ther´s another type of adaptation caused by the quicker running of IIa, It is so powerful, and results in such a rapid increase in performance that it deludes or seduces many coaches, and runners, into thinking that they have found the "motherlode" of training methods and they ignore all else (to their eventual detriment). This is "sexy" training !
However when someone does use something the wrong way, the solution is not, to interdict, but move it the right way.
Let's begin with a neat metaphor. Imagine you has set up a pyramid of champagne glasses. You know the ones that currently is done in parties. What it´s done is simply keep pouring champagne into the TOP glass, and as it fills, the champagne overflows down into the glasses on the next tier down as a kind of champagne cascades. As you fill, it too overflows and the champagne cascades down into the glasses on each tier below. If you do it right, cautious and gentle, no champagne is wasted and all the glasses get filled. Neat trick!
Now, when we run at harder paces in IIa (or all-out, AFAP) we have to recruit our strongest and toughest fibres (FTb). They are the most-FT fibres that we possess, but besides being powerful, that means they are usually extremely poor at developing their own internal mitochondria.
So, as we pour on the power, the rate of pyruvate (by anaerobic glycolysis) through those strong fibres rapidly becomes TOO GREAT for their internal mitochondria to deal with — and this is usually true no matter how much aerobic training we give these fibres, they simply do not have a large (genetic) capacity to develop mitochondria. So as we pour on the power, the excess pyruvate is quickly converted to lactate and exported out of the cell into the blood.
Other fibres too on lower tiers (FTa), although they might have more mitochondrial capacity than FTb, are still able to overpower the ability of their internal mitochondria to deal with maximal glycolysis and they too must pump the pyruvate they cannot handle internally out into the blood as lactate. If they do not do this, then the accumulation of pyruvate/lactate inside the cell will lead to glycolysis slowing and then stopping altogether in those fibres. And the loss of such a huge source of power will obviously have an effect on our continued running performance.
So, to go back to the champagne cascade metaphor, and consider the strongest, most powerful, most FTb fibres as the uppermost / topmost champagne glasses. Like the glasses, those fibres will be the first to accumulate pyruvate as we recruit them because we know they have little or no internal mitochondria.
So, they have to "clear" or overflow the lactate from the cell as soon as possible or they will impede their own ability to maintain glycolysis and (continue to) give us running energy. In effect, they will shoot their own selves in the foot, (or strangle their own selves) if they do not get rid of their accumulating pyruvate fast enough.
So, FTb fibres are the glasses on the top tier, then FTa fibres for the next few tiers down, then ST fibres for the tiers at the bottom (and notice that the pyramid widens as it goes down, signifying that there are generally more FTa and ST fibres than FTb in someone who takes up distance running. If that was NOT so, he/she would not be motivated to try jogging but would head for the gym).
Hold on to the image of the champagne pyramid and the vertical distribution of the glasses/fibres. FTb > then FTa > then ST (going downwards).
In a conventional (not well aerobically trained) the FT runner, the problem is that there are not enough tiers of glasses in the whole pyramid for the amount of champagne/lactate that is cascading down from the top glasses. In effect, the waiter is pouring far too much champagne into the top glass without realising that there are not enough glasses in the whole pyramid to catch it all.
The end result of this is that ALL the glasses get "filled" to capacity and the excess champagne/lactate overflows and ruins the tablecloth as well as the racing performance of the FT runner.
As you might understand aerobic training is important for the FT runner, but also for the ST runner
Since FT runners do not have large percentage of ST fibres, we often find that when he recruits ONLY his ST fibres, he runs deathly slow or at least very slow. We see this (and hear them on LetsRun.Com)
Instead of feeling bad about this, and embarrassed in case he gets seen, the runner should simply recognise exactly the importance of what he is achieving. He is creating more mitochondria in his poorest weakest condition ST fibres, so they can catch more of the Lactate Cascade. In effect, he's adding more tiers to the champagne pyramid. And this may actually be so in "real" life. Of course our runner is not creating more ST fibres, but he will be increasing the percentage of his total muscle mass that is made up of fibres with ST aerobic characteristics (the type I fibers).
And as quickly he has done so in those yet few developed ST fibres he has, he should then be able to also sometimes train a little faster so he can recruit his lightest FTa fibres (and not all FTa fibres will be the same, or have the same power — think of the range from ST to FTb as a spectrum, so there can be weak ST fibres and strong(er) ST fibres, and weak FTa and strong(er) FTa).
So while the introduce of anaerobic training might be different for the FT runner and the ST runner.
We can find an ST runner doing great work running all day at easy paces. The ST runner can recruit a large percentage of his muscle fibres at such aerobic pace, this may not be so with more-FT types, who need to work a little faster SOME OF THE TIME so they can recruit their slightly more powerful (yet weakest) FTa fibres. But remember…I remarked above, and I don't know if the point was noted, he should always run at the gentlest pace possible as well to recruit those fibres so that they get stimulated to adapt as aerobically as possible (as opposed to adapting to improve their capacity for glycolysis which will happen if he recruits them too aggressively).
The adaptation I am wanting to get to, which I feel is the prime adaptation that we want to provoke, when we combine the aerobic training with the anaerobic kind, is not excessive anaerobic, but steady-progressive anaerobic system by sensible anaerobic training dosage and well balanced aerobic-anaerobic dosage.
Remember that WE MUST USE OUR ANAEROBIC LACTATE (glycolytic) ENERGY SYSTEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, but not too much that it slows us down before the finish line.
Let's go back to the champagne pyramid. We need to have lots of glasses in which to catch the champagne before it overflows totally and ruins everything.
In effect, we can now pour MORE champagne than he could before causing a big problem. So, we have already achieved part of what we set out to do in our axiom; we can use more of our anaerobic lactate/glycolytic system than we could before.
Ther´s plenty of benefit while do aerobic and anaerobic training combined, done year round, progressive way following the rule of adaptation for both systems.
I guess that Alberto Salazar is totally right about that point when he says:
Alberto Salazar: “We do speed consistently year round. We never give the body anything that it’s not accustomed to. I don’t believe in systems like the Lydiard system where they times of no speed. The body likes consistency. We always have some of it in the mix. We just use different intensities at different times of the year”
http://olympics.runnersworld.com/2012/alberto-salazar-after-the-10k/
