You need to develop both types of exercise.
Both are required. So you need to train for both.
You need to develop both types of exercise.
Both are required. So you need to train for both.
aaaabvc wrote:
yes, it can affect aerobic ability, and you will plateau. If your running easy runs as tempos your not getting the aerobic work you need, your switching over. While you still will be getting aerobic work in, it wont be where you need it to be and you will plateau fast.
For the love of god - YOU'RE!!!!!
Hadd did write about specific cellular adaptations that occur more robustly when running at 70-80% of heart rate max, namely increased vascular proliferation and increased mitochondria in the muscle fibers most important to distance running.
These adaptations occur at all running intensities but more at 70-80% HRmax according to specific human and animal studies cited in Hadd's posts.
It seems to be a more quantified Lydiard base approach; run as much mileage as possible, keeping the effort just below the point where it can overbalance into anaerobic running, with slower running where necessary.
He said that you can never run too slowly.
Lydiard also predicted that the above approach alone over months can bring the runner close to PR performance over almost all distances.
Paavo´s walks were up to 25k (15,5miles) and did long walks often in the morning and evening between those quite intense running workouts, in may and june.
Paavo Nurmi training the Paris Olympics in 1924
Training began in mid- january . This was preceded by a 3-month rest period .
From mid-January to the end of February in the afternoon :
Walking 10 to 25 km, 7 min / km (that´s pretty fast)
Gymnastic 10 min
In March and April
Morning :
Walking 10 to 25 km, 7 min / km
Gymnastic 10 min
Afternoon:
Running 3 to 6 km and a few strokes of 80 - 800 m
In May and June
Morning :
Walking 10 to 25 km, 7 min / km
Gymnastic 10 min
In the morning, half an hour after previous :
Running track hard 80 - 400 meters and 1 000 m time of 2.50 or 1 500 m time of 4.30 - 4.35
Afternoon:
Running terrain 10-25 minutes the pace of 3.10 / km, with the hard line 500 - 600 m
Running track 1-2 X 400 m from 60 to 65 s
Massage
In the evening:
Walking 1 - 2 hours 9 min / km
formerD1 wrote:
People like Paavo Nurmi, the old timers, believed that a good workout meant you were winded and sweaty at the end. None of this "long slow distance nonsense" that modern runners use.
So why arent ultrarunners the best long distance runners?
Actual reader wrote:
These adaptations occur at all running intensities but more at 70-80% HRmax according to specific human and animal studies cited in Hadd's posts.
It seems to be a more quantified Lydiard base approach; run as much mileage as possible, keeping the effort just below the point where it can overbalance into anaerobic running, with slower running where necessary.
He said that you can never run too slowly.
So 70-80% of HRmax optimizes the adaptation, but you can never run too slowly? Which is correct? If you are running at less than 70% of HRmax, are you running too slow or not?
In winter Nurmi walking 10-25Km, 7 min/K ...OVER SNOW.
This is a least as taxing as an easy run of equal distance over dry ground, but without the impact. I assume some of this was a commute of some sort, even if just for groceries, so he was probably carrying stuff also.
train smart wrote:
He didn't even read my post before he agreed with it. Weird. I'm saying the concept of 'aerobic benefit' is nonsense, pure pseudocience. Neural adaptions are what we are looking for.
Guess you've never heard of mitochondrial density or capillary growth...
The guy is a troll, also denying the efficacy of PEDs. Basically 180 degrees wrong about avery major factor in training and performance, and who is unable to support his trollings with any substantive evidence.
aboondo wrote:
train smart wrote:He didn't even read my post before he agreed with it. Weird. I'm saying the concept of 'aerobic benefit' is nonsense, pure pseudocience. Neural adaptions are what we are looking for.
Guess you've never heard of mitochondrial density or capillary growth...
For those wondering, there's a book titled "Serious Training for Endurance Athletes" by Rob Sleamaker and Ray Browning. It explains the benefits of 4 different intensity levels.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Actual reader wrote:These adaptations occur at all running intensities but more at 70-80% HRmax according to specific human and animal studies cited in Hadd's posts.
It seems to be a more quantified Lydiard base approach; run as much mileage as possible, keeping the effort just below the point where it can overbalance into anaerobic running, with slower running where necessary.
He said that you can never run too slowly.
So 70-80% of HRmax optimizes the adaptation, but you can never run too slowly? Which is correct? If you are running at less than 70% of HRmax, are you running too slow or not?
In the Lydiard book I have, he is making it clear that everyone must learn to listen to his body and pull back when necessary to avoid injury, illness, over-training ; just another reminder to avoid a no pain, no gain mentality.
I've found the HR monitor reassuring when running through some minor injuries, knowing that a run at a really easy effort at about 70% HRmax is still contributing to my fitness.
To get an optimum aerobic (or whatever) adaptation the best solution is in my opinion to vary the intensity, how in particular depends from the type and event, and of course where you are in the training macrocycle. Anything over ~60-70% of max HR does have it´s place.
You can`t/shouldn´t train every time at the optimal HR/intensity even for the aerobic development, that´s why you do the easy recovery runs. Also the HR of the lactate threshold etc.can vary a bit from day to day, even inside one day. And for example in the marathon training, it´s much more important to train enough between the aerobic-anaerobic threshold intensities vs. middle distances training. Not only for the metabolic adaptation, the running economy at/close your race pace is one important thing behind the long term improvement. To get the aerobic/anaerobic capacities balanced optimally, depending your main event and individual abilities, is difficult to figure out and execute. That´s art.
U.N.O. wrote:
You can`t/shouldn´t
where do those funny apostrophes come from? I've seen this in other posts and I just don't get it. Are they keys on a European keyboard? Mine looks like this: '
I can get your "can't" apostrophe -- ` -- by using the same key that shows a tilde ~. The one slanted the other direction, which you used in "shouldn't," remains a mystery.
Yup, I`m from Finland, and there`s no ' (copy-pasted that :) in my computer.
Actual reader wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:So 70-80% of HRmax optimizes the adaptation, but you can never run too slowly? Which is correct? If you are running at less than 70% of HRmax, are you running too slow or not?
In the Lydiard book I have, he is making it clear that everyone must learn to listen to his body and pull back when necessary to avoid injury, illness, over-training ; just another reminder to avoid a no pain, no gain mentality.
I've found the HR monitor reassuring when running through some minor injuries, knowing that a run at a really easy effort at about 70% HRmax is still contributing to my fitness.
Well, thanks for NOT answering my question. I was interested in the benefits of running at LESS THAN 70% of HR max. But I guess I should not assume you would answer my question just because you are citing my post.
Actually, the next guy answered my question. So running at 12min/mile with 50% of HR max probably doesn't have any benefit. But 60% of HR max probably does.
Watching The Detectives wrote:
The guy is a troll, also denying the efficacy of PEDs. Basically 180 degrees wrong about avery major factor in training and performance, and who is unable to support his trollings with any substantive evidence.
aboondo wrote:Guess you've never heard of mitochondrial density or capillary growth...
where's your evidence?
In the absence of that proof, common sense says mitochondria and capillaries will develop in and around the muscles that use oxygen, to the extent that their ability to function is stressed. Harder workouts stress them more. Longer slower runs stress them less. Old coaches' anecdotes to the contrary seem founded on the misconception that aerobic function decreases at more "anaerobic" paces.
It is now understood that oxygen unloads most quickly to muscle when intramuscular pH is low. The amount of oxygen available to your muscles at a slow pace is drastically limited by the lack of acid-generating anaerobic respiration. Assuming you're already adapted to sustaining that pace - i.e., not a beginner - you've already got mitochondria and capillarization to deliver and utilize all the oxygen your muscles require, and even if you gain a bit more muscle, your overall development is still constricted by the slow rate of gas exchange.
The benefits of easy, long-duration workouts are better explained by mechanical fatigue than aerobic fatigue. You're tired after a long run, but not likely out of breath by any stretch.
Hadd's famous article was specifically talking about marathon training: optimal training if what you're after is peak marathon performance. His basic claim was that you build your aerobic base (or aerobic power) most usefully, completely, and fully, if you start at a relatively low intensity level--a level at which the relationship between HR and pace remains relatively steady over the distance of your long run (16-20 miles, as I recall).
What he warns against is moving too quickly from EZ pace long runs to higher-intensity long runs. His most famous image for this process involves toothpaste. Damned if I can remember the specific wording--I last read the article more than a decade ago--but it has something to do with the most efficient way of filling a tube with toothpaste, and how it's important to fill from the bottom if you're looking to completely fill the thing.
I always read Hadd the way I read the Bible on those rare occasions when I read it: as poetic truth, not literal/revealed truth.
For most runners who haven't fully developed their aerobic potential, Hadd--or Lydiard, or van Aaken, or Kellogg, each of whom offers a different inflection of LSD training--will offer useful guidelines.
Hadd always insisted that his method was NOT just about LSD training, but that that "toothpaste tube" training was merely one (important) phase in a multi-phase process. He, like van Aaken and Kellogg, preached patience. Give the adaptations time to show up. Find a training level at which progressive adaptations, rather than slowly-building chronic exhaustion, can occur.
I'll suggest that almost any runner can benefit, at some point, by giving Hadd's training method six months or a year of your time.
Lots of overthinking and side discussions here. Hadd wasn't talking about physiology, but performance. So arguments attempting to replace aerobic reductionism with neural efficiency reductionism doesn't help us understand what Hadd meant, and can be safely ignored.
When Hadd described his idea of bad relationships between performance, and how to fix that, he's only addressing runners with poor endurance (most beginners). The "either" is more a function of what you are doing wrong, and how to fix it.
He's not saying so much that too much fast running is the problem, but rather that not enough slow running is the problem. This can be EITHER because overall volume is low, OR the volume is sufficient, but the easy running is in fact not easy (a common mistake for beginners). Too much fast running only hinders endurance development, when it limits the volume of slow running that could improve it.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Actual reader wrote:In the Lydiard book I have, he is making it clear that everyone must learn to listen to his body and pull back when necessary to avoid injury, illness, over-training ; just another reminder to avoid a no pain, no gain mentality.
I've found the HR monitor reassuring when running through some minor injuries, knowing that a run at a really easy effort at about 70% HRmax is still contributing to my fitness.
Well, thanks for NOT answering my question. I was interested in the benefits of running at LESS THAN 70% of HR max. But I guess I should not assume you would answer my question just because you are citing my post.
Actually, the next guy answered my question. So running at 12min/mile with 50% of HR max probably doesn't have any benefit. But 60% of HR max probably does.
Well, you are welcome. I was summarizing info from a 24 page manifesto by Hadd(search Hadd marathon training) and a scattered statements from Lydiard's writings including Running to the Top.
Hadd does cite study results that say that there are benefits starting at 60% HRmax but that you get the most bang for your buck from 70-80% HRmax.
The pace at 70% of HRmax is sloooow for most people, gets faster over time but is a really easy effort, always. So, why go lower than 70% unless you are naturally, occasionally led by injury of fatigue to jog that slowly.
Sorry for assuming that everyone's running experience would provide the context.
Read the above mentioned sources to better understand. One thread is not sufficient to form a personal, coherent training philosophy for distance running.