Physiology question: How do you keep running at V02 max after 11 minutes?

Indurain? You might want to research what was going on with Banesto cycling during his dynasty.

And Armstrong??? Was the pre-Ferrari or when he paid him a million bucks to implement & oversee a PED program? Lol. Honestly, to see LA on that list at 84.0 leads me to believe anything is possible with oxygen-vector doping for some athletes. 😄

Are you saying that I said there would be no improvement? If so you would be mistaken. See what you did. You tried to establish a question as fact, then confirmed it by answering it yourself. Anywho.... Depending on fitness almost any kind of exercise Improves vo2max.

cbenson4 wrote:

This thread is really starting to attract quality posts

Much the way this site was between 2002 - 2006, only we no longer have the brightest coaching minds of our generation sharing their knowledge - and for free. Those postings / readings were the sole reason for the resurgence in US distance and middle distance running.

The smart guys were tired of watching the US fail in global competition, so they initiated a mind dump into cyberspace on this website. I am glad the great posts are archived, but I wish this site was without all the trash and clutter of today.

Enjoy the thread

Runningart2004 wrote:

Mak is listed at 5'9, 154lb. Not that big. Look at his legs. He still has runners legs.

Alan

Not that big? A world-class mid-D runner at 154 lbs on a 5-9 frame? For a reference, you'll find many starters on HS football teams that go that size. And even at the D-2 college level, it's not unusual to find DBs & WRs at that size.

I've never paid much attention to Mak's legs, so are you saying larger leg muscles, particulary the thigh area, would be a limiting factor in running economy? And maybe that's why sprinters, with those huge quads, don't make good distance runners and vice versa.

Regardless of leg size, genetics would determine the potential of short, compact stocky distance runners. I'm not seeing many short, muscular, stocky-type runners light it up at any level. Most are finishing in the bottom half of XC meets & track distance events. Once every now & then, I'll see short, stocky runner do exceptionally well and my first thought is genetics at work here (hopefully it's not PEDs). So, in the grand scheme of things, genetics would determine distance running success regardless of training stimulus...no surprises there.

1 2 3 Green wrote:

cbenson4 wrote:

Well, yes, that's technically true, but simply running more over time will also improve economy, as this will result in more efficient and more numerous mitochondria and more capillaries, meaning your muscles will extract O2 from arterial blood better and "use" O2 more efficiently.

This confused me, and please educate me if I am looking at this wrong.

An increase in mitochondria and capillaries will extract more O2, and therefore increase power output. BUT it does not increase power output per unit oxygen. If that last part is true, wouldn't that mean that your VO2max has improved, and not your running economy? You are simply able to use more O2, not use it more efficiently.

The often stated factors in running economy are running form and power:weight, but those are both mechanical. What biological factors contribute to running economy?

I might not have articulated what I meant very well. Increases in myoglobin, a protein that extracts O2 from capillaries to be sent to the mitochondria, is what results in greater "a-vO2 difference," or O2 extraction at the capillaries, which, as you said, is a variable in VO2. I was incorrect to lump this in with greater running economy.

Regarding running economy at the cellular level, in the mitochondrial matrix, the greatest source of energy production is the electron transport chain, where the electrons of hydrogen atoms derived from glucose are passed down a cascade of protein complexes with the ultimate result being ATP production. I won't go over the entire process because it could end up being pages worth of stuff, but you can read a synopsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_transport_chain). In short, the mitochondrial network can always stand to be improved in terms of efficiency. In inefficient mitochondria, electrons that would normally be passed down the cascade may leak out into the inner membrane space, where they will ultimately bond with oxygen to form superoxide and eventually hydrogen peroxide (H2O2-), a reactive oxygen species (ROS). Accumulation of ROS is associated with increased fatigue rate during exercise. However, ROS are completely normal when exercising and are thought to play a role in training adaptations, as they essentially get rid of less efficient mitochondria, which are ultimately replaced by more efficient mitochondria that have less electron leakage. Therefore, you could say that they waste fewer electrons and can produce more ATP.

Oxygen is involved in all of this as the final electron acceptor. It bonds with the electrons that make it all the way through the cascade to form water (H2O) instead of ROS. This bonding is known as "reduction" but is commonly called "consumption of oxygen."

The more you run, the more cellular stress (via ROS) occurs, and the more mitochondria are replaced with shiny new ones that are better at consuming oxygen. This results in a lower relative VO2 at a given exercise intensity.

I probably butchered that explanation, so I'm sorry if I did. I'm still studying these concepts.

All the capillarization and shiny efficient mitochondria you can build will still not consume as much oxygen after sustained or incremental exercise as they can in all-out exercise.

Only enough of them will be built to provide the power needed for the paces you train at. And they can only use oxygen as fast as it can be exchanged between blood and muscle. Faster pace means more power and lower muscle pH means faster gas exchange.

Training at "vo2max" paces is a fool's errand; one should train at closer to 800 pace, taking only enough recovery to prevent being shut down by acidosis. If you want to build a huge aerobic engine, that is. If you're training for longer distances, you don't need that big an engine.

h kit wrote:

What % of V02max is lactate threshold training? As I understand it, LT pace is one hour race pace. So doing 20-30 minute runs at LT or cruise intervals at LT pace with short rest as Daniels suggests.

Am I missing something? Are you also conducting lactate threshold training at faster than one-hour pace?

The LT-zone is about 80-87% of MHR if you´re not a beginner, but paces below and above it has an effect too. If your´re right - slightly subLT your lactate levels won´t accumulate over ~3-4mmol (although could´ve a large variation), and if you´re well trained it´s slower than your 1hour race pace. Marius Bakken who was heavy on LT training and measured his heart rates and lactate readings said he was able to stay at LT ~95minutes (2:53 pace per km at his peak before a 13:06 5k).

The LT % of VO2max is usually around 80% of VO2max, or 87% of MHR, also in my case when was in shape. Trying to lift the LT HR and pace in the LT workouts using various intensities at~80-87 of MHR during the base is the main goal in events where the LT is very important. DON´T UNDERESTIMATE the slow, basic endurance runs and don´t overdo the LT work. You of course should use paces around the VO2max etc. too, to be able to do the LT workouts at higher pace, among with the other effects.Some slow twitcher´s though does best when avoiding intervals almost completely.

In the start of the base phase emphasize the lower LT zone workouts (when adapted to overall mileage) and once HR/pace stays even and increase intensity of some LT runs, about + 5bpm. Don´t rush things or you can´t lift the LT optimally. So don´t forget the lower zone totally when you decide to go faster at some of the LT runs. Keep in mind that HR at LT could be ~5bpm lower in the morning vs evening. Also when fatigued the LT HR is lower. Feeling should tell you more than the HR monitor, when learned the right feeling in first place. HR monitor is only a tool. Repeat this progressive work until you´re around pre-comp where you increase the intensive /race pace workouts. You can mess the good LT in the pre-season/season by training that isn´t in balance and/or you race too often. Especially 5-10k races too often are very taxing.

How important is the LT work (or VO2max) depends from your event the type you are. I noticed a drop in my 800m pb through the years when my LT improved but it was crucial to maintain the top end speed/anaerobic capacity to not lose the speed. My second lap improved and was the reason behind improving almost year after year at 800m, reached lifetime pb 1:57 in my 2nd race of the season, after years of training when was 27 years old. Then I messed it up, didn´t take enough of recovery and injured myself. I think that even at 800m the improved lactate clearance helped me at the last lap. But I took the endurance work to the extreme and didn´t emphasize the anaerobic capacity enough when was getting older and my 100-400m time got slower, so did the 800m. Both aerobic and anaerobic capacities should be in balance for the event. Needless to say but 400/800m type runners should do different training and can do well with low mileage high intensity approach, which didn´t work for me. But for sure at 5-10k, not mentioning the HM-marathon your LT should be at high level, otherwise you can´t perform optimally.

Finally, when you do LT zone runs/workouts you probably think that you´re going too slow. Feeling should be relaxed and "floating".

Bad Wigins wrote:

All the capillarization and shiny efficient mitochondria you can build will still not consume as much oxygen after sustained or incremental exercise as they can in all-out exercise.

Only enough of them will be built to provide the power needed for the paces you train at. And they can only use oxygen as fast as it can be exchanged between blood and muscle. Faster pace means more power and lower muscle pH means faster gas exchange.

Training at "vo2max" paces is a fool's errand; one should train at closer to 800 pace, taking only enough recovery to prevent being shut down by acidosis. If you want to build a huge aerobic engine, that is. If you're training for longer distances, you don't need that big an engine.

Care to elaborate? Saying that training at Vo2 max paces is a fool's errand is a bold statement. Are you saying that applies to 5K and 10K runners too? I haven't encountered any system where you only train at 800m pace or faster but I'm curious.

Bad Wigins is making bad statements that have no scientific or real world basis.

The body will make specific adaptations based on the stimulus it is exposed to. It adapts to get better at dealing with that specific stimulus. There is also a law of diminishing returns as the more you are exposed to a specific stimulus the lesser and lesser the degree of adaptation.

Sometimes this big picture gets lost in the shuffle of what pace should I train at.

Alan

Bad Wigins wrote:

All the capillarization and shiny efficient mitochondria you can build will still not consume as much oxygen after sustained or incremental exercise as they can in all-out exercise.

Only enough of them will be built to provide the power needed for the paces you train at. And they can only use oxygen as fast as it can be exchanged between blood and muscle. Faster pace means more power and lower muscle pH means faster gas exchange.

Training at "vo2max" paces is a fool's errand; one should train at closer to 800 pace, taking only enough recovery to prevent being shut down by acidosis. If you want to build a huge aerobic engine, that is. If you're training for longer distances, you don't need that big an engine.

Are you saying that you will be better prepared to ~3-10k races if you do only / emphasize the 800m pace work than 3-10k pace work? Gas exhange is the key? You seem to think that the huge aerobic engine (the heart) is the only thing to worry about, without importance of the qualities of all of the different muscle fibers. You don´t seem to have the practical knowledge what works in the long term if you try to get better on distance running. There´s no revolution happened.

And you forget the importance of race pace work, among with that the 3-10k repetitions with appropriate recovery is an important part when trying to increase the aerobic capacity of the FTx muscle fibers used at 3-10k pace, to be able to run faster at the same effort that is possible after years of systematic and progressive work.

Although I believe that using various paces, including some 800-mile pace work also to 3-10k runners is important for the maintenance of the VO2max, injury prevention and running efficiency especially as you get older. Running is simple, but what to do, how to do and when to do based on your current abilities and goals is much harder

Thanks, that does help. I have a decent chemistry background, but my physiology is lacking. I love threads like these when they come up, which is rarely.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Bad Wigins is making bad statements that have no scientific or real world basis.

Alan

What's new...

Bad Wigins wrote:

h kit wrote:

I understand that v02 max is the most oxygen your body can consume.

It isn't. It's decades-old baloney from before anyone understood how pH affects gas exchange between blood and working muscle.

Gas exchange is fastest when your muscles are burning with acid, and you don't maximize that through the sort of sustained or incremental tests VO2max is based on. You maximize it by starting fast and holding on, like an 800.

Some acidity aids in oxygen dissociation from red blood cells (Bohr effect) and many enzymes involved in energy production work better in a slightly acidic environment, but I think when acid levels get too high then it has a negative effect on ATP production and also muscle contraction.

And the definition of VO2max is maximal oxygen consumption or usage if you prefer.