AT, AnT, LT, VT, CV and other kinds of threshold

Good post!!! Now everyone can make fun of me again at my excitement of this interest.

I keep Anaerobic Threshold and Lactate Threshold the same pace. You might add to your definition that this is the point where lactic acid takes over as primary fuel over glucose.

Back at Aerobic Threshold, you might note that that is where muscle fiber type usage, red to white, is 50/50. Speed up just a bit to Marathon Pace and have a dominance of white fibers over red.

Your Critical Velocity could also arguably be Lydiard's 7/8 effort as well. Tinman has the better definition.

Other paces you might consider are where fat burning is at a maximum and glucose just starts to take over as primary fuel over fat (Brisk Pace). Also, red muscle fiber is at a max usage at Moderate Pace. I explain my version via %5k velocity, like Tinman does.

%5k Process/Significance

73 Fat burning a Max, heart at max capacity

75 Glucose takes over as primary fuel source, Brisk

80 Red muscle fiber maxed, Moderate Pace

85 Aerobic Threshold, Red:White is 50:50, MSS

88 Marathon Pace, White dominates

93 Lactate/Anaerobic Threshold, lactic acid primary fuel

95 Critical Velocity (Tinman), Lydiards 7/8

96 10k pace (Tinman)

You might also note that 70% of 5k pace is Lydiard's 1/4, 75% is Lydiard's 1/2, 85% is 3/4, and 95% is 7/8.

thanks for the help. Your posts have been really helpful clarifying this stuff for me. (We talked recently on the "Why do VO2Max training" thread.) That is a very helpful, practical chart.

Thanks. Yeah it's interesting stuff. I wish more people were interested in it, if for nothing else but discussing it over a beer.

I'd be interested in how this information is utilized by athletes and, more importantly coaches to establish a training/racing regimen.

Unfortnately many of today and yesterday's high school, collegiate and post-collegiate coaches have litle or no background in the physiology of exercise. I know Vigil (Adams State) has but Warhurst? Wetmore? Sevene? Salazar?

Hmmmm...perhaps that's one of the reasons why American born distance runner have NOT medalled at the O.G.'s in recent memory. Perhaps another is that great athletes haven't become runners recently.

IMHO the art of coaching comes with the science you speak of being combined with workload volumes, rest, and race planning...but I'll stick to the old axiom: "Great athletes make great coaches...and great genetics make for great athletes."

I don't know the answer. I will agree I rarely use in my own training the numbers above. I simply use them as guidelines. A lot of times I'll go out and "hammer" a 9 miler having no idea what my pace was until the end. I just know it was somewhere between AT and LT. Or if I run intervals, I don't know if I'm running at 10k pace or what? I don't think it matters. Since it is a continuum, then I really think the knowledge of those specific numbers I have presented is irrelevant. I think if you know the basic physiology of those limits then you can get good guidelines on proper workouts during proper times. You can run "hard" for 12 miles or you can run 12 miles at 5:48/mile. Both are MP runs to a specific runner, so what does it matter if each was exact? If your CV is 5:38 and your 10k pace is 5:33, what does it matter if you run 5 x 1 mile in 5:34 instead of 5:38? None. I think, like you said, it is an art mixed with physiology. You must know the physiology to stress the proper system but have the common sense to know when to be too picky or not. I coached a female athlete once, and at the beginning of the season she ran 24 something for a 5k. I didn't do specific calculations and all that, but I had an idea on what her AT, LT, and VO2 max paces were. We'd run a "range" of paces on long intervals, and I just guessed AT down to LT down to 5k pace on several instances. We ran a lot of CV type workouts too. She ended up running just under 21 and a 5:59 mile time trial on the track. Kept it subjective out there on the roads but was planned out at night on paper, just to get an idea of the purpose of the workouts. It's truly a mix of "art" and "science." That is just an example I wished to share, I'm sure others have more and better examples.

SpinneyLives wrote:

I'd be interested in how this information is utilized by athletes and, more importantly coaches to establish a training/racing regimen.

Unfortnately many of today and yesterday's high school, collegiate and post-collegiate coaches have litle or no background in the physiology of exercise. I know Vigil (Adams State) has but Warhurst? Wetmore? Sevene? Salazar?

Hmmmm...perhaps that's one of the reasons why American born distance runner have NOT medalled at the O.G.'s in recent memory. Perhaps another is that great athletes haven't become runners recently.

IMHO the art of coaching comes with the science you speak of being combined with workload volumes, rest, and race planning...but I'll stick to the old axiom: "Great athletes make great coaches...and great genetics make for great athletes."

I can only speak from my experience which is coaching high schoolers. I have always had a love for the science and art of coaching (f.y.i. I started this thread originally). Understanding the science has taken me along time because I do not have the background in the field. But, understanding science does not make one a great coach. Science (and applying it in a cohesive training plan) is only one part of the role of a coach. If you pinned me down to the things needed to be a good high school distance coach, I would list the following four things (in order)

1--Tremendous motivation and recruiting skills. High School coaches must find a way to get girl's soccer player and men's lacrosse players back to XC and track. Plus, you must then keep them motivated by success and a becoming team atmosphere.

2--A coherent coaching philosophy and life philosophy. Plus, a commitment to live out both philosophies. I meet a lot of coaches who go through the motions. I meet even more who have no philosophy of life. I think young athletes learn more covertly than overtly. They will remember (and emulate) more what we show them than what we tell them.

3--A firm commitment to the aerobic development of high school athletes. This means a long term dedication to improving the body's aerobic system through the proper use of aerobic running, threshold work, improved VO2max, as well as alactic/pure speed work to improve economy. Racing should be deemphasized tremendously. Coaches should treat the four year high school program like elite coaches treat the four year Olympic cycle.

4--Coaches should continually seek out new ideas and suggestions from the community of knowledge out there. In other words, read, read, read. Read everything. Attend clinics and question coaches. The internet has become a great resource for coaches to expand their knowledge base.

I wouldn't disagree with your maxim--"Great athletes make great coaches...and great genetics make for great athletes"--but I would say that one of my mottos, via Lydiard, is that "champions are not born, they are made." I have certainly seen this prove true over and over again.

Thanks for the discussion.

Brettman:

One clarification:

"73 Fat burning a(t) Max"

I don't think this is actually true. This premise was originally based upon the findings that at this % effort, the % fuel utilized is from fat stores is greatest compared to other fuel sources (carbos), not that at this point you are maxed out in terms of fat utilization. In fact, at higher intesities, although fat makes up a smaller relative percentage of fuel utilization, the actual amount of fat in terms of cal used is typically greater than at lower percent efforts. So for example at 70% effort, fat could account for 75% of the energy utilized, but be less total calories burned than at 85% effort, despite that fact that fat might account for only 40% of the energy utilized (note, I used numbers to make a point - if you like I could go back and get the specifics when I have more time). This common misconception is what led so many down the crooked path of "lower intensity is the fat-burning zone", i.e. that one will burn more fat (and thus lose weight faster) by exercising at lower intensities.

"Coaches should treat the four year high school program like elite coaches treat the four year Olympic cycle."

Excellent, excellent suggestion.

Yeah you are right. I should have stated that it, at 75%, is no longer the primary fuel source rather than "at a maximum." Do you have any additional info? Thanks in advance if so.

Not really, other than to tell you how I typically train . . . I pretty much just go by the old add 15-17 sec/mile for each doubling in distance. If not there, probably need more aerobic work, i.e. below what you're calling AT (a HR monitor is helpful in doing this), in order to push up your LT to as close to your max as possible. In heart rate terms this should be around 12-20 beats per minute below your max for marathon pace a la Hadd.

I despise ideas of "thresholds" since it implies some sort of shift.

Aerobic threshold seems pretty unclear in most cases. Anaerobic threshold makes it sound like oxygen is no longer being used when in fact it is still being used. (Even if you hold your breath oxidative processes are continuing).

I would be cautious about any of this being "exact" especially regarding anaerobic metabolism. Got news for you, anaerobic metabolism is "on" all the time. Coaches want to know some velocity, power or HR that associates with this "threshold" when scientists look at the issue of lactate threshold.

Lactate threshold is not the point where lactate peaks either. It is when lactate levels rise exponentially (according to some definitions as there are many ways to "determine" LT)

Ventilatory threshold to me is a measure of ventilation where VE, VCO2, VO2 are assessed. VT normally is closely associated with LT but not in all cases.

VO2max is hereditary as is trainability (see Bouchard's writings). In a large population VO2max is a good predictor of performance; in a smaller, less heterogenous population it is less predictive in terms of who will win.

Often it is misuse and misunderstandings of the science that leads to problems; science merely studies and reports. Unfortunately, scientists cannot guarantee that the results will be used properly.

I think the latter is a good reason for coaches to have a fundamental understanding of science and physiology just so coaches can understand the writings and know when crap comes down the pike.

This...

"VO2max is hereditary as is trainability..."

...truly is something. Expand upon it please.

Yeah I agree with you. It is a continuum (like I've typed 1000 times). Of course LT is not exact, that's why I included in my definition that that is the point where lactic acid takes over as PRIMARY fuel. Same as back at AT. It just so happens that at that pace the muscle fiber usage is about 50/50. But it is irrelevant to train at 5:20 (if LT) instead of 5:24 (a bit slower). The longer you run the farther down the continuum you will shift. Even if you start running at LT velocity, surely if you run long enough you will hit your VO2 max. Everything is "on" all the time. Even back at 70% 5k velocity, there is SOME white fiber helping. I agree, some people feel there are definitive points/thresholds when this is actually not quite true. Good discussion and excellent point.

SpinneyLives wrote:

This...

"VO2max is hereditary as is trainability..."

...truly is something. Expand upon it please.

I take this to be true: VO2 max can only be trained as an entity so far. It is genetically determined. However, I think something like lactate threshold can be trained and trained and trained without really plateauing or hitting any negative effects. I'm horrible at writing, so I am trying hard to get my point across, haha. It's like, if you keep running 6 miles at LT pace once/week, you will continually to gradually improve it, however slight, seemingly on and on. VO2 max on the other hand, if trained specifically, such as 5 x 1k at 3k pace, you might plateau or even worse slightly reverse aerobic fitness.

...if VO2 max is hereditary, could we not identify those who have "futures" in the distances?

SpinneyLives wrote:

...if VO2 max is hereditary, could we not identify those who have "futures" in the distances?

Hmm. Interesting. Is VO2 max a good enough indicator? I would think so. The problem might be determining your VO2 max early on.

...if hereditary...test the parents...or at least establish a clearing house that tests ALL collegiate athletes (male and female) and fund the testing so we know who "has it" and who doesn't. No need to test the kids then...we know they may carry the genes!

Lactic Acid is not a primary fuel. Perhaps your general idea is understood, and that is fine, though.

I have described the energy continuum often in the past, but to summarize, the use of fuel to generate ATP varies relative to the exercise intensity. If immediate ATP in high amount is needed, then CP, creatine phosphate, will be the means. As time goes along, say after 5 seconds, then CP process creation of ATP will dimish and anaerobic glycolysis process creation of ATP pervades. Yet, some ATP is generated via aerobic glycolysis too. As time passes, the amount of ATP energy created by aerobic processes increases and anaerobic decreases.

The concept of threshold is somewhat misleading in that no exact point along the energy continuum exists, precisely, so keep that in mind. I will write more later when time permits. Tinman

Tinman,

Thanks. Yeah I know what I want to get it, I just don't know how to say it. Lactic acid itself being a primary fuel at that point is not direct, but the pathway of energy production changes (one dominates). Perhaps you could help us later? Thanks.