This thread is designed to be filled with thoughts and random ideas about run training, more of a stream of consciousness than anything. Nothing should herein should be accepted as fact. I hope to get a bunch of statements and ideas down so we can read, think about, and discuss them. Any ideas or methods are welcome, and feel free to be as critical as you want about any ideas posted.
-------------
definitions:
-VO2 Max = maximum amount of oxygen per kilogram per minute that your body can consume.
-Anaerobic Threshold(AT) = % of VO2 Max at which blood lactate production and removl are equal.
-Running Economy = amount of oxygen required to run at a given pace
elements of endurance performance:
-VO2 Max
-Anaerobic Threshold
-Efficiency
Most research shows that VO2 Max is trainable to no more than 20% improvement from an untrained state, and it maxes out within about a year of training. Some reasearch shows that more adaptation is possible. Tabata intervals were shown to have a large improvement of VO2 Max on already trained athletes. Anaerobic threshold is considered to be a fairly trainable attribute. Typical untrained individuals have an AT around 50%-60%; 80% is obtainable, some people have been measured at 90%. Training your AT from 50% to 75% is a 50% improvement. AT is thought to peak out at about 4 years of training.
In trained athletes VO2 Max is limited by oxygen delivery, not oxygen utilization. In untrained individuals, the working muscles might fatigue due to limited aerobic capacity before their cardiovascular limit is hit. For running, a short amount of training will reverse this and put the limit to VO2 Max on the cardiovascular system. For endurance activities that use smaller amounts of muscles(wheelchair racing) the limit may always be on muscular endurance rather than oxygen delivery. Elite wheelchair racers have lots of upper body mass because muscle endurance is the limiting factor. Elite endurance runners do not have huge legs because more mass won't be utilized because what is there is already being limited by the amount of oxygen being delivered.
So one of the things that we want to train is an increase in oxygen delivery. This will come from increased blood flow, either a higher heart rate or more blood volume per stroke. Max heart rate is not show to be able to be increased through training. That leaves us needing to increase our stroke volume(SV). SV is best trained at intense loads created by training at 90-95% of max heart rate. Increaded blood flow will not only benifit oxygen delivery(VO2 Max), but also provide more fuel, and provide greater capicity to remove the byproducts of muscular contraction therefore improving Anaerobic Threshold. Getting more blood to the working muscles is only part of the issue. The muscles also need to be able to access the oxygen in the increased blood flow. Increasing capillary density, mitochondria density, and mitochondria efficency will expand this capability. I believe that interval training can elicit these changes, even though they were once thought to be trainable only by long aerobic efforts. These adaptations may cause a decrease in heart rate at your maximum rate of work(If extraction of oxygen into the muscles is more limiting than delivery). This will reduce stress, cause the hormonal responce to favor fat over carb energy. Shifting energy usage to fat will cause a less acidic environment and the ability to endure longer efforts.
Adaptations to increased VO2 Max, SV, capillary density, mitochondria density, and mitochondria efficency are not exercise specific. Improvements will cary over to all activities. Most other training to improve endurance efforts are very task specific and will come at a cost to other endevors. So a great deal of improvement can be made without training specific task or long durations, and none of these adaptations should have a negative impact on other fitness goals.
Oxygen consumption is directly related to energy expenditure. Measuring oxygen consumption, shows the maximum capacity to do work aerobically. If your oxygen consumption is below your AT, you should be able to continue work for a very long period of time. AT and running economy dictate what speed you can sustain for long periods of time.
Efficiency is trained with Tempo runs and LSD:
Tempo runs target - economy of motion, efficiency at particular heart rates, pacing, specific muscular endurance.
LSD target - economy of motion, recovery, skeletal muscle(capillary, mitochondria, fiber transformation)
One of the major arguments for LSD is to prevent burnout. They let you train their specific qualities without adding to the mental and physical drain of pushing max intensity on the same exercise(running). I see an easy alternative to LSD day. More than half of the adaptations of the LSD day are not task specific, and can be trained at a high intensity through different exercises. To me, LSD day is less than half as important as it is commonly believed to be. And there is even less reason to LSD before the other capabilities are near maxed out since it requires significant time and will have negative impact on other athletic abilities.
-------------
This is all I have time for now. I am going to read this critically later and try to tear it appart. I suggest you do the same: correct me where I am wrong, add what I am missing, ask for clarifications, or inject your own. This really is juat a bunch of crap I wrote down, then TRIED to put together in a logical manner. I haven't reread it you to determine what makes sense and what is retarded. Just trying to get something started.
I look forward to reading more of your thoughts. I confess that I have not really read much about these issues, but am growing much more interested, since I am going to need to maximize my training efforts to see continued decent levels of improvement.
I know it's just my personal anecdote, but I have never done the proverbial "LSD" runs at 1-2 minutes slower than my anticipated marathon pace. Since I was only running 3-4 days per week in advance of my marathon in Feb. '05, I think running those that slowly would have been bad for my training. Maybe for those who run 6-7 days per week, it's not as much of an issue. I can see the benefits from a mental standpoint of being able to cope with running 20 miles non-stop. But, I'm not sure that shuffling along for 20 miles is better preparation than a higher intensity run with less distance.
Having trained for running at various distances using many different methods, I'll offer some random thoughts related to but not directly responding to the OP.
First, I think LSD is immensely important for marathon training. There is simply no substitute for the mental preparation that LSD provides. Being out on the road for 18-23 miles at a time is an almost otherworldly experience that must be trained specifically with LSD. In fact, I ran my fastest marathon time while doing my second-slowest LSD training. I finished a marathon in 2002 w/ a time of 3:02:20 (6:59 pace) after doing most of my LSD at 8-8:30/mile. I tend to think this is a product of having spent nearly 3 hrs. on the road during those long runs.
My speedwork during that same training cycle, on the other hand, was the most intense and specific I've done. In particular, I ran long intervals (1000-1400M) with short recovery and several extended tempo runs (essentially 5 miles at race pace) as the marathon approached. The paces of these intervals were determined by a formula I'll post when I have the book in front of me (the book is Daniels Running Formula, which I've mentioned in several other threads). Bottom line, I tend to think that tempo runs and extended intervals do as much if not more than LSD to improve running economy and VO2 max.
Moreover, I would argue that LSD is less important for shorter distance race preparation, to a point. I still see value in LSD, not specifically for race preparation or improvement of a particular system, but in order to build a strong base. This is where the discussion of muscle endurance comes in. Simply put, there must be running-specific training of muscular endurance in order to produce better runners. Here real world experience trumps theory. The best runners in the world run LSD. Period. It is difficult to argue with results in a real-world application.
That said, few of us are going to challenge for elite runner status. So, ultimately, maybe LSD isn't all that important for non-marathoners in comparison to other system work (short repeats, intervals, tempo runs, etc.). However, I will probably continue to do LSD, regardless of the particular distance at which I race, as it helps me to sustain a weekly mileage total and a baseline level of muscular endurance with which I am comfortable.
BTW, I don't mean to harp on one book, but Dr. Jack Daniels addresses these issues fairly comprehensively in Daniels Running Formula. Recommended reading for all runners. It has also been extremely helpful to me in coaching a cross country team in our inaugural season.
T-Runner, I may be looking back at my long runs from last Fall-Winter in the wrong way. My actual marathon time (3:17) was slower than projected based on some of my race results from last Fall (although I expected it to be even slower). So there probably should have been a wider separation between my long run training paces and my marathon pace, but because I only ran 3-4 days per week and really didn't do much speed work, I wasn't able to finish the marathon as fast as I should have. I'll have to get my hands on a copy of Daniels' book... it sounds really helpful.
How short were your recoveries when doing the 1000-1400M intervals??
Originally posted by Buk: This thread is designed to be filled with thoughts and random ideas about run training, more of a stream of consciousness than anything.
I donn't want to cut into your thread but just wanted to say that it's really one of the most interesting and comprehensive articles i've read on the matter. Thanks for posting it. I'll be avidly reading the rest and the commentairies it brings. (I don't run but want to improve my endurance in x-country skiing and hiking)
Begginer\intermediate\advanced runners bennifit differenty imo. A beginner may never need an interval type environment simply because a steady slow run may very well be taxing enough on any\all systems. Here the LSD might be as benificial as anything else. Especially considering how hard interval training can be...ie not getting discouraged or having training become so unpleasant so quick that they discontinue doing it or cannot recover properly.
An advanced runner may gain very little from LSD's. They can already cover the distance, so you need greater stimulus for improvement. IMO the intervals for reasons already mentioned would probibly be ideal. If you're training at a 90% intensity for 70% of the distance (or possibly more) then you could probibily race at 85%. This vs a 60% effort at 100% of the distance...mabey achieving a 70% race day performance?
Something that I plan on experimenting with is a periodization in reguards to running. 4 weeks devoted to speed training, 4 weeks devoted to increased distance. I have no idea how it'll work...
One thought is that there are probably different means to the same end. Certainly there are many people who are successful with the traditional training approaches of 6-7 days per week running, lots of slower-paced long distance work, etc. I think there is too much preaching of these regimens as dogma, though, when different approaches may work just as well or better for some individuals.
Linear Mode
