Definiton of Aerobic and Anaerobic, lets get up to date here.

wellnow wrote: Why do you say that 4x600m @ target 800m pace is impossible?

Richard_ wrote:

The Light,

Thanks for the welcome.

Based on your comments it seems I should expound on my point. I was specifically saying that it is difficult to impossible to dismiss the data & results of valid, credible research with only an expression of opinion. In other words, claiming something along the lines of "that study is flawed" but providing no reasonable logic, known facts, and/or other data to support that opinion is not persuasive or credible. It was not my intent to suggest that on a global scale that unsupported opinions are not credible or persuasive.

By my reckoning Richard, your above statement makes you a hypocrite, because you are jumping to conclusions about genetics, without an understanding of gene expression.

The reason why I don't want to debate training with you is because you have so little experience of coaching compared to the real experts, many of whom post here on letsrun. However, you talk as though you believe you are an expert.

With your training information, you are trying to re-invent the wheel. Most of us here who are really knowledgeable about training did our wheel re-inventing when we discovered the joys of being party animals. Since then we have rediscovered our enthusiasm for real training and discipline necessary to reach a high standard of fitness.

Maybe you should stop preaching and join us in some serious training, if only as a scientific experiment?

wellnow wrote: you talk as though you believe you are an expert.

Doh!

The pot calling the kettle black.

Double DOH!!

My welcome was in part, tongue in cheek, yet genuine. But indeed, we could at least start a debate by claiming that some assumption in the study is not valid. I could make that assertion without having the duty to present data to back it up. As far as I see, without actually having looked at the study, the assumption is that forearms of athletes are comparable to the forearms of couch potatoes. It seems reasonable to challenge that assumption, or challenge the conclusion that it the cause is genetic and not environmental. Did the study address this point? Maybe I'm crossing your line of presenting some supporting logic.

I should probably warn you I'm not an experienced coach, except for my own self-training, and I've never won the Olympics. I hope someone else concurs that this seems like it's too much.Nevertheless, tempo runs should be run closer to 10 mile race pace (say 7:00), not your 2 mile race pace. If your mile PB is 5:40, running 4-5 mile repeats at 6:00 pace just seems like too much too fast, and not something you should be doing every week. If you are not doing the last one as fast as the first one, that's a sign that it's too much.I could believe that 6x800 or 4x1200 at that pace is your speed work.My idea of steady-state is a longer continuous run, rather than repeating intervals, at a slightly slower pace than tempo.Even 7:45 for the majority of your runs seems like that's equivalent to your marathon pace, which is a little too fast for easy runs.How do you feel when you workout? Do you feel strong and fresh during the runs? Do you feel fully recovered the next day, or at least before this workout?

g2 wrote:

My mile repeats are my tempo runs I think. Steady-state? The vast majority of my runs are between 7;45 and 7;30 pace usually around 50 miles per week. I do warmups/warmdowns only on hard runs such as mile repeats and 400's

The Light wrote:

But indeed, we could at least start a debate by claiming that some assumption in the study is not valid. I could make that assertion without having the duty to present data to back it up. As far as I see, without actually having looked at the study, the assumption is that forearms of athletes are comparable to the forearms of couch potatoes. It seems reasonable to challenge that assumption, or challenge the conclusion that it the cause is genetic and not environmental. Did the study address this point? Maybe I'm crossing your line of presenting some supporting logic.

The Light,

Yes, the research addressed the issue. The researchers stated in the study that the subjects were not doing any exercises that would train the wrist flexor muscles. The researchers also addressed the issue of genetic vs non-genetic differences in the tested muscles.

There is no problem with anyone asking those particular questions about the study, as they are clearly material to the validity of the study. However, it is something else entirely to make claims about the study results that are contradictory and/or not supported by the facts.

My easy runs feel easy I do feel recovered. My mile repeats are genuine. I do them with 5 minute standing rest.

I couldn't at first but over the years I have gotten much better at it. Also at a faster and faster pace but my race time don't improve. Yes I pretty much do them every week during the off season. I can hold all 5 at that pace on the track on the road anywhere.

I think we largely agree on that principle. If we are going to talk about physiology, might as well get it right. But we can succeed on the track without talking about it at all. We can leave "mitochondrial respiration" in the lab, and just talk about "gasping for air" on the track.My confidence comes from the improved race results that come after training, or that invincible feeling during a race as you are wondering why everyone else is moving in slow-motion. I don't think it would shake me too much if someone turned the science upside down, because that doesn't take my previous performances away.Regards,

wellnow wrote: Blah blah

Jon, take a break. We get it.

You're doing these once a week off season? My idea of off season is higher quantity, with lower quality.Do you have a (successful) coach guiding you? I'll give you my opinion, but encourage you to get another, qualified opinion. I would feel guilty steering you in a bad direction going into your senior year.In the off-season, you should take a break from speed, and rebuild your base. 65mpw is probably OK, although if you slow down, you could even bump this up to 70-75, but I won't tell you to go any higher.I would slow those mile repeats down to 7:00 (maybe 6:45), and your easy runs to 8:00. Instead of mile repeats, you could do continuous run with 30-45 minutes (or more if you feel good) at the 7:00 pace, plus a warm-up and cool-down. Or you could do progressive runs, starting out slow, gradually increasing the pace up to tempo, and if you really feel good, racing the last 2-3 minutes.You might do 2 of these "medium" work-outs per week, or 3 if you feel good. The rest of your runs should be easy. I would slow your easy runs down a little more, say 7:45 - 8:00 (or even slower).To stay in touch with your speed, you can do strides at the end of a run, once or twice a week.Do this "off-season" work for at least 6-12 weeks, depending on when your season starts again.After that, you can re-introduce speedwork, while reducing your weekly mileage. It should only take about 4-6 weeks to be up to full speed.

g2 wrote:

My easy runs feel easy I do feel recovered. My mile repeats are genuine. I do them with 5 minute standing rest.

I couldn't at first but over the years I have gotten much better at it. Also at a faster and faster pace but my race time don't improve. Yes I pretty much do them every week during the off season. I can hold all 5 at that pace on the track on the road anywhere.

wellnow wrote:

Why do you say that 4x600m @ target 800m pace is impossible?

It depends how fit you are and how serious you are. I have don 4x400 halfway between 400 and 800 pace + 200m flat out. The only difficulty I had in that session was the last 50m of the session, when my hamstrings became tired.

I had the endurance to do that session because I was regularly running 10k races and running lots of miles.

I had built up my fitness over several years. You can do the same if you want to.

4X600m @800m pace. You confess that you never did it.

I’m no runner. I’m a coach really. For 30 years that I deal with 800m runners of 1:44 down to 2:00. Let’s say that the week before their Pbs when they were very fit the best they were able to do is something as 3X500m @800m pace with very long recovery. No one was able to run such 4X600m @800m pace. May be you know someone that did it once. But this workout is impossible and shows your poor training knowledge. Therefore I ask once again: what’s your gain confidence from sports science information namely about the definition of aerobic and anaerobic, and the update of it that makes you advise an impossible workout ?

wonderer of things wrote:

wellnow wrote: Why do you say that 4x600m @ target 800m pace is impossible?

Name someone who has done this session, preferably someone who will come on here and back you up (ideally non anonymous), or show us somewhere in the written records of distance training by former elite athletes that this session has been done, at a realistic 800 pace.

Dave Moorcroft.

wellnow wrote: Dave Moorcroft.

Antonio, you are an admirer of Renato Canova. He has recommeded that session for what he calls resistant runners.

For a runner training for a championship, where heat, quarter final, semi final and final races will take place, I suppose 3x600 would be more appropriate.

If I want to achieve my potential this year, I need a fast 800m

4x400 @ 800 pace is not hard enough for me, I need a much more challenging session than that.

It is possible to run hill sessions that are harder than 4x600 @ 800 pace, so what is the problem?

Bored wrote:

wellnow wrote: Blah blah

Jon, take a break. We get it.

Why do you keep visiting this thread, if you find it so boring?

You want me to keep you entertained, like the old days?

Whatever it is you want from me, I can't or won't deliver, so I'm sorry, you will have to find something else to occupy your time.

wonderer of things wrote:

wellnow wrote: Dave Moorcroft.

Source of this information please?

His autobiography, about six weeks before he broke the World record for 5000m he did this session at 1.46 pace.

It was one of his staples as recommended by his coach John Anderson, since the time they first began working together in 1970. In that year it was 4x600 in 100 seconds and gradually the intensity increased over the twelve years leading up to Moorcroft's best season.

wellnow wrote: Antonio, ...

Here is some information from three of Renato's previous posts where he talks about the difference between what he calls Speed and Resistance:

I want to explain my training phylosophy, and the idea at the base of it, without speaking too much about physiological principles.

1.

In my opinion, TALENT is the speed, related with a specific distance. In other words, the winner is, for every distance, THE FASTER AMONG ATHLETES WITH THE SAME ENDURANCE. This is very different from THE MORE RESISTANT AMONG WHO HAVE THE SAME SPEED, because when I look for building a champion, I start to investigate the endurance of an athlete, not his speed. So, for example, I can define groups of athletes having NATURALLY good SPECIFIC QUALITY OF ENDURANCE for different distances, and after I try to develop their SPECIFIC SPEED.

2.

For doing this, when I look for young athletes, I put them in competitions in 3 different distances, creating groups related with their most evident qualities :

a) 400 / 800 / 1500

b) 800 / 1500 / 5000

c) 3000 / 5000 / 10000

d) 5000 / 10000 / HM

3.

From the first group I can find specialists of 800, deciding that can be FAST TYPE or RESISTANT TYPE. In the first case, they can stay for 3-4 years in 400 / 800, in the second in 800 / 1500. Only after 3-4 years, we can move the athlete of the second group to 1500 / 3000 and/or steeple, while the first group NEVER (normally) can move to 1500.

From the second group, I look for specialists of steeple and 5000. Also in this case, they can move to 10000 after 2-3 years, somebody arriving after 6-7 years to Marathon too.

From the third group, I look for specialists of 5000 and 10000. In this case, already after 1 year they can run HM, but can move to the full distance in the period of 4 years.

From the fourth group, we take new Marathon runners, preparing them to the full distance in less than 2 years.

4.

In every group, I go, at the beginning, to develope their SPEED ENDURANCE, working on the 2 shortest distances. If, for example, I have 3 athletes running 3'39" in 1500m, but with different basic speed (a : 50" - 1'50" - 3'39") (b : 49" - 1'48" - 3'39") (c : 48" - 1'46"5 - 3'39"), I plan immediately a future of 10000m for a), 5000 for b) and 1500 for c), using a strategy of 4 years for the final event.

In the case of a), the different speed for 400 / 800 / 1500 are 12.5 / 13.75 / 14.60. This means that the athlete run 800 at 90% of his speed of 400, and 1500 at 93.5% of his speed of 800. I can suppose that he can run 3000m at 95% of his speed of 1500m (15"33 every 100m = 2'33"3 every 1000m = 7'40" in 3000) in one year, and 5000 at 98% of his speed of 3000 (15"64 every 100m = 2'36"4 / km = 13'02").

Practically speaking, I identify, from the beginning, the above speeds as the key for developing his SPEED ENDURANCE for building his best possible performance :

a) SPEED of 12.5 for distances between 100 and 300m

b) SPEED of 13.7 for distances between 400 and 600m

c) SPEED of 14.6 for distances between 800 and 1200m

d) SPEED of 15.3 for distances between 800 and 2000m

e) SPEED of 15.6 for distances between 1000 and 3000m

The goal of training is very simple : TO EXTEND THE ABILITY OF DURATION AT EVERY SPECIFIC SPEED.

Of course, for doing this, we use a combined system :

1) Increase of global volume at the same speed

2) Extension of the length of the distances that we use, at the same speed

3) Reduction of recovery times for same speed and distance

The combined action of this phylosophy with the different speed of Specific Training can change the physiology of the athlete, that becomes able to run with a higher level of lactate in his fibres, to remove lactate faster from his fibers, and to enhance the ability in storage of lactic acid in his muscles. THIS IS SPECIFIC ENDURANCE FOR EVERY EVENT.

5.

As we have to "motors", one MECHANICAL (our muscles, like tha body of a car) and another METHABOLIC (the engine of the car), we have to take care of both of them. But in short distances we can perform looking at 90% for the MECHANICAL motor, in Marathon at 90% for the METHABOLIC engine. This doesn't mean that we don't have to take care of both the situations, but we cannot use the 80% of our time for training the less important quality for the chosen event. Of course, it's very good to eat a cake with a cherry, when you are hungry : but if you eat the cake without cherry you can, in any case, to satisfy your necessity of food, instead if you eat the cherry without cake you are hungry like before.

In other words, the focus in training is to work for exalting the main qualities of an athlete, using few time for trying to reduce the "holes", and not the contrary.

6.

In any event of athletics, speaking about running, we can obtain results for two reasons :

a) Natural Talent, that, with different expressions, can be identified in SPECIFIC SPEED

b) Training, that is the ability to extend the duration of your natural talent.

An example, speaking about the shortest distance of Track and Field (100m) :

Ben Johnson (for this example is not important if he used drugs or not) at 18 years ran 10.80, at 28 in 9.79.

This means that, if the 2 Ben Johnson could run together, the 28 old arrives to the finish 11m ahead.

But, if we go to see their time at 50m, we can see 5"70 when he was 18, 5"48 when was 28. The difference, in meters, is about 2.5m, that in 50m is 5%.

So, looking at the full distance, we can see that :

18y : 5"70 + 5"10

28y : 5"48 + 4"31

This means that Ben Johnson, in 10 years of training, was able to earn 2.50m during the first 50m (improvement 5%), and 8.50m during the second 50m (improvement 17%).

So, 5% is the increase of SPEED, 17% the increase of SPEED ENDURANCE.

This is an extreme example, and who is sick of Mathematics can find, of sure, some mistake in my numbers. But it's enough for showing that, IN ALL RUNNING EVENTS, you cannot improve very much your SPEED, that is highly connected with your Natural Talent, but you must work for improving in SPEED ENDURANCE, that is more connected with training.

7.

At the end, I want to remember that EVERY TEST CAN GIVE A STATIC PICTURE OF THE ATHLETE IN THE MOMENT OF THE TEST, but is useless if we don't use it in a DYNAMIC strategy having the final goal to change the qualities of the athlete. So, I WANT TO BUILD THE SPECIFIC ABILITY IN ENDURANCE OF ONE ATHLETE, not depending on what he is able to do at the moment. And, when I extend the ability in duration for the same speed, I provoke some physiological change that makes the athletes different from before.

So, I cannot depend on the current attitudes of one athlete, but I go to explore new attitudes. Top athletes, as top coaches, are EXPLORERS in a land that don't know. If you fear to try something new, NEVER you can give to your body and your mind the stimula for improving.

So, when I read a lot of discussion about VO2 max, Thresholds, Lactate, I understand that the main problem in the evolution of white athletes is THAT ATHLETICS, IN OUR COUNTRIES, BECAME LIKE MATHEMATICS : a lot of scientists, but no more instinct and no more heart. Athletes that want to control everything CANNOT OVERTAKE THEIR CURRENT LIMITS, and you can have stgimula in two directions only : OR YOU RUN FASTER, OR YOU RUN LONGER. The best thing is to do both the things.

If in the race you want to run fast, in training you have to run fast (of course having care of your recovery).

If in the race you have to run long distance, in training you have to run long distance.

But, if you want to be competitive, YOU HAVE TO RUN LONG AND FAST at the same time, not only long-slow, and short-fast.@@

***********************************************************

Skuj, of course the top runners of 800m must be fast, but the question is "how much fast", and "how much resistant".

I give you an example, looking for the top 80 all-time for 400, 800 and 1500m :

400 800 1500

10 44.05 1:42.62 3:29.29

20 44.20 1:42.98 3:30.18

30 44.30 1:43.22 3:30.77

40 44.38 1:43.38 3:31.13

50 44.46 1:43.57 3:31.49

60 44.51 1:43.70 3:31.76

70 44.58 1:43.88 3:32.06

80 44.62 1:43.95 3:32.37

How many athletes are in both 400 and 800 ? Juantorena only.

How many athletes are in 800 / 1500 ? Many.

So, an athlete able running 1:43.0 and 3:30, for having the same level of speed (looking for his international position) had to run 44.20, and this is not possible. So, in any case, they are surely FAST, but their speed is not at the same level of their SPECIFIC ENDURANCE.

Methodologically speaking, IS IT POSSIBLE RUNNING VERY FAST THE SHORTER DISTANCE OF THE MAIN DISTANCE THAT YOU PREPARE, NOT THE CONTRARY.

This is true for all the events. A lot of long runners of 10,000 improve when decide to prepare HM. A lot of runners of 1500 improve when move on 3000m too, WITHOUT REDUCING THE SPEED OF THEIR FASTEST TESTS.

The phylosophy of training is very simple : NEVER WE HAVE TO REPLACE ONE TYPE OF TRAINING WITH ANOTHER, BUT WE HAVE TO ADD WHAT WE DON'T DO.

In my life, I had a lot of athletes, from different Countries, coming to me already with very good PB. We must always remember THAT A PB OF AN ATHLETE IS DONE BECAUSE OF 2 REASONS : HIS TALENT (and we cannot do anything in this direction, this is a gift of God, Mama and Papa. Who doesn'have, cannot have), and HIS TRAINING. So, when we want that some athlete can improve, WE MUST NOT CHANGE WHAT HE DID, BUT ADD WHAT WE DIDN'T DO.

If I see a talented athlete able running 1:45 and 3:35, using a lot of speed and very little endurance, and I see that he's talented for moving to longer distances, I work for changing his mentality, and, step by step, I put in his training something extensive, at high speed. So, my goal for the next year is not to run 1:44, but 1:45 again and 3:31. After his 3:31, the next year can run easy 1:44 (some example : Mansour Bilal, or Rashid Ramzi, and in the past Cram, Aouita, William Chirchir, Bahla).

Look the example of Paula Radcliffe. She was, for years, the most aggressive runner of 5000 / 10000m, because her lack of final speed. She was always in front af the races, but, with the Ethiopians, when there were 4 athletes in the last lap, she was no. 4. So, the solution it was to move to longer distances.

Paula spent, if I well remember, 5 or 6 years for moving her PB in 3000 from 8:31 to 8:28, using a lot of speed for becoming faster in the last lap. She NEVER became faster.

After moving to long distances, of course with the correct system of training (not long run only, but extension of the intensity), she ran London Marathon in 2002 in about 2:18. That's was in April. In June, her first race on track of the season, she ran 3000m in 8:23. Somebody can think that the long run was damageous for 3000m ? If you have 5.0 of improvement, suddenly, after preparing ALSO (not ONLY) Marathon, and 3.0 in 5 years THINKING TO PREPARE THE SPECIFIC EVENT, which is the reason ?

The reason is that YOU WERE ABLE TO ENHANCE THE SPECIAL BASE FOR YOUR SPECIFIC TRAINING. When you have more endurance, if you are able to maintain the same top speed that you have, AUTOMATICALLY YOU RUN FASTER THE SHORTER DISTANCES.

So, I want to emphatize the importance of the AEROBIC TRAINING for supporting the SPECIFIC TRAINING : may be that there is not a DIRECT influence on the performance, but there is of sure a DIRECT INFLUENCE on the QUANTITY OF SPECIFIC TRAINING. More quantity of specific. more specific endurance. But, for doing it, YOU NEED TO INCREASE YOUR SPECIAL ENDURANCE.

**********************************************************

I'm in Iten withmany top runners, and I can tell you that there is no relation between HM and 400m speed. For example, among my athletes I had someone (Philip Rugut 59:53, Rodgers Rop 59:46, Paul Kosgei World Champion 2002 and World Record Holder in 25 km with 1:12:45, Mubarak Shami silver medal last year, Ahmed Hassan bronze medal two ytears ago and 12:56 in 5k and 26:38 in 10k) that never were able to run under 52.0, and I have some athlete running 2:09:45 in full marathon (like Patrick Chumba) that, young, was able running 400hs in 52.7 with a very bad technique. The ability in running fast long time is connected with two different situation :

1- The cost of running under biomechanical point of view

2 - The bioenergetic ability

These two situation are connected with the typology of fibres : for running fast you need strength, and use mainly Fast Fibers, able to develop high power with a high consumption of fuel. Instead, for running slower, you need more slow fibres, where there are mythocondria and the aerobic processes are developed.

A speed of 1 hr in HM is 2:50.6 per km = 68.2 every 400m. A 400m in 50.0 represents a speed of 28.8 km/h, that is a percentage of (28.8 / 21.1) 136 % of HM speed.

In a correct methodology, we don't use speed faster than 10% of the speed of the event. So, for a top runner of 10000m (26:30) we don't go under 53.0 during his training, and this doesn't allow him to run under 52 / 51.5 in a competition of 400m, also if he can be able to finish in 53 the race. For example, during Helsinki (World Champs), Moses Mosop finished the last lap in 53.8, faster than Bekele and Sihine, and NEVER in his life he run 400m faster.

Thinking that everything depends on the speed is ridiculous, because speed is due to muscular and nervous qualities for 80%, while endurance is due to methabolic and mental qualities for 80%. So, in long distances, the winner is THE FASTER AMONG PEOPLE HAVING THE SAME ENDURANCE, not the more resistant among people having the same high speed.

Moorcroft?

Now I remember where I've seen the figures for that session.

Take a look at Fig 5 on page 11 of:

http://www.britishmilersclub.com/bmcnews/1999spring.pdf

His fastest was at around 1.50 pace. Some were at more like 1500m pace (excluding the session where he was clearly knackered). That's by a man breaking the 5K WR taking on the pace after just 2 laps.

Not read the book. May be a misprint?