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

I forget if I got this story from Nobby, Kim Stevenson, or Barry Magee, but it's from someone who knows Bill Baillie quite well.

Zatopek was one of Bill's heroes. He made a point of meeting Zatopek on one of his European tours and asked about the 400s. The impression he got was that Zatopek started off running them very quickly which tired him out so the 400s got slower as the session went on. A lot of us trained that way in those days of yore so I wouldn't be surprised if Zatopek did.

Doesn't wejo provide a perfect counter-example, and defense of the aerobic development model?It's one thing to simply say the actual source of the improvements are misunderstood by most, but here you lament that the "aerobic development dogma" is actually stifling natural talent, and this is the main thing separating western white men from the East Africans, because, presumably, it doesn't develop basic speed enough, or it doesn't improve your running skill, because the training is not optimal.But it wasn't until wejo started focusing on becoming an aerobic monster, that he made major inroads towards his true potential.Do you claim that, he would have achieved even more, if only he weren't brain-washed by aerobic development, and focused his training on his running skill?I'll come back to this: no one has shown that training by the aerobic development model fails to bring a runner to his true potential. Neuro-muscular coordination simply comes with repeated practice (like your concert pianist), no matter what we are thinking about during the training.

wellnow wrote:

I think the word Biomechanics doesn't really convey the message adequately.

...

Whatever wejo thinks or knows or does not know, he expressed his views on his own development rather well previously;

http://www.letsrun.com/2006/collegesuck.php

i like the older concept of having acid burning in your body. so i am still old school, when i feel that acid feeling that is anaerobic. you can start feeling that in seconds or minutes depending on intensity. so for me it is pretty simple, aerobic is when i can run as long as i want and feel no acid whatsoever. everything else is anaerobic because that acid feeling came from somewhere.

That is a tough way to do it.

I would agree with with Wellnow about Zatopek training

too hard if the Baillie reference is correct.

I'm pretty certain that Bob Phillips said he used the first

several reps as warm ups.

Jack Daniels mentioned jogging with him at Helsinki, I think, and that Zatu was only running at about an eight minute/mile

pace. Of course that was probably a day or so before one of his three ( not counting heats ) races.

We could use a citizen of the former Czech Republic that might have more insight into the paces he trained.

Emil is reported to be very open, but in those days the Iron Curtain countries were busting their gonads to show their superior way of life and sport was a wonderful vehicle for that. I strongly suspect that Emil was told to keep his training vague to Western athletes.

Wellnow: For distances of 5k - 1/2M, what kind of weekly training regimen do you advocate?

I'm getting confused about exactly what style of training you are a proponent of, but much of what you say about co-ordination and neural development sounds akin to the lectures of POSEtech's coaches.

I did once read an article Herbert Schade wrote about his training. Schade was a competitor of Zatopek's and was influenced by him. Schade mentions doing workouts of 20x 400 in the low 60s. He also said that he came to believe that was a mistake and that he did too much hard interval work.

But in those days people didn't really think about training as an extension of science. It was more about "getting used to" the effort of racing, toughening yourself, and so on. Yes, there were people like Gerschler who were beginning to look into the scientific end. But communication was so limited that not much of that information would disseminate very well.

So you'd hear that Bannister was doing his quarters in 80 or less and that Zatopek was doing 20 to 40 quarters and you'd try to combine the two as best as you could.

Certainly guys like Clarke and Baillie who got to know Zatopek would have had a chance to find out what he did. But maybe Zatopek didn't keep a diary or didn't time much of what he did so maybe even he couldn't have answered those questions.

I'll try to remember to ask Barry Magee what he knows and to see if I can get him to swing by Baillie's house and ask what Bill found out. It may take a few days to get an answer.

"Doesn't wejo provide a perfect counter-example, and defense of the aerobic development model?

It's one thing to simply say the actual source of the improvements are misunderstood by most, but here you lament that the "aerobic development dogma" is actually stifling natural talent, and this is the main thing separating western white men from the East Africans, because, presumably, it doesn't develop basic speed enough, or it doesn't improve your running skill, because the training is not optimal."

What I am saying is very simple:

Maximum aerobic development is normal and natural in all healthy regular trainers.

So wejo's improvements weren't due to aerobic development, he was already aerobically developed. He went from being a 4.30 miler to a 4.30 six miler by the natural process of learning how to maintain the concentration required to hold that pace.

In any task we have a limit to how long we can hold our concentration and this is our level of skill. This skill is developed in different parts of the brain. Now you may ask what difference this information could make to how we train, but I say that when you are doing your best training, you feel more aware of your body and more in control, concentration on the messages of what is happening becomes more accute. This should be the goal of good training; the increased awareness of control not the increased ability to hurt yourself.

I wouldnt' expect wejo to know about neuro-muscular co-ordination. JK preaches aerobic development dogma, he talks about development of the left ventricle, seeming unaware that in healthy regular trainer, their left ventricle is already maximally developed.

lactic acid wrote:

i like the older concept of having acid burning in your body. so i am still old school, when i feel that acid feeling that is anaerobic. you can start feeling that in seconds or minutes depending on intensity. so for me it is pretty simple, aerobic is when i can run as long as i want and feel no acid whatsoever. everything else is anaerobic because that acid feeling came from somewhere.

Well, the source of the acidity is mostly anaerobic respiration, but consider this: The second lap of an 800m race is much more Aerobic than the first lap, even though the acidity is accumulating.

Bob Wildes wrote:

I may totally misunderstand your meaning of neural training. If not, the races Clarke ran would seem to tune his neural situation nicely.

What I mean by neural training is the ability to run further and further at the same pace without any aerobic/anaerobic development. Developing the skill of holding different paces.

wellnow,

What you are saying is sort of like being able to hold your hand in the flame longer. How close to the flame can I hold my hand before having to pull back?

I believe what you trying to say is, practicing closer to race pace; at longer period of time. Sort of like practicing a new skill.

I can agree with all those statements, and I'm afraid I'll just keep repeating myself. What do you think of this as an optimal approach to training (change pounds to stones if you want):RUN! RUN! RUN! (to Everything There is a Season)To everything, run, run, run.In every season, run, run, run.There's a time for every purpose in your training.A time to be strong, a time to die.A time to plant, a time to reap.A time to train, a time to heal.A time to laugh, a time to weep.To everything, run, run, run.In every season, run, run, run.There's a time for every purpose in your training.A time to build up, a time to break down.A time to dance, a time to mourn.A time to cast away pounds.A time to gather pounds together.Around the track we turn, turn, turn.What is that feeling, burn, burn, burn.There's a time for every purpose in your training.A time to go fast, a time to go slow.A time to go long, a time to go short.A time that you may race.A time to refrain from racing.Around the track we turn, turn, turn.What is that feeling, burn, burn, burn.There's a time for every purpose in your training.A time to sprint, a time to endure.A time to repeat, a time to fartlek.A time to pace, a time to kick.A time to beat the Kenyans.To everything, run, run, run.In every season, run, run, run.There's a time for every purpose in your training.A time to gain, a time to lose.A time to rend, a time to sow.A time for love, a time for hate.A time to win, I swear it's not too late.- paraphrased from Ecclesiastes, with apologies to the Byrds, Pete Seeger, and King Solomon

Now that you mention it, I think Shade's article is in Fred Wilt's "Run, Run,Run."

Glad I could help jog your memory.

HRE wrote:

Now that you mention it, I think Shade's article is in Fred Wilt's "Run, Run,Run."

If this is all true, why do performances improve with blood doping or by taking things like EPO which increase the amount of oxygen carried by the blood? Why do anemic runners perform poorly?

Bob,

Barry Magee tells me that Zatopek's 400s were slow, usually 75-80 seconds and he'd do forty of them. He also would do 60x200 in 35-40. Barry says he'd train up to six hours a day but had "nothing better to do as he was in the army."

Hi wellnow:

A few questions:

1) As I understand the Jan Olbrecht/balancd/Double Whammy material, the aerobic side should always be fully developed. The anaerobic side should be tweaked up or down depending on your event. Do you believe that there is anything to this?

2) What do you make of this article by Vigil, where he says Deena's VO2 max went from 70 something to 81 something as she increased her mileage?

http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_1/the-anatomy-of-a-medal.shtml

3) When you look at Bordin or Baldini and the tests where they ran 2000s faster and faster and had the lactate tested after each one, as they got closer to the Olympic marathon the lactate at a given pace went down. Are you saying that is all brain/neurological/coordination improvement and nothing to do with mitochondrial/enzymatic changes?

4) If the key to improved performances is brain/neurological/coordination, could't we do less running and concentrate on mental rehearsal? Something like, "remember the time when you were running a 5000 and you were PRing but it felt light and quick and relaxed and effortless until the last 2 laps" or whatever, and just re-experience that feeling? This is in light of research showing the same brain regions light up when you think about doing an action as when you actually perform that action.

Please forgive me if you have answered these already.

Very good Sir, how I did lol at thy poitry.

Don't forget Holland-Dozier-Holland

There is a natural normal aerobic development. To manipulate the blood count artificially may increase VO2 max, that is what some researchers say, but for that reason plus the dangers is why it's illegal.

I don't believe the 81 ml/kg/min figure, there are many silly numbers bandies about for some athletes. Consider how Greg Lemond was supposed to have a figure of 90, and 10 years later he was shocked to have a figure 30% lower recorded. Both figures were obviously wrong, the explanation for the latter figure was supposed to be a degenerative illness affecting his mitochodria, but he says now that this is unlikely.

As for the Olbrecht ideas on lactate.com and in his book The Science of Winning, when he talks about tweaking the anaerobic capacity, this is also a neural devlopment. By training at high intensities, you increase the nervous system response to that stress, which in turn helps you repeat the intensity again with improved skill.

Regarding the lactate measurement in Marathon runners. Yes as you become more skilled at holding the pace, the lactate level should be lower or you can run at a higher pace for a given lactate level. BUT, be aware that the figures go up and down a lot day to day for this reason:

In a Marathon, you might expect the average plasma lactate to be 2-2.5 mmol, but at in the first mile, the lactate measurement would be higher than 3 mmol and towards the end fall to below 1.5 mmol as glycogen is depleted and fat is utilized more. So consider the effect this will have on day to day tests, depending on glycogen availability, which varies a lot because of the variations in daily mileage and intensity.

But you see, just saying that you don't believe a thing, such as the 81 reading, isn't very convincing. I'm sure it is the answer to "What do you make of it" so I'm not criticizing. But dismissing information from respected sources as incorrect when you're completely removed from the sources of that information simply because the information contradicts your opinion makes it hard for me to take your srguments and ideas seriously.