Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

Ooops. I should say 10:34 and 10:27. Not that it really matters, hahahaha....

boom-

My point is that a high LT, if you have fair,normal speed is what matters the most for 5k/10k performance. If you look at most non-african runners you will see that their LT is simply not high enough. The real limiting factor is on the aerobic side and the best way to influence this is to train LT type training to increase it.

If you look at Bekele/Gebreselassie they have an incredible high LT (I am saying this based on what I have measured with a lactate meter on sub 13 Kenyans in Kenya) and they can AFFORD to do more pace specific work for greater parts of the year because they have this high LT as a "base".

one question -

I don't agree with Canova. I believe he is one of the most gifted coaches in the world and I admire the Italian school of training. But I also believe that, maybe, he would have different results with his steeple/5km training on mzungo runners vs African runners. That being said, he would probably have alternated the training we see for runners like Shaheen if he coached a very talented non African runner. In the marathon training I could not agree more with him.

Marius

correction :

"I don't disagree with Canova"

Marius, you could also say that the best African 5000 and 10000m runners have the fastest sprinting speed, the fastest middle distance speed and the best Marathon pace.

They have the best all round fitness, so how can you attribute their superiority to simply having a better so called LT?

Skuj, this talk about the contributions of so called anaerobic/aerobic energy is the biggest load of pseudo-scientific bullshit in physiology.

At vo2max most of the energy comes from oxidation of lactate. So how would you quantify that in terms of the old defintions?

You can't because the old definitions are wrong.

fastest middle distance? well sort-of at 1500m and above, best marathon pace, yesall of this can be the result of a high LTthe other statement you make, the fastest sprinting speed? that I am not sure aboutsure we see bekele close in 53 or whatever but at 100m I am not sure that the east aficans are necessarily the fastest? they don't do well as a country in sprinting events (i don't think anyway)... I always go back to what daniels says, the single best predictor of race performance is lactate threshold

wellnow wrote:

Marius, you could also say that the best African 5000 and 10000m runners have the fastest sprinting speed, the fastest middle distance speed and the best Marathon pace.

They have the best all round fitness, so how can you attribute their superiority to simply having a better so called LT?

What I mean is that those guys can run faster at EVERY distance than most of their non African rivals. The exceptions being guys such as Webb and Mottram.

They can run

under 12 for 100m

under 24 for 200

around 50 for 400

1.46 for 800

3.32 for 1500 etc, etc.

It's not about LT Per se, they have superior fitness.

I understand the importance of threshold work, but is there an optimal frequency for 5k?

Mottram, Teg, Baumann and Kennedy normally do/did just 1 or sometimes 2 LT workouts per week.

Compared to the maroccan and kenyan system they do like 5-6 LT per week. Marius you fall into this category as well.

Only a slight difference in 5k performance but at 10k it's really significant.

wellnow-

Interesting points you make.

But I am not attributing their superiority SIMPLY by a higher LT. What I am saying is ; the far and greatest factor is a high LT, and without it you can have all the sprinting speed in the world, middle distance speed and still not perform well. And it is often overlooked by doing TOO MUCH pace specific work year around.

My experience is that alot of the very good Kenyans have a 400 meterspeed of 50-54 and still run 13 minutes in the 5k, so it does not look like they all have this "middle distance/sprinting thing in them", still they perform much,much better than most non africans.

Marius

Marius

So you go for my idea. If the african runners that you did test like Bekele or another like Gebre or Tergat or Komen or Canova runners while they train with what you consider poor training mainly based in specifics done all season long rather than the use more LT runs then with you as coach and under your trainig method they will run something like 12:20 and 25:40. Also the mzungos would do somethimg like 12:40 or 26:20.

The original question is Isn't "Event Specificity" More Important Than "VO2max" And "LT" Zones And All That?

The question isnt what result you will obtain if you are a mzungo or you dont. The issue isnt why the Africans that you did test they have an high LT than the mzungos. The question isnt also to what extend you may do LT or specifics.

The answer to the orignal question is that event specificity considered as the pace near race pace is on the top of the prime training interest for every training distance event rather be 800m, 5k-10k or up to the marathon. Naturally the specific pace while be the imporant one it represents a small training percent than basic or non-specific training and it doesnt mean that we can neglet all the rest from speed to daily runs.

The fact is that some paces that the name comes from the physiology like LT or VO2max when that pace is closer and closer to the race pace for the distance event you want to consider LT, VO2 etc that have an interesting one contribution for that event, not because the physiology impact in the matabolism but because that pace is at the same time a physiology zone and a specific pace considered the distance event.

Besides if you want to analyse what type of training the worlds top mzungo runners they do take a look to what that best mzungos runners in 5k-10k they do. People like Baumann, Mottram, Kennedy, Moorcroft, Antibo in 5000m or Pinto, Barrios, Roncero, Antibo, Mamede, Lebid and you will conclude that not all but most of them togheter with their coaches they use specificity as the prime importance in the large spectrum of the training context.

you have to try and be a little clearer with some of your writing, it get hard to understand butyou claims that mottram, kennedy et. al. really focused on race specific stuff rather than zones... just because you state this, doesn't mean it was soin fact i remember reading an interview with mottram saying a lot of what he followed was nothing new and he seemed to be suggesting he did lydiard type traing...I'm just not sure there is a mountain evidence suggesting these guys all focused on race specific stuff... it would be nice if we were able to ask all of them which they felt was more importantthen again what pertains to a few of the best runners of all time might not pertain to mere mortal runners

Marius wrote:

wellnow-

Interesting points you make.

But I am not attributing their superiority SIMPLY by a higher LT. What I am saying is ; the far and greatest factor is a high LT, and without it you can have all the sprinting speed in the world, middle distance speed and still not perform well. And it is often overlooked by doing TOO MUCH pace specific work year around.

My experience is that alot of the very good Kenyans have a 400 meterspeed of 50-54 and still run 13 minutes in the 5k, so it does not look like they all have this "middle distance/sprinting thing in them", still they perform much,much better than most non africans.

Marius

Marius, Jan Olbrecht states that their is nothing special about LT, neither does he believe that LT training is better than any other pace. He believes that a balanced training programme that focuses on the right amount of training at every pace, at the right time, is the way to go.

I agree with his approach, not just because athletes he coached won 28 medals at the Athens Olympics, but because it is a very logical approach.

Also I agree with others who say that there is no such thing as a precise Lactate Threshold, but that it is a vague concept rather than a clearly definable physiological phenomenon.

So, rather than talk about a mythical LT I would rather refer to a goal pace for each distance.

wellnow wrote:

So, rather than talk about a mythical LT I would rather refer to a goal pace for each distance.

It's not mythical at all. It is measurable and quantifiable.

As for VO2max training for marathoners, I believe there is a place for it. If one agrees that LT is a fixed percentage of VO2max, the raising aerobic capacity should have the same effect on LT.

wellnow

I agree with you, based on the recent research about precise LT. I am just trying to make it simple, as this term is well known. So...what I am saying, if you take a standarized LT test (which is still a great tool in itself) and plot it you can from that value, given the athlete has fair speed, almost exactly plot his time in the 5k/10k. This cannot be ignored and is well documented.

So the debate should rather be, how achieve a high LT value while at the same time not lose too much speed.

Marius

As for VO2max training for marathoners, I believe there is a place for it. If one agrees that LT is a fixed percentage of VO2max, the raising aerobic capacity should have the same effect on LT.[/quote]

I keep coming across this argument, but dont agree with it at all. LT velocity is largely a function of the peripheral musculatures ability to use the oxygen delivered to resynthesise ATP aerobically. VO2 max on the other hand is largely determined by the ability of the central components of the cardiovascular system to supply oxygen to the musculature. Therefore, if you improve VO2 max, you are able to supply more oxygen to the muscles but there is no guarantee that you will be able to actually use it when it arrives. In this case the limiting link in the chain is the peripheral musculature and it is entirely possible that the fraction of VO2 max you can utilise will decrease (even if VO2 at LT and performance itself remain constant).

On the other hand - if you emphasise training designed to improve the threshold, you can continue to improve performance even if VO2 max itself actually gets lower. In this instance the percentage of VO2 max at which LT occurs will obviously increase.

There is a paper available in which test results from Paula Radcliffe over a number of years are presented. Each year her VO2 max gets less (although velocity at VO2 max continues to improve due to improved economy) but her LT velocity and the fraction of VO2 max at which it occurs continues to increase. The papers author (Andy Jones) suggests that these adaptations are due to the large volume of steady state running at high speeds that she performed.

Skuj: Thanks for getting this started; I'd love to chime in, but a little busy at present and lack of this type conversation has tended to direct my attention elsewhere.

Is it this one? With a LT of 18.0 sounds about right considering she ran 8.40 in the 3k back in 93 (from 9.20s in 91) Cannot find any more recent publications.

I have very,very similar results. I have tested my Vo2 max and LT since I was 13 and Vo2 max absolute value peaked in the winter of 97 (only ran 3.48 1500/8.13 3k that summer) when I was 19. From there on the LT (and the velocity at Vo2 max) is what continued to improve as well as a steady improvement of performance.

Jones AM.

Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Crewe and Alsager Faculty, the Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To study physiological changes caused by long term endurance training in a world class female distance runner, and to compare these changes with alterations in 3000 m running performance. METHODS: The subject underwent regular physiological assessment during the period 1991-1995. Physiological measures made included body composition, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2MAX), running economy, and lactate threshold. In addition, the running speed at VO2MAX was estimated. Test protocols, laboratory equipment, and laboratory techniques used were the same for each test session. RESULTS: The 3000 m race performance improved by 8% from 1991 to 1993 after which it stabilised. In contrast, VO2MAX fell from 1991 (73 ml/kg/min) to 1993 (66 ml/kg/min). Submaximal physiological variables such as lactate threshold (from 15.0 to 18.0 km/h) and running economy (from 53 ml/kg/min to 48 ml/kg/min at 16.0 km/h) improved over the course of the study. Despite no increase in VO2MAX, the reduction in the oxygen cost of submaximal running caused the estimated running speed at VO2MAX to increase from 19.0 km/h in 1991 to 20.4 km/h in 1995. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in 3000 m running performance was not caused by an increase in VO2MAX. Rather, the extensive training programme adopted, together perhaps with physical maturation, resulted in improvements in submaximal fitness factors such as running economy and lactate threshold. These adaptations improved the running speed estimated to be associated with VO2MAX, and resulted in improved 3000 m running performance.

PMID: 9562162 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If you know what it sort of work your body must perform to get the desired physiological results, whether it be elevating maxVo2 or Lactate Threshold, you can intertwine "event specific" principles into your "physiological workouts".

Face it, you're not going to feel as great every day as you did on the day you ran 15:00 for 5k and based your training off of that time, whether it be percentages, JD's VDOT table, whatever.

That's why it's okay on some days, for example, to change a VO2 max workout to fit the needs of your event.

Instead of 6x1000 at VO2 intensity with equal rest, why not run 10x600 with a little less than equal rest, and a little faster, for someone running the mile. Or how about continuous 150's with 50m jog at mile pace for 13 minutes for a half miler? Would these both improve oxygen delivery and still raise VO2? I think so.

In the science method a single isolate case doesnt make science, and have no validation despite that it can be a study from world top class runner as it seems to be the case. What kind of science is thsi one that studies only a single case.