Intensity- how low is too low for aerobic development?

NorseMN wrote:

parkerjohn wrote:

Some of the recent posts seem to be suggesting that one needs to run more easy volume in order to develop or maintain fitness, that it’s the easy run volume that enables you to do longer, harder sessions, and that they feel too beat up if they don’t slow down considerably.

Once again it’s not the pace that’s interfering with your recovery it’s the volume of work.

Running much slower than 5K + 2 min will not develop the fitness of a seasoned runner. At worst, it will just make you more tired if you do too much of it.

Running for 30-40 min at 5K pace + 2 min pace on your easy days will get you a better return than let’s say 60 min at 5K pace + 4 minutes to use a rather simple example that illustrates this point.

This declarative post isn’t substantiated by research nor the experience of many. For both performance and metabolic health, we need higher volume. Moving slowly may be necessary to achieve an appropriately high volume. Over years, this volume/easy pace may get faster, but maybe not, even if performance improves. Base training should be ongoing and based on effort not pace. This 80% of training is developing metabolic capacity and muscular endurance. Faster (above LT1) is demonstrably worse than slower (below LT 1).

SDHJ wrote:

doesn't compute wrote:

You need to adjust your run FTP then, because there's no way you can hit over 100 in an hour. That's the problem with your assertion that you can't run under 8:00 minute pace for an hour.

From Trainingpeaks:

"By definition, one hour spent at Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is equal to 100 points."

and

"The stressfulness of any given pace is determined in relation to your current functional threshold pace (that is, the fastest running pace you could sustain for one hour)."

There's simply no way that you can run sub 20 at sub 6:20/mile pace and not be able to run 40 minutes more at a pace 100 seconds a mile slower.

Regardless of what you think about your anaerobic abilities contributing, 20 minutes is like 90% aerobically supplied energy.

Nothing about any of your numbers makes any sense, so it means that none of your data is going to make any sense until that's corrected. As Coggan (creator of TSS) said in regards to data, "gigo- garbage in, garbage out.."

Totally get where you're coming from. To be honest, I am puzzled by my sheer lack of lower aerobic ability. I have a tested max hr of 201 and I jump quickly into the 140s doing 12 min miles, yet I can race at 6:18 pace for 5 km. Mind you, the race was a flat course and I was wearing vaporflys. I have my LT/HR/Pace zones set on TrainingPeaks according to a lactate threshold lab test I just did 2 weeks ago. Not lying, I would probably struggle finishing an hour run at sub 8 min pace right now.

Today I ran completely by feel and hardly looked at my watch HR data, a 40 minute jog had me running 12:12 pace. To me this just felt easy, I was hardly breathing above normal and my HR avg'd 144. A reminder, my LT1 HR/pace is 163/10:32.

There are stories of people on the Uphill Athlete forums with similarities to mine, where they had to significantly slow down in order to stay well below LT1. Prior to starting running 2 years ago (where I would redline mostly everything), I had very little background in anything aerobic in the sports/hobbies I had. I think it is a safe bet my true low aerobic system is quite underdeveloped simply because it's never been touched in training. Would you say this is a fair assumption? My running age is quite young, so I think it's feasible that an untouched system would be at around 12 min miles.

lexel wrote:

Hooooojoooooo wrote:

Lexel, when did you last take a lactate sample? I’ve gone through 300+ strips on myself in the past couple years. I’ve done so many different protocols and tests that I have my own protocol now.

I’m out in the field collecting data while you read papers. Please buy a meter and practice before you claim something is wrong.

By the way, I have more than 120 papers in my personal library. I have 25 years of high-level data collection, interpretation, and presentation experience.

Can you show me where baseline lactate at rest significantly differs from a gentle warmup?

You see that 25 years of doing something is not a guarantee that it is correct :)

Lactate values at rest can be off from the baseline. Any experienced person knows that.

If have the Lactate Pro 2 , and i was first tested as an athlete in the 90th and even posted my lactate test in the big norwegian thread. You are welcome.

Happy New Year.

COACH WIZARD 1 wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

DANCAN works best for one type of athlete - those with years of high mileage. The cut in mileage allows them to peak and reach prs for a season or two. But at that point, the athlete is losing aerobic fitness which is necessary to do the speedwork that leads to prs.

This peak can be achieved by other training programs that work better over the long term as well. I think Jan should read Lydiard and Daniels and ask himself why they've had more so much success, even without self promotion on letsrun.

Have to correct you here on this point Kvothe. My DANCAN system has during now 8 years as an online coach worked effective to all runners at all levels and all ages and both male and female at both low/ high mileage. And doesn't matter if slowtwitch or fasttwitch or aiming for sprint/ middle/ longdistance. It really looks I have succeeded to come up with close to the ultimate training system , The Holy Gral of running ! 😁 No promotion here, Lol ))

Besides of course I know everything about running history and great coaches like Lydiard and Daniels. As a national elite runner I have tested out in practise both systems.I use myself what I think is the best parts of both Lydiard and Daniels, the easy steady run and the exact best paces. Then my system has also as I think the best parts from other famous coaches as Woldemar Gerschler. Franz Stampfl and Canova. Then added is a couple of my own inventions.

Happy New Year to everyone from

The Magic Wizard J.S , Coach J.S. 🇸🇪🧙🏼‍♂️🇸🇪

Kvothe wrote:

LetsDoIt wrote:

What is the significance of 5k pace + 2 minutes? That's just some arbitrary guess at a correct pace.

I think its a fair assumption of easy pace for most in the 13-20 min range, ie nearly all competitive runners. For guys who train too fast, ie 6 min pace when they've run in the 14s-15s, it will force them to slow down. For guys who train too slow, ie I'm not sure the benefit of 12 min miles - I can just about walk that pace it forces them to speed up.

Its of course arbitrary as you say, so it should be taken more as a principal. Ie, if you feel good 5k pace + 84 secs is prob ok - if you feel bad 5k pace +133 secs is prob ok, etc.

But this notion of correct isn't right either. There is at best, an ideal pace range for the given goals of a run.

LetsdoIit wrote:

Ie = in other words, eg = for example. :)

What you state would not be a rational approach. There are methods of field testing at the track that will establish the easy zone, without lactate or any fancy measurement. Most runners fail to understand how to assess performance accurately and then they do t understand how to feel what’s easy or hard.

So many questions would be solved simply by doing two or three time trials at different distances and establishing critical speed or power. Once you delineate moderate and severe intensities, you can work out the easy to moderate delineation by using an estimated percentage of CS or CP and work from there. If you have lactate, even better, because you can use that to establish the lower paces.

It’s rational to test performance in the venue you train. It’s not rational to take a race result and use that for training.

Hard2Find wrote:

parkerjohn wrote:

Some of the recent posts seem to be suggesting that one needs to run more easy volume in order to develop or maintain fitness, that it’s the easy run volume that enables you to do longer, harder sessions, and that they feel too beat up if they don’t slow down considerably.

Once again it’s not the pace that’s interfering with your recovery it’s the volume of work.

Running much slower than 5K + 2 min will not develop the fitness of a seasoned runner. At worst, it will just make you more tired if you do too much of it.

Running for 30-40 min at 5K pace + 2 min pace on your easy days will get you a better return than let’s say 60 min at 5K pace + 4 minutes to use a rather simple example that illustrates this point.

I think it’s pretty well established physiologically that mitochondria development/proliferation is the result of two pathways, one is intensity based, one duration based. These are initiated and then maximized at different levels of effort, specific to an individuals fitness. Addressing the original question of this thread, the duration based pathway peaks at what is often around ~ 75% HRMax for most runners and is initiated at ~ 60% HRMax.

I’m using HR because metabolically a lactate value won’t suffice in demarcating the lower end (meaning how slow of an easy pace, not how fast for the easy pace), nor will a race distance pace plus some number of seconds. If your aerobic conditioning is underdeveloped, as SDHJ has demonstrated, to tell him to run his 5km pace plus n seconds would conflict with what his lactate test revealed. So then, what do you follow, a pace based template or a metabolic template? While I don’t think it’s perfect and there are many factors which can distort HR values, I think it’s likely the most generalizable method for identifying a “zone” to be bound by for easy aerobic benefit.

I’d be interested to hear how it is you don’t believe pace plays a role in recovery? Surely one could walk for 60 minutes and recover or one could run 60 minutes at LT1 and likely not recover? It’s not the 60 minute duration that’s the issue in this case, it’s the pace the 60 minutes is performed at, no?

LetsdoIit wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

I think its a fair assumption of easy pace for most in the 13-20 min range, ie nearly all competitive runners. For guys who train too fast, ie 6 min pace when they've run in the 14s-15s, it will force them to slow down. For guys who train too slow, ie I'm not sure the benefit of 12 min miles - I can just about walk that pace it forces them to speed up.

Its of course arbitrary as you say, so it should be taken more as a principal. Ie, if you feel good 5k pace + 84 secs is prob ok - if you feel bad 5k pace +133 secs is prob ok, etc.

But this notion of correct isn't right either. There is at best, an ideal pace range for the given goals of a run.

Ie = in other words, eg = for example. :)

What you state would not be a rational approach. There are methods of field testing at the track that will establish the easy zone, without lactate or any fancy measurement. Most runners fail to understand how to assess performance accurately and then they do t understand how to feel what’s easy or hard.

So many questions would be solved simply by doing two or three time trials at different distances and establishing critical speed or power. Once you delineate moderate and severe intensities, you can work out the easy to moderate delineation by using an estimated percentage of CS or CP and work from there. If you have lactate, even better, because you can use that to establish the lower paces.

It’s rational to test performance in the venue you train. It’s not rational to take a race result and use that for training.

Alfie wrote:

Hard2Find wrote:

I think it’s pretty well established physiologically that mitochondria development/proliferation is the result of two pathways, one is intensity based, one duration based. These are initiated and then maximized at different levels of effort, specific to an individuals fitness. Addressing the original question of this thread, the duration based pathway peaks at what is often around ~ 75% HRMax for most runners and is initiated at ~ 60% HRMax.

I’m using HR because metabolically a lactate value won’t suffice in demarcating the lower end (meaning how slow of an easy pace, not how fast for the easy pace), nor will a race distance pace plus some number of seconds. If your aerobic conditioning is underdeveloped, as SDHJ has demonstrated, to tell him to run his 5km pace plus n seconds would conflict with what his lactate test revealed. So then, what do you follow, a pace based template or a metabolic template? While I don’t think it’s perfect and there are many factors which can distort HR values, I think it’s likely the most generalizable method for identifying a “zone” to be bound by for easy aerobic benefit.

I’d be interested to hear how it is you don’t believe pace plays a role in recovery? Surely one could walk for 60 minutes and recover or one could run 60 minutes at LT1 and likely not recover? It’s not the 60 minute duration that’s the issue in this case, it’s the pace the 60 minutes is performed at, no?

Excellent post.

A question that has often been posed, but difficult to answer, is how does someone know, in some sort of measurable terms, when they have a very well developed aerobic base. The drop off in pace as the race distance increases can often be down to muscle fibre distribution.

Could, being able to run at 60% of max hr be a reasonable metric to start with? Many can only walk, or run for a very short distance at this low intensity. The next question, then becomes, how is it best to train to run at this low intensity?

If the benefits of easy runs at 60-65%, are not too dissimilar to 75%, then why not run at the lower end? However, as above, ego aside, aerobic underdevelopment may be stopping many from running easy at these low intensities.