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

I would think that race pace training is an important component for just about any race distance. 4x600 @ 800 m pace sounds pretty hard but it would at least be race specific.

That said, I'm not following how you got to this workout from an physiologist's aerobic development point of view. 800 m pace, even for a slowpoke like me, is well above VO2max velocity. Classically, we consider aerobic metabolisms to be maxed out at that point. What do you see to be the aerobic benefit of training faster?

wellnow wrote: The first few seconds at 800 pace are mostly anaerobic, then gradually the oxidation of lactate increases, i.e. aerobic respiration increases gradually until in the last 50 metres of the race when the pace slows.

During that last 50m however, most of the energy is aerobically derived.

I've got no dog in this race, and frankly I'm not interested in getting involved in a pedantic discussion over terminology, but this comment caught my eye, and I have some interesting data that is maybe relevant. I have no opinion whether it supports or contradicts wellnow's views (nor do I care), but here it is anyway. Maybe someone can make something of it in the context of this discussion.

I often wear the HRM in races and record the data after the fact. I will often see somewhere close to HRmax as the highest observed reading near the end of a good 5k race. As a general rule, HR rises through most races, so I see the highest numbers in the final mile/km split.

What I hadn't looked at until recently, however, was what the numbers do in more detail during the latter stages of a race. My last two longer track races (3000 and 5000), I took splits every lap, but then I also took 200m splits for the final two laps. The results surprised me. What I saw was that in the final 200, when I was kicking as furiously as I could manage, HR actually dropped.

In both races I started to press from 800 out, and closed as best I could with ~ 66-68s final laps (this is fast for me - no need to snicker). Here are the lap splits and HR data for the last 4 laps of each race:

5000:

78.3 @ 160/160

78.4 @ 159/160

38.3 @ 160/161

37.4 @ 161/161

35.2 @ 160/158

33.7 @ 157/155

3000:

75.8 @ 154 avg/156 end

75.1 @ 156/157

36.1 @ 158/159

35.7 @ 157/157

33.9 @ 158/159

32.2 @ 155/153

I thought it was just an error during the 5000, but when the same thing happened in the 3000, it got me wondering why HR would drop during the finishing kick when you're laying everything (in relative terms) on the line.

Anyway, just some data that maybe someone can make something of.

In wellnow's world because soreness is not related to lactic acid there is no soreness, or ill effects of running very fast

wellnow wrote:

That is the purpose of this thread, to point out the difference.

If I had to infer a purpose of the thread from the content, I would conclude the opposite: to point out that there is no difference, because anaerobic is really (or becomes) aerobic. Anaerobic doesn't really exist, or maybe exists for fleeting moments in time, like strange matter anti-particles popping in and out of existence in our physical universe.

It would help me understand the difference if you could stop talking about aerobic for once, and explain in more detail what anaerobic is, rather than telling me what it is not.

Is there such a thing as anaerobic workouts? Are anaerobic workouts important? Why?

What does, or what could "going anaerobic" mean?

When is it appropriate to talk about anaerobic? Or is it?

How do we properly distinguish easy running, which accumulates little lactate, with harder running, which accumulates more lactate than our bodies can process?

If my training goal is lactate accumulation for improving "lactate tolerance" or "lactate clearance", do I really care about anaerobic(before) or aerobic(after)?

Maybe we should fall Brooks lead with "glycolysis", and fall back on the more accurate laymen's terms: "fast" and "slow".

wellnow wrote:

An example of a very hard workout that would challenge the aerobic energy system for an 800/1600 runner would be

4x600m @ 800m target pace. The recovery would be long, several minutes.

Also 10x 400 @ 1600 target pace, 60 seconds recovery.

Obviously you have to build up to these sessions, over a period of months. Also, during the peak racing period, you wouldn't want to train this hard. This type of work should be complete before the most important races.

This is an example of how ridiculous it gets when exercise physiology geeks try to construct real world training programs. Anyone who has ever been involved in middle distance training knows that these two sessions are light years apart. Anyone who wants to see more of this sort of rubbish should read anything that Owen Anderson has written.

Andy Barber wrote:

Did anyone ever think anaerobic training really meant without oxygen or big use of the aerobic session?

Everyone I've ever seen running what they've called an anaerobic session has been breathing dog hard - far harder than on what they call an aerobic session.

I've never seen anyone hold their breath while doing an 'anaerobic' session in the belief that they are not using oxygen at that pace. Is that what people do in the US?

Are you the same Andy Barber who wrote a magazine article that was recently published?

The information towards the end of that article alluded to the "going anaerobic" dogma, and the author is misinformed.

Citizen Runner wrote:

I would think that race pace training is an important component for just about any race distance. 4x600 @ 800 m pace sounds pretty hard but it would at least be race specific.

That said, I'm not following how you got to this workout from an physiologist's aerobic development point of view. 800 m pace, even for a slowpoke like me, is well above VO2max velocity. Classically, we consider aerobic metabolisms to be maxed out at that point. What do you see to be the aerobic benefit of training faster?

Thanks for the intelligent question my leguminous freind.

Yes the session is race specific, and thus it is the best way to maximise oxidation of lactate (aerobic respiration) during the race, while the lactate is accumulating rapidly.

Pete wrote: I thought it was just an error during the 5000, but when the same thing happened in the 3000, it got me wondering why HR would drop during the finishing kick when you're laying everything (in relative terms) on the line.

Anyway, just some data that maybe someone can make something of.

I looked further back in the log book. Last summer in a 3000 (after an 800, so a "slow" 3000 race) and a 10000 (in heat, while a little jetlagged, so again a "slow" 10000) I also got 200 splits for the last two laps. In those races, HR DIDN'T drop like in these two, so maybe these were just coincidental errors, I don't know.

That 4 x 600 workout the others have been on about.... I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think I could complete that session at 800 race pace, even with a half hour (or more) rest between reps. One 600 in training at 800 pace would constitute a good time trial, and would probably be as hard as I could push myself in a non-race situation. Anyone else?

That's very interesting information Pete. Do you have redings for the first few minutes after the race?

I think it's related to heat production and how much you have left in the tank. It looks like you have the ability to run much faster. What was the weather like in those races?

wellnow wrote:(1) Do you have readings for the first few minutes after the race?

(2) It looks like you have the ability to run much faster.

(3) What was the weather like in those races?

(1) Nah, after a race is over, I shut down the HRM. Maybe in future I'll track it after races just to see.

(2) I don't think I have the potential to run *much* faster, but of course I'm training to try to become somewhat faster. Legs were a little (not a lot) heavy in the 3000, so I could probably have gone a couple or few seconds faster if completely fresh, but no more. I think the 5000 was pretty close to my best possible effort on the day. I tend to have a pretty good kick at the end of most races, unless I've charged too hard from the gun, in which case I will die a horrible death. Maybe I could have gone a little harder (didn't feel that way) in the middle laps, but I'm fairly certain that would have deadened the kick, and it would have worked out about the same. That's been my experience anyway.

(3) These were both indoor races this winter, at a fantastic facility that has a fast 400m surface and maintains good (by indoors standards) air quality and keeps temps around 68F.

ridiculous wrote:

wellnow wrote:

An example of a very hard workout that would challenge the aerobic energy system for an 800/1600 runner would be

4x600m @ 800m target pace. The recovery would be long, several minutes.

Also 10x 400 @ 1600 target pace, 60 seconds recovery.

Obviously you have to build up to these sessions, over a period of months. Also, during the peak racing period, you wouldn't want to train this hard. This type of work should be complete before the most important races.

This is an example of how ridiculous it gets when exercise physiology geeks try to construct real world training programs. Anyone who has ever been involved in middle distance training knows that these two sessions are light years apart. Anyone who wants to see more of this sort of rubbish should read anything that Owen Anderson has written.

I don't do internet coaching, and I don't coach a large group of athletes. I'm an athlete first and foremost. I like to train very hard with a strong sense of purpose.

Perhaps if you are such an expert on training, then you should inform Renato Canova exactly what he is doing wrong and maybe you could share your wisdom here too.

Pete, you are younger than me, so you should be faster than me. The difference is in our level of belief.

I know you can run much faster. You have potential to increase your speed endurance quite considerably, that's what the figures are telling me.

Gotta go now, I hope I can continue this debate tomorrow.

wellnow wrote: Perhaps if you are such an expert on training, then you should inform Renato Canova exactly what he is doing wrong and maybe you could share your wisdom here too.

This is all an interesting semantic conversation, suggesting changes in how we think and talk about what actually goes on physiologically "behind the scenes", but does it radically suggest a CHANGE in how we actually should TRAIN?

If I do too much of what most people call hard "anaerobic" work, especially after not forming a good "aerobic base" and wellnow wants to call it something else, isn't the diastrous effect on my season going to pretty much be the same? I know this because I've empirically done this to myself before.

I've also done 4x600m at 1000m pace. That's already a tough workout. I don't think that even if 4x600m at TRUE 800m pace is possible, that the benefits would outweigh the harms. Just because your oxygen consumption would be really high during such a workout doesn't mean it's good for you. This is the problem when people try to jump from the lab to the track without seeing the bigger picture. They make HUGE leaps in logic. If something theoretically may increase your aerobic capacity, it doesn't matter if it practically does more harm than good. Based on much research, steady running for 4 hours every day could develop even more mitochondria, capillaries etc. but since most people break down if they did this, it's a moot point.

So where does all this leave us? Back to where we started.

There is a lot of "real world" empirical data on the success and failure of runners who have tried different training methods. Some methods work on some people some don't. I think it's great to try to understand why something works on a physiological level. But, this understanding usually occurs AFTER some coach or athlete has already discovered it. I think it's rare that an excercise physiologist has discovered something FIRST and then radically altered the way the succesful distance runners train.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking exercise physiology. But, it's still woefully young and incomplete as a science. What "experts" are saying now may be proven to be different 20 years from now. Meanwhile the runners who live now must figure out how to train best.

wellnow said:

Pete, you are younger than me, so you should be faster than me. The difference is in our level of belief.

So the real determinant of speed is age? It's so simple! Let's send a bunch of strong-minded 13 year olds to the Olympics!

Pete wrote:

wellnow wrote: Perhaps if you are such an expert on training, then you should inform Renato Canova exactly what he is doing wrong and maybe you could share your wisdom here too.

wellnow, can you link us to where Canova mentions that set of 600s? Like the others, I have some trouble imagining that one. The 400s are pretty standard, but I just can't imagine trying those 600s.

I don't have a link, but he has suggested that session and similar sessions which are very hard with long recoveries. This is training that is meant to bring you to a peak of fitness, requiring about 3 days of easy/moderate running in between.

Also, to do such a session as 4x600 @ 800 target pace, you would have been doing hard 400m pace sessions to give you the speed, and longer sessions to give you the endurance.

Plus, you would only need do that session once or twice per year (six months apart) so it's very hard, but not too hard. Hill sessions are often more demanding in energy output than those very hard track sessions, but you recover quicker from a hill session because the speed is lower, so the eccentric muscle contraction is much less and thus the muscle damage is much less.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, make things more practical, I'm not some lab geek telling you about the latest research. I'm saying that what passes for physiological knowledge is usually 50, 60,70,80 or more years out of date.

As for the practicalities of training, very few runners are really interested in getting the best out of themselves, probably as few in number as those who care about real science knowledge versus pseudoscience. But I'm not going to dumb it down for mass consumption, I have more respect for the average letsrunners intelligence than to do that. Whether you care or not is up to you.

I apologize if this has been covered already (I haven't had time to read the entire thread yet), but my question refers to the basic premise of heart rate and aerobic vs. anaerobic. If I understand correctly, when our heart rate starts going 85-100% of MHR, we are not necessarily "going anaerobic" as previously taught? If so, what terminology should be used?

Yes that is correct. The assumption of A.V. Hill in the early 1920's was that above a certain pace, which was actually 8 miles per hour, even the best distance runners were "going anaerobic" and this dogma has continued in one form or another for 85 years.

What terminology should we use instead? I don't know, because we always use a mixture of both aerobic and anaerobic fuel sources at every intensity, even at rest.