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

wellnow you state

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

If lactate tolerance = mile repeats, tempo's, etc.,

and lactate clearance = hard interval such as 100 200 400 with i muntue rest

what equals speed development? improvement of speed not just improvement because one can better tolerate lactate?

what kind of workouts to actually improve speed?

Really confused I thought that lactate wasn't what was holding you back? Isn't that hydrogen?

Can someone please actually give me some straight answers thanks!!!!!! I need a practical use!

coaches will always be ahead of phyiologists or scientists. The best coaches are those who know enough physiology but aren\'t trapped by the scientific thinking. These are guys like Canova. He uses science the right way.

Anyways, look at the \"breakthrough\'s\" in our sport and they all come from coaches/atheltes innovation. Science simply explains why it works afterwords.

Really wrote:

Clyde Hart says science doesn't 'prove' why what he does works and he doesn't wait for science before evolving his training. He uses experience and sense then adapts when science catches up. He says he was doing what he was doing long before people realised what was going on in the body in the 400m. Hart also is a good example of someone who adapts his training when science is then able to say in more detail what is going on. Hence he now used 350m efforts rather than 300m ones in certain sessions.

That is the approach of a smart coach.

___________________________________________________________

I read and article that referred to that particular 350"s session. Coach Hart went on to say in that article, "You need a hard run of 40 sec to get anaerobic. There is not a quality sprinter who won't run better than 40 sec for 300m in practice so they are not geting lactate until the second or third. So the next time they came to the workout of 352 yards [300m] I had moved the cone to 350m."

That Baylor original workout I believe was 3 or 4 X 300.

I agree with you, this is where coaching comes to play, not science. Most non 47 sec runners could not run 3 or 4 300's under 40 sec back to back (4:00 recovery) - so for them, the workout might remain 3 or 4 X 300 for that type of workout.(an anaerobic workout) Coach Hart uses 300's as event 300's which are more pace judgement, not conditioning, I believe.

As a side note - I wonder if coach Hart still agrees that it takes "40 sec to get anaerobic"?

jonathon wrote:

Coach Hart went on to say in that article, "You need a hard run of 40 sec to get anaerobic....

...I wonder if coach Hart still agrees that it takes "40 sec to get anaerobic"?

Based on this, it seems Coach Hart took a physiological idea (getting anaerobic) and a physiological belief (it takes 40 sec to get anaerobic) and designed a workout around that idea & belief. This is in contrast to experimenting (evolving his training) to determine if running 350s in training produced a better race performance than running 300s.

I'd be willing to bet that many coaches & runners have had their training ideas influenced by physiology. That they get exposed to particular physiological ideas and based on that idea come up with a new twist on a particular training method (i.e. running 350s instead of 300s). I'd also be willing to bet that the influence of those physiological ideas isn't often recognized or admitted to.

Richard_ wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that many coaches & runners have had their training ideas influenced by physiology. That they get exposed to particular physiological ideas and based on that idea come up with a new twist on a particular training method (i.e. running 350s instead of 300s). I'd also be willing to bet that the influence of those physiological ideas isn't often recognized or admitted to.

I'd be willing to bet that many physilogists have had their training ideas influenced by coaches and runners. That they get exposed to particular training ideas and based on that idea come up with a new twist on a particular physiology concept (i.e. all flat out instead of LT). I'd also be willing to bet that the influence of those training methodology ideas isn't often recognized or admitted to

"wellnow" did not state that, I did. "wellnow" was just responding to my question.As for the rest, you want a clear answer? How about a clear question?Maybe the answer is short sprints with full recoveries.

what gives on speed? wrote:

wellnow you state

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

If lactate tolerance = mile repeats, tempo's, etc.,

and lactate clearance = hard interval such as 100 200 400 with i muntue rest

what equals speed development? improvement of speed not just improvement because one can better tolerate lactate?

what kind of workouts to actually improve speed?

Really confused I thought that lactate wasn't what was holding you back? Isn't that hydrogen?

Can someone please actually give me some straight answers thanks!!!!!! I need a practical use!

[quote]The Light wrote:

As for the rest, you want a clear answer? How about a clear question?

[quote]

The question remains the one people keep asking. How does this insight affect what training people should do?

Otherwise it may add understanding to how training works but without making anyone able to train more intelligently.

Knowing more detail on how an engine works is purely academic unless you can learn from it how to make a better engine then the knowledge becomes power (or at least useful).

There is no question physiologists are influenced by training ideas & methods. It is quite common for researchers to conduct studies in order to test particular training methods and/or beliefs. For example I know of several studies that examined the training patterns of elite runners in order to determine how closely their actual training corresponded with their training prescriptions.As often as physiologists refer to particular training methods & beliefs, I'm not sure how frequently the influence of training methodologies is unrecognized or admitted to in formulating research study questions. I'm sure some amount is not recognized but how much is anyone's guess.

troll man wrote:

I'd be willing to bet that many physilogists have had their training ideas influenced by coaches and runners...I'd also be willing to bet that the influence of those training methodology ideas isn't often recognized or admitted to

What you say that´s the question of "who comes first in the creation the egg or the chicken ?. No solution.

But i´m pleased that you admit there is no question physiologists are influenced by training ideas and methods.

I don´t know if you have the same opinion taked from running past history but in my opinion most of the new training methods were made in practise and not in laboratories. But more important that´s the fact that the training lead shall be done by the coach based in the training methodology rather than physiology or science knowledge. The physiology that´s blind to decide from the multitude of alternatives.

I agree when you say:

"The best coaches aren't being tripped up or left behind because they don't understand aerobic/anaerobic

What I am presenting, are the ideas of the very best physiologists and they are as rare as the very best coaches.

You ask:

What you have still not said is how you think the understanding of anaerobic/aerobic would change the training of those people you don't think get it.

My answer is that sports science eductation is very poor.

Why allow this to continue, when all we have to do is share the best info that is available now?

You mention ancient knowledge of astronomy, but don't you find it interesting and significant that such knowledge was suppressed for hundreds of years by religious dogma?

A similar dogma exists in physiology now. Information that has been around for decades is seen as radical or conroversial.

wellnow wrote:

You ask:

What you have still not said is how you think the understanding of anaerobic/aerobic would change the training of those people you don't think get it.

My answer is that sports science eductation is very poor.

Why allow this to continue, when all we have to do is share the best info that is available now?

It will be intersting to see what changes/advancements coaches come up with over the next 20 years as the most up-to-date information about endurance physiology slowly makes its way into generally acceptance.

How do we develop pure speed?

Regular short sprints 10-15 seconds.

Start by doing them uphill this cause less chance of injury, and as you get fitter, use less steep hills until you can do them regularly on a road or track.

I don't think that hydrogen ion accumulation is the main cause of fatigue in lactate accumulation. If it was, then after all these years of investigation into the issue, this would have been conclusively proven by now.

But that is an accademic argument. H+ accumulation and reduction in muscle contraction are certainly coincidental.

But think of this: Hydrogen ions cause pain, which helps your pace judgement and we humans and many other species have evolved to use that pain and pace judgement to continue our survival. In a race, the same principle applies. So Hydrogen ions are not the enemy that they are portrayed to be.

Richard_ welcome to my thread. I was reading some of your old posts yesterday and today. You make some very good points.

However I would like to point out one very important issue that you don't understand. The reason why runners like me are able to run 100+ mpw with regualar hard sessions is not because we are naturally gifted with superior recovery or physical talent.

It's the other way round; we have superior recovery because of the training we do.

As for the future of training for middle and long distance events, the answer is obvious to me.

Our muscle fibers are seemingly infinitely adaptable. Promoting these adaptions in the direction of more speed endurance is the goal. This is the main reason why World records keep being broken; fast twitch fibers are being trained to oxidize more lactate (become more aerobic)whilst pure speed is maintained by regular workouts at maximum speed.

Just some random thoughts:

Has the media dictated some of the thinking about track? Has the United States become so speed consciouss because of all the hype on our talented sprinters of the past? Our 100 meter champions receive the biggest headlines and are labeled as "The Worlds Fastest Human". Young kids want to be sprinters. Anything over 200 is a DISTANCE run. We are blessed with many real fast people in the U. S.

Most other countries do not have the speed we have. So the distance runners in those countries receive the accolades. Their FAST young people do NOT consider anything over 200 to be a DISTANCE run and are willing to train for, and run the longer events.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Lydiard believe the 220 (200) was a big factor in determining success for the distance runs? (Of course body type was another strong factor - weight primarily, wasn't it?)

Wasn't it just in the past few weeks that some were saying, after hearing about Jeremy Wariner changing coaches, "good, now maybe he'll run the 800? Will he? Probably not! Could he? Probably yes! So why will he probably not run it?" I'll let you decide that.

My point in the thoughts above relates to the comment RICHARD made about what changes/advancement will be made over the next 20 years.

Is it possible some of our very talented speedsters who have the lean body type would move up to the 800, 1500?

Who was it that said, "It is easier to build endurance in a runner with speed, than it is to build speed in a runner with endurance?"

Will we have some second thoughts about "training to a runners strength, not their weakness"? Isn't that really what coach Hart has been doing with his aerobic workouts, training his 400 runners to their weakness? For those of you who follow Baylor know that in April of 1997 Michael Johnson ran a 43.68 sec 400. In practice, Michael had not run faster than 28 sec for a 200. The fastest practice workout was 40 yard sprints. How many 15 minute runs did he do? Or 800's? Or up to 45 minute grass runs?

Isn't it true that the last part of 60 plus minute runs are being run with fast twitch fibers? Distance runs do NOT weaken fast twitch fibers or whatever those myths are.

Maybe in the next 20 years we will see more mental training. It has demonstrated that the body is cabable of unbelievable feats. The United States has the talent to be dominant in the distance events. But, our young people today have to have INSTANT success. Distance training does not lend itself to that philosophy.

Let's help Allen Webb and not be critical of him. We need him to get the regognition that will catch the eyes and ears of our young people.

Thanks for letting me some of these thoughts off my mind.

They are probably controversial but I am not concerned, and will choose not to debate them.

"Isn't it true that the last part of 60 plus minute runs are being run with fast twitch fibers? Distance runs do NOT weaken fast twitch fibers or whatever those myths are."

I'd disagree with this. Your body adapts to what you train for. Doing lots of distance runs will suprres the anaerobic capacity, and tell the muscles to shift a little down the muscle fiber continuum towards the distance side of things.

No.

The ancients in the Northern hemisphere supposedly believed the sun would continue to set farther and farther to the South during the winters, eventually disappearing beyond the Southern horizon, never to return, if they didn't pray to the "sun god" to stop it. Lo and behold, every year (on about what we now call December 21st) it would stop setting farther South and would finally "stand still" before it began setting farther North once again. We know this date as the winter solstice - the day on which the sun (sol) stands still ("stice," from "sistere" - to make stand). Eventually, the ancients figured out this seasonal pattern and made use of it in farming. But for awhile, they still begged the "sun god" to make that great ball of warmth start moving North again for another year, just like it had always done when they had groveled sufficiently. Farther into the future, people came to realize the Earth was moving around the sun and that the Earth's axis was slanted relative to the plane of revolution, which accounted for the diurnal patterns the sun seemed to make, creating the seasons. But guess what ... planting and harvesting remained tied to those seasons independent of people's understanding of what forces and circumstaces created the seasons. It wouldn't have mattered to the ancients had they known all the facts, because that knowledge would have had no bearing on their agricultural practices.

Ergo, even "exact science" is never truly exact when human agendas and biases are introduced into the equation, which they always are. The scientific arena has always been one of conflict, with ideas and information having always been suppressed.

Contentious information in the field of physiology represents an issue for physiologists, not for runners. Most runners are concerned with getting better at running, and this involves not only many variables, but many constraints. Physiology usually examines an isolated variable and occasionally addresses a combination of variables. It practically never considers the constraints; i.e, the potential negative ramifications of attempting to maximize the value(s) of a variable or a few variables over any extended period of time.

If we followed Gary Dudley's 1982 findings, for example, we'd believe peak oxygen uptake was the Holy Grail of running performance and we'd be scrambling to improve our maximum stroke volume, a-vO2 differential, mitochondrial density, et cetera by running at our max VO2 for 10 or so minutes every day. Why? Because it worked wonders for a bunch of rats. Never mind that rat muscle fiber types are distributed differently in the prime movers than those of humans. Never mind that rats experience less metabolic stress at those intensities by virtue of lower impact forces, with the body closer to the ground and the weight distributed on four feet during exercise. Never mind that rats don't have running careers that may span 20 years. These are all constraints which are ignored when a particular variable is isolated for scientific scrutiny. Even if the study had achieved similar findings with human subjects, what would be the consequences of attempting to boost that lone variable of max VO2 by running for 10 minutes at that intensity every day for 6 weeks? 6 months? 6 years?

Lab work examines ingredients, not recipes. To find tenable and effective recipes; i.e., how ingredients come together to make a whole greater than the sum of the parts, art - the proper application of science - must supersede mere stringent science.

Nice post, Jonathan. A couple of comments to your comment... I believe US dominates in 400m event because you have so many 10.1~10.3 guys (or thereabout). They know they can't be number one in 100 (they are too slow!) so they move up. So with whatever the kind of training they do, they move up to 400 and consequently there are now so many great 400m runners coming from US. What coach Hart has been doing is quite interesting but I remember talking to Jerry Lindgren's coach, Tracy Walters, who worked with Bud Winters at UCLA (wasn't it?). He said that Lee Evans was the only "sprinter" who came out and ran with cross country runners during the fall. He said, but he would run from a tree to a tree to stay in the shade! (so you could argue it was more of an interval form???)

Why doesn't Wariner move up to 800m? Because he doesn't have to. If you're number one in the world in 400m, why would YOU want to move up the distance? ;o)

how short, how many, lenght of recovery, how often? Would they be ok before tempo runs or after slow runs, when would be best?

thanks