Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Base training backlash
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
It seems that the BT'ers fall into the category of people who want to make a step change in their performance. For me and Minks and others newcomers we want to get that endurance in our legs that longtime runners have taken years to get, even though BT is longterm, for me it's a short cut. For others like BR and Wardi, they are trying it because they have done the other techniques and it hasn't brought the results they wanted.
However, I've tried to avoid posting too much here because whilst I value the debate it can sometimes turn into a p!ssing contest. It's a broad church go out and enjoy your running however you train!
Bod
Also nobody is saying that you HAVE to get a HRM or do it a very precise way... Just a useful tool to help out, as you have reminded us again, not to remove the necessity of responding to "feel".
_W
Or are you a Vulcan in disguise?
You can't see my ears, can you?
Common sense isn't a magic cure all either. People aren't going to magically divine for themselves a good training program, so it makes sense to read widely. Of course, they do then need to apply that in a sensible way.
Minkin is obviously correct in the statement above, but so is Chaos. Everyone's body will react to a given stimulus in pretty much the same way, subject to that person's own limits. It's making sure that those limits are not crossed that means one person's training program different to anothers.
Chaos, surely the point you made about us all having muscle twitch fibres l & ll,can make an enormous difference depending on which fibres one has the majority of. Those who have more type l will respond quite differently to a training programme to those who have more type ll.
Whether runners are all different or, as Chaos says, fundamentally all the same, doesn't change the fact that research incontrovertibly shows that the greater the training stress you inflict, the greater the overcompensation, and hence performance gain, you will receive (until a certain limit after which over-training sets in). There is also research suggesting that the body can tolerate (i.e. no injury/illness) a much greater total training stress if this training is varied rather than monotonous. Taken together, these studies definitely suggest that a varied training schedule (with a mix of running speeds), which stresses your body to just below over-training levels, is the way to achieve maximum improvement with minimum injury/illness.
However, this was never my problem with base training - I just think that the commonly suggested "harder" base training sessions are not frequent or hard enough to get the maximum performance gains. Also, judging from some of the posts, it would seem that "all easy-speed running" is a fairly common interpretation of base-training...
It is surely the the same with running - one day you want to focus on providing a maximal stimulus to the Lactate system (to reduce the rate at which lactate is produced for a given work-rate and/or increase the rate at which your muscles can recycle lactate), the next day you might want to work on building your heart's endurance and efficiency, the next you might want to focus on building leg-muscle strength. The first day you've stressed your lactate system, the second and third days you've allowed it to recover and adapt fully leading to maximum performance gains. Only by varying your training and focusing your training in turn on one particular aspect (or group of aspects), and minimising the stress on the other aspects, can you hope to provide maximum training stimulus whilst allowing sufficient recovery of each aspect. This is what I don't see base training providing.
To some extent you are correct but both the timing and the analogy with bodybuilders is off beam. In a running context we need to develop heart, lungs, leg muscles and tendons/cartlidge. The order above is in increasing time it takes to develop, therefore a runner may injure himself because, although the heart/lungs and even muscles are 'fit' enough the tendons etc are not!
Bodybuilders are looking for muscle hypertrophy, especially in type II (FT)muscle fibres and the needs of overstress and respite are exactly as you describe. However, Bt'ers are looking primarily to develop type 1 (ST) muscles and create a more efficient although not larger muscle mass. The staged recruitment of these fibres and the time required to develop mitochondria/capilliaries require longer duration excercise, daily or even twice daily. Anaerobic activity retards this process.
Also, there are obviously several other important aspects besides mitochondria growth and capillarisation that cannot necessarily be neglected till the latter stages of training, e.g. glycotic pathway adaptations, changes in muscle contractility, changes to the lactate system. I have not seen any research
that shows that these aspects need any less time to approach maximal values than mitochondria growth and capillarisation. Even if some aspects might have been shown to initially rise rapidly over a short period given the correct training stimuli, this does not necessarily imply that they reach near maximal values any quicker than mitochondria growth and capillarisation - it may just be that these aspects have been neglected in training to such an extent that their initial levels are very low and thus have great scope for improvement.
I'm sorry if I sound argumentative - it is just that I get a bit frustrated with the lack of hard evidence behind a lot of running theory and I'm very curious to try and find some answers. So if you can point me in the direction of any studies I might have missed that back-up the base-training argument then I would be very grateful if you could let me know.
(BTW Following on from the point you made in your first paragraph, wouldn't long-duration easy-pace running be harder on the tendons/cartlidge than shorter duration faster running?)
Won't argue the point since no-one (Noakes et al) are fully agreed on various mechanisms or can back them up evidentially and introvertably.
Am happy to base build, think it's right for me. Could/Should work, if not, have not lost anything.
I assume you read the Hadd article? This seems to me the most comprehensive and understandable explanation of why base training works (and goes into the science too), so if you haven't seen it it's at:
http://www.ffh.us/cn/hadd.htm
(Sorry, I don't know how to do links on here).
Yes, am wagering a hour in bed as most of my sessions are done between 0545 and 0645.
If this is the case then it suggests that there is a definite periodisation element required in ones' training if it is to be optimal - generally for a specific event or perhaps a set of events in a short season such as cross country. Of course one can have several such periods a year and base training is only an element of a period with speed & strength being very important elements but ones that do not benefit from being done all the time.
Am I making sense? We do actually often seem to be agreeing on this thread whilst disagreeing on semantics.
The papers by D Costill and J.A. Hawley that are quoted by Hadd don't provide any significance for the much quoted 70% VO2max figure either. In fact Costill or Hawley don't really tell us anything except that vLT is crucial - they certainly don't have anything to say about the best way to maximise this. All they state is that faster runners accumulate less lactate than slower runners between 70% - 85% VO2max.
I can totally see that doing a large quantity of aerobic exercise is a good thing - I just get stuck on why I should always stay under 70% VO2max, or 70% WHR or whatever. If it doesn't adversely affect your weekly mileage then why not run at 75% or 80% or 85%??? There is no evidence to say it is a less effective way to train for a marathon. And I doubt that many of us are putting in so many miles that increasing the intensity of some sessions to 75% or 80% or 85% would would push us into over-training territory...
I think we are pretty much in agreement that up to a certain limit (which will depend on your ability but seems to max out at something like 140 miles / week for elite athletes) more miles equates to better marathon performance. I think we are also probably in agreement that there is a limit to the amount of intensive training that it is productive to do. However, I think the difference is that whilst I (and others) would define intensive training as involving a number of deeply anaerobic sessions per week, others seem to count a week which including a few marathon-pace runs and 10K-pace intervals as being intense...
Some of you will say "Go for it!! That's what you (and therefore your body) want to do so just enjoy it"; but on the other hand I do feel that reining in a desire to peg it along until jan/feb can only increase the success come april/may. I will be doing just that (reining myself in) but equally I'll want to do those 12x400s or whatever my colleagues are doing.
Gravys' whole thing about what %age to go for is a lot more difficult to judge without blood testing on hand. I totally his/her point about the studies in question focussing on a particular percentage without questioning what the optimal one may have been & equally what the best way to drive up one's vLT is. But in the absence of a handy biologist in the family, one does need to go by the experience of Mr Hadd, Noakes et al. The lactate turnpoint of the individual does seem to indicate something though and I would be willing to do my training to suit.
[says Chaos who is only just getting back to 3x60 minute runs a week having done too much Pose-technique too soon! it's all theoretical but I'd like to optimise recovery...]
I think i meant to say in the 2nd para - "I totally" agree with ... blah de blah; but I guess you got the point.
Oi'll go home now...