Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Base Training Revisited
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
brendan?
100mpw
er
skulks out
he has a new take on it
he is cahllenging the assumptions
but make sure you really do
Runs out of thread well, i thought id found summat that worked
Tom
The proof will be in the results - I don't know who he has coached and what they've won - it'd be interesting to find out if anyone knows?
It has to be said that it's hard to respect someone that hides behind an alias too.
Was just thinking of all the thousand BT, missing out on a bit of extra mitichondria. Looks like you need to run a tick faster to get more out of your session. Always read the small print
looking forward to MMs next postings
If you only have 2 data points you can't see the relationship between race pace and distance. All you have is the difference in pace between the two distances (see Part 1 - Hadd's Approach to Distance Training).
Your performances:
29:17 for 5M = 5:51 min/mile
36:58 for 10k = 5:58 min/mile
60:39 for 10M = 6:04 min/mile
1:20:31 for 1/2M = 6:14 min/mile
Using your 5M time as the starting point (5:51 min/mile) and Horwill's rule of thumb of pace slowing by 16 sec/mile as the race distance doubles (Hadd uses this approach to illustrate his examination of race pace and distance, see Part 1 - Hadd's Approach to Distance Training) would predict:
6:07 min/mile for 10M (5M pace, 5:51 min/mile + 16sec)
6:23 min/mile for 20M (10M pace, 6:07 min/mile + 16 sec)
We can then calculate your predicted paces for distances in between 5M, 10M and 20M.
For 10k (6.2M), 5M pace + (1.2/5)*16, which gives us 5:51 + 3.84 = ~5:55 min/mile.
For 1/2M (13.1M), 10M pace + (3.1/10)*16, which gives us 6:07 + 4.96 = ~6:12 min/mile.
So we can see, using your 5M time as the starting point, that of the longer distances that you've raced, your 10M time is the best and both your 10k and 1/2M times are a little slower than might be predicted from Hadd's/Horwill's analysis.
Unfortunately, it's not clear to me what Hadd might suggest in this case. In the examples he provides (Part 1 - Hadd's Approach to Distance Training) the race times he examines become progressively slower (relative to predicted pace) as the distance increases.
Urban,
Thanks, it's took a few evenings of reading and re-reading Hadd's posts and the Dudley, Holloszy publications to be able to put this together.
BR,
With regard to the theory behind Hadd's approach (Sections 1-3 of Hadd's posts) the main problem I have is that Hadd makes statements such as "And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better" citing the Dudley et al., paper as the scientific basis for such statements. Having carefully examined the Dudley et al., paper, it's clear that this statement is untrue. According to Dudley et al., the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres is to exercise at an intensity of 83% VO2 max (see Figure 4). Furthermore, to state "long and slow at 70% VO2max " is also misleading. According to Swain et al., 70% VO2 max is ~82% maximum heart rate, which I'd suspect you'd agree, is not that slow.
Your response to BR, is also very interesting. This appears to be the approach that Daniels, Pfitzinger and others adopt - namely that optimum stimulous to LT is achieved at just below LT heartrate (equiv to 10M race race). You quote an intensity of 83% VO2 max - might this not even be higher in an aerobically well trained athlete. THis is the basis for Daniel's style Thresholdhold runs (often confusing called tempo runs) or cruise intervals.
Although Hadd quotes the literature and suggests that we start at 70% MHR (gradually increase training pace as we achieve minimal cardiac drift at each level), he simply suggests that we calculate our HR to start based on MHR less 50bpm. Suddenly his "rigorous" analysis isyou replaced by a rule of thumb. In applying this, I don't think he makes any differention for age. My MHR is 160, less 50bpm gives me starting pace based on 68% MHR - which I think is probably too low.
One final point,you quote that "according to Swain et al. 70% VO2 max is circa 82% maximum heart rate. Are you sure of this, as it does very high.
Lookong forward to your next set of insights.
So what would 83% VO2 max equate to in terms of %MHR?
I've got shed loads of course work to do and now you've come up with the most interesting set of postings for a while.
Also, I can't quite understand the negativity when someone takes the time to analyse and criticise (that's not always a negative term) a training theory.
I find the whole thing very interesting (but I doubt it will change my approach as BT suits my lifestlye right now).
Keep it coming BT.
MM, whilst your analysis of my data supports my view about the inappropriateness (if there's such a word!) of the Hadd approach to my own particular circumstances, it is also based on an untested rule of thumb - namely Horwills "16 second rule". I've never seen any validation of this (and Horwill is notoriously unreliable in substatiating his statements). Again we need to continally question and assess the validity of information we are given - there are stll many people who use the 220-age formula for calculating MHR, when there is not a single piece of research to substantiate it!
"so what you are saying (and I've done the same analysis) is that Hadd has nothing to say to me because I don't fit his paradigm." - I don't know about this, you'd have to ask Hadd.
"You quote an intensity of 83% VO2 max - might this not even be higher in an aerobically well trained athlete." - The 83% figure comes straight from the Dudley et al., paper which is a study undertaken in rats. Consequently it's impossible to say, from the data in Dudley's paper, what the figure might be in an aerobically well-trained athlete.
"One final point,you quote that "according to Swain et al. 70% VO2 max is circa 82% maximum heart rate. Are you sure of this, as it does very high." - If you look at the abstract for the Swain paper (here), you can see that 40%, 60%, 80%, and 85% of VO2max corresponds to 63%, 76%, 89%, and 92% max heart rate, respectively. You can see that there's a linear relationship between percentage VO2 max and percentage max heart rate. So to get percentage max heart rate which corresponds to 70% VO2 max, we can take the mid-point between the two values of max heart rate which correspond to 60% and 80% VO2 max i.e. 76% and 89% max heart rate, giving a value of 82.5% max heart rate.
"whilst your analysis of my data supports my view about the inappropriateness (if there's such a word!) of the Hadd approach to my own particular circumstances, it is also based on an untested rule of thumb - namely Horwills "16 second rule". I've never seen any validation of this" - I've never seen any validation of this either, but this is the key measurement that Hadd uses to assess whether an individual is optimally trained (from an aerobic standpoint) or not.
SVT,
As you'll see above, 83% VO2 max corresponds to ~90% max heart rate.
Chip,
I like to think that my motivation is an altruistic desire to ensure that as a virtual community of runners that we're well informed ;-)
I think the important thing is that we all remain friends and view all of these discussions as a healthy investigation of the facts.
Is mitochondrial density the key physiological adaptation claimed for the approach ?
I understood that mitochondria had a relatively short lifespan - mitochondrial density being one of the first things lost through detraining.
I tried sticking to the 70%WHR (or whatever you want to call it) for a week, but gave it up for the totally unscientific reason that it wasn't fast enough to produce any enjoyment whatsoever. 75-80% is enough to do it for me on a long run, but anything slower leaves me (literally) cold.
That seems to be correct. I can quote David L. Costill (Inside Running) p. 144+
"Apparently, it takes much less daily exercise to sustain the aerobic benefits of endurance training than it does initially to increase the runner's VO2Max. Unfortunately, the fitness gained from miles and miles of running are quickly lost when the runner stops all training. With the cessation of training, improvements in VO2Max, maximal cardiac output, skeletal muscle capillarization, and the aerobic capacity of the leg muscles vanish at varied rates. If for some reason the endurance athlete is unable to train for just one week, the muscles' aerobic capacity may decline by 10 to 50 percent. This finding is supported by observations that the activities of the mitochondrial enzymes are markedly reduced with the cessation fo exercise training. Some physiologists have shown that enzymes may begin to decline within just 48hrs if muscles are not exercised. After an additional week of inactivity, the muscles' aerobic capcity remains depressed, though trainined muscles still have far more endurance than untrained muscles."
Regarding density:
"Studies have shown that the number of capillaries around each muscle fibre decreses by 10 to 20 percent within 5 to 12 days after the last training session. As a result, the delivery of oxygen to these muscle cells and their ability to produce energy are dramatically impaired".
I don't want to get in any interpretation, but it becomes obvious, if you have the wrong mix of training intensity and frequency, it can take longer than expected, before seeing (aerobic) improvments.
right
no excuses
every day form now on
9wonders if walking rapidly around huge hozzie counts-
Once again, don't want to go into any interpretation, but in the worst case, if you have been training on and off, had an injury, etc. your whole cardiovascular system goes full circle, likely you will be back at square one.
thats really cheered me up:((((((
not gone more than 3 days without training in 2 years
but some of them have been 2 mile-get out there or else efforts
Feb 04: Great Bently 10M - 60:39 (6:04 pace): Flat course, dry, very windy
March 04: Bath 1/2Mar - 80:31 (6:09 pace): Flat course, torrential rain, strong winds
April 04: Sandy 10M - 61:49 (6:11 pace), hilly course, cool, dry, windy
May 04: Bentley Charles 10k - 37:22 (6:02 pace), Flat course, mild, dry, calm
May 04: Arthur Bowden 5M - 29:25 (5:53 pace), flat , perfect running conditions.
On analysis, these results will give an even stronger performance at the longer distances.
MM thanks for your responses, in particular the link to the Swain abstract, very enlightening. However, in my mind (obviously my own interpretation) there are still doubts about the relevance of the Hadd approach to my own circumstances.
MM, you've obviously put a lot of time and effort into this. It is appreciated, and I hope you don't think I'm being too unreasonable in raising these queries?
Tom
"You laughed, you thought I was mad, but I was right all along...Hah, hah, hah (maniacal laughter)....I'll take my close up nowe, Mr De Mille"
Seriously though guys, this is a brilliant thread - thanks for the effort, insight and research links.
Tom
Thanks
Tom
What's clear from Noakes is that sports science is a very incomplete discipline. Noakes' own theory is an attempt to plug some of the huge gaps in the understanding of how we run fast. Because the science is incomplete there could be approaches at odds with what we do know that still work for reasons we don't. For me what this means is that when evaluating Hadd you really have to look at the results of his coaching - who he has coached and what success they have had - rather than getting too hung up on the science behind it.
I kind of agree, that's why I tried to find out more about what the most successful coaches do, Kostre, Dieter Hogen or the Wagner brothers. One can claim, they all work with naturally gifted Africans, however you still have to get the very best out of a runner.