Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Heart rate monitor training
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
I know there are many P&D devotees around and I accepty their book is excellent and works well - there are many ways to skin a cat.
My preference for a long term approach though is to get a decent base in first. Raising AnT has it's value, but not till later on. The trouble with schedules is that they are one size for many - I think people are better off getting to the stage where their AeT is as high as possible first (i.e. the 88% work mentioned previously) and THEN working on AnT later (generally speaking).
A lot of these schedules are elite schedules watered down for the masses. If you are going for Oly gold then you'll need some fast intervals, but why put fast tyres on a car with a max speed of 50mph?
In short, raising AnT is of great value to the marathoner - it raises the bar further for future improvements. But I'm not convinced of the value of such training if AeT is well below what it could be. Raising AnT is part of the long term plan, but it will lower AeT temporarily and that is far more important to a marathoner.
Do we run at all? I like the running bit
I have a HRM and will be lurking with intent. Just as long as I don't have to give up the running
Does AeT depend on the distance you are racing? i.e. I average 186 bpm 90%MHR(or 87% if using Karvonen) with little straying for an HM but couldn't average that for a full.
Thanks
I'm going to stick to slow runs for the next 4 weeks and then think about add in some faster runs as you suggested.
FWIW I think that the "Advanced Marathoning" approach is a very effective way to prepare for a marathon. The combination of recovery runs, aerobic running, marathon paced efforts, tempo running and VO2 sessions will ensure that you are well prepared to go the distance. Using their 70+ mpw, 24 week schedule last year, I managed to take 8 mins off my PB. The only thing I would suggest is that you race relatively frequently and all-out in the final 12 weeks prior to the marathon in order to ensure that you have boosted your lactate threshold to the highest level that you can.
I believe the approach that Pantman is suggesting, is based around "Hadd's" (John Kellogg's?) approach to base training. Unfortunately, unlike P&D's training schedules, the only generally available information on "Hadd's" methodology concerns just the base training phase and none of the preparation that follows the "base phase". Consequently, it's not at all clear from "Hadd's" postings how one should approach marathon preparation once base training has been completed.
Pantman,
When you mentioned that "Raising AnT is part of the long term plan, but it will lower AeT temporarily..", could you elaborate on why you think that raising anaerobic threshold, lowers aerobic threshold. Could you also comment on what you think aerobic threshold is, in terms of both intensity (% maxHR) and physiology i.e. what sort of physiological adaptations do you think occur at aerobic threshold that are, by inference from your statement above, decreased by training at anaerobic threshold.
Why do treadmills always seem harder than running outside??
I think I will lengthen the saturday run as you say to 2 hours. I think I will also give the session you suggested for Linda ago and see how I get on. Many Thanks
Thanks for pointing out that Pantman had addressed the issue of AeT, AnT on page 3, I'd forgotten he'd posted this.
Pantman,
There a couple of issues that I'd like to comment on regarding your description of Aerobic Threshold (AeT).
Your statement that "AeT...is, for all intents and purposes, the same as Marathon Pace... it is the point where you hit maximal fat burning - if not it's near as damn it", is incorrect.
There is an excellent review written by Holloszy et al., entitled "The regulation of carbohydrate and fat metabolism during and after exercise" which clearly illustrates that "maximal fat burning", occurs at the lowest exercise intensities. Holloszy et al. show that "70-90% of the energy required at low exercise intensities in the range of ~25-30% of VO2max is supplied by the oxidation of fat" and that "as relative exercise intensity is increased from ~40% to ~85% of VO2max, there is a decrease in the percentage of the total energy requirement derived from fat oxidation and a reciprocal increase in carbohydrate oxidation".
I trust you'd agree that exercise intensities of "~25-30% of VO2max" are way below marathon pace.
You also state that "The difference with AeT (as I understand it) is that you must train at it or just below it to raise it. Train above it actually suppresses it" and explain the dependence of the desired adaptation of fast twitch (FT) fibres on exercise intensity to be a consequence of aerobic threshold (AeT).
There are a couple of flaws in your reasoning:
1. As described above, "maximal fat burning" occurs at the lowest exercise intensities. Consequently, AeT, by your definition is "~25-30% of VO2max" and marathon pace is therefore way above AeT. This directly conflicts with your suggestion that training at an intensity above "maximal fat burning" suppresses adaptation of fast twitch fibres.
2. Presumably, when you state "what you are doing with AeT/MP sessions is training the FTa fibres to behave more like ST fibres", you are suggesting that training at AeT produces physiological adaptations in FT fibres i.e. stable adaptations or fibre-type conversion that results in FT fibres becoming physiologically similar to ST fibres. This was suggested by Baumann et al., in 1987 (Exercise training induced transitions of myosin isoform subunits within histochemically typed human muscle fibers. Pflügers Arch 409,349 360.), but more recent studies have been unable to substantiate the findings of Baumann et al. (e.g. Jostarndt-Fogen et al., Fibre-type specific expression of fast and slow essential myosin light chain mRNAs in trained human skeletal muscles. Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 164 (3), 299-308).
As Holloszy et al., point out "The adaptations induced by endurance exercise training result in a marked sparing of carbohydrate during exercise, with an increased proportion of the energy being provided by fat oxidation.....is a consequence of the increase in muscle mitochondria induced by endurance exercise training."
As you can see, Holloszy believes that mitochondrial number/density is perhaps the most important physiological adaptation that occurs in endurance-trained athletes with respect to increasing proportion of energy being supplied by fat for a given exercise intensity.
So, I guess the question is, what's the best way to increase/maximise mitochondrial density?????
You guessed it!!!!
Exercising at AnT ;-)
Easier to stick to Parker and alternate the two???I am not sure my brain can cope with too much theory.
Its like the carmichal nutrition book - great first few chapters, then boom, so much to think about you have to reach for the Pringles!!!
Regarding AnT, I'm in complete agreement with Pantman i.e. AnT = lactate threshold = ~10M - 1/2M race pace/intensity.
Ok, just to clarify my understanding of what you are saying. Is it that training at Anerobic Threshold is the way to increase/maximise mitochondrial density?
Because I thought that you did this by training in your Anerobic Zone? Providing a stimulus for your metabolism to burn fat, and by doing long, slow, runs providing the stimulus to increase the number/density of mitochondria.
Just want to check if you are saying Anerobic or Aerobic to achieve this adaptation? I thought it was Aerobic? Anerobic threshold is then used to teach your body to utilise and tolerate lactic build up for longer periods of time etc etc Drive your tolerance higher. Eventually being able to race faster for longer periods of time without running out of steam.
Ta,
Dex.
Maximal fat burning needs clear defining. I always understood it as the rate at which most fat is burnt, not the rate at which most fat is metabolised in comparison to CHO.
At 25% VO2 max I would imagine 3 times less cals/hr would be burnt than at 75% VO2 max (assumption that cals/hr and %VO2max is linear in oxidative metabolism).
This is to say, the extra calories come from CHO metabolism, ergo the CHO:fat increases. Not necessarily less fat being burnt, just less in comparison to CHO.
Pantman's explanation, botom of page 3, follows my thinking above.
I train 175-205 bpm, upto 16 miles so far. Always thought I had a freaky ticker, can live above 190 for 30 mins no probs. Guess that'll always be there and I ought to drop the HR, get some base work done and improve the AeT. Hmmphh!
Sorry for delay - I've been away for a few days...
1) As Mr B points out you have misunderstood maximal fat burning and confused it with CHO conservation or % of fuel useage. Maximal fat burning is just that - the most amount of fat used at a given pace.
2) Your quoting of papers (which you willing admit don't even agree with one another) like they were gospel truth shows where our approaches to Sports Science differ. To my mind coaching is key - science can clarify issues and explain WHY something works. You are going down the OWen Anderson approach - prove it in the lab and it must be true. Yet the real lab is the road and the real scientists are those like Lydiard who found out what worked before they knew why.
IN short, there are several coaches I have had contact with (Hadd and Renato Canova for starters) who read the same papers and come to different conclusions. I'll always put the well read coach before the physiologist; the Lydiard before the Anderson.
You should get Renato's IAAF guide on Marathon Training (it's small and only costs a fiver or so) and see how applies the data to make AeT training the key for marathon training even at elite level.
All I'd add is that I have seen great progress in myself and others with NO AnT training at all. AnT is the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. When you get to a higher level it takes more of a priority, but I don't consider myself there yet.
I still remain convinced that AeT training is more foundational than AnT training, more neglected and the key to good marathon running.
Training at lactate/anaerobic threshold provides the optimum stimulus for maximising mitochondrial density.
Doing long, slow runs, at intensities well below lactate threshold, will increase mitochondrial density, but less effectively than tempo running at threshold. However, there are many other physiological adaptations which occur at intensities below threshold which are beneficial for distance running e.g. increased capillarisation, improved glycogen deposition etc.
Training above threshold, typically referred to as VO2 max workouts, such as 4x1k at 5k race pace/intensity with 60 second recoveries, produces increased tolerance to lactic acid and, as you might suspect, increases VO2 max.
Mr B & Pantman,
Apologies, I did indeed misunderstand what you meant by "maximal fat burning". Exercise intensities which elicit maximal fat oxidation correspond to ~50-60% VO2 max, which is roughly 70-76% of HR max. Although this is significantly higher than the figures I quoted above, it is still a long way below marathon pace/intensity.
1) Again, apologies for my misunderstanding of what you meant by "maximal fat burning". You'll see above that I've revised my comments in light of the clarification that you and Mr B have provided.
2) I couldn't agree with you more, regarding your statement that "Your quoting of papers....shows where our approaches to Sports Science differ". As you point out, I'm more than happy to present scientific data from studies which disagree with one another. Whereas, your approach seems to be to recommend training at a specific intensity e.g. AeT and then make wholly unsubstantiated statements regarding physiological adaptations that occur at these training intensities in order to try and validate your training approach.
As you know, I've never claimed that the training approach that yourself and Hadd (Kellogg) recommend is ineffective (see post 5 on this thread). What I object to is that you both try to justify the training that you recommend by making unsubstantiated, and occasionally false, statements regarding the underlying physiological changes which occur in response to the training regimen that you suggest. If you really believe in "put(ting) the well read coach before the physiologist" then why do you make statements regarding physiological adaptations which have no basis in fact? Surely it would be far more honest to just suggest that training a particular way works because it produces results, and leave it at that, rather than trying to provide an explanation with a pseudo-physiological spin to lend credence to your conjecture?
I'll certainly read "Renato's IAAF guide on Marathon Training". Might I suggest that, if you've not already read them, that you start by getting copies of "Physiology of Sport and Exercise" by Wilmore and Costill and "Biochemistry Primer for Exercise Science" by Houston. I think these texts would give you a solid basis for understanding some of the fundamental principles which underpin exercise physiology and biochemistry and would provide the foundation required for understanding and correctly interpreting the data in papers such as that by Dudley et al (Influence of exercise intensity and duration on biochemical adaptations in skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol. 1982 Oct;53(4):844-50), the misinterpretation of which forms the basis of "Hadd's" physiolological "justification" for the training regimen that he recommends.
Finally, I believe that we are in complete agreement that aerobic training is more "foundational" than anaerobic training and is central to optimum marathon performance and that anaerobic training is the "icing on the cake". The only other point I would add is that running at lactate threshold is the "biggest bang for your buck" when it comes to aerobic training, but unfortunately, owing to glycogen depletion/injury risk/psychological strain it's not possible to train at this intensity every day ;-)
"would provide the foundation required for understanding and correctly interpreting the data..., the misinterpretation of which forms the basis of "Hadd's" physiolological "justification" for the training regimen that he recommends."
1) My foundation for understanding is pretty good, thanks. I got a 1:1 for my final year physiology, albeit some time ago now.
2) Hadd's foundation is vastly superior to mine. I think you might find he suggests the misinterpretation is yours... ;-)
3) Your estimation of max fat burning is interesting, but way off. You cannot write off an approach to raising AeT by testing those who have not trained that way and say that AeT is lower in them! Of course it will be! Even so, that estimate seems way too low still.
Just finished reading chapter 4 of the Martin/Coe book 'better raining for Distance Runners' and one of the issues it raises at the end of the chapter is about the impact of lower intensity and higher intensity running on running economy...whilst the book concedes that there is no clear evidence about the relative merits of high volume/lower intensity compared to lower volume/higher intensity training in terms of improving running economy, it does state that "our suspician is that it is the higher intensity training that adds components of neurological recruitment and increased muscle power output to aerobic fitness and that these components make it relatively easier for athletes to manage particular submaximal paces" (p.153)
discuss.......
It would be good if you could respond to the first half of my last post as well as the comments you did post.
In response to the comments you did post:
1) "My foundation for understanding is pretty good, thanks. I got a 1:1 for my final year physiology, albeit some time ago now."
OK, so you presumably you're able to provide some substantiation to your claims on page 3 of this thread i.e. "AeT is.....the same as MP.....the point where you hit maximal fat burning. AeT/MP sessions train the FTa fibres to behave more like ST fibres. With your lower HR training your St fibres are able to burn fat well. What you want is to be able to use the FT fibres for the same job when the STs get depleted."
Let's see/hear the physiological evidence that support these claims.
2) "Hadd's foundation is vastly superior to mine. I think you might find he suggests the misinterpretation is yours".
I'm not sure if you recall, but following my initial postings on the Base Training Revisited thread, I contacted you via email with the following message:
"Hope you can appreciate that my appraisal of Hadd's methods on "Base Training Revisited" is what I believe to be an accurate examination of the facts.
I think it is important that you and hopefully Hadd pass comment on the opinions that I've voiced as I believe that the only way to have a reasoned debate is to hear both sides of any argument.
Look forward to hearing from you."
Your response was as follows:
"Sure, I think you have good intentions. I passed your comments onto Hadd and will wait to hear what he says before adding thoughts of my own."
Unfortunately, there was no further feedback from yourself or Hadd. I think now would be an appropriate time to describe exactly how Hadd came to the conclusion that "the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max" on the basis of the data in the paper by Dudley et al. The reason I think that this is central to our entire debate is because that this statement clearly illustrates Hadd's inability to correctly interpret data in physiological publications.
3) "Your estimation of max fat burning is interesting, but way off."
You stated earlier that you'd always "put the well read coach before the physiologist", so I didn't bother quoting the references which demonstrate that maximal fat oxidation corresponds to ~50-60% VO2 max" as it seemed that the only physiological evidence that you're willing to accommodate, is that which fits with whatever theory you're expounding.
The numbers I quoted are not mine, but from the following publications:
i. Balance of carbohydrate and lipid utilization during exercise: the "crossover" concept. J Appl Physiol. 1994 Jun;76(6):2253-61. Brooks GA, Mercier J.
ii. Importance of the 'crossover' concept in exercise metabolism. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1997 Nov;24(11):889-95. Brooks GA.
iii. The regulation of carbohydrate and fat metabolism during and after exercise. Front Biosci. 1998 Sep 15;3:D1011-27. Holloszy JO, Kohrt WM, Hansen PA.
You'll see from glancing at the above that the data are from both untrained and endurance trained athletes. So I'm afraid that your statement that "You cannot write off an approach to raising AeT by testing those who have not trained that way" is wholly inappropriate, because, as I just stated, the data quoted refer in part to endurance trained athletes.
I'll chip in with a thought and a question.
Mitochondrial density may be key, but from my (very limited) understanding, fat and carbs are oxidised thru different metabolic pathways, requiring different enzymes etc. It seems to me therefore, any sensible training program should include running at both AeT and AnT to stimulate development of both of these pathways.
However, one of Pantmans statements would seem to contradict this simple reasoning:
"The difference with AeT (as I understand it) is that you must train at it or just below it to raise it. Train above it actually suppresses it."
Pantman, can you (or anyone else) fill in my limited knowledge and explain to me how training at AnT will suppress AeT, and whether this will have a detrimental overall effect?
fundamentally, improving AeT means maximising the power (i.e. speed !) you can generate aerobically, which means you need to stress the aerobic system. Training above AeT means you are stessing not only the aerobic system, but the anaerobic system, which you must be doing as lactate levels are raised.
my, again, limited reason behind this is;
Firstly, training above AeT means you are causing more fibres to generate nrg anaerobically, as above, you must be because your lactate levels are raised.
Given that maximising AeT requires fibres to be aerobic then I think its just specificity. You are causing fibres to behave anaerboically that could, through appropriate training, behave aerobically ( e.g. some FT type b that can be converted).
Furthermore, as above, training above AeT before you have maximised it, means you are going to be recruiting more powerful anaerobic fibres than are actually required for the job (as you have not trained the lower more powerful ST fibres enough, and you have not got the FT fibres that can behave aerobically to do so, because you have not maximised AeT yet). So you are reducing the effectiveness of the training run on stessing the aerobic system, as compared to training @ or below Aet were the vast majority of fibres recuited will be ST or FT (type a) that are behaving aerobically, and therefore giving them a better aerobic workout.
extending this reasoning further, I suspect you actually want to spent a lot of time well below AeT to fully maximise the power of the ST fibres, i.e. don't recruit the FT type a. Even though the FT type behave aerobically, the ST are far more efficient, so you want to ensure you have maximised their potential power and not continually "help them out" by recruiting FT type a fibres during training runs.
well thats my, very, limited understanding..
p.s. Just to clear one thing up, the reason I asked about AnT, is that when you read around on this subject you see that LT is often defined as the point at which lactate rise above resting levels, i.e. very close to AeT. Whereas AnT is more closely related to MaxLass were lactate levels are elevated (because you are above LT), but can be sustained for 30 minutes or so before rising futher (i.e. close to 10m and 1/2m pace).
I am asking how training at AnT suppresses AeT.
putting it another way, maximising AeT means that you are working ALL fibres aerobically, that can possibly work aerobically, and that you have maximised the power output of every one of those fibres. The other fibres, simply will never work aerobically.
if you work @ AnT BEFORE you have maximised AeT then some of those fibres that could have been trained to work aerobically will be working anaerobically, and hence not being trained aerobically, hence suppressing AeT development.
of course I'd like to know others think, is the reasoning flawed ?
When am I likely to see an improvement in running faster than 3.2mph without going over the 70%?
would love to go in for 10k since I can jog for 2 hrs but my speed is so slow. I think 85% of WHR is at 4.0mph