Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nikalas
Been watching this one with quite a bit of interest... yep, that was in 2007/2008 and measure using gas analysis in a lab. Timescale was first measurement in November and second in March. I was reasonably fit beforehand but training had been very sporadic and unstructured. The training during that period was predominately HR Zone 1-2 base work that, in theory, shouldn't have impacted massively on V02. However, I lost 8 kg of weight and, as CL has been saying, as kg is a factor in the score that would explain a large proportion of the increase.
Another factor is familiarity with the test protocol.. this was the third time I'd undertaken the test and, it's far easier with something to shoot for, however, you can't cheat the gas deflection point.
More significant in my point of view than the change in VO2 was a massive increase in economy (again shown by gas analysis) and the relationship between running pace and HR. I think too many people get obsessed by VO2 and, for the majority of distance runners, threshold as a percentage of VO2 and economy are better indicators of ability.... that said, when I was tested in September prior to my 2012 "A" race, mine was 72 ml/kg/min running and 75 ml/kg/min on the bike ;)... again though weight was down another 2 kg to 78 kg.
Anyway, what I've learned over the years is that many runners get to fussed about numbers and suffer from paralysis by analysis with regards to training. For the vast majority of non-elites it boils down to consistency in training. If you can do X3 runs per week and are training for typical fell races do:
1) LSD (long steady distance): Steady pace and relative to the distance that you typically race over. For example, if you tend to race for 40-60 mins, your LSD only needs to be 90-120 mins.
2) Tempo/Threshold: Sustainable discomfort... starting at 20 mins of effort and building up to 40 mins. Race pace work.
3) Hills/Intervals: Relevant to your races and/or addressing your weaknesses.
... anything more is really just window dressing. Make sure you recover properly and have an easier week every 3-4 weeks.
A final thought.. mainly for the long distance crowd. Many people will say, "I need to run faster so, need to do speed work". Do you need to run faster or do you just need to not slow down? A subtle difference but a very important one that again returns to the importance of running economy.
Was it really as far back as 2007? Blimey I need to retire from here. Anyway I'm well impressed Nik, you've done really well! From around 49 to 75 that's an increase of around 35%. You were fit when you managed 69 so to increase it another 8% is brill; that's an extra 300+ ml every minute. Overall you're capable of using close to 6 litres of oxygen a minute, which is over two litres per minute more than Radcliffe. I also noticed that the difference between the bike and run back then was 3ml and this time it was 3ml; very consistent and the difference demonstrates you are able to use slightly more oxygen on the bike.
What you've shown with these results is that it's possible to achieve Olympian fitness from smart training. I'm sure you'll inspire many on here with that.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nikalas
Been watching this one with quite a bit of interest... yep, that was in 2007/2008 and measure using gas analysis in a lab. Timescale was first measurement in November and second in March. I was reasonably fit beforehand but training had been very sporadic and unstructured. The training during that period was predominately HR Zone 1-2 base work that, in theory, shouldn't have impacted massively on V02. However, I lost 8 kg of weight and, as CL has been saying, as kg is a factor in the score that would explain a large proportion of the increase.
Another factor is familiarity with the test protocol.. this was the third time I'd undertaken the test and, it's far easier with something to shoot for, however, you can't cheat the gas deflection point.
More significant in my point of view than the change in VO2 was a massive increase in economy (again shown by gas analysis) and the relationship between running pace and HR. I think too many people get obsessed by VO2 and, for the majority of distance runners, threshold as a percentage of VO2 and economy are better indicators of ability.... that said, when I was tested in September prior to my 2012 "A" race, mine was 72 ml/kg/min running and 75 ml/kg/min on the bike ;)... again though weight was down another 2 kg to 78 kg.
Anyway, what I've learned over the years is that many runners get to fussed about numbers and suffer from paralysis by analysis with regards to training. For the vast majority of non-elites it boils down to consistency in training. If you can do X3 runs per week and are training for typical fell races do:
1) LSD (long steady distance): Steady pace and relative to the distance that you typically race over. For example, if you tend to race for 40-60 mins, your LSD only needs to be 90-120 mins.
2) Tempo/Threshold: Sustainable discomfort... starting at 20 mins of effort and building up to 40 mins. Race pace work.
3) Hills/Intervals: Relevant to your races and/or addressing your weaknesses.
... anything more is really just window dressing. Make sure you recover properly and have an easier week every 3-4 weeks.
A final thought.. mainly for the long distance crowd. Many people will say, "I need to run faster so, need to do speed work". Do you need to run faster or do you just need to not slow down? A subtle difference but a very important one that again returns to the importance of running economy.
Thanks for posting Nik, one thing i am unable to achieve is a consistent pattern of exercising so i fall at the first hurdle! One thing i do know is that i was a lot better when i was rigidly doing one run a weekend with an 18m bike midweek, so i agree with you that structured training is beneficial. I also used to piss runs like the Grisedale Horseshoe without feeling shot near the end, which i think was down to my bike rides contributing in place of tempo runs. I've got a fairly good idea of what work i need to be putting in, all i need now is the knees to do it. I still don't see long runs benefitting me much though, but i do think there is something to be said for keeping your joints active and moving in some way without stressing them.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Caution here, the 10,000 hour hypothesis really only applies to pure skills. I know that the locomotion of running is a skill, but each of us has a finite amount of running our bodies can cope with. Playing the piano however..........
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy Scott
Caution here, the 10,000 hour hypothesis really only applies to pure skills. I know that the locomotion of running is a skill, but each of us has a finite amount of running our bodies can cope with. Playing the piano however..........
Playing the piano however . What !!
Here we go again , piano players are born remarkably gifted , everyone will improve playing the piano for 10 000 hrs this cannot be denied , However when the most gifted ones practice for 10 000 hrs they will be better .
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A.P.E Knott
Playing the piano however . What !!
Here we go again , piano players are born remarkably gifted , everyone will improve playing the piano for 10 000 hrs this cannot be denied , However when the most gifted ones practice for 10 000 hrs they will be better .
Some of the posts on this thread seem to suggest that the 10000 hours hypothesis can apply to running. I was mealy pointing out that it is wrong as there is a point with endurance sports when too much practice is detrimental. This is not the case with the piano as fatigue is a small factor and mastering it requires skill based practice. If I picked a random child from a maternity unit and trained them into adulthood by spending 10000 hours practising darts and running, the finished product would be closer to Phil Taylor than Mo Farah. Surely that is obvious.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy Scott
Some of the posts on this thread seem to suggest that the 10000 hours hypothesis can apply to running. I was mealy pointing out that it is wrong as there is a point with endurance sports when too much practice is detrimental. This is not the case with the piano as fatigue is a small factor and mastering it requires skill based practice. If I picked a random child from a maternity unit and trained them into adulthood by spending 10000 hours practising darts and running, the finished product would be closer to Phil Taylor than Mo Farah. Surely that is obvious.
Closer but not better , that has been the whole point of part of this topic.
Sorry to appear abrupt but I am passionate about this subject and I can get carried away sometimes.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
A.P.E Knott
Closer but not better , that has been the whole point of part of this topic.
Sorry to appear abrupt but I am passionate about this subject and I can get carried away sometimes.
I am not saying that certain individuals are not more predisposed here. If you are going to be abrupt then save it for conflicting viewpoints. No one has identified skill factor as a variable in this debate but is flawed without it.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christopher leigh
Anyway back onto the issue. I think some are trying to imply that I am calling for more shorter, harder, anaerobic sessions as a replacement for long runs. I'm not and as Iain R has pointed out this can be over done as well, with far worse consequences than too many long slow runs. What I'm saying is firstly forget about cramming so many sessions into a day or week. Forget it! Instead have a list of hard sessions that are key and fill the time gap between with easier aerobic or rest periods. Take as long as necessary between hard sessions and when you feel strong again hit another hard session. This is the problem with all schedules in books-including mine(which are a guide) - they cannot say when you will be ready for another session and if you just blindly follow their advice you'll probably be worn out in a couple of weeks.
If people are to read just one post on training in this section of the forum,it should be this one. Malcolm Brown said that the Brownlee brothers have reached their dizzy heights because they are always ready and fresh for their key sessions.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roy Scott
If people are to read just one post on training in this section of the forum,it should be this one. Malcolm Brown said that the Brownlee brothers have reached their dizzy heights because they are always ready and fresh for their key sessions.
There was an article in the Daily Mail on Friday last week. Researchers from Stirling university took two groups, the first did 5x4mins hard 2mins easy, 3 times weekly on a stationary cycle. The second group did 60 mins steady 3 times weekly. After a month they swapped over. The researchers claimed the interval style training gave twice the improvement in power and performance. Researcher Stuart Galloway was quoted 'it is a case of training smarter. Amateur athletes tend to spend a lot of their training in the moderate intensity bracket which showed smaller improvements.'
This shows what is possible on a thrice weekly interval program for a month but it would be a mistake for an athlete training 5-7 days a week to do three interval sessions. They might get away with it for a few weeks but then they'd burn out.
Re: Lydiard or Speed Endurance
I watched a program on pianists trying to get into a prestigious academy. A teacher claimed that some students practise too much and they lose their edge. He/she (can't remember) said three to four hours is enough for peak performance. Some students believe 'more is better,' if three hours a day is good six hours a day is even better and so on.
They become less efficient which is exactly what happens if you run too much. As I stated earlier for every athlete who succeeds running 120 MPW there will be many times that number who failed.
