Lydiard or Speed Endurance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

In the main modern books (not read Chris's yet) tend to just give a programme without the full detail.

Hard sessions, with a long run, indoor training and a rest day has been with us since the 50's. Indeed Franz Stampfl* was saying for 3 & 6 mile events, do 4 Interval days per week.

He gave the progression though, so in November you would do 15 x 400 in x seconds, Dec would be a couple of seconds faster and by May (the start of the track season then) you would be doing 20 x 400 slightly faster than your expected racing pace.

Irrespective of how you train: If you intend to do the same in 2013 as you did in 2012, 11 & 10 you cannot expect any improvement.


*Franz Stampfl on running, first published 1955, Forward by Roger Bannister, introduction by Chris Brasher

---

4 interval sessions a week is too much for anyone. The only way you'd get away with it is if you ran each rep slower than you'd do if you were doing one session a week. If you did that though you'd be using an inferior method because fast sustained running (time trials) over 15-30 minutes will give you better results. Hard intervals should be done by most club runners but only once a week and sometimes less than that, particularly if they are racing.

Anyway it's all interesting stuff.

Slow twitch types may not benefit from true interval training, as the fast twitch fibres that such running develops are not present in sufficient quantity. By "true" I mean 1/ at around 3k pace and 2/with short and or active recovery so that recovery is incomplete and each period of faster running becomes logarithmically harder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

4 interval sessions a week is too much for anyone.

---

It guaranteed Roger Bannister a place in history! But no I would never attempt or recommend anyone else to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

fast sustained running (time trials) over 15-30 minutes will give you better results.

---

Yes one of my core sessions a few years ago was a threshold run done on heart rate. I ran the same course once a week with my HR monitor beeping at me if I went too hard or easy, off the top of my head over a winter my time 'for the same effort' reduced from 19 odd minutes to sub 17.

Your book arrived this morning, thanks. I chose to do a 60 min steady run rather than make a start on reading it though!

Genes are evertything.
As the saying goes , if you want to be a great Athlete "choose your parents wisely".
Everyone has a pre determined ability level, the key is to find the right blend of training to achieve it.

But how many of us actually get near our limits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.P.E Knott

Genes are evertything.

---

Not according to Matt Syed

His book 'Bounce - How Champions are made', blows the genes theory out of the water.

Preview on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1K6bOG8mj8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

It guaranteed Roger Bannister a place in history! But no I would never attempt or recommend anyone else to do it.



Yes one of my core sessions a few years ago was a threshold run done on heart rate. I ran the same course once a week with my HR monitor beeping at me if I went too hard or easy, off the top of my head over a winter my time 'for the same effort' reduced from 19 odd minutes to sub 17.

Your book arrived this morning, thanks. I chose to do a 60 min steady run rather than make a start on reading it though!

---

In Bannister's book it states he started track training and would run 10x400m in 63 seconds with two-three minutes of rest. He also stated 'this was much more strenuous training than I had done before. It left me exhausted for for several days.'

He did step up his interval training to several days a week in 1953 but the pace was very slow at first I.e. 10x400 in 66 seconds (he could run 400m in 51 seconds). When he eventually got it down to 61 seconds - which is still not fast compared to his 400m PB - he had to take time off.

You can do intervals everyday of the week but what is the point if you have to go slow. Anyway glad you've got my book, hope you like it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.P.E Knott

Genes are evertything.
As the saying goes , if you want to be a great Athlete "choose your parents wisely".
Everyone has a pre determined ability level, the key is to find the right blend of training to achieve it.

---

Choose your mother with great care as it is from our mothers that we inherit our mitochondria, and it is our mitochondria that determine our potential for speed/strength/endurance. If your VO2 max is only 35, no amount of training is going to turn you into a champion runner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Choose your mother with great care as it is from our mothers that we inherit our mitochondria, and it is our mitochondria that determine our potential for speed/strength/endurance. If your VO2 max is only 35, no amount of training is going to turn you into a champion runner.

---

My mum was very apologetic when I told her of this. But she was keen to make up for things. She's currently doing intervals with the hope of increasing my athletic ability.

How long before I start to notice improvements? Should I be training as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trog

Not according to Matt Syed

His book 'Bounce - How Champions are made', blows the genes theory out of the water.

Preview on Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1K6bOG8mj8

---

I have read and re read it Trog, it is full of holes and akin to the flat earth society thinking.
Undoubtedly one can achieve great things from shear determination and effort but to reach the very top without the genes, its not going to happen, however many hours of practice you put in .
To think otherwise is making failures of us all who do not match the very best.
I could not run sub 50 mins for 10 miles not because I did not train hard enough (believe me I did) but because I was not born to be able to do it.
At my time of life this is a comfort to me !! to think I had the ability but wasted it is to much of a cross to bear.
We all believe that we could have done better, if only..... i didnt have to work ..... I had better coaching....I knew what I know now etc etc . But realistically most of us have given it (running ,football cricket cycling, tidily winks) our best ,or near or best shot and what we ended up with was not far of what we were capable of doing.
Syed theory of been able to achieve anything with practice is wrong and misguided .
Mind you it is a very good read.

It is counterintuitive but not necessarlly wrong. The trouble with what you have said is that it is just what you think. It is not based on science. At least Syed produced some evidence.

" There is clearly something going on in terms of a predisposition to be exceptional at something, but far more important is the 10,000 hours or whatever...of dedicated, delberate, intentional practice that creates absolute mastery of a very domain specific thing.. whather it's Sara Baras dancing or Chris Hoy sprinting."

Peter Keen. Performance Director UK Sport until recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

" There is clearly something going on in terms of a predisposition to be exceptional at something, but far more important is the 10,000 hours or whatever...of dedicated, delberate, intentional practice that creates absolute mastery of a very domain specific thing.. whather it's Sara Baras dancing or Chris Hoy sprinting."

Peter Keen. Performance Director UK Sport until recently.

---

!0,000 hours of practice may well be necessary for success, but by itself it is not sufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

!0,000 hours of practice may well be necessary for success, but by itself it is not sufficient.

---

It isn't it's in the manner of the practice which is the point that Deadlegs makes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

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.

---

Back on topic, to overdo the quality is the quick and easy route to breakdown, i have found training based on a weekly quality track session essentially similar to the above, VO2 or Lactate Threshold (in blocks), sometimes with a race/parkrun, the remaining runs are easy paced, works. The aim is to arrive at the quality session rested and able to complete the sets in the times. Key too is keeping the training consistent and the progression soon follows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuffer

Back on topic, to overdo the quality is the quick and easy route to breakdown, i have found training based on a weekly quality track session essentially similar to the above, VO2 or Lactate Threshold (in blocks), sometimes with a race/parkrun, the remaining runs are easy paced, works. The aim is to arrive at the quality session rested and able to complete the sets in the times. Key too is keeping the training consistent and the progression soon follows.

---

As your recent results show. Is it the track or cross country racing that is most effective?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuffer

Back on topic, to overdo the quality is the quick and easy route to breakdown, i have found training based on a weekly quality track session essentially similar to the above, VO2 or Lactate Threshold (in blocks), sometimes with a race/parkrun, the remaining runs are easy paced, works. The aim is to arrive at the quality session rested and able to complete the sets in the times. Key too is keeping the training consistent and the progression soon follows.

---

Yes, some individuals can only stand one or two hard training sessions a week. That doesn't mean they can't become superfit, it justs means the response from a training session takes longer to shift the chemistry of the body.

Having a high VO2 max is such an obvious advantage in speed and endurance events that if it was easily measurable, and reasonably obvious to the naked eye, like for example weight, then we would probably compete in divisions, like in boxing or judo.

And to pre-empt those who will point out that VO2 max can be improved with training, the amount it can be improved is relatively small - most improvements with training are due to changes in running economy, lactate threshold, and lactate turn point.

But no matter how much and how intelligently you train, despite these improvements in economy/threshold/turn point, if you start with a VO2 max of only 35, you will never be world class as a runner or cyclist.

Improving physiological variables is very different from acquiring a complex motor skill - sure, running is a complex motor skill, but even superb running economy, by itself, is not enough.

Another quality that is essential in producing maximum strength-endurance is courage. You've got to be able to laugh in the face of physical discomfort. I call my face of physical discomfort 'Baldrick' and so when it gets hard I say "sod off Baldrick":D, after the Blackadder sketch years ago.

No seriously if you are a timid kind who hates the slightest discomfort then you'll never reach your full potential. I actually wonder whether these kind of people are the ones Mike-T is referring to when he says some can't increase their V02s. Genetically and physically they can but mentally-at that time-they can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Having a high VO2 max is such an obvious advantage in speed and endurance events that if it was easily measurable, and reasonably obvious to the naked eye, like for example weight, then we would probably compete in divisions, like in boxing or judo.

And to pre-empt those who will point out that VO2 max can be improved with training, the amount it can be improved is relatively small - most improvements with training are due to changes in running economy, lactate threshold, and lactate turn point.

But no matter how much and how intelligently you train, despite these improvements in economy/threshold/turn point, if you start with a VO2 max of only 35, you will never be world class as a runner or cyclist.

Improving physiological variables is very different from acquiring a complex motor skill - sure, running is a complex motor skill, but even superb running economy, by itself, is not enough.

---

Would you say a jump in V02 max from 49ml/kg/min to 66ml/kg/min was 'relatively small,' or even possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Having a high VO2 max is such an obvious advantage in speed and endurance events that if it was easily measurable, and reasonably obvious to the naked eye, like for example weight, then we would probably compete in divisions, like in boxing or judo.

And to pre-empt those who will point out that VO2 max can be improved with training, the amount it can be improved is relatively small - most improvements with training are due to changes in running economy, lactate threshold, and lactate turn point.

But no matter how much and how intelligently you train, despite these improvements in economy/threshold/turn point, if you start with a VO2 max of only 35, you will never be world class as a runner or cyclist.

Improving physiological variables is very different from acquiring a complex motor skill - sure, running is a complex motor skill, but even superb running economy, by itself, is not enough.

---

Sorry but I think this is just wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Would you say a jump in V02 max from 49ml/kg/min to 66ml/kg/min was 'relatively small,' or even possible?

---

Surely part of said increase could be due to mental strength? If done as a "maximal" test, then can the perception of max effort be altered as well as the actual physical entity? If it's done (as is the case at some gyms) by going to a certain level of exercise and extrapolating to maximal based on a perceived exertion score then hard training will always make you feel like this level is easier.

Does that make any sense? It does in my head, but it's far too early and I've been building train sets with a 2 year old for the last hour or so!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

And to pre-empt those who will point out that VO2 max can be improved with training, the amount it can be improved is relatively small - most improvements with training are due to changes in running economy, lactate threshold, and lactate turn point.

But no matter how much and how intelligently you train, despite these improvements in economy/threshold/turn point, if you start with a VO2 max of only 35, you will never be world class as a runner or cyclist.

Improving physiological variables is very different from acquiring a complex motor skill - sure, running is a complex motor skill, but even superb running economy, by itself, is not enough.

---

Your comments about the improvements you can make to your natural VO2 are right. You can improve it to a point but to a limit you have inherited. It is just as much a limit as something more visible such as leg length might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

Would you say a jump in V02 max from 49ml/kg/min to 66ml/kg/min was 'relatively small,' or even possible?

---

Such an improvement would be most unusual, though I would not say it is absolutely impossible. My first reaction would be to query the results - how many measurements were made, how far apart; my second reaction is to wonder if there was not something that artificially lowered the first result - were they injured at the time/anaemic/just getting over a significant illness, or were they vastly overwieght and have lost a lot of it.

Even if this result is true, the vast majority of people cannot improve like this, no matter how intelligently they train for 10,000 hours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulE

Surely part of said increase could be due to mental strength? If done as a "maximal" test, then can the perception of max effort be altered as well as the actual physical entity? If it's done (as is the case at some gyms) by going to a certain level of exercise and extrapolating to maximal based on a perceived exertion score then hard training will always make you feel like this level is easier.

Does that make any sense? It does in my head, but it's far too early and I've been building train sets with a 2 year old for the last hour or so!

---

I did hint at that in one of my last posts. If a person is timid can they train hard enough to push their oxygen uptake higher in the first place? Possibly. Either way you'd expect their pain tolerance to be at about the same level of oxygen deprivation unless they've mentally toughened. This is one of the problems of making claims that some people can't raise their V02 maxes because of 'genes,' they ignore volition.

There are other problems as well. Giving the V02 max on the basis of unit body weight per minute is very misleading. In my example the gain in V02 could have been down to a loss of weight not an actual increase in oxygen uptake. So if a person has a V02 of 50 and then loses 5kg every other remaining kg on that person's body would gain according to the mathematical statement. In truth however nothing has really changed in terms of 'absolute V02.' Oh and if we say a runner has a V02 of 60ml/kg/min are we really saying each kg of shoulder muscle is using as much oxygen as each kg of thigh muscle? Of course not but that is what the mathematical statement (ml/kg/min) implies.

An increase in 'absolute V02' implies so many things. Changes in blood, heart, lungs, muscles, skin etc and if you say a person can't increase their oxygen uptake then you are implying exercise won't change the capacity of the organs because it's these that make the other (oxygen uptake) possible.

There are a couple of interesting videos on the UKA site featuring Professor Andy Jones - exercise physiologist - talking about Paula's results over the years 1992 - 2003. In that time her weekly mileage increased from 25 to 120 per week but there was no change in her VO2 max - it stayed in the low 70s. What did improve were her running economy - from 205 (ml of O2/kg/km) to 165, her lactate threshold speed, from 15 to 18.5 km/h, and her lactate turn point speed, from 16.5 to 20 km/h.

Having a high VO2 max gave her the potential to be world class, and she then put in the relevant intelligent training hours - but if she had started with a VO2 max of only 35 ......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

There are a couple of interesting videos on the UKA site featuring Professor Andy Jones - exercise physiologist - talking about Paula's results over the years 1992 - 2003. In that time her weekly mileage increased from 25 to 120 per week but there was no change in her VO2 max - it stayed in the low 70s. What did improve were her running economy - from 205 (ml of O2/kg/km) to 165, her lactate threshold speed, from 15 to 18.5 km/h, and her lactate turn point speed, from 16.5 to 20 km/h.

Having a high VO2 max gave her the potential to be world class, and she then put in the relevant intelligent training hours - but if she had started with a VO2 max of only 35 ......

---

Just out of interest if someone has a very low resting heart rate say around 38 and they can push it up to 195 would you expect them to have a better than average VO2 max too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dynamo Dan

Just out of interest if someone has a very low resting heart rate say around 38 and they can push it up to 195 would you expect them to have a better than average VO2 max too?

---

No. Heart rate range and VO2 max are 2 separate variables. Interestingly Paula's speed at a given heart rate improved significantly - at 180 bpm her running speed improved from 14 to 19 km/h.

As long as hearts are not diseased they do not limit our running - they pump out what the veins return to them. The rate limiting process is what our mitochondria can do. Similarly, our lungs do not limit us as long as they are not diseased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

It is counterintuitive but not necessarlly wrong. The trouble with what you have said is that it is just what you think. It is not based on science. At least Syed produced some evidence.

---

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search?q=10000+hours

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

No. Heart rate range and VO2 max are 2 separate variables. Interestingly Paula's speed at a given heart rate improved significantly - at 180 bpm her running speed improved from 14 to 19 km/h.

As long as hearts are not diseased they do not limit our running - they pump out what the veins return to them. The rate limiting process is what our mitochondria can do. Similarly, our lungs do not limit us as long as they are not diseased.

---

So is VO2 max justa measure of our mitochondria? I thought it was a combination of that heart rate and lung capacity?

I'll keep this brief, as this thread is bordering on data overload and I'm damned thick (tied in with, I aint reading all that)

Improving average pace over distance (10-15miles), but not improving top speed.

Tempo/threshold runs or intervals/fartlek?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

There are a couple of interesting videos on the UKA site featuring Professor Andy Jones - exercise physiologist - talking about Paula's results over the years 1992 - 2003. In that time her weekly mileage increased from 25 to 120 per week but there was no change in her VO2 max - it stayed in the low 70s. What did improve were her running economy - from 205 (ml of O2/kg/km) to 165, her lactate threshold speed, from 15 to 18.5 km/h, and her lactate turn point speed, from 16.5 to 20 km/h.

Having a high VO2 max gave her the potential to be world class, and she then put in the relevant intelligent training hours - but if she had started with a VO2 max of only 35 ......

---

But Mike you've changed the goal posts. You're now comparing a trained athlete to a trained athlete at a later date. So tell us if you think there are couch potatos who with training couldn't improve their V02s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deadlegs

As your recent results show. Is it the track or cross country racing that is most effective?

---

I think both probably (by accident not design) as they are really just different types of quality training/session, track brings the science and structure to training (if the body holds together) and XC a longer hard run.

The location of your sessions is irrelevant Tuffer, your track intervals could be carried out anywhere, and your XC is a sustained 40 min run that could be on the road a trail even the beach, it is the content that is important.

Many years ago when I was into orienteering, a guest speaker who was a world class swedish guy stated that he did his intervals on the roughest terrain he had near him as this was the surface he competed on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

But Mike you've changed the goal posts. You're now comparing a trained athlete to a trained athlete at a later date. So tell us if you think there are couch potatos who with training couldn't improve their V02s?

---

No goal post moving, it is just that I thought Paula's results were very interesting - unfortunately we do not have physiological figures for her before she started running. 25 miles per week is pretty tame, though she may of course have been doing a lot of interval work.

The range Noakes gives for VO2 max improvement with training is 5 to 15% - but do you need a reasonable degree of fitness to express your true VO2 max, and almost all sedentary people who start running lose weight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

No goal post moving, it is just that I thought Paula's results were very interesting - unfortunately we do not have physiological figures for her before she started running. 25 miles per week is pretty tame, though she may of course have been doing a lot of interval work.

The range Noakes gives for VO2 max improvement with training is 5 to 15% - but do you need a reasonable degree of fitness to express your true VO2 max, and almost all sedentary people who start running lose weight.

---

I have a big problem with what is being stated here. Often when claims are made about how much mileage an athlete is doing it is out of all proportion to reality. 25 mpw - 120mpw, really? Is that one week selected from 52, and is that the highest week? Or is it an average taken over the year( She was injured and sick quite a lot). And what period of training or racing was she tested for V02 max?

Then there are the actual V02max claims. Some time ago when we were discussing Radcliffe on the forum Dominion said Radcliffe's V02max was over 80. Now you're saying it was low 70s. I've noticed it with other athletes as well, one chart states Greg Lemond had a V02 of 95 another 92.5. What is it or are some just making things up to sound better than they are?

To be blunt a lot of V02 maxes given aren't correct and if they aren't the other data based on them is also incorrect. The scientist taking the reading has to be very competent during the V02 test to get a correct reading. A little bit slack with the speed of the treadmill and the data is skewed.

I'm very sceptical of the reasons given for Radcliffe's improvement Mike-T. Of course if she did lose more fat during her high mileage years then of course her efficiency could increase. Whether that was really what made Radcliffe faster or whether - with what we know about professional athletes - there was some other cause I don't think we can be sure.

One last thing Mike-T when you make claims about V02 are you always basing it on ml/kg/min?

Have a look at the Andy Jones videos on UKA - they are very interesting. He tested Paula twice a year between 1992 and 2003 and shows some of the data on his slides. Her VO2 max measurements fluctuated a bit but were never as high as 80 - but if you look at charts that predict VO2 max from race times at least one says her VO2 max would be about 80 - for example that on page 42 of the 3rd edition of Lore of Running; that on page 46 gives her a value of about 75. Andy Jones clearly has access to pretty high tech equipment and his results must be as accurate as any. I cannot tell you how long she trained at 120 miles a week - it is my understanding that she is a very high mileage runner, some would say too high, though it seemed to work for a time.

As to her dramatic increased running efficiency, it is well documented that high mileage does this, indeed it is probably why high mileage is of benefit. (Lore of Running, pges 36-37 ).

Yes, I always think of VO2 max in terms of ml/kg/min.

Mike,
seriously, don't bother

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Have a look at the Andy Jones videos on UKA - they are very interesting. He tested Paula twice a year between 1992 and 2003 and shows some of the data on his slides. Her VO2 max measurements fluctuated a bit but were never as high as 80 - but if you look at charts that predict VO2 max from race times at least one says her VO2 max would be about 80 - for example that on page 42 of the 3rd edition of Lore of Running; that on page 46 gives her a value of about 75. Andy Jones clearly has access to pretty high tech equipment and his results must be as accurate as any. I cannot tell you how long she trained at 120 miles a week - it is my understanding that she is a very high mileage runner, some would say too high, though it seemed to work for a time.

As to her dramatic increased running efficiency, it is well documented that high mileage does this, indeed it is probably why high mileage is of benefit. (Lore of Running, pges 36-37 ).

Yes, I always think of VO2 max in terms of ml/kg/min.

---

I got to watch today Mike-T, very interesting. He does say one of the results he took was above 80 around 2002 but seemed to doubt himself on the accuracy of the reading. One issue he didn't deal with-and I have to bring it up because it's pertinent - was Paula's permitted use of performance enhancing drugs. He didn't say whether their use over many years could have produced changes in chemistry that could have caused the efficiency increase. I wonder if he knew? He puts her performance increase down to efficiency but doesn't get the chance to deal, in the time available, with exactly what is more efficient.

Clearly not all athletes who run high mileages become more efficient, some become less so. Then there are others who gain the efficiency without running 120 miles per week. All swings and roundabout, too-ing and fro-ing but that was the whole point to this thread.

One last point. I asked you to clarify the ml/kg/min thingy because you've told us only a small V02 increase of 5-15% is possible (taken from Noakes). Well a few years ago Nikalas kindly printed his results on here from two tests. The first one he scored around 49ml/kg/min and a while later he scored around 66 or 69. That's around a 34% increase and he wasn't a couch potato in the first place. So that to me shows what is possible on a ml/kg/min basis.

Like I say swings and roundabouts but it makes it all very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by christopher leigh

One last point. I asked you to clarify the ml/kg/min thingy because you've told us only a small V02 increase of 5-15% is possible (taken from Noakes). Well a few years ago Nikalas kindly printed his results on here from two tests. The first one he scored around 49ml/kg/min and a while later he scored around 66 or 69. That's around a 34% increase and he wasn't a couch potato in the first place. So that to me shows what is possible on a ml/kg/min basis.

Like I say swings and roundabouts but it makes it all very interesting.

---

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.