Lydiard
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?
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?Originally Posted by Mike T
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.
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
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote