Quote Originally Posted by Turlough View Post
Not sure i completely agree. Endurance events are aerobic by nature. Renato Canova a famous Italian marathon coach advocates building aerobic power and aerobic resistance initially. ie 10k training plus moderate paced long runs. When these are developed his training program then aims to extend this aerobic power at race effort. i.e. Intervals get longer and more of them. Long runs get faster. But none of this would be near max heart rate which burns glycogen like a fire and is not desireable for an endurance athlete.


Indeed, a lot of endurance events will involve burning glycogen and fat which means that the athlete should train at these (moderate) intensities so the body adapts to this exact fuel mixture.

You need to train hard sure and you need to teach your body to flush out lactate during hill intervals.

And no matter how much bottle you have, the biggest determinant of how big a session you can manage, is the size of the aerobic house youre living in. If your aerobic house is fully built (like elites standing on skyscapers) then the training should be mainly specific (and hard). If it isnt (like most fell runners here) then most gains can be made by the huge aerobic stimulus of a big increase in mileage over a period of several months.
That said, if people cant do more mileage (e.g time constraints) then they could potentially start making training more specific if potential aerobically development is constrained.
That may be the case for many people, but its not because training harder is beter, its because the best option (a big aerobic stimulus) is not available. And from my experience (in the past thank god) doing a 100ish miles week after week of different fast aerobic paces in a constant state of fatigue is hard training. Not many individual runs are punishing...but the volume is hard. I did specific training later but the ratio was 80:20. and that was about right.
These debates go round and round in circles because everyone knows an approach that seemed to work that a coach, athlete or they used at some point in their athletic career. So it is impossible to come to a sound consensus.

I doubt many on here are doing the maximum amount of training their body can cope with. Therefore there is potential for improvement. Training adaptation and performing better for most would be akin to a tube of toothpaste; where ever you squeeze the tube from you will get some out. However if you want to get every last bit of paste/potential out you have to be clever and roll it from the end. The best way to do this is the method I have suggested. I know this because the vast majority of elite endurance athletes do the same. Now this does not mean that Bob round the corner wont improve by doing moderate intensity runs ever over day, it just means that he wont go as far with the potential he has.

Work within the range of 85-100% Max HR is essential, and you have to be able to perform in these sessions. Not half baked because you are trying to get to 100 miles for the week. Some elite Marathon runners can run a whole marathon at 85-90% of their max heart rate, so ambling along at 70% is a waste of time.

Now the aerobic base you talk of is mainly a result of two physiological adaptations. 1 - An increase in mitochondria density 2 - Increase efficiency of fat metabolism. These two can both be achieved at 50-60% of max heart rate, i.e. an easy run.

The fuel mix sentence makes little sense to me I am afraid. What ever intensity you run at you will burn both Fat and Glycogen, its just the proportions that change.