Could you propose a ratio of low speed aerobic work to higher speed work?
I am not sure if i understand your question. But if you mean: how many trainingsunits would be aerobic work and how many speed work. I would say that depends on the target distance. So 800m, 1500m, 3K,5k,10K etc. And the time of period. So preparation period or period where the championships are. So difficult to give a general answer.
I am not sure where you refer to. But i have also have good experience with speed work for 10K runners. But its in the total training period (4-6 months)its a small part of the total training units. Have you ever read the rapport from Jung e.a. ? Thats available on internet. Its an overview of academic research of various types of training and the results. For runners and cyclist.
When I am concerned, I would base my workouts on velocity (Velocity Oriented Training).
Velocity parameter would be competition distance and shorter/longer distances. I would base my programms on trying to improve velocity over a given distance, not VO2max.
After all, who is first? Chicken or the egg? Does athlete first increase velocity and then VO2max follows or vice versa (talking about middle-long distances)? Does this really matter?
I don’t think he implies the same with your ideas. Perhaps I am wrong and it would be good if Dick could correct me here.
The impression I got from his posts is that a good aerobic base, as judged by the “lactate threshold” so to speak (as one index among others) will also drive velocities above this intensity to an advanced level, too (along with other factors, of course).
My view is that irrespective of the way you go (from L to H or from H to L intensities), this physiological capacity, i.e., a higher “lactate threshold”, will increase anyway. If the latter is irrelevant to the pace in question, I wouldn’t even bother (you can realise this adaptation via a normal incremental test, of course, if you need to be convinced). This has been my admittedly limited experience (last 6 years) with testing/coaching endurance runners of all levels.
About the ratio you asked, an average of 30% (anywhere between 20 to 35% at times) of training units above race pace has worked well for 10K to the marathon, although I didn’t have the chance to experiment too much on a certain individual (club level athletes).
Your thoughts?
Please, don’t get me wrong! I very much believe you’ve had good success with what you are doing! And yes, it will be a small part of the training. I was just outlining that other ways can work equally well -at least for the level I’ve worked with (not international).
As I said to my reply to Charlie, perhaps I’ve got you all wrong anyway!
I am not aware of this review, I am afraid. Any reference?
I just meant that tempo does have a perhaps unexpected role in improving speed, via micro-capillarization, creating more heat around the MM neurons, lowering electrical resistance.
Fascinating! I never thought of that as a benefit to tempo. Thanks Charlie. 
Oh OK! Sorry, I didn’t get that! What I also found -more as a feeling, if you want, rather than a fact- was that their organisms were less confused, for lack of better word. Linear progression and with pretty good prediction of performance based on what was taking place in training (e.g., within 3 sec per km for a 10K).
First to be clear i like this discussion. I am trainer for some time of individual athletes and still learning. I understand your view. Lets say in general i work for a trainingsperiod of 6 months. 3 months is mostly aerobic trainingunits consisting of long slow distance (75% of LT), long interval below/above LT, speed(40m-100m), short interval (hilltraining) and fartlek. (and once a while a streetrun). Basic idea: to build a strong aerobic basis. (mitochondrial density, aerobic enzymes, capillarization, energystores in muscles, etc). So to say “the engine is ready to receive the fuel”
We know that after training two months on or above our goalspeed (targetspeed), we lose a lot of what has been acheived above. (aerobic enzymes, become less and we get more anaerobic enzymes, only one of the things that changes). The next period will be more targetspeed oriented, but still we work on aerobic basis. When we have 10 trainingsunits per week we still have about 6-7 of them aerobic basis trainings.
In our Dutch Track&Field education program we have studied trainingprograms from the UK, Germany, Japan, Spain, France. I have in general always seen such an build up of the season.There are although when runseason start a lot of variations in getting the athlete to his best performance.
The article which is interesting in that aspect and the aspect of running economy is: Effects of high intensity training on performance and physiology of endurance athletes
I thought it was from Yung, Carl D Paton, Will G Hopkins. These trainingsuggestions i have implemented in my period of targetspeed training. Interested in your view.
Hello Sijmker
Sorry late replay, but I had a training camp with our national boxing team.
I simplified running mechanics on treadmill a little in my previous post. If a runner runs steady pace his/her foot lands always in front of COM. In over ground running during contact phase his/her foot is fixed on ground and the runner moves his/her mass forward, - producing first breaking and then propulsive force with the help of own muscles. In treadmill running COM is, in horizontal point of view, fixed and foot moves with the rolling belt. In my mind, it is the treadmill which produces the horizontal movement, not the runner. Of course the runner must produce vertical force to prevent falling and lifting the COM to the next step trajectory in both situations. In Weyands study one of the subjects was able to run 11.1 m/s, meaning that he’s 10,30 runner in 100 m. That’s amazing speed for physical active one. I just wonder could he run that speed on the solid ground.
In our study we compared endurance athletes max vertical impulse velocity (MImpv) integrated forces (N/Nbw) to the max velocity (TOPv) integrated forces. The 1.47 ± .17 fold increases in velocity from the MImpv to TOPv was attained by 1.26 ± .22 fold increases in horizontal breaking force and 1.27 ± .18 fold increases in horizontal propulsion force without any changes in vertical force (1.00 ± .06). So it might be so that in over ground running runners reach adequate vertical force at about 70% intensity. Thereafter their capability to increase horizontal propulsive force (in shortening contact time) determine the increase in running velocity.
Cheerrrs!!
hello tapsa, thanks for your reply
another interpretation of your results:
Total vertical impulse stays the same for higher speeds, but the time to deliver vertical impulse shortens.
as speed increased breaking force increases as well does propulsive force. Netto horizontal force does not increase markedly (only to compensate wind resistance mainly).
Horizontal force tend to be very small in comparison to vertical force when running at constant speed.
Regarding the validity of treadmill vs overground running, see the following excerpts taken from
Looking forward to further discussion of the Weyand study/vertical force thinking.
High-speed running performance: a new approach to assessment and prediction
Matthew W. Bundle, Reed W. Hoyt, and Peter G. Weyand
All-out running speeds: treadmill vs. track. The average speeds subjects maintained for all-out track runs of 100, 200, 300, and 400 m closely matched their all-out treadmill runs of the same duration (Fig. 3A). The linear least-squares regression analysis of track and interpolated treadmill speeds was not far removed from identity (R2 = 0.86; Fig. 4). When the data from the one subject who reported muscle soreness during his track trials were excluded, the R2 value for the trials completed by the remaining six subjects was 0.91.
Maximum sprint speeds: treadmill vs. track. Maximum sprint speeds from the overground sprint test agreed well with the maximum eight-step speeds measured on the treadmill (Fig. 3A). The lone exception was the subject who complained of muscle soreness in the aftermath of the high-speed treadmill sessions. For the other six subjects, maximum track and treadmill sprint speeds agreed to within an average of 0.22 ? 0.08 m/s (range = 0.00-0.60 m/s). In the case of the one subject who reported soreness, maximum overground and treadmill speeds differed by seven times more than 0.22 m/s mean difference for the other six subjects (1.51 m/s; see outlying closed circle in Fig. 4). Of the remaining six subjects, three had maximum overground sprint speeds exceeding their maximum eight-step treadmill speeds, one had identical values for both, and two had maximum overground sprint speeds that were slightly less than their treadmill maximums.
Question: do you plan to publish your results in an article soon?
many thanks in advance
regards,
Stefan
http://www.runningdvd.com/content/en/dvd/movie.php?id=2
Comments on this 
?? How does one achieve the correct action on the left as its impossible to “think about it and do it” while running fast.
hi, we have seen some good results based on an aerobic base thinking model. However, the recent two dutch european champions could be more outliers (regarding genetic talent, speed-wise).
After these two guys, in my opinion there isn’t a lot of depth in performance in 800/1500m in the Netherlands.
At the moment they are trying to recruit 400m runners to step up to 800m in the Netherlands. I hope aerobic base thinking will not hurt these athletes too much. If you recruit a 400m runner with a pb of 47.5. Is he likely to lose some speed at 400m when going to do a lot of aerobic running? I guess. Will his 1500m improve? Yes, probably. Will his 800m time improve upon which he was able when training for 400m?
aerobic base thinking is quite of mandatory in educations of coaches in the Netherlands. I generally agree with that, but runners coming to 800m from 400m might progress at the endurance end, but lose too much on the speed end.
regarding the aerobic base, the following might be of interest. Jan Olbrecht states in his book (the science of winning, among other the following,
sprinters need very well developed aerobic system
endurance athletes need anaerobic training
The reason is that metabolic wise there is allways an optimum between anaerobic and aerobic. If you train only/too much aerobic, you will not develop maximally, both anaerobic AND aerobic. The other way round is also true.
In his book Jan also shows that adaptation is quite fast, fast part within 2 weeks, stabilisation takes about 6 weeks. Why is there a need for staying off the anaerobic side for a long time? It’s pyramid periodization, I know.
Owen Anderson shows in his book Lactate lift-off a lot of workouts that produce large gains in velocity at anaerobic threshold/ velocity at VO2max.
These workouts includes: sprints of at least 15 seconds. Gains may be higher than running (longer) at speeds related to current aenarobic. Mainly all work at higher speeds than anaerobic threshold produce the larger aerobic increases.
Of interest is the old study with mice by Dudley
Influence of exercise intensity and duration on biochemical adaptations in skeletal muscle.
J Appl Physiol. 1982 Oct;53(4):844-50.
The higher the speed the greater the increase in aerobic enzymes. High intensity intervals produced largest increases, not long(er) slow(er) exercise. The problem with this type of higher intensity work is that volume should be limited. Charlie explained quite well that increase in intensity has an exponential effect on total training load. Most middle distance runners want to do both: high volume, high intensity…
Problem with most scientific studies is that they last only about 6 weeks to 2 months. Should we do anaerobic work allready during GPP for middle distance runners. Are there other means for developing aerobic running than aerobic running? Is long to short feasible for some but not for others in middle distance running? Difference between 1500m and 800m?
I guess in middle distance running the following might hold true:
speed determines potential. If you lack it move up to longer distance. If you can’t run <47.5 for 400m, you should aim at 1500m (if you want too reach world class). Actually you could, but only if you had great 1500m (like Daniel Komen)
Performance on 1500m (overdistance) and 400m (underdistance) determines to a large extent the performance on 800m. IF you go long to short, you might lose 400m speed, if you go short to long the biggest threat is loss of 1500m speed. That’s why Frank Horwill developped five tier training (mixing ALL speeds from the beginning of the preparatory phase), the basis of most good British runners in the past. Therefore, I join Duxx with his velocity based training (thanks to “the crazy man” Marshall Burt for this term)
regards
Stefan
I know many athletes that can think at topspeed and that can alter their technique at will. More so, every experienced athlete who had extensive technique training can “play” with little details while running. Even I can do that and I am clumsy. Try technical work for 6 years and you can do it too.
So apart from just thinking about it, what else would you suggest? thanks
ok, practice (technigue training) makes perfect (technigue performance/variation wise). But will it make you faster? The other way round: is it possible to go faster by spending less time on technique work in training (and spending time instead on fast running / resting)?
regards
Stefan
Let’s get a grip here!
Practice makes permanent (so it better be perfect!)
Sprint technique, with it’s requirement for full ROM, can only be perfected at max or near max speeds.
Why would you even try to perform max speed work without an emphasis on perfect technique?
Given the finite number of sprints it is possible to perform and the ability to perfect only one item at a time, why would you ever miss an opportunity?
Is it possible to achieve your personal top speed capacity at anything less than perfect technique? NO!
“Sprint technique, with it’s requirement for full ROM, can only be perfected at max or near max speeds.”
agreed upon, I was referencing to drill and other “supplemental” technique work most Europeans like to do a lot. Train what you want to improve.
Questions:
- what is technique?
- is it possible that speeds drives technigue in stead of the other way round? (the “old” Ross discussion)? Like strength gains might follow speed gains?
- to what extent does conscious thinking during sprinting has something to do with optimizing “technigue”?
regards
Stefan
This tread is interesting. Heres my thoughts. When we try change technique it is first important do it in conscious way. I mean, - have to know the final target. But the new technique is not valid and perfect until it comes unconsciously from the hindbrain. How to do that shift? Who knows? When we think about high level athletes, usually the wanted technique changes are so small that in 100% effort our brains can’t separate the old and the new technique and the result is something between them. Sometime better or even worse than before technique changes.
There’s a lot studies about technique changes and running economy. It looks like changes, without physical improvements, worsen running economy.