This doesn’t suprise me.
I think a more important question might be (and I think P.J. might have been alluding to this) Is how much training should be aerobic vs speed vs speed end vs special end. when training a 400 runner. This is really what I’m interested in.
That data shows that the 400 and 800 only have a 1% difference in energy system contribution. That is obviously inaccurate or else the 800m world record would be around 1:30
Huh?
Mens 400m 41/59% (aerobic v anaerobic)
mens 800m 60/40% (aerobic v anaerobic)
I am sure we can all pick holes in the research.
Firstly most of the research was done on treadmill, of the research done on the track how do you record this info? Wouldn’t that affect the result?
ooops sorry about that, got a little jumbled. My bad.
It seems ironic that we are discussing the aerobic contribution to 400 m and the term anaerobic threshold comes up. Anyway… 
I’ve got the book, but not with me. If I remember correctly, it provides a ‘typical’ definition of this intensity. Perhaps I am wrong, but if this definition stems from a typical VO2max test, how would its determination help you in the training of your athlete?
I am not disputing anything; I am just trying to understand how you would take advantage of such information.
PS If I get your last sentence right, I don’t think the ‘anaerobic’ threshold is an indicator of the oxidative capacity of the predominant to the sport act muscle fibres (e.g., see lactate shuttle).
Yes! Exactly right. There is no way the aerobic “contribution” to the 100m explains the amount of aerobic type work that has been found to be useful in preparation for it. Same goes for the 400m.
Rowing has the same issue.
A 2000m race is supposedly 80% aerobic, so practically everyone wants to spend 80% of their time on low-intensity aerobic work.
I always point out that if someone did a study and found out that the ability to rebound a basketball was 40% height, 30% jumping ability, 20% knowing where to be, and 10% having “good hands”, would you spend 40% of your time trying to be taller? Obviously not.
Nikoluski, the research that I have found to be most meaningful regarding exercise physiology (of which Viru’s work is definitely among the work that is at the top of my list) suggests that the anaerobic threshold is very closely linked with to the point in which an “equilibrium exists between lactate formation and elimination”. This point, according to Viru, tends to lie between the range of 75-90% of VO2 max in trained athletes.
the degree to which this information is useful in regards to training an athlete, such as a quarter miler, is such that work may be carried out via the use of a HR monitor that ensures that the work is performed at the highest intensity of max HR possible (beneath the anaerobic threshold) in order to yield the adaptations necessary to elevate the anaerobic threshold.
The elevation of the anaerobic threshold would then:
1 allow the runner to maintain previous intensities at a lesser working effort
2 allow for higher intensities to be reached at the same working effort as before
The overall point being to delay the onset of the glycolytic process as much as possible.
So as only one example, providing that the requisite speed work is also being conducted appropriate for 400m needs, either of these cases (in reference to an actual competition) would provide for more energetic resource to be used at the end of the race for a stronger finish.
Point two is a bit tricky because higher intensity in the 400m is a speed issue and so training to improve the anaerobic threshold beyond a certain point can run counter to this goal. That is why the emphasis must always be on the quality of the Special Endurance elements. You will always know the positive and negative influences while there’s still time to do something about it.
Understood. Hence the efficacy of a blocked approach in so far as this type of competition between training stress is eliminated (or at least greatly minimized)
I guess my point would be to approach it from the SE point of view because the anaerobic threshold must be moved at the right time and in the right measure in order for the SE results to continue to advance throughout the SPP. The equation may not be entirely reversible.
The gentleman who wrote this (http://www.amazon.com/Swimming-Fastest-Ernest-W-Maglischo/dp/0736031804/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1228932600&sr=8-1) spoke at the USRowing clinic in 2005.
He said that rowing was 20 years behind swimming in its understanding of anaerobic threshold.
Many rowing programs, including the national teams, had been doing (and still do) what I think James is describing, since the mid 80s (determining anerobic threshold periodocally, and then doing work right at anaerobic threshold on a regular basis).
Maglischo said that he had formerly advocated the same thing. He said that he now thought that work at AT was not the best method to increase AT. He now advocates work at above the threshold and below the threshold (I think a lot like Charlie’s nothing-between-70%-and-95% method or whatever particular numbers Charlie uses).
I don’t know enough of the science to really argue one way or another. I do know that when we stopped doing AT work our results got better, although there’s always so much going on that it’s close to, or completely, impossible to ever tell what helps and what hurts.
By the way, if I wasn’t supposed to include a link, I apologize, and I can delete it (unless one of the gang in charge beats me to it).
The new approach is increasingly used in swimming and has been used in distance running for some time (Auita etc) and fits nicely into what I’ve been pushing for the last 30 years (some catch on quicker than others)
I’ve found there are three stages of catching on.
They think you’re an idiot.
They think that what you’re doing might make some sense, but it’s not for them.
They claim they’ve always been doing it, in one form or another. They just didn’t call it what you’re calling it.
I meant James, not John, in my earlier post. My apologies.
This is not what I have eluded to. Working at the AT is much different, in terms of training adaptation, than remaining underneath it.
I am first and foremost an advocate, per this discussion, of speed work as well as work to raise the AT.
And I would agree.
Perhaps this is being reflected in your post because glycolytic work is above the AT and purley alactic work (ergo short sprints at max intensity) while mobilized via the anaerobic-alactic mechanism do not involve, to any meaningful degree, glycolysis.
To the point, speed work must not be considered as being synonymous with working above the AT. Nor must, aerobic power and capacity work be considered as being synonymous with working at the AT.
Again, with respect, from a physiological point of view, I would ask that you explain yourself more precisely because ‘doing AT work’ is a huge statement.
Please understand the attention that this discussion deserves because if asked what the track work consisted of we can’t just say ‘running’.
The definition provided is the correct one, of course. As this equilibrium point is unique though, so should the term used to describe it (I prefer the more descriptive Maximal Lactate Steady State, MLSS, as ‘anaerobic’ implies the lack of O2, which isn’t the case, of course).
Two points here: (1) the determination method of this intensity and (2) the range provided above, which is (correctly) so lenient that it is meaningless, unless individually determined (neither point is for this thread/forum, but I just wanted to mention them.)
Provided this intensity (i.e., the “anaerobic” threshold) is accurately determined, this may well be the case. But I am questioning the effectiveness of this training method for the establishment of the mentioned adaptations generally in runners and even more so in a 400 m sprinter. Firstly, because a 400 m sprinter will most likely meet this intensity at the lower end of the %VO2max range mentioned before and quite possibly at an almost pedestrian for him speed (and therefore, I don’t think there would be a problem with the issue raised by Charlie). Secondly, because any speed above this intensity and up to the VO2max level will also bring about these adaptations, since any sub-VO2max intensity will also be positively affected and to an adequate degree for our example sprinter. The latter tactic (i.e., close to VO2max) would be preferable in my opinion, because of time efficiency in terms of the mentioned adaptations and because of the greater contribution to a “more energetic resource to be used at the end of the race for a stronger finish” simply by a higher VO2max level. That is, IF you want to use this kind of training with the latter part of a 400-m race in mind and not other more specific ones (e.g., speed reserve, SE). Although the ‘VO2max’ type training provides other -equally important- benefits and must be present, it is still irrelevant to the pace and physiological demands of the latter part of a 400-m race (i.e., any pace up to VO2max is well below a short sprinter’s race pace -again, I don’t see an intensity conflict here).
Again, please, take the above as simply my way of looking at this specific issue and not a critique towards your methods, of course! Your thoughts are always welcome!
I absolutely agree with both points above, although again I don’t think the two intensities (i.e., “anaerobic” threshold and SE) are even remotely close to each other, as per the threshold definition provided previously by James and with which I agree. As an example, my guess would be that even the first SE session of a season would be considerably faster vs. the threshold point for a sprinter (the higher the performance level, the more this will be apparent). To give you an idea and perhaps clarify the intensity in question, the “anaerobic” threshold speed can be maintained for ~30 min (if not longer). Again, as this is defined by the equilibrium point between lactate production and elimination!
Regarding rowing, most of the training is aerobic for an other reason that what you mention. Eberhard Mund, former Dynamo Berlin rowing coach, introduced the GDR training program in France in early '90s with immediate good success. 90% of the work is low intensity. The former French training programs included a lot of speed, the coaches were sceptic but olympic gold medals came and the GDR method ruled.
The GDR methods includes 2 main water exercises called B1 and B2. B1 is rowing at 16 to 18 reps/minute, heart rate is 140-150, the workout is 2x40min. B2 is 20 to 21 reps/minute (competition frequency is about 40 reps/minute), heart rate is over 160 and lactate 2-3mmol, and the workout consist on 2x25 to 30min. The reps/min are much slower than what is found in competition (about 40 reps/min).
The reason behind this is that GDR biomechanicians found that the rowing push (under water phase) is the same whether you row at 18 reps/min or 40 reps/min. The main difference is in the air, the row is twice as fast in the air during competition vs low intensity training. Since everyone is able to drive the row back in the air at the fastest speeds, the work focuses on water rowing, and low intensity training allows more volume.
James,
If what I thought you were saying is not what you were saying then hey, I am wrong. My apologies.
I’ll defer to you on the science. As far as short sprints are concerned, the rowing idea of a “short sprint” is maybe 30 seconds. No one really does anything shorter than that, except maybe as part of a warm-up (my group does some 20-second work, but I don’t think anyone else does). Isn’t alactic work under 10 seconds or so (I know I’ve seen it on the board before)? If so, the distinction is very important for track, but not for rowing, since in rowing, everything is going to be longer than that.
What we always meant by “doing AT work” is this:
I’m all for precision. That’s one of the reasons I like this site.