Yes, the drive time is almost the same. Almost all of the difference comes on the recovery.
The French Lightweight 8+ came out of nowhere in 1991 to get a Silver at the World Championships, a fraction of a second out of Gold (I had a view I did not enjoy from one spot behind them). Were they already doing the GDR program at that point?
And the French pair that won the Olympics in 2000 was phenomenal.
The coach of the GDR Women’s 8+ that won the 1988 Gold was the US women’s coach from 1991 through 2000. There was definitely a lot of volume. And AT was pretty much defined as 4mmol, which fits in with the 2-3mmol you mention for lower intensity.
I think the Canadian men (Gold in the 8+ in 2008) do a lot of low-rate, high-power work, too.
The GDR coach arrived in France in the last months of 1990, so obviously the program was in full mode for the 1991-92 season, he left his position in 2002 but they are doing the same - very boring but very efficient - stuff.
In the interest of keeping this exchange as directed as possible I have no problem in stating that you and I are much closer to agreeing than we are separate in our views regarding this particular topic.
Some things to keep in mind regarding energy system training that I think get extraordinarily misunderstood by most:
to provide only duration is essentially meaningless
just the same as 4x2 or 5x6, regarding weight training, is absolutely meaningless
We must define a host of factors to include intensity because, for instance, 13sec efforts could mean 100m tempo for a sub 9.9 sprinter just as easily as a grueling SE workout of 120-150m runs for the same sprinter; just as 4x2 at 70% is a world apart from 4x2 at 90% 1RM for the same athlete.
so, without spending too much time on this, it is important to define as much as possible in order to draw the clearest possible picture as to bioenergetic demand and this includes identifying:
intensity (rate, magnitude of resistance, etcetera)
duration of individual working efforts
volume of working efforts
rest interval between working efforts
mass of muscles involved in the work
amplitude of movement
regime of muscle activity
and so on because changes in anyone of these factors can alter the bioenergetic demand (some more than others of course) and certainly the training adaptations.
As related to the topic regarding the aerobic contribution and aerobic training for a given race : Mund said that 30% is anaerobic for rowing, implying high lactate leading during the movements, but the row back time in the air allows an important elimination of lactates, hence more than 90% of the race performance should be developped through strength-endurance aerobie training. He added that this basic training helps to go through preliminary rounds and allows rowers to be fresh once qualified for the final. This aerobic works also serves as active recovery from one workout to another which include low and high intensity bodybuilding circuit. The training don’t vary much through the season, just the emphasis, which makes me think of a vertical integration à la Charlie.
Sorry if i contributed to turn the discussion into rowing but i think the considerations here are compatible with 400m (and any other sport).
Some observations about anaerobic threshold (a concept which has is certainly controversial as to whether it actually exists within the scientific community)…
A lot of research has demonstrated that in relatively untrained individuals training at/near the anaerobic threshold does yield improvements in this parameter. However, in higher level athletes, training well below the ‘anaerobic threshold’ at larger volumes, in conjunction with smaller doses of training well above ‘anaerobic threshold’, is thought to be the better model for performance and improvement of ‘anaerobic threshold’. Sure enough, this has been shown to be the training pattern most successful endurance athletes.
In line with the high/low hypothesis, training at or near the threshold causes significant disturbance of the autonomic nervous system, while training well below it does not. Training well above the threshold does not significantly elevate this disturbance as compared to training at threshold. Thus, by training at threshold, you cause the same ANS disturbances as higher intensity work without the specificity.
Without considering this, I would argue that the anaerobic threshold is of little relevance to the 400m sprinter, as the speeds the athlete is traveling during competition (as Nik alluded to) are so far beyond the intensity level at which anaerobic processes begin to predominate. I do not believe that you could possibly delay these processes at these intensities. The will be significantly activated from the start. In fact, I would argue that you would want to increase the capacity to utilize glycolytic processes because the rates of ATP are so much faster than oxidative processes. Reducing glycolytic contributions would limit the energetic potential of the organism. The focus should be on increasing the glycolytic contribution by increasing the resistance to the byproducts of these metabolic products (i.e. through special endurance work).
I am not discounting the benefits of aerobic work. I just believe that specifically trying to improve anaerobic threshold is unwarranted.
However, the increased resistance to the byproducts of glycolysis is most notably a function of their oxidation. Thus the greater the oxidative capacity the greater the working capacity of the organism under those conditions.
While the bioenergetic demand of the 400m no doubt relies upon the power and capacity of the glycolytic mechanism, which must be trained, it is clear that the metabolic byproducts produced by the glycolytic mechanism (most notably increased blood lactate concentration) be ‘oxidized’ as effectively as possible in order to sustain the highest possible working effort.
I think that we are all essentially in agreement although I still contend that knowing the AT is of value as is its elevation in the case of improved 400m times.
Do we all agree that the greatest speed + the greatest capacity to sustain the highest working effort under glycolytic conditions, which is facilitated by a strengthened oxidative capacity, equates to 400m potential?
Yes, we are in agreement. My point was that developing oxidative abilities allows for extended glycolytic contributions rather than diminished.
From an energetic standpoint, I believe the benefits of aerobic training for the 400m athlete are primarily two-fold-
Increasing the capillary network to aid in the oxidation and removal of waste products, as you mentioned, thus allowing for glycolysis to continue to function at a high rate.
Improve the maximal rate of ATP synthesis through oxidative processes such that when glycolytic ATP production does inevitably slow, the drop-off is less severe. All things being equal, the higher the maximal rate of oxidative ATP synthesis, the less the drop-off.
Of course, the trick is to develop these adaptations without significantly compromising improvements in speed.
In regards to knowing the anaerobic threshold, if valid and reliable testing can easily be performed, more information as to the state of the organism would almost always be of benefit. I’m just not sure if we should specifically aim to improve the anaerobic threshold for this type of athlete.
I thought so! Apart from the following point of yours perhaps:
Firstly, I think this type of work in general is much needed as a supportive, indirect rather than direct training means (e.g., some of the physiological adaptations were previously mentioned and are well known).
Secondly, for a 400 m runner who relies more on his speed, I would prefer a tempo-like training means, as prescribed by Charlie and perhaps irrespectively of the identification of a threshold intensity -if the last drill is the same time-wise, if not (potentially) a bit faster vs. the first one (a tempo ‘criterion’), I am pretty sure lactate levels will be steady anyway, despite the work being performed at a speed higher vs. the threshold. For a 400 m runner who relies more on his endurance I would likely be interested in knowing this threshold intensity and even more so if the athlete himself is convinced (e.g., due to his training background) that continuous runs are a must for him. Then yes, I would incorporate both training methods to please both sides at minimum risk/conflict. In the latter case though and exactly because of this training background I suspect the intensities of the two methods will be quite close to each other…
Yes, of course!
The fact that people have tried to define an intensity with false/inaccurate terms and/or methods doesn’t mean that the “phenomenon” does not exist!
Not to mention the research that shows that what it really matters is the average workload irrespectively of how that is achieved (e.g., via intervals around -below/above- the threshold). The question is whether this is an appropriate area to be in for those athletes that it represents a middle ground…
In any case, it’s nice and productive to be accurate and discuss such issues, but I very much doubt any of us would hurt a 400 m runner with any sub-VO2max (if we need to define it) conditioning work. As James said, I think we are more in agreement than not…
This is an entertaining debate which I have enjoyed reading because of the reasoned and well argued contributions of several, including ASheaff. I think it is odd that this member is still on zero rep points, c’mon you lot, give credit where it’s (over)due
Now, a couple of other thoughts:
the “borderline” from aerobic to anaerobic will continue to move for better or worse according to the volume, intensity, density and frequency of training.
what is the relevance of 400m-event specific activity to contributing to raising the anaerobic/aerobic threshhold? Do we get better 400m results or worse from training occasionally or frequently at 400m race pace?
how is any/all of this wisdom to be practically applied in order to help the 400m runner get faster? What is the optimal programme model: L2S, S2L, S+L (concurrent)?
It is great debate, what started as a simple question, I personally shutter when clients say that to me, has turned into a great debate. I don’t understand half of it, but am trying.
I am with KK, would love to get into his head for a while (the athletic part KK), would love to know the practical implications.
As for Rep points, I’ve given up on them - I lost points for having a crack at US basketball team about needing to play as a team to win the gold (clearly they played as a team)
Event specific activity, to me, can mean a lot of things.
If we are strictly considering the biodynamic/bioenergetic character of the 400m then event specific training could range from training any particular phase of the race itself.
thus, the anaerobic threshold, for instance, wouldn’t be anywhere near as much a factor if the training aim was pure speed development in comparison to what it would be if the training aim was targeted towards the middle to last half of the race.
Regarding training at 400m race pace, in my view, the place for this is entirely a function of the coaches methodological approach to programming the training. Hence your point #3
I think we’d all agree that the optimal model will vary from athlete to athlete thus every model deserves its own discussion-something that’s beyond my current motivation level to initiate.
The information you shared about rowing are all extremely interesting,as your insights as usual.Thank you.
What made your information about GDR training for rowing shared immediately stand out to my eyes is the biomechanical and movement analysis upon which all following Energy System considerations and training methodology are based upon.
Too often we lose sight of an istant by instant analysis of what is really happening during an event,hence losing focus of the real neurological and biological processes instantaneously involved,and their progressive complex interactions over time.
