Lactate Threshold Training

The Forums Fundamentals
241

Hi-SpeedMan, (etPJ)

Re 6x200: I was probably not smart enough to differentiate between the strength and speed-type 400m runners back in the mid-80s to mid-90s when I had athletes of both persuasions.

Everybody did the 6x200 at the comehome pace for the 400m target objective for that year.

Tempo ratio in the last six weeks:

Again too dumb to differntiate between what I wanted from the 6x200m and traditional concepts of “tempo”

I also considered 6x200 as Tempo. That’s partly because it was so slow compared to anything else they did. I mean if your guy can run 200 (flying at peak) in 19.8 (hand), then asking him to run it in 23.0 to 23.9sec IS tempo by comparison. Well for me it was.

Plus, I simply couldn’t fit classic tempo into the cycle of work without losing too much valuable time for “effort” sessions.

I suppose where I differetiated the most is that I wanted to develop the sprint stream twice a week and the cardio-vascular network twice a week - all on the track or sometimes the hills (in the case of the CV work).

So in answer to tempo in the last six weeks before the year’s major meet, I would give the athletes more time off the track, give them that extra time (really only three days a week at most) to get their rehab (massage, chiro, whirlpool/spa, physio).

I worked them pretty hard. But they thrived because I worked different systems very hard, but mostlly with two or three days between work of the same type.

Eg: If Sunday was a speed-power session, Monday might be 2x4x150. Then Tuesd is rest, Wed is speed again and it’s not until Thursday that we returned to something akin to the 2x4x150m (it could be 2x300+150). Or 2x200+200 (perhaps with the first 200m tempo and the back-up 200m at 100% effort)

I hope that’s not making matters more confusing, or muddy. Apologies in advance.

kk :eek:

242

Speedman, i don’t see the contradition in my post re-MJ, i maintain, and you corfirm it that 6 x 200 is a moment in his program, unlike Juanto who does it all year round. Again, my point is that the same cession for MJ-type of runner and Juanto-type of runner won’t have same effects. Hart says he only had experience with 200-400 runner types and supposed his program can be applied to the 400-800 type.
For the 200 reps program, i also base my comment on a seminar he did in Spain after WC’99, so unless he lied, he showed a weekly decay, saving same rests and deleting a second and a rep each week. But it seems obvious to me that during the season, he may duplicate some cessions or go back to the penultimate one, as shown in MJ’s biography’s training log. The fact that he starts in the fall at 16 x 26sc, then in June we find him at 6 x 26 and in August at 3 x sub22 shows that it’s not a linear progression.
Overal i think we say the same thing but your replies seems a bit provocative.

243

In kitkat’s case, his runners were a kind of mixed-type, and the results speak for themselves, his training was very efficient. Now, if an other method would have suit them we will never know… I doubt it though as we always do what is possible to do at a given time… :confused:
My question to kitkat concerns year after year progression, do you believe that the volume of overall running kilometer should increase season after season or only increase intensity or both (in general, if no injuries, in an ideal scenari)…

244

Clyde Hart was interviewed last year in the British running magazine, Running Fitness. He was asked if he could give his athletes only one session what would it be, his answer was “repeat 200’s”. The session he outlined was that he ran the repeat 200’s as a continuous 5 man relay with each runner running 15 x 200m @35s. Each month 1 rep and 1 second would be dropped off the session ie 14 x 200m @ 34s, 13x200m@33’s etc etc.

As the session is run as a continuous relay the as running times speed up, the recovery drops.

eg
when running at 35s, 35x4 = 2:20 recovery
when running at 25s, 25x4 = 1:40 recovery

so the session would look like 5x200m @ 25’s with 1:40 recovery.

Hart stated that only the best athletes could run the 5x200m in the required time, and that just before his WR 43.18? MJ ran 3x200@23’s with 1:30 recovery.

If anybody is interested in ordering the issue containing the article, try the following link

http://www.runningfitnessmag.com/cgi-bin/purchase.cgi?m=RFM&y=2004&i=045507RFM&s=bi

245

Hi PJ, thanks for explaining my methods to me :smiley: :o :stuck_out_tongue:

Re: Evolving the athlete:

The senior athletes I was lucky enough to work with and who mystically met with some success while with me did not increase volume at all over the seasons.

They did increase quality. But then I have preferred to operate a mixed program leaning towards intensity rather than volume.

Perhaps they would have achieved more success with another system. I always wondered about this and discussed it with the athletes.
Then again, these very good athletes had been with several other coaches before they settled with me and finished out their careers with me using the methods we are debating. They all ran lifetime best times and achieved lifetime best results at the Olympics.

I would say PJ is definitely right on the 50.2 woman. Once during a break after some tournament season she took a holiday in New Caledonia and she ran 800 in 2:06, which I was quite surprised about, given that she took so long to achieve the seassion 3x3x300m on the goal target of all in sub-50sec. But later in her career she became a perpetual motion machine and when she ran her 50.2 she actually weighed only 54kg - quite light against the likes of Bryzgina and Brisco-Hooks etc (not to mention the incredibly powerful Koch and Kratochvilova: what an era to be stuck in!)

The male never showed any endurance capacity towards 800m. He ran 10.4sec el. as a 17-year-old, so I had always thought he was just a pure speed machine. He used to die at the end of his 400s, terribly.

But once - before he asked me to work with/for him - he paced Steve Cram in Rieti for 600m and Crammy went through to run the 800m in the world-leading time for that year. Maybe it was 1986? Cram ran 1:43 something. But then when he first came to me this same wonderful athlete was beaten in an 800m and he failed to break 2mins, even though he expected he would run much faster. Go figure?

kk :confused:

246

tks :mad:

247

Dear Flying,
What’s with the :mad: ?

kk :confused:

248

Flying, I think the idea of the repeat 200 session was to be able to achieve a given target time repetitively with as small a recovery time as possible (thereby putting greater stress on the CV system). I think sticking with the same target times for the reps would also serve as a feedback mechanism for Hart to the development of this area of his athlete’s “fitness”. He also stated that he believed in stressing the body gradually and keeping up base work for longer compared to other programmes which he thought was most beneficial to the long term development of the athlete (looking towards the years ahead).

I also think that 18x200 w/2mins rec in 38,38,36,35,34,33,32,31,30,29,28,28,28,28,28,28,28,28 would be very difficult to achieve for a 400m runner especially in early season. So yes, I think that would be a different type of training but I do think it would be more beneficial IF (and that’s a very big IF!!) the athlete was able to achieve those times off that recovery.

PJ, sorry if my post seemed provocative, it wasn’t intended to be. I wasn’t sure what you were trying to say but your last post cleared things up and I think we are pretty much saying the same things about Hart’s programme. :slight_smile: Though I would argue that the 6x200 (different to 2x3x200 what Juanto did) session at target come home speed might be more beneficial to a speed-type runner closer to competition than a strength type (and that is relative: “closer” might mean 4 weeks as opposed to 6 for EXAMPLE to peak competition) but who really knows…

KK, thanks for replying again!! :smiley: By the above words are you suggesting you might have done something different in terms of the traditional idea of tempo with some of your athletes? Also, what times and recoveries would you have used in the 2x4x150m session?

I have my own ideas on this but would like to put this question to you and other members of this board of course. Looking at the development of the CV/Glycolytic system what difference would these two sessions have on the internal physiology of the athlete: (Session 1) 6x200 @ target come home speed w/ 2 mins rec and (Session 2) 2 x (300+150) @ 95%+ w/30 secs/full rec.

Again, looking forward to hearing about this.

SM

249

kitkat - interesting that you didn’t increased volume, that’s a thing i’ve noticed i many programs in spite of common sense which would push coaches to ask for higher load/volume as the athlete progresses.

Speedman : basically these 2 cession enter in the same group physiologically speaking, it trains power of anaerobie lactic system.

The difference is in the speeds of these cessions:
6 x 200 at come home speed suppose an intensity at around 88% (example 50sec runner, PB 200m 23.0 or less, 200m splits 24.0 + 26.0; 26sec is 88.5% of 23sec) while 2 x (300 + 150) is 95% (probable speeds 38.5 and 18sec when PBs are supposed to be 36.0 and 17.0). We can say that the 6 x 200 is closer to lactic capacity than 2x(300+150). Since the speeds are higher, the second workout is more CNS taxing.

Now, there is the tactical aspect. It’s important to see what these speeds are specific for in the 400m race (to quote CF, speed is specific to itself). If we keep the example of a 50sec runner, the 300 split could be around 36.5 which is close to the possible PB of 36.0.
The 38.5 from standing start it too slow to be compared to anything in the 400m race. For the 18sec, it’s the required time for the first 150m. So tactically speaking, this workout seems logically poor to me.
But I would use it to introduce in the program a more specific workout with the first 300m at race speed (36.5), rest 30sec or 1min, and 150m as fast as possible with flying start, which should match the speed and effort required for the come-home 150m during 400m races (20sec).

Thougths?

250

edit found my answers when I went back and reviewed this monster of a thread :slight_smile:

251

Yes, that’s one way of looking at it PJ and everything you have said makes sense. I think you are coming from a race tactic/race pace point of view whereas I am interested in finding out more about what effect those two sessions would have in terms of the deeper physiology of the body and how long it might take for these physiological adaptations to “wear off” (and produce a de-training effect on the 400m athlete - in lay-man’s terms: lose fitness) e.g. on cardiac muscle, capillary density, hormone responses, glycolytic enzyme changes etc. (you stated the CNS - true!).

Is there data available anywhere or does anybody else have any opinions on this?

Cheers :wink:

SM

252

Hi SpeedMan,

I don’t know whether you have looked back through this nightmare long thread, but some of your most recent questions have been discussed already there.

The lasting effects issue has been covered but not from any biochemical sort of examination, rather from empirical results in the field (on the track actually) from coach experience.

PJ,
the 300 in 38.5 or thereabouts is actually highly specific to the comehome pace of the final 300m in a 400m race in 50sec range (12 sec opening 100m). So in effect the athlete is tempo-ing 300m through strength (rather than CNS-speed) in the race rhythm. This pre-fatigues the athlete, but not so much that she cannot do more at higher quality to follow.

So then after just 30sec rest, the set demands a quite high degree of CNS activity as well as extreme tolerance to lactic acid by requiring a 100% effort 150m.

If in the opinion of the coach and/or athlete there is a greater requirement for the 400m sprinter to be able to shift gears and to practise the final strike then 300m can be followed (as described earlier this thread) by 4x60m walkbacks, or 60,50,40,30,20 walkbacks.

This in some ways simulates the 400m race, when the athlete may move to win the race with a burst usually somewhere in the third 100m and sustaining the effort at least into the home straight. The capacity to “lift” when very tired is essential if you’re even thinking about running W50sec or M44sec.

Of course PJ there are times when the athlete will gun the 300m and just hang on for the backup 150m, and if the 300m is extremely fast then I would extend the rest phase, sometimes abandon the backup rep. No point wasting a race on training.

It all depends really on the purpose of the session for that day, as to whether you cook the first 300 or just tempo it. And as mentioned earlier this thread, often the wind conditions will dictate the type of work you can reasonably ask of even the most gifted and most enthusiastic sprinter. They are only :eek: human - unlike some of us coach-types :rolleyes:

kk

253

Speedman, these 2 cession are similar from a physiological point of view, the differences will be on individual athletes (muscles fibers, sprinter or endurance type, etc) as well as the current state (moment in the training program, physical, psychological, emotional, ect) of the athlete and the external conditions (weather, training partner, surface, etc). I would take with care any study which aim wll tell you exactly all the effects of a given cession, it simply doesn’t apply to reality for the everyday coach who doesn’t work with guinea pigs.
Cuban Hernandez (low 44sec) used to do lactate analysis before the workout in order to know which one he was going to do. On the opposite side, we have Pat Connolly saying that some day, she would tell Evelyn Ashford: Well, today the sun is shining, the grass is green, so you are going to run a 400m… Like some athletes, there must be talented coaches, who FEEL what is good to do on a given day without asking the scientists the right procedure (when talent and knowledge meets, we find kitkat :smiley: )

kitkat, the 300 followed by walkback short sprints: what speed/effort do you recommend for these short sprints? Max? submax? about 80%? I see that the point is to charge the front thigh muscles like what’s happening in the last meters of the 400m race, but is there any risk to be back from a long run and suddenly short run concerning achilles?

254

Thanks guys, I also believe the monitoring should be pretty much all “field” based and leave the lactate readings/muscle biopsies to the sport scientists (even though I am one I prefer monitoring with the eyes and the stop watch at the track :rolleyes: ).

I asked the question just to see if there was any scientific evidence to back up the “anecdotal” evidence (and best evidence!) from world class coaches regarding the lasting effects of lactic capacity v lactic power training (I know it is not simple to differentiate because there is a huge interplay of these and other training components).

Really what I am trying (in a long winded way! :smiley: ) to say is:

How/when do you know it is time to give the athlete a “wedge” (as stated by KK previously) of base training at some stage/stages within the competitive season? :slight_smile:

255

Hi PJ (thanks for the compliment :o ),

The short backup rep is always done at whatever %-effort/speed is needed to achieve “liftoff” (ie: triple extension) and then really the rest of the run is rehearsal of that race-specific posture.

The backup reps are ALWAYS rolling start, so as not to overstress the quads, achilles etc. So the roll-up start to the back-up rep can be 10m easing into it. Never had achilles problem with any athlete while they trained this program.

The backup reps also PJ, are not really to develop frontside strength so much as to develop the psychological and physical ability to cope under race-type fatigue and still fight for the supreme mechnical position needed to maintain home straight velocity reasonably well. (ie: short contact time, which of course involves avoiding overstriding or lateral movements such as twisting, like Innocent Egbunike. That means striking just in front of the pelvis and having the “ping” factor present to enable the sprinter to continue springing up from the track even in the final stride of the 400m, where often the medals are decided!)

kk :slight_smile:

256

Hi SpeedMan,

I think it is both intuitive (which means sometimes we make a mistake, especially with a new athlete) and from discussion with the athlete.

If we are lucky enough to work with an athlete who is in touch with his/her body and has the capacity to communicate his/her sensitivities, then dialogue through Q&A will mostly determine the timing.

That is by way of saying, if the athlete feels s/he was dying at some part of the race (having to compromise somewhere in order to finish strongly in the last 50m, for example) then it is time to either further emphasise speed (to improve the transitional “cushion”) or it is time to put in some more specific endurance sets.

Of course the calendar will also determine when you have the chance to put in a strength/endurance wedge. You won’t be doing that two weeks before the nationals. But maybe six weeks before the nationals you may build a wedge of maybe 10 days of strength/endurance - enhanced by actually giving the athlete two or even three days rest (or a mix of rest and maybe a very light tempo session) either side of the wedge (or micro-block).

In short it’s art and science and common sense in the final analysis based on very close consultation…

:slight_smile: If the athlete has a strong influence/input into the decisions affecting the construct and substance of the training, they are staking their intecllectual and physical credibility on the success of the program. That’s when you get a winning team, a winning outcome - when the athlete takes responsibility for the success of the program. We all know this to be true, but it should never be under-estimated. It is incredibly important.

kk

257

Hi KitKat,

How would you recommend modifying this plan if the sprinter wanted to run primarily 200s with an occasional 400.

What would you like to see different in the micro?

Thanks again,

Chris

258

Nice Chris. I would also love to see KitKat’s and Mr. French(P.J.) :slight_smile: ideas applied to a 200m program.

259

Hi Chris30 & The One,
I apologise for not noticing Chris30’s post about 200 emphasis.

I would retain the basic shell of the program. I think concurrent practice works for any event, at least up to 800m from personal experience and maybe for longer events.

So I’d still look at two “rest” days (Day 1) in the week. The next day (Day 2) would be speed development in the style of pushing maximum velocity (ins-and-outs, flying 20m efforts) and acceleration/including block work.

The next day (Day 3) would be training which more specifically addresses the needs of finishing a hot 200m. That is really speed-maintenance, targeted muscular endurance.

Charlie and others who have met greater success with 200m may differ. But I still think you can develop tolerance to enduring high-speed by putting in a maximum effort as distinct from necessarily recording your maximum speed on the clock.

In other words you’re still stressing the neuro-muscular system in a positive way by training tough when fatigued, even though the time you clock for that run may seem crappy.

With that in mind, a Day 3 session could have the heat taken out of it but could still make a big contribution to conditioning the athlete for say the last 50m of a good 200m race.

Eg: 150 tempo, diagonal jog across the field, 150 tempo, diagonal walk across the field, tempo 150, diagonal jog across the field, sprint 150m. Sets ends. Take recovery (10mins to 25mins) repeat up to two more sets.

The fourth 150 in the set is a killer but the effort has gone in even though the time will be slow. I suppose you could reduce this set to three or even two reps if you wanted a different endurance effect. You know I like those depletion runs, calling for effort following a pre-fatiguing rep or reps.

Of course you do the tempo (depletion work) at a nice rhythm, but not so fast that the final rep - the focus of the set - turns out ragged. It’s about executing good technique and demonstrating control through strength while allowing rhythm and relaxation to work their magic for you.

At least one of PJ’s athletes has had some impressive recent successes at 100 and 200. I’d be keen to hear what work he has done for the 200.
kk :slight_smile:

260

Great stuff! :slight_smile:

Would something like the following work?

I dont have the work capacity to hit hard 150’s the day after Max V/accel work

I’ll need to insert an Extensive tempo day or pool work in between

For example:

Day 1 Rest
Day 2 Max V and accel
Day 3 Extensive tempo on grass (eg 12 x 120 at 70% or pool)
Day 4 Speed End 150s
Day 5 Rest
Day 6 hills (15-20 seconds in duration)
Day 7 Maybe weight/bodyweight circuit incorporating sets on the heavy bag?

Quick clarification on the 150 workout.

Could you do a slightly shortened tempo portion on grass and then hit the track for the speed end 150s? (I need to be careful with the amount of on-track work I do)

I was thinking a set consisting 5 x 100m on grass and then a speed end 150 on the track at 95% in spikes.

Thoughts?

BTW - I am going to have to buy you guys a nice bottle of wine with all the great information you have shared! :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Chris