Lactate Threshold Training

The Forums Fundamentals
61
  1. actually, i don’t see the tempo as being a “problem” for “negative” effects on speed and i agree the way you are using it between fast sessions;

i was just wondering by how much SE work would affect the 100% development of speed, if SE is used from early on (i.e., Meso 1)…

[If you accept that 200m racing is out of schedule and the same is true for SE for Meso 1, i think we agree and there is no point in reading the following…].

For example, you are saying that for Meso 1 & 2 you are using 2 fast sessions (1 for acceleration and 1 for max speed) and 1 session per week for SE; and my “objection” is, why missing one of the fast sessions and not having 2 of those for acceleration and 1 for max speed early in Meso 1 (main focus acceleration), shifting to perhaps 1 for acceleration, 1-2 for max speed in Meso 2 (main focus max speed) -especially if there are no 200m races on plan, as you are saying, with intro of SE (towards the end of Meso 2, reducing by 1 the max speed sessions perhaps) and finally, have 1 session per week for each of the three, but with reduced volumes for quality, during Meso 3, with further development of SE, if necessary, via appropriate racing planning? [a rather long question, i agree :o )

now that i’m thinking again about it, i’m actually focusing on a short-to-long programme and i’m just shifting the intro and development of SE a bit further down the season… Perhaps because i’m not sure as to how you should combine the two approaches of training (i.e., short-to-long and long-to-short) in one season; in any case, however, if we re talking about speed endurance and not special endurance, i can’t see any other way than a short-to-long approach

(the whole confusion over this started from a previous post of yours, as i thought you were talking about special endurance and how a long-to-short approach could fit in along with acceleration/max speed work based on a short-to-long schedule; this SE abbreviation is still confusing to me…)

not entirely sure, but i just feel that you’d better take full advantage first of the development of each training element (i.e., speed) before moving to something else (i.e., SE) building on top of the first (i.e., speed)

  1. sorry, didn’t get it: are you saying that you didn’t realise the close margin in terms of intensity between SE2 and speed? i.e., the fact that they are quite close and this might bring about some problems? do we agree, therefore, on that? not sure… If yes, the alternatives you are saying above could be nicely used as intro to SE perhaps, slightly before intro of SE in Meso 2 and in Meso 3, where everything comes together at the end…

BTW, any references on Verchoshanskiy’s work? i’ve got some about training theory, but not sure if i’ve got the ones you are saying here… thanks!

overall, if we generally agree on the above, the next Q for me (the original one) is how you combine the two training approaches for a 400m runner, who needs Special Endurance, as well? i.e., do you use a short-to-long for accel/max speed and a long-to-short for special endurance, or not? to use, or not to use? that’s the question… The other option might be to extend over the season the speed endurance work by so much that it progressively passes to the special endurance zone, i.e., a complete short-to-long approach for all elements…

seriously, need to shake my head right now and have some sleep…

62

guys I am getting confused when you mention “SE” in your posts. Are you specifically referring to speed endurance or special endurance?

They are significantly different.

could you elaborate please :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Chris

63

In this case Special End

64

Think in terms of emphasis and you’ll feel better about what you see here. If the EMPHASIS is in the short-to-long Speed area, with a secondary and lower intensity componant of longer Special End, the CNS competition should be limited, and, ironically, overall CNS stress might be a lot lower because the total speed volume in the mezo is spread out to include a lower CNS demanding area.

65

Starting date for outdoor would be begin/mid-march. I would try to work myself to a PB in 200 by the end of June (with speed and special endurance).

I my case I mainly lack speed. So my first and only goal is: “Get faster over 100, 200!” Then just 8 weeks to transfer that to 400.

I usually can run the 400 in (2*200m time)+10% which is almost all you can do for an athlete my level.

Secondly I’m an lazy-ass recreational athlete. :wink:

Additional a lot of tempo throughout the whole season to make sure I’m fit in summer for dealing with 400 runs with increasing intensity but decreasing overall volume.

You’re right, I meant reducing volume in order to maintain, of course.

I’d do various distances until July, covering speed end and special end with distances up to 250, probably 300m.
I want to concentrate on 400 for the last 8 weeks, because I want to get a feeling for the round.
Last year I only trained at 100% up to 340m, but at my first and only 400m comp I could not believe what was going on with me on the last 50m. I never knew my body could feel like that. Running 340 and 400 comes like a completely different thing to me.

The series of 400m I would change (according to what JeanPierre wrote - and what was completely right) 2x400 to 2x300 and probably substitute the 1x400 by 1x340 or 350.

Yes, 100m comp (and relay) from May and mainly 200 in June. Then July and August maintaining speed and cometing in another 200 and then 400s from last week in August

[quote=“Nikolouski”]

the 10d 100% effort you are describing above might be a good idea for 100-200m, but not so sure for a 400m race; perhaps you need more time for that -if there is the need at all to test the racing distance in training…

Of course, thx for your comments.

66

Yep, did not rellay think about the 2x400 and 1x400. I think I would reduce it to 2x300 and a 1x350 test 10 to 14 days before comp.
But I need a test like that - for psychological reasons. Only if I run 350 in a test faster than the season before, I get all the confidence I need to compete.

Maybe June to August is too late, but I think I’ll try. Prerequisites are:

  1. there was enough <75% tempo that sufficient fitness is there.
  2. there was special endurance up to 300m anyhow into may/june, but with the focus on a significant improvement on 200.
  3. there was a drastic improvement on 200m time.

What I was thinking was that maybe dropping the 200m time more might help more than doing longer SE runs from earlier points in the season but not concentrating enouhg on speed.

67

Actually, 200m competitions are planned, i think there i a quipoquo or i made a mistake in a former post. IF no 200m were planned, i would follow the suggestion you make here.

now that i’m thinking again about it, i’m actually focusing on a short-to-long programme and i’m just shifting the intro and development of SE a bit further down the season… Perhaps because i’m not sure as to how you should combine the two approaches of training (i.e., short-to-long and long-to-short) in one season; in any case, however, if we re talking about speed endurance and not special endurance, i can’t see any other way than a short-to-long approach (the whole confusion over this started from a previous post of yours, as i thought you were talking about special endurance and how a long-to-short approach could fit in along with acceleration/max speed work based on a short-to-long schedule; this SE abbreviation is still confusing to me…)
not entirely sure, but i just feel that you’d better take full advantage first of the development of each training element (i.e., speed) before moving to something else (i.e., SE) building on top of the first (i.e., speed)

There is a definition problem here. I assure you that if you start to talk to French coaches about of difference between speed endurance and special endurance, or even a proposition of short to long approach, they would look at you with strange eyes… When i use SE1, SE2, SE3, it’s Speed Endurance. But you’re right, if i plan something like 1x300m or 2 x 250m at 95-100% pace, which i call SE1, it would be actually special endurance. Do we agree on this?

  1. sorry, didn’t get it: are you saying that you didn’t realise the close margin in terms of intensity between SE2 and speed? i.e., the fact that they are quite close and this might bring about some problems? do we agree, therefore, on that? not sure… If yes, the alternatives you are saying above could be nicely used as intro to SE perhaps, slightly before intro of SE in Meso 2 and in Meso 3, where everything comes together at the end…
    BTW, any references on Verchoshanskiy’s work? i’ve got some about training theory, but not sure if i’ve got the ones you are saying here… thanks!

I don’t think that 90% an d100% is that close, as i said if i plan 100% speed (well, 99%) for one workout and 90% for an other, there won’t be much incidence. 10.0 and 11.1 speed don’t interfer. The danger will be when workouts will be planed at 94%, which i closer i admit, but i’ll then use alternative methods in order to avoid 2 back to back sprint cession at similar intensities (even if at some point i’ll do in order to make competition simulations). My reference to Verkhoshanski’s experiences is for example an article published in Legkaya Atletika in 1974, i sum-up the experiences: 3 groups: Group1 uses “short jump” training (acyclic, short distances), G2 uses “long jump” training (cyclic, long distances), G3 uses combinaison of the short and long jumps. Here are ths results after 9 months: for 30m (accel), G1 had the greatest improvements, followed by G3 and poor result for G2. For flying 30m (max speed), G3 had the best improvements, then G2 and G1. For Flying 60m (SE), it was G2, G3 and poor results for G1. For the whole 100m, clearly the best results came for G3, followed by G2 and G1. Interesting, isn’t it?

overall, if we generally agree on the above, the next Q for me (the original one) is how you combine the two training approaches for a 400m runner, who needs Special Endurance, as well? i.e., do you use a short-to-long for accel/max speed and a long-to-short for special endurance, or not? to use, or not to use? that’s the question… The other option might be to extend over the season the speed endurance work by so much that it progressively passes to the special endurance zone, i.e., a complete short-to-long approach for all elements…

For 400m, the need in Special End is higher, and the need in max speed is lower. I would focus much more on acceleration training than on max speed for 400m runner, from the researches i’ve done on female 400m runners. You have to chose between max speed and speed endurance, not both. But, some 400m runners developped a great start/acceleration skill (noticable on their 100m races), without the negative effects on their last straight in 400m competition. The example i give is at 100m, Marita Koch who use to lead Marlies Göhr in the first 30m, but Marlies Göhr had better last 40m! Same comment for Chandra Cheeseborough and Evelyn Ashford, Irina Privalova and Merlene Ottey… Cheese and Privalova would have let no chances to Ashford and Ottey at 30m and at 400m, but they were outrun in the last 40m during 100m races. As stated in an other topic, training on acceleration or training on max speed affect both acceleration and max speed skills, so in this context, for 400m runners, i would focus on acceleration training, not max speed.

68

to be honest with you, i hadn’t thought about it this way (still need to keep reminding my self about this), but anyway, i can see your point and it might be a safer option due to less CNS stress

re to what pierrejean is saying, i was just wondering if the inclusion of a special endurance session in the week from “early” on would affect in any way the full development of acceration and speed… although if it’s for outdoors with speed already there, i wouldn’t really mind…

if you feel though that you are not missing THAT much from speed development despite inclusion of SE, then i’m not the guy to argue with that! exactly because you are talking about EMPHASIS i thought it might be better to “finish” the speed part first

but then again the term EMPHASIS does not excude intro/development of other components, as well… i tend to go straight to the extremes sometimes

appreciate the comment though!

69

going back to this comment of yours, i can better now understand what you are saying; EMPHASIS does not exclude other work, provided the two speeds don’t conflict early on… right?

getting in there…

70

just a couple of comments again in the above:

  1. do you consider yourself a 200(-100)m runner? if this is the case -and judging by your interest in 400m as well, it might be- just consider the following: “with an athlete who is talented in the 200m event, the emphasis on developing his better starting technique should come later in training. Then the athlete obtains good results over 200m and becomes stronger. The competition programme should start with 200m; thus, the athlete can make use of his entire preparation and should not start with 100m, where the danger of injuries is higher”. It might help you with focusing on things; you know yourself much better than i do…

  2. by relays, i meant 400m relays, then shortening the distance for 1-2 races and then a good of the big one again…

71

  1. LOL! on the definition point: speed endurance distances of 80-250(-300)m and special endurance (300-)400-600m, with the mid-point of 300m depending on the runner, i suppose -it’s just that mainly 400m runners need the latter and therefore, i prefer the term special endurance… agreed, i guess :slight_smile:

  2. that’s what i meant, the 99% vs. the 94%; but then again, i’m ok with what you are saying, i.e., that you are careful about it… (the race simulation strategy is another thing…)

thanks for concluding the study; interesting, indeed!

  1. and again, what you are saying about 400m is interesting! you are avoiding the conflict between max speed and speed/special endurance (which is much needed for a 400m runner) by choosing the acceleration and SE combination, am i right? nice one!

after reading again our posts and with Charlie’s comments, it starts clearing up a bit on how the two can come together -or at least, i can justify it, which is important vs. just using it…

72

Thanks Nikolouski your posts helped me to understand better what i’m doing. On point 1. and 2. we agree! For point 3., you’re right that’s the way i’ll do since max speed development has lead to decrease in results for speed endurance (and vice-versa) for top-female 400m runners in the past, i’ll avoid specific max speed dvlpment, and work it indirectly by acceleration work.

73

coming back on this, sorry, but i just caught myself wondering…

between acceleration and speed development you prefer acceleration; fine by me! i can see why and the data you posted speak for themselves…

the other focus should be in SE; if you remember “our definitions”, would specifically this part move from speed endurance to special endurance, or you still feel the two might conflict?

if there is a conflict between the two, would you work on acceleration (as one element) and focus at the same time mainly on special endurance? (moving either from long-to-short, or short-to-long? although the latter, i know, it’s again the big question…)

appreciate any thoughts!

74

Back to my Mezocycles, we have for a short sprinter program:
Mezo1: focus on accel and 2nd objective SE3,
Mezo2: focus on max speed and 2nd objective SE2 (with the delicate point we told about),
Mezo3: focus on SE1.
For a long sprinter, it goes like this:
Mezo1: focus on accel and SE3,
Mezo2: focus on SE2*
Mezo3: focus on SE2*, with some SE1 work
*note that from the start of Mezo2, will start the specific 400m workout, which is analytic workouts, based on the individual need. This will be tempos with 100 to 250m runs at the 400m pace, for example 13sec for a 52sec female runner (which is actually SE2) with walks or jogs in the interval.

What do you think, do you see any conflicts?

75

LOL! you are testing me again… challenge accepted…
seriously though; the question came up to me specifically for 400m (although the short sprinter’s approach was a nice addition) and that was because i was interested in your opinion about progressing speed endurance vs. special endurance for 400m keeping the initally the acceleration focus in place

it would seem to me “easier” to work on special endurance (i.e., >300m) and from long to short because of less stress to CNS, as Charlie pointed out, with a mid-week session initially perhaps and because in order to work in a better way on your speed endurance, as you seem to suggest with the 100-250m distances, perhaps max speed should be there in the first place (which you won’t specifically train at any point according to your approach -and no problem with that)

not sure if my point is coming across here, but the possible (what’s the word i’m looking for… ah yes!) conflict might be between speed end and special end… (again, the abreviation (SE) doesn’t help me -i seem to have an obsession with that! :slight_smile: )

unless, the SE sessions you are describing above are with short recoveries, or rather, better still, the pace they are run at (i.e., 400m pace) makes them special endurance workouts and i’m fine with all of it (finally…)

let me know what you think -if you are still up for this issue…

thanks!

76

had a look again at your sample workouts per Meso and i realised that your SE sessions are all special endurance ones -at least for the long sprint…

so, i guess we’re fine with all of it…

phew!

PS something will come up soon again, i’m sure! :o

77

based on the above research and the way i understand it, both G2 and G3 affected positively max speed (although monitored differently) and the common point between the two groups is the “long jumps” (cyclic, long distances)

in the 2002 Forum there is a section on Plyos and the conclusion seems to be that short, acyclic jumps (G1 above) affect positively the acceleration part, but -while on speed development- it’s better to work with those plyos that are of cyclic, but of an “up & down” nature instead (for reduced contanct time vs. long jumps/alternate bounding, which might be better suited along with sp end work)

do the two above disagree? what do you think?

Charlie?

78

I’m afraid I’m even more the “800m type”, so you are right. Somehow I knew it, but lifting heavy (in 4-6 rep range) and doing starts (up to 30m) is most fun to me. But looking back I notice that all the lifting and starts seem to have more negative effects on my speed - even 60m times, more so 100 and 200.
Whenever I do more tempo and SE runs (over 150m) my times drop - even 60m…I think I need to change my training completely…it’s frustrating.

  1. I understand, but I have no possibility to take part in a 4x4 relay…
79

  1. therfore, perhaps you should focus more on your strength as you can compensate more from that, rather on focusing on a weaker point and losing the whole thing altogether; you might be right about reconsidering your training; go with what feels right and gives you results!

  2. ok, sorry…

80

Not sure if you still have what i wrote in mind after several days off. About the specific 400m workouts, difficult to give you an example becaus eit will depend how which part of the race we will work. The 400m race will be divided in several part we will train specifically at the competition pace. After about 20 of these specific workouts (and few 400m competitions after having open season at 200m or even 100m), she will be (hopefully) able to put everything together on the goal-competition. In Mezo III, it will be nearly the sole lactic type of work planned, along with 2 500m tests, and maybe 2 or 3 specific 200m workouts starting from late Mezo II to enhance speed reserve. The rest will be acceleration work and aerobie (various forms). I’m convinced that it will work, but always open to critics, if not i won’t be there!