What are people’s thoughts on continous tempo? Running at a certain pace for time rather than distance.
That can be done where there’s no track, on a big field or park for example, and you can set a beeper to go off on your watch, which works if all your intervals are the same, but an easier way to do it is to count strides. Just check how many steps you average in a tempo 100 and calculate from there. that way you don’t need to constantly check your watch if you use different distances, like in a big circuit.
I’ll be brief, but where is the literature that says a “lactic environment” (perhaps a definition of this might make things more clear) destroys mitochondria within muscle cells? Without some context and basis, this statement kinda detracts substantially from the rest of your post. I am not going to argue about whether or not we want or don’t want lactic in tempo, but to say it destroys mitochondria?
Also,
James is kind to provide some workout numbers and examples of his athletes, but leads into something else.
James mentions his athletes running tempo in ~16sec for 100 yards, or about 17mid for 100m. Given the ability he says his athletes have and the workouts that have been posted before, what is the goal of this?
In certain material, Charlie called an athlete out on running their tempo too slow. Further, the volumes James has posted before seem quite low to generate any sort of general fitness or work capacity qualities from such slow speeds.
Now, if the point of tempo is simply to loosen up and be ready for a speed session, that makes sense, but then why use the “big circuit” or do significant tempo volumes? If the point is to also generate fitness, why run so slow? If you are a sub 11 second 100m sprinter (which is at least the ability of the athletes used as an example), running 100m tempo in over 17 may not even generate much fatigue, let alone approach concerns for lactic (as an example, my general fitness is not where it should be an I did 2x10x100m with 50m walk rest in mid 15 and, while tired, experienced no lactic whatsoever with a PR in the range of times James describes).
Remember the range for tempo (60-75%). If I remember correctly James does up to 2000yds for his skill guys and as you know 2000yds at 15-16sec for 180-230lbs football players will increase work capacity.
16 seconds for 100yd is 17mid for 100m. He said small skill guys. Even at 180-200lbs, if you are able to run 9mid 100yd (what he says), that is a joke.
I understand you don’t want to cause lactic. I get that. I also understand you want to be fresh for your speed days as those are the most important, but why even bother doing those volumes if those are the goals? The speed here is so slow that even if you are doing 30 second rests, there is not going to be much fatigue until you get into significantly high volumes. That is what I am trying to figure out.
This is covered extensively in overseas research.
In short, the increased acidosis generated during lactic efforts, specifically when the 4mmol mark is approached and surpassed, destroys the mitochondria in the active skeletal muscle fibers.
Can you please post the literature that indicates this to be true (without complementary mechanisms in place)?
I ask this because of how it goes completely against the majority of the empirical evidence (with athletes who do more training in acidosis tending to have greater mitochondria development).
I personally can get lactic build-up anywhere up to 19s if I’ve done enough repeats (on grass)… on track or any other surface changes things completely and I’m ok in the low 16’s. But then I time the recoveries at 30s/60s rather than walking (i’m sure 50m walk is longer than 30s, also as you get more tired you tend to walk slower)
at those paces you might be able to justify it as “flush and feed” merely a recovery purpose of the tempo
Keep in mind that my guys go directly from the the tempo rep to either push ups or some sort of abdominal work. Then 45-60 sec rest and another run.
Most important, is that there are divisions of improved cardiac and aerobic function relative to anaerobic threshold.
One is in error to assume that the workload must be (insert your favorite adjective) difficult in order to improve aerobic work capacity.
The work capacity must be defined.
+108% anaerobic development
102-108% anaerobic maintenance
94-102% anaerobic threshold = aerobic development
85-102% aerobic maintenance
68-84% cardiac output
60-70% cardiac recuperation
Remember that tempo, from a bioenergetic standpoint, is performed in order to improve aerobic qualities.
I can’t see this being the case, like fogelson said the actual research would be nice to see. Looking at somebody like KitKat’s schedule for 400m there are 4 days a week where lactic most likely exceeds 4mmol. In fact almost any SE2 work would theyby inhibt ability because it would destroy mitochondria.
I agree, but why do high volumes we see prescribed then (2000m 3x a week).
I am sure you know how easy these paces are that are described. While around the speeds (100m pb/ability) described, I do not have “tremendous work capacity” and have done 2x10x100m in mid 15 walk 50m rest (which is under 40 seconds) without any hint of lactic… Tired, but not lactic.
Charlie himself that tempo can (and should be in GPP) difficult and tough. No lactic and you should be able to finish at the pace you started, but it should be tough. Again, the paces and workouts described are a glorified warm-up. I don’t have anything against that and do things like that myself, I am just trying to get clarification mostly from Charlie here about the role of tempo because if it is primarily to just loosen up and get blood flowing, then I don’t see the reason in doing such high volumes. I think he may have some other reasons though, hence my questions.
How many repeats to get “lactic” in the 19s 100m range? When I’ve timed 50m walk, the longest (towards the very end) is 45seconds rest with most in the 30-40sec range. What is the PB level?
Definitely! 4 mmol.l-1 for a sprinter is nothing…
fogelson, the role of tempo has been discussed quite a few times in here and in Charlie’s work. Have a look in the site…
Local hypoxia will yield mitochondrial biogenesis in the myocardium; yet destroy these same structures in the skeletal fibers. (read zhelyazkov and Dasheva)
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Penza State University
The Department of Traumatology, Orthopedics and military and emergency surgery Term Work
When insufficient flow of oxygen for normal aerobic cellular metabolism of hydrogen ions are formed. The resulting acidosis rapidly destroys the cells and stops just in metabolism, if only a certain amount of hydrogen ions does not appear in the conversion of lactate piruvata, and then to lactic acid. Thus, although an excess of lactic acid is considered to be dangerous, it represents an important compensatory mechanism in preventing cellular damage due to acidosis.
Understand that there is an enormous amount of research on this subject from overseas sources. You merely have to search for it via the proper channels.
Some more from a friend and colleague of mine from the National Sports Academy in Sofia Bulgaria:
mitochondrial damage or/and dysfunction is caused by : i) high acidosis ii), Moderate work (medium intensity) - Should not exceed anaerobic threshold. Doing so leads to hypoxia and destruction of mitochondria.
Some authors for your consideration are Zhelyazkov/Dasheva, Issurin, Seluyanov,
Correct, as Nikoluski has described, the physical effort for an athlete of sufficient preparation may be quite manageable yet still yield counter intuitive adaptations.
Niko, thank you, but I have read the site, read the materials, watched the videos, things still aren’t that clear when you get posts from James like this.
Example, NT in the Peaking When It Counts video was running tempo very slowly. Charlie called him out on running tempo this slowly and told him to run it faster. The paces are not much different from what James is describing here. If Charlie wants his athletes to run the tempo faster, this doesn’t seem to make sense.
This then leads me to wonder if people understand what Charlie is saying or if some of us misunderstand it or are interpreting it wrong. That is all I am asking.
Sorry, but these are not studies and do not really tell us anything. What you are essentially saying is that 400-800m runners, bodybuilders, and road cyclists (three separate groups of athletes whose training has historically had tons of lactic work at the threshold you describe (>4mmol nearly daily) have destroyed all their mitochondria. I am just pointing out how absurd this sounds without some context or explanation.