Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval training

[Guest guest]

This article is interesting and basically confirms what most endurance athletes

have known and practiced for years. There is no shortcut when it comes to

developing high level endurance. While high intensity intervals have their

place in any endurance training they cannot replace the need of building a

strong and broad endurance base. Understanding the different physiological and

metabolical changes that occur which occur with the different modes of training

is key.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: carruthersjam <Carruthersjam@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:03:49 PM

Subject: Endurance training - high-intensity interval training

Members may enjoy reading the below extracts:

Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and

Duration in Endurance Training

http://sportsci. org/2009/ ss.htm

Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2

Endurance training involves manipulation of intensity, duration, and frequency

of training sessions. The relative impact of short, high-intensity training

versus longer, slower distance training has been studied and debated for decades

among athletes, coaches, and scientists. Currently, the popularity pendulum has

swung towards high-intensity interval training. Many fitness experts, as well

as some scientists, now argue that brief, high-intensity interval work is the

only form of training necessary for performance optimization. Research on the

impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately trained

subjects does not support the current interval craze, but the evidence does

suggest that short intense training bouts and longer continuous exercise

sessions should both be a part of effective endurance training. Elite endurance

athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below

their lactate threshold

and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly. Studies involving

intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have shown

equivocal results at best.

The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-intensity

training with careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the

annual training cycle is the best-practice model for development of endurance

performance. KEYWORDS: lactate threshold, maximal oxygen uptake, VO2max,

periodization.

Conclusions

Optimization of training methods is an area of great interest for scientists,

athletes, and fitness enthusiasts. One challenge for sport scientists is to

translate short-term training intervention study results to long-term

performance development and fitness training organization. Currently, there is

great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs.

However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods

of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to

over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of

intensity over duration.

Here are some conclusions that seem warranted by the available data and

experience from observations of elite performers:

• There is reasonable evidence that an ~80:20 ratio of low to high

intensity training (HIT) gives excellent long-term results among endurance

athletes training daily.

• Low intensity (typically below 2 mM blood lactate), longer duration

training is effective in stimulating physiological adaptations and should not be

viewed as wasted training time.

• Over a broad range, increases in total training volume correlate well

with improvements in physiological variables and performance.

• HIT should be a part of the training program of all exercisers and

endurance athletes. However, about two training sessions per week using this

modality seems to be sufficient for achieving performance gains without inducing

excessive stress.

• The effects of HIT on physiology and performance are fairly rapid,

but rapid plateau effects are seen as well. To avoid premature stagnation and

ensure long-term development, training volume should increase systematically as

well.

• When already well-trained athletes markedly intensify training with

more HIT over 12 to ~45 wk, the impact is equivocal.

• In athletes with an established endurance base and tolerance for

relatively high training loads, intensification of training may yield small

performance gains at acceptable risk.

• An established endurance base built from reasonably high volumes of

training may be an important precondition for tolerating and responding well to

a substantial increase in training intensity over the short term.

• Periodization of training by elite athletes is achieved with

reductions in total volume, and a modest increase in the volume of training

performed above the lactate threshold. An overall polarization of training

intensity characterizes the transition from preparation to competition

mesocycles. The basic intensity distribution remains similar throughout the

year.

============ ========= ==

Carruthers

Wakefield, UK

[Guest guest]

What studies are the authors

referring to when they state,  “Research

on the impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately

trained subjects does not support the current interval craze†or, “Studies

involving intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have

shown equivocal results at best.† 

What is always hard to follow

in these types of articles is what events are they  talking about when

they speak of endurance and what do they mean by high intensity versus low

intensity.  A marathoner running

along at the 2 mM blood lactate level that the authors refer to as low

intensity is training a lot more intensely relative to the demands of his event

than an 800 meter or 1500 meter specialist at the same pace.  

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn@...>

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 3:12 AM

This article is interesting and basically confirms what most endurance

athletes have known and practiced for years. There is no shortcut when it comes

to developing high level endurance. While high intensity intervals have their

place in any endurance training they cannot replace the need of building a

strong and broad endurance base. Understanding the different physiological and

metabolical changes that occur which occur with the different modes of training

is key.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

____________ _________ _________ __

From: carruthersjam <Carruthersjam@ aol.com>

Supertraining

Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:03:49 PM

Subject: Endurance training - high-intensity interval training

Members may enjoy reading the below extracts:

Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and

Duration in Endurance Training

http://sportsci. org/2009/ ss.htm

Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2

Endurance training involves manipulation of intensity, duration, and frequency

of training sessions. The relative impact of short, high-intensity training

versus longer, slower distance training has been studied and debated for decades

among athletes, coaches, and scientists. Currently, the popularity pendulum has

swung towards high-intensity interval training. Many fitness experts, as well

as some scientists, now argue that brief, high-intensity interval work is the

only form of training necessary for performance optimization. Research on the

impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately trained

subjects does not support the current interval craze, but the evidence does

suggest that short intense training bouts and longer continuous exercise

sessions should both be a part of effective endurance training. Elite endurance

athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below

their lactate threshold

and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly. Studies involving

intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have shown

equivocal results at best.

The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-intensity

training with careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the

annual training cycle is the best-practice model for development of endurance

performance. KEYWORDS: lactate threshold, maximal oxygen uptake, VO2max,

periodization.

Conclusions

Optimization of training methods is an area of great interest for scientists,

athletes, and fitness enthusiasts. One challenge for sport scientists is to

translate short-term training intervention study results to long-term

performance development and fitness training organization. Currently, there is

great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs.

However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods

of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to

over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of

intensity over duration.

Here are some conclusions that seem warranted by the available data and

experience from observations of elite performers:

• There is reasonable evidence that an ~80:20 ratio of low to high

intensity training (HIT) gives excellent long-term results among endurance

athletes training daily.

• Low intensity (typically below 2 mM blood lactate), longer duration

training is effective in stimulating physiological adaptations and should not be

viewed as wasted training time.

• Over a broad range, increases in total training volume correlate well

with improvements in physiological variables and performance.

• HIT should be a part of the training program of all exercisers and

endurance athletes. However, about two training sessions per week using this

modality seems to be sufficient for achieving performance gains without inducing

excessive stress.

• The effects of HIT on physiology and performance are fairly rapid,

but rapid plateau effects are seen as well. To avoid premature stagnation and

ensure long-term development, training volume should increase systematically as

well.

• When already well-trained athletes markedly intensify training with

more HIT over 12 to ~45 wk, the impact is equivocal.

• In athletes with an established endurance base and tolerance for

relatively high training loads, intensification of training may yield small

performance gains at acceptable risk.

• An established endurance base built from reasonably high volumes of

training may be an important precondition for tolerating and responding well to

a substantial increase in training intensity over the short term.

• Periodization of training by elite athletes is achieved with

reductions in total volume, and a modest increase in the volume of training

performed above the lactate threshold. An overall polarization of training

intensity characterizes the transition from preparation to competition

mesocycles. The basic intensity distribution remains similar throughout the

year.

============ ========= ==

[Guest guest]

Runners at various training ages have been successful from the 10K down

using either a low mileage or high mileage program;. The relative merits of

each approach have been discussed and debated for a while now. Research,

comfort level, 'common sense,' and overarching philosophy are just a few

reasons why a coach chooses one approach over another. But how is it that both

approaches can achieve desired results? For an interesting research based

view of this issue, forum members should check out RIchard Gibbens's

website: _www.powerrunning.com_ (http://www.powerrunning.com)

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the reference- I have begun to skim through the reference and

plan on reading and studying it thourougly. It appears that this site will rank

up there with Dr. Seilers website.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: " CoachJ1@... " <CoachJ1@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 7:51:07 AM

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Runners at various training ages have been successful from the 10K down

using either a low mileage or high mileage program;. The relative merits of

each approach have been discussed and debated for a while now. Research,

comfort level, 'common sense,' and overarching philosophy are just a few

reasons why a coach chooses one approach over another. But how is it that both

approaches can achieve desired results? For an interesting research based

view of this issue, forum members should check out RIchard Gibbens's

website: _www.powerrunning. com_ (http://www.powerrunning.com)

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Jon you make some very good points. I suspect that when they talk about the

interval craze they are referring to the latest trend that I have noted in some

posts on this forum and other that seem advocate all intervals all the time

(akin to the HIT advocates in resistance training.)

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: Jon Haddan <jon_haddan@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Thu, November 12, 2009 7:06:40 PM

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

What studies are the authors

referring to when they state, “Research

on the impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately

trained subjects does not support the current interval craze†or, “Studies

involving intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have

shown equivocal results at best.â€

What is always hard to follow

in these types of articles is what events are they talking about when

they speak of endurance and what do they mean by high intensity versus low

intensity. A marathoner running

along at the 2 mM blood lactate level that the authors refer to as low

intensity is training a lot more intensely relative to the demands of his event

than an 800 meter or 1500 meter specialist at the same pace.

Jon Haddan

Irvine, CA

From: Ralph Giarnella <ragiarn (DOT) com>

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Supertraining

Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 3:12 AM

This article is interesting and basically confirms what most endurance athletes

have known and practiced for years. There is no shortcut when it comes to

developing high level endurance. While high intensity intervals have their

place in any endurance training they cannot replace the need of building a

strong and broad endurance base. Understanding the different physiological and

metabolical changes that occur which occur with the different modes of training

is key.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

____________ _________ _________ __

From: carruthersjam <Carruthersjam@ aol.com>

Supertraining

Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 3:03:49 PM

Subject: Endurance training - high-intensity interval training

Members may enjoy reading the below extracts:

Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and

Duration in Endurance Training

http://sportsci. org/2009/ ss.htm

Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2

Endurance training involves manipulation of intensity, duration, and frequency

of training sessions. The relative impact of short, high-intensity training

versus longer, slower distance training has been studied and debated for decades

among athletes, coaches, and scientists. Currently, the popularity pendulum has

swung towards high-intensity interval training. Many fitness experts, as well

as some scientists, now argue that brief, high-intensity interval work is the

only form of training necessary for performance optimization. Research on the

impact of interval and continuous training with untrained to moderately trained

subjects does not support the current interval craze, but the evidence does

suggest that short intense training bouts and longer continuous exercise

sessions should both be a part of effective endurance training. Elite endurance

athletes perform 80 % or more of their training at intensities clearly below

their lactate threshold

and use high-intensity training surprisingly sparingly. Studies involving

intensification of training in already well-trained athletes have shown

equivocal results at best.

The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-intensity

training with careful use of high-intensity interval training throughout the

annual training cycle is the best-practice model for development of endurance

performance. KEYWORDS: lactate threshold, maximal oxygen uptake, VO2max,

periodization.

Conclusions

Optimization of training methods is an area of great interest for scientists,

athletes, and fitness enthusiasts. One challenge for sport scientists is to

translate short-term training intervention study results to long-term

performance development and fitness training organization. Currently, there is

great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs.

However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods

of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to

over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of

intensity over duration.

Here are some conclusions that seem warranted by the available data and

experience from observations of elite performers:

• There is reasonable evidence that an ~80:20 ratio of low to high

intensity training (HIT) gives excellent long-term results among endurance

athletes training daily.

• Low intensity (typically below 2 mM blood lactate), longer duration

training is effective in stimulating physiological adaptations and should not be

viewed as wasted training time.

• Over a broad range, increases in total training volume correlate well

with improvements in physiological variables and performance.

• HIT should be a part of the training program of all exercisers and

endurance athletes. However, about two training sessions per week using this

modality seems to be sufficient for achieving performance gains without inducing

excessive stress.

• The effects of HIT on physiology and performance are fairly rapid,

but rapid plateau effects are seen as well. To avoid premature stagnation and

ensure long-term development, training volume should increase systematically as

well.

• When already well-trained athletes markedly intensify training with

more HIT over 12 to ~45 wk, the impact is equivocal.

• In athletes with an established endurance base and tolerance for

relatively high training loads, intensification of training may yield small

performance gains at acceptable risk.

• An established endurance base built from reasonably high volumes of

training may be an important precondition for tolerating and responding well to

a substantial increase in training intensity over the short term.

• Periodization of training by elite athletes is achieved with

reductions in total volume, and a modest increase in the volume of training

performed above the lactate threshold. An overall polarization of training

intensity characterizes the transition from preparation to competition

mesocycles. The basic intensity distribution remains similar throughout the

year.

============ ========= ==

[Guest guest]

Coach, I have read Gibbens's program, however he seems to contradict himself in

several places and seems to twist some data to fit his thesis. What is your

take on his program. I am not a runner, my preferred sport is cycling which

while similar has some differences to the training for running. I would like to

hear your opinion on this subject.

There is not question that high intensity interval training is important but so

are other types of training including SST training and Tempo training.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: " CoachJ1@... " <CoachJ1@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 7:51:07 AM

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Runners at various training ages have been successful from the 10K down

using either a low mileage or high mileage program;. The relative merits of

each approach have been discussed and debated for a while now. Research,

comfort level, 'common sense,' and overarching philosophy are just a few

reasons why a coach chooses one approach over another. But how is it that both

approaches can achieve desired results? For an interesting research based

view of this issue, forum members should check out RIchard Gibbens's

website: _www.powerrunning. com_ (http://www.powerrunning.com)

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Hi Ralph!

In a message dated 11/15/2009 4:29:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

ragiarn@... writes:

Coach, I have read Gibbens's program, however he seems to contradict

himself in several places and seems to twist some data to fit his thesis. What

is your take on his program

After Dr. Weyand’s highly controversial sprint paper from 2000, I

invited Dr. Weyand to come to a Lisle for a day long seminar to explain the

key issues in that study. Similar plans for bringing to Lisle for

a seminar are already moving forward.

What does effectively is to take on the very large " elephant in

the distance running room " that few coaches have tried to explain using a

science based approach. And what is that ‘elephant�

We note with great confidence that athletes get better at running by

running, and the more they run the better they get. And the evidence seems so

clear that we wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would challenge

that. Elites do not train with low mileage, and increasing weekly mileage

will improve anyone’s performance

Yet time and again I’ve watched as athletes perform at a high level from

5K down to the 1500 without an extensive endurance based background. I’ve

witnessed an athlete miss all but two meets during the cross country season

due to a stress fracture, come back on a regimen of pool work and biking,

win those two meets, and eventually the state championship. On my own,

team our number one girl is a freshman. She was the number one runner from the

first day of practice. She was also our fourth fastest miler overall, and

that includes both boys as well as girls. How much of my training program

has enabled her to get to this point? What did I bring to the table to get

her this accomplished so early in her career?

So how do we explain these performances without necessarily challenging

either the high mileage or low mileage approach? As notes, “just

because someone is slow doesn't mean they won't benefit most from a high

mileage program and just because someone is fast doesn't mean they won't

benefit most from a lower mileage program.â€

He’s consulted with Tim Noakes on these issues for some time, and he’s

drawn these conclusions:

1) There are no controlled studies that show higher mileage produces

superior race performance

2) the effectiveness of higher mileage is contradicted by multiple

research studies.

So why does “common training sense†take us one way and the research

apparently another?

I like ’s insight:

“The really interesting thing is that both sides are right. Elites do run

high mileage and anecdotal evidence is that their performance improves

with increases in mileage up to somewhere around 100 miles per week. And

hundreds to thousands of runners have increased their weekly mileage and seen

their performance improve significantly.â€

But does everyone need to put in this kind of mileage to be successful?

His explanation raises an interesting question that we've debated on this

forum on several occasions: what role does " genetic talent " play?

brings up some good questions:

" Does genetics only influence performance (how fast you can run, for

example) or does it influence other things also? Could genetics play a role in

how much you can train? Is it possible that genetics determine how fast you

recover from a workout? How much intensity you can handle? "

And I like his overarching philosophy: “My bias is that some people have

the biomechanics and talent to benefit from higher mileage programs. Others,

not so much.â€

He believes that the genetic factors at work that allow the fast runners

to run so very fast also generally allow them to run and benefit from

relatively high training loads. Those genetic factors that cause an individual

to

run at average or below average paces also prevent them from thriving on

relatively high training loads or mileages.

So what do I think of all this? I like those who try to find answers to

the puzzles and paradoxes in training, mechanics, and physiology. And I

appreciate insights on how it is that my 110 pound freshman girl who, with no

serious distance running base other than conditioning gained through junior

high soccer and basketball, can be the fourth fastest miler on my entire

team, which includes fourteen seniors?

We've all had our " epiphany moments " that have compelled us to rethink

time honored training concepts. Owen went through a similar

epiphany moment after trying to come up with a science based answer to why an

accomplished distance runner like Kenya’s Mike Boit failed so dismally in

cross

country skiing at the '98 Games. Shouldn't his " lofty aerobic capacity and

excellent endurance automatically lead to outstanding skiing performancesâ€

? They didn't, and that led Owen to formulate his overarching philosophy

of running as a ‘neural thing.’

I believe ’s own running career has served as his epiphany moment,

and has influenced his overarching philosophy.

Whether we agree with him or not, I applaud his efforts

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan!

In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

danzucconi@... writes:

Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

+ mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

one in his upper body...

You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

Aurora:

" Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

participating in the sport since childhood.

Owen continues:

" Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

with

a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow on

thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance training

which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the gait

cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific strengthening

exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics). Over

time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Regarding the following comment from your post:

" Does genetics only influence performance (how fast you can run, for

example) or does it influence other things also? Could genetics play a role

in

how much you can train? Is it possible that genetics determine how fast

you

recover from a workout? How much intensity you can handle? "

Genetics influences it all and the last 3 issues you mention are

interrelated. The primary difference between elite athletes and everyone else is

the

capacity to do more training.

I recall Dave Bedford who set a 10k world record of 27:30.8 in 1973 who had

a best of 55.9 for the 400 (with a rolling start). I could run a 55.9 back

then, what I would never be able to do is run 200 miles in a week. I

contend that a decent runner can run one rep or one mile of a long run at the

pace of an elite does, they just can't run reps repeatedly at that pace and

with the recuperation the elite runner does, nor can they run long runs as

long, repeatedly.

Aldo Pedroso

Chicago, IL

In a message dated 11/15/2009 10:32:20 A.M. Central Standard Time,

CoachJ1@... writes:

Hi Ralph!

In a message dated 11/15/2009 4:29:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

_ragiarn@..._ (mailto:ragiarn@...) writes:

Coach, I have read Gibbens's program, however he seems to contradict

himself in several places and seems to twist some data to fit his thesis.

What

is your take on his program

After Dr. Weyand’s highly controversial sprint paper from 2000, I

invited Dr. Weyand to come to a Lisle for a day long seminar to explain

the

key issues in that study. Similar plans for bringing to Lisle for

a seminar are already moving forward.

What does effectively is to take on the very large " elephant in

the distance running room " that few coaches have tried to explain using a

science based approach. And what is that ‘elephant�

We note with great confidence that athletes get better at running by

running, and the more they run the better they get. And the evidence seems

so

clear that we wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would challenge

that. Elites do not train with low mileage, and increasing weekly mileage

will improve anyone’s performance

Yet time and again I’ve watched as athletes perform at a high level from

5K down to the 1500 without an extensive endurance based background. I’ve

witnessed an athlete miss all but two meets during the cross country

season

due to a stress fracture, come back on a regimen of pool work and biking,

win those two meets, and eventually the state championship. On my own,

team our number one girl is a freshman. She was the number one runner from

the

first day of practice. She was also our fourth fastest miler overall, and

that includes both boys as well as girls. How much of my training program

has enabled her to get to this point? What did I bring to the table to get

her this accomplished so early in her career?

So how do we explain these performances without necessarily challenging

either the high mileage or low mileage approach? As notes, “just

because someone is slow doesn't mean they won't benefit most from a high

mileage program and just because someone is fast doesn't mean they won't

benefit most from a lower mileage program.â€

He’s consulted with Tim Noakes on these issues for some time, and he’s

drawn these conclusions:

1) There are no controlled studies that show higher mileage produces

superior race performance

2) the effectiveness of higher mileage is contradicted by multiple

research studies.

So why does “common training sense†take us one way and the research

apparently another?

I like ’s insight:

“The really interesting thing is that both sides are right. Elites do run

high mileage and anecdotal evidence is that their performance improves

with increases in mileage up to somewhere around 100 miles per week. And

hundreds to thousands of runners have increased their weekly mileage and

seen

their performance improve significantly.â€

But does everyone need to put in this kind of mileage to be successful?

His explanation raises an interesting question that we've debated on this

forum on several occasions: what role does " genetic talent " play?

brings up some good questions:

" Does genetics only influence performance (how fast you can run, for

example) or does it influence other things also? Could genetics play a

role in

how much you can train? Is it possible that genetics determine how fast

you

recover from a workout? How much intensity you can handle? "

And I like his overarching philosophy: “My bias is that some people have

the biomechanics and talent to benefit from higher mileage programs.

Others,

not so much.â€

He believes that the genetic factors at work that allow the fast runners

to run so very fast also generally allow them to run and benefit from

relatively high training loads. Those genetic factors that cause an

individual to

run at average or below average paces also prevent them from thriving on

relatively high training loads or mileages.

So what do I think of all this? I like those who try to find answers to

the puzzles and paradoxes in training, mechanics, and physiology. And I

appreciate insights on how it is that my 110 pound freshman girl who, with

no

serious distance running base other than conditioning gained through

junior

high soccer and basketball, can be the fourth fastest miler on my entire

team, which includes fourteen seniors?

We've all had our " epiphany moments " that have compelled us to rethink

time honored training concepts. Owen went through a similar

epiphany moment after trying to come up with a science based answer to why

an

accomplished distance runner like Kenya’s Mike Boit failed so dismally in

cross

country skiing at the '98 Games. Shouldn't his " lofty aerobic capacity and

excellent endurance automatically lead to outstanding skiing performancesâ€

? They didn't, and that led Owen to formulate his overarching philosophy

of running as a ‘neural thing.’

I believe ’s own running career has served as his epiphany moment,

and has influenced his overarching philosophy.

Whether we agree with him or not, I applaud his efforts

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the upper

body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a very good

runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network + mitochondria

(etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching one in his upper

body...so when he started skiing, although his upper body wanted more blood, the

capillary network in his lower body " took all the blood " leaving his upper body

with a lower supply than the demand...this would result in Boit having to use

more oxygen independent (old anaerobic ideas)means to generate the demand for

ATP in his upper body...knowing that oxygen independent is limited in the amount

of time it can " last " that would result in him not being able to compete with

the athletes with a more " aerobic " upper bodies...if you start bringing in

Noakes' central governor (CGM)idea, that the body will do whatever it takes to

protect blood and O2 supply to the heart, brain, then we could really see where

Boit runs into problems...his legs demand a lot of blood and O2...his upper body

demands blood and O2...we have to draw the line somewhere to protect his vitals

so the CGM starts to shut down motor units...forcing the working ones to do even

more work...

just some ideas.

Dan Zucconi

Mississauga Ontario Canada

>

> Hi Ralph!

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2009 4:29:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> ragiarn@... writes:

>

> Coach, I have read Gibbens's program, however he seems to contradict

> himself in several places and seems to twist some data to fit his thesis.

What

> is your take on his program

>

>

> After Dr. Weyand’s highly controversial sprint paper from 2000, I

> invited Dr. Weyand to come to a Lisle for a day long seminar to explain the

> key issues in that study. Similar plans for bringing to Lisle for

> a seminar are already moving forward.

> What does effectively is to take on the very large " elephant in

> the distance running room " that few coaches have tried to explain using a

> science based approach. And what is that ‘elephant�

> We note with great confidence that athletes get better at running by

> running, and the more they run the better they get. And the evidence seems

so

> clear that we wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would challenge

> that. Elites do not train with low mileage, and increasing weekly mileage

> will improve anyone’s performance

> Yet time and again I’ve watched as athletes perform at a high level from

> 5K down to the 1500 without an extensive endurance based background. I’ve

> witnessed an athlete miss all but two meets during the cross country season

> due to a stress fracture, come back on a regimen of pool work and biking,

> win those two meets, and eventually the state championship. On my own,

> team our number one girl is a freshman. She was the number one runner from

the

> first day of practice. She was also our fourth fastest miler overall, and

> that includes both boys as well as girls. How much of my training program

> has enabled her to get to this point? What did I bring to the table to get

> her this accomplished so early in her career?

> So how do we explain these performances without necessarily challenging

> either the high mileage or low mileage approach? As notes, “just

> because someone is slow doesn't mean they won't benefit most from a high

> mileage program and just because someone is fast doesn't mean they won't

> benefit most from a lower mileage program.â€

> He’s consulted with Tim Noakes on these issues for some time, and he’s

> drawn these conclusions:

> 1) There are no controlled studies that show higher mileage produces

> superior race performance

> 2) the effectiveness of higher mileage is contradicted by multiple

> research studies.

>

> So why does “common training sense†take us one way and the research

> apparently another?

> I like ’s insight:

> “The really interesting thing is that both sides are right. Elites do run

> high mileage and anecdotal evidence is that their performance improves

> with increases in mileage up to somewhere around 100 miles per week. And

> hundreds to thousands of runners have increased their weekly mileage and seen

> their performance improve significantly.â€

> But does everyone need to put in this kind of mileage to be successful?

> His explanation raises an interesting question that we've debated on this

> forum on several occasions: what role does " genetic talent " play?

> brings up some good questions:

> " Does genetics only influence performance (how fast you can run, for

> example) or does it influence other things also? Could genetics play a role

in

> how much you can train? Is it possible that genetics determine how fast you

> recover from a workout? How much intensity you can handle? "

>

> And I like his overarching philosophy: “My bias is that some people have

> the biomechanics and talent to benefit from higher mileage programs. Others,

> not so much.â€

> He believes that the genetic factors at work that allow the fast runners

> to run so very fast also generally allow them to run and benefit from

> relatively high training loads. Those genetic factors that cause an

individual to

> run at average or below average paces also prevent them from thriving on

> relatively high training loads or mileages.

> So what do I think of all this? I like those who try to find answers to

> the puzzles and paradoxes in training, mechanics, and physiology. And I

> appreciate insights on how it is that my 110 pound freshman girl who, with no

> serious distance running base other than conditioning gained through junior

> high soccer and basketball, can be the fourth fastest miler on my entire

> team, which includes fourteen seniors?

> We've all had our " epiphany moments " that have compelled us to rethink

> time honored training concepts. Owen went through a similar

> epiphany moment after trying to come up with a science based answer to why an

> accomplished distance runner like Kenya’s Mike Boit failed so dismally in

cross

> country skiing at the '98 Games. Shouldn't his " lofty aerobic capacity and

> excellent endurance automatically lead to outstanding skiing performancesâ€

> ? They didn't, and that led Owen to formulate his overarching philosophy

> of running as a ‘neural thing.’

> I believe ’s own running career has served as his epiphany moment,

> and has influenced his overarching philosophy.

> Whether we agree with him or not, I applaud his efforts

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Coach J...

Thanks for the stuff...haven't read the book but sounds

interesting...if you combing the neural/efficiency stuff that writes

about with the possible metabolic problems that I stated, never mind possible

respiratory limitations and cardiac hemodynamics, Boit didn't have a

chance...similar to Armstrong vs. Tergat...similar " max VO2 " ...different

results...

Cheers

Dan Zucconi

Mississauga Ontario Canada

>

> Hi Dan!

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> danzucconi@... writes:

>

> Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

> upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

> very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

> + mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

> one in his upper body...

>

> You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

> Aurora:

>

> " Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

> that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

> the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

> participating in the sport since childhood.

>

> Owen continues:

>

> " Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

> not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

> required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

with

> a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

> rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow on

> thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

> but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

> skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

> sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

>

> And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

>

> Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

> of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

> system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

> high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance

training

> which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the gait

> cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific strengthening

> exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics). Over

> time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

> for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

> missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for very thoughtful and detailed response. I down loaded most of the

pages of his website for future referral and for study. In general I like what

he wrote.

The problem I have with his discussion is that the term volume is never defined

by him nor by anyone else for that matter. It is clear that volume for the sake

of volume has its limitation. One would should not expect a 1500 m runner to

put in the same mileage as a marathoner so in my opinion there has to be a

correlation between the volume and the event.

I recall a discussion with a cycling coach (Walter Golebiewski) at the Olympic

training center in the late 1980s, during which he compared the two of the

basic elements of cycling namely endurance and speed to the wings of an airplane

(or a seesaw if that analogy helps). He noted that as you one wing tip goes up

the other will go down.

When it comes down to endurance training the question has to be how much

endurance one needs for the event. The endurance a 1500m runner needs is for

about 4 minutes whereas the endurance for a marathoner has to be for 2+ hours.

My issue with his writing is how he uses some of his data. For instance in

discussing volume he states the following:

" Despite what conventional wisdom preaches about the importance of weekly

mileage, science does not back up this belief. There are no definitive studies

showing that increases in volume result in improved performance "

He then states the following:

" Recall the study by Hickson, referenced in part 6 of this series, which

showed a decrease in performance despite maintaining exercise volume " -

What he fails to state is that in the study by Hickson that the athletes after

building their endurance to a certain volume thee were told to keep the same

volume over a period of time but to decrease the intensity by either 1/3 or

2/3- the conclusion was tha those who decrease intensity by 1/3 had their

performance decrease and those who cut by 2/3 had their performance decrease

even more- The problem was not maintaining the same the volume but the decrease

in intensity that caused the decrease in performance.

The irony is that when he quoted the study earlier he included the entire study

including the fact of the decreased intensity.

On the other hand he states the following:

" Research has shown that longer duration workouts exerts a strong influence on

the body and results in improved performance. " to me longer duration workouts =

greater volume. "

I agree that there is a limit to how much volume will contribute to improved

performance. As with everything else there is a point of diminishing returns.

One could turn the argument around and have an individual increase their

intensity but decrease their volume. They might become faster but not have

enough endurance to finish the race.

There needs to be a balance between speed and endurance which is commeasurate

with the distance raced.

Perhaps the most important point he makes , in my opinion, is the following:

" One of the ways the body reacts to the stress of the load placed on it

via training is by improving - it gets faster, stronger, and/or more

fit. The more of a load you place on the body, the more the body

improves - up to a point. Your body responds to training by getting

more fit, but there is a maximum or optimal training load. Placing a

load on your body greater than your body can handle will not result in

even greater fitness or a better performance. Instead it will result

in a sub-optimal performance and/or overtraining and/or injury. "

In my opinion this principle needs to be applied to all aspects of training,

volume, intensity, frequency-

As I have pointed out in previous posts, unfortunately we often have these

discussions without difinition of terms. What is meant by volume or intensity?

These are relative terms which out of context mean nothing.

Again, perhaps I am just nit picking but I feel that the way her presented his

data leaves it hopen to mis-interpretation.

My feeling is that volume, intensity and frequency of training need to be

tailored to the individual as well as for the distance of the event. The

biggest problem I find with athletes, and some coaches, is that they are

impatient and try to increase volume, intensity and frequency of training

simultaneously without regard to adequate time for recovery and adaptation.

This approach leads to stress and overuse injuries, overtraining stagnation and

poor performance.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: " CoachJ1@... " <CoachJ1@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 11:17:47 AM

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Hi Ralph!

In a message dated 11/15/2009 4:29:51 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

ragiarn (DOT) com writes:

Coach, I have read Gibbens's program, however he seems to contradict

himself in several places and seems to twist some data to fit his thesis. What

is your take on his program

After Dr. Weyand’s highly controversial sprint paper from 2000, I

invited Dr. Weyand to come to a Lisle for a day long seminar to explain the

key issues in that study. Similar plans for bringing to Lisle for

a seminar are already moving forward.

What does effectively is to take on the very large " elephant in

the distance running room " that few coaches have tried to explain using a

science based approach. And what is that ‘elephant�

We note with great confidence that athletes get better at running by

running, and the more they run the better they get. And the evidence seems so

clear that we wonder why anyone in his or her right mind would challenge

that. Elites do not train with low mileage, and increasing weekly mileage

will improve anyone’s performance

Yet time and again I’ve watched as athletes perform at a high level from

5K down to the 1500 without an extensive endurance based background. I’ve

witnessed an athlete miss all but two meets during the cross country season

due to a stress fracture, come back on a regimen of pool work and biking,

win those two meets, and eventually the state championship. On my own,

team our number one girl is a freshman. She was the number one runner from the

first day of practice. She was also our fourth fastest miler overall, and

that includes both boys as well as girls. How much of my training program

has enabled her to get to this point? What did I bring to the table to get

her this accomplished so early in her career?

So how do we explain these performances without necessarily challenging

either the high mileage or low mileage approach? As notes, “just

because someone is slow doesn't mean they won't benefit most from a high

mileage program and just because someone is fast doesn't mean they won't

benefit most from a lower mileage program.â€

He’s consulted with Tim Noakes on these issues for some time, and he’s

drawn these conclusions:

1) There are no controlled studies that show higher mileage produces

superior race performance

2) the effectiveness of higher mileage is contradicted by multiple

research studies.

So why does “common training sense†take us one way and the research

apparently another?

I like ’s insight:

“The really interesting thing is that both sides are right. Elites do run

high mileage and anecdotal evidence is that their performance improves

with increases in mileage up to somewhere around 100 miles per week. And

hundreds to thousands of runners have increased their weekly mileage and seen

their performance improve significantly.â€

But does everyone need to put in this kind of mileage to be successful?

His explanation raises an interesting question that we've debated on this

forum on several occasions: what role does " genetic talent " play?

brings up some good questions:

" Does genetics only influence performance (how fast you can run, for

example) or does it influence other things also? Could genetics play a role in

how much you can train? Is it possible that genetics determine how fast you

recover from a workout? How much intensity you can handle? "

And I like his overarching philosophy: “My bias is that some people have

the biomechanics and talent to benefit from higher mileage programs. Others,

not so much.â€

He believes that the genetic factors at work that allow the fast runners

to run so very fast also generally allow them to run and benefit from

relatively high training loads. Those genetic factors that cause an individual

to

run at average or below average paces also prevent them from thriving on

relatively high training loads or mileages.

So what do I think of all this? I like those who try to find answers to

the puzzles and paradoxes in training, mechanics, and physiology. And I

appreciate insights on how it is that my 110 pound freshman girl who, with no

serious distance running base other than conditioning gained through junior

high soccer and basketball, can be the fourth fastest miler on my entire

team, which includes fourteen seniors?

We've all had our " epiphany moments " that have compelled us to rethink

time honored training concepts. Owen went through a similar

epiphany moment after trying to come up with a science based answer to why an

accomplished distance runner like Kenya’s Mike Boit failed so dismally in

cross

country skiing at the '98 Games. Shouldn't his " lofty aerobic capacity and

excellent endurance automatically lead to outstanding skiing performancesâ€

? They didn't, and that led Owen to formulate his overarching philosophy

of running as a ‘neural thing.’

I believe ’s own running career has served as his epiphany moment,

and has influenced his overarching philosophy.

Whether we agree with him or not, I applaud his efforts

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Another example of an endurance athlete not being able to translate that

endurance from his chosen sport to another sport is Lance Armstrong. Considered

one of the best endurance athletes managed an average marathon which he

described as the hardest race he ever endured. It is not enough to have a big

aerobic engine, the muscles have to adapt to the specific sport as well. Lance

in his teens was an excellent Triathlete so running was not totally new to him.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

________________________________

From: " CoachJ1@... " <CoachJ1@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Sun, November 15, 2009 2:05:29 PM

Subject: Re: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Hi Dan!

In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

danzucconihotmail (DOT) com writes:

Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

+ mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

one in his upper body...

You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

Aurora:

" Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

participating in the sport since childhood.

Owen continues:

" Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

with

a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow on

thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance training

which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the gait

cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific strengthening

exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics) . Over

time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

This seems to suggest that there is an ideal trade off between slow-twitch

fibers type I, fast twitch fibers type IIa and fast twitch fibers type IIx.

Has anybody seen studies that look at that and the respective contribution

of each to fatigue?

Giovanni Ciriani - West Hartford, CT - USA

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, <CoachJ1@...> wrote:

>

>

> Hi Dan!

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> danzucconi@... <danzucconi%40hotmail.com> writes:

>

> Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

> upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

> very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

> + mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

> one in his upper body...

>

> You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

> Aurora:

>

> " Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

> that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

> the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

> participating in the sport since childhood.

>

> Owen continues:

>

> " Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

> not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

> required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

> with

> a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

> rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow

> on

> thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

>

> but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

> skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

> sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

>

> And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

>

> Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

> of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

> system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

> high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance

> training

> which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the

> gait

> cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific

> strengthening

> exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics). Over

> time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

> for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

> missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Aldo!

In a message dated 11/16/2009 11:55:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, apol

lenaire@... writes:

Genetics influences it all and the last 3 issues you mention are

interrelated. The primary difference between elite athletes and everyone

else is the

capacity to do more training.

I very much agree with you, but the Geoff Colvins (Talent Is Overrated)

will take exception to this position. As Colvin notes in his book: " The

extreme increase in top levels of performance in a wide range of fields over the

past century have happened far too fast to be connected to genetic

changes, which require thousands of years. For that reason, it would seem

impossible to argue that genes are what make make people great at what they

do. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Guest guest]

Ken,

One crossover that seems to work well is rowing to cycling, which might be

somewhat counter-intuitive in the context of the discussion.

In Australia we have quite a few rowers making the cross to cycling. Drew Ginn,

a triple Olympic gold medalist has made a successfull move to cycling and won a

major race recently (TT anyway :-).

Then there's the fabulous Romero, Olympic cycling pursuit champ who made

her name as a world champ in sculling.

There are quite a few more examples.

Regarding the distance training thing, as I've expressed previously, I would be

very surprised if at the *elite* level one could swap mileage for intensity

beyond a certain threshold -- for most athletes.

However, why not test it? Do a year for year comparison and see how the

performances go?

Gympie, Australia

>

> Hi Dan!

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> danzucconi@... writes:

>

> Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

> upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

> very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

> + mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

> one in his upper body...

>

> You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

> Aurora:

>

> " Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

> that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

> the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

> participating in the sport since childhood.

>

> Owen continues:

>

> " Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

> not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

> required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

with

> a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

> rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow on

> thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

> but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

> skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

> sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

>

> And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

>

> Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

> of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

> system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

> high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance

training

> which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the gait

> cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific strengthening

> exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics). Over

> time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

> for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

> missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

When it is all said and done, athletes

need to train for the demands of their event.  As obvious as this is, it seems

to get lost in the

literature on lactate levels, mileage bases, tempo runs, intervals and the like.

 

Basketball players typically train on an

interval basis all year long.  They

don’t go out on long runs.  The

only variables are volume and intensity. 

In the off season, players play far more games than they do during the

season, in pickup games and summer leagues.  Volume is up, but intensity is

down. 

 

No one associated with basketball would

call this building a base.  It is

simply off season play that keeps one “in touch†with the game.  The real

conditioning comes in the

couple of months before the season when intensity is way up. 

 

Track has assigned special meaning to

this off season " play " and views it as base building for specific aerobic

purposes instead of just staying in touch with your event.  So milers and half

milers spend 3 months during the summer for

the most part  running long mileage to build a base (70 to 100 miles a

week) that is supposed to not only build an aerobic base but somehow get them

ready for the hard interval work to come.  It never really does of course. 

Just ask any middle distance runner what their legs feel

like a day or two after the first interval session following this long base

period.  The basketball player’s

legs may not be in game shape from summer ball either, but they are a lot closer

to

being in shape because summer ball is played at a lot closer pace to regular

season ball than an hour of 7 minute mile runs are to one 4 minute mile race.

 

The base period for the middle distance

runners goes on for almost half a year as they spend the fall running 5K’s in

cross country.  Our basketball

player might play football in the fall, but this isn’t considering

conditioning

for basketball.  It is a separate

sport.  If he doesn't play football, he is still playing basketball.

 

Having spent half of the year at an

intensity well below what they will have to race at, our middle distance

runners start training for their event for 2-3 months and compete in it for 2-3

months.  That is about the period that our basketball player engages in

serious conditioning and official competition.

 

Yes, the base period does develop aerobic

endurance, but in promoting base running some proponents seem to ignore the

fact that endurance is not only movement specific (as has been previously noted

in this thread with the references to Boit and Armstrong), but it is also

velocity specific.  If the milers

and marathoners are both engaging in essentially marathon based training during

the summer, who is staying in touch with their event and who is not? 

 

Interval training all the time obviously

won’t work for a marathoner, but it clearly works for a basketball player. 

The poor middle distance guys seem to fall

somewhere in between. 

Jon HaddanIrvine, CA

>

>

> Hi Dan!

>

> In a message dated 11/15/2009 1:29:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> danzucconihotmail (DOT) com <danzucconi% 40hotmail. com> writes:

>

> Is it possible that Boit did not put in the years necessary to develop the

> upper body " endurance " required of high level nordic skiing...if he was a

> very good runner, he would more than likely have a large capillary network

> + mitochondria (etc) supporting his lower body, but maybe not a matching

> one in his upper body...

>

> You observation is consistent with Owen's comments contained in his book,

> Aurora:

>

> " Skeptics, however, noted that Boit's skiing efficiency might be poor, and

> that in fact his skiing-specific strength would be modest, compared with

> the force outputs displayed by Scandinavian skiers who had been

> participating in the sport since childhood.

>

> Owen continues:

>

> " Philip's troubles in this race stemmed mainly from the fact that he was

> not yet supremely coordinated and forceful during the actual movements

> required for cross-country skiing. He was an outstanding endurance athlete

> with

> a huge heart and muscles bursting with oxidative capacity, but he was

> rather mediocre at the specific motions required to skim a body over snow

> on

> thin, rail-like structures. He could wax Bjorn Daehlie in a 10-K road race,

>

> but Bjorn would always return the favor in any event taking place on waxed

> skis. Nike, which had financed Philip's build-up to Nagano, dropped its

> sponsorship; clearly, Boit was not able to " just do it. "

>

> And here is Owen's epiphany moment:

>

> Boit's initial difficulties with cross-country skiing, occurring in spite

> of his great aerobic prowess, sparked my interest in developing a " neural

> system " of endurance training for runners which revolves around very

> high-quality, race-pace-type running, along with a form of resistance

> training

> which has the aim of maximally strengthening each and every part of the

> gait

> cycle of running (as opposed to more-general and less-specific

> strengthening

> exertions which don't focus closely on running's true biomechanics) . Over

> time, this system of training, inspired by Philip, has worked very well

> for both elite and mortal runners. I have to confess, however, that I

> missed the " big picture " associated with Philip's sporting pursuits. "

> Ken Jakalski

> Lisle High School

> Lisle, Illinois USA

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jon,

Arthur Lydiard might disagree. Personally, I think the question you raise

is if basketball players are in the best cardiovascular shape to play

basketball and the answer is they can't be because their sport has other

demands

than that of runners or as you put it " athletes need to train for the

demands of their event " . They have a 7-8 month continuous season while runners

have 2 month seasons.They can get pulled out of a game if their exhaustion

impacts the quality of their play, milers can't take a break on the third

lap.

Let me explain that the long distance milers and half milers put in DOES

prepare them for intervals. It does this by creating physiological changes

that allows them to do better interval training, for example development of

capillaries and growth of mitochondria. This does not mean that intervals

aren't grueling when you first initiate them into a training program. It

means that down the road instead of reaching a peak running 8 quarter miles in

61 you can do them in 60.

Very little true interval or repetition work is needed for an athlete with

a good base but even for that athlete it cannot be maintained very long, 2

months max. However to run them at the optimal intensity you need all that

background work (long miles).

Aldo Pedroso

Chicago, IL

In a message dated 11/17/2009 1:57:50 A.M. Central Standard Time,

jon_haddan@... writes:

When it is all said and done, athletes

need to train for the demands of their event. As obvious as this is, it

seems to get lost in the

literature on lactate levels, mileage bases, tempo runs, intervals and the

like.

Basketball players typically train on an

interval basis all year long. They

don’t go out on long runs. The

only variables are volume and intensity.

In the off season, players play far more games than they do during the

season, in pickup games and summer leagues. Volume is up, but intensity

is down.

No one associated with basketball would

call this building a base. It is

simply off season play that keeps one “in touch†with the game. The real

conditioning comes in the

couple of months before the season when intensity is way up.

Track has assigned special meaning to

this off season " play " and views it as base building for specific aerobic

purposes instead of just staying in touch with your event. So milers and

half milers spend 3 months during the summer for

the most part running long mileage to build a base (70 to 100 miles a

week) that is supposed to not only build an aerobic base but somehow get

them

ready for the hard interval work to come. It never really does of course.

Just ask any middle distance runner what their legs feel

like a day or two after the first interval session following this long base

period. The basketball player’s

legs may not be in game shape from summer ball either, but they are a lot

closer to

being in shape because summer ball is played at a lot closer pace to

regular

season ball than an hour of 7 minute mile runs are to one 4 minute mile

race.

The base period for the middle distance

runners goes on for almost half a year as they spend the fall running 5K’s

in

cross country. Our basketball

player might play football in the fall, but this isn’t considering

conditioning

for basketball. It is a separate

sport. If he doesn't play football, he is still playing basketball.

Having spent half of the year at an

intensity well below what they will have to race at, our middle distance

runners start training for their event for 2-3 months and compete in it

for 2-3

months. That is about the period that our basketball player engages in

serious conditioning and official competition.

Yes, the base period does develop aerobic

endurance, but in promoting base running some proponents seem to ignore the

fact that endurance is not only movement specific (as has been previously

noted

in this thread with the references to Boit and Armstrong), but it is also

velocity specific. If the milers

and marathoners are both engaging in essentially marathon based training

during

the summer, who is staying in touch with their event and who is not?

Interval training all the time obviously

won’t work for a marathoner, but it clearly works for a basketball player.

The poor middle distance guys seem to fall

somewhere in between.

Jon HaddanIrvine, CA

=====================================

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

Athletic performance has to be looked at in the context of time. What

Colvins is suggesting then is that Paavo Nurmi wasn't a great runner because

women can surpass his times. Bannister breaking 4 minutes is no big deal

because high schoolers can far surpass his accomplishments.

I contend (and agree with Colvins) that " the extreme increase in top levels

of performance in a wide range of fields over the past century " is not due

to genetics but to scientific study of sports and a greater number of

participants due to enhanced standards of living and professionalism. Where I

would disagree is my assertion that to perform, in any century, in the top

1% of athletes in a given discipline, requires genetic advantages over the

other 99% of the population.

Aldo Pedroso

Chicago, IL

In a message dated 11/17/2009 1:58:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,

CoachJ1@... writes:

Hi Aldo!

In a message dated 11/16/2009 11:55:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, apol

_lenaire@..._ (mailto:lenaire@...) writes:

Genetics influences it all and the last 3 issues you mention are

interrelated. The primary difference between elite athletes and everyone

else is the

capacity to do more training.

I very much agree with you, but the Geoff Colvins (Talent Is Overrated)

will take exception to this position. As Colvin notes in his book: " The

extreme increase in top levels of performance in a wide range of fields

over the

past century have happened far too fast to be connected to genetic

changes, which require thousands of years. For that reason, it would seem

impossible to argue that genes are what make make people great at what

they do. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Guest guest]

Hi Aldo!

In a message dated 11/16/2009 11:55:23 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, apol

lenaireaol (DOT) com writes:

Genetics influences it all and the last 3 issues you mention are

interrelated. The primary difference between elite athletes and everyone

else is the

capacity to do more training.

I very much agree with you, but the Geoff Colvins (Talent Is Overrated)

will take exception to this position. As Colvin notes in his book: " The

extreme increase in top levels of performance in a wide range of fields over the

past century have happened far too fast to be connected to genetic

changes, which require thousands of years. For that reason, it would seem

impossible to argue that genes are what make make people great at what they

do. "

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, IL USA

********************************************

The only problem with Colvin's premise is that he fails to take into

consideration of the economic changes thave occurred during the past century

that have influenced athletic achievements.

In the original modern Olympics most of the participants where the " amatuer "

athletes whowere primarily the rich people. For the most part the " masses "

where excluded because they had to work for a living. Over the past century and

especially post WWII athletics went from a part time activity to a full time

job with the real possibility of making at first a decent living and recently

well rewarded living.

In the 50s for example, even Major league baseball and American Football

players had to get part time jobs in the winter to supplement their salaries.

The Eastern Bloc countries began to support their " amateur " athletes in the 60s

and the Western countries began paying their athletes " under the table " . Once

the " amateur athletes " could actually make a living at their desired sport and

could devote more time to training the performances improved. Even the training

went from haphazard to well organized and even some scientific study came into

play.

As a result of this the genetically gifted have been able to reach their true

potential . Who know how much the advent of supplemental performance enhancers

have also helped alter that potential.

How many Africans and Asians participated in world sports befoe WWII? The gene

pool has grown exponetially.

The bottom line is that while all these economic and training changes have been

important the bottom line has to be it is still the genetically more gifted that

rise to the top. As they say a rising tide raises all ships.

If genetics were not that important how come I can't excel in the NBA or the NFL

, and why can't I become the fastest man in the world or the strongest man?

Genetics is still the most important non modifiable variable. Lance Armstrong

and Hincapie have been racing and training together since they were both

teenagers. Lance is seven time Tour De France winner and can count on

one hand the number of stages in the Tour that he has won despite the fact that

he has raced more stages than Lance has.

You brought up the example of the young freshman runner who, despite very little

training, is one of the fastest athletes on your team, which has athletes that

have been in training for almost 4 years. Genetics is what seperates that

freshman from the the seniors. What she does with those genetics will depend on

her and her coach.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

Hi Ralph!

In a message dated 11/17/2009 2:36:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

ragiarn@... writes:

You brought up the example of the young freshman runner who, despite very

little training, is one of the fastest athletes on your team, which has

athletes that have been in training for almost 4 years. Genetics is what

separates that freshman from the the seniors. What she does with those genetics

will depend on her and her coach.

Great post! Your economics analysis is fresh and insightful counter

approach to Colvin's argument.

Thanks again,

Ken Jakalski

Lisle High School

Lisle, Illinois USA

[Guest guest]

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Aldo Pedroso wrote

Let me explain that the long distance milers and half milers put in DOES

prepare them for intervals. It does this by creating physiological changes

that allows them to do better interval training, for example development of

capillaries and growth of mitochondria. This does not mean that intervals

aren't grueling when you first initiate them into a training program. It

means that down the road instead of reaching a peak running 8 quarter miles in

61 you can do them in 60.

Very little true interval or repetition work is needed for an athlete with

a good base but even for that athlete it cannot be maintained very long, 2

months max. However to run them at the optimal intensity you need all that

background work (long miles).

Aldo Pedroso

Chicago, IL

***********************

Aldo makes some very excellent points.

I would like to elaborate a little on what Aldo wrote. When it comes to

training endurance athletes there seems to be a poor understanding by many, not

just in the resistance world but even amongst endurance athletes, about what

exactly happens when athletes do their endurance sessions. Aldo already

mentioned the increased capillaries and mitochondria but there are also other

important changes that occur that are linked to these fundamental changes.

We have discussed recently the so called " fat burning zone " and I would like to

expand a little on this point.

The fat burning zone is generally referred to as the training intensity where

50% or more of the energy supplied is from fat. The books tell us that this

zone is at approximately the intensity of 55-60% of VO2 max HR. As the

intensity rises above 60% intensity the total amount of fat consumption remains

the same but glucose consumption increases dramatically all the way up through

the 100% VO2 max hr and above into the anaerobic zone.

This is important to remember because every muscle has a limited storage of

glucose and once this is used up the muscle can no longer contract at the

higher intensities thus limiting the amount of time the individuals can train or

race at these intensities. At the higher intensities glucose is being utilized

at a rate faster than can be replenished from the blood stream.

While the fat burning zone is in the 55-60% range for most beginners, this fat

burning zone is not the same for every one.

For the de-conditioned sedentary individual this zone may be reached at

intensities as low as 40% VO2 max hr and for the highly conditioned endurance

athlete this zone may extend all the way to 75% of VO2max hr or higher.

This becomes very important when discussing energy partitioning during exercise.

Since the endurance athlete can train or race at intensities as high as 75% of

VO2 HR max or higher and use mostly fat for energy that means that when the

athlete increases the intensity up to 85% or higher there is more glucose in

reserve to train or race longer in the higher intensity range. They can sustain

race pace at 75% or higher without dipping too much into the glucose reserves.

When racing, endurance athletes (especially in the longer events) ,generally do

negative splits, meaning the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the race is done at a lower

intensity (below LT) and in the last leg the intensity is increased to as far

above LT as they can tolerate and for as long as the can tolerate it. The

winner is the athlete with the greatest reserve of glucose in the tank at the

end of the race.

No matter how many high intensity intervals the athletes have done in the months

leading up to the race, the intervals will be useless if the athletes used up

all the glucose reserves in the early part of the race.

In marathons that point where the athlete runs out of glucose is call " hitting

the wall " which, in the poorly trained or paced runner, usually occurs at about

the 18 mile mark. Once the athlete hits the wall or bonks (term used by

cyclists) the athlete will be lucky if they have enough energy to walk the rest

of the way to the finish line.

If you follow marathons you will note that the winner is the one who can pick up

the pace over that last several miles. You watch the race and for the first

18-20 miles there are always 5-6 runners bunched at the front. Then suddenly

one of the runners picks up the pace ever so slightly and the others cannot

follow- what occurs rather quickly is that the bunch becomes a long line and

finally one by one the last runner in the line gets dropped until at the end

there is a big gap between all the runners the winner is trailed by the second

place by 50 or more yards.

It is at the end of the race when the high intensity intervals become important

but without the all important glucose to fuel the higher pace the athlete will

not be able to utilize those intervals.

To keep this post short I will try to write another post to illustrate how ,

based on my knowledge, endurance training raises that fat burning zone from 60%

yo 75% or higher.

Comments welcomed

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

Subject: Re: Endurance training - high-intensity interval

training

Aldo Pedroso wrote

Let me explain that the long distance milers and half milers put in DOES

prepare them for intervals. It does this by creating physiological changes

that allows them to do better interval training, for example development of

capillaries and growth of mitochondria. This does not mean that intervals

aren't grueling when you first initiate them into a training program. It

means that down the road instead of reaching a peak running 8 quarter miles in

61 you can do them in 60.

Very little true interval or repetition work is needed for an athlete with

a good base but even for that athlete it cannot be maintained very long, 2

months max. However to run them at the optimal intensity you need all that

background work (long miles).

Aldo Pedroso

Chicago, IL

***********************

Aldo makes some very excellent points.

I would like to elaborate a little on what Aldo wrote. When it comes to

training endurance athletes there seems to be a poor understanding by many, not

just in the resistance world but even amongst endurance athletes, about what

exactly happens when athletes do their endurance sessions. Aldo already

mentioned the increased capillaries and mitochondria but there are also other

important changes that occur that are linked to these fundamental changes.

We have discussed recently the so called " fat burning zone " and I would like to

expand a little on this point.

The fat burning zone is generally referred to as the training intensity where

50% or more of the energy supplied is from fat. The books tell us that this

zone is at approximately the intensity of 55-60% of VO2 max HR. As the

intensity rises above 60% intensity the total amount of fat consumption remains

the same but glucose consumption increases dramatically all the way up through

the 100% VO2 max hr and above into the anaerobic zone.

This is important to remember because every muscle has a limited storage of

glucose and once this is used up the muscle can no longer contract at the

higher intensities thus limiting the amount of time the individuals can train or

race at these intensities. At the higher intensities glucose is being utilized

at a rate faster than can be replenished from the blood stream.

While the fat burning zone is in the 55-60% range for most beginners, this fat

burning zone is not the same for every one.

For the de-conditioned sedentary individual this zone may be reached at

intensities as low as 40% VO2 max hr and for the highly conditioned endurance

athlete this zone may extend all the way to 75% of VO2max hr or higher.

This becomes very important when discussing energy partitioning during exercise.

Since the endurance athlete can train or race at intensities as high as 75% of

VO2 HR max or higher and use mostly fat for energy that means that when the

athlete increases the intensity up to 85% or higher there is more glucose in

reserve to train or race longer in the higher intensity range. They can sustain

race pace at 75% or higher without dipping too much into the glucose reserves.

When racing, endurance athletes (especially in the longer events) ,generally do

negative splits, meaning the first 2/3 or 3/4 of the race is done at a lower

intensity (below LT) and in the last leg the intensity is increased to as far

above LT as they can tolerate and for as long as the can tolerate it. The

winner is the athlete with the greatest reserve of glucose in the tank at the

end of the race.

No matter how many high intensity intervals the athletes have done in the months

leading up to the race, the intervals will be useless if the athletes used up

all the glucose reserves in the early part of the race.

In marathons that point where the athlete runs out of glucose is call " hitting

the wall " which, in the poorly trained or paced runner, usually occurs at about

the 18 mile mark. Once the athlete hits the wall or bonks (term used by

cyclists) the athlete will be lucky if they have enough energy to walk the rest

of the way to the finish line.

If you follow marathons you will note that the winner is the one who can pick up

the pace over that last several miles. You watch the race and for the first

18-20 miles there are always 5-6 runners bunched at the front. Then suddenly

one of the runners picks up the pace ever so slightly and the others cannot

follow- what occurs rather quickly is that the bunch becomes a long line and

finally one by one the last runner in the line gets dropped until at the end

there is a big gap between all the runners the winner is trailed by the second

place by 50 or more yards.

It is at the end of the race when the high intensity intervals become important

but without the all important glucose to fuel the higher pace the athlete will

not be able to utilize those intervals.

To keep this post short I will try to write another post to illustrate how ,

based on my knowledge, endurance training raises that fat burning zone from 60%

yo 75% or higher.

Comments welcomed

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA