|
| Know any good lactate threshold workouts? (Read 962 times) |
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 3:28 AM |
| One of my goals this year is to try to incorporate more lactate threshold work into my schedule. Any physiology experts out there able to explain the lactate threshold, why it's important, and what type of workout improves it? Thanks ahead of time. |
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
|
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 3:56 AM
modified: 1/7/2007 at 3:56 AM |
Run until you puke and then keep running...
Jeff, I will try and get to your question ASAP. This is an interesting question, and Noakes in the Lore of Running addresses it at length, but so did Guy Avery in the latest issue of Marathon and Beyond (you can borrow my copy of either if you'd like). I am between two massive long days of work and I am sure others will weigh in, but I will get some info ASAP.
In brief, there used to be a belief that as you workout, your body burns sugars aerobically, until you cross some threshold and then you burn anaerobically and produce lactic acid. It turns out that there really is no threshold and you are always producing lactic acid and always burnign sugars both aerobically AND anaerobically, but the idea remains. The effect of increasing this now-disproven lactate threshold still seems to improve fitness. Basically what you are doing in LT workouts is to increase the effort you can expend while keeping your workout aerobic. So right now when I run a 5k at a 7:20 pace, it is essentially anaerobic. Since I need to run my BQ at 7:20, I need to improve my ability such that I can run 7:20 as an aerobic workout (or I never would be able to run 26.2 miles at that effort). LT workouts will, over time, increase my fitness such that I will be able to run that speed more comfortably and aerobically.
Or, put differently, run til you puke over and over again and you will improve your LT  |
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 1:37 PM |
From what I've read, the goal of LT training is to improve your lactate threshold, i.e. when your muscles start building up lactic acid. It actually trains your muscles to remove lactic acid from your muscles more efficiently.
Greg McMillan has a good description of it in Stamina Training section of this page:
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/rununiv/training/training2.htm
Usually I do my LT training with Tempo runs. I run the first and last mile or two at an easy pace for warming up and recovery. In between, I run at a bit faster than half-marathon pace. My HM pace is about 5:00 min/km (or 8:00 min/mile) and my tempo pace is usually between 4:45 and 5:00 (or 7:35 to 8:00 min/mile). The length of the tempo part of the workout would be between 4 to 8 km or 3 to 5 miles + the warm-up and recovery distance.
As posted on another thread, Greg McMillan also has a calculator that indicates the pace of your runs based on recent races you have completed:
http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/rununiv/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm
- R |
| veggies on the run |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 3:56 PM |
Thanks, Trent and RunB. I had read as well that the lactate threshold is a myth, though there does seem to be a point (right around 5k race pace) where my legs begin seriously "burning"--is sensation what is typically thought of as the threshold? And does threshold training mean running at a pace right at this point or maybe a hair slower? Can I judge my tempo pace this way?
Trent, you write that "Since I need to run my BQ at 7:20, I need to improve my ability such that I can run 7:20 as an aerobic workout (or I never would be able to run 26.2 miles at that effort). LT workouts will, over time, increase my fitness such that I will be able to run that speed more comfortably and aerobically." How, precisely do LT workouts accomplish increase in fitness--is it by spending more time at this pace and thereby gaining neuromuscular benefits that help efficiency? Or is it by increasing mitochondria that can better process glycogen at an increased rate?
It seems like if the answer is (predominantly) the neuromuscular one, then I should be doing more work at goal race pace to develop efficiency at that pace. If the answer is mitochondrial, then perhaps the tempo stuff that RunB suggests (or other non-race pace work) might be better.
Maybe the right answer is a combination or something more complicated...just wondering whether I would be better off running 5-6x800 @ 5k race pace or a 3-5 mile tempo run like RunB suggests...
In the end, maybe Trent's got it right--run 'til you puke and you'll get faster! Arrgh! |
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 4:03 PM
modified: 1/7/2007 at 4:04 PM |
Jeff,
Well I'm no physiology expert but I'll chime in. There seems to to be a lot of individual differences as to the best way to improve LT. The most common workouts are tempo runs (20-40 minutes @ LT) or LT intervals like 3 x 10 min @ LT. However, I've had the best results from doing a lot of work just above and just below LT. So one workout a week might be something like 6 x 1000m at CV (see below) and then longer runs with large sections at about HMP--such as 13 miles with 4 or 5 x 2 miles at Half Marathon pace. Another good one is just finishing long runs and medium long runs hard, faster than LT--with an easy mile after just to clear lactate and begin recovery.
Have you ever read any of the Tinman stuff on the web? He was run off the Letsrun board a while back for challenging the Letsrun proletariat but a lot of his ideas make a ton of sense to me (at least for regular joes like you and me.) One his big theories is the concept of CV (critical velocity) pace. When I don the above 6 x 1000m workout, I'm doing it at about this pace:
http://www.peakrunningperformance.com/docs/Critical_Velocity.htm
In general I agree with Trent that LT is basically imaginary. But being able to run hard for a long time is key to racing well, obviously. And workouts designed to improve your ability to do so are good. |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 6:29 PM |
| Quote from Jeff on 1/7/2007 at 3:56 PM: by spending more time at this pace and thereby gaining neuromuscular benefits that help efficiency? Or is it by increasing mitochondria that can better process glycogen at an increased rate?
Probably both, as well as increasing the capillary bed in your muscles. You need three things: oxygen going to muscles via the bloodstream, the ability to turn your legs over efficiently and quickly, and mental toughness. The hard training accomplishes all of these things, whether it is via some magical LT change or just by pure neuromuscular and vascular maturation. Note that all LT training (cruises, tempo, fartlek, intervals) have you run at a sub-puke level, sometimes with breaks interspersed. Seems to me that the harder you work at something, the better your body gets at doing it 
|
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 10:42 PM
modified: 1/7/2007 at 10:51 PM |
Both Pfiztinger (Advanced Marathoning) and Daniels (Running Formula) are big, big advocates of lactate threshold workouts. Pfitzinger unequivocally calls the lactate threshold the most important determinant in a marathoner's performance.
Pfitzinger describes your LT pace as the pace at which your muscles can remove/burn lactic acid at the same rate that the lactic acid is being built up. Any faster, and the lactic acid accumulates. This interferes with the aerobic functions of the muscle, so you get less energy to the muscles, and you are forced to slow down. By running at or slightly below your LT pace, you can condition your body to buffer the lactic acid better, effectively raising your LT threshold (and thus raising your LT pace).
(Note: Based on what I've read, lactic threshold is not a myth, but rather very real physiological condition. However, it is nothing like what Trent described. It has nothing to do with going from aerobic to anaerobic, or to do with turning on or off the production of lactic acid. All aerobic activity at all intensities produce lactic acid. Lactic acid is a fuel than can be burned by your muscles; its not a bad thing in its own right. The problem is a surplus of lactic acid in the muscles interferes with the economy of the aerobic process. Through training, you can better the level of intensity at which the inflow and outflow of lactic acid stay equal. The only study I've seen that calls LT a myth was written by some nobody, whereas Pfitzinger and Daniels are two of the most respected physiologists in the field.)
Mikeymike is correct that the most common LT workouts are (a) tempo runs of 20-40 minutes at (or just slightly below) LT pace, and (b) tempo intervals (Daniels calls them cruise intervals) at (or just slightly below) LT pace. Daniels prefers the intervals; Pfitzinger prefers the tempo runs for marathoners, but concedes that intervals are only somewhat less effective than sustained tempo runs.
Absent lab testing (which involves taking blood while you run ... ick) you will need to estimate your LT pace. Pfitizinger says that for most people, LT pace is the fastest pace that you can for 60 minutes. For exceptional runners, this will be closer to half-marathon pace. For mere mortals, this will be closer to 15K pace. Daniels uses his VDOT formula to estimate LT pace; you can find online VDOT calculators via Google. McMillans pace charts are generally consistent with both Pfitzinger and Daniels, so feel free to use those also. |
| How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 11:03 PM |
Stupid questions I hope you'll answer. Thanks in advance:
1) What is the difference between a tempo run and an LT run, if any? Are they synonyms? Is a tempo run just a specific kind of LT run?
2) How often should I be doing them? Is twice a week too much? (These are just 4-mile runs, 2-miles at a shot with a short break in between)
3) Speaking of which, does it matter if I do 2 x 2 miles versus 4 miles at the same time?
4) I'm running them at just a bit (maybe 10 secs per mile) slower than estimated 10-k PR pace. Am I on the right track?
5) At my current pace, 4 miles = @31-32 minutes. Is there any benefit to upping the tempos to 6 miles (or 3x2 miles)? Or would doing around 50 minutes of tempo work be too much at this point? Or any point?
Thanks, dudes. |
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
|
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 1/7/2007 at 11:48 PM
modified: 1/7/2007 at 11:49 PM |
Berner: Both Pfiztinger (Advanced Marathoning) and Daniels (Running Formula) are big, big advocates of lactate threshold workouts. Pfitzinger unequivocally calls the lactate threshold the most important determinant in a marathoner's performance.
I agree. I take issue with the name and the old proposed phsyiology. The actual act of running hard does make you run faster.
Berner: This interferes with the aerobic functions of the muscle, so you get less energy to the muscles, and you are forced to slow down.
Noakes and most modern exercise science disagree. Apparently Lactate is actually innocuous; you could inject a gallon of the stuff into your vein and it would do very little except perhaps act as an energy source. The muscle energy breakdown comes from another source, but it is not clearly identified. It may be simply a reduced amount of available phosphates in the mitochondira.
Berner: (Note: Based on what I've read, lactic threshold is not a myth, but rather very real physiological condition. However, it is nothing like what Trent described. It has nothing to do with going from aerobic to anaerobic, or to do with turning on or off the production of lactic acid.
That was the initial view. I agree, most folks no longer see it that way.
Berner: All aerobic activity at all intensities produce lactic acid. Lactic acid is a fuel than can be burned by your muscles; its not a bad thing in its own right.
We agree
Berner: The problem is a surplus of lactic acid in the muscles interferes with the economy of the aerobic process.
See above, lactic acid is innocuous.
Berner: The only study I've seen that calls LT a myth was written by some nobody, whereas Pfitzinger and Daniels are two of the most respected physiologists in the field.)
Noakes disagrees, and he is the preeminent exercise physiologist who studies running; I am happy to lend you my copy of the Lore of Running
Berner: Mikeymike is correct that the most common LT workouts are (a) tempo runs of 20-40 minutes at (or just slightly below) LT pace, and (b) tempo intervals (Daniels calls them cruise intervals) at (or just slightly below) LT pace. Daniels prefers the intervals; Pfitzinger prefers the tempo runs for marathoners, but concedes that intervals are only somewhat less effective than sustained tempo runs. Absent lab testing (which involves taking blood while you run ... ick) you will need to estimate your LT pace. Pfitizinger says that for most people, LT pace is the fastest pace that you can for 60 minutes. For exceptional runners, this will be closer to half-marathon pace. For mere mortals, this will be closer to 15K pace. Daniels uses his VDOT formula to estimate LT pace; you can find online VDOT calculators via Google. McMillans pace charts are generally consistent with both Pfitzinger and Daniels, so feel free to use those also.
Amen.
JN: 1) What is the difference between a tempo run and an LT run, if any? Are they synonyms? Is a tempo run just a specific kind of LT run?
There are several types of LT runs, see above. Tempo is a specific type of LT running.
JN: 2) How often should I be doing them? Is twice a week too much? (These are just 4-mile runs, 2-miles at a shot with a short break in between)
Once every week or two.
JN: 3) Speaking of which, does it matter if I do 2 x 2 miles versus 4 miles at the same time?
I would alternate these every other week.
JN: 4) I'm running them at just a bit (maybe 10 secs per mile) slower than estimated 10-k PR pace. Am I on the right track?
No, you need to run them faster than 12:45 per mile if you are going to call it an LT run 
JN: 5) At my current pace, 4 miles = @31-32 minutes. Is there any benefit to upping the tempos to 6 miles (or 3x2 miles)? Or would doing around 50 minutes of tempo work be too much at this point? Or any point?
No, you risk injury and tiring yourself out. You get reduced benefit in that case.
|
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 1:49 AM |
Thanks, guys. Good stuff. I have to say that the CV article was quite fascinating and most helpful (to me) in sorting through this stuff. Take a look at it if you get a chance. If "lactate threshold" is a myth (however helpful that myth is), then it does seem like what we're looking for is not the lactate threshold per se, but a critical velocity at which we can train the various systems and still recover. The argument that this pace is slightly faster than LT makes some sense at first blush. Any disagreement there, Berner & Trent?
This question came up on another thread--how essential is heart rate in all of this? I'm hoping the answer is "helpful but only one part of the equation," as I'm trying to stay away from a complete technologicization of my running. Yes, I know that's not a word, yes, I'm a dirty hippie, and yes, I know that's fairly hypocritical given the amount of time I spend on my log and on this board.
Now I'll offer some advice to new runners out there wowed by the geekiness, scientificity (I know--not a word), and mock-expertise of this hoo-hah. Before you get into all this junk, make sure that you practice running by feel--listening to your body--before you kneel before the almighty pace chart. That's what will pay off in the long run in your training. In my experience the best runners have this ability. They are able to tell their coaches, the experts, when they are tired. They are able to distinguish between the soreness of a hard effort and an oncoming injury. They are able to know what days to push and when to back off. The best out there trust themselves first, and that trust is won through long experience, careful attention, and experimentation. The trials of miles.
That said, keep the geekiness coming, yo! |
a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there.
~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611
|
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 2:31 AM
modified: 1/8/2007 at 2:51 AM |
Berner, I don't think that LT is a myth at all, just that there is no exact pace below which we generate all of our energy aerobically and above which we generate all of our energy anaerobically. I think we agree. There is no clear line. And even if there were the line is always moving. So if 7:00 is your LT pace after a 2 mile easy warmup it is probably not your LT pace when you're 5 miles into a 10k race, especially if you've gone out too hard in the first place.
That's why I said it's basically imaginary. It's an imaginary line but still a very useful and important line for improving race times.
Jeff, I couldn't agree more. Running by feel is probably the most important skill to be learned in order to have long term success in running. You can become very fast--and train and race at a very high level without ever knowing exactly what pace you're training at or what your heartrate is. |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 3:30 AM |
There is some running pace above which we cannot sustain an effort for more than about an hour. This is why you can use about your 10k or 15k pace. Running above that pace requires (duh!) more effort than running below that pace. That pace, or so, is your "LT" pace. Because it represents a certain effort, it can also be measured as a % MaxHR, about 90-95% or so. So, you can use your HR as one way to monitor your effort. You can also use perceived effort and split times, although the latter may be the most variable as course conditions and how you feel can impact it.
For example:
My 15k time is 60 minutes (not really, but humor me) = 6:27 minutes per mile
My Max HR is 190
My 90-95% HR is 171-180 bpm
My perceived effort at 6:27 pace is 8-9 on a scale of 1-10.
So, if I wanted to do a tempo run (a type of LT workout) for 3 miles, I need to run a steady 6:27 pace, and complete the course in 19:21. If I run to fast, I may burn out or get injured and not get the benefits of the workout; if I run to slowly, no benefit. Unless I run on a track or a marked course, the only way to monitor my pace is to wear some sort of GPS unit and pray for good reception. OR I could maintain my pace based on perceived effort and HR, which are a bit easier to monitor. |
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 4:14 AM
modified: 1/8/2007 at 4:17 AM |
| Quote from Trent on 1/7/2007 at 11:48 PM: Noakes and most modern exercise science disagree. Apparently Lactate is actually innocuous; you could inject a gallon of the stuff into your vein and it would do very little except perhaps act as an energy source. The muscle energy breakdown comes from another source, but it is not clearly identified. It may be simply a reduced amount of available phosphates in the mitochondira.
Well, I'm not going to be the lactic acid poster boy (unless there's endorsement money involved), but since I find the topic interesting I'm going to offer some rebuttal points. Begin geekiness in 3 ... 2 ...1 ....
1. Noake's theory is hardly the "modern" view. Lore of Running was first published in the 1980's and the debate about lactate, lactic acid and muscle fatigue has continued since that time. In fact, both Advanced Marathoning and Running Formula were published after Lore of Running. And while I do respect Noakes background, his reputation is no better or worse than Pfitzinger or Daniels.
2. Although I don't want to get hung up on semantics, I never said that lactate was bad. I said that excessive lactic acid was bad. To be honest, I don't know that Pfitzinger or Daniels necessary know whether to point the finger at the acid itself, the excess ionization from lactate breakdown, interference with aerobic enzyme process, or some other effect or consequence of the acid's buildup. But I do know that they both believe that the muscle fatigue caused by high intensity exercise is a physical effect that is caused by, related to, or correlative of lactic acid buildup.
3. By contrast, Noakes theory that the muscle fatigue is all in your head just sounds kooky to me. I simply do not believe that a human being can overcome and ignore the fatigue of extreme physical exertion simply by the power of their mind. I do not and never will run like a Kenyan, no matter how big or strong my brain gets. (I know this is a simplification of the central governor theory, but I'm not being totally unfair: Noakes does contend that the limitation comes from the brain, not the muscles.)
4. If Noakes theory was correct, then we would expect to see a vast variety of running performances from runners with the same lactate levels. After all, some people are mentally stronger or weaker than others. However, in fact, there is not a wide variation in athletic performance when base-lined against lactate threshold. To the contrary, Pfitzinger cites a study showing that 94% of the variation in racing speed among runners was explained by differences in their lactate threshold. Running performances are fairly predictable, once you have some starting data (e.g., McMillan's calculator, Daniels VDOT tables, WAVA tables, etc. etc.). Notably, the starting point for the equivalency calculators is a runner's recent race performance, not their IQ score.
Finally, Trent, allow me to end by acknowledging that we agree on far more points than we disagree. No matter how you define it, label it, or explain it, there seems to be some consensus that runners with a good base can benefit from tempo running approximately 20-40 minutes, all together or in intervals, at or around 15K race pace, every week or other week. |
| How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2. |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 11:18 AM |
| Quote from Berner on 1/8/2007 at 4:14 AM: No matter how you define it, label it, or explain it, there seems to be some consensus that runners with a good base can benefit from tempo running approximately 20-40 minutes, all together or in intervals, at or around 15K race pace, every week or other week.
Beautiful. Agreed!! Amen to that.
To your points:
I guess the issue is lactic acid. Lactic acid rises, to be sure. But a rise in lactic acid is not the cause of muscle weakness (alone), but may be a marker for something else happening that we have not identified. Lactic acid does rise with progressive exertion. So Lactic acid gets the bad name. But instilling lactic acid in a resting person / rat does not cause muscle weakness. So there must be something else going on, such as the processes you list or some other. We see a similar problem happen in folks with cirrhosis of the liver; a chemical called ammonia rises and its rise correlates with encephalopathy. But it turns out the ammonia rise is probably not the cause of the encephalopathy. Rather, other "liver toxin" chemicals may be the cause, and their fluctuation correlates with ammonia. In runners, something must be happening at the same time the lactic acid rises that may be the cause of both weakness and lactic acid rise. LT is a term whose name is based on blaming muscle weakness for lactate; I am not sure this is the best name.
Right. I don't think the "central governer" is a great single explanation either. But it may be part of the game. While Noakes may not be modern, I would think he is a respected pysiologist in the field .
Off to run!
|
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log |
posted: 1/8/2007 at 1:59 PM
modified: 1/8/2007 at 1:59 PM |
| Quote from Trent on 1/8/2007 at 3:30 AM:
My 15k time is 60 minutes (not really, but humor me) = 6:27 minutes per mile
My Max HR is 190
My 90-95% HR is 171-180 bpm
My perceived effort at 6:27 pace is 8-9 on a scale of 1-10.
Firstly, aren't HR percentages based on resting heart rate? That means that if your resting heart rate in your case is 55 (just guessing) then 90% of Max HR in your case would be 90% * (190-55) + 55 = 176.5, 95% would be 183.25
Also, I wondered whether there is any correlation between critical velocity and HR and whether there would be a heart rate % corresponding to critical velocity. I couldn't find any information. Actually I found this article summary:
http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol71/lin.htm
stating that if you run at CV your heart rate was going to increase. Indicating that HR is not necessarily a good indicator if you want to train at CV.
I also found an interesting article on how to calculate your CV and how it can predict your race performance:
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0815.htm
- R |
| veggies on the run |
|
|
|
|
