Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"We're talking about banking miles at maximum aerobic speed. There is nothing about this that is slow"

i wonder what is conjured up in the minds of the average slowtwitcher when you say "maximum aerobic speed." here's my slowman-modified TRIMPS, with helpful notes ;-)

1.
running as slow as you can without walking
2. running with absolute comfort
3. slightly faster than absolute comfort, but no stress
4. "pleasant" stress; a brisk run, but no discomfort
5. slight discomfort, but no pain
6. moderate tempo run or easy interval session
7. hard tempo run, or moderate interval session
8. race effort
9. very difficult interval session

where would you place "maximum aerobic speed"?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scary to know what sort of advice is out there.

Dan,

It's extraordinary the number of "experts" that are out there
.



Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Fleck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I never claimed to be an "expert".

Are you an "expert"?
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Kensho] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Are you an "expert"?"

let me answer for him, because that's a no-win question for him to answer. along the gradient where 1 is "brand new running," 5 is the "average slowtwitcher's knowledge of running," and 10 is "one the world's top half-dozen authorities on running," fleck is at least a strong 8. he's seen it, he's read about it, he's done it, he's done it with class and excellence, and all of the above for about 30 years. anyone here could do way worse than have the fleckster guide him in his training.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In the slowman scale, I'll put it as largely 3 with some time in 4, although some days might lean more towards 4. It depends on what you define as stress I guess. Basically when you wake up the next day you should be fresh and ready to repeat yesterday's workout...something like that. Its probably too fast or too long if your legs get heavy and rubbery by the end of each run...you should finish each run feeling like you could run 3-5 more K at that pace without a problem...

Does that make sense?
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think I see the disagreement here...

You talk about running as a runner.
I talk about running in the context of a multisport/triathlon program.
Different strokes for different folks.
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"In the slowman scale, I'll put it as largely 3 with some time in 4, although some days might lean more towards 4."

i'll bet that if you put this question to most slowtwitchers, they'd say 6 or maybe even 7. "maximum aerobic speed" is sort of an ominous sounding standard. when you say, "
there is nothing about [building base] that is slow," i think 3 is really pretty slow. i agree with you, i think 3 or 4 is just below LT. to me, that's conversational pace. even 4 is conversational (if you keep the sentences short). i think most people would say this is pretty slow. or pretty "easy" if you prefer.

my concern is that a lot of slowtwitchers already think they're slow (and really maybe they are right), so their maximum aerobic speed is, actually, slow. that's why i think saying "there's nothing about this that is slow" might lead the average slowtwitcher to think that standard is faster than what it really is.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Last edited by: Slowman: Jan 28, 09 16:07
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
  
Quote:
but LSD was largely instead of speed, not prior to speed. i never advocated this.

Ok, I understand where you are coming from a bit better now.


Quote:
that could be. perhaps there not much space between us. but i do remember one thing that sticks with me, and that is your method of determining fitness: that 800m time trial. this is what scares me. you'll have to talk me down from that fear.

Please allow me to talk you down :-)

First, a point of language in describing the difference in meaning between fitness and performance status. (In the way I do things, there is a very important distinction there). Fitness is the sum of all the positive effects of all the training currently in you, which may at any time be partially masked by how shelled / fatigued you are from the training that you did to earn that fitness. Performance is what you can actually do considering how tired you are. Shed the fatigue, and the fitness may be more fully expressed in how well you perform. The models I use attempt to tease out these differences.

In our discussion (IIRC), I referred to the 800M test effort. The "time trial" or "test effort" does not necessarily mean a PR attempt. For running, it could be 800M or more, and it should be run at a similar effort level / perceived exertion each time...hard, but not killing yourself. You could also just track changes in a weekly interval workout (i.e. improvements in pace of your 1k repeats). You can use average power or pace for a particular hill climb or standard loop you like to run. (Almost everyone has one of those.) You get the idea. It just needs to be the same test each time you do it so the computer can make the model and relate how you train to how you perform, and then give you some information about the time course of changes in your ability, the best way to taper, etc.

Depending on the athlete, you might or might not make them do something like this right away. You might only do it later, after training has been firmly established. You might not do it at all, and be more holistic about the whole thing if that is what was appropriate for the athlete. (I've worked with an elite runner with anxiety issues who wanted no part of any of it. She went mostly by perceived exertion, and someone else tracked her splits during her workouts (and told her to go faster or slower for different parts of the workout)).

Phil
--

Dr. Philip Skiba
Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes now available on Amazon!
Last edited by: Philbert: Jan 28, 09 16:36
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Kensho] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
You sell orthotics, don't you?

No - I don't.

And since there are many here who's advice/opinions matter to me (hence my trudging through this entire thread) - tell me why one should listen to you? Not being facetious, you might very well be a biomecanist, olympic gold medal runner, I really don't know. But, I've been around this forum and running long enough to have a pretty finely honed BS monitor.

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [file13] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
think of it like this. you are trying to build the most efficient car possible. this is accomplished through 2 main ways. improving fuel economy by having the engine burn less gas per mile and improving things that have no relation to your engine such as maintaining tire pressure, having efficient suspension for the type of road you drive on etc. You improve your engine through your normal endurance training (all zones) and the completely anaerobic/neuromuscular training (short fast all out sprints, plyos, weights) improve the muscles ability to store and release energy independent of any fuel metabolism going on.

You lost me on the efficient car explanation. But the bolded part, can you elaborate? I'm still trying to understand the benefits (in exercise physiology language) behind L6+ training in general prep as it pertains to Ironman training. Correct me if I'm wrong but training these systems target the Type IIb motor units which play a very small role in long course racing.

I'd be interested to hear from MarkyV on this as well since he mentioned this in his post.

Thanks.
Last edited by: codec: Jan 28, 09 17:19
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I guess one might say, it is a matter of where the top end of your zone 1 is....legend has it that Mark Allen got that down to 32 min 10K pace (again legend). For me, I'm talking 4:30/k on a good day closer to 5:00 on bad day (depends on wind, hills, footing amongst other things). For others it might be 6 min K's.

My point is that this maximum aerobic speed is not your warmup or cooldown nor survival "I just blew up speed". For everyone it is not their "slow speed", but by no means their interval speed. Likely something slightly faster than their Ironman per mile pace while not walking (actual run part)...but not much faster.

Maybe you need a poll on ST that goes.

What is your definition of maximum aerobic speed run?:
  1. warmup or cooldown pace
  2. I can yak for the entire run
  3. Ironman race pace
  4. I can yak in short sentences, but my training partner needs to talk too cause I need oxygen
  5. slightly\ faster than my Ironman race pace
  6. open marathon race pace

If I end up bouncing between 3 and 4 on this scale, then I don't view it as slow for anyone relative to "their fast"
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trick question?

The truth of the matter, it all could be considered "maximum aerobic speed" (although that term is debatable), with the exception of the DE-TRIMPS #9. If the interval was long enough though...

To Dev: Sorry Dev, but the notion of banking miles at maximum aerobic speed puts the athlete in the mushy middle ground (too fast to get a recovery benefit, too slow to work on threshold values), unless I'm misunderstanding you. As you posted before, LSD has a bad connotation (and I'm a recovering prescriber of LSD- 8 years sober this year...), but the fact that the majority of the runners have no clue what constitutes ranges to work within (speed, HR, or RPE), piling on the D at max aerobic speed puts people right back into LSD.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
piling on the D at max aerobic speed puts people right back into LSD.

I guess it depends on the top end of your so called Zone 1....I suppose for some it might be "slow" as the greater ST views slowness and fastness in the running pecking order, but relative to a given athlete, it is not their "slowest". Some guys will run 4 min per K at this intensity and are able to do this daily for months on end....others will only be able to hold around 6 min per K....but for the 6 min guy, their 10K race pace might be 50 minutes and for the 4 min guy it might be closer to 30 minutes.

My main point is that it is not shuffling around at our absolute slowest.
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [codec] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It was a bad analogy on file13's part, but what they're saying is there are adaptations to be had from performing activities that are anaerobic in addition to the aerobic, wih varying % of oxygen utilized. Fast all out sprints- significantly less O2. Ply's- possibly less depending on how many hits/set you are doing, and has a significant NM adaptation with the stretch-shortening cycle and eccentric contraction. "weights"- well, I'm assuming he meant "weightlifting", which utilizes an explosive movement that takes less than a second to complete, and if trained correctly, isn't going to be more than a few or 1/2 dozen reps. If he's talking "weights" to mean hanz & franz, well, let's not go there...

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
eh? You lost me at "I guess" until you said this...

Quote:

My main point is that it is not shuffling around at our absolute slowest

Which now that I think about it, I'd be curious to see what people base their ranges (or that terrible word "zones") off of. What's the use of doing Slowman's Rx or a VO2max development Rx if people only have knowledge of "stop and go fast" for their ranges?

Oh, that's right, people have those crappy Polar HR "zones" that have no bearing whatsoever on anything other than a few numbers that look nice and pretty to the one who actually reads the owners manual.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [codec] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let's see if I can make a sale here. :)

I could explain it once (eat for a day) or could direct you toward a helpful guide that might teach you a lot of other cool things along with it. (eat for a lifetime)

http://www.physfarm.com/...ge=index&cPath=1

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
let me tell you what i think base miles mean in real life. it is anywhere between intensity levels 1 and 5, depending on what you must do to cater to your lowest common discomfort denominator. by this i mean, when you go out on a run, and if you're sore, or if you're just tired or worn, or if you feel something that *might* be an injury but you don't know yet (it might go away during the run), if you're out of breath, you're leg tired, any of this might mean you can't run at a 5 today. so you don't, because the point of base miles is to run easily enough so that you can get right back at it the next day.

if a 5 feels good, fine, run at that level. it means your base miles from the prior week were run at the right pace, and you chose the right distances for your efforts.

as you increase your mileage over several or many consecutive weeks, and you still feel like running at 5 almost every time you go out, and your mileage is impressive, and steady, you've built a solid base. you can start to add some tempo runs, at an intensity of a 6, maybe a 7, and the way you know your base is good is that you can come back and run the next day -- you don't have to take several days off. eventually you can think about what sorts of workouts might accrue to greater speed. what workouts might tighten up your technique.

basework never goes away. but it gives way, to workouts that have specific "jobs" to do. and maybe this is what markyv is talking about when it says he wants to take an athlete from the general to the specific.

when i talk about base, this is what i'm talking about. when it's cycling, there are a few cycling specific elements, but they have their running analogs. i'm interested in cycling cadence during basework. i'm also interested in running cadence, but i think more in terms of hand carriage and foot plant than cadence. the common theme is that this is a good time to drill technique, to implant technique. far from "teaching slowness" or implanting bad neuromuscular pathways, basework is the time to implant the exact opposite. but in cycling, there's a limit to technique work, because i do all my cycling base on my road bike. nevertheless, i'm still thinking cadence; that will carry over to the tri bike.

the job of basework, whether on the bike or afoot, is to build in you the ability to come back every day and do the work again. when i advise an athlete on his or training, we start with identifying the race that means the most to that person. then we work backward. what workouts, if accomplished, indicate race readiness? you stick them on the schedule at the appropriate time out from the race, allowing for the taper. then you work back from there. what workouts get you ready for those indicator workouts? what work gets you ready to do that work? and so forth.

it's base that starts it all off, because without base you can't build a successful assault on that race, because you haven't established any platform for recovery. those who say they've already built a base are foolish. it's like saying i've already worked on my marriage, i don't need to do that anymore.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
you'll note that whether you citing lydiard or the africans, you're looking at 100+ mile running weeks. when i write about triathletes (you guys) and what you should do in the early season, i think there's quite a chasm between 100+ miles afoot and the 12 or 16 miles a week many of you guys are doing.

i don't mind you guys disagreeing with me. nevertheless, i think it's fair to know what you're disagreeing with. it's my view that if you try to be a good runner without building and maintaining base, you'll fail, and you'll probably get injured. second, base is not like a merit badge. you don't check it off as "earned" after 3 or 4 years in the sport, allowing you now to move onto other more advanced training. base always has to be earned, and re-earned, and maintained. you can lose it even inside of a continuous program of running.

third, you ought to take time off, from time to time, and this will make you faster than if you keep training at a constant level all year round. whether you think this is true or not, you probably act as if it is. most of you take time off, because of inclement weather, shorter days, and so forth.

but time off doesn't necessarily mean sitting on the couch. most pro athletes do more running in their winters "off" than most of you do in your summers "on." i think a typical pro routine might be 3 weeks entirely off after ironman hawaii, then the running is sifted back in, fairly quickly growing to 40 miles a week, maintained most of the "off season" winter.

even this 40mi a week afoot won't build the base you need, as a pro, for an ironman. forty a week doesn't include 12 and 16 and 20 mile runs, and you can't hope to run 3:15 (as a woman) or 2:55 (as a man) unless you do these long runs. so, you build base on the run, likewise on the bike.

if you're building after time off, you can't hope to do much bulk mileage if you're not yet very fit, and even more so if you try to throw much quality into the mix. if you try to go the route of quality-first, base and bulk-last, you have no background on which to run that quality. this is not to say that a national caliber runner who's succesfully absorbing 100 and 120 mile weeks should run zero quality during base building, it's that his quality is more likely to be tempo runs at a moderate pace, fartlek, and perhaps a set or two of short-duration strides. during my base building period (as a pure runner) my first "track" workouts were sets of 20 x 120yd in 20sec with 20sec rest, done barefoot, usually, on the grass, end zone to end zone. this is a low-impact workout gets my legs ready to run fast, when the time would come for harder, formal, track work. paul thomas has written here before about closing every workout with an easy set of strides, maybe just a half-dozen @ 100yd long or so, no stress, just to get the legs ready for speed.

each person has to gauge what place he's at. because of some freak injuries/illnesses over the winter, i'm starting at a very low point: extra weight, little fitness. if i try to do any quality right now, tomorrow's workout is going to suffer, and i won't be able to build the base i need. my mission now is to take 4mi daily runs and stretch them to 6mi, then to 8mi, and then i'll be able to, i hope, run the weekly 15-miler, and, voila, in 6 or 8 weeks i'll have somewhat of a base under me, and i'll have the freedom to start moving to some quality work without damaging my ability to recover day over day.

this is not to say that you abandon base work during the part of your training season where you focus on building speed. indeed, if you do abandon base work you'll lose base as you're building speed. it's not that you can't race fast without base, but you risk injury and your fitness will be fragile and suspect at anything longer than a sprint or olympic.

i'm not sure i know what markyv is talking about by moving from the general to the specific, but if he means what i think he means, then i agree with him completely. when you get closer to a race like an ironman, you have to inject quality into your workouts. doing so comes at a high price. intensity costs a lot, and you have to abandon some of the bulk base miles you had been doing. concurrently, tho, you have some rather high quality long rides and runs you must do as the race approaches. how do you fit all that in? this is where it gets tricky, because every workout has a specific purpose when you're 5 or 6 weeks out from an ironman whereas, in a base building period, whether you go out for 2 x 6mi runs or one 10mi run or a 40mi bike and a swim doesn't much matter, because it's all accruing to the base.

my guess is that more of you are like me than are like the kenyan running 100 mile weeks. if you'd like to run that 13.1 miles strong this year; if you'd like to not have IT band problems, and constant strained calves; if you'd like to train hard one day without being totally bushed the next; if running 7mi before work and still having energy to perform work appeals to you; then i'd recommend building a base, most of it at lower heart rates, focusing on increasing the length of your rides and runs, without (for now) increasing the speed of your rides and runs. it's january. start that now, and by march or april you'll have a very nice base, and you'll be a durable athlete with options available to you. if it's too cold to ride, fine, as soon as weather permits, start building your running base.

Serious question, do you coach triathletes?
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [MarkyV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Let's see if I can make a sale here. :)

I could explain it once (eat for a day) or could direct you toward a helpful guide that might teach you a lot of other cool things along with it. (eat for a lifetime)

http://www.physfarm.com/...ge=index&cPath=1

Thanks, but bought and read them both ;-)

Were you suggesting anything else besides plyo? I don't recall reading anything other than this in his book for general prep.
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [codec] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
AWESOME!

reason for 6 (i just threw 7 in there for sake of the whole spectrum) is so that just prior to hitting the 5 work you really sharpen the very pointy end of the knife. Personal experience as well as feed back from my athletes shows that it makes the 5's just a little bit easier to take. If anything it's a relativity thing. If you recently have been blitzed with some zn6 well then zn5 is not 'relatively' going to feel that bad.

this is in regard to swim and bike. don't really venture here aside from strides on the run.

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [RBR] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"serious question, do you coach triathletes?"

serious answer: no. i used to. i don't have the time or interest at this point. i fit them aboard their bikes, and i advise them about how to ride their bikes, technique, tactics, etc., and i advise them on workouts that accrue to grant them the performances they seek. but, no, i have no interest in being anyone's day-to-day coach.

are you asking because you want to be coached by me? or are you asking because you can't imagine anyone being silly enough to want to be coached by me?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dan, you sound like I did when I went 12 rounds about this with a professor once.

Quote:

what workouts get you ready for those indicator workouts? what work gets you ready to do that work? and so forth.

The workouts that get you ready for the indicator workouts are the workouts that elevate your potential aerobic power. The "work" that gets you ready for that work are the adaptations that happen when you train for that potential (as in VO2max specific).

The adaptation that could be gained from your definition of basework is tissue tolerance from that imposed demand. And even that has diminished returns.

The basework that never went away from the "greats" that many refer to in this post are the outliers statistically- they are the anomalies that actually survived that kind of training, and managed to gather alot of press from that, which trickles down to the masses.

http://www.reathcon.com
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [MarkyV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
AWESOME!

reason for 6 (i just threw 7 in there for sake of the whole spectrum) is so that just prior to hitting the 5 work you really sharpen the very pointy end of the knife. Personal experience as well as feed back from my athletes shows that it makes the 5's just a little bit easier to take. If anything it's a relativity thing. If you recently have been blitzed with some zn6 well then zn5 is not 'relatively' going to feel that bad.

this is in regard to swim and bike. don't really venture here aside from strides on the run.

Ok, I think you're suggesting a little of L6 as a primer to L5 work. If so, I'll buy that. Thanks!
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [rroof] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
No reason anyone should listen to me.

I'm simply giving my opinion and adding to the debate. That's what this forum is for, right?

Call BS if you wish... carry on.

I presented Dan with the theoretical training plan he asked for, given his parameters... and not a single comment... Hmmm...
Last edited by: Kensho: Jan 28, 09 18:39
Quote Reply
Re: MarkyV: calling you out (for a friendly debate) [Rob] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Dan, you sound like I did when I went 12 rounds about this with a professor once."

you are aware, are you not, that every ex fizz professor who associates himself first to academia and second to the culture and tradition built in a specific sport believed over most of the last generation and a half that cycling at 60rpm was the most efficient way to ride and race a bike. right?

nevertheless, cycling coaches, and directeurs sportif, and the top cyclists themselves, refused to listen to that higher wisdom, and like neanderthals continued to stupidly pedal cadences of 90rpm (more or less, depending on effort and duration). and here they are, still pedaling that dumb cadence. what morons. right?

if prevailing through the sort of base building i recommend is emblematic of an outlier, then there are a terrific number of outliers throughout history. where do you think bob larsen, joe vigil,
john mcdonnell, go to find all these outliers?

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next