I got dragged to Mark’s website by the other thread about MAF test and read the article about base training, there it says :
" The reason is that the improvement you can get in performance from developing your aerobic fat burning system is huge compared to the improvement in performance you can get from doing the high-end anaerobic carbohydrate burning workouts. And our bodies cannot develop both systems very well at the same time. Which means that to build a base properly, an athlete has to have the patience to work the aerobic system exclusively for a huge block of time."
Is this a fact that our bodies cannot develop both systems simultaneously ? Does it mean that if I accidentally cross my aerobic threshold in a workout (because of a hill) even for a very short percentage of it, I am getting less (or no) aerobic conditioning from it ?
How about in seperate workout? I got an impression that he suggests that even an occasional speed can affect base development, on the other hand many other coaches recommend short bursts of speed or occasional races during base training for maintaining the nuero-muscular memory of speed.
I thought the main reason for going slow was a matter of recovering faster and being able to get in more volume.
My 2 cents worth - and a reply under 1000 words (therefore incomplete and cannot be used against me in or out of context!!).
I agree totally with the basic theory, although it is probably more about “optimal adaptation”. I think that you want to avoid anaerobic efforts in base training (that give significant lactate acid production). efforts just under anaerobic threshold are OK, and so are short sharp efforts (both in small doses and not in every session!). in base training the vast majority of the training is easy - no rocket science… you can include efforts - but they are controlled, and sparodic… I don’t think it is only fat burning - it is also basic metabolic efficiency - kph or mph per HR
I have seen this idea of ruining your base bandied about but not seen any corresponding studies to show the same thing. I don’t see much of it in the coaching writing either.
I think there are two nuggets in the idea that might be true. The physiologist for usa swimming found a few years back that you can get faster in basically two ways. Go the same distance in training but go faster, or go further in training. Interestingly he found that if you go the same distance but faster, you will improve for 8 - 12 weeks then stagnate. At that point you need to move your focus to going longer, in his study he didn’t finda stagnation point for going longer.
There’s also the idea of burnout. I don’t have a reference for this only experiences. Whether burnout be mental or physical or both it seems very real. If you go at high intensity for a while you can mentally lose it after some period of weeks.
These two nuggets are reflected in Mark Allen’s idea of base, but in different ways of stating it.
I guess the right protocol for testing this would be having two group of runners (or cyclist) and asking one group to train aerobically for some time, the second group should train with the same volume, but maybe do one more short session of anaerobic effort. After the period of test they should be tested again to see which group has improved more.
Has there been a research like this?
PS. I am glad I dont studing exercise physiology, all the researches sound the same to me!!
As a general rule, listen to Mark Allen’s advice but completely ignore his reasons.
I’m no ex-phys. and, unlike Paulo, I don’t spend large amounts of my time studying it. However, at no point in my 20 years of running and run coaching have I ever heard or read of anyone refering to fat burning vrs carb burning for reasons of slower versus faster training.
"I thought the main reason for going slow was a matter of recovering faster and being able to get in more volume. "
This is more or less correct, IMO. I was looking through Daniels’ training intensity table last night and noticed that he considers (for me) a 9 mile easy run to be equivalent to a 3.5 mile tempo run. I would imagine (though I don’t have the book in front of me) that it would also be equivalent to ~2 miles of V02max interval training. The fact is, at least according to Andrew Coggan, every minute I spend training near my V02max I am getting much more aerobic development than I would running at an easy pace for the same time or distance. However, I can maintain the easy pace for 4-5 times the distance. The tradeoff is much less V02max improvement but more aerobic development (even though accomplished at a slower rate).
What Kevin wrote is pretty indiciative of what I have experienced as an athlete who has trained both ways and as a coach who typicaly sees better results by utilizing more base training than less sucessful distance coaches (HS XC).
I guess the right protocol for testing this would be having two group of runners (or cyclist) and asking one group to train aerobically for some time, the second group should train with the same volume, but maybe do one more short session of anaerobic effort. After the period of test they should be tested again to see which group has improved more.
Has there been a research like this?
Yes, the research has been done. Overwhelmingliy the high intensity training yields better results. The problem is, the research can only be done for a short period of time (8 weeks). Slower training effects have longer lasting improvements and will cause you to improve better in the long run. Coaches know this but no research has been done on a two groups of athletes over a 4 year period, for example.
Typically you’ll want a mix of both. Lots of endurance training with short periods of faster training leading up to a goal race (in a nutshell).
I understand what you say, I am not questioning the value of base training. What I am asking is that, according to Allen, you should NEVER pass your aerobic cap. This means even strides of 100m would harm your aerobic development.
Though there is that classic Costill study from the 70’s which looked at NCAA swimmers, and found (IIRC) no significant benefit once the distance went beyond 35k yds / week.
Not that I am in any danger of reaching 35,000 yds / week
In the study there was no stagnation point found, of course no self respecting scientist would extrapolate that to mean that going longer will always bring improvement no matter how high the volume.
A coach might, or perhaps an engineer, but a scientist wouldn’t.
“Over time, however, you will not get the maximum benefit possible from doing just aerobic training. At that point, after several months of seeing your pace get faster at your maximum aerobic heart rate, you will begin to slow down. This is the sign that if you want to continue to improve on your speed, it is time to go back to the high end interval anaerobic training one or two days/week. So, you will have to go back to the “NO Pain, NO Gain” credo once again. But this time your body will be able to handle it. Keep at the intervals and you will see your pace improve once again for a period. But just like the aerobic training, there is a limit to the benefit you will receive from anaerobic/carbohydrate training. At that point, you will see your speed start to slow down again. And that is the signal that it is time to switch back to a strict diet of aerobic/fat burning training.”
One possibly meaningless bit of anecdotal evidence in my MAF test I have done: I had really hit a plateau at the 7:02 mark and even saw a slight decrease in performance a few weeks later. Again, I understand all the variables that cana ccount for this from environment to fatigue, but when my coacj charted my times for the tests, I was definatley flat lining. He began to mix in speed and interval work weeks along with my base work as part of my overall IMAZ training plan. So yesterdays 6:46 was a very welcome result, even if it may have little meaning overall, it was cool to see that I had improved at the same HR.
I got dragged to Mark’s website by the other thread about MAF test and read the article about base training, there it says :
" The reason is that the improvement you can get in performance from developing your aerobic fat burning system is huge compared to the improvement in performance you can get from doing the high-end anaerobic carbohydrate burning workouts. And our bodies cannot develop both systems very well at the same time. Which means that to build a base properly, an athlete has to have the patience to work the aerobic system exclusively for a huge block of time."
Is this a fact that our bodies cannot develop both systems simultaneously ? Does it mean that if I accidentally cross my aerobic threshold in a workout (because of a hill) even for a very short percentage of it, I am getting less (or no) aerobic conditioning from it ?
How about in seperate workout? I got an impression that he suggests that even an occasional speed can affect base development, on the other hand many other coaches recommend short bursts of speed or occasional races during base training for maintaining the nuero-muscular memory of speed.
I thought the main reason for going slow was a matter of recovering faster and being able to get in more volume.
If you read carefully, you will see that the article never states the body “cannot develop both systems simultaneously”, as you inquire. Instead, if you read attentively, you will note that Allen argues the body “cannot develop both systems very well at the same time”. So it is possible to do both, except not to its full extent. You will not be getting the best bang for your workout buck by not focusing on one specific type of training.
