Running slower to run faster. (Page 3)

tjfry - 2010-03-19 6:23 PM

While I did respond to Scout on the 10k question, I have never really based any of these discussions on which activities are aerobic or not. The point I am constantly trying to make here is the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise.

"Anaerobic exercise is defined as exercise intense enough to trigger anaerobic metabolism... which is biological process by which sugars such as glucose, fructose, and sucrose, are converted into cellular energy and the metabolic byproduct lactate."

Now, if you want to say that zone 5 is aerobic, even though you have lactate shooting out your ears, because there is some aerobic activity going on, then that is your business. But then you probably need to create a definition for anaerobic exercise, as under this new view, anaerobic exercise doesn't exist.

In the meantime, I'm gonna stick with the existing definitions of the two types of exercise.

this has been fun, where is that thread on salt intake or the definition of an Ironman. Time to stir those pots too!

bryancd - 2010-03-19 7:40 PM I was teasing before, I use the same definitions as applied to my training. "Aerobic" is my IM training pace, about 75-83% of my max HR. 90% of LT. Anything above is anerobic/threshold work.

tjfry - 2010-03-19 9:23 PM

Now, if you want to say that zone 5 is aerobic, even though you have lactate shooting out your ears, because there is some aerobic activity going on, then that is your business. But then you probably need to create a definition for anaerobic exercise, as under this new view, anaerobic exercise doesn't exist.

In the meantime, I'm gonna stick with the existing definitions of the two types of exercise.

gsmacleod - 2010-03-19 9:41 PM

As long as you define some as ~75% aerobic then we're good to go. 

Anaerobic exercise most definitely exists; any intense effort lasting two minutes or less is fueled primarily by the anaerobic energy pathways.



You can use whatever definitions you want; the fact that you call anything that accumulates lactate anaerobic when really it is still primarly aerobic doesn't really matter when it comes to how you train.

Shane

AdventureBear - 2010-03-19 6:54 PM I'll say it...Zone 5 is aerobic. But in an all out 5 minute effort there will be a significant contribution from anaerobic sources as well...so it is both aerobic and anaerobic. Just because lactate is being produced does not mean that there is no aerobic metabolism. In fact we are all producing lactate even at rest...hence the term "baseline or resting lactate level" as Shane mentioned above. The chart Shane posted says it all. The aerobic adaptations occuring from Zone 2 training vs. Zone 5 training, or even anaerobic interval prodocols like the series of studies at Master's university are basically the samein terms of the cellular adaptations...the training effect differs depending on the training stress and duration spent there. The biggest benefit of Zone 2 from a purely physiological point of view is simply sustainability. If you are training for long events, you have to do some long training at some point. However, there are other benefits of training in Zone 2 that are not related to the cellular adaptations enhancing aerobic metabolism. Namely, durability. This thread is about running. Run training is unique from cycling training (above chart is from Andy Coggan, a noted physiology researcher and cycling time trialist). One of the biggest issues with run trianing is that the joints, tendons, ligaments and joint surfaces cannot respond to a training load with the same speed as the muscles do. Muscles can build fitness relatively quickly, whereas it takes much longer for the other soft tissue and supporting structures to adapt to running load. This is why running volume (adn intensity) increases need to be very gradual, and on the conservative side as compared to increasing swim or bike load. I call this running durability and is a basic requirement for doing any faster work on the run. That being said, once an athlete has reached a certain level of "durability", dipping into the more intense training zones will add a significant boost to your performance (when also approached in a conservative way allowing for both adequate stress and recovery).

tjfry - 2010-03-20 12:09 AM

Ok, I'll bite. My definition of anaerobic exercise was from wiki which was a reference from a number of science journals. It's also the commonly accepted definition from those I've trained with and been trained by over the last 20 some years, including 4 Olympic coaches and doctors at the Olympic training center. If you want to create a new definition, then you will need to dial in the interpretation of 'intense' for us. I don't argue any of the info you've provided (exercise tends to be blended in higher intensities, etc) on this thread, but you still haven't truly defined anaerobic exercise. So please frame it up for us and be specific (like the current/existing definition) and we can move on to buckets in the transition area thread.

Wikipedia

Anaerobic exercise is exercise intense enough to trigger anaerobic metabolism. It is used by athletes in non-endurance sports to promote strength, speed and power and by body builders to build muscle mass. Muscles trained using anaerobic exercise develop differently compared to aerobic exercise, leading to greater performance in short duration, high intensity activities, which last from mere seconds up to about 2 minutes.^[1][2] Any activity after about two minutes will have a large aerobic metabolic component.

What exactly is anaerobic exercise, at what point does it begin and how is it measured?

tjfry - 2010-03-20 12:06 PM

Again...can you define intense for us? that term is very subjective.  I agree with you that the events you mention are primarily anaerobic or aerobic, but 'intense' is about as solid as 'hard' or 'happy'.

I know I know, I'm beating this to death...

klowman - 2010-03-19 10:20 PM

And ... for me as still a Beginner Triathlete (and likely many others on this site/reading this thread but not neccessarily posting), this is the part that was never clear to me in the beginning ... just now am I started to learn and understand that even though cardio-wise or cellular adaptive-wise  ... it would seem I should be increasing my intensity (speed) or perhaps increasing my mileage than what is confortable recovery wise.

I've done a lot of work on the Elliptical and lots of walking before I ever started tri training and running, so still at this point even 1 yr and 7 months into tris ... my joints, tendons, ligaments, soft tissue is still way behind my vascular and aerobic fitness ....

So, it's making sense to me to shorten my 4.5 and 5.5 miles runs that I might do 2 to 3 times a week with 1 long of 7 miles on Sat or Sun .. and instead run 5-6 days a week for 2.5, 3, or 3.5 miles ... perhaps make the long run a bit shorter ro go a bit slower .... cause it seems at this stage I still need to build that "durability" .... and I can see that trying to train at higher Zones or higher intensity is just going to cause me to injure my ankle or something else again.

This is why after my 4.5 mile run yesteday I had to jump into the Elliptical to work it for 35 mintues just to get my HR up for a while.

For those already able to run Marathon distance ... then the benefit of lots of Zone 2 training probably doesn't matter near as much.

gsmacleod - Table 2 - Expected physiological/performance adaptations resulting from training at levels 1-7:

gsmacleod - 2010-03-20 10:47 AM

I included intense because one can exercise for under two minutes and have it fueled primarily by the aerobic system; I am using intense to mean maximal effort.

So, if you go out and try to swim 50 or 100m as fast as possible or run 100, 200 or 400m as fast as possible, that would be an intense effort.  If you complete these efforts at a VO2max effort or threshold, or zone 2 or anything other than all out for the distance, it will be an aerobic effort.

Shane

tjfry - 2010-03-20 2:36 PM

Squirmin out of this one Shane. You have a future in politics...

mrcurtain - 2010-03-20 2:29 PM

Interesting stuff.

Just out of curiosity, where is that table copied from?

Donskiman - 2010-03-20 12:27 PM

How is this debate about aerobic/anerobic in any way relevant to the simple fact that many people need to run far more than they do? This kind of stuff seems to detract from the point made in the OP, and may lead to confusing the very people this thread was intended to help.

bryancd - 2010-03-20 3:58 PM It's called a hijack.

tjfry - 2010-03-20 6:58 PM

Yep, its a classic hijack. But it is extremely relevant b/c the topic is about slowing down and staying aerobic to improve efficiency and speed. When anyone claims that 'everything is aerobic' it can cause confusion as to what intensity should be done to make said improvements that newbz is reffering to. I called it out because if you are going to claim that 'everything is aerobic' and therefore nothing is anaerobic, you better have some brand new stats to back up ages old science. Now we are going in circles b/c all I can get is 'intense' for an anaerobic definition so I am moving on...

Donskiman - 2010-03-20 11:27 AM How is this debate about aerobic/anerobic in any way relevant to the simple fact that many people need to run far more than they do?

mrcurtain - 2010-03-21 1:40 PM



Probably true.... but most people who run races only have limited amounts of time to train.

So, the important question for most people is probably regarding the most valuable way to spend that limited training time.

For example (and totally made up numbers here):

If someone only has 4 hours to run each week, what is the best way to use those hours?

1) Run in Zone 3 and cover 24 miles?

2) Run in Zone 4-5 and cover 32 miles?

3) Run 3 hours in Zone 3 (18 miles), and spend one hour doing intervals at the track.

tjfry - 2010-03-20 3:58 PM
Yep, its a classic hijack. But it is extremely relevant b/c the topic is about slowing down and staying aerobic to improve efficiency and speed. When anyone claims that 'everything is aerobic' it can cause confusion as to what intensity should be done to make said improvements that newbz is reffering to. I called it out because if you are going to claim that 'everything is aerobic' and therefore nothing is anaerobic, you better have some brand new stats to back up ages old science. Now we are going in circles b/c all I can get is 'intense' for an anaerobic definition so I am moving on...

To newbz original point....when I was in college I tried the Maffetone approach b/c back then, Mark Allen had gone 2 years without being beaten and was touting the approach. While frustrating at first, I began to see the improvement again and again until I was running 10 milers at sub 6 minute pace at the prescriped heart rate (basically 80% of max). Obviously I became a believer. Is that all there is to it? of course not. As some have alluded to, the base period will only get you so far. Those who can keep adding volume will see improvements longer than those with very limited time. So when do you switch to adding interval, fartlek and anaerobic exercise to your training? When you stop seeing improvements in your training performance. Then you drop the hammer for about 8 weeks, take a week off and start the process over again. I also feel I should add that beyond just volume at the intensity that creates improvement, you are also training in the sweet spot in which fat is used for energy at a very high percentage and the exercise is still vigorous. By staying in that sweet spot you improve you body's ablility to burn fat. When you go harder the amount of calories your body uses from fat falls off a cliff and just sugar is used. So there are a number of reasons to train at or below that 80% intensity(durability is another but that has already been touched on).

Carry on....