Not a labeled WSM but I will give my 2cents on this subject.
VO2max is an interesting beast as it may very well be that we as endurance athletes have been praying to a God that is a false idol. From Wikipedia: The average young untrained male will have a VO2 max of approximately 3.5 litres/minute and 45 ml/kg/min. If you look at the 45 ml/kg/min it states very plainly that weight (kg) is part of the equation. Therefore, if your weight drops and all else stays the same, your VO2max magically improves. Is this an increase in fitness? It probably will end up with inproved performance but not because fitness was improved but instead because mass was reduced. While the EN haus is partial to improved performance and not necessarily other metrics I think that we are not VO2max worshipers.
The interesting thing about performance is when you watch the end of a well fought out marathon there is always a little "kick" left in the competitors. They throw down their best leading to the finish line. How can it be that they have reserves to push harder? I believe it was Noakes that pointed this out first. This is, in part, where the Heart of the athlete comes in. Not from a cardiovascular component but from a "mental six-pack" component.
When we test our FTP's and vDot 5k's we are pushing our bodies not to test a VO2max but our performance for a timeframe. Based upon those results we work at fractions of those numbers for 4-8 weeks then retest and alter our efforts appropriately. Running and Riding at a percentage of our ability helps train our muscular and cardiovascular enzymes as well as the neuromuscular controls necessary to push a harder gear or faster pace. In weight training, often the initial burst of strength that occurs in untrained individuals is not a change in the diameter of the muscle cell but instead is improved neuromuscular efficiency. In other words, the brain learns how to recruit more neurons to fire the muscles.
Back to Noakes findings: Nerve cells are single nucleated and therefore the stress of training from a neurological perspective is that preservation of the individual neuron, in my opinion, is largely what regulates our ability. You can only stress a nerve cell so much before you risk killing the nuclei. Dead nuclei = dead nerve. Muscle cells are multi-nucleated and therefore can a muscle can take a severe (by comparison to nerves) beating as having multiple neuclei to distribute the load is much more forgiving. I think that training the brain and nervous system to improve in function is KEY to improving with endurance training. Think metabolic factors that influence nerve function (heat, glucose, etc.).
That brings up another point. Muscle cell are thought to fire in an all or nothing arrangement. If a muscle has, for example, 100k of muscle cells and it only requires 15k muscle cells to push a certain gear/effort then those muscles will continue to fire while the other 85k muscle cells do not fire. Once some or all of those 15k muscle cells fatigue other muscle cells will then be recruited to continue the effort of pushing the gear.
In my opinion, EN type training pushes our brains and bodies to improve on a number of fronts: 1) improved neuromuscular function/efficiency to deal with the pain/unpleasantness of running or pushing a gear at a certain effort 2) teaching our muscle cells and physiology to produce enzymes and recruit deeper muscle cells to fire longer/harder 3) improve muscular changes in the heart tissue to more efficiently improve SV (stroke volume) and other cardiovascular phys changes. 4) efficiency of motion thru training specificity/frequency (again...neuromuscular function and not cardiovascular)...
There are more things to consider for sure but I am out of time for my ramble. I think VO2max is A factor to consider but not nearly THE factor that the endurance world has made it out to be.
To state what I intended to say differently: While VO2max is great in concept it misses the neuromuscular effort component. I think the nervous system is the supreme ruler in many ways and when we train LT and FTP extensively we teach the neurons that they can suffer more than they think they can WITHOUT death to the nuclei. As an adaptation, the neuron gets a little stronger just like a muscle cell and then can be pushed a little harder, which allows us to push the muscle a little harder.
VO2max seems to only be concerned with fuel supply side using a car engine analogy. An standard gasoline engine (muscle) needs fuel (air and gas mixture...combined heart/lungs and nutrition component) and spark (neuromuscular component) to operate. While the ability to get fuel to the engine is important (thus the ability of VO2max to be a gold standard in physiological testing for so long) it misses too many big components to be the be-all, end-all. No spark = dead engine. Low spark = poor combustion of fuel.
IMO we train against a combination of: neuromuscular and cardiovascular endurance/function (nutrition on the cardiovascular side). EN methodologies are efforts relative to our ability to utilize both systems maximally...not just one (VO2max/air supply side).
This doesn't even factor in a CO2 build up (exhaust) issue arguement, which I would need to read up on...or have lots more coffee.
Time to hit the shower for work. Guess my FTP test came and went this morning!
Vince, great explanation. There is always someone who can sum things up clearly. I agree with you on this, it makes sense. Plus, if you look back at pro athletes and their VO2 numbers, the highest number doesn't always win which should make us second guess the opinion that VO2 is king. Thanks for the breakdown.
Thanks. You make a very valid point. If VO2max were king then we could eschew the race, be it marathons or the TdF, and just look at their lab results to determine the winner.
I cannot remember where I read about a run with 3 guys: Joe Friel (I think), Salazar and someone else. Salazar did NOT have the highest VO2max compared to the other athlete BUT was just as fast in his day because it was noted, by Friel, that he had superior running efficiency. Not one movement appeared to be for anything but forward momentum whereas the other elite runner was bouncing and bobbing by comparison.
Heart goes a long way! One thing I have read a few times is that if LT starts plateauing, that raising your VO2 gives you more room to work with and you can again increase VO2.... don't know how much validity that has but that seems to make some sense too.
Craig, really I dont think it matters anyway.... Daniel's VDots are pace based, I don't know if the VDot number you have is the correlating VO2 number you would have if tested, but the paces work in his book so no worries!
Keith (my DH and wicked smart non-member ) and I slogged through the article and came with with this:
We were thinking the same thing as Dan while reading it--Daniels Vdot is basically VO2max. However, the article mentions that there is a lack of training response for threshold training based on VO2max in some people. Basing run training paces on a 5K test is kind of a combination of VO2max and anaerobic threshold. With the Z4 running we do @ threshold, EN does work the running system at threshold. BUT...if you use the guidelines/research in this article, it might be better to test the run paces at 10K, not 5K--if you want to base decisions on this one article. (Which I'm sure you don't.) I SHUDDER as I type that. Been there in 10K hell.
Linda, good luck! Even if it is proven beyond a doubt, I'm not doing the 10K test instead!!!! I guess I need to read the article more, but what are the resources cited? Is it just one paper he/she is using, multiple? I shouldn't be lazy and just look it up myself. But, not that I was ever an elite runner, but I did run at Cortland when he (Daniels) was there and he pretty much was the most knowledeable man I've ever met in the running world. I don't want to say he is a God or anything, but kind, witty, humorous, and well versed. He's been at it for some time (late 60's maybe) and I think his methods are well supported by athletes of all abilities. But the quote "threshold training based on VO2m in SOME people" is a big if for me. I'm not an exercise physiologist, so don't take it from me, I try to read as much from forums like this, and a handful of books, but I think what is done here and in Daniels' running formula are excellent, I've used them with my XC runners, and track runners in the past with much success.
VO2max is variable dependent upon how it's tested, so it's not a good testing parameter
A wide range of adaptations has been observed in subjects training at a fixed percentage of VO2max, so training to a fixed percentage of VO2max doesn't guarantee that you'll be training a specific adaptation
VO2max doesn't change much for trained athletes, so you shouldn't train with a goal of increasing VO2max
All 3 of the above points are pretty much universally accepted, as far as I'm aware of the research (caveat, I don't spend a ton of time reading the research these days). This paper is somewhat academically interesting, but I don't really see much from a training perspective...
Implications for what we do here:
we use functional metrics (FTP, 5k test), which are good testing parameters, because they are a measure of work you can do
we use power/pace to maximize the adaptation achieved within a given workout, recognizing that those adaptations occur over a range of power/pace.
we don't train to improve VO2max, we train to go faster, and measure it
Remember that, while Daniels Vdot is a proxy for VO2max, it doesn't measure VO2max. It's a performance metric. So, it's not what's being discussed in this article.
You could improve your Vdot several points, without seeing an improvement in your lab-measured VO2max, especially if you're mancona-fast...
While all you smart people were busy reading this and thinking deeply about its implications for our training life, I was squandering my time watching As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me, a 2003 rather pedestrian German film based on a true story of a WWII prisoner who escapes from the gulag in FAR esatern Siberia, and arrives back home in Bavaria some 3+ years later. Which has almost nothing to do with this topic, but is my excuse for coming late to this party.
While Vince and Michael have done a great job summarizing the issues raised, and the implications for our training program, there is one subtle question which seemed to pop out for me in Patrick's initial posting: is there a SPECIFIC set of training speeds which work BEST to improve running performance in HIM and IMs? While VDOT and VO2 max are clearly NOT the same thing, and one measures speed and the other measures a physiological parameter, they share the theoretical basis that improving one specific parameter will lead (and maybe is the best route) to improved performance. And I get the impression from what little reading I've done that Daniels was heavily influenced by the VO2 max research in coming up with the methodology for detemrining VDOT and why it might be of value in setting training intensities.
My belief is that, unless you are already running sub-28 minute 10Ks, almost any program utilizing a variety of speeds will produce measureable improvement. And, the faster the "intervals" one runs in training, the less one should do of them, or risk injury and physiologic burnout before rather than after a goal race. My personal experience, flitting from plan to plan while training for this or that event over the years, is that all programs help me go faster, as long as I follow them and don't go off into the weeds somehwere. That tells me we don't REALLY know enough about how all the physiological systems work together to produce running speed. Work DOES work.
I read a magazine called Trends and in the August 2009 issue they had an interesting article about how Science is facing it's own trust issue. They explained how the scientific method and peer reviewed articles evolved. The article discussed that some "discoveries" by Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs (superconductor research) along with Korean scientist Hwang Sok (cloning)and was considered for the Nobel prize) were published in very reputable scientific peer reviewed journals. Problems was that the results were total fabrications.
A study done by the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece found that less than 50% of that the results of randomly selected scientific papers were true. Another survey of 3400 scientists by the University of Minnesota and Health Partners Research Foundation found that 1 in 3 of the respondants admitted to ethical lapses , such as ignoring data that would not support their hypothesis or fabricating data to support what they wanted to say
So about half of the scientific studies are poorly designed, have faulty conclusions, or data that is questionalbe. What does this mean to me and my view. I think that "training" principles are broad whether they are time based, HR based, power based etc. I think we get into trouble when you try to oversimplify a very complex issue. My bottom line is what get results. You have to find out what works for you as an individual. I think that the majority of EN athletes are considered recreational and we do this as an avocation. For those racing on the pointy end of the age group spectrum, they have to pay more attention to the "little things" that end up being huge on race day. I am in this game for my health and to have some fun. I try not to over-think it.
Second, my head is spinning. This is like the two headed monster at the gate where one head always tells the truth and the other head always lies and you have to figure out the answer to the puzzle to get through the gate without being killed! So if half the studies are faulty and 1 in 3 scientists have ethical lapses- what does that mean there is a 50% chance that the study which says half the studies are faulty is actually false? And can we believe the 3400 scientists who said 1 in 3 had ethical lapses or should we assume 1 in 3 of them are lying?
The peer review system is still full of humans. Not sure anyone else has noticed but so is our House and Senate :-). Nature of the beast is to publish or perish. I used to stay up with multiple journals but then I would get to speak (over beers or shots) occasionally with the researchers and was disheartened by what I'd hear. Now I save the money and time by not reading that boring drivel.
If you haven't, I would read his latest post on the subject dated Dec 22nd (specifically his concluding paragraph). I think there's a larger point that some people might be missing. He's not just saying that there's a fallacy around training at a % of VO2Max. He's saying there's a much more general fallacy around all of these special zones or points that have been invented (eg E pace).
Funny thing, I was recently trying to make this exact same argument on a couple of those recent running threads on the Power and Pace forum in addition to ST. My feeling is that people are way too tied to running or riding at specific magical points or a very narrow range of some magical point. Even worse, some people avoid fairly large ranges in intensity (eg L3, between E pace and M pace) because they think it's some kind of "no man's land." How any intensity range got qualified as a no man's land is completely beyond my understanding.
For the vast majority of us here in the Haus (IM finish times >10 hours), our "Friel Limiter," particularly in Ironman distance events, is aerobic endurance, not speed. While increasing Vo2 max and FT will theoretically lead to faster aerobic pace, the ability to maintain pace for periods greater than 10 hours is the physiologic feat that will most improve performance. I have discussed this point with a number of very experienced coaches who do a lot of their own testing of Ironman athletes of a variety of ability and experience levels. The simple truth is that six months of consistent aerobic (ie steady state) training at a level of 20 hours/week will result in considerable improvement in Ironman times due to tremendous physiological efficiency at steady aerobic pace. No pain cave, no intervals at threshold. Another simple truth for me is that I can not come close to spending that much time training. My life is too busy, and it would take years of build-up to be able to absorb that much volume. A final simple truth is that I don't like long bike rides enough to do 4-5 hour rides for six months straight, regardless of weather conditions. The introduction of higher levels of intensity lead to similar physiological improvement in less time (ROI). This is demonstrated by our ability to successfully complete a challenging Bike Camp after spending a few months hammering out 1 hour trainer sessions in the garage. Where I have gotten into trouble in the past is TRYING TO MIX higher intensity intervals with high volume. Fast, then far is a simple, effective technique to build Ironman performance without having to spend 20 hours a week for 6 months. The programs actually emphasize lactate threshold training, with a small mix of VO2 max. Dave Scott did the same in his book Triathlon Training decades ago, then again, he was a memeber of the sub-10 club IMHO, The EN programs are structured as a path to get us to race day with the best aerobic potential and functional threshold speed that we can achieve. The program will be worked differently, by each of us (some will work too hard on some intervals and some will "blow off" more days than others), however, in the end, the consistent work performed (work requires adequate recovery and injury avoidance) will be the scientific measure most closely correllated to race performance.
For the vast majority of us here in the Haus (IM finish times >10 hours), our "Friel Limiter," particularly in Ironman distance events, is aerobic endurance, not speed. While increasing Vo2 max and FT will theoretically lead to faster aerobic pace, the ability to maintain pace for periods greater than 10 hours is the physiologic feat that will most improve performance. I have discussed this point with a number of very experienced coaches who do a lot of their own testing of Ironman athletes of a variety of ability and experience levels. The simple truth is that six months of consistent aerobic (ie steady state) training at a level of 20 hours/week will result in considerable improvement in Ironman times due to tremendous physiological efficiency at steady aerobic pace. No pain cave, no intervals at threshold. Another simple truth for me is that I can not come close to spending that much time training. My life is too busy, and it would take years of build-up to be able to absorb that much volume. A final simple truth is that I don't like long bike rides enough to do 4-5 hour rides for six months straight, regardless of weather conditions. The introduction of higher levels of intensity lead to similar physiological improvement in less time (ROI). This is demonstrated by our ability to successfully complete a challenging Bike Camp after spending a few months hammering out 1 hour trainer sessions in the garage. Where I have gotten into trouble in the past is TRYING TO MIX higher intensity intervals with high volume. Fast, then far is a simple, effective technique to build Ironman performance without having to spend 20 hours a week for 6 months. The programs actually emphasize lactate threshold training, with a small mix of VO2 max. Dave Scott did the same in his book Triathlon Training decades ago, then again, he was a memeber of the sub-10 club IMHO, The EN programs are structured as a path to get us to race day with the best aerobic potential and functional threshold speed that we can achieve. The program will be worked differently, by each of us (some will work too hard on some intervals and some will "blow off" more days than others), however, in the end, the consistent work performed (work requires adequate recovery and injury avoidance) will be the scientific measure most closely correllated to race performance.
Assuming you have the time in your schedule and you're talking about a novice, I would argue that you should execute this consistent steady-state approach until the hit a plateau and that can easily take up to 2 years in my experience.
Having said that, we can't make these assumptions. This is why I say and continue to say there is no magical combination of power or paces that will get you there. This idea of needing to establish your aerobic endurance before you focus on speed is just bogus, imho. Here's why:
You have to create a periodic (progressive) overload. It is the most fundmentally important principle in the sport. If you don't have time in your schedule to put in something like 20hrs/week then you have no choice but to add intensity.
I think it's a huge mistake for people to use concepts like aerobic endurance, strength, speed, etc in this specific context because it defocuses them on what is most important, imho. I was just having this debate with Mitch Gold since he's definitely a coach who wants his athletes to train at a specific intensity independent of acheiving max stimulus.
Just like Magness said in his latest blog entry, the response you're looking for as an individual is going to occur at a wide range of power or paces. The challenge is balancing risk with the reward.
Just like Magness said in his latest blog entry, the response you're looking for as an individual is going to occur at a wide range of power or paces. The challenge is balancing risk with the reward.
Thanks, Chris
Chris, I've been following your posts on ST and in the power & pace forum on the topic for a while, and find it amusing that anyone can argue with the points you raise. Just looking at the physiologic responses to different training zones in Coggan's book kinda makes it clear, when every adaptation that occurs at Z2 occurs at Z3, just more. Therefore, you need to think of these zones as sitting on a continuum.
I think of the idea of Daniels pacing or our power zones are a target, in order to achieve a particular workload, which will allow consistency in the framework of an overall training plan. There are probably infinte ways to achieve that, I just don't have the time, energy, or experience to figure it out for myself, so I figure I'm better of going with something that I know works.
Just like Magness said in his latest blog entry, the response you're looking for as an individual is going to occur at a wide range of power or paces. The challenge is balancing risk with the reward.
Thanks, Chris
Chris, I've been following your posts on ST and in the power & pace forum on the topic for a while, and find it amusing that anyone can argue with the points you raise. Just looking at the physiologic responses to different training zones in Coggan's book kinda makes it clear, when every adaptation that occurs at Z2 occurs at Z3, just more. Therefore, you need to think of these zones as sitting on a continuum.
I think of the idea of Daniels pacing or our power zones are a target, in order to achieve a particular workload, which will allow consistency in the framework of an overall training plan. There are probably infinte ways to achieve that, I just don't have the time, energy, or experience to figure it out for myself, so I figure I'm better of going with something that I know works.
Mike
I think it began with Friel and the TTB. Specifically, his compartmentalization of the components of endurance fitness as Speed Skills, Force, Endurance, Muscular Endurance, Anaerobic Endurance, Power, etc. Then you have Base 1-3, Build 1-2, with each one of these components assigned to a specific training period. Lastly, you have training zones (and cadence ranges, I suppose) that target these components.
The net is the culture of the sport, so greatly affected by the TTB, puts things in boxes rather than ranges. So if I'm running in Zone 4, I'm working on this system (ME, I suppose) but am not working on my Endurance. Likewise, I gotta punch the clock in Zone 1-2, building my Endurance (cuz it's January and the thick book sez I should be in Base 1 = Zone 1-2 work) before I earn the right to get faster with Z4 work.
The problem is that physiology stuff in the TTB is pretty much all wrong. However, the terms, structure, etc has been adopted as the official USAT coaching flavor (I think, I let my coaching cert drop in about '05), and so it just gets recycled over and over again. The latest, brought to me by an "endurance nation" alert we have set up in Google, is something like this:
Chris, I've been following your posts on ST and in the power & pace forum on the topic for a while, and find it amusing that anyone can argue with the points you raise. Just looking at the physiologic responses to different training zones in Coggan's book kinda makes it clear, when every adaptation that occurs at Z2 occurs at Z3 just more. Therefore, you need to think of these zones as sitting on a continuum.
I think of the idea of Daniels pacing or our power zones are a target, in order to achieve a particular workload, which will allow consistency in the framework of an overall training plan. There are probably infinte ways to achieve that, I just don't have the time, energy, or experience to figure it out for myself, so I figure I'm better of going with something that I know works.
Mike
Mike,
I know I've been overly persistent in hammering on this issue lately but one of the things I learned (the hard way) when I was working on all of that power stuff was how literally people interpreted the guidelines that we were providing. For example, I thought some of the TSS debates were off the charts ridiculous. People were debating that one guy rode better than another guy just because his TSS was 270 vs the other guy's who was 290. Or people would lock into a specific power number and completely ignore their RPE. All sorts of stuff that I never thought would happen. Some people just acted like they were computers where you feed them a number and the result should be completely predictable. It felt like these guidelines were being interpreted as strict rules (didn't everyone watch Pirates of the Caribbean? )
Anyway, I honestly felt that people became defocused on the fundamentals. Looking back, I suspect I made similar mistakes when I first got into the sport so I guess I was hoping to help others not go down a similar path.
Anyway, I honestly felt that people became defocused on the fundamentals. Looking back, I suspect I made similar mistakes when I first got into the sport so I guess I was hoping to help others not go down a similar path.
Thanks for the feedback!!
Chris
Chris, you can be confident that you've reached at least one person (me). I know that I have a tendency to overly geek out on data, numbers, etc, and as little as a year ago, I was searching for those 'magic' workouts, etc, that make you faster. It's been through folks like yourself and others here in the house that I've been able to get past it and start to learn that work is work, there's no magic sauce, and consistency rules over all other factors.
Keep the insights coming; I'm sure I'm not the only sponge out here soaking it up!
This has been a great discussion folks. We often see folks getting really wrapped around the axel because they didn't nail a workout exactly as perscribed and are then worried they have lost an opportunity for adaptation (heck, I've been one of those people myselve!). So some key take-a-ways for me are as follows:
1- So your doing 4x1mile repeats at Z4 or maybe 3x12' intervals at 90-100% FTP and you are struggling to stay at the top of that interval or maybe you even have to back down to a slower pace/lower %FTP to complete the workout. So what! Don't panic! It doesn't mean you didn't get some "magic" adaptation work that could only be acheived if you hit the workout spot on.
2-Whether you do your recovery intervals at the low end of Z1 or somewhere in Z3 also isn't going to make or break you. UNLESS you are sacrificing your ability to recover or increasing your risk of injury (that balance of risk you all talked about). Again, don't geek out about it!
3- There is sooooooo much more for me to learn from the members of EN! Thank you all!
Everyone, thanks for the input on this. I feel like I have 20 coaches all chiming in. I wish I could somethng back on this but I am loving just soaking up the info.
Comments
VO2max is an interesting beast as it may very well be that we as endurance athletes have been praying to a God that is a false idol. From Wikipedia: The average young untrained male will have a VO2 max of approximately 3.5 litres/minute and 45 ml/kg/min. If you look at the 45 ml/kg/min it states very plainly that weight (kg) is part of the equation. Therefore, if your weight drops and all else stays the same, your VO2max magically improves. Is this an increase in fitness? It probably will end up with inproved performance but not because fitness was improved but instead because mass was reduced. While the EN haus is partial to improved performance and not necessarily other metrics I think that we are not VO2max worshipers.
The interesting thing about performance is when you watch the end of a well fought out marathon there is always a little "kick" left in the competitors. They throw down their best leading to the finish line. How can it be that they have reserves to push harder? I believe it was Noakes that pointed this out first. This is, in part, where the Heart of the athlete comes in. Not from a cardiovascular component but from a "mental six-pack" component.
When we test our FTP's and vDot 5k's we are pushing our bodies not to test a VO2max but our performance for a timeframe. Based upon those results we work at fractions of those numbers for 4-8 weeks then retest and alter our efforts appropriately. Running and Riding at a percentage of our ability helps train our muscular and cardiovascular enzymes as well as the neuromuscular controls necessary to push a harder gear or faster pace. In weight training, often the initial burst of strength that occurs in untrained individuals is not a change in the diameter of the muscle cell but instead is improved neuromuscular efficiency. In other words, the brain learns how to recruit more neurons to fire the muscles.
Back to Noakes findings: Nerve cells are single nucleated and therefore the stress of training from a neurological perspective is that preservation of the individual neuron, in my opinion, is largely what regulates our ability. You can only stress a nerve cell so much before you risk killing the nuclei. Dead nuclei = dead nerve. Muscle cells are multi-nucleated and therefore can a muscle can take a severe (by comparison to nerves) beating as having multiple neuclei to distribute the load is much more forgiving. I think that training the brain and nervous system to improve in function is KEY to improving with endurance training. Think metabolic factors that influence nerve function (heat, glucose, etc.).
That brings up another point. Muscle cell are thought to fire in an all or nothing arrangement. If a muscle has, for example, 100k of muscle cells and it only requires 15k muscle cells to push a certain gear/effort then those muscles will continue to fire while the other 85k muscle cells do not fire. Once some or all of those 15k muscle cells fatigue other muscle cells will then be recruited to continue the effort of pushing the gear.
In my opinion, EN type training pushes our brains and bodies to improve on a number of fronts: 1) improved neuromuscular function/efficiency to deal with the pain/unpleasantness of running or pushing a gear at a certain effort 2) teaching our muscle cells and physiology to produce enzymes and recruit deeper muscle cells to fire longer/harder 3) improve muscular changes in the heart tissue to more efficiently improve SV (stroke volume) and other cardiovascular phys changes. 4) efficiency of motion thru training specificity/frequency (again...neuromuscular function and not cardiovascular)...
There are more things to consider for sure but I am out of time for my ramble. I think VO2max is A factor to consider but not nearly THE factor that the endurance world has made it out to be.
Vince
will check this one out later in the day when I'm a little more caffeinated and when I can actually remember my exercise phys days.
To state what I intended to say differently: While VO2max is great in concept it misses the neuromuscular effort component. I think the nervous system is the supreme ruler in many ways and when we train LT and FTP extensively we teach the neurons that they can suffer more than they think they can WITHOUT death to the nuclei. As an adaptation, the neuron gets a little stronger just like a muscle cell and then can be pushed a little harder, which allows us to push the muscle a little harder.
VO2max seems to only be concerned with fuel supply side using a car engine analogy. An standard gasoline engine (muscle) needs fuel (air and gas mixture...combined heart/lungs and nutrition component) and spark (neuromuscular component) to operate. While the ability to get fuel to the engine is important (thus the ability of VO2max to be a gold standard in physiological testing for so long) it misses too many big components to be the be-all, end-all. No spark = dead engine. Low spark = poor combustion of fuel.
IMO we train against a combination of: neuromuscular and cardiovascular endurance/function (nutrition on the cardiovascular side). EN methodologies are efforts relative to our ability to utilize both systems maximally...not just one (VO2max/air supply side).
This doesn't even factor in a CO2 build up (exhaust) issue arguement, which I would need to read up on...or have lots more coffee.
Time to hit the shower for work. Guess my FTP test came and went this morning!
Vince
Vince, great explanation. There is always someone who can sum things up clearly. I agree with you on this, it makes sense. Plus, if you look back at pro athletes and their VO2 numbers, the highest number doesn't always win which should make us second guess the opinion that VO2 is king. Thanks for the breakdown.
Dan,
Thanks. You make a very valid point. If VO2max were king then we could eschew the race, be it marathons or the TdF, and just look at their lab results to determine the winner.
I cannot remember where I read about a run with 3 guys: Joe Friel (I think), Salazar and someone else. Salazar did NOT have the highest VO2max compared to the other athlete BUT was just as fast in his day because it was noted, by Friel, that he had superior running efficiency. Not one movement appeared to be for anything but forward momentum whereas the other elite runner was bouncing and bobbing by comparison.
Vince
Vince,
Heart goes a long way! One thing I have read a few times is that if LT starts plateauing, that raising your VO2 gives you more room to work with and you can again increase VO2.... don't know how much validity that has but that seems to make some sense too.
Dan
Subtle point perhaps, but the whole time I was reading this I kept thinking "uhm, VDOT != VO2max".
Craig, really I dont think it matters anyway.... Daniel's VDots are pace based, I don't know if the VDot number you have is the correlating VO2 number you would have if tested, but the paces work in his book so no worries!
Keith (my DH and wicked smart non-member
) and I slogged through the article and came with with this:
We were thinking the same thing as Dan while reading it--Daniels Vdot is basically VO2max. However, the article mentions that there is a lack of training response for threshold training based on VO2max in some people. Basing run training paces on a 5K test is kind of a combination of VO2max and anaerobic threshold. With the Z4 running we do @ threshold, EN does work the running system at threshold. BUT...if you use the guidelines/research in this article, it might be better to test the run paces at 10K, not 5K--if you want to base decisions on this one article. (Which I'm sure you don't.) I SHUDDER as I type that. Been there in 10K hell.
Linda, good luck! Even if it is proven beyond a doubt, I'm not doing the 10K test instead!!!! I guess I need to read the article more, but what are the resources cited? Is it just one paper he/she is using, multiple? I shouldn't be lazy and just look it up myself. But, not that I was ever an elite runner, but I did run at Cortland when he (Daniels) was there and he pretty much was the most knowledeable man I've ever met in the running world. I don't want to say he is a God or anything, but kind, witty, humorous, and well versed. He's been at it for some time (late 60's maybe) and I think his methods are well supported by athletes of all abilities. But the quote "threshold training based on VO2m in SOME people" is a big if for me. I'm not an exercise physiologist, so don't take it from me, I try to read as much from forums like this, and a handful of books, but I think what is done here and in Daniels' running formula are excellent, I've used them with my XC runners, and track runners in the past with much success.
Oh, I hear you on the 10K test. First OS, we did them throughout the schedule!
It was fun in a sick sort of way.
P wanted feedback on this paper, so feedback it is.
The summary of this article is basically:
All 3 of the above points are pretty much universally accepted, as far as I'm aware of the research (caveat, I don't spend a ton of time reading the research these days). This paper is somewhat academically interesting, but I don't really see much from a training perspective...
Implications for what we do here:
So, my takeaway is that there isn't much there.
Mike
Remember that, while Daniels Vdot is a proxy for VO2max, it doesn't measure VO2max. It's a performance metric. So, it's not what's being discussed in this article.
You could improve your Vdot several points, without seeing an improvement in your lab-measured VO2max, especially if you're mancona-fast...
Mike
Great summary! Thanks!
While all you smart people were busy reading this and thinking deeply about its implications for our training life, I was squandering my time watching As Far As My Feet Will Carry Me, a 2003 rather pedestrian German film based on a true story of a WWII prisoner who escapes from the gulag in FAR esatern Siberia, and arrives back home in Bavaria some 3+ years later. Which has almost nothing to do with this topic, but is my excuse for coming late to this party.
While Vince and Michael have done a great job summarizing the issues raised, and the implications for our training program, there is one subtle question which seemed to pop out for me in Patrick's initial posting: is there a SPECIFIC set of training speeds which work BEST to improve running performance in HIM and IMs? While VDOT and VO2 max are clearly NOT the same thing, and one measures speed and the other measures a physiological parameter, they share the theoretical basis that improving one specific parameter will lead (and maybe is the best route) to improved performance. And I get the impression from what little reading I've done that Daniels was heavily influenced by the VO2 max research in coming up with the methodology for detemrining VDOT and why it might be of value in setting training intensities.
My belief is that, unless you are already running sub-28 minute 10Ks, almost any program utilizing a variety of speeds will produce measureable improvement. And, the faster the "intervals" one runs in training, the less one should do of them, or risk injury and physiologic burnout before rather than after a goal race. My personal experience, flitting from plan to plan while training for this or that event over the years, is that all programs help me go faster, as long as I follow them and don't go off into the weeds somehwere. That tells me we don't REALLY know enough about how all the physiological systems work together to produce running speed. Work DOES work.
Work does work...if it is followed by recovery!
Vince
I read a magazine called Trends and in the August 2009 issue they had an interesting article about how Science is facing it's own trust issue. They explained how the scientific method and peer reviewed articles evolved. The article discussed that some "discoveries" by Jan Henrik Schon of Bell Labs (superconductor research) along with Korean scientist Hwang Sok (cloning)and was considered for the Nobel prize) were published in very reputable scientific peer reviewed journals. Problems was that the results were total fabrications.
A study done by the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece found that less than 50% of that the results of randomly selected scientific papers were true. Another survey of 3400 scientists by the University of Minnesota and Health Partners Research Foundation found that 1 in 3 of the respondants admitted to ethical lapses , such as ignoring data that would not support their hypothesis or fabricating data to support what they wanted to say
So about half of the scientific studies are poorly designed, have faulty conclusions, or data that is questionalbe.
What does this mean to me and my view. I think that "training" principles are broad whether they are time based, HR based, power based etc. I think we get into trouble when you try to oversimplify a very complex issue. My bottom line is what get results. You have to find out what works for you as an individual. I think that the majority of EN athletes are considered recreational and we do this as an avocation. For those racing on the pointy end of the age group spectrum, they have to pay more attention to the "little things" that end up being huge on race day. I am in this game for my health and to have some fun. I try not to over-think it.
Yano
Second, my head is spinning. This is like the two headed monster at the gate where one head always tells the truth and the other head always lies and you have to figure out the answer to the puzzle to get through the gate without being killed! So if half the studies are faulty and 1 in 3 scientists have ethical lapses- what does that mean there is a 50% chance that the study which says half the studies are faulty is actually false? And can we believe the 3400 scientists who said 1 in 3 had ethical lapses or should we assume 1 in 3 of them are lying?
Oh man, I've got a headache!!!
Vince
If you haven't, I would read his latest post on the subject dated Dec 22nd (specifically his concluding paragraph). I think there's a larger point that some people might be missing. He's not just saying that there's a fallacy around training at a % of VO2Max. He's saying there's a much more general fallacy around all of these special zones or points that have been invented (eg E pace).
Funny thing, I was recently trying to make this exact same argument on a couple of those recent running threads on the Power and Pace forum in addition to ST. My feeling is that people are way too tied to running or riding at specific magical points or a very narrow range of some magical point. Even worse, some people avoid fairly large ranges in intensity (eg L3, between E pace and M pace) because they think it's some kind of "no man's land." How any intensity range got qualified as a no man's land is completely beyond my understanding.
Thanks, Chris
For the vast majority of us here in the Haus (IM finish times >10 hours), our "Friel Limiter," particularly in Ironman distance events, is aerobic endurance, not speed. While increasing Vo2 max and FT will theoretically lead to faster aerobic pace, the ability to maintain pace for periods greater than 10 hours is the physiologic feat that will most improve performance. I have discussed this point with a number of very experienced coaches who do a lot of their own testing of Ironman athletes of a variety of ability and experience levels. The simple truth is that six months of consistent aerobic (ie steady state) training at a level of 20 hours/week will result in considerable improvement in Ironman times due to tremendous physiological efficiency at steady aerobic pace. No pain cave, no intervals at threshold. Another simple truth for me is that I can not come close to spending that much time training. My life is too busy, and it would take years of build-up to be able to absorb that much volume. A final simple truth is that I don't like long bike rides enough to do 4-5 hour rides for six months straight, regardless of weather conditions.
The introduction of higher levels of intensity lead to similar physiological improvement in less time (ROI). This is demonstrated by our ability to successfully complete a challenging Bike Camp after spending a few months hammering out 1 hour trainer sessions in the garage. Where I have gotten into trouble in the past is TRYING TO MIX higher intensity intervals with high volume. Fast, then far is a simple, effective technique to build Ironman performance without having to spend 20 hours a week for 6 months. The programs actually emphasize lactate threshold training, with a small mix of VO2 max. Dave Scott did the same in his book Triathlon Training decades ago, then again, he was a memeber of the sub-10 club 
IMHO, The EN programs are structured as a path to get us to race day with the best aerobic potential and functional threshold speed that we can achieve. The program will be worked differently, by each of us (some will work too hard on some intervals and some will "blow off" more days than others), however, in the end, the consistent work performed (work requires adequate recovery and injury avoidance) will be the scientific measure most closely correllated to race performance.
Assuming you have the time in your schedule and you're talking about a novice, I would argue that you should execute this consistent steady-state approach until the hit a plateau and that can easily take up to 2 years in my experience.
Having said that, we can't make these assumptions. This is why I say and continue to say there is no magical combination of power or paces that will get you there. This idea of needing to establish your aerobic endurance before you focus on speed is just bogus, imho. Here's why:
You have to create a periodic (progressive) overload. It is the most fundmentally important principle in the sport. If you don't have time in your schedule to put in something like 20hrs/week then you have no choice but to add intensity.
I think it's a huge mistake for people to use concepts like aerobic endurance, strength, speed, etc in this specific context because it defocuses them on what is most important, imho. I was just having this debate with Mitch Gold since he's definitely a coach who wants his athletes to train at a specific intensity independent of acheiving max stimulus.
Just like Magness said in his latest blog entry, the response you're looking for as an individual is going to occur at a wide range of power or paces. The challenge is balancing risk with the reward.
Thanks, Chris
Chris, I've been following your posts on ST and in the power & pace forum on the topic for a while, and find it amusing that anyone can argue with the points you raise. Just looking at the physiologic responses to different training zones in Coggan's book kinda makes it clear, when every adaptation that occurs at Z2 occurs at Z3, just more. Therefore, you need to think of these zones as sitting on a continuum.
I think of the idea of Daniels pacing or our power zones are a target, in order to achieve a particular workload, which will allow consistency in the framework of an overall training plan. There are probably infinte ways to achieve that, I just don't have the time, energy, or experience to figure it out for myself, so I figure I'm better of going with something that I know works.
Mike
Vince
I think it began with Friel and the TTB. Specifically, his compartmentalization of the components of endurance fitness as Speed Skills, Force, Endurance, Muscular Endurance, Anaerobic Endurance, Power, etc. Then you have Base 1-3, Build 1-2, with each one of these components assigned to a specific training period. Lastly, you have training zones (and cadence ranges, I suppose) that target these components.
The net is the culture of the sport, so greatly affected by the TTB, puts things in boxes rather than ranges. So if I'm running in Zone 4, I'm working on this system (ME, I suppose) but am not working on my Endurance. Likewise, I gotta punch the clock in Zone 1-2, building my Endurance (cuz it's January and the thick book sez I should be in Base 1 = Zone 1-2 work) before I earn the right to get faster with Z4 work.
The problem is that physiology stuff in the TTB is pretty much all wrong. However, the terms, structure, etc has been adopted as the official USAT coaching flavor (I think, I let my coaching cert drop in about '05), and so it just gets recycled over and over again. The latest, brought to me by an "endurance nation" alert we have set up in Google, is something like this:
http://sttrainercoaching.blogspot.com/2009/12/off-season-lovin-part-ii-turn-corner.html
Mike,
I know I've been overly persistent in hammering on this issue lately but one of the things I learned (the hard way) when I was working on all of that power stuff was how literally people interpreted the guidelines that we were providing. For example, I thought some of the TSS debates were off the charts ridiculous. People were debating that one guy rode better than another guy just because his TSS was 270 vs the other guy's who was 290. Or people would lock into a specific power number and completely ignore their RPE. All sorts of stuff that I never thought would happen. Some people just acted like they were computers where you feed them a number and the result should be completely predictable. It felt like these guidelines were being interpreted as strict rules (didn't everyone watch Pirates of the Caribbean?
)
Anyway, I honestly felt that people became defocused on the fundamentals. Looking back, I suspect I made similar mistakes when I first got into the sport so I guess I was hoping to help others not go down a similar path.
Thanks for the feedback!!
Chris
Chris, you can be confident that you've reached at least one person (me). I know that I have a tendency to overly geek out on data, numbers, etc, and as little as a year ago, I was searching for those 'magic' workouts, etc, that make you faster. It's been through folks like yourself and others here in the house that I've been able to get past it and start to learn that work is work, there's no magic sauce, and consistency rules over all other factors.
Keep the insights coming; I'm sure I'm not the only sponge out here soaking it up!
-Mike
This has been a great discussion folks. We often see folks getting really wrapped around the axel because they didn't nail a workout exactly as perscribed and are then worried they have lost an opportunity for adaptation (heck, I've been one of those people myselve!). So some key take-a-ways for me are as follows:
1- So your doing 4x1mile repeats at Z4 or maybe 3x12' intervals at 90-100% FTP and you are struggling to stay at the top of that interval or maybe you even have to back down to a slower pace/lower %FTP to complete the workout. So what! Don't panic! It doesn't mean you didn't get some "magic" adaptation work that could only be acheived if you hit the workout spot on.
2-Whether you do your recovery intervals at the low end of Z1 or somewhere in Z3 also isn't going to make or break you. UNLESS you are sacrificing your ability to recover or increasing your risk of injury (that balance of risk you all talked about). Again, don't geek out about it!
3- There is sooooooo much more for me to learn from the members of EN! Thank you all!
Everyone, thanks for the input on this. I feel like I have 20 coaches all chiming in. I wish I could somethng back on this but I am loving just soaking up the info.