Why do you say an optimal protocol is a combination of both if intervals all the time improves both?
I found it interesting reading this article from Gibbens because I am one of those people who have
had my VO2max tested and did not show a VO2max. In fact, as Noakes states, about 50% of people
tested don't show a VO2max. So, something limited my performance before I got to VO2max - if indeed
there is such a thing. In any case, Gibbens argues that it's muscle contractility:
http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1712&PN=1
Running Physiology - The State of the Art
Part 7 - Review
By Richard Gibbens
Through the first 6 parts of this series we have discussed in some detail the current
state of the art of running and endurance physiology. In this final part we will review
the major points covered and advance an alternate theory for the reader's consideration.
The theory currently dominating the exercise physiology world, at least from the
perspective of training recommended by leading authors, trainers, the popular press, and
coaches, is that of VO2max. The concept of VO2max holds that the limiting factor in
endurance performance is the body's ability to absorb, transport and utilize oxygen. Put
succinctly, the reason you can't run faster is that you can't get enough oxygen to your
running muscles. When you increase the amount of oxygen available to your muscles, you
will then be able to run faster.
Due to some significant challenges to the theory of VO2max, two additional factors have
been proposed by exercise physiologists. These two factors are lactate threshold and
running economy. They are as follows.
A runner produces lactate (or lactic acid) in greater and greater quantities as
running speed increases. This is believed to happen because of the body's inability to
provide enough oxygen to meet the increasing energy needs of the muscles. It is widely
believed that lactate is a prime cause of fatigue and hence limits performance. It is
further believed that lactate does not increase linearly, instead showing a threshold,
such that at some running speed the amount of lactate being produced by the body
increases significantly. The theory holds that if a runner can increase the pace at
which he can run before crossing this "lactate threshold" running performance will be
significantly improved.
Running economy is a measure of the amount of oxygen a runners uses at any running
speed. It has been observed that even though runners may have the same VO2max, the
amount of oxygen they use at any running speed can be very different. This difference or
"running economy" is used to explain why it is possible for a runner with a lower VO2max
to beat a runner with a higher VO2max.
Since VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy dominate the beliefs of
physiologists, most (all?) running and endurance training programs are designed around
these beliefs and are crafted to improve one or more of the above variables. Workouts
such as tempo runs, aerobic runs, anaerobic runs, lactate threshold runs, and VO2max
runs have been promoted as methods to improve the above factors. Additionally, basing
workouts on some percentage of heart rate and using a heart rate monitor to stay in the
appropriate range has been an easy method to employ the workouts mentioned above without
the necessity of expensive laboratory equipment or trained technicians.
Do They Really Exist?
Significant challenges to the concepts of VO2max, lactate threshold and running economy
exist. The counter arguments are based on research, empirical evidence, and logic. The
most significant of these challenges concerns the assumption that VO2max limits
performance; this has been assumed, but has not been proven. A significant amount of
research has been done that really calls into question whether VO2max, lactate
threshold, or running economy are viable concepts.
Alternatively, I have advanced the idea that the true limiting factor in running
performance is the muscular system, not the body's ability to utilize oxygen.
I further contend that basing a training program on a flawed theory (VO2max) could very
well mean that the training program is equally flawed. In the least, the training
program would not be designed to optimally improve the factors that limit performance,
and hence training results would be sub-optimal.
Since muscles are the true limiting factor in running performance, training programs
must be based on improving muscular power. Numerous studies have shown that high force
production training is the best method for accomplishing this. Additionally, research
also shows that much less frequency is required than most running programs advocate. Two
days of running has been shown to be as effective as 5 days of running. I recommend 2 -
3 quality workouts per week. Also, there is no evidence that easy runs promote faster
recovery. Instead, as training volume increases so does the number of running injuries.
I hope that this review of the current state of the art in running physiology has proven
useful to you and I welcome questions or comments. You can reach me at
rgibbens@austin.rr.com.
Other articles: http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1721&PN=2
A study conducted at the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland on 17
endurance runners found that 5k race times could be accurately predicted from 20 meter sprint times.
Not only that, but 20 meter sprints were a better predictor of 5k performance than VO2max.1
A study conducted at the University of Nebraska found that the10k performance of trained runners
could be accurately predicted from the 50 meter sprint, the 300 meter sprint, and from plyometric
leaping distance (plyometric leaping distance is similar to the triple jump, except that it is
performed from a standing rather than a running start).2
The most interesting thing about this study was that plyometric leaping distance was the single best
predictor of 10k performance, accounting for a whopping 75% of the variation in 10k race times; it
was a much better predictor of performance than either VO2max or that exalted attribute, lactate
threshold.
The common factor that 20m, 50m, 300m, and plyometric leaping distance all have in common is
that they are all "anaerobic" events. They are strength events; they are not "aerobic" or
endurance events.
http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1749&PN=1
http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1758&PN=1
http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1823&PN=1
http://www.runtexu.com/forum/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=12&PN=2
"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message news:slrnbmcafl.310.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> In article <N3p9b.56183$nf3.46286@fed1read07>, SlowRunner wrote:
> > VO2max? Muscle Contractility? Nerves?
>
> Everything boils down to VO2Max and running economy.
>
> Running economy = speed/VO2, so IOW if your VO2 max is high but you can't run quickly, it's
> because of your running economy.
>
> Having said that, there are several factors that affect both VO2 Max and running economy.
>
> Among those that affect VO2 max include the rate at which your heart can pump blood, capillary
> density, amount of mitochondria, and body weight.
>
> Factors that can influence economy include your shape (hip width, leg
length),
> type of muscle fiber (slow/fast twitch), body composition, small scale nervous adaptions
> (neuromuscular), larger scale (running form), and muscle conditioning.
>
> > Anyone have any thoughts on this? Has anyone tried long slow runs all
the
> > time vs. intervals all the time?
>
> Intervals all the time will almost certainly be better, because they
improve
> VO2 max, and running economy. Slow running will improve VO2 max, but not economy. The optimal
> protocol, which athletes use, is a combination of
both.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
