Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training article
Dot
forum. http://sportsci.org/
Under Perspectives, look at Seiler and Tennesen article titled
"Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity
and Duration in Endurance Training"
I've only lightly scanned it so far, but looks like a good article to
digest. (even distinguishes elites from recreational runners) Also looks
like some other articles in there might be of interest.
Dot
--
"You�ll never hear me say I beat the Peak. I�ve run up there pretty
fast, and that mountain doesn�t care. I�ll never conquer the Peak." -
Matt Carpenter
pithydoug
> Someone (Sam for you who remember him) posted this link in another
> Under Perspectives, look at Seiler and Tennesen article titled
> "Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity
> and Duration in Endurance Training"
Damn, I miss Sam! he always had great insight!!
"The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-
intensity training with careful use of high-intensity interval
training throughout the annual training cycle is the best-practice
model for development of endurance performance. "
Great teaser...... I 'll have to read when I get a chance.
-D
Charlie Pendejo
> "The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-
> intensity training with careful use of high-intensity interval
> training throughout the annual training cycle is the best-practice
> model for development of endurance performance. "
Oh my! Whoulda thunk!!
Dot
That quote is from abstract, not Sam.
Reading down further:
'Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week.
Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold
appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours
per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question.
Recently Esteve-Lanao (personal communication) completed an interesting
study on recreational runners comparing a program that was designed to
reproduce the polarized training of successful endurance athletes and
compare it with a program built around much more threshold training in
keeping with the ACSM exercise guidelines. The intended intensity
distribution for the two training groups was: Polarized 77-3-20 % and
ACSM 46-35-19 % for Zones 1, 2, and 3. However, heart-rate monitoring
revealed that the actual distribution was: Polarized 65-21-14 % and ACSM
31-56-13 %.
'Comparing the intended and achieved distributions highlights a typical
training error committed by recreational athletes. We can call it
falling into a training intensity �black hole.� '...
There's some neat data in there. It's interesting that they do recognize
the difference between elites and recreational runners.
Tim Downie
"Dot" <AKTrailRun@#gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdb1nd$f8p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Charlie Pendejo wrote:
>> Doug, quoting Sam:
>>
>>>"The available evidence suggests that combining large volumes of low-
>>>intensity training with careful use of high-intensity interval
>>>training throughout the annual training cycle is the best-practice
>>>model for development of endurance performance. "
>>
>>
>> Oh my! Whoulda thunk!!
>
> That quote is from abstract, not Sam.
>
> Reading down further:
>
> 'Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is
> the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for
> recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There
> are almost no published data addressing this question. Recently
> Esteve-Lanao (personal communication) completed an interesting study on
> recreational runners comparing a program that was designed to reproduce
> the polarized training of successful endurance athletes and compare it
> with a program built around much more threshold training in keeping with
> the ACSM exercise guidelines. The intended intensity distribution for the
> two training groups was: Polarized 77-3-20 % and ACSM 46-35-19 % for Zones
> 1, 2, and 3. However, heart-rate monitoring revealed that the actual
> distribution was: Polarized 65-21-14 % and ACSM 31-56-13 %.
>
> 'Comparing the intended and achieved distributions highlights a typical
> training error committed by recreational athletes. We can call it falling
I could be wrong (I have a very short attention span) but I think the short
message is "recreational runners do their slow runs too fast and their fast
runs too slow".
Tim
pithydoug
wrote:
That statement has been out there for 20 years and by my experience is
very accurate. Unfortunately the statement is like saying God is good
- sounds right, feels right but how does one quantify AND prove this.
Not a religious statement but a metaphor for comparison purposes. As
we have seen from this thread and a few others there are dozens of
books/papers/authors trying to nail this stuff down. In a way, the
more we know the more we realize how little we know. We can glean some
generalities for all of these people but thereafter it's a slippery
slope.
Most of the better work is about elites and trying to get the best out
of the best. Where things get interesting is how does this all apply
across the board taking in a few trivial variables like genetics(if
that does exist), age, sex, desires, etc. Ya know. Joe six pack or
the Mr./Ms midpack. ;)
Anyway we have lots more data points but still a long way from home.
It's really interesting when E**2 digs up older pieces for discussion
but t6he question will always be, "what works for me?"
And yes, I knew that Sam was only pointing at a an article and not the
author.
-D
Tim
>> the short message is "recreational runners do their slow runs too
>> fast and their fast runs too slow".
>
> That statement has been out there for 20 years and by my experience is
> very accurate. Unfortunately the statement is like saying God is good
> - sounds right, feels right but how does one quantify AND prove this.
> Not a religious statement but a metaphor for comparison purposes. As
> we have seen from this thread and a few others there are dozens of
> books/papers/authors trying to nail this stuff down. In a way, the
> more we know the more we realize how little we know. We can glean some
> generalities for all of these people but thereafter it's a slippery
> slope.
>
> Most of the better work is about elites and trying to get the best out
> of the best. Where things get interesting is how does this all apply
> across the board taking in a few trivial variables like genetics(if
> that does exist), age, sex, desires, etc. Ya know. Joe six pack or
> the Mr./Ms midpack. ;)
>
> Anyway we have lots more data points but still a long way from home.
> It's really interesting when E**2 digs up older pieces for discussion
> but t6he question will always be, "what works for me?"
>
> And yes, I knew that Sam was only pointing at a an article and not the
> author.
Which bit of "I have a very short attention span" did you not understand
Doug? ;-)
Tim
D Stumpus
"Dot" <AKTrailRun@#gmail.com> wrote
> 'Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is
> the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for
> recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week?
> 'Comparing the intended and achieved distributions highlights a typical
> training error committed by recreational athletes. We can call it falling
> into a training intensity �black hole.� '...
Haven't read the article, but I made my big jump in performance when I went
to polarized training: lots of easy "junk" miles, and 3 good strong hard
workout days.
I had been training at an average pace of about 7:00/mile before. My easy
days eased off to 7:30-8:00 when I went "polarized", yet I got significantly
faster. My inspiration was Marty Liquori's "Guide for the Elite Runner".
My motto was: Make the workouts that count, really count.
I posted some distributions of my heartrate over the workout week and the
importance of the contrast between hard and easy workouts here a few years
ago; for some reason it hasn't appeared in the literature :). But it's
nice that people are now finally focusing on the importance of the contrast.
Charlie Pendejo
> Haven't read the article, but I made my big jump in performance when I went
> to polarized training: lots of easy "junk" miles, and 3 good strong hard
> nice that people are now finally focusing on the importance of the contrast.
Clearly that's effective for an awful lot of people, but I'm not
convinced everyone universally responds best to really highly
polarized training, at least week in and week out.
Recently we hear that Meb runs his easy days faster than sometimes-
training-partner Hall. Some other elites feel their success came more
from good strong daily efforts (and lots of it!) with mostly
relatively mild workouts.
In my own experience, I've had plenty of disappointment with results
from stout workouts (e.g. a season of Daniels 10k training), and some
surprising success with both milder workouts (the following fall,
mostly MP-ish stuff) and with brisker daily paces even at low weekly
mileage. There's plenty I don't understand, including how my once-
ailing endocrine system plays into all this. Just voicing opinion /
observation that individuals' (figurative) mileage may vary, and
considerably.
EDWARD EDMONDS
> Someone (Sam for you who remember him) posted this link in another
> forum. http://sportsci.org/
> Under Perspectives, look at Seiler and Tennesen article titled
> "Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity
> and Duration in Endurance Training"
>
> I've only lightly scanned it so far, but looks like a good article to
> digest. (even distinguishes elites from recreational runners) Also looks
> like some other articles in there might be of interest.
>
> Dot
*Currently Ingesting*
Let's pray I don't get the squirts halfway through... LOCs
Dot
>
> I could be wrong (I have a very short attention span) but I think the short
> message is "recreational runners do their slow runs too fast and their fast
> runs too slow".
>
> Tim
>
Actually, it's elites as well as recreational runners.
D Stumpus
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote
> Recently we hear that Meb runs his easy days faster than sometimes-
training-partner Hall.
I read Meb "only" does 110-120 mi/wk. I wonder if Hall does the 140+
thing? That could 'splain some if it, but of course everyone's magic
formula is likely to be different.
> In my own experience, I've had plenty of disappointment with results
from stout workouts (e.g. a season of Daniels 10k training)
I bought Daniel's book and just put it down, way too fussy, and a bit too
much quality for these legs to be happy.
> Just voicing opinion /
observation that individuals' (figurative) mileage may vary, and
considerably.
For sure, but I think it's good that the element of contrast is being zeroed
in on, I think it's just as significant a variable to experiment with as the
quality of the fast stuff.
Edward Edmonds
> thing? That could 'splain some if it, but of course everyone's magic
> formula is likely to be different.
I'd have to look at the physical stats of Hall, but I think he does
too much strength training.
> I bought Daniel's book and just put it down, way too fussy, and a bit too
> much quality for these legs to be happy.
+1 - it was fussy.
Several months ago somebody told me that it was a really good book;
reading that after having just finished Lydiard, made me want to puke,
the book gets too specific about training paces, there is some useful
information in there, more a dictionary to look up the meanings of
terms than anything else.
> For sure, but I think it's good that the element of contrast is being zeroed
> in on, I think it's just as significant a variable to experiment with as the
> quality of the fast stuff.
+1
steinbej
> ... I think the short
> message is "recreational runners do their slow runs too fast and their fast
> runs too slow".
So how does a recreational runner (or anyone for that matter) know how
slow is right for the slow runs and how fast is right for the fast
runs?
-- Josh
Charlie Pendejo
>> I think the short message is "recreational runners do their slow
>> runs too fast and their fast runs too slow".
Josh S:
> So how does a recreational runner (or anyone for that matter) know how
> slow is right for the slow runs and how fast is right for the fast runs?
The eternal question - "what's the best training"? Answer depends on
as many dimensions and variables as you care to identify, starting
with whose dogma smells best to you. Also: training for what events,
age, availability & inclination to run frequently (3x per week or 3x
per day?), experience, what stage in a season/cycle, et cetera.
I'd suggest splitting the question in half and starting with "how fast
is right for the fast runs?" Choose an answer for that, put it into
practice, and the "how slow on slow days" answers itself: however slow
you need, to recovery sufficiently to do your fast days on spec week
after week without wearing down. The more challenging the fast days,
the easier the slow days will need to be.
Seems to me there's always been a preference on this group for quite
challenging workout days and extremely easy recovery days - two or
maybe three days of real work and the rest more or less filler - but
that's not the only way to skin a cat. I now believe that for my
first several years, I did my slow runs too slow and (often) fast runs
too fast. :-)
Doug Freese
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32813d21-a7a7-49f1...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
To borrow from E2 +1.
-D
Edward Edmonds
> "Charlie Pendejo"<charlie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:32813d21-a7a7-49f1...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> Tim Downie:
>>>> I think the short message is "recreational runners do their slow
>>>> runs too fast and their fast runs too slow".
>>
>> Josh S:
>>> So how does a recreational runner (or anyone for that matter) know
>>> how
>>> slow is right for the slow runs and how fast is right for the fast
>>> runs?
>>
>> The eternal question - "what's the best training"? Answer depends on
>> as many dimensions and variables as you care to identify, starting
>> with whose dogma smells best to you. Also: training for what events,
>> per day?), experience, what stage in a season/cycle, et cetera.
>>
>> I'd suggest splitting the question in half and starting with "how fast
>> is right for the fast runs?" Choose an answer for that, put it into
>> practice, and the "how slow on slow days" answers itself: however slow
>> you need, to recovery sufficiently to do your fast days on spec week
>> after week without wearing down. The more challenging the fast days,
>> the easier the slow days will need to be.
>>
>> Seems to me there's always been a preference on this group for quite
>> challenging workout days and extremely easy recovery days - two or
>> maybe three days of real work and the rest more or less filler - but
>> that's not the only way to skin a cat. I now believe that for my
>> first several years, I did my slow runs too slow and (often) fast runs
>> too fast. :-)
>
> To borrow from E2 +1.
>
> -D
Hey! I don't remember lending out and +1's to anybody :-)
Charlie Pendejo
> Hey! I don't remember lending out and +1's to anybody :-)
As Stravinsky said: Talent borrows; genius steals.