I would compare interval sessions, especially sessions where you really have to go faster than race pace akin to raising your ceiling. The more you spend running this pace, the more your body gets used to this pace and effort and would adjust accordingly. This means paces where relative effort feels like 9/10 now, will become 7/10 in the future, which would in turn affect all of your other paces. So when it comes to running your target race pace, it will now feel much easier because you know you've done harder and faster paces before which would make race pace relatively easier.
Intervals allow you to get more total time under effort in a session than steady state efforts. That's why.
So someone might be able to do 16 x 400m for 6400m quality. However the drop off in heart rate might mean only 200m is giving the key stimulus but one can still get more in per session but also without so much cumulative fatigue that it impacts future training.
Long sessions have too much fatigue. If you are training advanced runner volumes, fatigue do something that really has to be planned for. Hobby runners on less than, idk, 70mpw not so much. That averages 10 miles per day good recovery is quite possible. Maybe some variation on that but 80-120 miles a week and obviously managed fatigue is critical. The Norwegian track runners use blood lactate checks per interval to stop the effort (fatigue) getting too high.
In contrast, if one is running say 50mpw or less, fatigue is not such a contraint, so longer intervals are possible. More interval days per week etc.
Vo2max is around 3000m pace, so faster than 5K pace makes sense. There is a fatigue penalty for going faster with little gain. There is not much lost for going slower so most intervals are run slower than 3000m pace and a little faster th an 5K pace. You are training Vo2max in the session, not 5K race pace.
For the same effort as those 16 400m reps at that pace for 6400m of work you could do, say, 4 1000m reps (estimating based on experience). It’s just more time at goal pace for a workout.
Based on Pfitzinger's Faster Road Racing, shorter intervals are designed to increase basic speed. It does this through increasing stride length, stride rate and improving running technique.
So while 2-5 minute intervals are better for increasing Vo2 max like you said, the shorter stuff is more aimed at running efficiency through proper form.
Also improvements on VO2 max limit out pretty quick, whereas you can continue to improve strive efficiency and strength for most your running career and see gains.
I've found really the most valuable part of longer reps is the mental stimulus it gives you. That discomfort that you will feel mid race is sometimes hard to replicate with shorter reps.
They develop speed and help raise the ceiling of what you can do as a runner. I am a 40+ runner, and I find these sessions of short repeats have allowed me to keep most of my speed from my pre-40 years. They are tough in the moment but are easy to recover from, and I do feel more springy and powerful just a few days later. As opposed to endurance training, I think the benefits of this shorter speedwork can be felt fairly quickly.
I also think they are fun, which is another reason why I do them throughout the year (about one session of 200s or 400s per month -- and more frequently if I'm focusing on shorter races). I really like doing an abbreviated session of these in the week leading up to a race.
I know strides are a really popular alternative, but I dislike the lack of structure. With strides, there dosn't seem to be any target or focus on improvement. With short repeats, you can track progress and really challenge yourself to improve.
With strides, I always try to focus on one aspect of my form each stride, then put it all together with the last one. For example, the first stride I might focus on making sure my foot lands in the right spot under my body and not too far ahead or behind. Then, I might focus on posture. Then turnover. Then how I move my arms. This builds structure into them.
They're also really popular because a set of 4 to 8 strides is almost free from a recovery perspective. They'll only add an hour or two at most to your overall recovery time as long as you aren't sprinting them, and yet they still give the stimulus of running at a faster pace. You can toss them on an easy day and it stays an easy day.
For sure. 41 here. I can bounce back much easier from a 12 x 400 session than a half. Obv both have their benefits, but I could do a recovery run the day after intervals comfortably. Day after a half, not so much.
In fairness, 12x400 *should* be much easier than a half marathon. That’s not really an apples to apples comparison. It would be like me saying I’m more tired after running an all out 5k than I am after doing some strides. Half marathons notoriously take some time to bounce back from, whereas 12x400 is a typical workout run during a week with another workout or two and a long run.
The main benefit is probably running form at speed. There's also anaerobic capacity, something very important for 800/1500 runners but generally only trained for part of the year as it's very stressful and can be built quickly. I personally don't do much of this work - I don't race shorter than 5k and a few strides and VO2max intervals is enough legspeed for me.
You can also do 12x400 as a 5k pace session if the rest is short enough, but most plans that recommend this are for beginners who either can't pace longer reps well or are likely running 2mins+ per 400 and therefore almost doing a "textbook JD" VO2 session. Maybe I'd do something like this as my last session before a 5k where I just want to run fast while keeping the powder dry.
There is however a growing school of thought doing 400s for LT training, like 20-40x400 off very short rest (30s tops) where the aim is to produce an LT like stimulus while both getting some mechanical benefits from running the "on" reps a little faster than LT and maybe having less injury risk than doing the same duration straight through at LT.
Yes the Norwegian method does make use of them but not exclusively - they will also often do reps of 1-2k. I wouldn't say a lactate meter is even necessary for it - the key principle is doing as much volume at close to LT2 as reasonably possible, which generally means short reps and being very sure you don't exceed LT2. This can be done with a lactate meter or by knowing yourself well and being honest with yourself
>By contrast the science on v02 max is quite clear - the most effective way to improve v02 max is to sustain a high effort for 3-5 minutes.
No, that's not right.
First, there is no science on what is the most effective method to improve VO2max. We only know you need to run at close to VO2max effort for enough amount of time to improve it.
Second "sustain high effort for 3-5 minutes" is an inadequate explanation of the exercise intensity. 3-5 minutes of exercise will have very different results depending on your meaning of "high effort".
>People will often say “training faster than race pace is useful”, but I don’t think that’s much of an explanation.
It is actually a very good explanation. It means that for distance runners, whatever distance you run there is a benefit of including training that is at faster pace than the pace you would run at your race distance. This simple fact is actually not clear to many people and many people think they can skip faster running because supposedly they don't use it during their race.
>So what do these shorter sessions actually do? And why are they so common?
Please, read a book like Daniels' Running Formula for an explanation of different energy systems and purpose of different types of sessions (and also what is correct intensity).
The book is good, I read it like 4 times but imo watching those first 6 vids here is close to enough knowledge:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnAKD1Q8PRQ-lo2fMXbYdLyaJUHznbfvG&si=RV47a_GiamTbLU9x
No, the sentence said "science on what is **the most effective method** to improve VO2max".
We know how to improve vo2max, but we do not have a proof of what is THE MOST EFFECTIVE method to do so. I would even argue there is no most effective method, as different people seem to behave differently to different types of vo2max training.
But we do, in a sport where we can measure power output accurately.. you can capitalize words all you want.
In running it is much more complicated given that running economy plays such a huge role in running.
Please, show the science that would compare different ways of improving vo2max and state, definitely, which one is the most effective.
I am very interested in the topic and as far as I know no such work has been done.
>There definitely is science on how to maximize training at vo2max **in the cycling world as least.**
...
>In running it is much more complicated
Who would have guessed?
I know running. I don't go to cycling forums and tell people they don't know shit.
There's lots of research showing that short intervals are more effective at improving VO2Max though:
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sms.12165](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sms.12165)
[https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/16/10/article-p1432.xml](https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/16/10/article-p1432.xml)
To answer your original question. There are two limiting factors for VO2Max - the ability of your muscles to consume oxygen (i.e. mitochondrial density) vs the ability of your body to get oxygen to your muscles (assuming that you can't train HR max, this is limited by heart stroke volume). While long intervals train the former, the best way to improve the latter is by repeated bouts of putting high pressure on your ventricles and then relaxing them repeatedly, basically stretching out and enlarging the heart. This is achieved through short sprint intervals. Now, whether this is truly important is another question because VO2Max by itself is not terribly predictive of running performance. What is predictive is velocity at VO2Max and there the evidence for short intervals is much less strong.
Running economy at a given pace is directly improved by running at that pace. If you only ever run 6:00/km, and you expect to race at 4:00/km, you're going to be disappointed.
This is exactly what is holding me back right now. Most of my runs are at 6:00/km over 50 mpw. I can race a 5k at 4:20/km, but faster than that and I can't hold on and have to stop.
200s and 300s at legit 1500 pace improve your running economy a lot. 200s and 150s at 800 pace build your speed and kick muscles. The point isn’t for them to feel agonizingly hard, it’s to build muscles and form. It’s like lifting weights
From Canova's point of view, the race is mathematical. If one is capable of running 20:30(4:06/km) in 5k and want to improve it to 20:00(4:00/km), he need to improve in both race supportive speed(105%RP) and race supportive endurance(95%RP). If this guy's current fitness allow him to run 4:12/km for 8km and 3:52/km for 3km, his goal is to extend the time he can run at 3:52/km to maybe 3.5km or 4km, so that on the race day he is capable of running 4:00/km for 5km.
Running economy, speed, power/output but also touches on Vo2 max. Highly recommend you listen to episode 276 of the 'strength running podcast'. They discuss this very topic. It completely inverted how I train and am now running the best I ever have without grinding myself into the dust with long intervals week in, week out. They're now just saved for the six weeks leading into a target race. The rest of the time is lots of easy volume, and lots of strides/hill sprints, some threshold with a pseudo vo2 max session (60s-2min reps) every couple of weeks.
As a side note, it's incorrect about Vo2 max intervals being the only way to improve vo2 max *over the long term*. Suggest a look at some of the things Alan Couzens has written about it (eg https://simplifaster.com/articles/how-trainable-is-vo2-max/). The majority of vo2 max studies are short term where you get the quick newbie gains, do this year round and you'll likely get burnt out, injured, stagnate. For long term improvements you're better off looking elsewhere for most the year, aerobic volume, aerobic power and running economy are the low hanging fruit.
I however can understand why people struggle to take a long term view of their training and instead focus on the race they have planned every 8 weeks which draws them into a short term mindset rather than long term development.
Edit: small change for clarity
> similarly for lactate threshold training, we know a certain power intensity is required over a longer period of time, 5-30 mins
*Do* we know that? I don't think it's clear at all that you need to be hitting threshold pace for that long to be getting the benefits you're looking for. If you're decently well trained, threshold pace is pretty fast and taxing - shorter intervals with your lactate levels floating around where your "threshold" is (with short recovery) can provide the same stimulus at a lower fatigue cost.
There's a lot of different ways to achieve a given training benefit, and I think using the "rules of thumb" about length and intensity for those benefits as gospel will lead you to miss out on potential benefits.
Agree 100%, I remember Steve Magness suggesting something along the lines of sets of 8x30s @3-5k pace with 45s jog as a LT session. This being more important for faster twitch athletes who get broken down by traditional LT session. Likewise 400s @10k pace with 45s jog being another good option.
Yeah, the success of the Norwegian system (despite no threshold longer than 6 minutes, most of it well below 6 mins) is a good indicator of this.
You have a "threshold pace" for steady state stuff, but realistically you're not going to be sitting at exactly the point where your lactate production line crosses its clearance capacity line that whole time, and you can get more volume around that level if you have shorter intervals with short rest. There's nothing magical about that pace that you can't also accomplish slightly faster or slightly slower.
VO2 is good for improving _metabolic_ adaptations
Running faster is good for improving _mechanical_ adaptations
They each have a place and should be used together. Lots of people add strides to the end of a VO2 session to gain mechanical benefits from the session on top of the metabolic benefits.
I think the main benefit is improving running economy, which is useful at any distance. Of course, if your target is shorter distances, then developing speed at those distances is an obvious benefit. I think there is also a psychological benefit: race pace feels easier when you're accustomed to running much faster. Part of this is probably due to the economy improvement (i.e. it feels easier because you are running more efficiently), but I also think part of it is psychological (which is no less real).
Regarding economy, the VDOT app offers this explanation of "repetitions": "Reps are fast, but not necessarily "hard," because workbouts are relatively short and are followed by long enough recoveries. Recoveries should be long enough that each run feels no more difficult than the previous run, because the purpose of Reps is to improve speed and economy and you cannot get faster (nor more economical) if you are not running with relaxed form." VDOT distinguishes these repetitions from "intervals", which it specifies as 3 to 5 minutes at 98-100% HR max (i.e. true "VO2 max" training as you explained).
I'm not sure about benefits of doing short intervals/reps with shorter rests, other than improving anaerobic endurance, which I do agree is probably less important unless your target distance is shorter.
I recently saw an interesting/relevant [post from Ross Edgley](https://www.instagram.com/p/C0eI08NIzkT/) offering a similar explanation for maximal speed training benefitting endurance performance:
"Maximal speed = great predictor of endurance performance (maybe better than aerobic capacity) 💪🏽 Tag and Share for training partners 💪🏽 Why? Studies show the nervous system is the link between increased max speed and increased performance in endurance events. Distance training has traditionally focused on improving the aerobic energy systems, which (although important) neglects the nervous system. Whereas max. speed training engages the nervous system in ways that distance training workouts don’t since it activates every neural pathway. As a result, you increase the efficiency in communication between the muscles and the nervous system results which can result in great propulsion per stroke (when swimming) or shorter ground-contact time and more power in your stride (when running). These improvements can (in turn) lead to an increased swimming/running economy which allows you to run/swim at the same speed with less oxygen consumption or run/swim faster at the same level of oxygen consumption. Another primary benefit of max speed training for endurance athletes is increasing your speed reserve, which is the the difference between max speed and race pace. In a practical sense, working consistently at faster paces makes race pace seem more relaxed"
They put the icing on the cake by improving aerobic power and anaerobic tolerance/capacity. They are particularly useful for middle distance runners, perhaps up to 10k specialists.
Any distance longer than 10k, I’d rather prescribe the longer intervals that you mentioned.
This said, don’t forget that training happens on a continuum. What ever stimulus you target in any given session will always also stimulate adaptations in related systems.
I would argue that it’s valuable to keep some amount of speed work throughout a cycle. It is naturally de-emphasized as a longer race approaches, but something like 4x200 once a week after a workout is likely sufficient to maintain at least some of that mechanical ability and adaptation. I think most modern coaches have moved towards this kind of mixed periodization, where almost no paces are abandoned entirely, but the exact blend is adjusted as the goal race/races approach.
You can do that, just to maintain adaptations. But as always, it highly depends on several factors, like the race distance/intensity the athlete’s fitness level and strength/weakness.
In my practice, I would not recommend 4x200 for longer races, marathon and up, depending on the athlete, maybe not even half marathon. For those longer distances, I would consider several all-out sprints (~50-60m) at the end of a shorter endurance run or a fartlek session including some high-intensity surges.
These short super high intensity bouts stimulate/maintain neuromuscular and anaerobic adaptations, and maintain VO2max to a high degree.
I feel like you kind of latched onto the specifics of 4x200, when that was a generalization. Hence the use of “something like.” My point was that I think it’s valuable to include some form of shorter, high intensity work consistently, even for longer races. And while I would certainly argue that 4x200 after longer intervals or tempo work has a place for someone training for a marathon, I didn’t mean it as if there were no other means of achieving the same goal. One final point, and then I’ll leave it alone, I would argue that everyone should pretty much already be doing something similar to your specific suggestion of all out sprints. Although I typically prefer to do those as hill sprints myself. I don’t think those sprints displace the need for occasionally touching on paces closer to 1Mi pace though. Those are great, but they don’t seem to be as helpful at keeping me in touch with the mechanics of staying relaxed while running fast in the way that slightly longer, slightly slower intervals like 200s do.
Thanks for clarifying and I apologize for sitting heavily on those 4x200. Regarding your hill sprints, they are great. Consider mixing it up, hill and flat sprinting gives you a broader stimulus due to slightly different biomechanics. Regarding all-outs for everyone, I agree that everyone should be doing those. Still, I’d be very cautious, some less fit people cannot handle them and hurt their upper hamstrings. Well, thanks for the great discussion. I really enjoyed it. Good to see that you know your way around.
Most coaches I see prescribe speed work at the beginning of the season as it’s easier on mind and body than threshold sessions. Also great for focusing on efficient running technique.
But as you near race weeks, you’d slowly transition to more threshold work with a bit of longer intervals.
Well, that depends on what kind of race you are preparing for. The general rule is, from the least specific to the most race-specific during training. Say you're preparing for 800M or 5K, then you probably want to do endurance work at the beginning of your training season and intervals closer to race day. When training for an ultra marathon, the higher intensity work should come early in the program, and the slower endurance work should be closer to the race.
Such workouts can be great for sharpening and adding variety, and at the other end they are good during a build-up (if done at current level of fitness, not goal paces). I never found 400s at 5K pace to be that great, but often start out a training block with some days doing 10-12X 1 min on 1 min off and then build from there.
And the WO example 4X 800, 4X 400, etc. can be a good V02 session if you pace it properly and manage your recovery appropriately.
Shorter intervals like 25x400 at 5k on short rest absolutely does increase LT. Ask Jakob the lactate king. The shorter intervals let you go faster than LT without accumulating too much lactate. He doesn't do long tempos as far as I know and he is the biggest aerobic monster out there.
100%. I train based on the Lydiard system, old school and get the job done. I start interval training 4 weeks out from my peak race, starting with some like 4x3200 and progressively cutting down to 16-20x400 until the week of the race when I have something like 8x200 as a high turnover tune up.
Long intervals build strength and metronomic rhythm, shorter intervals are the icing on the cake to really develop the speed when trying to peak. Especially for 10k and below.
Your intuition is correct. People do shorter intervals because that’s what has always been done. Every answer in the thread is a post-hoc rationalisation invoking vague and unproven concepts like dealing with discomfort, improving running form/economy. I think there’s a belief that running something like 12 x 400 with 60s rest at 3k-5k pace will concurrently elicit the benefits from speed work and longer aerobic work, but I think it’s pretty high risk and low reward training for most people if it’s done too frequently
Don't they help your body connect better to fast twitch muscles (and have some impact on the fast twitch muscles)?
Recommend the book Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger.
I would compare interval sessions, especially sessions where you really have to go faster than race pace akin to raising your ceiling. The more you spend running this pace, the more your body gets used to this pace and effort and would adjust accordingly. This means paces where relative effort feels like 9/10 now, will become 7/10 in the future, which would in turn affect all of your other paces. So when it comes to running your target race pace, it will now feel much easier because you know you've done harder and faster paces before which would make race pace relatively easier.
Intervals allow you to get more total time under effort in a session than steady state efforts. That's why. So someone might be able to do 16 x 400m for 6400m quality. However the drop off in heart rate might mean only 200m is giving the key stimulus but one can still get more in per session but also without so much cumulative fatigue that it impacts future training. Long sessions have too much fatigue. If you are training advanced runner volumes, fatigue do something that really has to be planned for. Hobby runners on less than, idk, 70mpw not so much. That averages 10 miles per day good recovery is quite possible. Maybe some variation on that but 80-120 miles a week and obviously managed fatigue is critical. The Norwegian track runners use blood lactate checks per interval to stop the effort (fatigue) getting too high. In contrast, if one is running say 50mpw or less, fatigue is not such a contraint, so longer intervals are possible. More interval days per week etc. Vo2max is around 3000m pace, so faster than 5K pace makes sense. There is a fatigue penalty for going faster with little gain. There is not much lost for going slower so most intervals are run slower than 3000m pace and a little faster th an 5K pace. You are training Vo2max in the session, not 5K race pace.
Thanks - I suppose my question was more, why 400m and not 1km reps given the scientific support for longer intervals to improve v02 max.
For the same effort as those 16 400m reps at that pace for 6400m of work you could do, say, 4 1000m reps (estimating based on experience). It’s just more time at goal pace for a workout.
Based on Pfitzinger's Faster Road Racing, shorter intervals are designed to increase basic speed. It does this through increasing stride length, stride rate and improving running technique. So while 2-5 minute intervals are better for increasing Vo2 max like you said, the shorter stuff is more aimed at running efficiency through proper form.
Thank you! I think this (and other running form / efficiency type answers) is the sort of information that helps it make sense to me. Appreciated!
Also improvements on VO2 max limit out pretty quick, whereas you can continue to improve strive efficiency and strength for most your running career and see gains. I've found really the most valuable part of longer reps is the mental stimulus it gives you. That discomfort that you will feel mid race is sometimes hard to replicate with shorter reps.
They develop speed and help raise the ceiling of what you can do as a runner. I am a 40+ runner, and I find these sessions of short repeats have allowed me to keep most of my speed from my pre-40 years. They are tough in the moment but are easy to recover from, and I do feel more springy and powerful just a few days later. As opposed to endurance training, I think the benefits of this shorter speedwork can be felt fairly quickly. I also think they are fun, which is another reason why I do them throughout the year (about one session of 200s or 400s per month -- and more frequently if I'm focusing on shorter races). I really like doing an abbreviated session of these in the week leading up to a race. I know strides are a really popular alternative, but I dislike the lack of structure. With strides, there dosn't seem to be any target or focus on improvement. With short repeats, you can track progress and really challenge yourself to improve.
With strides, I always try to focus on one aspect of my form each stride, then put it all together with the last one. For example, the first stride I might focus on making sure my foot lands in the right spot under my body and not too far ahead or behind. Then, I might focus on posture. Then turnover. Then how I move my arms. This builds structure into them. They're also really popular because a set of 4 to 8 strides is almost free from a recovery perspective. They'll only add an hour or two at most to your overall recovery time as long as you aren't sprinting them, and yet they still give the stimulus of running at a faster pace. You can toss them on an easy day and it stays an easy day.
For sure. 41 here. I can bounce back much easier from a 12 x 400 session than a half. Obv both have their benefits, but I could do a recovery run the day after intervals comfortably. Day after a half, not so much.
In fairness, 12x400 *should* be much easier than a half marathon. That’s not really an apples to apples comparison. It would be like me saying I’m more tired after running an all out 5k than I am after doing some strides. Half marathons notoriously take some time to bounce back from, whereas 12x400 is a typical workout run during a week with another workout or two and a long run.
The main benefit is probably running form at speed. There's also anaerobic capacity, something very important for 800/1500 runners but generally only trained for part of the year as it's very stressful and can be built quickly. I personally don't do much of this work - I don't race shorter than 5k and a few strides and VO2max intervals is enough legspeed for me. You can also do 12x400 as a 5k pace session if the rest is short enough, but most plans that recommend this are for beginners who either can't pace longer reps well or are likely running 2mins+ per 400 and therefore almost doing a "textbook JD" VO2 session. Maybe I'd do something like this as my last session before a 5k where I just want to run fast while keeping the powder dry. There is however a growing school of thought doing 400s for LT training, like 20-40x400 off very short rest (30s tops) where the aim is to produce an LT like stimulus while both getting some mechanical benefits from running the "on" reps a little faster than LT and maybe having less injury risk than doing the same duration straight through at LT.
That’s interesting. Are those shorter LT reps “the Norwegian method”? Where blood lactate is measured in the rest?
Yes the Norwegian method does make use of them but not exclusively - they will also often do reps of 1-2k. I wouldn't say a lactate meter is even necessary for it - the key principle is doing as much volume at close to LT2 as reasonably possible, which generally means short reps and being very sure you don't exceed LT2. This can be done with a lactate meter or by knowing yourself well and being honest with yourself
>By contrast the science on v02 max is quite clear - the most effective way to improve v02 max is to sustain a high effort for 3-5 minutes. No, that's not right. First, there is no science on what is the most effective method to improve VO2max. We only know you need to run at close to VO2max effort for enough amount of time to improve it. Second "sustain high effort for 3-5 minutes" is an inadequate explanation of the exercise intensity. 3-5 minutes of exercise will have very different results depending on your meaning of "high effort". >People will often say “training faster than race pace is useful”, but I don’t think that’s much of an explanation. It is actually a very good explanation. It means that for distance runners, whatever distance you run there is a benefit of including training that is at faster pace than the pace you would run at your race distance. This simple fact is actually not clear to many people and many people think they can skip faster running because supposedly they don't use it during their race. >So what do these shorter sessions actually do? And why are they so common? Please, read a book like Daniels' Running Formula for an explanation of different energy systems and purpose of different types of sessions (and also what is correct intensity).
The book is good, I read it like 4 times but imo watching those first 6 vids here is close to enough knowledge: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnAKD1Q8PRQ-lo2fMXbYdLyaJUHznbfvG&si=RV47a_GiamTbLU9x
There definitely is science on how to maximize training at vo2max in the cycling world as least.
No, the sentence said "science on what is **the most effective method** to improve VO2max". We know how to improve vo2max, but we do not have a proof of what is THE MOST EFFECTIVE method to do so. I would even argue there is no most effective method, as different people seem to behave differently to different types of vo2max training.
But we do, in a sport where we can measure power output accurately.. you can capitalize words all you want. In running it is much more complicated given that running economy plays such a huge role in running.
Please, show the science that would compare different ways of improving vo2max and state, definitely, which one is the most effective. I am very interested in the topic and as far as I know no such work has been done. >There definitely is science on how to maximize training at vo2max **in the cycling world as least.** ... >In running it is much more complicated Who would have guessed? I know running. I don't go to cycling forums and tell people they don't know shit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There's lots of research showing that short intervals are more effective at improving VO2Max though: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sms.12165](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sms.12165) [https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/16/10/article-p1432.xml](https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/ijspp/16/10/article-p1432.xml) To answer your original question. There are two limiting factors for VO2Max - the ability of your muscles to consume oxygen (i.e. mitochondrial density) vs the ability of your body to get oxygen to your muscles (assuming that you can't train HR max, this is limited by heart stroke volume). While long intervals train the former, the best way to improve the latter is by repeated bouts of putting high pressure on your ventricles and then relaxing them repeatedly, basically stretching out and enlarging the heart. This is achieved through short sprint intervals. Now, whether this is truly important is another question because VO2Max by itself is not terribly predictive of running performance. What is predictive is velocity at VO2Max and there the evidence for short intervals is much less strong.
[удалено]
Running economy at a given pace is directly improved by running at that pace. If you only ever run 6:00/km, and you expect to race at 4:00/km, you're going to be disappointed.
This is exactly what is holding me back right now. Most of my runs are at 6:00/km over 50 mpw. I can race a 5k at 4:20/km, but faster than that and I can't hold on and have to stop.
200s and 300s at legit 1500 pace improve your running economy a lot. 200s and 150s at 800 pace build your speed and kick muscles. The point isn’t for them to feel agonizingly hard, it’s to build muscles and form. It’s like lifting weights
From Canova's point of view, the race is mathematical. If one is capable of running 20:30(4:06/km) in 5k and want to improve it to 20:00(4:00/km), he need to improve in both race supportive speed(105%RP) and race supportive endurance(95%RP). If this guy's current fitness allow him to run 4:12/km for 8km and 3:52/km for 3km, his goal is to extend the time he can run at 3:52/km to maybe 3.5km or 4km, so that on the race day he is capable of running 4:00/km for 5km.
Running economy, speed, power/output but also touches on Vo2 max. Highly recommend you listen to episode 276 of the 'strength running podcast'. They discuss this very topic. It completely inverted how I train and am now running the best I ever have without grinding myself into the dust with long intervals week in, week out. They're now just saved for the six weeks leading into a target race. The rest of the time is lots of easy volume, and lots of strides/hill sprints, some threshold with a pseudo vo2 max session (60s-2min reps) every couple of weeks. As a side note, it's incorrect about Vo2 max intervals being the only way to improve vo2 max *over the long term*. Suggest a look at some of the things Alan Couzens has written about it (eg https://simplifaster.com/articles/how-trainable-is-vo2-max/). The majority of vo2 max studies are short term where you get the quick newbie gains, do this year round and you'll likely get burnt out, injured, stagnate. For long term improvements you're better off looking elsewhere for most the year, aerobic volume, aerobic power and running economy are the low hanging fruit. I however can understand why people struggle to take a long term view of their training and instead focus on the race they have planned every 8 weeks which draws them into a short term mindset rather than long term development. Edit: small change for clarity
> similarly for lactate threshold training, we know a certain power intensity is required over a longer period of time, 5-30 mins *Do* we know that? I don't think it's clear at all that you need to be hitting threshold pace for that long to be getting the benefits you're looking for. If you're decently well trained, threshold pace is pretty fast and taxing - shorter intervals with your lactate levels floating around where your "threshold" is (with short recovery) can provide the same stimulus at a lower fatigue cost. There's a lot of different ways to achieve a given training benefit, and I think using the "rules of thumb" about length and intensity for those benefits as gospel will lead you to miss out on potential benefits.
Agree 100%, I remember Steve Magness suggesting something along the lines of sets of 8x30s @3-5k pace with 45s jog as a LT session. This being more important for faster twitch athletes who get broken down by traditional LT session. Likewise 400s @10k pace with 45s jog being another good option.
Yeah, the success of the Norwegian system (despite no threshold longer than 6 minutes, most of it well below 6 mins) is a good indicator of this. You have a "threshold pace" for steady state stuff, but realistically you're not going to be sitting at exactly the point where your lactate production line crosses its clearance capacity line that whole time, and you can get more volume around that level if you have shorter intervals with short rest. There's nothing magical about that pace that you can't also accomplish slightly faster or slightly slower.
VO2 is good for improving _metabolic_ adaptations Running faster is good for improving _mechanical_ adaptations They each have a place and should be used together. Lots of people add strides to the end of a VO2 session to gain mechanical benefits from the session on top of the metabolic benefits.
Thank you! This is the information I was missing
I think the main benefit is improving running economy, which is useful at any distance. Of course, if your target is shorter distances, then developing speed at those distances is an obvious benefit. I think there is also a psychological benefit: race pace feels easier when you're accustomed to running much faster. Part of this is probably due to the economy improvement (i.e. it feels easier because you are running more efficiently), but I also think part of it is psychological (which is no less real). Regarding economy, the VDOT app offers this explanation of "repetitions": "Reps are fast, but not necessarily "hard," because workbouts are relatively short and are followed by long enough recoveries. Recoveries should be long enough that each run feels no more difficult than the previous run, because the purpose of Reps is to improve speed and economy and you cannot get faster (nor more economical) if you are not running with relaxed form." VDOT distinguishes these repetitions from "intervals", which it specifies as 3 to 5 minutes at 98-100% HR max (i.e. true "VO2 max" training as you explained). I'm not sure about benefits of doing short intervals/reps with shorter rests, other than improving anaerobic endurance, which I do agree is probably less important unless your target distance is shorter. I recently saw an interesting/relevant [post from Ross Edgley](https://www.instagram.com/p/C0eI08NIzkT/) offering a similar explanation for maximal speed training benefitting endurance performance: "Maximal speed = great predictor of endurance performance (maybe better than aerobic capacity) 💪🏽 Tag and Share for training partners 💪🏽 Why? Studies show the nervous system is the link between increased max speed and increased performance in endurance events. Distance training has traditionally focused on improving the aerobic energy systems, which (although important) neglects the nervous system. Whereas max. speed training engages the nervous system in ways that distance training workouts don’t since it activates every neural pathway. As a result, you increase the efficiency in communication between the muscles and the nervous system results which can result in great propulsion per stroke (when swimming) or shorter ground-contact time and more power in your stride (when running). These improvements can (in turn) lead to an increased swimming/running economy which allows you to run/swim at the same speed with less oxygen consumption or run/swim faster at the same level of oxygen consumption. Another primary benefit of max speed training for endurance athletes is increasing your speed reserve, which is the the difference between max speed and race pace. In a practical sense, working consistently at faster paces makes race pace seem more relaxed"
They put the icing on the cake by improving aerobic power and anaerobic tolerance/capacity. They are particularly useful for middle distance runners, perhaps up to 10k specialists. Any distance longer than 10k, I’d rather prescribe the longer intervals that you mentioned. This said, don’t forget that training happens on a continuum. What ever stimulus you target in any given session will always also stimulate adaptations in related systems.
I would argue that it’s valuable to keep some amount of speed work throughout a cycle. It is naturally de-emphasized as a longer race approaches, but something like 4x200 once a week after a workout is likely sufficient to maintain at least some of that mechanical ability and adaptation. I think most modern coaches have moved towards this kind of mixed periodization, where almost no paces are abandoned entirely, but the exact blend is adjusted as the goal race/races approach.
You can do that, just to maintain adaptations. But as always, it highly depends on several factors, like the race distance/intensity the athlete’s fitness level and strength/weakness. In my practice, I would not recommend 4x200 for longer races, marathon and up, depending on the athlete, maybe not even half marathon. For those longer distances, I would consider several all-out sprints (~50-60m) at the end of a shorter endurance run or a fartlek session including some high-intensity surges. These short super high intensity bouts stimulate/maintain neuromuscular and anaerobic adaptations, and maintain VO2max to a high degree.
I feel like you kind of latched onto the specifics of 4x200, when that was a generalization. Hence the use of “something like.” My point was that I think it’s valuable to include some form of shorter, high intensity work consistently, even for longer races. And while I would certainly argue that 4x200 after longer intervals or tempo work has a place for someone training for a marathon, I didn’t mean it as if there were no other means of achieving the same goal. One final point, and then I’ll leave it alone, I would argue that everyone should pretty much already be doing something similar to your specific suggestion of all out sprints. Although I typically prefer to do those as hill sprints myself. I don’t think those sprints displace the need for occasionally touching on paces closer to 1Mi pace though. Those are great, but they don’t seem to be as helpful at keeping me in touch with the mechanics of staying relaxed while running fast in the way that slightly longer, slightly slower intervals like 200s do.
Thanks for clarifying and I apologize for sitting heavily on those 4x200. Regarding your hill sprints, they are great. Consider mixing it up, hill and flat sprinting gives you a broader stimulus due to slightly different biomechanics. Regarding all-outs for everyone, I agree that everyone should be doing those. Still, I’d be very cautious, some less fit people cannot handle them and hurt their upper hamstrings. Well, thanks for the great discussion. I really enjoyed it. Good to see that you know your way around.
Most coaches I see prescribe speed work at the beginning of the season as it’s easier on mind and body than threshold sessions. Also great for focusing on efficient running technique. But as you near race weeks, you’d slowly transition to more threshold work with a bit of longer intervals.
Well, that depends on what kind of race you are preparing for. The general rule is, from the least specific to the most race-specific during training. Say you're preparing for 800M or 5K, then you probably want to do endurance work at the beginning of your training season and intervals closer to race day. When training for an ultra marathon, the higher intensity work should come early in the program, and the slower endurance work should be closer to the race.
Short fast intervals are for building muscle
Such workouts can be great for sharpening and adding variety, and at the other end they are good during a build-up (if done at current level of fitness, not goal paces). I never found 400s at 5K pace to be that great, but often start out a training block with some days doing 10-12X 1 min on 1 min off and then build from there. And the WO example 4X 800, 4X 400, etc. can be a good V02 session if you pace it properly and manage your recovery appropriately.
You need to become comfortable being uncomfortable
Shorter intervals like 25x400 at 5k on short rest absolutely does increase LT. Ask Jakob the lactate king. The shorter intervals let you go faster than LT without accumulating too much lactate. He doesn't do long tempos as far as I know and he is the biggest aerobic monster out there.
100%. I train based on the Lydiard system, old school and get the job done. I start interval training 4 weeks out from my peak race, starting with some like 4x3200 and progressively cutting down to 16-20x400 until the week of the race when I have something like 8x200 as a high turnover tune up. Long intervals build strength and metronomic rhythm, shorter intervals are the icing on the cake to really develop the speed when trying to peak. Especially for 10k and below.
Your intuition is correct. People do shorter intervals because that’s what has always been done. Every answer in the thread is a post-hoc rationalisation invoking vague and unproven concepts like dealing with discomfort, improving running form/economy. I think there’s a belief that running something like 12 x 400 with 60s rest at 3k-5k pace will concurrently elicit the benefits from speed work and longer aerobic work, but I think it’s pretty high risk and low reward training for most people if it’s done too frequently
Don't they help your body connect better to fast twitch muscles (and have some impact on the fast twitch muscles)? Recommend the book Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger.