Lactate Threshold Training

Phil M. said:

As I gear up for Boston, I'm doing more frequent tempo paced runs. I find
it convenient to run these on my standard moderate rolling courses to and
from my home. However, I've read in a few books that it is important to
maintain a steady effort/pace during the course of the LT phase of your run
in order to derive the greatest physiological benefit. Some sources
recommend running them on a flat course or a track.

I would think that running at tempo on a rolling course would also provide
some benefit such as learning how to maintain effort at LT up and down
moderate hills. This might be beneficial for training for a race that has
similar hills.

Is it that important that I seek out a flat course or a track for my LT
runs?

No, it's not that important. Do them with a heart rate monitor if you like, or
just do them by effort level. Once you know what a tempo run is supposed to
feel like, use that as your guideline.

The point of using pace as a guideline is so that you're running at the right
intensity. But once you have a good intuition for the proper intensity, it's
better to run at that effort level.

Indeed, there are some good reasons to use your internal measure of effort and
not pace as the gold standard. Let me enumerate a few of them:

(1) One that we're both familiar with is heat -- if it's 90, your tempo run
will not be as fast. Run that 90 degree workout at so-called "tempo pace" at
your peril!

(2) Another is that your fitness varies, so your estimate of "tempo pace" is
imperfect anyway. In fact even when I do tempo runs on the track, I just run
by effort level, and my pace for the workout gives me a pretty good idea how
fit I am, even though the tempo run is only 5k at approx 10k-HM race pace.
This is consistent with a number of anecdotes in Noakes, of athletes who knew
how their race was going after the first mile or so --

(3) The estimate of LT may be based on a distance that doesn't accurately
reflect LT anyway. For example, does a recent 5k performance reliably predict
LT ?

(4) There's no such thing as being "precisely at LT", because LT isn't well
defined. So why attempt this ?

The reason some authors are keen on doing LT on track probably has a lot to
do with personal preference -- elite runners, and even non-elite high school
or college runners for the most part compete primarily on track, and often
have easy access to training tracks, so it makes sense for them. If you don't
have convenient access to a training track, don't sweat it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As I gear up for Boston, I'm doing more frequent tempo paced runs. I
find
it convenient to run these on my standard moderate rolling courses to
and
from my home. However, I've read in a few books that it is important
to
maintain a steady effort/pace during the course of the LT phase of
your run
in order to derive the greatest physiological benefit. Some sources
recommend running them on a flat course or a track.

I would think that running at tempo on a rolling course would also
provide
some benefit such as learning how to maintain effort at LT up and down
moderate hills. This might be beneficial for training for a race that
has
similar hills.

Is it that important that I seek out a flat course or a track for my
LT
runs?

I prefer rolling hills because it is more specific to a real race. As
you know it's harder to maintain a constant pace with rolling hills,
unless you use, groan, a HRM but better yet spend time learning to sense
your effort and do it by feel. FWIW, I would only under duress do my LT
on a track. Whether I got the best physiologically bang for the buck I'm
not sure but come race day I was mentally ready and felt comfortable
race day.

OTOH, I would my simple speed work on the track leg turnover and form.

I did do a little track work last year for [censored] and giggles but for all
my races I only do LT on open roads or trails.

My lore not science...
-Doug

P.S. Since you are Boston bound try to find some nice multi-mile down
hills to emulate the race.

Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email hidden] of 12
Jan 2005:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is it that important that I seek out a flat course or a track for my
LT runs?

No, it's not that important. Do them with a heart rate monitor if you
like, or just do them by effort level. Once you know what a tempo run
is supposed to feel like, use that as your guideline.

I use an HRM set at a range of 80-90% MHR. I can pretty much maintain
that effort even up and down the hills, but I do have to think about it.
Otherwise, I'm likely to go into VO2max territory on the uphills.

Quoted message said:

The point of using pace as a guideline is so that you're running at
the right intensity. But once you have a good intuition for the proper
intensity, it's better to run at that effort level.

Indeed, there are some good reasons to use your internal measure of
effort and not pace as the gold standard. Let me enumerate a few of
them:

I am going by effort.

Quoted message said:

(2) Another is that your fitness varies, so your estimate of "tempo
pace" is imperfect anyway. In fact even when I do tempo runs on the
track, I just run by effort level, and my pace for the workout gives
me a pretty good idea how fit I am, even though the tempo run is only
5k at approx 10k-HM race pace. This is consistent with a number of
anecdotes in Noakes, of athletes who knew how their race was going
after the first mile or so --

Yes. As I understand it, your LT pace will change with fitness, but it
would feel like the same effort.

Quoted message said:

(3) The estimate of LT may be based on a distance that doesn't
accurately reflect LT anyway. For example, does a recent 5k
performance reliably predict LT ?

I always thought that your 10 mile - 15K race pace was close enough to
your LT pace.

Quoted message said:

(4) There's no such thing as being "precisely at LT", because LT isn't
well defined. So why attempt this ?

I don't think I am. I'm running at at an effort range that should improve
my LT pace.

Quoted message said:

The reason some authors are keen on doing LT on track probably has a
lot to do with personal preference -- elite runners, and even
non-elite high school or college runners for the most part compete
primarily on track, and often have easy access to training tracks, so
it makes sense for them. If you don't have convenient access to a
training track, don't sweat it.

OK

Phil M.

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2005-01-12, Phil M. <[email hidden]> wrote:

Sometimes you guys are so DEATHLY dull I could scream. This is the sort of
subject that should be spoken about in hushed tones last thing at night in
the dorm, lest the prefects catch you and give you a sound thrashing for
being so BORING.

Lord, can you guys never think of anything interesting to talk about?

Roger <wondering why, after three years hard troll labour, these twits still
inhabit a newsgroup with the word 'running' in its title>

Phil M. said:

As I gear up for Boston, I'm doing more frequent tempo paced runs. I find
it convenient to run these on my standard moderate rolling courses to and
from my home. However, I've read in a few books that it is important to
maintain a steady effort/pace during the course of the LT phase of your run
in order to derive the greatest physiological benefit.

Most of what I read say steady "effort" (not pace). The physiological
objective is usually intensity and duration. The faster-paced downhill
will help strengthen legs for downhills, important for Boston. Some
elite trail runners use tempo efforts on rolling hills as one of their
main workouts.

FWIW, when I'm unsure about how to run a workout like "tempo", I just
focus on what the physiological / biomechanical / whatever objective of
the workout is. That will usually clarify things.

Quoted message said:

Some sources
recommend running them on a flat course or a track.

Others (most of what I read) suggest rolling courses and go by effort.

Quoted message said:

I would think that running at tempo on a rolling course would also provide
some benefit such as learning how to maintain effort at LT up and down
moderate hills. This might be beneficial for training for a race that has
similar hills.

Yep. When I was running roads, I used to try to make my hr graph flat -
and non-zero 😉 even on hills. Trail-grade hills are too steep for me
to do that safely, even when walking uphills since I'm too much of a
wimp to keep the hr up on a 20% downhill. I used my hrm to learn the
effort but run it by feel now and verify with hrm graph later.

Quoted message said:

Is it that important that I seek out a flat course or a track for my LT
runs?

no

Dot

--
"After 26 hours 38 minutes, we accomplished our mission, and the next
day were fortunate to read about our adventure in the sports section of
the local papers rather than the obituaries."
-Dean Karnazes recounting their running of the WS100 trail in winter.

Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from [email hidden] of
12 Jan 2005:

Quoted message said:

I prefer rolling hills because it is more specific to a real race. As
you know it's harder to maintain a constant pace with rolling hills,
unless you use, groan, a HRM but better yet spend time learning to
sense your effort and do it by feel. FWIW, I would only under duress
do my LT on a track. Whether I got the best physiologically bang for
the buck I'm not sure but come race day I was mentally ready and felt
comfortable race day.

I have done them on a track. Looking at my log from last year: 8 laps
warmup, 20 laps @ LT, 12 laps cooldown, 40 laps total. Not exaclty
thrilling. Based on whay you and Donovan are telling me, I'll continue
doing it on the road (isn't that a Beatles song?).

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I would my simple speed work on the track leg turnover and form.

I did do a little track work last year for [censored] and giggles but for
all my races I only do LT on open roads or trails.

My lore not science... -Doug

Fact:
Doug's lore = science ;-)

Quoted message said:

P.S. Since you are Boston bound try to find some nice multi-mile down
hills to emulate the race.

The Steamtown Marathon and Boston have similar course profiles, as far as
I can tell.

Steamtown - http://tinyurl.com/3weny
Boston - http://tinyurl.com/4qqd4

For Steamtown I was able to do a lot of training on some long steady
downhills (1.5 - 2 miles). Reading some of the marathon reviews on
marathonguide.com made me a little concerned about beating up the quads
during the latter portion of the race. But I seemed to do OK. So if
Boston really is anything like Steamtown, my preparaton for the downhills
should be OK. Thankfully, I live in an area that is not flat.

Phil M.

Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from dot.h@#duh?att.net of
12 Jan 2005:

Quoted message said:

Phil M. said:

As I gear up for Boston, I'm doing more frequent tempo paced runs. I
find it convenient to run these on my standard moderate rolling
courses to and from my home. However, I've read in a few books that
it is important to maintain a steady effort/pace during the course of
the LT phase of your run in order to derive the greatest
physiological benefit.

Most of what I read say steady "effort" (not pace).

Yes, that's what I meant. I run by effort on these runs. Actually most of
my runs are by effort. My question more about the rolling hills and authors
suggesting finding a flat course or track.

Quoted message said:

no

Thanks.

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I prefer rolling hills because it is more specific to a real race. As you
know it's harder to maintain a constant pace with rolling hills, unless
you use, groan, a HRM but better yet spend time learning to sense your
effort and do it by feel.

I do an LT on Tuesday (usually 20 min w/u, 40 min LT, 30-40 min easy), on
rolling stuff with an emphasis on uphill. My races are all hilly, so this
is specific.

I run with a hrm for grins, it lets me know when my mind is wandering. But
no matter what it says, if my legs start loading up and getting heavy, or
when "aerobic pain" in my abdomen and chest sets in, I back off.

I find it very difficult to even get close to maintaining my HR on
downhills. I'm usually in the 150's for the workout, but on downs, I run as
fast as I dare and it's very tough to get above 140. I wonder if this is
typical?

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I would only under duress do my LT on a track.

That makes two of us...

Quoted message said:

I did do a little track work last year for [censored] and giggles but for all
my races I only do LT on open roads or trails.

My lore not science...

Hint: if you throw in a bit of short speedwork every week in your ultra
ramp-up, you'll run everything at a faster pace (from 1 mile to 100 miles).
Most all the ultra studs I know (including winners at WS100 and AC100) do
some speedwork. It all helps.

My lore, not science...

-- Dan

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

. Based on whay you and Donovan are telling me, I'll continue
doing it on the road (isn't that a Beatles song?).

That was Wilt Chamberlain - he could stuff it on and off the court. 😉

-DF

Leafing through rec.running, I read a message from
[email hidden] of 12 Jan 2005:

Quoted message said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I prefer rolling hills because it is more specific to a real race. As
you know it's harder to maintain a constant pace with rolling hills,
unless you use, groan, a HRM but better yet spend time learning to
sense your effort and do it by feel.

I do an LT on Tuesday (usually 20 min w/u, 40 min LT, 30-40 min easy),
on rolling stuff with an emphasis on uphill.

That's very close to what I'm doing now, except every 2 weeks at this
point in the program.

Quoted message said:

My races are all hilly, so this is specific.

It makes sense what you and others are saying about specificity of
training. Now that I checked my source again, I note that when you first
start LT training it's a good ideas to do it on either a measured flat
course or a track so that you have a way of checking your pace. But once
you have a feel for LT effort (which I think I have) then running your
normal routes is fine.

Quoted message said:

I run with a hrm for grins, it lets me know when my mind is wandering.
But no matter what it says, if my legs start loading up and getting
heavy, or when "aerobic pain" in my abdomen and chest sets in, I back
off.

I find it very difficult to even get close to maintaining my HR on
downhills. I'm usually in the 150's for the workout, but on downs, I
run as fast as I dare and it's very tough to get above 140. I wonder
if this is typical?

I guess it depends on the grade of your descent. On my standard -3% grade
(normal around here where road construction has leveled things somewhat)
I can keep a good LT effort without feeling out of of control.
Ocassionally I'll hit a -7 to -10% grade where things can get crazy if I
don't back off and start braking. In these situations (if I'm trying to
maintain LT effort) I'll look for grass or smooth dirt on the side of the
road and run there, rather than on the asphalt. That seems to slow me
down just enough to stay in control and still remain at LT effort. Not to
mention the lessening of the impact on my joints.

Phil M.

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hint: if you throw in a bit of short speedwork every week in your
ultra ramp-up, you'll run everything at a faster pace (from 1 mile to
100 miles). Most all the ultra studs I know (including winners at
WS100 and AC100) do some speedwork. It all helps.

My lore, not science...

I won't argue one iota. I did about 6 consecutive weeks of speed this
fall to see if I could get past my old memories of pounding the track
while doing some form work. The good news, between the friends I was
running with and some mellowing, I found them fun. So I'll likely add
them back in when the snow clears. I may try to be a little more
competitive for a few races this year since I'll be a different age
group. And yes, there are some tough old dudes still on the circuit in
the AARP bracket. I needed to get faster or older - I opted for age.
🙂

-Doug

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As I gear up for Boston, I'm doing more frequent tempo paced runs. I find
it convenient to run these on my standard moderate rolling courses to and
from my home. However, I've read in a few books that it is important to
maintain a steady effort/pace during the course of the LT phase of your
run
in order to derive the greatest physiological benefit. Some sources
recommend running them on a flat course or a track.

I would think that running at tempo on a rolling course would also provide
some benefit such as learning how to maintain effort at LT up and down
moderate hills. This might be beneficial for training for a race that has
similar hills.

Is it that important that I seek out a flat course or a track for my LT
runs?

Phil M.

--
"What counts in battle is what you do once the pain sets in." -John Short,
South African coach.

How long/short are the downhills? If they are a minute or less, then I
would not worry too much about it. The lactate levels will remain high
enough to "drive" the body to adapt. If the DH is longer, then it might be
a good idea to find another route.