Breaking the Wall

Good post on several fronts Sasha.

Curious, do you have an opinion on base building be a period in which you need to exclusively train the aerobic system (aka MAF)? It would seem to me that you take a bit more of a multi-phased approach with some work in the aerobic "zone", but then also training of the anaerobic system with work such as today's.

Hi, Sasha!

I was so excited to see a fastrunningblog. singlet in VA on Sunday! I wish I could have qualified and put in another good word for the blog!

Anyway, this sounds like a great book. Maybe it would help explain my 100% complete melt down in Virginia Beach yesterday!

Anyway, I'm thinking about running SLC marathon. Nothing was lost yesterday(except a toenail or two). Even though I've missed the OTQ's I still want to prove myself. Do you think Salt Lake City is a fast course? How does it compare to SGM?

Sasha interesting to hear your thoughts/comments on the brain book. I've had this book for a few months and have incorporated much of the suggested programs into my workouts. When I first read it I could have sworn that you had already read it since many of his ideas were so similar to what you preach on the blog.

I'm curious...do you have any opinion on the AccelGel (w protein) vs. regular-Gel (carbs only) debate that the book discusses? Or how about the idea that on at least some long training runs it's advantageous to NOT fuel at all during the run with Gels/GU/Gatorade, etc?

You mentioned not scheduling speed work in your training anymore. Are you planning on just running tempo's and speed work when you feel a positive sign in your nervous system?

I've found that if I plan a tempo run (sometimes), I've got this dreadful feeling If I don't hit a certain pace then the training is not successful (bad brain signal) and that's happened. But if I'm in a training run (non-scheduled speed work) and feel real good and decide to go faster it seems to show better results. I believe the brain sends that positive feeling and you know you have the confidence in your legs to have an amazing run.

I'm not saying this happens all the time but sometimes.

George - I did not train anaerobic system today. I do not get anaerobic until the pace is faster than 5:20. I do believe in aerobic focus, though. Anaerobic running for me is a more of an accident, I reserve it for the kick in a race, or for a 5 K.

Katie - SLC is a slow course. About 7 minutes slower than STG for a 2:20 - 2:30 marathoner. Probably 8 minutes slower for a 2:50 - 3:00. But they have had a fairly weak women's field lately, if you can do 2:55 you'll probably be in the money ($500). And you'll get to meet some bloggers.

Tom - I do not have an opinion on Accelerate vs non-protein sports drink, never tried it. I do fine on runs up to 20 miles with nothing. I do better in a marathon if I take highly concentrated Powerade or Gatorade in the middle, though.

Kory - I plan on doing speed when I happen to have a partner. And runs like this when I go a bit faster on accident. After my experience last winter, I am inclined to think in the direction that the need for speed work is very much overrated. If you race at least once a month, and pick up the pace sporadically on occasion, that is really all you need.

I am not saying I subscribe to this theory, but there is a thought that you are begining to metabolize from your anaerobic system as soon as your HR goes above a certain number (assumedly a number that is true for most of the population ... 180-age, +5 for an athlete of your level of training). What is your HR at 5:20 pace?

According to the 220 - age formula I am 47 years old. My max HR is 173. Somewhere between 2000 and 2004 I suddenly aged 15 years (although I did not lose any of my top end speed, and improved on every distance from 5 K to the marathon). Then I stopped aging, again, if we are going to make the age-based HR estimates right. My resting HR has not changed since the age of 16. So I really do not pay much attention to age based formulas.

However, I race a marathon at over 90% of my max HR. At 5:20 I imagine I would hit around 163. I get 130 at 6:40 pace, 145 at 6:00 pace, and 155 at 5:40 pace.

Yes be careful of the 220-age formula. If you want to really know wear a monitor. I went the other way, I have not aged in 15 years,( although I run now and did not during many of those 15), my max HR is 183 same as it was when the formula would have been correct in 1994.

Sorry - I may not have explained myself well. The MAF theory (at a high level) is that you metabolize from your aerobic system at 180-age. This, of course, is a generalization. You could determine your exact aerobic HR with an expensive test, but for most folks (mean +/- 1 std dev), this works. There are a couple of ways to modify it (for low max HR folks, do a % of max for example; or as an other example do + 5 if you are well trained athlete, -5 if you are a new athlete). The thought is, and one that is heavily subscribed to by Mark Allen, is that in marathon endurance events - you are primarily stressing the aerobic system versus the anaerobic. Hence, you dedicate a significant portion of your training to base work - or training at or below maximum aerobic function. At first, many folks are slow - but then you adapt and become more efficient (faster) at this slower heart rate.

From what I can tell, supposedly your aerobic pace would be currently 6 min pace. Above that and you are begining to stress your anerobic system and metabolize from it.

Much better explained at: http://formationflier.spaces.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0

The issue for me is I am not sure I fully subscribe to NOT going above maximum aerobic function at all during the base building - but MAF advocates say this is key.

I know for sure that I can race very well off high volume without ever breaking 6:00 pace in any of my workouts. I just experienced a string of PRs off that type of training. I do not know if the cause is in the purely aerobic vs partially anaerobic running, though. I attributed it to letting my nervous system rest and heal.

I would also argue that if racing a marathon is 98% aerobic, then anything slower than 5:45 on a flat terrain in Provo would be very well withing my aerobic territory. Which would have made my morning run purely aerobic with the possible exception of the last mile. And even then, I have watched my patterns of slow-down in marathons, and there is a common theme - I go one pace (about 5:30 sea-level flat equivalent) for 12-16 miles, then fairly quickly transition to another pace (about 5:55 flat sea level equivalent) and maintain it to the end without a further slowdown. I tried starting out slower, what happens is I transition to the slower pace regardless. I wonder if my true marathon pace is really around 5:30 flat sea level equivalent, or possibly even faster, but my nervous system gets tired after 12-16 miles of running hard. The subjective feeling would definitely agree with that theory. I do not feel light headed or sore when I slow down, my legs just start refusing to turn over fast enough. I do not feel particularly tired or sore when I finish, and have no problem running back and pacing somebody.

regardless of heart rate, you would be doing anaerobic work for anything that is your 100-400m race pace, or 10-30s sprints. Some say that 800m race pace can be included in that, but I think that is more applicable to runners in the 1:40-1:50 range. (Slower than that and they are in 1500m range, and that is becoming more aerobic).

The percentage of aerobic/anaerobic increases with the increase in distance. And so for a 2:23 marathoner like Sasha, he wouldn't be getting into anaerobic range at all running in the mid 5 minutes (unless he kicked a 28sec 200m at the end).