Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
difference between maximal heart rate and resting heart rate; or simply at a heart rate of about
140 to 150 eats per minute. This range of results is substantial enough to call the training
threshold concept into question. In addition, a heart rate of 140 to 150 would correspond with
the highest-possible level of exertion for a runner with a maximal heart rate of 145 or so and
yet would represent easy effort for a runner with a maximal heart rate of 220.
Casting more than a little suspicion on the threshold concept, one study found that
adaptation to training occurred at the extremely light intensity of 36 percent of VO2max, ir
about 55 percent of maximal heart rate. Other studies have noted that adaptation can occur
when training intensity is maintained at just 45 percent of VO2max. adaptation has also been
documented when exercise intensity is set at a relatively low heart rate of 110 to 120 beats per
minute. It would seem that just moving around- jogging at very slow pace- would produce
physiological change in relatively untrained runners.
Nonetheless, it appears that a threshold exists for some runners, particularly those with
a significant training background. In one study, moderately trained individuals who ordinarily
trained 45 minutes per day, three times a week, embarked on a program involving exercise
durations as great as 5,5 hours per day (!) carried out six times per week over an 8-week
period. The average exercise intensity was an extremely moderate 45 percent of VO2max, or
about 63 percent of maximal heart rate. Since no training effect (i.e., adaptation) was observed
at all after the 8 weeks, it can be assumed that these athletes were below some sort of training
threshold- or else that they were not recovering enough for the adaptations to become
apparent.
Such studies have am inherent weakness in the sense that all of training was conducted
at a specific intensity, after which the involved athletes were checked for adaptations. In the
real world, runners train at a variety of intensities over the course of a week or month. A
more-interesting question would focus on whether lighter days of training really provide
enough stimulus for adaptation to complement the higher-quality work conducted during the
same period. For example, if a runners is covering 40 miles (64 km) total per week during
training, with 10 quality miles (16 km) above lactate-threshold speed, is it necessary for the
other 30 miles (48 km) to be completed above a certain intensity in a order for increased
fitness to accrue ? no study has provided an answer to this basic question.
The solution to the training threshold paradox may also be that the actual training
response depends to a large extent on the underlying fitness of the individual. Specifically,
very fit runners require a high intensity of training to move performance capacity upward,
while less fit individuals may benefit from running that is much more moderate in intensity.
Beginning runners can benefit a lot from running at an intensity of 70 percent of VO2max, for
example, but it is unlikely that such an intensity would produce major physiological
movements in an experienced runner. Unfortunately, many elite runners fail to take this
training truism into account and adjust their training include higher and higher volumes of
moderate- intensity work instead of shifting toward gradually increasing amounts of highintensity effort.
Determining the Ideal Intensity
Runners have a wide range of intensities from which to choose for their high-quality
workouts. Can a specific intensity be identified as the most potent producer of running
fitness? Is there one training intensity that produces the greatest combined improvements in
the key predictors of endurance0 running performance- vVO2max, running economy, lactatethreshold speed, and maximal running velocity as well as in performance itself?
These are tough questions to answer. One could survey the published scientific work
in this area and attempt to draw conclusions, but it would be very difficult to compare
different research investigations. Studies use runners with different backgrounds and ability
levels and subject the runners involved to training regimens that vary in frequency, workout
duration, volume, and intensity. Nonetheless, a consensus is gradually emerging that the most
productive intensities may be in the range of 95 to 100 percent of VO2max.
This suggests that vVO2max, the minimal running speed that elicits VO2max, may be
an extremely beneficial training intensity. In research carried out by French physiologist
Veronique Billat, 8 experienced runners with high aerobic capacities of 71,2 ml- kg min
carried out one vVO2max workout each wee over a 4week period in addition to their usual
training. The actual vVO2max session was 5 x 1000 meters (6 mi) at vVo2max, with 3 minute
jog recoveries. After just the 4 weeks, vVo2max improved by 3 percent, running economy was
enhanced by an extremely impressive 6 percent, and lactate-threshold speed by 4 percent! in
addition, one of the greatest gains in maximal aerobic capacity ever documented in a study
carried out with experienced, competitive runners resulted from using vVO2max as the key
training intensity.
Such findings do ring coaches and runners back to the threshold questions: If quality
training is conducted at 95 to 100K percent of VO2max or at 90 to 100 percent of VO2max,
which would be from a 10K pace up to vVO2max, what is the minimal intensity for
complementary, easy workouts? How fast must one light days to nudge key performance
variables in the right direction?
The answer is that on easy days, a runner is simply playing the volume game, using
miles or kilometers rather than intensity to advance fitness. Thus, it probably does not matter
how fast the runner is moving just covering the miles will produce the desired positive
effect, with most of the gains in running capacity coming from the quality efforts in other
days of training. Note, though, t6hat the volume game can be overplayed. If a runner is
already covering 50 to 70 miles (81- 113 km) per wee or more, additional easy miles are
unlikely to have any effect on fitness at all.
Conclusion
Runners, running coaches, and especially proponents of high-volume training models
often suggest that a relatively high volume of moderate-intensity training can produce an
adaptive response similar to the one associated with a lower volume of high-intensity work. In
relatively inexperienced and untrained runners, this can sometimes be true. However, it is
unlikely to be the case in experienced and elite runners, who require a steady diet of high
intensities to make the indicators of physiological variables move upward.
A reasonable idea is to keep track of intense volume (i.e., number of miles of
kilometers run at 10K pace of faster) as a percentage of the total volume. Of the number of
miles or kilometers completed per week. If this percent- replacing less intense miles woth
more intense exertions until the 25 percent figure is attained. After 25 percent is reached
successfully, without injury or overtraining, the relative amount of intense training can
cautiously and progressively be increased over a training year.