Training the "physiology" vs. training for "goal time"
This is a subject that has been debated for decades, and I wanted to provide some perspective on the matter. I’ll start by explaining what I’m talking about…
What is “training the physiology”?
This is any type of training where the primary function of the workout is to improve some aspect of the runner’s physiology that has a direct correlation with training and/or racing performance. A great example of this is the mega-popular “Daniels’ Running Formula”. In this book, training paces are anchored to specific physiological markers that were demonstrated by Daniels’ own extensive lab testing to align highly with running performance. This includes things like “VO2 max” and “lactate threshold”–among others. These physiological mechanisms are presented as direct determiners of how fast you will run. Thus, the workouts described in the book target the development of those specific markers. Examples would be things like doing 1000m intervals at “VO2 max” pace, or a 4 mile “threshold” run in order to improve the VO2 max, or to raise the lactate threshold.
It’s worth noting that, while Daniels was not the first to discover these concepts, he was the first to disseminate them to the masses by way of his convenient VDOT tables.
What is “training based on goal time”?
This is pretty much what it sounds like: a type of training or workout structure that centers around intervals run at a predetermined “goal pace”. The basic idea is that, over time, you increase the volume and/or density of “goal pace” intervals so that you get better at running that pace for longer. Let’s say you’re wanting to run 36 minutes for 10k. You might start out with a workout like
2 x (6 x 800m @ 2:54 w/ 2 min jog) w/ 4 min jog between sets
And over the course of several weeks, you progress this workout to something like
6 x 2k @ 7:12 w/ 2 min jog.
So you’re using the same “goal pace” the whole time, but you’re manipulating the structure of the workouts to get you more and more prepared to hold that pace for the entire race distance. This method shifts the focal point of training away from physiological mechanisms, and makes goal race pace the thing around which workouts revolve.
So is one way better than the other?
The thing to understand here is that, in some ways, both methods are doing the same thing. There’s a lot of overlap. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that focusing on physiology will somehow produce totally isolated adaptations that don’t impact other aspects of the body and performance. Similarly, if you’re doing workouts based on goal pace, you’ll still be training aspects of the physiology–obviously–even though a description of the training might not express it as such. So in this sense, it doesn’t matter a whole lot which approach you go with; it’s sortof a matter of semantics.
HOWEVER…
Let’s not forget that the reason we train is to race well. Specific training tends to be the most useful in developing your ability to run a particular speed for a particular distance. But you want to make sure that you’re physically prepared to get in as much specific training as possible without getting injured or burning out. This means you have to build up a large capacity to handle lots of this type of work.
During the preparatory phases of a season, I’ll focus more on physiology-oriented training–especially the lactate system. A highly-developed lactate system will allow runners to put in more usable specific training later in the season. Now, I should point out that I DO NOT conduct formal blood-lactate testing on my athletes. Therefore, it might be slightly careless to claim that this training is targeting specific elements of the lactate system. What I actually do is assign these workouts at a certain range of percentages of race pace, and a range of about 6-8 out of 10 on a rating of perceived exertion scale. The exact percentage and exertion will vary depending on the workout, and while the work itself will mirror “lactate threshold”-type intensities, the paces are still guided by their relationship to a race pace.
I’m not a big fan of traditional “VO2-max” training–at least, not in the way it’s depicted in lots of training literature. On its face, it sounds super awesome. I mean, the stated goal of VO2-max training is to increase the body’s maximal oxygen-uptake capacity. So why wouldn’t you want to include a bunch of this? There are several reasons I prefer to limit this type of training. The first is that the very idea of VO2-max has been called into question in recent years. Tim Noakes played a big part in doing this with his Central Governor Model. It posits that what was, in the past, thought to be a physiologically constrained “ceiling” of oxygen uptake, is actually the result of a regulatory mechanism in the body that seeks to avoid heart damage by limiting muscle recruitment. There have also been a bunch of studies that have shown little to no correlation between increases in VO2-max and increases in running performance–especially with elite runners. That makes it seem a little silly to cram in tons of super-hard intervals if there’s a good chance they aren’t even making you faster.
This brings me to the second reason: the “fatigue-cost”. Classic VO2-max workouts are really hard, and will take most runners several days to recover from. If done too frequently, runners can quickly find themselves dug into a fatigue-hole that’s difficult to climb out of. It’s certainly true that highly-taxing workouts will need to take place at times, but I believe that these hardest workouts should also be highly specific workouts–ie, those that yield the most race-specific adaptations by closely simulating the demands of the actual race. For an athlete training to race the 5k, this highly specific workout might (though not necessarily) look very much like a classic VO2-max session, with something like 6 x 1000m @ 5k pace w/ 3 min rest. But for a 1500m runner or a 10k runner, such a strenuous workout isn’t specific enough to the demands of the actual race, and would, in my opinion, be an imprudent exposure to high fatigue. If you’re gonna get really tired from a workout, make sure you’re getting the best possible adaptations to make it worth your while.
The third reason deals with the ever-growing understanding of the role lactate plays in running performance. From a purely metabolic standpoint, the body’s ability to utilize lactate as fuel has been shown to be highly performance-prohibitive, and that enhancing the lactate system might be more important than previously thought. This belief is central to the training methods of coaches like Renato Canova and Marius Bakken–the latter of whose contributions are cited as instrumental to the success of Norwegian phenom, Jakob Ingebrigtsen. Bakken’s use of “double threshold” days highlight how important he has found this type of training to be in the development of world-class performance (click here to read about it). Interestingly, Bakken maintains the position that race-specific training is not necessary. His reasoning is twofold:
That middle and long distance performance is ultimately and inevitably limited by the anaerobic threshold, and that, regardless of how “fast” a runner might be, any amount of speed will always be hindered by the anaerobic threshold. The improvement of the AT should, therefore, be prioritized over other forms of training.
The mechanical load associated with specific training for middle and long distances is far greater than that experienced during threshold training. A runner is, therefore, able to perform significantly more threshold work within a given period of time with less mechanical strain on the body.
It may be the case that Bakken doesn’t do much formal specific work, but he does advocate for what he calls “X element” sessions. These are described as being of higher-intensity than normal AT training, and result in lactate levels far exceeding those reached during AT sessions. Though these sessions might not resemble a goal race in terms of structure or volume, they are exposing the body to doses of intensity that are metabolically consistent with what I would consider to be specific training. So it could be fairly argued that this is a way of sneaking in specific training without calling it specific training. Again, in going back to something I said earlier, you want to be able to do as much specific training as possible without getting injured or burning out. This doesn’t mean that the specific workouts must exactly resemble the goal race. Just that they should provide as much specific stimulus as possible. From this perspective, it’s very much in line with Bakken’s “X element” sessions.
Canova’s attention to building the lactate system to insane levels has established him as one of the greatest all-time coaches. By including regular mid-workout blood-lactate testing, he has been able to follow the adaptive progress of his athletes’ lactate systems with shocking precision, and the results have been phenomenal. But though this type of training certainly falls into the “physiology” category, Canova is a great example of someone who’s had enormous success merging both “methods”. His training regimens tend to move from “general” to “specific”, and the workouts evolve to become more race specific (goal pace-based) in later phases. He expressly states that assigning what he calls Aerobic Power sessions–where great attention is paid to the moderation of lactate levels–are paramount in building the capacity for high volumes of specific training in later phases. If you follow a Conova regimen, you’ll notice a point where the focus shifts from more physiologically-minded Aerobic Power sessions, to race-pace guided Specific sessions–the best of both worlds, one might say.
So let’s recap the biggest takeaways from all this:
No single workout or mode of training exists in a vacuum. Regardless of if you’re focusing on physiology or goal race pace, workouts will have collateral influence on other qualities.
2. Certain types of physiology-oriented training are more useful than others.
3. Physiology-oriented training can be critical, but specific training is needed to solidify optimal race-day performance.
4. When it comes to your hardest workouts, goal pace sessions that are highly race-specific offer the most bang for your buck.
Have any questions about this stuff? Hit me up here, or DM me on IG @dredforwardmovement.
Take it easy!
