Aerobic Base

The Black Oil

A term that's hard to miss if you read up on running. Plenty of articles about it. I've never heard it mentioned at club training, however I'm relative n00b there. Foundational or laying the groundwork is what comes to mind when I hear about it, along with a sense of confidence (hopefully).

It was really this video a few weeks ago that led me to post this, including the point about drop in marathon times as you go up to 60 miles per week. I've only done that in the meno plan. I'm not making changes based on the video or dipping into calculators, but I wanted to kick off a thread for the new boards. To pick up on his point about people being aerobically under-developed - aside from what he's summarised, what's this, exactly? And what you think of when it comes to aerobic base?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tza4h3RPOA

Murph_D

I think you're right about most club training, at least if in terms of my own experience. While club coaches expect us all to fill out the rest of the week (between club sessions, if you do them at all), there's often little guidance about what 'easy' actually is. Or how much of it to do. That's one of the reasons sites like this are so valuable.

Hard to argue with anything in the video, although I'm not sure about the specificity of 60 miles a week. There's no doubt, though, that more miles are better, the question is can you ramp up to that kind of mileage sustainably and maintain it without getting injured. I've been lucky with injuries but I've never averaged more than 40 miles a week in any year, although of course during marathon training have gotten up to 55 or so the odd week.

But the definition of 'Aerobic Base' is something I've been thinking about a good bit recently, as I contemplate the next marathon block, and maybe more importantly, the months before that block. I've been reading up a bit on Lydiard, who was a huge proponent of building the aerobic base over many years with 'easy' running. He believed the ideal mileage was 100 per week, but obviously he was working with elite runners and that's not realistic, or advisable, for most of us. His base-building schedules include a combination of easy running, hill work and 'sub-threshold' running (at 75-80% of heart rate reserve).

The point about what exactly 'easy' is is a good one. Fitzgerald's 80/20 book discusses a study where it was found that, left to their own devices, many runners overestimate their easy pace, straying well into the moderate zone because it 'feels' right to them. The result is a lack of truly aerobic running - ie at an effort level comfortably below the anaerobic threshold (AT), often termed lactic threshold (LT).

So before we know what 'feels' right, we have to learn what 'right' feels like - so getting used to truly easy running, in the range from recovery up to just below AT - is key. A good start is demonstrated in the video, where you base your training paces off your most recent race, and the closer that recent goal distance is to the target race, the better. In the example he gives, the runner has a decent 800m time but falls off rapidly as the distances increased (eg the 5-mile time mentioned) because of the lack of an aerobic base probably due to a history of training mostly for the shorter distances, which requires much more anaerobic (speed) work. I think heart rate training is terrific for finding these ideal training zones, but only if you have good HR information, and are confident you know what the resting and maximum rates are.

TL/DR - easy days easy, but only if you know what easy is. And don't be afraid to do some work at the fast end of easy either.

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058225214/aerobic-base

I think you actually hit the nail on the head perfectly with your description

Foundation or laying the ground work. I don't like aerobic base because of the connotations that come along with it. People view it as simply throwing miles at the problem and thinking it will fix all. Many (especially in Ireland) become obsessed with mileage increase as the only metric of development (myself included)

Yes the large majority of people tend to be aerobically under developed however very few balance this with overall development in movement etc we simply adapt to the strain put on the body with more volume rather than lay a foundation to become a better runner. Base training tends to be usually prescribed as easy miles with little view of what easy is but its a perfect time to learn effort based aerobic running by having a spectrum of sub threshold efforts in order to become in tune with effort levels

I think it was an old Florida state base building program I was looking at before but it was one of the best base phase training plans I saw. It included the likes of

Progression runs

Steady state (just slower than Marathon effort) runs

Pick up long runs (5 min tempo at end of a longer run)

This were all done to stoke different elements of aerobic base without simply becoming mono paced which in itself presents problems when you adapt to changes in schedule to include workouts

Gym work and light speed work should also be a crucial component with the focus being on demands being neurologically demanding rather than aerobically. Light speed work doesn't refer to intensity (speeds below 1 mile pace should be done regularly) which people often mistake it for but rather that the recoveries are sufficient enough to have you completely recovered in between

Personally I am a huge fan of progression runs for aerobic base as I think they are a great tool for dialing in wide range of efforts that come under the easy to steady range. Gives a person a sense of the efforts while disciplining them to not over do it (always caveat with pulling the plug if you can't run the next mile quicker than the last which usually ensures that people are conservative in approach)

As for running too slow McMillan always tends to be very aggressive in easy run paces in my opinion. For me these paces are fine if you are only running easy efforts and are fully recovering between all runs (sleep, no work/life stresses etc) often I don't think its real world applicable for non elites

Swashbuckler

I don't know know if I can add much to the few excellent posts already.

From my own perspective I used to have the viewpoint similar to what has been mentioned already. All about easy miles and high mileage. The more miles the better.

In my own training I've seen a huge aerobic benefit from running miles between marathon pace and easy pace. Probably historically these have been called junk miles depending who you're speaking with. Some of the runs ecoli listed out are bang on in terms of aerobic vase building. The sub threshold runs in particular are excellent. Tempo runs at MP and slower.

I think often aerobic building is forgotten about or under appreciated. People always fancy those tasty sessions. Someone with a big aerobic engine will win out against a session machine for me any day.

demfad

What does an aerobically fit runner do?

Indication might be your ability to run for at least 90 mins @ high end aerobic pace, where your internal effort and external indicators don't diverge. ie run feels equally comfortable all the way through with no drop in pace. If you use technology, the internal effort could be gauged by HR (accepting that this should drift slightly over the run) and the external effort by pace or a power meter.

To get there for a new runner the Lydiard method is initially very apt. It has times as well as distances for the runs. Times more suitable for us. Initially all aerobic runs are easy till you reach your volume goal in time. Easy would mean the easiest you can run with decent technique (for you). At the same time you need to develop a base of speed (for strenght, technique and to get your nerves twitching all your muscle in prep to be trained later). Hill sprints are well known for this reason but for a new runner it may be best to do these on the flat incorporating relaxed strides. New runners have huge gains to make in relaxed technique which is best developed on the flat IMO.

Then you would start increasing the paces of some of the runs. You might do one run (or 2 if high volume) at aerobic threshold which would be the 75-80% HRR mentioned by Murph. I would start at a half hour and work up. Note there should be a 15-20 min warmup for this run not including the quality portion. Maybe do a couple of weeks at the hour, and then get into a 40,50,60 min rotation at a slightly faster pace. As you get accustomed to this you could up another couple of runs a gear while leaving a few at the easier pace.

You could keep improving like this. Throw in TTs @ 10k. 10m, HM controlled and even paced. If you are progressing well and want to continue then do a race a month starting controlled. Throw in a block of fartlek totaling around 40 mins work and you will be in fine fetal to then spend a block specifically focusing on your particular event.

That's the general idea in my opinion, throw in hills or modify to suit. etc. and the second third time around try and get a higher proportion at the faster paces.

Lastly an overall reasoning for high volume. There is a relationship between volume and intensity.

A 40m PB 10k runner can run a 43 min 10k in a hard training run. If he were to add 2k to this run every two weeks then after 10k weeks he can run 20k in 86 mins in a training run. If he were to do his 10k run again he can now do it in 41m. If he/she were to rest up and enter a 10k race, the PB will likely come down. Now to be able to increase from 10k up to 20k like he did he would already have needed to be able to run long at a faster aerobic pace as a base for that 10k run which increases to 20k. That's the aerobic endurance developed in the base. The aerobic endurance was based on those high end runs that occurred during high volume weeks. That training was possible because of the big volume of easy running slowly built up. That is one instance to demonstrate how larger volumes translate to intensity/faster times.