Can somebody explain the "90 minute rule"? (Read 720 times)

So I have read about the "10% rule" and the "listen to your body rule". What I know about the "90 minute rule" is that you build capillary beds and mitochondria. So I have some questions. Does it happen at the 90 minute mark? After the 90 minute mark? Do you get more benefit the longer you go? Is there a cutoff point or point of diminishing returns? How many times a week can you do these runs?

 

I ran 6 times last week for 46.45 miles. Times were 74, 82, 73, 38, 90, and 74 minutes. I guess I didn't get any benefits except maybe yesterdays 90 minute run.

I read a while back some thing from lydiard that talked about this mitochondria stuff. It got too scientific for me. It took me back to my college days and I recalled why I drank so much back then

this link may have some of the info.

http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arthur%20Lydiard.pdf

From the "perhaps rats and people are more alike than we think" category….

 

From here:

 

"It was the work of physiologist John Holloszy of the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, that showed that continual exercise could put mitochondrial numbers on the increase. He induced one group of lab rats to run on a treadmill for up to 2 hours per day at intensities of about 50 to 75 per cent of V02 max or 12 weeks, while a second group rested in their cages. At the end of this exercise, Holloszy found that the running rats had increased their mitocondrial densities by about 50 to 60 per cent and had also doubled their concentrations of ‘cytochrome c’, a key compound found inside mitochondria which is vitally important in aerobic energy production. Cytochorme c contains one atom of iron per mol and is a power-house of amino acids. Holloszy’s work, at first suggested that Van Aaken’s postulations that the best way to gain endurance was by LSD (Long, Slow Distance) were on the right track. Holloszy pressed on with further research. He had one group of rats running 10 minutes per day, another running for 30 minutes, a third group exercising for 60 minutes and a fourth working for 2 hours a day. Training took place five days a week for 13 weeks at an intensity of 1.2 mph, about 32 metres per minute and 313 minutes for the 10K, which is about 50-60 per cent VO2 max for a fit lab rat. As expected, the 2 hours per day runners had the best mitochondrial development. The 10 minute per day exercisers had about 16 per cent more cytochrome c than the resting group of rats, while the 30 minute ones boosted it by 31 per cent, the one hour runners by 38 per cent and the 2 hour runners increased it by 92 per cent. These findings in 1967 were a potent argument for "Run long, run slow, run gently". Holloszy’s work was given more credence when in a run to exhaustion test, the 2 hour trainers kept going at a good pace for 111 minutes, while the 10 minute trainers lasted 22 minutes, the 30 minute ones for 41 minutes, the one hour rats ran strenuously for 50 minutes. The relationship of a high cytochrome c level to better performance had been firmly established."

 

 

Look into it further and make of it what you will.

it's no big shock that rats running 2 hrs per day had better mitochondrial development than those running 10, 30, and 60 minutes per day. A more relevant question is whether putting the entire two hours of running into a single run gives greater benefit than splitting the time into smaller segments. I would suspect that rats running 3x40 minutes or 4x30 minutes per day would achieve similar benefits to those running 2 hours straight. Due to better recovery, it might make even more sense to divide the time into 2 or more runs for those not training for the longer distance races.

 

This is an example of where one can get in trouble just looking at miles, and ignoring pace/time differences, when looking at training plans.

 

From a calorie burn perspective, distance is more important than time.  So from a fueling perspective, it's harder for the slower runner to glycogen deplete in training and train that as they have to be out there a perhaps unreasonable amount of time.

 

However, most of the time we are concerned about the aerobic development benefits.  Those are TIME dependent.  So even if you only cover 6-7 miles in 90 minutes, if the effort is equivalent you are getting similar benefits.

Pay attention folks, this is the best advice on this thread.

-STS

"Rules" are written by people who aren't smart enough to discuss science...

 

i think i like this guy...er, gal?

"Rules" are written by people who aren't smart enough to discuss science...

 

The 10% rule is crap, and so is any other barfed by the running media.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/36/1/33.abstract

However there is still a lot about the sport of running that has yet to be explained by science, where we have to depend more on experience. Which is where a lot of these "rules" come from. I do think they should be thought of more as guidelines. I think there is nothing wrong with the 10% guideline. I still use it as a general guideline when I try to build up my mileage. For a less experienced runner I think its a reasonable guideline when they have no idea how to build up their mileage. Someone coming off the couch can't just immediately start running 40+ mpw without a high risk of injury right away. So what do you tell them, since they have no prior experience. The 10% rule has been around a long time and has worked for many just starting out. Once that person has gained some experience after trying 10% they may be able to increase to 12 or even 15% there are others that may find 10% is too much so they have to slow down the progress to 7 or 8%. But without some sort of guideline, you end up with a lot of people over doing it at first.

 

Just because Runner's World Magazine barfs it, doesn't make it true...

There's actually a clinical term for this. It's called emetophilia.

I thought it was you have enough fuel on board for a 90 minute run, then you need to take some gu.

 

From experience, I can't run a decent 800m without a weekly 20km+ run, and it got better as I got out to 24-27km.

 

More impact from adding more distance to long run than eliminating second speed work session - I went from 2 interval sessions and 1 tempo to 1 and 1 with adding 5-10km (varied by week) to my long run made me almost 10sec faster. Adding the second interval session back in I saw no further improvement - I'd been almost to the end of that season though, and I haven't done a season of track since, only the odd race.

Thanks, that's interesting.  (10 seconds in the 800?? tremendous!).

I might (wince) try doing this longer long run myself very gradually (as I had an sfx this year and need to build up with extreme caution). I think I got the sfx to begin with from doing too much intensity on too little volume (3 speed workouts... 25 mpw... in retrospect not smart).  But of course it's a hard balance to strike.  And first I need to get my regular weekly mileage up high enough to support that single longer run, as well.

What do you guys think of the rule of thumb that long run should not be greater than say 30% of weekly mileage?