Forums >General Running>The Muscle Factor Model
And a Pete sighting. That's very cool too.
In my best little rascal voice, "And How!"
Options,Account, Forums
how do you know this? It could be they just have a lot more talent, are poorly trained, but still can run faster. i'm pretty sure I get beat by lots of people that would fit that description. I knew in college my VO2max was pretty low for a distance runner (and I was trained when tested). Guys on my team that ran the minimum possibly beat me all the time. That's okay though. There's always going to be someone better.
I'm not asserting that -- it sounded like Pete was explaining that we're all training wrong and getting beaten by people in front of us who are training right. I was asking if that is really what he was saying, or if perchance I misunderstood.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
I'm saying that if there are two people of equal ability, the one that trains best runs fastest.
And that the difference can be a LOT more than you think it might be. It's nothing to take 1-2 minutes off a longtime but poorly trained runner's 5K time in just a few months. Of course, it's equally likely that the longtime but poorly trained runner will resist doing things like slowing down distance ("But it felt good!") or running hill reps and tempo at the correct effort level.
Okay, at work now, so must sign off for the day!
removed. There is nothing to see here. My original post conveniently (code for accidentally) missed the word "ability" in uncle Pete's post.
(In Hawai'i, the title "uncle" is one of respect)
Feeling the growl again
Did you know that you get 100% benefit for slow twitch fiber by training those fibers to near glycogen depletion at about 65-70% VO2 max? And that if you're running your distance faster than that, you're going to start recruiting excessive intermediate fiber, which burns more fuel, increases your impact (leading to more injury), and requires a longer post-run recovery ? - and also cuts short your workout, since running faster cuts down on how long it takes to finish a run, and your body only knows time, not distance, when it comes to training volume. Or that growth hormone starts being produced at 10 minutes into the run and trails off at 75 minutes? Or that new capillaries aren't really formed until after 90 minutes? What good is all that info? Well, it means that recovery runs of 20 minutes won't provide you much in the way of GH, so why not make then 30-40 minutes? And it means that 60-75 minutes is a good length for a medium distance run, since it maximizes GH production and glycogen depletion of slow twitch. And it means that we must run longer than 90 minutes every week to build those capillaries, but since most of the good stuff happens earlier in the run than that, we should be careful how much longer than 90 minutes we go. And it means that we shouldn't do any of this as fast as most of us think! Because pace (over 65% VO2 max) has nothing to do with it!
Did you know that you get 100% benefit for slow twitch fiber by training those fibers to near glycogen depletion at about 65-70% VO2 max? And that if you're running your distance faster than that, you're going to start recruiting excessive intermediate fiber, which burns more fuel, increases your impact (leading to more injury), and requires a longer post-run recovery ? - and also cuts short your workout, since running faster cuts down on how long it takes to finish a run, and your body only knows time, not distance, when it comes to training volume. Or that growth hormone starts being produced at 10 minutes into the run and trails off at 75 minutes? Or that new capillaries aren't really formed until after 90 minutes?
What good is all that info? Well, it means that recovery runs of 20 minutes won't provide you much in the way of GH, so why not make then 30-40 minutes? And it means that 60-75 minutes is a good length for a medium distance run, since it maximizes GH production and glycogen depletion of slow twitch. And it means that we must run longer than 90 minutes every week to build those capillaries, but since most of the good stuff happens earlier in the run than that, we should be careful how much longer than 90 minutes we go. And it means that we shouldn't do any of this as fast as most of us think! Because pace (over 65% VO2 max) has nothing to do with it!
Pete, there's a lot of good stuff in here. But the conclusions you draw also assume that your list of physiological benefits is 100% inclusive of what is important to get faster. Among the things left off:
-All cardiac adaptations
-All mitochondrial adaptations
-Muscular strength (not just glycogen depletions)
Unless you really are in bed with Dick and thing your heart and mitochondria have nothing to do with running(which I doubt), your conclusions need to be adjusted to take these adaptations into account.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Dave
While "run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard" may, in fact, encapsulate the best training wisdom, the fact remains that almost no one I know - or run with (or against) - executes it very well. In fact, if I was to name the three mistakes runners make most (in my experience), they would be: 1. Running their long runs too hard. 2. Running tempo like it was a race. 3. Running intervals based upon goal race pace rather than targeting the muscle fiber recruited at faster paces.
While "run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard" may, in fact, encapsulate the best training wisdom, the fact remains that almost no one I know - or run with (or against) - executes it very well.
In fact, if I was to name the three mistakes runners make most (in my experience), they would be:
1. Running their long runs too hard.
2. Running tempo like it was a race.
3. Running intervals based upon goal race pace rather than targeting the muscle fiber recruited at faster paces.
OK, that was embarassing to call out Pete McGill because I thought he was Rich (or rich). And Ilene swooning didn't make me feel any better about it.
Pete, thanks for the post. It is made all the more embarassing by the fact that I probably do all 3 of those things wrong on a regular basis.
I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it. dgb2n@yahoo.com
Dang it - should never have started this. Gonna get fired from my 9-5 if I keep posting! ;-)
Spaniel -
1. Cardiac adaptations follow adaptations at the muscular level.
2. Long runs that deplete glycogen and are done at about 65% VO2 max DO build the strongest slow-twitch fiber (it's different for intermediate and fast-twitch - read the article).
3. Mitochondria is developed in response to the energy/oxygen needs of the muscle fibers, so is directly impacted by training those fibers.
And ...
4. There are LOTS of different facets at play in training. But writing them all requires writing a book, which wouldn't fit into my allotted 1200-3000 word limit in a magazine, would be more than most people could ingest in a sitting, and would definitely get me fired were I to spend the time writing it here.
Good luck everyone!
What evidence do you have for this? You could stimulate cardiac adaptations independently of running by doing non-running events with high levels of exertion. Whether you are developing slow or intermediate or fast twitch muscle means nothing to your heart; it is responding to the demand for oxygen delivery.
Are you saying that a marathoner who does nothing but 65% VO2max long runs is going to go out on race day and hold a much faster pace without ever doing faster work during long runs? I'm not disagreeing that you can do long runs too fast but if you're saying any fast work in long runs is wrong, I would.
Just because muscle fibers use energy and mitochondria produce it within those fibers, does not mean training the muscle at one intensity optimizes mitochondrial output for all energy levels. The demand on a slow twitch fiber at race marathon pace is going to be much greater per unit time than what is put on it during the type of training you describe. Without appropriate stimulus to push the envelope on aerobic metabolism demand up to race intensity, what is driving the slow twitch fibers to maximize mitochondrial density and thereby aerobic ATP production? This is why I felt what was being recommended was too simplistic and there are plenty of valid benefits to adding faster work into longer runs for more robust development. Not simulating races in training, mind you, but by mimicking some of the situations you would encounter in a race to stimulate adaptation. For example, putting faster work at the end of a long run when the body is already fatigued so it may adapt since it will be called upon to do that during a race.
There are plenty of successful (and elite) runners out there doing some pretty quick work doing long runs. I don't read magazine articles, so perhaps I misunderstand your position. Don't get me wrong, as I said I agree with most of what you said. I'm just trying to understand this part.
What evidence do you have for this? You could stimulate cardiac adaptations independently of running by doing non-running events with high levels of exertion.
Spaniel, is it possible that the type and/or degree of cardiac (cardiopulmonary?) adaptation varies in response to the intensity of the applied stress?
... This is why I felt what was being recommended was too simplistic and there are plenty of valid benefits to adding faster work into longer runs for more robust development. Not simulating races in training, mind you, but by mimicking some of the situations you would encounter in a race to stimulate adaptation. For example, putting faster work at the end of a long run when the body is already fatigued so it may adapt since it will be called upon to do that during a race.
"I want you to pray as if everything depends on it, but I want you to prepare yourself as if everything depends on you."
-- Dick LeBeau
Interesting. Plugging my 1:51:00 HM gives me a 40 VO2 Max, and 65% of that gives me a long run pace of about 11:30 (14 miles in 2:40) , while most calculators recommend a long/easy run pace of 9:40-9:50 for me. I guess I need to read the article to understand this completely.
Spaniel, is it possible that the type and/or degree of cardiac (cardiopulmonary?) adaptation varies in response to the intensity of the applied stress? Is the primary incremental benefit of quality-in-a-long-run workouts physiological or psychological?
Is the primary incremental benefit of quality-in-a-long-run workouts physiological or psychological?
I'm sure it varies by both intensity and duration (ie intensity over time). I can think of documented studies showing right atrial expansion after long exertions, for example.
Regarding quality long runs, I'm sure the answer is "both".
Regarding pace, I've done a lot of experimentation over the years. There are people on here at roughly the same ability I'm at right now who do 7:30-8:30 easy paces and it seems to work for them. I do 6:40-7:00 because it works for me. I didn't always, but it was one thing I changed that produced very quick results...for me....so I stuck with it. The key is that it has to be easy and you have to know what you can do and not incur residual fatigue that hurts your workouts. Again, in terms of personal results, I've found volume to be much, much more important than pace. The two are related of course, if you run too fast and it cuts down the amount of volume you can handle you are sub-optimizing your results typically. However if you take two identical twins, each running the exact same workouts in the exact same time but one does the bulk of easy miles at 7:00 and the other at 8:00, do you really think the 8:00 guy is going to out-race his brother? The key is the 7:00 guy has to make sure he knows what he is doing and isn't racing his tempos, is fully recovering on 7:00 pace so it doesn't impact his workouts, etc. As Pete pointed out most people screw those things up so it's an easy trap.
However if you take two identical twins, each running the exact same workouts in the exact same time but one does the bulk of easy miles at 7:00 and the other at 8:00, do you really think the 8:00 guy is going to out-race his brother? The key is the 7:00 guy has to make sure he knows what he is doing and isn't racing his tempos, is fully recovering on 7:00 pace so it doesn't impact his workouts, etc.
Well, if they're both undertaking otherwise identical training loads one (the sole difference is that one twin does his easy running at 7:00 pace v. his twin's 8:00 pace) ... then I dunno. They're both getting in the same tempo runs at the same tempo pace, the same speedwork; it's only the base work (and adaptations flowing therefrom) we're talking about, right? Recovery seems like it'd be different, too -- Twin A might be chronically over-trained or on the verge of injury; Twin B might be chronically under-training compared to the volume he could handle; Twin B might be fresher for his hard days and thus get more out of them; or some mix of the above.
As interesting as this all is (and it is), I would like to revisit the gloating Rich and the chronology of events.
1. Rich announces that he discovered a new muscle "model" and that "research consistently shows high intensity running produces better results."
2. Running Times publishes an article that talks about slow, intermediate, and fast-twitch fibers.
3. Rich immediately revives the topic to gloat about the "mainstream" adopting his model.
4. The RT author joins the discussion to explain his view that most runners run too fast (i.e. too intense) in training.
5. Rich disappears.
6. Debate ensues about slow long run vs quality long run
7. Cheevers does a wrap-up of main bullet points
4a. Ilene swoons.
4b. Spaniel has a meaningful and well informed training discussion with the RT author.