The Muscle Factor Model (Read 3142 times)

Rich - I could say the same about you I'm afraid.  You provide very little evidence of how your "ideas" have trained top class athletes.  You do not even talk about your own achievements in running.

Your right - I've never trained top class athletes and don't know the details of top athletes training to ever claim one has trained as I suggest those with average talents train.  (My recommendations are aimed at those with average talent, not top class athletes.)

What I always offer though is the research data supporting my ideas and claims.  I don't ask you to take me at my word, I provide any and all valid, credible data that is available.  For some people that's not enough and they won't accept a training method or physiological belief until an elite runner or coach endorses it (such as the muscle fiber stuff in this thread).  For others, valid research data is persuasive enough to at least give consideration too.  Whether you agree or disagree with what I say, I always strive to support what I say with any and all evidence available.  That way the information is available to assist you in deciding if the idea is worth considering.

I don't talk about my running because I don't subscribe to the belief that the faster a person is the smarter and more knowledgeable about training and physiology they are. 

Don't.

Stop.

I really wouldn't.

 

We both know that the answers are all in here...

 

I love you man. 

Could you point just one out? Any one where he actually dispells something I've said and doesn't simply express his opinion.  Thanks in advance.

I love you too, man.  But you aren't getting my Bud Light.

Coach Clive,

That was helpful back on page 16 when you laid out the precepts of the THIRST training program. Now I'm wondering if Bud Light has enough ABV to offer any benefit or, when drinking Bud Light, should I add more volume? Is there an ABV zone I should be targeting if I'm only going to have 2-3 beers at a conversational pace?

modified to add "beers"

Tinman:

Good to see you participate here.  How's fartherhood?  Getting enough sleep?  Wait in 15 years time--it ain't get any better!! ;o)

When I read Pete's article in RT, the first thing that came to my mind was: "That's Lydiard..."  In fact, when I saw Shalane's image in the front, that's what I thought (though her ankle wasn't as effectively straight...).  It was rather a good reassurance to me because, with this Interactive Training Program that we've been working on, basically, the programs are all the same whether it's for the elite runner or a beginner; principles should be the same and can be applied to a 4-minute miler as well as a 4-hour marathon runner, 16-year-old girl as well as 60-year-old man.  That means they would all go through some sort of hill training, intervals, some strides and sprint-straight-float-on-curve kind of workout.  I was a bit shakey about it, but after reading that article and then went back to "Running with Lydiard" and thought this is fine.  Funny that's exactly what Coach Koide said when we visited him in Boulder.  He said, particularly during the final few weeks, he always wonder; "Is it okay to ease up this much???" and then go back and read the Japanese translation of "Running with Lydiard" to gain reassurance.

I think Tinman said it here (though that phrase was actually often used by Lydiard more so than Bowerman though he might have said it as well o r said it first), you do need to cover all the speed ranges.  We may not do that week in week out; we do it more of a periodization fashion; but we still cover them all.  I remember, in one of his columns in RT, Greg McMillan said something about, when asked what he thinks of Multi-Pace training, he said that's what Lydiard had started.  Do so year around may suit better for the today's elite runners who tend to race year-around; but doing so in a periodization fashion would suit better for most and particularly for the beginners and/or slower people because it would give you better adaptation period.  I wouldn't ask some beginners to get out on track once a week to do 50/50--in fact, I was just working on the Lydiard beginner's program last night for people whose maximum duration at this point is, say, 20-minutes.  I'm adding some stride and was working very carefully what pace we should suggest.  But they would probably benefit more from workout like this because, otherwise, they'll never do it.  When they say things like "I can't run fast" or "I'm not fast", that's not because they can't or they aren't but they never worked on it--and worked on it in a correct approach so they won't get hurt.  I have told this to Eric too but, what RA had given me is to learn the pattern and certain mentality of slower runners and beginners.  And, yes, definitely, some easy hill exercises or stride type of workout would benefit them a lot--in fact, I believe they would do them even better than some well-accepted mile repeat or Yasso 800 type of workout--though they have their places as well. 

I had great fun traveling Japan with Sir Peter Snell a few years back.  We had 3 clinics in Japan.  Of course, he's an expert in muscle fibers--that's sort of his specialty.  Yes, all (or more correctly put, as many as possible) types of muscle fibers should be activated and trained.  But there's a correct approach to do it and there's an incorrect approach to do so.  This is because, and it's been mentioned here as well, the humna body is a lot more complicated than a simple one-dimentional thinking.  If it is, the best approach to run 4-minute-mile is to try to run a 4-minute-mile day after day after day.  It won't work out that way.  And, like Hodgie-san said, it's actually a lot more complicated than desk-top science because it involves a human-being.  I like what Dave Martin said--"It's not muscles and bones that run; it's heart and soul that run."

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.

 

Sure, we don't want to make running more complicated than it is.  And double sure, I'd never be able to write another article unless I seized upon aspects of training like muscle fiber recruitment, hormonal balance (the one I just turned in), and how to pick the best tune-up races for a particular race distance (the one in the next issue).

 

But it's equally true that unless you're a running zen master, you're probably running the wrong pace for your distance, failing to fully develop your strength/speed, and getting beat at races by people of equal ability who are training smarter.

 

Just a couple things, and then I must dash off to work (really don't want to be late again today!).

 

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!

 

Seriously, I can't run with most distance runners I know, because their distance pace is too fast for me.  Since I know there's no benefit to the faster pace, I won't do it.  But come race day, I'm running a minute or two faster for a 5K, more than that for a 10K or beyond.

 

Knowing about things like muscle fiber recruitment is the key to setting pace and establishing workouts (e.g.--what's the optimum distance and pace for long hill repeats to improve our 1500 meter/mile speed? ... read the article, it's all there ... and fyi, it's that speed that determines a runner's ultimate success at races 5K and longer!).

 

Oh, and I'm not Rich.

 

Or rich.

 

Best regards to all of you!

Pete Magill

I'd have some questions/comments...

1) what is 65-70% of VO2max, how do you determine it, is it 65%-70% of velocity at VO2max or is it by heart rate or something else?

2) what if there is 2 runners and for one of them 65% is not eliciting the same physiological responses as for the other one?? I think it would be pretty easy to argue that such a situation can exist. such a situation would be, say, where one of the runners can hold 65% over a much longer time than the other one. how can you reconcile this possibility with the suggestion of training at 65-70%?

3) I have talked to many people in our local runner community and have spent a lot of time viewing their training logs and I found that there are some people (a couple friends of me, including myself, this is why I'm so interested in this) who are quite poor at endurance even after doing a lot of endurance training. yes, a "lot" may be relative but I noticed that another type of runner will respond to this kind of endurance training (i.e. run slower and a lot) much more readily. at the same time, short distance PR's are similar for both types of runners. why would this be? and, does the not-so-readily-responding type just need substantially more time for the benefits to be realized or need substantially different training to achieve results?

also, what is the physiological explanation behind it? different muscle twitch types?

I hope my questions make some sense and that you have time to reply; I haven't read your article because I didn't see it anywhere online, if it is online, I'll be more than happy to read it

I mean of all the threads in the world to have Pete and Tinman drop into it has to be a 2-year old Rich_ thread that he just bumped?

And now new people are beginning to "interact" with Rich_ again.

As they say on Monday Night Countdown, C'mon, man!