Forums >General Running>The Muscle Factor Model
Hi, Jimmy.
Thank you for the comments. As new physiology and training knowledge appears I continue to try to make it known to the running community.
Hey Rich, good to see you posting here at RA. I have enjoyed your posts and the ensuing discussion back at Coolrunning. Whether your views are right onor not, I always enjoy discussion about running & training theories and theirapplications. It's good to see you stirring it up!So, welcome!Keep going!--Jimmy
--Jimmy
Why don't you invite him to the Low Heart Rate thread and have a field day? Here you go Rich. Low HR Group
Good training is about applying solid principles to long-term training programs, while exhibiting patience, discipline, and a willingness to adjust workouts based upon feedback from our bodies.
Well, that's not going to sell too many magazines.
(Just got back from vacation to find my September RT waiting for me. Haven't read the article yet ...)
"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
My biggest criticism is best demonstrated in this section: STRENGTH When we run, a micro-Darwinian "survival of the fittest" takes place in our muscle fibers. Fibers contain small myofilaments called myosin and actin; weaker myofilaments are damaged through training. Our body responds by replacing these damaged myofilaments with stronger ones, leaving us with fibers that can better handle the stress of running. Also, as we increase the intensity and volume of our running, the number of these myofilaments increases, causing muscle fibers to swell. It's this increase in the size of muscle fibers (called "hypertrophy" that leads to visible enlargement of our muscles. The combination of stronger and larger fibers allows our muscles to produce more force, while simultaneously increasing their resistance to damage and fatigue. MAXIMUM RECRUITMENT Knowing that we can strengthen our muscle fibers, it stands to reason that we'd want to strengthen all of them. Yet many runners don't. Distance runners who focus solely on volume miss the opportunity to strengthen intermediate and fasttwitch fibers. Sprinters who eschew intervals fail to develop intermediate fibers to their full potential. "Strength' is an ambiguous term when refering to muscles and in particular muscle fiber. Strength in reference to tensile strength is completely different than strength in reference to force production and I'd really like to see these concept clearly separated. When I read the except above, it really looks like thse concepts are confused with each other.
Feeling the growl again
1) Look at any number of elite and even sub-elite distance runners. Their muscles are often very small, even for their stature. To tie muscle size to distance running performance is extremely questionable, at best. I have seen a number of runners get faster as their leg muscles shrink. The changes in muscles that make them better at distance running, whatever one may argue that to be, have little to do with how large the muscle becomes.
2) Why does it stand to reason that you want to strengthen all of them? What if there are ones you don't use, or doing the work for ones you use less impedes your ability to work on those you need more? While I'm a believer in multi-paced training I would be careful not to over-emphasize this strengthening of fibers you may or may not use, if this work may impede on other more important work.
"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
1) Look at any number of elite and even sub-elite distance runners. Their muscles are often very small, even for their stature. To tie muscle size to distance running performance is extremely questionable, at best. I have seen a number of runners get faster as their leg muscles shrink. The changes in muscles that make them better at distance running, whatever one may argue that to be, have little to do with how large the muscle becomes. 2) Why does it stand to reason that you want to strengthen all of them? What if there are ones you don't use, or doing the work for ones you use less impedes your ability to work on those you need more? While I'm a believer in multi-paced training I would be careful not to over-emphasize this strengthening of fibers you may or may not use, if this work may impede on other more important work.
Very much why I hate the use of the term strength in this context. Pete does an okay job of trying to keep strength as meaning tensile/structural strength in the first section, but then goes off and seems to blur it in the next (max recruitment) section. At best, he indicates force production is related to muscle size, and we know this isn't true at all, even for a given individual.
I don't have a problem understanding I want muscle fiber capable of handling the stress of force production, but that won't make me faster on it's own. What I want is sustainable force production and I want to to increase what I currently have.
Wow ... [Deleted after the fact] ... Gents, I believe this post was too harsh the way I wrote it originally.
Suffice to say that much research and consultation of experts (as well as my own background in competing, coaching, and college phsio, anat, chem) went into the article. And I stand by it.
Good luck in your training and racing, one and all!
Wow ... There's so much I can learn from some of the guys on this board! What do I need with experts, top coaches, published works on muscle physiology, and three decades of competition and coaching experience?! Obviously, I've been wasting my time ... coming to this board, anyway. See you at the races, guys.
Wow ... There's so much I can learn from some of the guys on this board! What do I need with experts, top coaches, published works on muscle physiology, and three decades of competition and coaching experience?! Obviously, I've been wasting my time ... coming to this board, anyway.
See you at the races, guys.
I was kind of hoping for some clarification, I thought you wanted some feedback.
I'm not sure how high-level credentials are a substitute for explaining why you would make a statement that enlarging muscles is basically a key goal of training for distance running when this is clearly not the case. This seems more an offense that some are simply unwilling to follow like blind sheep. If you have drawn experiences and knowledge from the credentials you quote you should be able to explain your position and back it up, rather than just leaving in a huff and avoiding the question.
This is why I do not read your rag. All these supposed keys to success, and when you're called to explain questionable parts you throw abstract credentials and avoid it. It makes me question everything I would read there.
When I've worked with national and world-class runners and coaches before, both live and via similar internet interactions, the good onces can actually explain and defend their recommendations.
I guess a few of us assumed you wanted a discussion and not just a recognition session or something.
Spaniel - I altered my last post because I too believed it was too harsh (rest assured that it shall remain as quoted in your and JimR's response).
I believe that what I wrote in the article is solid. I believe that both your and JimR's feedback is faulty in its underlying assumptions. Like many writers, I put a LOT of work into what goes on the page. And I'm willing to engage with people who put an equal amount of work into their criticism of what goes on that page. In this case, I simply don't think that's the case - but I shouldn't have written that snotty post. For that, I apologize to you and other readers on this post.
Good luck in your training and running.
Please don't get too wrapped up in specifics (e.g.--"How can you say to train slow twitch at 70% when my best friend trains best at 63.7%?". You can NEVER know exact numbers/percentages/etc. from day to day. These are guidelines, to be adjusted for each individual. Personally, I don't train with a watch (except intervals and sometimes tempo). I don't measure the length my runs. I don't keep a log of my weekly mileage. And I do at least 50% of my interval work on the roads, guided by time with no concern for distance (i.e.--how far I'm running). And yet I adhere to all the principles of training put forth in the articles I write. Don't miss the forest for the trees, folks.
Good takeaway.
Runners run
I think maybe some folks are reading the article like it's peer-reviewed and in a scientific publication, rather than a mainstream running magazine. Despite being a biochemist by training, I took his discussion to mean "strength" as in generation of contractive force, not tensile strength. I also didn't take the sentence about enlargement to mean that hypertrophy leads inexorably to enlargement discernible to the naked eye. I took it more as trying to give an example that the lay reader would be able to nod in understanding with. (Remember "remember your audience"?) AFAIK, no one disputes the notion of "repair with interest" after training stress has been applied. That seems to be his main point. Whether one should stress every type of muscle fiber, or every muscle, is another question.
Yes, CliveFenster, you get it. And I suspect you also get how incredibly difficult it is to take a subject like this and write it for that mainstream audience. Trust me, even Tom S. was frustrated at times by how "mainstream" I demanded his answers needed to be. But as I told him, the article's purpose wasn't to make the author and expert look like brilliant scientists; it was to provide training insight to the magazine's readers.
I stand by my advice to train all types of muscle fiber (though certainly not every fiber in the body!), simply because all types are called into play at some point during most races, even if only briefly. On the other hand, I can see how someone with limited training time or, as can be the case, virtually no fast twitch (Type IIx) fiber would want to focus on the fiber types more specific to their race.
(Be aware, however, that almost all elite runners do training that involves the full spectrum of muscle fiber.)
As stated earlier in this thread, too, different articles focus on different aspects of training. That's why it's an article. It can't take every aspect of running into consideration. It can't even answer all (or most) of the questions about the aspect being discussed. Mostly, it tries to provide some training insight that will help the reader.
Here's what I think is the bottom line: if you utilize the training recommended in the article at the effort levels recommended, you will improve aspects of your running. Even if you only use a couple of the workouts. And it will do this largely by affecting the muscle fibers indicated.
Or you can pick apart this very general article for not addressing real or imagined specific principles of physiology to which you subscribe religiously.
I'll happily answer questions and debate on the former.
But the latter - given the nature of the article - is just trying to pick a fight. Not interested.
Your snotty (your word not mine!), now-retracted post and characterization of anyone who does not pay for your article as "cheap and lazy", when a lot of us simply have no interest in reading running magazines, hardly make one think of you as an engaging soul. I mean, earlier on I complimented several of your posts and quoted them. Asking for a little support or clarification for your conclusions is not asking the world of you. People like Nobby come on here, and they can explain themselves without the combativeness.
MTA (had to go pick up the kiddies):
While fielding questions based on an article that has to adhere to word count limits is frustrating, this is your opportunity to expound on that and connect the various articles that describe different components of training, if you need to in order to answer the question. As I quoted you earlier, because I agreed with and liked it, coaches and athletes go out and find what works and then the exercise physiologists do experiments and claim they discovered it. This article was not my first exposure to multi-pace training, I've been using it for years just based on trial and error and first discussed its theory in detail with Marc Davis back in like 2003 or so. I remember him sending me either Matt Downin or Keith Dowling's training log from the prior few months to illustrate it It's unfortunate in a way that this all got dragging into a Rich_ thread, theory aside I think our discussion of training would be rather boring as it's probably about the same in application anyways.
I would recommend knowing your audience before you judge their worthiness to enter a discussion so harshly. Sometimes people's experience may surprise you.