The Muscle Factor Model (Read 3142 times)

 Well, the problem here Pete is that you enter the conversation with the assumption that you have more work and knowledge into every facet of running, training and physiology and everything you say should be taken at face value -- it is pretty clear from your most recent post that your defaulting everyone else to a lower level.  By luck you happen into a thread with two biochemists and runners who probably understand the minute workings of the muscle better than you do but get insulted when we ask you to clarify or support a couple points in your article that seem logically inconsistent.  Frankly I am really not concerned with your race times or who you know, and I am not picking a fight, only asking that you explain the origin of your statements for the sake of understanding.

Your snotty (your word not mine!), now-retracted post and characterization of anyone who does not pay for your article as "cheap and lazy" 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.

Spaniel - you know, your insults are getting old.  You criticized my article without having even read it.  You criticized the "rag" I work for without having read it.  And now you're throwing personal insults at me without having a clue as to who I am or what I'm about.  And then you wonder why I have no interest in answering your questions.

I felt from early on that there was no point in answering you - because you simply assumed things that weren't in evidence and then wanted me to respond to them.  You were far more interested in how you could critique my article (that you hadn't read) than you were in whether such a critique was warranted.

Of course, you like to have it both ways.  You like to insult me and my article, then claim to be only seeking "understanding."

So it goes.

You're a piece of work, Spaniel.  What gets me about guys like you - you'd never talk like this to my face.  You're one of that great cowardly mass of keyboard warriors who populate message boards and guard their electronic turf like dogs with a bone ... or toddlers with a blanket.

<font>Adaptations to Marathon Training</font>

<font size="2"></font>

<font>...What adaptations occur within the body that transforms a non-runner unable to run even modest distances into a person capable of running 26.2 miles without stopping and without injury? The traditional answer given by exercise physiology to this question is centered on the body’s ability to absorb, transport, and utilize oxygen, using terms such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy to explain the adaptations that occur within the body. Is this answer accurate? Does the traditional answer fully or mostly explain the changes in the body that enable someone to transform from a non-runner or recreational runner into a marathon runner? A new research study suggests that the traditional answers do not tell the full story and, instead, that other physiological changes within the body may more accurately explain the increased running capabilities from marathon training. Let’s take a look at this recent research and see what it has to teach us...</font>

<font></font>

<font></font>

<font>Research

Previous research on marathon training success has focused heavily on the physiological parameters having to do with aerobic capacity. Researchers have extensively measured the VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy of a wide variety of marathon runners, from the fastest of the elites to those runners finishing many hours later. This research has shown that runners of similar physiological profiles often perform very differently in the marathon. For examples, two runners with very similar VO2max levels may finish the marathon with very different times. Despite very similar physiological profiles one is a significantly faster runner than the other. It is obvious, then, that other, as yet unidentified, factors play a significant role in marathon performance.

One physiological component that may contribute significantly to performance but has received sparse attention from researchers is muscle. Relatively little research has been done on the role muscle function plays in distance running performance. Knowing this, in 2006 a group of researchers from Ball State University decided to examine the changes occurring in muscles during marathon training. They hypothesized that significant changes would take place in the muscles.

Ball State University offers a university class designed to prepare students physically and mentally to complete a marathon following a proven, 16 weeks, 4-days-per-week marathon training program. Several years ago this program was compared in a research study to a 6 days-per-week program and found to be equally effective. Since then, hundreds of students have followed this program and completed a marathon...</font>

<font></font>

<font>Muscle adaptations
In contrast to the modest adaptations in the cardiovascular system, there were significant changes in the muscles of the runners. First, slow twitch & fast twitch oxidative muscle fibers decreased 21% & 23% respectively in size (diameter). This is significant because all things being equal, smaller fibers are weaker than larger fibers. However, despite the decrease in size of the muscle fibers, the contractile ability of the muscles actually increased. Peak force (strength) stayed the same in the slow twitch fibers and increased 18% in fast twitch oxidative fibers. Strength in relation to the decreased fiber size increased approx. 60% in both fiber types. Muscle power also increased. Absolute power output increased in slow twitch fibers by 56% and in fast twitch oxidative fibers by 53%. Relative power output increased 100% in slow twitch fibers and 84% in fast twitch oxidative fibers. Additionally, slow twitch fibers increased their shortening velocity 28%....</font>

<font>...Are these results unique or surprising? No, they are not as other studies have produced similar findings. A study of collegiate cross-country runners found their slow twitch fibers contraction speed to be at the upper end of the range typically observed for human slow twitch fibers.(5) One study examining the effects on muscle fiber function of a 21 day taper in swimmers found increased muscle contraction speed, strength, & power accompanied a 4% increase in performance.(6) A study of master runners showed that their slow twitch fibers contracted 20% faster than matched sedentary adults.(7) In fact, the researchers calculated that during running the master runners slow twitch fibers “…would produce more than twice as much power…” as the slow twitch fibers of the sedentary runners. Finally, 7 years of research data on Lance Armstrong indicated that the primary physiological adaptation that occurred between ages 21 and 28 was an 18% improvement in power-to-weight ratio. His performance during this same time period improved from young pro-cyclist to multiple winner of the Tour de France though no changes occurred in his aerobic capacity during this same time period. This indicates that the increased power output is what enabled the performance improvements.(8)...</font>

<font>1. Trappe S, Harber M, Creer A, Gallagher P, Slivka D, Minchev K, Whitsett D., Single muscle fiber adaptations with marathon training, J Appl Physiol, 2006, 101: 721-727.</font>

FYI - To everyone else .. "cheap and lazy" was supposed  to be a joke, not an actual indictment of the people on this board.  I thought it was funny - but obviously didn't really feel that way or wouldn't have gone to the trouble to provide the link on this thread.  Anyone who's read my blog or my column would realize that I use lots of sarcasm; but if you haven't, you might have taken it literally, as Spaniel obviously did.

I've learned in the past, a message board is not the place to discuss your own material.  But like many of our training mistakes, it's one that I have to make again every now and then in order to re-learn.

So I'm out of here.  But I'm always available via the email address on my old blog.

Wow.

+1

 

 

Spaniel - you know, your insults are getting old.  You criticized my article without having even read it.  You criticized the "rag" I work for without having read it.  And now you're throwing personal insults at me without having a clue as to who I am or what I'm about.  And then you wonder why I have no interest in answering your questions.

I felt from early on that there was no point in answering you - because you simply assumed things that weren't in evidence and then wanted me to respond to them.  You were far more interested in how you could critique my article (that you hadn't read) than you were in whether such a critique was warranted.

Of course, you like to have it both ways.  You like to insult me and my article, then claim to be only seeking "understanding."

So it goes.

You're a piece of work, Spaniel.  What gets me about guys like you - you'd never talk like this to my face.  You're one of that great cowardly mass of keyboard warriors who populate message boards and guard their electronic turf like dogs with a bone ... or toddlers with a blanket.

Pete, you are far more interested in feeling offended at being questioned in an attempt to engage in discussion about your article and complaining about it to even discuss your article (which I read, once you posted a link).  Take a few days, go back and read what I wrote, then read what you wrote.  I think with a little time away it will become clear to you that you are completely over-reacting, not to mention being entirely childish with your last few lines.  

Nobby worked with Lydiard himself and has trained elite athletes, yet has more than once managed to have the patience to try and explain himself even to the likes of Rich_.  You lost your temper with the first question.  No matter how convinced you are in your position a little patience and explanation never hurt anyone.