question on fiber types and training (just read Hadd & Cabral's thread)

Also, I have a question on fiber recruitment:

From the same Hadd & Cabral thread, different fibers are recruited at different intensities. Does this mean that the fibers are trained by effort rather than say pace? Like, say effort level B is 6:00 mile pace on a fresh day, but on some tired days, effort level B is a 7:00 mile pace. Are the fibers being recruited in the same way in both situations?

That is to say that that is why a "slow" 2+ hr run will, towards the end of the run, train your fast fibers because your slow twitch fibers have "gone away".

One question at a time:

educate me wrote:

... when I am in the SAME shape as my other much slower (on the sprint side) teammates, I have much trouble keeping up with them in say repeat 800s and 1200s [even though] I am much faster [than them] over 100m-1600m?

From the little data you have provided, you appear to be more-FT than your team-mates. eg: you can run quicker than them over short reps yet suffer more than them over the longer reps.

Another point might be that they are okay with short jog recoveries whereas you would prefer a longer (and even better) standstill recoveries between reps. The standstill nature of the recovery allows your phosphagen and lactate systems to recover better than slow jogging recovery ... so you will have access to those systems in the subsequent rep. Since those energy systems are powerful (in you) you welcome having access to them. Since those systems are NOT powerful in your companions, they need them less than you and are okay with jogging recoveries.

Another way of saying that they are running more on their aerobic system than you. As race distances lengthen, you should progressively find it more difficult to keep up with them. They will slow up less to move from (eg) 5k pace to 10k pace, or from 10k pace to HM pace, than you will.

You also know that if you are ever with them in a race with 200m to go, you're gonna win (since you can access your powerful lactate system, which they cannot).

Hope that helps.

As quick advice, you need to work more on lactate management. This does not have to be hard LTP runs which might suit your companions more. Instead consider doing some 400m intervals at 10k pace with 100m jog recovery in sub-45 secs, a training method used successfully by another FT (Fernando Mamede) as Cabral has explained on the Cabral & Hadd thread.

educate me wrote:

Also, I have a question on fiber recruitment:

From the same Hadd & Cabral thread, different fibers are recruited at different intensities. Does this mean that the fibers are trained by effort rather than say pace?

Short answer; yes. Running on the flat at 6:00m/m might recruit mainly ST fibres. Yet running uphill at a slower pace might recruit more-powerful FT fibres since the effort required is more difficult.

So, slower pace uphill, yet more effort, so change in fibre recruitment.

educate me wrote:

Is that why a "slow" 2+ hr run will, towards the end of the run, train your fast fibers because your slow twitch fibers have "gone away"?

This is precisely a belief held by physiologist Peter Snell.

educate me wrote:

I have much trouble keeping up with them in say repeat 800s and 1200s (some of them also seem to be running significantly faster than their race paces), but I can still run the same times in cross/long distance and am much faster over 100m-1600m?

i don't understand. if the runner can't keep up in the intervals, how is he even able to run the same times during the distance races when there is no recovery "between repititions"? Hadd, please explain this in terms of muscle fiber recruitment if possible

"You also know that if you are ever with them in a race with 200m to go, you're gonna win (since you can access your powerful lactate system, which they cannot)."

Since you seem to be talking about this now, I am not sure I understand this. A long time ago in high school there were 4 of us who trained very similar to each other despite our different muscle makeups. But we were very close to the same abilities one year in the 1600: 4:33 slowest T, 4:33 slow T, 4:34 slow T and me 4:34 fastest T. I had them all by at least 4 seconds in the 800 and they had me by between 25 and 35 seconds in 5k XC. Our PRs for 3200m were 9:42 slowest T, 9:50 slow T, 9:55 slow T and me 9:55 fastest T. Over the year I faced them all at least 11 times in 3000s and 3200s, as I recall, my record was 3 wins and 8 losses. 2 of my wins came races where one of them beat me and I lost to another and may have had more to them racing each other. The 3rd win came in a race with 3 of us that was won in 10:10. The 8 losses came in PR type races. As I see it, in PR races I would use up my entire FT lactate system just to keep up. I always ran positive splits especially in XC. Then in the last lap they would still have their FT to call on. Do you think this was a racing thing or a training thing?

hadd

do you think diet impacts ST runners differntly?

educate me wrote:

from pg 4:

"...An ST type is able to run short reps quite hard and get away with it, because they produce so little lactate as a result of having so few FT fibres. An FT runner though needs to be very careful as going too quick will soon result in large increases in blood and muscle lactate..."

Is this why, when I am in the SAME shape as my other much slower (on the sprint side) teammates, I have much trouble keeping up with them in say repeat 800s and 1200s (some of them also seem to be running significantly faster than their race paces), but I can still run the same times in cross/long distance and am much faster over 100m-1600m?

Let me say something more that John Hadd says about this issue. May be this can help you in your interval training workouts and complement what John says.

Imagine that you run the typical short interval workout of 20X400m with 1:00min recovery and you feel find. But you can follow John´s past post advise:

You need to work more on lactate management. This does not have to be hard LTP runs which might suit your companions more. Instead consider doing some 400m intervals at 10k pace with 100m jog recovery in sub-45 secs, a training method used successfully by another FT (Fernando Mamede) as Cabral has explained on the Cabral & Hadd thread.

Meanwhile you keep trouble when you try longer intervals. For instance you try 10X800m with 2:00min recovery and you don´t feel ready.

In this case you shall easy up the process in this kind of long interval training.

I advise you to try the intermediate set distance in between 400s and 800s. That interval workout is 15X600m at the same pace that you did the 800m and with 1:30min recovery. With 15X600m you run the same 8k total distance than 20X400m and 10X800m but for the same average pace than the 800s you have more recovery breaks than when you run the 800s. Remember that the rule of training progressivity. Sometimes the runner try to jump from short to long or from short mileage to long mileage or to slow pace to fast pace without the progressive period of time and pace adjustment.

In the same logic if you think that’s hard to jump from 10X800m to 5X1600m (mile)you may try 7X1200m for the same pace average than you run the 1600s and with the adequate recovery. Or you may start a progressive process of move from 800s to 1000s and 1200m before to approach the 1600m (mile) interval workout. You may pay attention to what’s your answer to that delay of distance stimulus the way you can determine if or when you are ready to face the long intervals. If it doesn’t then keep on working in that kind of intermediate interval distances.

Thanks for the responses. Regarding the progressive repitition workouts:

When these are to be done at "10k pace", does that mean current 10k pace or goal 10k pace? I would assume that they would mean GOAL 10k pace because I'm only able to handle 600m-1200m of them at a time.

in addition:

when running these progressive goal pace workouts, how far away of a goal pace would you recommend? What if your goal pace is significantly faster than your current 10k pace? Please address this issue in two scenarios:

1)short term - wanting to reach goal pace within the scope of a 3 month 10k cross season

2) long term - wanting to reach goal pace in 6 months or more away (say track season)

Gotta bump this one.

I repeat part of my early post since it covers all your questions.

For instance you try 10X800m with 2:00min recovery and you don´t feel ready.

In this case – you shall easy up the process - in this kind of long interval training.

I advise you to try the intermediate set distance in between 400s and 800s. That interval workout is 15X600m AT THE SAME PACE YOU DID early the 10X800m.

The basic idea is to easy up the process while reduce the distance of each interval set unity while you keep the same THE SAME PACE the runner did in longer intervals.

No need of race pace goal or referential or current event pace in this case.

What you have just described is the fundamental flaw in FT runners; poor lactate management.

What you ST buddies could do with their aerobic systems, you had to do with your (poorer) aerobic system augmented by generous dollops of energy from your lactate energy system. So of course, when the race went long enough, you would fall off the pace with spiralling blood lactate (BLa) while your buddies disappear over the horizon. Horrible feeling!

What you needed to do was (is) work as much as possible on building up your aerobic condition so that you did not need to call upon your lactate energy system quite as early as you did. The longer you could delay an increase in BLa, the better.

So, this was not a racing thing, this was not a "lack of guts" thing, or lack of racing brain, or any other psycho-babble nonsense anyone tried to tell you; this was 100% failure to individualise your training in a way that was optimal to you. As you can see on the C&H thread, Mamede (FT) and Lopes (ST) never ran the same training. Their PRs at 5k and 10k were within seconds of each other, and Mamede's (the FT guy) were the fastest.

So, it should have been possible for you to defeat your faster ST buddies all the way up to 10k with optimal training, but note also from Mamede and Lopes, that Lopes beat Mamede more times than the other way about. ST's do that. They are race-ready more often than FTs. Fact of life.

Doesn't always have to be so though. I coach an FT dude, and he's PR-ing all the way from 800-HM, and he's pretty much always in race-shape because I made him an aerobic monster FIRST. So it is possible. He has race seasons; track in summer and road all winter.

You make one point I agree on; begin with an ST at the bell (with 400m to go) is often now safe enough for an FT already on his BLa limit. That final 400m can be a long lonely way ... but note that I said "200m to go". Most FTs who have hung tough that far can generate one final fatal kick and cross the line first. And of course you are right, it does depend on how much you have had to access you lactate energy system to get you that far.

yikes say what wrote:

I don't understand. if the runner can't keep up in the intervals, how is he even able to run the same times during the distance races when there is no recovery "between repetitions"?

I have seen any number of more-FT runners who cannot run (eg) 5-6 x 1km at 5k race pace with 200m jog recovery in 90 secs. And they cannot do this workout DESPITE the fact they can race 5k at the same pace. So, they can run 5k at this pace without stopping, but not run a workout designed this way. Sounds illogical.

If you give them 5-6 x 1k at 5k pace with 90 secs STANDSTILL recovery, they can do the session, but not when you make the recovery float 200m in 90s. Hell, if you give them standstill recovery, they can often run the 1k reps faster than race pace! But not when you make the recovery a "float".

Why? A 90s standstill recovery allows their lactate system to recover (and you will be surprised how short you can reduce the rec time and still have the lactate system recover!). So that means they can use some lactate energy on the next rep.

When you make them float for 200m in 90 secs, the lactate system cannot recover and thus it is NOT available for the next rep ... so without it your FT runner rapidly gets into trouble by rep 3-4-5.

In this state I tell them, it's not the rep pace that is killing them, it's the RECOVERY JOG that is killing them!

ST runners usually have no trouble with recovery floats since they were not accessing much lactate system energy on the reps, so they don't rely on it recovering in order to go again.

rawling wrote:

hadd

do you think diet impacts ST runners differently?

I'm gonna give a qualified yes, but not in an extreme way.

I believe ST runners can eat a more-fat rich diet (even 35% fat) and get away with it since their ST fibres are good at fat-burning. Mrs H loves her cheeses and olive oil and nuts...

FT types are generally less good at fat-burning at all paces, so their diet may need to be more carbo-rich.

But the differences might be subtle, and individual. Find what works best for you, and then don't give a rat's if it doesn't work for anyone else on the planet.

Damn! Gotta watch the editing!

The last paragraph a coupla posts ago SHOULD have read (corrections in caps):

"You make one point I agree on; BEING with an ST at the bell (with 400m to go) is often NOT safe enough for an FT already on his BLa limit. That final 400m can be a long lonely way ... but note that I said "200m to go". Most FTs who have hung tough that far can generate one final fatal kick and cross the line first. And of course you are right, it does depend on how much you have had to access YOUR lactate energy system to get you that far.

Antonio,

"In this Mamede workout we see 2 main goals. One (the slow pace version with active/short incomplete recovery) promotes mainly the aerobic condition. The second (faster version with longer and more passive and quite complete recovery) had the goal of promoting mainly aerobic power and strength endurance."

did Mamede do these versions of these 2 types of interval workouts on a weekly basis year round, i.e. one day active/short recovery and another day of stand still recovery

Hadd I am all ST and like you describe do much better with float recovery. I have to have on lots of fat in my diet. I know this is very individual but when I do just high carb I struggle during tempo's and racing. sometimes I cut a workout early in the morning when I am slowing go eat a couple greasy high fat meals and later in the evening find the paces I couldn't handle earlier much more relaxed.

runner39 wrote:

Antonio,

"In this Mamede workout we see 2 main goals. One (the slow pace version with active/short incomplete recovery) promotes mainly the aerobic condition. The second (faster version with longer and more passive and quite complete recovery) had the goal of promoting mainly aerobic power and strength endurance."

did Mamede do these versions of these 2 types of interval workouts on a weekly basis year round, i.e. one day active/short recovery and another day of stand still recovery

Yes. After some 2 to 4 weeks of intro-transitory season when Mamede simply did daily runs he did start with the 2 type of track workouts.

It´s done with short interval distance from 150s to 400s or a mix of short distances.

One day he did short active interval recovery going ahead on track in threshold pace (10k pace).

Second day and with the use of short interval distances once again he did fast to all flat out pace with a bit longer and stand interval recovery.

But...wait. Don´t forget he did include in his weekly microcycle process the long distance repetitions also - that of 1000s 1500s 2000s to 3000s. Don´t name it intervals or intreval training because the main goal that´s race pace and in this workout type the interval recovery is as long and as complete as needed to able to run at race pace.

thanks Antonio,

do you think an average runner(say 35 min 10k) that is more than likely FT could benefit by these types of workouts, if so what type of volume would you prescribe for the three(active rest, standstill, long distance) workouts you listed above

appreciate the feedback