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

runner39 wrote:

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

If a FT can benefit ? I think so.

For every kind of runner the volume stuff as well as the rest duration in every type of the 3 workouts it depends of the runner history and what was been your past training package. Despite you say you are a FT 35min 10K you need training individualisation. Of course that the Hadd’s Phase 1 may not be neglected. Thus you may start the periodisation process with daily runs that include some LT and LTP/tempo runs. About this subject see Hadd’s advise on the use of HR pace percent on "Cabral & Hadd Thread - 2 kind of runners".

About the track intervals i think that’s important to say that every type of runner - from the FT to the ST runner - shall train the his best and talent quality but he shall not neglet his weakness. In the case of the ST runner and since he does a good aerobic system he may train in what he feels adjusted - the LT and LTP runs and the long repetitions as well as the intervals with active recovery it fit on the ST good aerobic system. But if the same ST runner wants improve his weakness anaerobic system he shall train fast flat out intervals that of stand and/or long recovery.

When i read that some runners they say they prefer short or long intervals active or stand recovery I think they shall realise that ´s not preference but correct training usage.

You say you are a FT. As FT that you are you can run fast intervals but you need to care and try to improve your weak quality - the poor aerobics. That’s why you shall train the kind of short type of non-stop intervals with short and active recovery as it is t run in less than 45secs recovery going 100mts ahead on the track as you see in the Mamede training schedule that he does at his 10k pace. To some extend the short intervals with active recovery it shall replace with efficiency the the aerobic system training need of the FT runner as is the LT and LTP/tempo runs.

arita wrote:

the other thread Antonio points out that Lopes didn't do long runs over 90 minutes. Should all ST runners avoid longer runs even during marathon training? I am confused.

You shall pay attention to what i wrote on the "2 Types Thread. About every portuguese runner Lopes or Mamede whatever other runner that i didn’t coach THAT´S NOT MY OWN TRAIN METHOD. About Lopes i simply write about past facts. So i miss my own opinion about long runs. I see ST or FT both runner types in a large range of long distance events. From 800m to 1500m to 5000m or 10000m to cross country and to road HM to the marathon or 100k.

The case of Lopes i figure out that he didn’t long runs, not because he is a ST runner but because that’s his own preference in what he did think that did fit into his training based in his individuality and his personal experience of decades of training and his coach advise more than his ST type.

I point out because that’s paradigmatic. A 27:17 and 2:07:12 an Olympic and multi World Cross country winner with tons of strength endurance but he didn’t use regularly long runs nothing as the classic 2h00m to 2h30min but no longer than 90min at fast pace. John Hadd says that are several ways to catch a rat.

Hadd or Cabral -

Re: The two different workouts mentioned - one where the recoveries are float/jogged and one where the recoveries are stand still.

Can you please explain when is best phase in season to use the different workout?

I was thinking from your explanation that early season/stamina building would be best to use the float recovery, but closer to races use the rest??

Please elaborate?

I don't really know if I am FT and probably will never know for sure but my lack of race time improvement obviously points to improper training so for me I want to give this form of training a try to see if it breaks me out of my slump, if anything it will create a new training stimulus that might spark a change in my race times

besides a biopsy or lactate test is there anyway to tell if you are FT or ST, I don't think comparing race times works because I mostly do road races which of course I run on different routes, any type of workout that might help determine whether you are more FT or ST

Still Learning wrote:

Hadd or Cabral -

Re: The two different workouts mentioned - one where the recoveries are float/jogged and one where the recoveries are stand still.

Can you please explain when is best phase in season to use the different workout?

I was thinking from your explanation that early season/stamina building would be best to use the float recovery, but closer to races use the rest??

Please elaborate?

Why not to do so ?

In my training approach the active recovery intervals tends to be done in early phases of the season process in higher workout percent, but i don’t deny the interest of the use of float/active intervals in every phase.

If want you prepare for one distance event shorter than 10k in late phase you may decrease that float/jog intervals and insist in fast stand intervals. But if you want to run a 10k or longer distance event like cross country or 10k to marathon and since the float/jog short distance intervals are done basically at 10k pace this kind of float intervals may work as race pace specific and in this your 10k to marathon distance event as well and you shall continue to include flat/jog intervals in every phase of your training alternating with the other type of short intervals or long repetition workouts.

Cabral & Hadd

I've noticed from looking at the training of ft runners that they seem to do less mileage than the st runners.

A similar case to that of Mamede and Lopes is the case of Webb and Ritz. Their Pbs over 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 are very close to each other but Webb regularly runs less than 90 miles per week while Ritz runs many weeks at 90-110 miles per week. Why is it that ft runners for the most part tend to require less mileage in their training than st runners?

Webb might do less mileage but I am guessing his average intensity is much higher. Given intensity is much more important than duration in improving FT muscles it would make sense. Read the classic rat study on the effect of intensity on aerobic enzymes in the various fibers.

whylessvolume4ft runners wrote:

Cabral & Hadd

I've noticed from looking at the training of ft runners that they seem to do less mileage than the st runners.

A similar case to that of Mamede and Lopes is the case of Webb and Ritz. Their Pbs over 3,000, 5,000 and 10,000 are very close to each other but Webb regularly runs less than 90 miles per week while Ritz runs many weeks at 90-110 miles per week. Why is it that ft runners for the most part tend to require less mileage in their training than st runners?

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..."

Fiber type may correlate with lactate production, but recovery time between reps (or between hard days) also has to do with stride mechanics. Actually, fiber type, mode of energy production and stride mechanics are all linked to various degrees.

Runners with predominantly "FT" units are more likely than "ST" types to have a short electromechanical delay (that's the "dead time" between the eccentric, or braking, phase and the concentric phase of a movement), since their motor neurons are more liable to respond to the type of training which affects that aspect of mechanical efficiency. A short electromechanical delay (as long as it occurs within the running gait and not exlcusively within some other mode of exercise, such as jumping rope) results in a more economical (not necessarily synonymous with efficient) stride by virtue of reduced ground contact time and, by extension, lower energy transfer loss.

This doesn't mean the ST runner can't have a short electromechanical delay and an explosive stride. It's trainable, even in pure distance types. But the pure distance runner normally relies on smaller motor neurons to provide fine control to the stride, which compensates for the lack of naturally explosive strides. Smaller motor neurons innervate these "control" muscles (like ocular muscles) which fatigue very slowly since they are high in mitochondria and are in use almost all the time. Think of the large neurons (innervating FT units) as a few very strong guys who can lift a piano with brute strength, while the small motor neurons are like a thousand little kids that can still lift the piano while using very little effort per person. The ST runner generally (but not always) gets slotted by necessity into stride mechanics which lend themselves to short recovery time from the standpoint of impact stress - e.g., the classic gliding "shuffle" stride of a marathoner. The "not always" qualifier comes into play when the fatigue-resistant motor units are not the ones which need to be recruited in the correct sequence for running at a given speed. This phenomenon can occur in runners with any type of fiber predominance - an economical runner must recruit all the of proper motor units in concert for forward propulsion, not merely according to the recruitment pattern that suits the individual's skeletal structure or mental ability to summon up and maintain the action.

Energy production (such as lactate metabolism) is often tied to fiber type and stride mechanics. In the area of lactate metabolism, certain muscle fibers are normally higher in transport metabolites which remove lactate from the muscles while other fibers are higher in the proteins which bring lactate into the cells for use as fuel. The good news is that both of these attributes (i.e., expression of both MCT-1 and MCT-4 isoforms, for you Ex. Phys. geeks) are trainable in virtually every type of runner. The format of the training (emphasis on continuous vs. segment running) is dictated by the strengths and weaknesses of the individual runner. For FT types, segment running at a "crest load" pace is very helpful, since it is tailored to the nature of the FT runner, who relies on lactate metabolism during moderate to hard efforts.

Try for 30-35 minutes of total running broken into segments of 3 to 12 minutes in length starting at about 10-12 seconds per mile slower than 10k race pace and finishing with the final 3-5 minutes at 8k race pace, and using active rest periods of about one-fourth to one-third of the run periods. If you have 8k and 10k bests of 25:00 and 31:35, you might do 10 x 1,000 with a minute or less rest, or 5 x 2,000 with 2 minutes or less rest, starting at 5:15 mile pace (3:16 per 1,000) for a bit, averaging around 5:05 pace (3:10) in the middle, and finishing off with some around 5:00 pace (3:06).

Your recovery issue on fast repeats may be due to skeletal structure, it may have to do with lactate transport, it may have to do with lactate buffering or some combination of these and other characteristics. Remember that your aim should actually be to get faster at your racing distances and (if needed) to be able to run rounds in championships. Hanging in there on repeats in workouts might help in the long term (if you do get better at it), but isn't the ultimate goal.

Blah wrote:

Given intensity is much more important than duration in improving FT muscles it would make sense. Read the classic rat study on the effect of intensity on aerobic enzymes in the various fibers.

Rat FT fibers actually have higher mitochondrial capacity than rat ST fibers, which is contrary to the case with humans. So the dramatic increase in mitochondrial enzyme activity in response to intense bouts, as noted by Dudley in 1982 and in subsequent rat studies, is expected for rat physiology but may not imply the same result is true for humans.

Some of the rats in these studies ran bouts at 100% of maximum oxygen uptake on a daily basis. This obviously wouldn't be advisable for humans, whose metabolism is much slower and who experience far more orthopedic stress than rats. The conclusions drawn from rat studies may carry over to humans in limited aspects of physiology, but to say that training humans in the manner of rats will effect the same responses is faulty reasoning.

Some oxidative properties can actually be acquired across the entire spectrum of muscle fibers by doing large enough amounts of low-intensity running, although easy stuff wouldn't be the only running you'd want to do if you had any designs on maximizing your abilities for races that involve faster speeds.

educate me is a ft. I´m a st. What intervals do you advise me or I may run 10 x 1,000 with a minute or less rest or 5 x 2,000 with 2 minutes or less rest.

JK?

Milton Friedman wrote:

JK?

JK wrote some articles about training and biuld up his training method based in rats tests protocols. Now he says that the rat is different than the human being.

Funny.

There are definitely issues with using rats so modeling exact training on the study is nuts. The general idea of running faster to train FT makes sense but I don't think we know the details. ST are recruitd at every pace but when do FT come in? Simplified a bit when your running along a 70% vo2max, maybe you are recruiting a quarter your FT fibers and you just alternate between them. So an hour run would give you 15 mins of training of FT. Running 30 min at LT pace and maybe you get 20 min of FT training. I am definitely making up those numbers but the general idea maps to all the studies I have seen. The other kicker is that running fast is more than just having enzemes. You also need to fire the muscles off correctly when running at race pace.

is there really any sense to comparing race times when it comes to road races? obviously track races make sense but road races are never run on the same course, this FT and ST classification is starting to get confusing for me

my 1500m time use to be much faster compared to my 5000m time, now my 1/2 marathon time is faster than my 5km time, now what do I do?

How old are you?

FTIR wrote:

How old are you?

40, why?

Interesting....

Is it possible at all that a FT runner have that gliding shuffle and quick recovery ability?

I've always thought of myself as a FT guy, but I've been told I have that shuffling stride and recover very quickly in workouts. In fartleks, some of my training partners that run the same pace as me in the fast part, drop behind in the recovery part. In races that have gone out too fast, I can survive and I can kick if I have to, but it's a 400m out kick, not 100m.

In road races, the 5Ks relate well to the marathon, but my track mile times are much faster than the longer races. Maybe it's a factor of not being well enough trained.

This is a response to Bumble Puppy. (and everyone)

Slow-twitch & proud? wrote:

Interesting....

Is it possible at all that a FT runner have that gliding shuffle and quick recovery ability?

I've always thought of myself as a FT guy, but I've been told I have that shuffling stride and recover very quickly in workouts. In fartleks, some of my training partners that run the same pace as me in the fast part, drop behind in the recovery part. In races that have gone out too fast, I can survive and I can kick if I have to, but it's a 400m out kick, not 100m.

In road races, the 5Ks relate well to the marathon, but my track mile times are much faster than the longer races. Maybe it's a factor of not being well enough trained.

Antonio,

did the 400m at 10k with active jog rest today, actually 12 x 400m at 10k w/ 100m jog rest in 40 secs, workout went quite well, wasn't difficult but not as easy as I thought it would be, definitely felt like LT type workout, always struggle with continuous LT type runs and this workout felt like I was under control

should I try to expand the volume of this workout over time i.e. work up to 20 x 400m, or how do you know the proper volume you should be doing for this workout (a percentage of weekly volume?)

any chance you could expand on Mamede training schedule either on this thread or the Cabral/Hadd thread, if you want I could email you so you could send it to me, let me know and thanks for the feedback