Tinman says that people with fast twitch fibers must...

Can't believe there was a whole page to establish that fast/slow twitch was a spectrum. And yes, for practical purposes you play to your strengths - this is decades-old news. I knew sub 2:15 guys who only did any speed work to add variety, not that they actually thought it would top off their potential.

Re 400 speed, in the days when 2:15 was borderline elite, there were guys with only 57-58 speed. Today's sub 2:05 crowd I imagine all could break 52.

Thinman2 wrote:

Can't believe there was a whole page to establish that fast/slow twitch was a spectrum. And yes, for practical purposes you play to your strengths - this is decades-old news. I knew sub 2:15 guys who only did any speed work to add variety, not that they actually thought it would top off their potential.

Re 400 speed, in the days when 2:15 was borderline elite, there were guys with only 57-58 speed. Today's sub 2:05 crowd I imagine all could break 52.

Indeed, I trained back in the 80's with a guy that ran sub 4 (3:57 and change), best at 800 was around 1:55 and in the 400 right around 53. He probably could have run faster but was focused on the mile. I suspect he should have been running the 5K or 10K instead.

Tinman identifier wrote:

I say there's a 90% chance this was Tinman posting... (dude had a fragile ego, from what I recall)

No, I am just pointing out that it is not true that a runner is either fast or slow (in terms of under distance speed) for their event, there will be a spectrum - running is not a simple trait. That thread although it was somewhat interesting in places was based on a false dichotomy and was mainly theoretical.

As for coaching credentials of the different coaches mentioned, I leave it to you to research and derive your own conclusions.

Fulton J. Sheen wrote:

...train with faster reps and less mileage. Whereas people with more slow twitch fibers must run more miles and do less speed.

Is he right about this? Why or why not?

Everyone has "more slow twitch fibers."

that's everyone wrote:

Fulton J. Sheen wrote:

...train with faster reps and less mileage. Whereas people with more slow twitch fibers must run more miles and do less speed.

Is he right about this? Why or why not?

Everyone has "more slow twitch fibers."

As far as I'm aware there's no data that supports either assertion, in a large population sample. As a practical matter the only way for a distance runner to obtain speed that one can utilize over longer distances is to train for it, with more speed work. That's the coaches job, no amount of theory is gonna change that. Muscle biopsy is the only way to make that determination on the distribution of fast/slow twitch.

runnah wrote:As for coaching credentials of the different coaches mentioned, I leave it to you to research and derive your own conclusions.

LOL at the time he ran 3:57 he could have gone 1:50 and 50 at least, you dont run an 800 @1;55 all out and run a 3:57 mile

Funny how 15 years ago people on this board would say that Tom had no coaching credentials and a big ego. Now 15 years later, I read that people think Tom has solid coaching credentials and a fragile ego.

To contribute to the discussion, I believe that all humans have a Type I fiber composition ranging between 50-80 percent, although I am going off of memory. For the math challenged, that means that Type II composition would range between 20-50 percent.

I think it is important to note that fiber type is best determined by a biopsy. Inclination to shorter/faster or longer/slower events is probably the best predictor. I personally think that in untrained or under-trained athletes, race times should be used as a last resort.

You could have a "FT" slightly built, wrestler type who does not have well developed footspeed or coordination. Even better, imagine a guy who would be better suited as a thrower - what if either of these guys showed up to run cross country having never run a step. You wouldn't know how to train them by looking at their 100m times and comparing them to what is considered to be a "good" performance.

speed endurance wrote:

Hobby Logger wrote:

Have you ever heard the phrase, "play to your strengths"? It's basically that mentality.

Yes, but surely Tinman isn't that narrow minded? Cuz ya focus on your weaknesses too?

Look at the top marathon guys, they can run a fast 400 before they specialize.

Ummm... Ever hear of Yasso 800s???? Even hobby joggers know that speed workout.

[quote]Thinman2 wrote:

Can't believe there was a whole page to establish that fast/slow twitch was a spectrum. [quote]

Actually the OP established that for those with a modest amount of reading comprehension.

"More slow twitch" certainly seems to imply that something like fast twitch would make up the lesser portion.

Zip zip wrote:

speed endurance wrote:

Yes, but surely Tinman isn't that narrow minded? Cuz ya focus on your weaknesses too?

Look at the top marathon guys, they can run a fast 400 before they specialize.

Ummm... Ever hear of Yasso 800s???? Even hobby joggers know that speed workout.

Right, 8 x 800 in 2.01 - 2.02 Good solid workout for the fast guys.

Hobster McJoggy wrote:

Zip zip wrote:

Ummm... Ever hear of Yasso 800s???? Even hobby joggers know that speed workout.

Right, 8 x 800 in 2.01 - 2.02 Good solid workout for the fast guys.

They are happy with 2:03-2:04.

generally good enough wrote:

Hobster McJoggy wrote:

Right, 8 x 800 in 2.01 - 2.02 Good solid workout for the fast guys.

They are happy with 2:03-2:04.

I think Bekele knows this too.

Tinman identifier wrote:

I happen to know (or knew) two of the three in discussion. I won't say which, but not tinman ;-)

Well, hopefully you spotted the fake, for your sake ;)

Hobster McJoggy wrote:

generally good enough wrote:

They are happy with 2:03-2:04.

I think Bekele knows this too.

I heard Bekeke managed to get through ~2.5 of these marathon reps clocking 2:03:48 and 2:04:14 before his coach pulled him halfway through the third around 60:35 because he was going too fast.

Expect Great Things.

Just saw this thread I didn't read past the first page, but let me cut to the chase.

Let's not overcomplicate this topic. It's really simple. If have a lot of natural speed because you have more fast twitch (type 2) fibers, you're probably going to thrive on low-mileage and higher intensity training. If you don't have as much natural speed because you don't have a higher fraction of slow (type 1) fibers, you're probably going to thrive on higher-volume training and not quite as fast.

Focus on your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, as Malmo always says. Make sure your training is balanced, covering all the bases. Figure out the blend you need: don't miss anything because everything is important. Identify the proportions you need for success. The amount and the sequencing of workouts matters too in terms of personal development.

Tinman,

Thank you for cleaning up the mess. Do you have general guidelines for what "lots of natural speed" looks like in terms of 100m, 200m, and 400m times? Can you describe the characteristics of runners who might be considered to be "FT" but are not running elite time?

I believe the FT/ST lines begin to become blurred when we confuse the average 35-year old joe 17:30 5k runner who has better sprint speed than most of his 35-year old 17:30 5k peers, as compared to 10 different 13:00 5000m elite runners who duke it out on the low 50 something last lap of a Diamond League race.

Most 35 year olds can't run 17:30.. It's never average at any age. They may still however be called Joe.