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

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?

For what sport and specific event are we talking about here? If Usain Bolt wants to do a marathon and you have him do a bunch of faster reps with low mileage he's going to do horrible. If Allie Ostrander wants to focus on the 100 meters, but you have her doing all tempo and threshold work, well that's not likely to workout as well as it could either.

The question is too vague.

DJKDKSJ wrote:

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

He likely could have run faster had he focused on the 800, but his fastest time was in fact, 1:55.

JillyKingBean 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?

For what sport and specific event are we talking about here? If Usain Bolt wants to do a marathon and you have him do a bunch of faster reps with low mileage he's going to do horrible. If Allie Ostrander wants to focus on the 100 meters, but you have her doing all tempo and threshold work, well that's not likely to workout as well as it could either.

The question is too vague.

Actually if Bolt were running a distance event, I think Tom would prescribe high volume shorter reps (in sets) at a pace that is 80% of Bolt's best speed for those reps.

If Allie were going to run the 100m, I am fairly certain that Tom would have Tinman Tempos, threshold/CV work, and longer runs than you might would think, but also include short, steep hill reps and of course some faster track work - both longer than and shorter than 100m.

A guess.

800 dude wrote:

A fast twitch runner is someone coming at their event from the speed side. A slow twitch runner comes from the strength side. I'm a fast twitch 5k runner but a slow twitch 800 runner.

So that means you can't last a 5 k and are too slow for an 800.

Just for those who didn't catch it.

You're welcome

okeydokie wrote:

800 dude wrote:

A fast twitch runner is someone coming at their event from the speed side. A slow twitch runner comes from the strength side. I'm a fast twitch 5k runner but a slow twitch 800 runner.

So that means you can't last a 5 k and are too slow for an 800.

Just for those who didn't catch it.

You're welcome

No, you're a dick.

If 800 dude wanted to run a decent 5k, he would make sure to do stuff like 10k pace long reps and tempo intervals/fast short tempo runs in sufficient amounts, rather than a 2h long run.

When he does his 800, he makes sure that he does enough base to get him through that second lap, as he doesn't have express 2/400 speed.

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?

Yes. In short, to make those intermediate fast twitch muscle fibers / FOG (fast oxidative glycolytic) less glycolytic, more oxidative in nature, the faster type who has more of these fibers compared to a slow twitcher, has to do more training around LT-10k intensity, if the aim is to improve aerobic capacity.

I don't have the post he wrote this on, but I found this in a Google docs compilation of Renato Canova training information someone posted a while ago. Seems relevant.

Sorry if this is a repetition of anything others have said already.

Renato Canova post:Every event is a compromise between two typologies of athletes : FAST and RESISTANCE.

Interesting.... that's exactly what Cabral and "Hadd" were jabbering on about...

No, Tinman was not the OP.

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.[/quote]

Perhaps your friend should have been working on his speed to make himself a better overall runner? Ryan Hall did this one day per week his entire career.

Gee he was a sub-4 miler and 2:04 marathoner.

How did that happen?

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.[/quote]

What is speed work? Doing 10 X 200 is not working on speed unless you are doing broken 200s with lots of rest between.

> > >Speed Endurance (as in 10 X 200) is more important than developing speed.

Tips wrote:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

This is that thread ^^

I glanced at the thread but was seeing the same old song and dance.

It seems that most coaches ignore two things:

1) The long run has fallen out of favor in the modern age.

If you go beyond 18 miles you are crazy.

2) Speed Development, or to those uninformed "sprint work."

This is not done by all but the best programs.

What we do instead is the most important stuff:

Interval Training.

LT runs

Tempo Running

Fartlek

Recovery runs.

Etc.

Everyone seems to worship Daniels or someone with a program similar to him.

My answer then is every runner should aim to have all of the elements of training even if it means having a microcyles of 9 days or longer.

You can still work on strengths within the microcycle if that works.

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?

Let me just put it this way.....the more fast-twitch can "transform" his fibers to work like slow- twitch......but not the other way. Therefore I prefer to train a young runner with more fast-twitch....much "easier" .The paces are the same relatively and the mileage stay relatively low. :)

I run sub 11 100 from blocks but whenever I try training for a local 5k with speed-oriented workouts instead of aerobic base I don't improve my 5k all that much. This training rule is way too simplistic and certainly not universally applicable.

Fulton J. Sheen wrote:

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.

Perhaps your friend should have been working on his speed to make himself a better overall runner? Ryan Hall did this one day per week his entire career.

Gee he was a sub-4 miler and 2:04 marathoner.

How did that happen?[/quote]

Hall was neither.

speed endurance wrote:

I read somewhere, years ago that the late great Sammy Wanjiru ran 1.48 for 800 when he was 16. I have never been able to find a link though.

What is the slowest 400m time a future major city marathon winner would need early in his career?

If you could run a 2:00 marathon, does it really matter what your 400 speed is?

Fulton J. Sheen wrote:

Tips wrote:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2375989

This is that thread ^^

I glanced at the thread but was seeing the same old song and dance.

It seems that most coaches ignore two things:

1) The long run has fallen out of favor in the modern age.

If you go beyond 18 miles you are crazy.

2) Speed Development, or to those uninformed "sprint work."

This is not done by all but the best programs.

What we do instead is the most important stuff:

Interval Training.

LT runs

Tempo Running

Fartlek

Recovery runs.

Etc.

Everyone seems to worship Daniels or someone with a program similar to him.

My answer then is every runner should aim to have all of the elements of training even if it means having a microcyles of 9 days or longer.

You can still work on strengths within the microcycle if that works.

I know that there are a lot of other factors at play here, but guys like Rodgers, Shorter, and that whole 70s-80s crew kept things so much simpler and yet there where so many more sub 2:10 to 2:13 guys back then. Perhaps we're over-complicating things a bit these days?

I'm talking about U.S. runners. I know the bar for world-class is much higher now, but we're not even approaching the old bar! Something seems very wrong with how we're going about things.

Greg Mossback wrote:

Fulton J. Sheen wrote:

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.

Perhaps your friend should have been working on his speed to make himself a better overall runner? Ryan Hall did this one day per week his entire career.

Gee he was a sub-4 miler and 2:04 marathoner.

How did that happen?

Hall was neither.[/quote]

Find Ryan Hall's Wikipedia. Yes he did. The "2:04" included some "change but in laymans terms it's still a 2:04. He ran under 4 minutes for the mile at Stanford.