Is there any PHYSIOLOGICAL reason why you need long runs for races 10k and under?

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Long runs make me fried and don’t seem to help my 5k/10k fitness. What’s the point of a long slog when you can do more runs with the same overall volume?

Volume is good, if you do good volume. You are doing good volume aren't you?

FFF wrote:

Coe's thing was something like 3-5x1.5 miles or whatever in K at 5K pace. "5K pace is golden."

Said to eliminate the need for mileage or distance or whatever.

A reference for the above

WhyLongAndSlow wrote:

The one assumption I don't see challenged here is that the long run needs to be both long and slow. I have had success with that model, but you could build up to a point, and then treat it as an extended workout by throwing in a progression portion or a tempo run or tempo "intervals". There is a place for long and slow, but that isn't the only thing that we can do with a long run.

P.S. I am enjoying this thread. It is conversations like this that keep me coming back here when the rest of the forum turns to trolling.

Along this thought I have had great success with my female XC athletes finishing long runs of 8-12 miles with 3 or 4 miles at fats tempo (5k+30) or slow tempo (5k+60)

Croze wrote:

old-dog wrote:

Using Coe as an example for training validity is stupid. He was one of the most naturally gifted runners on the planet. We're talking about somebody that regularly did 800m hill repeats under 2 minutes.

Those where DOWNhill repeats.

Nope. Go to 3 minutes in.

What time goal? Sub-27:30 minutes, I assume many go on long runs of 25K to 30K. Is the goal sub-37:30? Many do not need a long run any further than 8K.

old-dog wrote:

Croze wrote:

Those where DOWNhill repeats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKgUuMzMWk4

Nope. Go to 3 minutes in.

Rivellin Valley road is net downhill in the direction Seb ran the repeats.

I've never read the book so I wouldn't know which direction he's going on the road. That said, it sure looks like he's going up in the video...

For anybody else curious I did find this elevation map. Interesting to note that it's pretty steady incline/decline the whole way so the direction does appear to matter, rather than it being a more of a roller road.

https://www.mapmyrun.com/sc/victoria-english-river/10k-out-and-back-down-rivelin-valley-roa-route-5699841

If you think that coe can run 6-8 half mile repeats uphill that are'mostly significantly under 2 minutes' and with 'very short recovery' then you really shouldn't be posting.

Lols wrote:

If you think that coe can run 6-8 half mile repeats uphill that are'mostly significantly under 2 minutes' and with 'very short recovery' then you really shouldn't be posting.

-heavy shrug- His pb for 800 was 1:41.73. The word 'significant' is pretty vague. If Alan Webb can drop a 1:48 on his 9th 800 in a workout, Seb Coe running 6-8 slightly inclined 1:58's seems plausible to me.

These things aside, I feel like we've gotten off topic slightly. My original point was that Seb Coe shouldn't be used as a model for how to train effectively. Even for modestly talented individuals, you're not going to be able to execute the same things he did in training and get the same results. As others have stated, long runs recruit deeper fibers than are used in a standard length training run and build mitochondrial density. The effects of improved running economy from those two things alone really shouldn't be in question here. I think it's also been glossed over here, but completing a solid few weeks of long runs has the added benefit of making you more durable if you do them at an appropriate length and intensity. Durability under load makes you able to complete more specific lactate/vo2 work that those "short-ish" distances require. Do your long runs if you have the time and ability. End of story.

old-dog wrote:

As others have stated, long runs recruit deeper fibers than are used in a standard length training run and build mitochondrial density. The effects of improved running economy from those two things alone really shouldn't be in question

Digging out this thread from last year because I'd like to properly understand why a long run is beneficial physiologically, and I think there are assertions in this thread that do not stand up to deeper scrutiny.

I'll focus here on "recruit deeper fibres". What does this actually mean? "Recruitment" actually has nothing to do with muscle fibres themselves, it is to do with the nervous system: the term to look up us 'motor unit recruitment'. A motor unit controls a group of muscle fibres, and 'recruitment' essentially means 'activation' or 'use' of that motor unit. The key points are:

1) How many motor units are used ('recruited') depends on necessity. If great force is required of a muscle, all motor units are used; and if some motor units get tired, then more will be used.

2) There is a principle which says that motor units controlling slow-twitch fibres are used first, then ones controlling intermediate fibres, then ones controlling fast twitch fibres. This is _always_ the case, i.e. slow twitch ones are always in use if intermediate ones are, and they in turn are always in use if fast twitch ones are.

So what happens on a long run is that only a fraction of motor units (controlling slow twitch fibres) will initially be used, but more will be used as the intially used ones become fatigued. If one goes long enough, motor units controlling intermediate and then fast twitch fibres will be used.

However, on a shorter, more intensive run, exactly the same recruitment will occur, just in a shorter time frame. That is to say, activation of as many motor units as possible is a matter of intensity vs time spent at that intensity.

Hence I think it is nonsense to assert that the long run is somehow special with regard to 'recruitment', it is just one way among several to achieve the same end.

If someone has a counter-argument to this that they can properly justify, I would be delighted to hear it.

Right but what is the ratio of intensity to time? How do I know if my intense run is sufficiently long to replace the long run?