To Hadd: malmo disagrees with you. Can you explain the disconnect?

hadd, the article really depends on a HR monitor. Any cheap efficient ones u know of?

Okay, I got it. You want a more general discussion; like is there some training effect to be gained from singles that cannot be gained from doubles, or vice-versa?

Well, the simple answer is, that depends on who (or rather what type of runner) is doing the training. But that don't help you much.

Lemme give you a fer'instance:

In more ways than one, the greatest thing that ever happened to me was meeting Mrs H. It was probably Ed Coyle (if memory serves me right) who stated that what kind of performance level you were gonna ultimately achieve basically came down to just two things (I'm paraphrasing): years spent training and percent ST fibres.

Mrs H has the latter in spades. Way more than I who am the much more common, more-FT kinda guy. So when it came to talent, she was forever way more talented than me.

For many years we ran every session together. So, she talked me into doing track work early morning at 7am rather than 6pm in the evening. Track's quieter, it's cooler ... she had some good reasons.

The sessions mighta been 1k or 1200m reps at a shade quicker than 5k pace, or 5x2k at near 10k pace, or even 3x3k...

It didn't take long for me to learn that I HATED those morning sessions. Hated them with a passion! When we did them in the evening I found them WAY more comfortable or at least more do-able. Mrs H was happy as a bird; AM or PM meant nothing to her.

It didn't take long for me to figure WHY I hated them, and once when she was giving me the, "hey, what's up with you?" look, I explained it to her.

I'm an FT-guy, that means I burn way more sugar than she does, at ANY pace. Hell, at EVERY pace. Falling outta bed first thing in the morning, I was basically trying to run hard WITH NO SUGAR! My liver glycogen was low after keeping me warm and my organs ticking over all night. My blood sugar was low since there was no glucose coming from the liver to keep it up... and here I was trying to run hard. Wasn't gonna happen, or at least, not in a way that would improve me.

At high intensity my FT muscles need to suck every last bit of glucose outta my blood to keep me shifting. I'm burning a huge level of glucose/glycogen to fuel my pace compared to Mrs H who is much more fuel-economical and needs way less than me (not least because she only weighed 90lbs).

At all paces my BLa was higher than hers (we tested) showing that I was burning a greater percent of sugar than she was at the same pace (which is the inherent difference of FT vs ST).

To drive my muscles hard, my brain needed sugar from my blood ... and first thing in the morning it wasn't getting any. I never found anything so mentally and physically draining (on me) than those hard-ass morning track sessions. By the end of the last 2k rep, I was ready to kill three people! Any three! To offset it, I found myself getting up extra early and trying to boost my blood sugar before going to the track, and not always successfully.

So (long story short): morning runs for FT-types, better be easy running. We had a regular 10-miler some mornings when Mrs H was >100mpw and I was even >130mpw. Maybe steady is okay (quickest maybe M+30), but definitely not fast, we FTs burn too much sugar and haven't taken enough onboard yet; by afternoon liver and blood sugar are up and it's better and we can run the same session much easier. ST's, it don't seem to make much of a difference.

Let's step back a bit: what does training do to muscles anyway? At the simplest level we are trying to recruit a number of muscle fibres and use them till we exhaust them of fuel (glycogen and fat) and then recruit others to replace them until they too are fuel-exhausted. And so on.

We run far enough, it is possible to run out of glycogen to such an extent that we can no longer continue at the same pace (we see this in marathons as runners hit the Wall). There is no need to go to such extremes on a regular basis (daily), but essentially that's what we are trying to do; exhaust enough fibres so that this stimulates adaptation: storing of more muscle glycogen within the cell for next time, stimulating increase of aerobic enzymes so we can break down more fuel quicker next time, growth of mitochondria for greater oxidative capacity ...

We could run one mile every day, and there would be some improvement in terms of fitness, but I think most people can see that you would not get to recruit enough fibres in such a short space of time to provoke serious change.

We could try running faster for that one mile. The faster we run the more fibres we'd recruit ... but then the type of adaptations would also change; we run too fast and we'd never improve our ability to burn fat as a source of fuel, for example. We'd never become maximally economical on such minimal mileage; nobody'd suggest one mile a day as a marathon-training schedule.

We could run uphill. Because we'd require more power, that'd recruit more fibres than on the flat ... but again, the type of adaptations would alter.

Those tend to be the major options for fibre recruitement (although there are others): Run long enough or often enough. Run quicker. Run uphill.

If we take the first; Run long enough or often enough, this is essentially the singles or doubles argument.

Singles (eg: like the marathon example above) are shown to exhaust all your fibres if you go far enough. Therefore, singles have to be long-ish. Singles and short runs don't cut it. Long singles and you get 24hrs to replace enough muscle glycogen to go again the next day. If you go far enough, you will not replace muscle glycogen in ALL the fibres you exhausted to be able to run that far again the next day (few people can replace fuel well enough to run marathons back-to-back-to-back... but don't ever think it's beyond the ability of serious-ST's; they're a breed apart).

Doubles, and you get the chance to refuel after the morning run and go again that evening. Doubles tend to be shorter than singles (you have to be able to go again in a shorter length of time). In the 8-12 hours between runs, do you refuel a major part of the fibres you used that morning and thus recruit them again in the evening? That is very possible, and one reason why doubles mustn't be too short. Yesterday I replied to one young guy on here who runs a 6k loop AM and PM on a regular basis. Is it not possible that he is simply exhausting and refuelling many of the same fibres (or a large percentage of the same fibres) twice per day? Doubles won't help him much if that's what he's doing. He's leaving way too many fibres unrecruited.

You don't recruit a fibre, you don't stimulate it to change/adapt/improve. So the question really becomes, what training regime will allow me to reach as many fibres as possible on a regular basis?

ST's are so fuel-economical they need more mileage than FT's to exhaust their fibres: their MPG (miles per gallon) is higher. FT's burn a higher percent of glycogen than ST's so don't have to go as far in order to exhaust their fibres. ST's often don't know what the Wall is; EVERY FT knows what the Wall is.

The advice I gave to Joe, suited Joe. He is an ST and mileage means little. That schedule would not have suited a more-FT type of runner who would have "bonked" on low glycogen often on such a regular schedule of lengthy singles. An FT would not have refuelled in enough time each day. So doubles might suit an FT more (gives him more regular refuelling time).

Note also that FT's need to run easier than ST's (our BLa is higher than an ST at equivalent pace). See on the Cabral&Hadd thread that Mamede would run his easy runs much more slowly than Lopes, despite their 10k PRs being very similar. In many ways they were ideal archetypes of the ST vs FT dichotomy.

This was a good question, and I have not resolved it by any means. Just talked aloud. I may come back to this.

I would go back to what I said at the beginning; when you ask the singles or doubles question, that depends on who (or rather what type of runner) is doing the training.

Hadd,

You have posted a lot of good stuff lately. It might be useful to put some of the posts, especially this one, in the Cabral and Hadd thread so they are easier to find and you don't have to repeat yourself. Thanks

Hadd, Seb Coe did a pretty good job of running at good endurance paces with all his FT fibers. Fast intermediate fibers are much more efficient at burning glycogen than you give them credit for.

You're missing the point. All training is neural as well as metabolic. We improve economy and endurance by improve neuromuscualar coordination not just the metabolic adaptions.

Hadd wrote:

So (long story short): morning

runs for FT-types, better be easy running.

Hadd:

First of all, thanks so much for your posts -- you've helped me immensely with my running.

Your explanation about FT-type runners and morning runs makes a lot of sense, and I (as a FT type runner) have definitely experienced this myself. I understand why, from this perspective, I find morning workouts more difficult.

However, nearly all the races (all road races -- 5K to half-marathon) I run are in the morning, mostly starting no later than 8:00 am. Thus, I've continued to run my hard workouts in the morning, to keep my training similar to race conditions.

[I do wake early and eat breakfast at least an hour before a hard workout or race]

Do you disagree with this? Should us FT-type runners be doing our workouts in the afternoon, when we feel best, even if we don't compete at that time?

Hadd –

A question if I may concerning myself:

I, like others, am unsure of my predominant muscle fiber type. Unlike others, I have reason a different reason to be confused. When I was about 13 years old, I was 5 foot 7 inches and could barely grab the rim on a 10 foot basketball goal – meaning I could REALLY jump for a white boy!!

About a year later and a few inches taller, growth combined with sports caused me to hurt my lower back and I literally had very little exercise for the next several weeks. After about 4 weeks of rest, I had a 1 mile timed run in junior high school (age 14) in which it was about 50 degrees and I ran 6:14. I was instantly hooked on running.

I ran WAY too hard for easy runs compared to my performance level in high school (never slower than 6:30 per mile at 50 mile per week for a 11:15 2-miler --- sad but true). I eventually got my mile time down to 4:58 and my 5k XC time down to 17:58. There were times with that over-training of distance runs, I was still able to run 2 x (4x200m) at 27 – 28 seconds each (30 seconds between reps and 10 minutes between sets). I got my 400m time down to 57 seconds –which was recorded after several other events. Another time I ran 58 seconds for 400m just 5 minutes after completing a 2 mile race!

I’ve never run a 200m fresh and wide open, but I’ve run 26 seconds in workouts before.

After high school, I began running nothing but long and slow distance – I actually became somewhat addicted to it, putting in 140 miles some weeks at 8:30/mile pace!!! Again, sad but true. I literally ran all the time! I’m sure that my glycogen stores were killed. After cutting mileage down to 100 miles per week and adding tempo stuff, I was able to run 17:15 for 3 miles at the end of a 13 mile run (that was a PR at the time).

Injuries, graduate school, work, and married life have molded my running to be 40 miles per week who has run 17:58 for 5k so far this year.

I have no idea if I’m a fast twitch guy or not. While in high school, I was kicked down in races by guys who weren’t overtraining, so I was dubbed “slow”, but I was never actually “slow” other than during that time after high school when I ran so many mile so slowly! I feel like I might be a 50/50 guy with regard to muscle type. I’m faster than slow guys but have been walloped by really fast guys. I’m simply trying to find the correct method of training (for me). With a 5k PR of 17 flat, and a mile PR of 4:50, I feel like I underachieved.

If it helps, I always feel better running in the afternoon, but my mind loves morning running b/c I’m a morning person (that and I’m type A – wanting to get the task at hand completed).

Is there any way to determine my muscle type without doing a biopsy?

wellnow wrote:

Hadd, Seb Coe did a pretty good job of running at good endurance paces with all his FT fibers. Fast intermediate fibers are much more efficient at burning glycogen than you give them credit for.

Perhaps true, but Seb never did a lot of mileage. He built to 70-75 mpw for a 3-4 week period, but his yearly average was much less (about 50-55 mpw).

Berk wrote:

Hadd – Is there any way to determine my muscle type without doing a biopsy?

I had actually attempted to answer this question on the Cabral&Hadd thread ... here's the relevant quote:

Antonio and I have talked about this distinction between types of runners (ST vs FT) for a number of years now. Indeed many readers of this thread (a number of whom I coach by email) will have heard me make this distinction over and over since I first starting corresponding with them way back in 2003 and even earlier.

We are fortunate that these Portuguese WR Holders, Lopes and Mamede, physically encapsulate this distinction, making it easier to discuss them as types. Within seconds of each other at 5,000m and 10,000m, they demonstrate that they achieved these levels of performance by two separate routes. Lopes with his killing-LT runs and Mamede who favoured hard interval sessions.

Of course there might be some reading this who are not old enough to recall these runners in their prime. So perhaps we could try and put this in a more modern context by asking the following question: do you think Ryan Hall and Alan Webb should train the same?

Like their Portuguese counterparts, the capabilities of these two US runners are not so far apart at 5,000m and 10,000m (okay, Hall might need to update his marks at both distances in light of his recent HM and M times). So, should Hall and Webb train the same? Or are they achieving their near-equal performances at 5-10km by different routes?

Let me also note the point Antonio makes about Mamede having the highest VO2max recorded at that time. Lopes’ would have been (significantly) lower. But what we can surmise from this is that Mamede probably had the poorer running economy, (needing more oxygen per running pace) and that Lopes with his lower maximal oxygen uptake could offset this, compensate for this, with a superior running economy (having a lower oxygen requirement for a similar running velocity).

(In a similar vein, Jack Daniels once published a paper on two runners with 3,000m performances within seconds of each other, but with significant differences in running economy, which mirrors the two runners we are discussing).

As you and I have long discussed, Antonio, (and the impetus behind this thread), it is vital for each runner to determine his/her running “type” in order to train optimally. Would Lopes have succeeded so well if encouraged to run intervals like Mamede (very fast reps with short recovery)? Would Mamede have set a 10,000m WR if forced to run regular LT runs like Lopes each week?

Almost definitely not. In both cases.

Moniz Pereira is to be commended for recognising the differences between these two, and adapting the training approaches to suit each of them.

Although I define the two types as ST (slow-twitch) and FT (fast-twitch), things are not so black and white (they never are, are they). We need to see the difference between ST and FT as a wide spectrum, much like the 256 shades of grey that lie between Black and White on a computer screen.

First of all, I need to point out that I am not referring to ST as someone with 100% ST fibres and FT as someone with 100% FT fibres (neither of which might exist in human form). When I refer to “ST”, I generally mean an athlete with roughly 80% ST and 20% FT fibres.

Of course the opposite of this would be an athlete with 80% FT and 20% ST fibres, but anyone with this mix would more likely be attracted to sprint training and not be drawn to distance training. So let me define the “FT” end of the spectrum I refer to as someone who is an 800-1500 type of athlete (or even a 400-800 type). Someone we might generally refer to as a “middle-distance” (M-D) runner.

It is most unlikely that an M-D runner has an 80% FT and 20% ST mix. Much more likely would be 50% FT and 50% ST, or similar. So, for the purposes of this discussion I would define the types of runners at both ends of the ST vs FT spectrum as follows:

“ST” = ~80% ST and 20% FT fibres

“FT” = ~50% ST and 50% FT fibres

The values are not intended to be precise; the biggest distinction between the two types would be in their ability to develop energy from the glycolytic (lactate) energy system. And of course most of us will lie somewhere between both polar opposites.

By providing evidence of two runners with near-equal performances at 5,000m and 10,000m, yet totally different approaches to training, Antonio is reminding us that all roads can lead to (uh...) Lisbon.

There is not just one single way to train to run a given time at any race distance. There can be many. And each possible way of achieving the performance time depends on the kind of runner doing the training. The type of training you do must best suit the kind of runner you are. What works for your buddy Joe, may do so primarily because of the kind of body Joe has. His kind of training might not work so well for you (and here we can compare the differing approaches of Lopes and Mamede).

So, before you go any further, if you are really going to train yourself the best you know how, it would help if you understood what kind of runner you are. The ancient Greeks said this best, “Know Thyself”.

We could do this a number of ways (and a number of you have already written to me asking how you might do this):

1. Muscle biopsy. Go in, cut a bit of muscle out, and analyse it for fibre type content.

What? No takers?

Okay…

2. Lactate test. Run a 600m all-out TT and determine peak lactate value (take a number of readings till BLa peaks post performance). We might find 8-12mM BLa for ST (depending on recent training; lower end if training for an upcoming marathon) and 18mM (or higher) for FT (depending on event).

Even more simple… (remember, these are only rules of thumb – not hard and fast rules)

3. You line up with other friends of a similar 10k performance level, for some hard 100m reps, you invariably finish last. (If you answer yes, you are likely to be more ST than your friends).

Here Antonio will probably tell us that Lopes would invariably last in the interval session of 400s… and then then finish first in the weekend race.

4. Final kick over the last 200m in a 5k or 10k race. You lose to your rival every single (%^) time, even though your PRs are pretty much identical. (If yes, you are more ST. When you get fed up, go longer, you’ll smoke ‘im at HM and M).

5. You positively dislike interval training with a vengeance and the long Sunday run and long LT-type runs are your favourite sessions of the week. (If yes, there is a good chance you are more an ST-type).

6. Look up your performance points on the IAAF Scoring Tables (available for download from iaaf.org). If your point score rises as the race distance lengthens, chances are you are more-ST.

As can be seen, and should be appreciated, there are no hard-and-fast rules for determining into which category (ST vs FT) each runner might fall. The outliers at both ends of the spectrum are the easiest to classify, but just like in any Bell Curve, most of us will tend to fall in the middle. Over time and by checking how well they respond, or not, to different types of training each runner should get a better idea of where he/she lies on the ST-FT continuum. This knowledge will help them to fine-tune the optimal training for their particular physiology.

Final point: this distinction ST vs FT does not predict who will win in a head-to-head over a particular race distance. It is simply meant to offer you some guidance as to the kind of training that might work optimally for you.

End Quote:

Hope that helps!

Running Dogg wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Hadd, Seb Coe did a pretty good job of running at good endurance paces with all his FT fibers. Fast intermediate fibers are much more efficient at burning glycogen than you give them credit for.

Perhaps true, but Seb never did a lot of mileage. He built to 70-75 mpw for a 3-4 week period, but his yearly average was much less (about 50-55 mpw).

**********************************

Coe did a lot of running at 5.30 to 5.00 miling. In the winter of 78-79 he was probably capable of a sub 29 minute 10k on the roads.

wellnow wrote:Coe did a lot of running at 5.30 to 5.00 miling.

Citation?

Not saying you're wrong, I don't know one way or another, but you saying it happened doesn't make it so. You've been known to exaggerate things about training on here (I recall the notorious 4 x 600 at 800 pace session you claimed).

The bit about his mileage was debunked on here a few years back by a London journalist who had lunch with Coe in relation to the London Olympics bid. Coe was quoted directly as saying he regularly ran 100+ mile weeks back in the day, contrary to popular belief. Quote came from a guy who went by "Martin-x," an admitted low mileage advocate who was quite surprised at Coe's admission, and cam on here to publicly admit he'd been wrong (good on him).

Regarding the relative importance of doubles vs. singles... a few comments... I remember reading many years ago that there is a certain effect realized from a 5-mile run; a 10-mile run gives you 40% more than a 5-miler; a 20-miler gives you 120% more than a 10-miler. So, if a runner trains for a lengthy period of time it would make sense to have about five days per week of doubles, a long run and a recovery day. This is similar to what 1000s of runners have done with much success. When my brothers and I ran in high school in the mid to late 1970s everyone did this and there were tons of good runners. Running in Florida during the summer made doubles a necessity also due to the dehydration effects of heat and humidity. I have found in marathon ttraining that the length of runs increases, but for high school runners, doubles of five miles on many days is the way to go.

I don't exaggerate things, I was asked to give examples of very hard to extremely hard training. I also mentioned that runners like me can run close to or at their 400m race pace several times in a session.

It was common knowledge many years ago that Coe did lots of tempo running. He could have run 13.30 for 5000 in 1979, so he wouldn't have had trouble racing with some of the best British road runners over 10k. He reported that he ran a very fast ten miles in training, in the winter of 78-79 which IS probably somewhat exaggerated. At this time he was running perhaps 70 mpw.

The 100 mpw story is probably also exaggerated by you or by Mr. Martin, I would suggest that in the winter of 83-4 he may have reached his highest mileage of perhaps 100 mpw.

Coe wasn't a low mileage or high mileage runner, he was a medium mileage runner. But the point of all this, is that fast oxidative fibers of which Coe and other middle distance runners have many, have a high aerobic capacity, and we all use these fibers in every race from sprinting up to a Marathon and beyond.

How we use them in training largely determines how good our endurance will be in races.

Thanks Hadd.

wellnow wrote:

Seb Coe did a pretty good job of running at good endurance paces with all his FT fibers. Fast intermediate fibers are much more efficient at burning glycogen than you give them credit for.

Actually ... they're not. But every FT I ever met tried to convince him/herself of that right up until they met a real-life ST.

You offer Seb Coe as a prime example. Do you really have to go back to the late-70s, early/mid-80s to find one? Can't find one more recent who did well?

Besides, wasn't Coe's best work done at 800-1500-mile? Hardly "good endurance" distances, don't you think?

Since you mention him, let's quote from the book his Dad co-authored with David Martin. (p127, 1991 edition)

% Energy Contribution

Event — Phosphate — Lactate — Aerobic

800 — 5 — 38 — 57

1500 — 2 — 22 — 76

3000 — 1 — 12 — 88

5000 — ``1 — 7 — 93

So, his best performances actually came at distances where the aerobic contribution was low (compared to 3-5k)

PR's (source, wikipedia)

800 m — 1:41.73 — 1981

1500 m — 3:29.77 — 1986

Mile — 3:47.33 — 1981

3000 m — 7:54.32 — 1979

5000 m — 14:06.2 — 1980

Those ("poorer quality" and I'm talking relatively) 3000/5000m PRs would seem to contradict your statement that Coe "did a pretty good job of running at good endurance paces with all his FT fibers". The longer the distance, the "worse" (in terms of quality) his performances became. Granted, he may not have focused on those longer distances as much as he did on the 800-1500, but it seems safe to assume that if he had felt that his talent lay in the longer distances, he would have done so. Coe just found his perfect niche and stayed within it, and there's nothing wrong with that! (In this way he was much like Wilson Kipketer who would not alter his training to even allow for 800-1500).

And before you do, don't tell me what Coe would/coulda/shoulda done at 5000. Let's just stick to the facts.

So, here's the deal. As an FT moves up in race distance he/she becomes ever more vulnerable to those who are more-gifted as ST's (definitions are mine).

Here's a neat study that shows exactly what I have been getting at in the diff between ST vs FT:

14 competitive cyclists with similar oxygen uptakes (range: 4.6-5.0 l/min) were compared for blood lactate response, glycogen usage, and endurance during submax exercise.

Seven of the group reached LT during exercise at a relatively high intensity.

Group High — LT = 81.5% VO2max. Years spent cycling: ~5.1

Seven of the group reached LT during exercise at a relatively low intensity

Group Low — LT = 65.8% VO2max. Years spent cycling: ~2.7

When cycling at 88% VO2max

——————— VO2max ———— %VO2max ———— Time to Fatigue ———— BLa immed.

——————— ml/kg/min———————————————— (mins) ————— post-exercise mM.

Group High ——— 68.6 ——————— 88.5———————— 60.8 ———————— 7.4

Group Low ——— 66.0 ——————— 88.0———————— 29.1 ———————— 14.7

Notes:

1) The average time to fatigue was more than twofold longer in Group H than Group L.

2) At fatigue, the BLa was approx half as high in Group H as in Group L.

3) Inference: Group H must have used less muscle glycogen than Group L (see next table)

Muscle glycogen utilisation and CHO utilisation during 30 mins exercise in groups High and Low (means)

——————— %VO2max ———— %HRmax ———— BLa mM ———— Total CHO ———— Glycogen used

——————————————————————————————————— (mmol) —————— (mmol/kg)

Group High———— 79.4 —————— 84.6 —————— 2.8 ———————— 358 ——————— 27.9

Group Low———— 79.3 —————— 89.8 —————— 6.2 ———————— 605 ——————— 65.4

Notes:

1) The exercise intensity and duration were chosen to stimulate substantial carbohydrate oxidation in all subjects.

2) The calculated amount of CHO oxidation was 69% greater in Group L than in Group H.

3) Glycogen utilisation was inversely related to % VO2max at LT. (The LOWER the %Vo2max at LT, the MORE the cyclists burned glycogen)

Muscle characteristics of Group H and Group L

——————— % Type I (ST) ———— %Type II (FT) ———— Mean Fibre ———— Capillaries

—————————————————————————————— Area ——————— (mm2)

Group H ———— 66.7————————— 33.3 ————————6,930 ——————— 405

Group L ———— 46.9 ————————— 53.1 ————–——— 8.132 ——————— 327

Notes:

1) The combination of %VO2max at LT and capillary density (per square mm) accounted for %%93% of the variance in performance and proved to be a quite accurate predictor pf time to fatigue at 88% VO2max.

Notes from a Discussion (by the authors)

1) Endurance during submax exercise is closely related to the factors that control muscle glycogenolysis and BLa concentration.

2) The data indicate that glycogen utilisation during exercise at 79% VO2max can vary more than twofold when comparing subjects matched for VO2max, but who reach LT at widely differing percentages of VO2max.

3) The training variables and aspects of muscle morphology that accounted for a large portion of the observed variance in %VO2max at LT and glycogen usage while cycling were:

a) years engaged in cycling training

b) percent Type I muscle fibres.

(in contrast to what wellnow often states that mitochondria and capillary density are quickly maxed with training) the authors state:

"It appears that intense cycle training performed for ~5 years compared to 2-3 years promotes continued neurological and/or muscular adaptations that reduce glycogenolysis specifically when cycling."

Further Notes

Noakes remarked in one study that (black) South African runners had lower BLa values at all paces when compared to matched (white) South Africans.

Saltin conducted a major study of Danish boys and Kenyan boys (from town and country) and between elites in both countries. In the diff between Elite Kenyans and elite Danish runners, allow me quote two statements:

"Kenyan elite runners had lower plasma lactic acid concentrations than Danish elite runners at submax running speeds, also when related to oxygen uptake."

"The activity of the HAD enzyme was markedly higher in the muscles of the elite Kenyan runners, indicating that they have a better ability to utilise fat while running compared to Danish runners."

Final comment:

The whole point of Hadd's Phase I is to maximise the running pace at which significant fat-burning can take place and thus move the LT to higher and higher velocities before having to turn greater percentages of glycolysis for energy. Two points: a) as running pace increases burn as much fat for as long as possible and b) postpone a rise in BLa as long as possible.

Don't burn muscle glycogen until you absolutely have to (and when you do, Phase II will train you to clear it as quickly as possible and improve your LTP).

————————

As in the other recent threads, I do not intend to contribute any further here due to commitments elsewhere. Thanks for all the interest shown in the topic.

Hope these tables/columns come out okay.

Hadd, are you telling me that FT Oxidative fibers don't have a high oxidative capacity? I say they do.

Martin's tabulation of the energy contributions:

% Energy Contribution

Event — Phosphate — Lactate — Aerobic

800 — 5 — 38 — 57

1500 — 2 — 22 — 76

3000 — 1 — 12 — 88

5000 — ``1 — 7 — 93

...is somewhat misleading. The lactate figure actually refers to the anaerobic contribution of glycogenolysis and glycolysis, the aerobic contribution comes from the energy contribution of lactate.

Do you dispute that Coe was in sub 29 minute shape for a road 10 in the winter of 78-79? Because if you do, that would be foolish. He reported running very fast ten milers in training in this period. Do you doubt this?

And if you accept that his frequent tempo runs in the 5.30 - 5.00 miling range, don't you think this shows a remarkable dedication to endurance traing for someone who ran 46 seconds for 400m?

Regarding the evidence you present to show long term improvements in "lactate threshold" how much of that improvent is due to superior neuromuscular coordination and how much is due to improvements in aerobic capacity? I say the the former is by far the greater influence.

So you have decided that you will contribute no more to this discussion?

Why? commitment to other things or cowardice? We all have other commitments, but you are presenting flawed arguments typical of people who are not as knowledgeable as they think they are. Are you sulking because I disagree with those arguments? I think so.

wellnow, who are you? Somebody who prefers to hide behind some anonymous username and spout crap with no back up studies?

Show us proof of these things you seem to "suppose" about Coe...um, waiting....

Man up wellnow.

Wellnow is Jon Orange, a decent British masters guy.

Well I am a decent masters runner too but I certainly don't go spouting off 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand information about some mythical Letsrun guy named Seb Coe.

The beauty of this sport and what drive me (and I think I can safely assume all of you) is that we DON'T know all the answers and never will; Because we are all different.

No one else on this board is Seb Coe.

Asking why something works/doesn't work is great. Hell, if we didn't ask why we would still be rubbing sticks together to create fire and living in caves.

Hadd simply pulled out two sources of studies (one from Seb Coe's book!) to cite examples of what he was referring to and your only retort was to try and call Hadd a coward.

Again, disagreeing with Hadd is fine. I certainly would welcome the chance for a good debate, but don't spout off stuff YOU cannot back up. And please, no more "I heard from a friend of a friend who knew this guy who once knew Seb Coe and he never actually ran 1 mile a week yet was able to put on magic slippers and set world records..."

wellnow wrote:

Regarding the evidence you present to show long term improvements in "lactate threshold" how much of that improvent is due to superior neuromuscular coordination and how much is due to improvements in aerobic capacity? I say the the former is by far the greater influence.

Source?

Come on now, Wellnow. The rest of us on LetsRun are tired of you calling everybody ignorant. Either you back up your statements with sources or you STFU.