Ignore all what this "wellnow" guy says, he predicted that both marathon WR´s will be lowered down to 1.53 and 2.03 in 50 years.. :)
Ignore all what this "wellnow" guy says, he predicted that both marathon WR´s will be lowered down to 1.53 and 2.03 in 50 years.. :)
BBQ wrote:
If one is short on time do to life constraints, is it possible to continue to improve aerobically while keeping training sessions relatively short but bumping up intensity?
One is not short on time due to life constraints. One is short on time due to placing higher priorities on other leisure activities that, like running, lie outside of responsibilities.
In answer to one's question, the answer is no.
welInow wrote:
What you are going to get on threads like this is lots of dogma about 'aerobic development' completly missing the fundamental issue of neuromuscular coordination. 'Aerobic development' happens normally and naturally in teenage years for healthy active people. However, runners like to mythologize about mitochondria biogenesis and improved capillarization as being processes which require huge amounts of training, when in fact they are natural developments for normal oxygen delivery in healthy active people.
He specifically asked about that topic, chief. Also, your muscles develop naturally in healthy active people, so does that mean you can't work them out more? Thirdly, I'm assuming by neuromuscular coordination you are referring to your efficiency when you run? Otherwise that terminology makes absolutely no sense.
More than one wrote:
One is not short on time due to life constraints. One is short on time due to placing higher priorities on other leisure activities that, like running, lie outside of responsibilities.
In answer to one's question, the answer is no.
Are you 14?
lolak wrote:
Are you 14?
45. Are you twelve?
One is not short on time due to life constraints. One is short on time due to placing higher priorities on other leisure activities that, like running, lie outside of responsibilities.
Not true for everyone. Many people have jobs involving long hours or days on the road, or have income related to how much work they get done, and have family commitments taking serious time. These things are responsibilities, not 'other leisure activities', and the challenge is to fit running (and enough rest to benefit from it) into the cracks.
The young, single and committed can train hard, and can even do this with a decent job if they sacrifice leisure time. There are plenty of others who love running just as much but have to compromise.
And boy, it feels good when we outkick a youngster who has overtrained himself into the ground...
busy older guy wrote:
One is not short on time due to life constraints. One is short on time due to placing higher priorities on other leisure activities that, like running, lie outside of responsibilities.Not true for everyone. Many people have jobs involving long hours or days on the road, or have income related to how much work they get done, and have family commitments taking serious time. These things are responsibilities, not 'other leisure activities', and the challenge is to fit running (and enough rest to benefit from it) into the cracks.
The young, single and committed can train hard, and can even do this with a decent job if they sacrifice leisure time. There are plenty of others who love running just as much but have to compromise.
And boy, it feels good when we outkick a youngster who has overtrained himself into the ground...
"most people" also watch tv for at least an hour a day, and then say they don't have time to run.
If you look back on this board a few years to around 2003 or so, you will account of a guy who worked a full time job, commuted, spent quality time with his kids every day and still managed to get in doubles and run well enough to qualify for the US Olympic trials. He once even laid out a schedule of how his typical day went
What was the difference between him and so many other people who "don't have time"? There was no fat in his day. None There was no TV time, no reading the paper time. No extra hour in bed, etc. He got maybe an hour tops with the wife and kids each day but he did it every day.
Not that the other things aren't good or healthy. Just that he decided his running was more important to him.
I have known many people over the years who complain of not having enough time to run more. I hardly even bother anymore but a couple of times I actually challenged them on it. I have yet to find a person who it turned out, reallly just meant is that he was ot willing to give a up a few little things each day that add up to an extra hour or so.
Yes, yes, I know. YOU (and by this I mean every single person who says they have no time) are the exception. YOU have NO free time at all. No doubt you can lay out a schedule that has you busy and occupied every second of the day.
Bull.
If you don't like being so regimented, that is fine. Nobody expects you to give up the little things that take up a few minutes of your day here and there just to run 2:55 in your next marathon instead of 3 hours. I go through long periods of time where I don't get in the mileage I want because I'm not willing to give them up.
But in the end, the list of people who actually have no time is very short. You aren't on it.
More than one wrote:
45. Are you twelve?
11.
I was going to make some of the same comments, but held my tongue. Surely, as fundamentally important as neuro-muscular coordination may be, it's the wrong answer to an aerobic question. And training brings about lots of changes, normally and naturally. That doesn't mean the adaptations are not interesting to talk about.I don't take any position about which adaptation is the most fundamental, preferring instead to take a holistic approach -- you basically need them all, and fortunately proper training does that.But to address your question, is neuro-muscular coordination efficiency? Yes, in part. Efficiency can come from many other sources. For example, simply losing weight (usually) makes you more efficient.But what does the neuro-muscular terminology mean? Although running can be done without giving it much thought, for pretty much anyone above 2 years old, it is actually a rather complicated process, involving the brain, a lot of nerves, and a lot of muscles. Muscles can do several things, like contract, expand, and relax. They can act independently, but are coordinated in concert by the brain to produce the desired result. When you are new to running, you have some muscles fighting against other muscles, because the timing of the impulses of the brain are not optimally coordinated. As you gain experience, your brain takes this feedback, and subtly tunes the timing, so that opposing muscles relax, contract, or expand, when they should, without interfering with other muscles. Think of it like correcting the timing of a badly tuned engine, with 1000 spark plugs. This "brain,nerve,muscle" tuning takes decades to perfect, and is the main reason why "practice makes perfect". You can also think of it like comparing a high school band to a symphony orchestra, where the brain is the conductor.
lolak wrote:
He specifically asked about that topic, chief. Also, your muscles develop naturally in healthy active people, so does that mean you can't work them out more? Thirdly, I'm assuming by neuromuscular coordination you are referring to your efficiency when you run? Otherwise that terminology makes absolutely no sense.
hhhg wrote:
Ignore all what this "wellnow" guy says, he predicted that both marathon WR´s will be lowered down to 1.53 and 2.03 in 50 years.. :)
It's going to happen. 1.53 for Men's marathon is 4.20/mile, 2.03 for women's 4.43/mile.
If someone back in 1953 had predicted 2.15 for a woman, people like you would have said....ridiculous, stupid, you have no idea about running etcetera.
lolak wrote:
I'm assuming by neuromuscular coordination you are referring to your efficiency when you run?
Yes.
rekrunner wrote:
But what does the neuro-muscular terminology mean? Although running can be done without giving it much thought, for pretty much anyone above 2 years old, it is actually a rather complicated process, involving the brain, a lot of nerves, and a lot of muscles. Muscles can do several things, like contract, expand, and relax. They can act independently, but are coordinated in concert by the brain to produce the desired result. When you are new to running, you have some muscles fighting against other muscles, because the timing of the impulses of the brain are not optimally coordinated. As you gain experience, your brain takes this feedback, and subtly tunes the timing, so that opposing muscles relax, contract, or expand, when they should, without interfering with other muscles. Think of it like correcting the timing of a badly tuned engine, with 1000 spark plugs. This "brain,nerve,muscle" tuning takes decades to perfect, and is the main reason why "practice makes perfect". You can also think of it like comparing a high school band to a symphony orchestra, where the brain is the conductor.
Very good rekrunner.
welInow wrote:
It's going to happen. 1.53 for Men's marathon is 4.20/mile, 2.03 for women's 4.43/mile.
If someone back in 1953 had predicted 2.15 for a woman, people like you would have said....ridiculous, stupid, you have no idea about running etcetera.
At least "people like me" does have some common sense.
The situation was VERY different 50+ years ago when the longest distance for women was 200m I think. It took two decades going from 2.30 to 2.20. After Paula the results have been in the 2.20-2.25 range only. What this 2.03 for a female would mean at shorter distances? At least the capability of about 13.00 @ 5000m, 27.00 at 10k etc. And for men to run 1.53 it takes probably about 11.30-11.50 5k and 24-25minutes 10k. Don´t you see how incredibly stupid claims you make?
Neuromuscular coordination or running efficiency does improve a long long time, much longer than metabolic capacities can even with perfect training progression but it has it´s limits.
Cheers
welInow wrote:
Very good rekrunner.
BBQ wrote:
If one is short on time do to life constraints, is it possible to continue to improve aerobically while keeping training sessions relatively short but bumping up intensity?
Definitely. It's amazing how many different sessions have a big effect on your aerobic development. There are many, many athletes who miss their planned winter base due to injuries yet get back to top form in a short space of time.
Many people forget that almost any kind of interval session takes your aerobic system to the maximum; and the many-reps-with-short-recovery sessions in particular keep it there or thereabouts for a decent period of time.
In summary, if you're a 1500 runner short of time, consider sessions like...
- jog the bends, stride the straights
- Kenyan diagonals
- Coe's hills: 20sec up, jog back; build up from 10 reps to 40 reps
Sessions like these condition you to running relaxed at 1500m pace or faster, yet they also get you up to 40min of intense aerobic work. In heart-rate terms they are not that dissimilar to a tempo run.
Please stop writing about this. Keeping it a secret is my only hope of beating anyone.
Maybe it´s time for you to switch the medication.
hhhg wrote:
The situation was VERY different 50+ years ago when the longest distance for women was 200m I think. It took two decades going from 2.30 to 2.20. After Paula the results have been in the 2.20-2.25 range only. What this 2.03 for a female would mean at shorter distances? At least the capability of about 13.00 @ 5000m, 27.00 at 10k etc. And for men to run 1.53 it takes probably about 11.30-11.50 5k and 24-25minutes 10k. Don´t you see how incredibly stupid claims you make?
Neuromuscular coordination or running efficiency does improve a long long time, much longer than metabolic capacities can even with perfect training progression but it has it´s limits.
The claims aren't stupid at all, but a logical progression.
It's just very hard for people to accept that times will get much faster. Just look at how many people find the current World Records impossible to accept without doping allegations.
For the men. the 10000m time in 2060 will be about 24.45
There is considerable room for improvement in training and if you look at this logically instead of just reacting negatively you will see what I mean.
You are just digging yourself in a deeper and deeper hole.
24.45/10k is a "LOGICAL progression"? In your dreams maybe, you are not living in a reality, this is the truth. Tell me where is the "considerable room for improvement in training"? The claims you are making are so ridiculous that I just can´t take those seriously, I am not "just reacting negatively"...