Xfit_guy_the_real_on_1 wrote:
crossfir dnf wrote:No, it doesn't.
You know that wasn't the real Xfit guy, right?
so many fakes...
Xfit_guy_the_real_on_1 wrote:
crossfir dnf wrote:No, it doesn't.
You know that wasn't the real Xfit guy, right?
so many fakes...
mid-d-x-train-guy_the_real_1 wrote:
I ask this because of a lot of research, anecdotes, etc. I have seen about people who maintain or even improve performance by replacing LSD with cross training (whether rowing, swimming, aqua-jogging, biking, hiking, etc.) From all the research I have done perusing NCBI, physiology books, and scientific journals, the main benefit of easy running for intense events is mitochondrial expression and therefore oxidative capacity and energy utilization, which can be achieved via nonspecific XT (I have even seen studies on improved VO2 and run performance through ARM ergometer endurance exercise, which is very nonspecific to the sport).
Fast running on the other hand is very necessary for being economic and efficient at specific paces, event-specific CNS development, and in improving lactate buffering in event-specific muscles.
So the real question I have is besides cooling down and warming up, would we be better off ditching the easy running for cross-training, and saving our feet and legs to do more intense training faster, harder, ad maybe even more often?
Obviously long easy distance would be important for long races to get you used to time on you feet, but for 400m-10k on the track and roads, wouldn't they just make you good at running slow while putting unnecessary stress on your legs?
I almost never post on LR, but I think this is an very interesting and potentially game-changing question. I hope that some research scientists will see this topic and post, because I think this needs to be the next big debate on running training.
I really, really like the way the OP presented the question. My knowledge of the research is pretty similar -- there doesn't seem to be much evidence that easy runs are more effective than cross training.
FWIW, I was a swimmer and runner in high school and did by far my best running during and after the periods where I was doing a lot of swimming. So I come in with that mindset, but I was also a frequently-injured runner, so perhaps someone able to run more consistently would fare better without the x-training.
One of the best points in favor of easy running is that nearly every elite runner does a lot of them. But perhaps they would be better of with fewer? Or perhaps easy runs only work well for a certain subset of the population?
Coach d -- your point is really interesting. Could you elaborate it a little more? Are Type I fibers used substantially in even the shorter distance events? Also, if they are used substantially in the 800-HM races, why would workouts at these paces not develop them in the same way as easy runs? Finally, are lots of easy miles needed to train these muscle fibers, or would a little bit of easy running suffice? (nobody works 70 miles a week on their IIa fibers) But this would be a real reason to do lots of easy runs.
What I want to see (and I'm not aware if such a study already exists) is a randomized, hopefully multi-year trial of easy running versus cross training. The key would be that the x-trainers could go longer and harder without a high injury risk.
I would love it if someone with serious background (I know Jack Daniels used to post here) in this sort of thing could weigh in. Like I said earlier, I think this discussion has the potential to really change the way people train (or reaffirm the conventional wisdom).
I am of the belief that cross training instead of most easy runs will prove to be beneficial in a heck of a lot of cases. But besides the studies that go factor by factor, I don't have any real evidence for this, so I would love to see some knowledgeable people post!
coach d wrote:
There are several different reasons for running more slowly (and remember that when El Guerrouj ran 10 miles at 5:00 pace, it was still an aerobic run).
First of all, you need to recover from a hard session. You can't go hard every day or you get overtrained quickly. If you need to rest, you can either not run that day or run slowly. The idea behind recovery runs is that if you go slowly enough, you can rest and still get more training stimulus than if you did nothing. So you run slowly because you can.
But there's another reason. Google Dudley and Holoszy. You use different muscle fibers and they respond to different stimulus. Research in the 1970's showed that high intensity stimulus gave a higher performance boost, but it did so by primarily stimulating your type IIa fibers, which don't have the enduarcne of type I. Type I respond best to training efforts around 70% MHR, and those are the fibers you need for longer efforts, and even in an 800, the second lap is highly aerobic.
Muscle fibers turn on more or less concurrently, but they are primarily recruited by force. If you train at a slower pace (70%), you will recruit primarily slow twitch, thus you are not training fast twitch fibers to become slower.
Coach D: Even though mid-distance races are highly aerobic, they are on the most intense end of the aerobic spectrum, where very little fat is oxidized and anaerobic enough to the point that lactate quickly accumulates. So wouldn't shorter, more glycolytic aerobic efforts(around LT) be sufficient to focus on for mid-distance athletes?
Renato Canova :
"An example : when I trained Kenneth Kimwetich (1'43"03 on 800m and 2'13"56 on 1000m, able running in about 46" and probably 3'45" but not faster 1500m), the day after specific workouts (I use 3-4 times a SPECIAL BLOCK during the main season, for preparing specific high intensity endurance : f.e., 6 x 1000m in 2'33" / 2'36" with 4 min recovery in the morning, 500 (1'03") / 400 (49") / 300 (35") / 200 (22"5)with 6-7 min recovery in the afternoon) he used to go running in the forrest disappearing for about 3 hours. When I asked him where he were going, he answering "To run 3 hours", at a pace of 6' per km, that for us is very difficult to use because we become bored.
So, I explained him (and also to the other athletes, like David Lelei (3'31" in 1500m) and Christopher Koskei himself (winner of steeple in Seville and older brother of Cherono) that, following our methodology, could be better to run only 1 hr for regenerating. But, when they went with my suggestions, the day after were not able to run well ; instead, after their 3 hours, they were able to do every type of lactic work. So, I decided that they could use what preferred for recovering hard training."
LSD: Long Slow Distance
NCBI: National Center for Biotechnology Information
XT: Cross Training
VO2: Volume of Oxygen
ARM: arm...
CNS: Central Nervous System
YW: Your Welcome
fred wrote:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=284813&page=0
Well that is understandable for marathoners, but for track racers... I don't know. But I do know that the ridiculously slow easy runs were done by guys like Morceli who, supposedly, did 10:00/mile easy runs, although I think that has to be somewhat of an exaggeration. I know van Aaken had Norpoth do most of his really high mileage stuff at 8:00+/mile, though I think that may have included some walking.
fred wrote:
Renato Canova :
"An example : when I trained Kenneth Kimwetich (1'43"03 on 800m and 2'13"56 on 1000m, able running in about 46" and probably 3'45" but not faster 1500m), the day after specific workouts (I use 3-4 times a SPECIAL BLOCK during the main season, for preparing specific high intensity endurance : f.e., 6 x 1000m in 2'33" / 2'36" with 4 min recovery in the morning, 500 (1'03") / 400 (49") / 300 (35") / 200 (22"5)with 6-7 min recovery in the afternoon) he used to go running in the forrest disappearing for about 3 hours. When I asked him where he were going, he answering "To run 3 hours", at a pace of 6' per km, that for us is very difficult to use because we become bored.
So, I explained him (and also to the other athletes, like David Lelei (3'31" in 1500m) and Christopher Koskei himself (winner of steeple in Seville and older brother of Cherono) that, following our methodology, could be better to run only 1 hr for regenerating. But, when they went with my suggestions, the day after were not able to run well ; instead, after their 3 hours, they were able to do every type of lactic work. So, I decided that they could use what preferred for recovering hard training."
I know Canonva knows his stuff but my goodness he is impossible to understand. Could we translate his broken English please.
xfit_guy_the_reaI_one_1 wrote:
Xfit_guy_the_real_on_1 wrote:You know that wasn't the real Xfit guy, right?
so many fakes...
True, true.
There is no need for easy running when training for mid-distances. Assuming the program includes regular hard workouts and races, you could strip away all easy running from the program, replace it with nothing, and still get the same, if not a better result.
What you described here is exactly what I do. I find that biking twice a week lets me recover from the pounding of running while still getting a nice cardio workout AND it refreshes me mentally which I think people underestimate the importance of. I've gone from 19:15 to 16:58 in 2 years running about 22 miles per week plus 2 bike rides and I'm still improving. All my runs are 10k pace or faster.
According to research cite in a training planning book in our university library, the main consensus among academics on the subject seems to be that its greatest importance is that doing very low intensity with the exact same muscles in the exact same way greatly enhances clearance of lactate and other metabolic by-products left over from intense sessions, and essentially practicing your art without depleting energy stores. The text wasn't specific to running though, and was talking about everything from rowing to skiing to Olympic lifting.
Bump
looks like easy running in pre-WC comp phase got this guy nowhere:
This is the plan Caleb followed from the beginning of January. Remember he had 3 competitions, on 30 Jan, 1 Feb and 6 Feb.
TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CALEB NDIKU (8 Jan - 26 Jan)
Wed, 8.01 : a) 1 hr 10’ progressive
b) 40’ easy + 15 x 80m sprint uphill
Thu, 9.01 : a) 1600m in 4’08” (rec. 6’) + 5 x 200m in 27” (rec. 1’) – (rec. 5’) –
1200m in 3’04” (rec. 6’) + 5 x 200m in 27” (rec. 1’) – (rec. 5’) –
800m in 1’58” (rec. 6’) + 1 x 300m max speed
b) 40’ easy
Fri, 10.01 : a) 1 hr moderate
b) 40’ easy + technical exercises
Sat, 11.01 : a) 1 hr 15’ long run with easy variations of speed lasting 30” / 45”
b) 30’ easy + Gym (mobility, stretching, reactivity)
Sun, 12.01 : 1 hr 20’ easy run
Mon, 13.01 : a) 40’ easy + 12 – 15 x 80m sprint uphill (max speed)
b) 1 hr easy run
Tue, 14.01 : a) 10 x 300m in 45” (rec. 1’30”) – (rest 6’ / 8’) – 3000m in 8’36” (rest 6’ / 8’) –
5 x 300m in 42” > 41” (rec. 3’ / 4’)
b) 40’ easy
Wed, 15.01 : a) 1 hr 10’ easy
b) 30’ easy + Gym (exercises for strength with machines and light weights)
Thu, 16.01 : a) 50’ easy
b) 40’ easy
Fri, 17.01: a) Special Block - 6 km at 3’20” in 20’ + 10 x 1000m in 2’50” (rec. 2’)
b) Special Block - 6 km at 3’20” in 20’ + 4 x 600m in 1’27” > 1’24” (rec. 6’/8’)
Sat, 18.01 : a) 1 hr easy regeneration
b) 40’ easy
Sun, 19.01 : 1 hr easy with short variations of speed
Mon, 20.01 : a) 1 hr 20’ easy run
b) 30’ easy + 10 x 80m sprint uphill (max speed)
Tue, 21.01 : a) 4 sets of (600 / 500 / 400 / 300m), rec. 2’ between tests and 5’/6’ among sets,
in 1’30” – 1’14” – 58” – 42”
b) 40’ easy run
Wed, 22.01 : a) 1 hr easy run
b) 50’ easy + 15-20 strides (in progression) of about 100-120m
Thu, 23.01 : a) 1 hr 10’ with short variations of speed
b) 40’ easy + technical exercises
Fri, 24.01 : a) 5 x 1000m (track) alternating 200m in 29” / 200m in 34”(29” / 63” / 1’32” / 2’06” / 2’35”) rec. 5’/6’
b) 40’ easy run
Sat, 25.01 : a) 1 hr 20’ moderate (21 km)
b) 40’ easy run
Sun, 26.01 : Rest or 1 hr easy
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5683520&page=3#ixzz2zUSPb4qW
coach d wrote:
Type I respond best to training efforts around 70% MHR
Complete BS. As usual from you.
I have done xfit for a year and it's been incredible. I know have the ability to climb buildings, using sticky stuff my body produces and fires from my wrists and I have developed super strength when I get angry. Unfortunately it means becoming twice as big as usual, so I have to spend my money on new ones, and hence have to hitch-hike a lot.