Slowtwitchfaattwitch wrote:
How do you change your training plan for slow and fast twitch runners? Come to think of it, how to you know which someone is?
I thought your plan stays almost the same for everyone at every distance.
Basic speed is a good indicator. Some sub 5 minute milers 400 best is only 68 seconds, others are sub 50 for 400.
How to know wrote:
Slowtwitchfaattwitch wrote:
How do you change your training plan for slow and fast twitch runners? Come to think of it, how to you know which someone is?
I thought your plan stays almost the same for everyone at every distance.
Basic speed is a good indicator. Some sub 5 minute milers 400 best is only 68 seconds, others are sub 50 for 400.
Ain't nobody breaking 5:00 that can only manage a 68 in the 400. Not possible.
quick thoughts on mileage wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
It`s a common mistake to believe that slow twitch runners need higher mileage at a slower pace and fast twitch runners need less miles at a a faster pace.What they both need is enough mileage and exact best individual paces to reach their goals.
I disagree.
Usain Bolt and Galen Rupp obviously needed to train differently because they are in different events and have different body types.
Even in training for the same event, such as the 1500, a runner like Donavan Braizier (a 800/1500 type) is going to train differently than Matthew Centrowitz (a 1500/5000 type).
Here you have a classic example of what I`m "preaching". No training in this world could make Rupp run as fast as Bolt on 100/ 200 m , but there is a theoretical most likely chance that Bolt could have reached the same times,or better, as Rupp did.
If I had coached Brazier and Centrowitz I had coached them with the same basic system , but with a little difference in length of LT-interval reps and pace and so on.
getrealbro wrote:
How to know wrote:
Basic speed is a good indicator. Some sub 5 minute milers 400 best is only 68 seconds, others are sub 50 for 400.
Ain't nobody breaking 5:00 that can only manage a 68 in the 400. Not possible.
I know somebody who did.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
quick thoughts on mileage wrote:
I disagree.
Usain Bolt and Galen Rupp obviously needed to train differently because they are in different events and have different body types.
Even in training for the same event, such as the 1500, a runner like Donavan Braizier (a 800/1500 type) is going to train differently than Matthew Centrowitz (a 1500/5000 type).
Here you have a classic example of what I`m "preaching". No training in this world could make Rupp run as fast as Bolt on 100/ 200 m , but there is a theoretical most likely chance that Bolt could have reached the same times,or better, as Rupp did.
If I had coached Brazier and Centrowitz I had coached them with the same basic system , but with a little difference in length of LT-interval reps and pace and so on.
Bolt limit would've been 800 at the elite level, maybe 1500. He's 6'3 and about 200 ibs. Plus he is of West African decent. Which don't do well beyond 800 due to there makeup.
Mileage makes champs wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
It`s a common mistake to believe that slow twitch runners need higher mileage at a slower pace and fast twitch runners need less miles at a a faster pace.What they both need is enough mileage and exact best individual paces to reach their goals.
And that will depend of their physical make up.
No , that will depend on who is the coach and the Art of coaching.
No no no wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Here you have a classic example of what I`m "preaching". No training in this world could make Rupp run as fast as Bolt on 100/ 200 m , but there is a theoretical most likely chance that Bolt could have reached the same times,or better, as Rupp did.
If I had coached Brazier and Centrowitz I had coached them with the same basic system , but with a little difference in length of LT-interval reps and pace and so on.
Bolt limit would've been 800 at the elite level, maybe 1500. He's 6'3 and about 200 ibs. Plus he is of West African decent. Which don't do well beyond 800 due to there makeup.
interesting to think about, but there has never been any example of anything like ever having been pulled off, as far as i know. Did not go well for FloJo when she tried to make the switch, to say the least.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Mileage makes champs wrote:
And that will depend of their physical make up.
No , that will depend on who is the coach and the Art of coaching.
Can't turn a work horse into a thoroughbred.
How to know wrote:
getrealbro wrote:
Ain't nobody breaking 5:00 that can only manage a 68 in the 400. Not possible.
I know somebody who did.
No you don't. You may know someone that has a stated 400 PR based off what they did at the end of a workout, but you don't know someone who has given a true effort in an actual race who couldn't break 68 in that same time period broke 5:00 for the mile.
I'll believe you just as much when you tell me you also know someone who broke 4:00 for the mile, but has never broken 55 in the 400.
getrealbro wrote:
How to know wrote:
I know somebody who did.
No you don't. You may know someone that has a stated 400 PR based off what they did at the end of a workout, but you don't know someone who has given a true effort in an actual race who couldn't break 68 in that same time period broke 5:00 for the mile.
I'll believe you just as much when you tell me you also know someone who broke 4:00 for the mile, but has never broken 55 in the 400.
His 400 was in a 400 relay. So not during a workout.
Bolt is perfect build to run witchever distance he wanted.
getrealbro wrote:
How to know wrote:
I know somebody who did.
No you don't. You may know someone that has a stated 400 PR based off what they did at the end of a workout, but you don't know someone who has given a true effort in an actual race who couldn't break 68 in that same time period broke 5:00 for the mile.
I'll believe you just as much when you tell me you also know someone who broke 4:00 for the mile, but has never broken 55 in the 400.
I ran a 66 two weeks after a 4:46, both true efforts. I also know a 15:2× guy who has never run under 60.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Bolt is perfect build to run witchever distance he wanted.
He was perfect for the 100/200.
No no no wrote:
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
No , that will depend on who is the coach and the Art of coaching.
Can't turn a work horse into a thoroughbred.
No, but you can turn a thoroughbred to a horse with both a thoroughbreds and work horse advantages.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
No no no wrote:
Can't turn a work horse into a thoroughbred.
No, but you can turn a thoroughbred to a horse with both a thoroughbreds and work horse advantages.
Certain horses are built to do different jobs.
Libertarian Centrist wrote:
Liberals always want the easy way out. Mileage is liberal propaganda- the best way to train is hard intervals on the track. No way around it.
You clearly have no idea what libertarian means. No true libertarian would ever claim there is one best way, other than to each their own. Of course, your comments on political posts have already proven you are far from libertarian or centrist. More fascist than anything.
SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
Piano_Man87 wrote:
Nearly all elites do the same thing: high mileage and 80% easy, 20% intense running.
Higher mileage boosts mitochondria density, grows more capillaries, increases heart stroke volume, increases fat utilization, improves running economy, releases hormones that cause fatigue resistance.
Really the optimal mileage for any runner is the maximum possible amount they can recover from. If you go too high, you overtrain and screw up your hormones, or you just get injured. Too low, and you could be getting more training stimulus than what you are presently getting.
There is an upper limit how much mileage you can take before breakdown enters with injuries and over-training as a result. Most elite runners balances on that edge instead of doing just enough what it takes to reach the goal. Smart mileage also boost mitochondria density, grows more capillaries,increase heart stroke volume , increases fat utilization, improves running economy, releases hormones that cause fatigue resistance , but with reduced risk of injury and over-training.
You must be a coach, because you took what I said, recycled it, put your own spin on it so it looks like you invented something(smart mileage), and in the end, really just muddied the waters.
The mileage debate has been over for years. All elites do the same things. Do you see any elite marathoners doing 30mpw and just intervals? No. Do you see any elite marathoners doing just tons of easy miles and no work-outs? No. Do you see any elite 5K guys who do no intervals? No. Yeah you may get someone way off on the bell curve who bucks the trends a bit, but the exception does not make the rule.
Running is fundamentally an aerobic activity. All running trains the aerobic system. Therefore more running is better - unless you start not absorbing those miles. If your musculoskeletal system can't handle it, you get injured. If your endocrine system can't handle it, you get overtrained. But there is a very, very consistent correlation between how much you run and your race times. Jamin's right, that the studies exclude people who got injured because they don't end up as a data point on the miles ran vs race time graph. But it doesn't change the fact that more miles is still better for performance.
Piano_Man87 wrote:
[quote]SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:
[quote]Piano_Man87 wrote:
The mileage debate has been over for years. All elites do the same things. Do you see any elite marathoners doing 30mpw and just intervals? No.
Let's restrict the discussion to 5k-10k distance races. These are races where the amount of time you run each day on "Low-mileage" is still 2x to 4x the amount of the time the race takes to complete.
*puts hook in mouth
Take two distance athletes who are equal in everyway.
Train both with identical workouts.
Now give one of them very easy pace (conversational) miles to add on top. Obviously that person will be a stronger distance runner because he will have the body that's adapted to the stimulus you get doing easy aerobics.
The only way doing more easy pace miles won't help is if it hurts your sleep or you get injured doing them or it puts you in a calorie deficit or tires you out so much that you can't do the workouts with the same intensity.
80 20 is a good start to finding that balance.
But I mostly just jog, I ain't tasted metal since I was a kid, cause now i would just end up crapping my pants first. Lols FML
Icons wrote:
getrealbro wrote:
No you don't. You may know someone that has a stated 400 PR based off what they did at the end of a workout, but you don't know someone who has given a true effort in an actual race who couldn't break 68 in that same time period broke 5:00 for the mile.
I'll believe you just as much when you tell me you also know someone who broke 4:00 for the mile, but has never broken 55 in the 400.
I ran a 66 two weeks after a 4:46, both true efforts. I also know a 15:2× guy who has never run under 60.
Y’all are missing the point. Doing a random 4x4 after running a few distance events is a lot different than focusing on an event seriously for even 4-6 weeks. Maybe you ran a 66 after that 4:46, but you’re comparing a trash effort to a PR. If you went 4:46 the chances of you breaking 61 with a few weeks of focus are close to 100%