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

Morten - Why would you say that you dont believe he was greater that 65? To me its almost inconceivable that there was not a mistake made during the testing.

Not picking a fight mind you - but a lot of people really dont like the idea that they (or someone they pull for) is physically gifted or genetically superior. Personally I back Tinman 100%. The test is hard to do correctly and suspect results are usually just that.

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

You seem to want to interpret the information in terms of what gives them an advantage in running. Why can't you see that there are a wide variation in physical characteristics in elite runners?

Morten, last week I did 10x30 seconds very fast with 30 seconds recovery, and the next day 2x4x60 seconds with 60 seconds recovery. This was all done on soft grass.

Because I was running on soft grass (after lots of rain) this made my stride shorter. This meant that even though the efforts were extremely hard, I was able to maintain an efficient stride. If I had run those efforts on the track, my stride would have been much longer, and I would not have been able to maintain the pace. But gradually, over the next few weeks, I will be able to do this. This is the improvement in skill that I talk about. I am glad that you are interested in this idea, because there is not enough information about it, and most runners are afraid to look into something they don't understand.

Most runners and coaches with an interest in exercise physiology would say that the improvement comes from an increased oxidative capacity in the fast twitch fibers. I used to believe this too, but it can't be true, because you can see very fast improvements. The fast twitch fibers of a very well trained runner are already at their highest oxidative capacity, but the skill of neuromuscular coordination can always be improved. You can learn to run longer at those paces with practice. Many runners become too obsessed with mileage or 'VO2max training' because that is all they know.

Wilson Kipketer was a very smart runner, but a real mystery. Please could you ask your freinds in Denmark to tell us more about his training?

Nopah wrote:

Morten - Why would you say that you dont believe he was greater that 65? To me its almost inconceivable that there was not a mistake made during the testing.

Not picking a fight mind you - but a lot of people really dont like the idea that they (or someone they pull for) is physically gifted or genetically superior. Personally I back Tinman 100%. The test is hard to do correctly and suspect results are usually just that.

Yes there are suspect results, and probably quite often.

This study suggests why some runners can be fast with a low VO2max:

I'm not criticizing Phoenix's research, I am criticizing Tinman's assertion "I believe that MCT’s are the key to enhancing performance of top athletes in endurance sports"

That's just bad reporting. MCT's, though extremely important in carbohydrate metabolism are a tiny part of the big picture.

I have no background in science, but I am very interested in reading and learning and reporting this stuff and have been for over 30 years.

I do for sure believe that some are physically gifted.. Even though it's very unlikely, it is said that Wilson ran 1.49 as a 13 year old and still wasn't the fastest runner of that age in his area! And of course there could have been a mistake or a lot of them during the testing. I just agree with wellnow about the fact that VO2max, lactate concentrations and stuff like that are not the most important part of determining a runners capability.

Regarding his training I will of course try to find out something more but it's not very easy - he is not actually talking about it in public. I have an article from a newspaper including the training my friend did in Portugal - I will try to find it!

A lot of coaches and runners were really wishing and hoping he would tell us all the juicy secrets after his retirement but he has actually only leaked little information.......

Lets consider that Wilson could run 22,5s for a 200m without any training at all when he was 25 years old. I once knew a runner (or actually only kind of) whos best 200m speed was 33s! Wouldn't Wilson smash him in the mile no matter how much the other runner trained? And what about in the 5 k or 10 k and even longer? The slow runner could easily have an enourmous VO2max but without beeing able to break 33s for 200m he could certainly not break 15 minutes for the 5 k. His running economy just was so terrible! In a kind of way he didn't understand moving in a running pattern! Probably pretty damn bad explained but I hope you got my message

Concerning your training wellnow it reminds me a lot of my own some years ago. I always got very tired after a track workout and my times were pretty bad but then I ran a lot of my intervals on grass and in the forrest and I actually often got surprised about how well I felt the day after the session and how fast I ran in the sessions. Often I was able to run a kind of tough fartlek almost 5 - 6 times a week. I ran very smoothly at high speeds.

Here in Denmark some coaches have tried to interpret Wilsons training but in my opinion it hasn't been done very well. They think that 30 - 40 km per week is the answer. They do all the necessary technique stuff and sprinting, jumping and form runs. At the camp in Portugal there was as I posted earlier also a very high load of kilometers. There were 2 training sessions everyday. One often incorporating a run of 7 - 10 km with increasing speed followed by tough strength training and one incorporating intervals (every other day 600 - 1200m repeats in the nature and the other days form runs, sprints and faster training! I remember reading somewhere that Wilson once said that you should run intervals everyday when training hard! It should not be tough intervals - just a lot of form runs (everything relaxed). So to speak that every unrelaxed running just makes you worse!

Wow, I'd hate to say I'm wrong for once, and that I actually know nothing about science, but you're right!

wellnow wrote:

Morten, last week I did 10x30 seconds very fast with 30 seconds recovery, and the next day 2x4x60 seconds with 60 seconds recovery. This was all done on soft grass.

Because I was running on soft grass (after lots of rain) this made my stride shorter. This meant that even though the efforts were extremely hard, I was able to maintain an efficient stride. If I had run those efforts on the track, my stride would have been much longer, and I would not have been able to maintain the pace. But gradually, over the next few weeks, I will be able to do this. This is the improvement in skill that I talk about.

Poor evidence of the skill of neuromuscular coordination. Every workout improve it doesn’t guarantee performance progress. Don’t try to transfer workout improve to performance progress.

chiming in wrote:

wellnow wrote:

I have no background in science.....

ok, that explains a lot.

Seriously though well now, that's fine, and it doesn't mean you don't what you are talking about on any level, but sometimes you certainly appear to pretend you know a lot more than you do on these subjects, and have the nerve to belittle others' scientific opinions when you come up with plenty of your own hardly rigorously researched scientific statements.

Maybe tinman is dead wrong, but what you do you really know about MCT's to dismiss their importance so quickly? My guess is not that much.

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

I have written about MCT'S in other threads. But it's not a subject that many runners are really interested in, and there is no reason why it should be.

i bet you are wrong wrote:

Poor evidence of the skill of neuromuscular coordination. Every workout improve it doesn’t guarantee performance progress. Don’t try to transfer workout improve to performance progress.

Could you write that in English please?

Thanks Morten. Since I did those sessions on grass last week I have been running with much stronger form. The effect of such training comes so quickly for me that it can't be due to any metabolic adaption, but neural adaption. The big problem tryin to discuss this wit runners though, is that they have been brainwashed into thinking that every adaption is aerobic or anaerobic. They don't realize that all training has a huge neural input and effect.

Actually wellnow the first, nobody doubts that there ARE neruomuscular adaptions, what people are doubting is that the impact it makes on your running ability outweighs those of aerobic and anaerobic training.

That's the problem. Look at my results: improved almost every year, a long long time after I maximize my cardiovascular system.

It's very simple to understand once you realize that you have been brainwashed by dogma.

Now post under your own handle.

wellnow wrote:... improved almost every year, a long long time after I maximize my cardiovascular system.

Sorry, how exactly did you determine you had MAXIMIZED your cardiovascular system?

Oh I know.... you just KNOW you did, right?

Three years ago I decided to take a winter's training barely involving running at all. Before that I had run an average of 70 km per week with a lot of intensity. After 20 weeks involving a total of only 500 km and mostly plyos and a lot of strength and sprint training I went for a 5 k road run with heavy thighs after tough squatting and ran 10 seconds faster than the year before even though it was in worse conditions! So please tell me some of you "wellnow haters": How could I run that fast without really doing any mileage and hence not stress my cardiovascular system? The only thing I did in those almost 5 months was a few 600m reps in the forrest but it wasn't really much! Of course I hadn't developed my cardiovascular system completely to the limit before the period of very low mileage but if it's possible to improve it that much then it must also be possibly to impaire it very much. I probably did a little but not much at all. I think it's much more likely that my metabolic reactions only impaired a little and still worked fine but that my skill of running and so running economy improved a very much.

After the 5 k I took a month with bigger but still limited volume (60 km per week in average) with a hell of a lot of intervals and then I did a personal best in the 800metres - more than two seconds faster than previous and this time I did it at the national indoor championship where I was ranked fourth!

So there I was. In 24 weeks I had only run about 750 km but was faster and apparently my stamina were better too. I wanted to get back to more mileage because I was missing it so the next month I took a chance and bumped my mileage close to a 100 km per week with a lot of tempo runs and 5 k pace training (which was a lot for me then). And after that period I lowered my personal best in the 10 k with more than 2 minutes which probably not happened because of a VO2max 10 % better!!!!!

The season only got better and better. After the succes in the 10 k I began focusing on the 1500m. I did a lot of relaxed repetitions close to my competition speed with a milage close to 100 km per week and two month later my personal best was 13 seconds better than the year before. My 800m time were lowered too!

Then I was stupid enough to forget how well my winter's training had been and I spent the whole summer and next winter on building mileage only (about 150 km per week). I did run a good half marathon but that was not my goal at all. When I started decreasing my mileage I was after a month able to run some great workouts but I wasn't able to transfer it to competition at all. I thought my "base" of mileage would help me doing it but it didn't. I lost confidence because of my lower mileage and everything went wrong! I didn't feel strong, fast, smooth and economical when running. I could keep a high intensity for much longer than the previous year because of the mileage (I felt that I couldn't get tired but I don't think my VO2max increased much at all - the body just learned to cope with very strenous work). The problem was now that my economy had impaired so much. It didn't matter that I was able to run 30 km fast in training - I needed the plyos and the strength to run smooth and believe in myself - which I more or less haven't realised before recently!

The story tells me clearly that metabolic reactions only play a small part in the development of running potential. Of course big mileage works - I have done it myself and seen the results but I now realise how important it is not to forget especially the sprint training and the plyos! My great season developed so well because my "base" gave me the basic ability to run smooth and economical. I continued the plyos and the sprinting throughout the season (but not much was necessary because of the big amount I did in the winter)

Morten DK

What are your 5k 10k and HM that you talk about ?

19:00/40:00/1h30m or 15:30/32:00/1h13m or 14:00/29:00/1h05m ?

not so sure about that wrote:

wellnow wrote:... improved almost every year, a long long time after I maximize my cardiovascular system.

Sorry, how exactly did you determine you had MAXIMIZED your cardiovascular system?

Oh I know.... you just KNOW you did, right?

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

Because, back in the late 70's/early 80's I was young and healthy and did a lot. That's how it works, look it up.

wellnow wrote:That's how it works, look it up.

I just googled it and it was a circular reference back to you here on LetsRun.

Apparently only you believe it to be so.

If you have been improving in your later years (I don't believe that's been the case the last few years, but it's been a while since I looked at your stats), chances are very good you DIDN'T maximize your aerobic fitness early in life, but rather by "doing a lot" your training was unfocussed or inappropriate for optimum aerobic development.

That's how it works. Look it up.

Absolute aerobic capacity peaks in late teens/early twenties. However, you can improve for many years afterwards, by improving your running skill, i.e. the ability to maintain a fast pace without losing concentration.

Don't confuse 'aerobic development' with specific improvements in endurance. Read more, learn more, ditch the dogma.

And don't tell me that I haven't improved in recent years. I set a PR in the 800 and 3000 last year and ran my second fastest 1500 despite a slow first 2 laps.