I read an interesting quote from Alberto Salazar, I can't paraphrase it actually but something along the lines of when he was training exclusively for the marathon he got slow in regards to his 5k/10k abilities.
I would assume Salazar is more ST but how would training exclusively for the marathon (i.e. similiar to Sell's training) affect a FT runner's ability to run PR's in the 5k/10k
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I asked how old you are because age plays a roll in which distance you are best at. If you are Ryan Hall and your mile is better than your 5000m in high school and then in your 20s your half marathon is better than your 5k, you are ST. On the other hand, if through your 20s your 1500 is better than your 5000 but in your late 30s you find running again and your half marathon is better than your road 5k you are most likely FT but the answer is much less clear. Maybe if you list some more details, for example compared to teamates, it will become more clear. While Cabral and Hadd have tried to list reasons you might fit into which category, I think this is worth more discussion.
Salazar was like 90% ST. I am guessing he is talking small amounts of time (~10-20s) which i am guessing is because he cut down on fast paced intervals (1500/3k) which fully developed his anaerobic system.The examples of Sells program that I saw didn't really have enough fast work to run a good 5k.
runner39 wrote:
I read an interesting quote from Alberto Salazar, I can't paraphrase it actually but something along the lines of when he was training exclusively for the marathon he got slow in regards to his 5k/10k abilities.
I would assume Salazar is more ST but how would training exclusively for the marathon (i.e. similiar to Sell's training) affect a FT runner's ability to run PR's in the 5k/10k
Centrifugal Bumble Puppy wrote:
Runners with predominantly "FT" units are more likely than "ST" types to have a short electromechanical delay (that's the "dead time" between the eccentric, or braking, phase and the concentric phase of a movement), since their motor neurons are more liable to respond to the type of training which affects that aspect of mechanical efficiency. A short electromechanical delay (as long as it occurs within the running gait and not exlcusively within some other mode of exercise, such as jumping rope) results in a more economical (not necessarily synonymous with efficient) stride by virtue of reduced ground contact time and, by extension, lower energy transfer loss.
This doesn't mean the ST runner can't have a short electromechanical delay and an explosive stride. It's trainable, even in pure distance types. But the pure distance runner normally relies on smaller motor neurons to provide fine control to the stride, which compensates for the lack of naturally explosive strides. Smaller motor neurons innervate these "control" muscles (like ocular muscles) which fatigue very slowly since they are high in mitochondria and are in use almost all the time. Think of the large neurons (innervating FT units) as a few very strong guys who can lift a piano with brute strength, while the small motor neurons are like a thousand little kids that can still lift the piano while using very little effort per person. The ST runner generally (but not always) gets slotted by necessity into stride mechanics which lend themselves to short recovery time from the standpoint of impact stress - e.g., the classic gliding "shuffle" stride of a marathoner. The "not always" qualifier comes into play when the fatigue-resistant motor units are not the ones which need to be recruited in the correct sequence for running at a given speed. This phenomenon can occur in runners with any type of fiber predominance - an economical runner must recruit all the of proper motor units in concert for forward propulsion, not merely according to the recruitment pattern that suits the individual's skeletal structure or mental ability to summon up and maintain the action.
.
Can you explain how this pause between eccentric and concentric makes a runner more economical? This is a very intersting concept that I have never heard before, and I was wondering if anyone can explain it more (and how a runner can train for it)
Blah wrote:
Salazar was like 90% ST. I am guessing he is talking small amounts of time (~10-20s) which i am guessing is because he cut down on fast paced intervals (1500/3k) which fully developed his anaerobic system.
The examples of Sells program that I saw didn't really have enough fast work to run a good 5k.
runner39 wrote:I read an interesting quote from Alberto Salazar, I can't paraphrase it actually but something along the lines of when he was training exclusively for the marathon he got slow in regards to his 5k/10k abilities.
I would assume Salazar is more ST but how would training exclusively for the marathon (i.e. similiar to Sell's training) affect a FT runner's ability to run PR's in the 5k/10k
I guess what I was referring to was the theory some people have of just running mileage and their 5k/10k race times get faster, maybe for a new runner but I know I neglected my 3k-10k pace training the last few years and my race times have suffered.
meant to add, I can run all day at my easy pace but without the race pace training I can't even come close to my PR's, I know it makes sense but I sort of fell into the trap of running more mileage with some tempo LT stuff hoping to improve on my weaknesses (anaerobic threshold), I did improve my weaknesses but neglecting the race pace work didn't allow me to feel comfortable when racing at these speeds, anything faster than tempo pace felt quite difficult, for me I think I need to keep in touch with my 3k-10k race pace year round and I guess the balancing act is not to do too much at certain times of year to avoid burnout/injury
Here's a theory in response to the original question--not even a theory, just an idea thrown out there because I've had a similar experience: pretty easy to get myself to where I could hang with teammates on long runs (even hard ones) and short, quick stuff. But the long intervals were exhausting through much of the season, and even teammates who finished well behind me in races could do those long intervals faster and better under control.
The idea: maybe some of us aren't strongly FT or ST, but are pretty evenly split between them (even in the context of distance running; I don't know what the percentages would be--maybe 65-35?).
And maybe, since each fiber type exists in some abundance (for us), we have a fast-twitch way of running and a slow-twitch way. Someone on the sub-1:50 training thread mentioned that he noticed a drastic difference in his form depending on pace; he might be one of these, too.
On a long, moderate-to-quickish run, my slow-twitch teammates run with a style that looks like their racing form (though slower, of course). They are using the same fibers and same basic action as in a race, but just at a slower rate. The same holds true for their 400s on the track. As long as they have the discipline not to start flailing, they're using a mix of fibers and a running action quite similar to what they do in a race. That's because they just don't have enough FT for a drastically different system to kick in. They have a smooth transition from one speed to another; their top end just isn't very fast.
Same for the purer FT types, the Mamede types. They're using one system, or, maybe more accurately, their FT fibers are ALWAYS an important part of the picture, even on a longish run. They'll just tire out sooner because they don't have as many everlasting ST fibers. Again, fast 400 are just a more intense version of the same basic thing they do in races. Smooth transition between paces.
So, for both strongly ST types and strongly FT types, any sort of sensible training along the spectrum of paces is mechanically very relevant to racing.
But what about people who are pretty strong in both FT and ST, able to function well in a sprint (and, let's say, in other sports demanding some quickness) but also to run for a long time without stopping. Neither system is dominant, neither is there when you haven't been training, but they both have potential. My theory: for people like that (like us, I'll say), endurance training makes us better at endurance training, and sprinting makes us better sprinters. Our distance running form looks very different from our sprinting form, each perhaps a caricature: shuffling marathoner stride on the one hand, violent knee-pumping on the other. In a race, especially a cross country race with hills and surges, we can sort of get away with a bit of alternation from one system to the other. But those darned unforgiving long intervals hit us right in our weak spot. We don't have that smooth pace transition of the more pure FT and ST types, so our other work (long runs, short quick stuff) doesn't help us as much in the middle as it helps our teammates.
Then, somewhere in the middle of the season, it feels like a mechanical shift occurs, we hit our stride (more literally than is usually meant), and start running the long, fast stuff (repetitions and races) a lot faster with less effort. Somehow we've found the efficient way to run at that pace, but we didn't benefit from much direct transfer of our "base" work, where "base" refers to the customary (perhaps wrong-headed? perhaps sensible for most people?) mix of high weekly volume, lots of "threshold" type work (however you define those thresholds), and some short, quick stuff sprinkled in. It took us longer to translate that work into a hybrid system that we needed for races.
Or is it just me?
Whether this idea makes any sense or not, I am eager to hear Hadd and Cabral discuss training for intermediate types, people who aren't obvious Mamedes or Lopeses, but somewhere in between. When they get to it...
This needs to be bumped up !!
I feel as if I am in the same situation.
one more BUMP!
and just another!
Not to mention the 2 kinds of runners thread has not been updated in awhile by either Antonio or Hadd. I am in to way saying it is their duty to be constantly updating it, I understand they have other engagements. Just stating its great stuff and I love reading it.
Very off-topic, but I was wondering if either Hadd or Cabral are willing to train runners by e-mail/phone? I tried to see if either had a website but couldn't find anything.
bump to the last question too
Antonio coaches a few dudes by email. Not sure about Hadd.
I have been coached by Antonio for about a month now. He had two athletes run marathons over the weekend. One in Iowa ran 2.24 and another at Amsterdam ran 2.29.
Just email him if you are interested.