Let's end the mileage debate once and for all

You seem to be ignoring the point.

Fitting distance runners into these groups of FT and ST based on PRs isn’t cut and dry. Calling Rupp or Willis or Centro slow twitch because they ran X times isn’t always helpful. Centro ran 1:44. Lewandowski has run 1:43. Maybe Centro could have run faster if he focused on the 8 like Lewandowski did. They both run high mileage. Centro has been known to run this mileage faster. Is he really ST or FT? It’s not so clear.

It can be much harder to fit other runners into these categories. Just because your PR in an event suggests a hypothetical fiber composition it is tough to distinguish if that is your true fiber composition without a muscle biopsy.

Running and training are much more nuanced. It’s much more grey. Art and science.

Run as much or as little as you would like, results may vary. End of thread.

Fhnndjjdg wrote:

You seem to be ignoring the point.

Fitting distance runners into these groups of FT and ST based on PRs isn’t cut and dry. Calling Rupp or Willis or Centro slow twitch because they ran X times isn’t always helpful. Centro ran 1:44. Lewandowski has run 1:43. Maybe Centro could have run faster if he focused on the 8 like Lewandowski did. They both run high mileage. Centro has been known to run this mileage faster. Is he really ST or FT? It’s not so clear.

It can be much harder to fit other runners into these categories. Just because your PR in an event suggests a hypothetical fiber composition it is tough to distinguish if that is your true fiber composition without a muscle biopsy.

Running and training are much more nuanced. It’s much more grey. Art and science.

Lewandowski ran 1:43 off 3:34 1500m, whereas Centro ran 1:44 off 3:30 1500m. This already clearly tells who is more FT and ST. Lewandowski is currently training to press his 1500m down to 3:31-3:32 this year and then 3:30 the next to be able to threaten Cheriyot and Ingebrigtsen in Tokyo.

Muscle biopsy and max lactate test are better, but we don't have these values available. Willis ran 50 flat in his best 400m race, 48.5 in a relay (he said acceleration takes too much out of him and he has nothing left on the home straight in a 400m). He ran 1:45 and 3:29, I think Centro can break 50 so it would put on current PRs

Lewandowski (47.7s) -> Centro (~49s) -> Willis (50.0s) -> Ingebrigtsen (51.0s) going from FT to ST (I think Jakob can go a bit faster, around 50.0-50.5 if he raced a 400 again).

In a 1500m the differences are not as big as in a 10k, where you have for example Mamede with 48s vs Lopes with 53s.

So individualization based on fibers is naturally gonna matter much more in an event like a 10k where two completely opposite body types meet. Lewandowski for example trained high mileage even when training for the 800m (he did 85-90 mpw, Symmonds only did 60-65). Both were excellent at the 800m and had the same 400m PR, so it seems when muscle fibers are similar the type of training doesn't matter much. Question would be - could Symmonds have been even faster had he done more mileage like Lewandowski, or could Lewandowski been faster with less mileage?

You are right, training is an extremely complicated area and it will take centuries to figure it out.

But the fact of the matter is, is that there are far more variables, physiologically speaking, involved in a running performance than just muscle fiber type. Having a training category of we would generally call 'anaerobic' vs 'aerobic' specialists seems to make sense due to all the anecdotal evidence (anecdotal evidence is not the best evidence--but it's still evidence), and as a coach all the matters is being able to understand how to cater an athlete to their talents. I don't like chalking up all these differences to only muscle fiber type, it's pseudoscientific, like I said before. Having these poor definitions matters, and it's why coaches still talk about "getting the lactic acid out of your legs" even though that science has been debunked for decades. Lactate is not a metabolic poison...it's an energy shuttling molecule.

For example a runner who tends to be able to dominate in slower races with a stronger kick could be that way for reasons relating to lactate shuttling, neurological recruitment and muscle recruitment speed (maybe their intermediate fibers are better at behaving more like fast twitch fibers? maybe they can recruit all of their motor units more effectively and achieve more tetanic contractions), muscle strength and hypertrophy, fiber type distributions (yes of course it matters somewhat), skill and practicing running fast, or even actually having an absurd high-end aerobic power! It's just impossible to know.

Is the debate about high mileage over yet?

Donefer wrote:

Is the debate about high mileage over yet?

Yes. Mo Farah 5000 PB is about 2 minutes faster than jamin. And he runs 100+ MPW.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Mamede and Lopez trained under the same coach Monitz Pereira during "The Portuguese wonder" era, and with the same basic system. It will not give a correct picture to say they trained with a totally different approach , the only significant difference were the individual paces they used in the workouts.

This is true and well put. If I cared enough about proving it to people I would find support for this, but I have an articale at home about their training, and it was very similar.

jamin wrote:

(1) Runners who get injured trying it are not counted in the data. Say we have a control group of 3 low-mileage guys and a control group of 3 high-mileage guys. The 3 low-mileage guys run 14:50, 15:00 and 15:10; and 2 of the high-mileage guys get injured and 1 who doesn't runs 14:30. Then if you only look at averages you would say that the high-mileage guys ran 30 seconds faster.

Maybe you need a basic research/science class because it's evident that you don't know what a control group is.

The Overexplainer wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Mamede and Lopez trained under the same coach Monitz Pereira during "The Portuguese wonder" era, and with the same basic system. It will not give a correct picture to say they trained with a totally different approach , the only significant difference were the individual paces they used in the workouts.

This is true and well put. If I cared enough about proving it to people I would find support for this, but I have an articale at home about their training, and it was very similar.

No it's wrong. Antonio Cabral himself (Portuguese coach, worked with Lopes and Mamede) explained that their trainings were fundamentally different. Please read his in-depth post about the different training they did here:

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

The Overexplainer wrote:

This is true and well put. If I cared enough about proving it to people I would find support for this, but I have an articale at home about their training, and it was very similar.

No it's wrong. Antonio Cabral himself (Portuguese coach, worked with Lopes and Mamede) explained that their trainings were fundamentally different. Please read his in-depth post about the different training they did here:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=2375989&id=2506883#2506883

Fundamentally different NO!Why? Because Pereira used the same BASIC program for his both runners. Pereiras basic main factors for development were maxVO2 intervals ( 3-5 K race pace), LT-pace and aerobic power( LSD). Mostly Pereira used 400s for maxV02 workouts and here comes one of the differences for Mamede and Lopez when often Mamede ran faster 400s than Lopez was able to do . Further they both ran Pereiras basic 1000m- 1500m-2000m-3000m repetitions "very fast tempos" , or very close to LT-pace but Lopez needed more rest between reps than Mamede, and when it came to the normal easy runs Mamede ran the traditional easy pace ( but of course easy only up to his world class pace) but Lopez often ran his "easy" runs at or close to LT-pace.

Difference in details? YES!

Be very careful when you read anything by Cabral. That man is a pathological liar.

He never coached Lopes or Mamede. He never coached an Olympic athlete.

This poster on another thread gives a good example of his lies:

And check this Flotrack article:

"As a master runner, Cabral experienced some success in the longer distances. As a coach he has had greater success, including working with Portuguese Olympian (marathon), Alberto Chaica. Chaica finished 4th at the 2003 IAAF World Track and Field Championships, finishing with a time of 2:09:25."

Alberto Chaiça's coach was not Cabral. Ask any athlete or coach of the time in Portugal or Spain.

My point is that pinning it down to fiber type is ridiculous. As if there are two distinct categories. Willis I believe has run sub-50 in practice but he’s also done some fast flying 100’s in practice. 100m ability seems more of an indication of fiber type than 400 or 800 PRs but it doesn’t really matter. Centro and Willis SEEM to be similar based on PRs but train differently.

Is Lagat FT or ST?

What about Lomong?

Or Ovette?

Or Manzano?

Or Shelby Houlihan?

Or Kate Grace?

Looking at PRs alone and speculating on other PR capabilities is just that- speculation.

Does it work for you? Carry on.

Otherwise, try something different.

tarckstar wrote:

Does it work for you? Carry on.

Otherwise, try something different.

Jamin need some magic . If he don't understand that he is lost.

He has the chance to go from a punching bag to the HERO of LRC! :))

The ‘90s called, they’re running out of shrimp.

Hchjedjsj wrote:

My point is that pinning it down to fiber type is ridiculous. As if there are two distinct categories. Willis I believe has run sub-50 in practice but he’s also done some fast flying 100’s in practice. 100m ability seems more of an indication of fiber type than 400 or 800 PRs but it doesn’t really matter. Centro and Willis SEEM to be similar based on PRs but train differently.

Is Lagat FT or ST?

What about Lomong?

Or Ovette?

Or Manzano?

Or Shelby Houlihan?

Or Kate Grace?

Looking at PRs alone and speculating on other PR capabilities is just that- speculation.

Yes, fiber-type is just one part of deciding optimal mileage, but it's one we shouldn't neglect. When you look at the training programs from Coach JS for example, he prescribes his volume and paces based on race times (e.g. 5k or 10k), and doesn't individualize based on training history, fiber distribution, injury history, etc. Many things need to be considered when determining optimal mileage.

For the runners you mentioned, no one "is" FT or ST - it is a continuum. Each runner has a certain % of FT and ST fibers in his legs. One might have 40% FT, one 36%, one 33%, etc. What is way more important is whether someone is FT or ST in a specific event compared to other runners with similar abilities.

Think about El Guerrouj - the greatest miler of all time. He was ST in the 1500, but FT in the 5000. All of the mile races he lost where when he got outsprinted at the last 100m. His speed was MUCH worse than Ngeny's, if Ngeny was still with El G on the home straight he won. El G won his races by running incredibly quick last 300-400m, whereas Ngeny was the guy that just absolutely exploded on the last 100m. If you haven't shaken off Ngeny before that, it was game over. Ngeny literally destroyed El G on the home stretch in the 2000 Olympics final and in many other races.

Now in a 5000, he was the FT guy compared to Geb, Bekele etc. Bekele had a good kick in the 5000, and usually relied on that to win. However, in Athens when El G, the world's best miler was in the 5000, that strategy worked against him and El G destroyed Bekele over the last 100m causing a huge upset and preventing the 5k/10k double.

So in case of Ngeny and El G, Ngeny was a 800/1500 guy and El G 1500/3000(/5000). Ngeny was much faster in the last 100m, and in events like 800m or 1000m. But in a 3k, El G would finish 10s ahead of him.

Training? El G ran 100-120 mpw, Ngeny 50 mpw.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Mileage makes champs wrote:

No, just no. Slow vs fast twitch runner mileage requirements will be different.

No, the mileage requirements will not be different, but the paces will be.

Strongly disagree.

Why did I run 15:56 in high school on 25 miles a week and then 14:30's in college on 60 mpw, but my friends running 90 miles a week can barely break 16:00? He also could hardly break 60 in the 400m, and I ran 49 in high school. I could sit on the couch for a few years and break 60.

My 90 mpw week friend runs his easy runs at around 8:00 pace. Me, around 6:45-7:00.

let's read more from you!

[quote]LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Yes, fiber-type is just one part of deciding optimal mileage, but it's one we shouldn't neglect. When you look at the training programs from Coach JS for example, he prescribes his volume and paces based on race times (e.g. 5k or 10k), and doesn't individualize based on training history, fiber distribution, injury history, etc. (/quote)

Late Runner Phil...….Please don`t speak about things you have no idea about.What you have seen here on LRC are sometimes my advice programs to runners I haven`t charted in mail and chat, as with my regularly trained runners. When I start training a new runner I naturally look up all the details that are essential to know. And I quite fast calibrate the weekly program up to the individual runners needs for a fast improvement.And that Art of coaching includes the different needs for FT runners with not so good aerobic power yet and ST runners that need to improve their sprint ability maximally.

- Sweet Magic -

typical speculation on Letsrun wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

No, the mileage requirements will not be different, but the paces will be.

Strongly disagree.

Why did I run 15:56 in high school on 25 miles a week and then 14:30's in college on 60 mpw, but my friends running 90 miles a week can barely break 16:00? He also could hardly break 60 in the 400m, and I ran 49 in high school. I could sit on the couch for a few years and break 60.

My 90 mpw week friend runs his easy runs at around 8:00 pace. Me, around 6:45-7:00.

let's read more from you!

The question was about if ST or FT runners mileage requirements will be different or not to reach their optimum capacity, not about why you ran 15:56 in high school on 25 mpw and 14:30 in college on 60 mpw as a FT runner. And not about why your friend as obviously a ST runner couldn`t break 16:00 on 90 mpw.

An answer on your specific question would be : I was not the coach.