Greg McMillan

Just to let you know...that 3000m in 7:30 and 12:58 5k by Bob Kennedy came after he made the jump from 90mpw to 115-120 training with the Kenyans.

Read for yourself...

http://www.runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=18284

.

We don't even know how many folks were on now illegal ergogenic aids in the 90's anyway. I'm still a skeptic. There is no doubt it was easily available.

To the original poster: The mitochondrial argument means absolutely nothing, zero, zilch!!!! There are so many other physiological processes that occur and even others that are not even fully understood yet. A statistically insignificant result doesn't mean there is no effect. Good point about individualizing training, however. No, not everyone is cut out for 120 mile weeks right away, or maybe ever. If you want to do it though...SLOW DOWN and let your body adapt...A healthy human can do a lot if they allow time to adapt.

Final Thoughts: The most productive research for U.S. distance running isn't done in a laboratory. It's the training and results of individual athletes. Research can be flawed, biased, and there will always be a lag behind what athletes are doing.

Thank goodness base training is back in U.S. Track, at least for the post-collegiates. I don't even want to start on indoor NCAA track.

Yes, I also like that ds runner compared an entire decade (the 90s) with a single year in the 2000s (2009).

Where did this information on mitochondrial growth halting after two hours come from? It is an interesting development. What other benefits will one get from doing a very long run (i.e. Say, 2h30mins)?

Also, I am interested in how a very long run would benefit a 5000m runner. We saw that Ritz ran a huge PR after an extended period of marathon training that surely included three hour runs and 18+ mile tempos.

Nobby surely has some experience with this type of thing -- I know Keith Livingstone talks about doing some insane mileage with his brother in Healthy Intelligent Training, and all of Lydiard's athletes ran the Waiatarua circuit weekly.

markeroon wrote:

Where did this information on mitochondrial growth halting after two hours come from? It is an interesting development. What other benefits will one get from doing a very long run (i.e. Say, 2h30mins)?

Also, I am interested in how a very long run would benefit a 5000m runner. We saw that Ritz ran a huge PR after an extended period of marathon training that surely included three hour runs and 18+ mile tempos.

Nobby surely has some experience with this type of thing -- I know Keith Livingstone talks about doing some insane mileage with his brother in Healthy Intelligent Training, and all of Lydiard's athletes ran the Waiatarua circuit weekly.

I wouldn't be so sure that Ritz ran 3-hour runs. In fact, I would wager that he didn't.

Ritz' long runs for marathoning were "up to 25 miles", so probably 2 1/4-2 1/2 hours

Rolo Tony wrote:

markeroon wrote:

Where did this information on mitochondrial growth halting after two hours come from? It is an interesting development. What other benefits will one get from doing a very long run (i.e. Say, 2h30mins)?

Also, I am interested in how a very long run would benefit a 5000m runner. We saw that Ritz ran a huge PR after an extended period of marathon training that surely included three hour runs and 18+ mile tempos.

Nobby surely has some experience with this type of thing -- I know Keith Livingstone talks about doing some insane mileage with his brother in Healthy Intelligent Training, and all of Lydiard's athletes ran the Waiatarua circuit weekly.

I wouldn't be so sure that Ritz ran 3-hour runs. In fact, I would wager that he didn't.

Off the top of my head, when I think of long runs, I think of them offering 6 general adaptations with several sub-adaptations contributing to that general adaptation. These are pretty well-established adaptations to endurance training.

#1 - the sustained pressure on the heart makes it capable of pumping more blood with each contraction. The longer you run the more work it gets. increasing cardiac output could be the single most important factor.

#2 - increased capillarity surrounding locomotive muscles.

#3 - increased reliance on fat for ATP production making running at any submaximal pace more energetically efficient. Forget the argument of order of ATP-PC, Glycolysis, Aerobic metabolism. If you are sufficiently warmed-up, the full range of energy producing sources are working in harmony when you start a race.

#4 - recruitment of larger motor units for energy production as the length of the run increases as evidenced by glycogen depletion in those motor units.

#5 - storage of glycogen improves

#6 - mitochondrial and other aerobic enzyme and fuel transport systems improve. There is really no way to know there is a limit to this.

Thanks for this, and also to the above poster who mentioned Ritz's longest run. So would a 2.5 hour long run for a 5000m guy who is already near 100 mpw be something worth building to? I would think that building to a long run of that length during base would certainly help with maintaining mileage in season.

Yes.

'Fantastic' nailed it.

Competitors from 800m on up will benefit from the aerobic development created by running 2.5 hours, steady state, not slow.

If you wanna dog a whole decade of runners you gotta be ready compare to a decade of results. Truth is in a dual meet those 90's guys would hold up pretty damn well.

When exactly do you expect all this mega-mileage to get the US another 142 800m runner? Or another 213 1000m runner? Or another 346 miler? Or do any better than Lagat's WC gold at 5000m? All marks on moderate mileage.

And would this be the same Bob Kennedy who ran just 40mpw in HS (too low you would say), won NCAA XC as a frosh became a world-class 5000m runner on 70 miles/week?

No super-talented 800m runner has the balls to to try it. Bottom line. They are coddled and protected like fine china, and used to only running fast still. I know you have to eventually train like a sprinter predominantly, but the true aerobic development just isn't allowed to occur for 4-5 years in college.

How many truly talented 800m runners in recent history have actually taken the 2-3 years of patient training to get to that peak of aerobic fitness? We don't really know, but I'm sure not many. When was the last time, a coach in the collegiate system trained an 800m runner to run the marathon before they started event specific 800m training??? 99.99% (estimate) of collegiate 800m runners don't have the fitness to run a 2:20 marathon, but they can run a 46 second 400m? Why not back to back 52's again??? I would argue many talented runners get "used up" by the collegiate system. You get a 1:52 guy in high school recruited by a D1 program...he runs decent volume for the summer and then it's XC season...race, workouts, race, workouts, race...December base (4 weeks...are you kidding!!!!????), January event specific work to make the DMR at nats, RACE, RACE, RACE, RACE.......4 years gone...now what??? Start running like you never have before or do the same thing that got you to 1:46-47 when you were sophomore. There has to be time spent on the track, but the current system just doesn't cut it.

I feel that the most talented athletes don't get the patience to really develop. Why not lay the foundation when they are 18-19-20-21 years old and let then capitalize on that fitness after?

I'm done with my rant and this board. It is just too frustrating!