1. That study reports 71% for the soleus, not 64%, but more importantly
2. I provided it just as an example.
Don't feel too badly about your misunderstanding, however - I also had to school one of the so-called expert reviewers of the meta-analysis that I mentioned.
Direct quote: "The area occupied by ST fibres relative to total area was 64% in soleus and 50% in gastrocnemius."
Regardless, the calf is obviously not 70% slow twitch. Even if the soleus may be, but the calf as a whole would be more like 63% assuming 70% soleus and 50% gastrocnemius and a soleus 1.5x the size of the gastrocnemius (which are all averages, though most individuals will not be average across so many variables).
Direct quote: "The area occupied by ST fibres relative to total area was 64% in soleus and 50% in gastrocnemius."
Regardless, the calf is obviously not 70% slow twitch. Even if the soleus may be, but the calf as a whole would be more like 63% assuming 70% soleus and 50% gastrocnemius and a soleus 1.5x the size of the gastrocnemius (which are all averages, though most individuals will not be average across so many variables).
That's percent area, not fiber type distribution.
And yes, based on a meta-analysis of the literature, the plantar flexors are, on average, 70% type 1. That's taking into consideration not only the gastrocnemius and soleus (which based on the same meta-analysis account for 80% of the total volume), but also smaller, deeper muscles as well.
Of course, this is common knowledge in the ex fizz community. That's why the plantar flexors have been repeatedly used as the prototypical type I muscle when wanting to study fiber type differences in humans.
based on a meta-analysis of the literature, the plantar flexors are, on average, 70% type 1. That's taking into consideration not only the gastrocnemius and soleus (which based on the same meta-analysis account for 80% of the total volume), but also smaller, deeper muscles as well.
34% 11% 56% 11% 80% 11%
To be exact, the gastrocnemius is 56+/-11% type I and occupies 34% of the total plantar flexor volume, the soleus is 80+/-11% type I and occupies 46% of the total volume. The tibialis posterior makes up most of the remaining 20% of the total volume and is 90% type I. Thus, even after you include the flexor hallucis longus (only 31% type I) and flexor digitorum longus (only 38% type I), you still end with a weighted mean of 70% (69%, to be precise).
This is based on sample sizes of 244 for gastrocnemius fiber type, 154 for soleus fiber type, and 143 for muscle volumes, respectively. Sample sizes for fiber type in the tibialis posterior, flexor hallucis longues, and flexor digitorum longue are much smaller, being based on only one study each, but that quite limited impact on the overall estimate due to their smaller size.
If you're willing to put your body at the increased risk that this training pattern produces, why not use a "conventional" training instead?
Because the basis of NSM is solid and people who have been using the system for years are now looking for ways to increase load or new stimulus. Cross training is one way but it adds extra hours to your training week.
I don’t like riding and don’t want to add another 2-3 hours to my training week to get the stimulus required from cross training. This method lets you keep the framework of NSM and your same weekly training hours. Yes it has increased risk, but anything you add to vanilla NSM is going to create extra risk.
I’m nowhere near needing to add additional stimulus to NSM but I do use these mini blocks leading up to races and seem to cope with the extra load for short periods, so I think it could work.
Why do people always seem to become mad when someone wants to make small reasonable changes to the vanilla method?
Sirpoc himself has stopped doing vanilla over a year ago. Bakken suggested tweaks like one double day and one off day as well as light periodization for hobbyjoggers from the start.
Why do people always seem to become mad when someone wants to make small reasonable changes to the vanilla method?
Sirpoc himself has stopped doing vanilla over a year ago. Bakken suggested tweaks like one double day and one off day as well as light periodization for hobbyjoggers from the start.
This thread is so weird at times.
To be honest, most of people's mistakes are changing what is already a winning formula for most people that is proven over thousands of runners. I've been there when it comes to messing. Have shared my experiences. Most people shift one thing, which then leads to another, which then takes away from the focus of the method. Again, I have done this and learned some lessons along the way. You can mess with it, but quite quickly it becomes another method or unsustainable. Most good tweaks seem to be ones that fit it around lifestyle and the changes are actually small.
Where you go after you finally complete NSM , that is up for debate. The most logical step seems to be cross training. There's enough feedback here that can still bring you gains, via doubles or extra volume/load. Also, seeing folks uscces, this seems to be into the years down the line.
If you can handle the running, which I would guess is few and far between of anyone in this thread, and NSM is easily "completable" for you the absolute logical step is Bakken. Again though, it's proven time and time again that people have
I would argue there has always been light periodization, the longer the race via either the marathon block or the taper in, taper out strategy. Whilst that isn't it on the classic sense, you can basically get all the benefits of periodization on the tiny amount of load we are accumulating via the taper in and taper out method, in the NSM book.
Maybe that makes me militant. I don't know. But I'm also a former intensity truther so for me this has changed everything, for the better, despite it being pretty basic.
Why do people always seem to become mad when someone wants to make small reasonable changes to the vanilla method?
Sirpoc himself has stopped doing vanilla over a year ago. Bakken suggested tweaks like one double day and one off day as well as light periodization for hobbyjoggers from the start.
This thread is so weird at times.
I've read a lot of the chat. All in all, anyone can change anything. Most training is the same anyway, or good training is. But I do think there is something to be said for having clear structure, focus and a path that this method provides. I am a year in and still improving and can see myself staying vanilla for at least another year.
In my opinion, that is the huge upside and probably a lot of it's success is simply how well presented it is (huge credit to sirpoc and the amazing job he and the guys did with what I consider a modern running book classic) and easy to follow, in that gets you the volume and consistency a lot of other training fails to provide over a long period. I will also add myself to long list of people trying to get cute with it. For me, it was adding quality into the long run. That was my tipping point to becoming unsustainable. For others it's been hills and intensity.
Obviously this is on a case by case basis. But I think one thing a lot of the testimonials provide is that there is not a huge amount of wiggle room. This I guess is a downside of the method for some.
There was also a couple of guys who went Lt1 virtually everyday, whilst that seemed to be a good idea on paper, it didn't really work out long term. Again, I think that shows you of course you can train just about any way to generate load, the balance of this method is quite a tight rope walk and the 3x subthreshold 4x easy (or 3x easy and a rest day/and or cross training) is probably the best way until you have exhausted that.
Have been using this to hopefully go sub 15 this week, 18 years old, club runner in the UK. was going nowhere with my coach and my dad (52) was having success with this method. Have gone from 16:02 hopefully to a mid to high 14 this week. Having been following the basics from the book for around 3 months now. Seem to have had the "breakthrough".
The intervals Website is pretty accurate in terms of overreaching. I was on the fence about using it, but I downloaded it on a whim.
I got a little close to the "High Risk" zone and couldn't believe how flat I felt. I couldn't keep my HR down during easy runs, and I felt super tired during the day.
I do engage in another sport which contributes to my fitness, fatigue, and form. But I really am very impressed with how well it aligned to how I was actually feeling. It predicted I was approaching an under recovered state before I had those symptoms!
I would recommend this site to track your progress, even if you are not using this style of training. It's a bit geeky, but insightful.
To that point, the average young male is 70% ST in their calf muscles (which are most important during running), with a SD of 10%. You would therefore have to be more that 2 SD away from the mean - IOW, at the 2.5 percentile - to even be 50/50.
Have been using this to hopefully go sub 15 this week, 18 years old, club runner in the UK. was going nowhere with my coach and my dad (52) was having success with this method. Have gone from 16:02 hopefully to a mid to high 14 this week. Having been following the basics from the book for around 3 months now. Seem to have had the "breakthrough".
Thanks also to everyone who has contributed here.
It will be interesting to hear of your progress going forward along with your Dad’s. I imagine many of us on this thread have more in common with your Dad and his training balancing act. It will be a great comparison on the adjustments than need to be made due to age.
Where is A Serious Hobby Jogger? He hasn’t ran for about 6 days or since leaving NSM? Pretty rare for him to miss a day.
Did one of the cultists take him out for betraying the system?
I assume he was injured with an underlying issue in the first place, which explains why he was going backwards. Not a criticism, but as runners we can often be in denial of what the real issue is when we don't improve. Niggles mount up and knock a few % points off performance and the next thing you know, you are injured. It was a lot of volume and high risk what he was doing. He also seems like a really good guy and there was a ton of great of advice for him here from many knowledgeable people who were rooting for him.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.