Mitochondrial growth increases exponentially between 90 and 105 minutes.
Did you just make that up or are you quoting an unreliable source?
You can Google up the studies and decide how applicable they are. I would say evidence for say 60mins every day versus say 45 mins for 6 days and 2:15 on the last 🕠 ng different results is weak at best.
Did you just make that up or are you quoting an unreliable source?
You can Google up the studies and decide how applicable they are. I would say evidence for say 60mins every day versus say 45 mins for 6 days and 2:15 on the last 🕠 ng different results is weak at best.
The problem here is that people throw around misinformation about mitochondria and have no real interest in even getting basic information correct.
Long runs are not only for professionals. They have a place in every plan for a reason.
You're take is pretty amateur to be honest with you. I said it earlier , you can replace your take with tempo run, or intervals or vo2 max workouts...and say only the 1% need them , they're overrated and it sounds the same. I'll say it again, just because you can achieve certain results without long runs, doesn't mean you wouldn't do better with them. You're showing a limited understanding of running, I'd say a wannabe coach type who thinks they are onto something, but haven't a clue.
Anyone running 5k + that isn't professional will get great aerobic benefit from a long run.
Replace the Sunday hour with 90 minutes consistently and you have an extra run every two weeks. That's 26 a year, and for a 5 day a week , not pro like you're on about ,is 5 extra weeks per annum. Run more get better.
This is simple stuff really, why I have to break it down is laughable.
I know that malmo can speak for himself, but in case he gets fed up with the stupidities in this thread, I like to point out to you that he is a former American record holder in both the steeple and the HM, and I rather listen to him than some anonymous jogger on lrc.
I know that malmo can speak for himself, but in case he gets fed up with the stupidities in this thread, I like to point out to you that he is a former American record holder in both the steeple and the HM, and I rather listen to him than some anonymous jogger on lrc.
I always loathed long runs and most of my younger career my "long" run was 10 miles at about 6 min per mile.
In my early 50s a coach got me to add in a 1 hour 40 min (generally every other week) during a base phase of a 12 week cycle, which in those days I ran at about 7-7:30 per mile. Much as I disliked it, I did find a strength benefit, and I actually improved from age 50 to age 56.
My understanding is that from a physiological angle there is increased capillarization (already much discussed here) and also benefit to mitochondrial density.
It's also possible that as a low mileage/high intensity runner, I may just have been aerobically underdeveloped until then.............!
Running With Lydiard (Meyer and Meyer) page 15, "Runners with a two-hour programme for the day often ask if it is all right to split the two hours into two one-hour sessions. My answer always is that continued exercise is the key, so two short periods will not be nearly as effective as one long one."
My understanding is that from a physiological angle there is increased capillarization (already much discussed here) and also benefit to mitochondrial density.
.....!
How did you measure your cappilliarization? Your mitochondrial density? How was that different than before?
For most runners NO. Total # of efforts is more important. 70mpw on 10-11 sessions per week are much better than 70mpw on 6-7 sessions per week.
I did singles, doubles and triples at different times. The outcome was much the same.
I did singles and doubles many times. The outcomes were markedly better on doubles, no matter what the weekly volume was. Furthermore, weeks involving races, especially important ones, doubles resulted in my best performances.
I did singles, doubles and triples at different times. The outcome was much the same.
I did singles and doubles many times. The outcomes were markedly better on doubles, no matter what the weekly volume was. Furthermore, weeks involving races, especially important ones, doubles resulted in my best performances.
Many, many, moons ago, when Runner's World was still kind of interested in performance running they did an article about the length of runs and their effectiveness. The article referenced a study done on female British marathon, no idea why that was the studied population, trying to see which training variables correlated most highly with fastest performances. The number one variable was the number of runs taken in the preparation period. It was TOTAL number of runs, not total mileage. Mileage was the number two variable.
Obviously there must be limits on this. I doubt that four one mile runs a day would give as good a result as a ten mile run. But within any kind of reasonable limits more runs are better and yes, you can find plenty of examples of people doing very well on one run a day but they are a minority. Chris Stewart stayed with me several times while still in his prime, probably the last days of it, but still in his prime. And it was usually during an off season when he wasn't running his biggest mileage. But he did two runs almost every day, often just two miles, but always something.
Chris came third at New York in 1976 and '77 running 2:13 each time. For one of those races he never went beyond eight miles in any run but was doing 120-130 miles a week. In another of those years he did long runs, seems to me 17-18 was a normal distance but I won't swear to it and I don't know what his overall mileage was like in the year with long runs. But there's no shortage of examples of people running well even at the marathon without long runs but all of the ones I can think of typically ran doubles.
It's always refreshing to see you jump in a thread, HRE, because you always participate earnestly, as apposed to the trolls whose only interest is vandalizing, disrupting, fighting or disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.
My understanding is that from a physiological angle there is increased capillarization (already much discussed here) and also benefit to mitochondrial density.
.....!
How did you measure your cappilliarization? Your mitochondrial density? How was that different than before?
That isn't what I said.
I said that I introduced long runs in my mid-50s. I also said that after the introduction of some long runs I improved my times in real terms (and even more so in age graded terms). I did set two state age records for 10k (which has stood 15 or so years), with an age graded time about a minute better than my actual best.
That was my subjective experience, and I attributed the improvement to introducing the long runs, since that was the fundamental change in my training over the previous near 40 years, the rest being somewhat similar.
I stated, separately, that my understanding from reading various publications that long runs increase capilarization and mitochondrial density, not that this was something that specific happened to me.
I did raise the alternative that I may just have been under-developed aerobically for most of my previous career.
How did you measure your cappilliarization? Your mitochondrial density? How was that different than before?
That isn't what I said.
I said that I introduced long runs in my mid-50s. I also said that after the introduction of some long runs I improved my times in real terms (and even more so in age graded terms). I did set two state age records for 10k (which has stood 15 or so years), with an age graded time about a minute better than my actual best.
That was my subjective experience, and I attributed the improvement to introducing the long runs, since that was the fundamental change in my training over the previous near 40 years, the rest being somewhat similar.
I stated, separately, that my understanding from reading various publications that long runs increase capilarization and mitochondrial density, not that this was something that specific happened to me.
I did raise the alternative that I may just have been under-developed aerobically for most of my previous career.
Maybe, but all training does that. Anyway you made the distinction about mitochondrial density, which is different from 'more mitochondria' The number of mitochondria is correlated to basal metabolic rare which doesn't change much. And the density of mitochondria which is mostly the size of each mitochonrion does vary considerably and is probably related to oxidative stress and recovery from that stess.
I did singles, doubles and triples at different times. The outcome was much the same.
I did singles and doubles many times. The outcomes were markedly better on doubles, no matter what the weekly volume was. Furthermore, weeks involving races, especially important ones, doubles resulted in my best performances.
For me, doubles meant a warm up then a serious session. Triples consisted of a warm up, a tempo run and then either another tempo or serious session. Like you I could do enormous amounts of training and often recover overnight.
I never posted my training online because people here wouldn't believe it. These are the people who think that all the top athletes are doping.
I'm not reading all of it either. But even good marathons have been run without long runs. That doesn't mean long runs aren't valuable but overall mileage and number of runs matter more.
Agree with HRE. Around age 35, I removed the traditional long run many of us on this board got accustomed to during college (e.g., 90+ minutes). Family and work responsibilities forced me to re-prioritize, and I figured the long run was the best thing to toss aside if I still wanted to run competitive. Since that change, I’ve set lifetime PRs in every distance from 800m to 10 miles. It’s only one example, and I still do a “long run” (~9 miles), but the other runs and sessions seemed more important to me. But I know plenty of people set lifetime PRs after prioritizing the long run. So whatever works best for you to get in the key sessions, stay consistent, and get proper rest.
A "to each there own" balanced take! I enjoy that.
I ran my best 800/mile with a 1x weekly long run in 85-90 min that I closed HARD. And my best 10K/HM when I did a 16-18 miler where I cranked down the second half as a progression run. I might catch some flack for saying this, but in addition to the "edge" I felt like it gave me, it helped me keep my weight down as a "bigger" runner...something about that longer, hard effort that threw coals on the furnace & kept me way closer to my best race weight than when I didn't have that type of effort on my schedule.
Perhaps that physiological effect also helped me race better.
what's your hypothetis for why something like 10x7 is better than 7x10?
train your body to recover quicker? less wear and tear? more consistent practice for your body?
or "who knows, it just is!"
Years of experience. But really, it started when I was 15 years old. Cross country. I was finishing 10th-12th in dual meets, Then I started running 2 miles in the morning before school. Within two weeks I finished 11th (out of 77) in a big city-wide (MD, DC, VA) invitational. Since then doubles was always the answer. Then again, all of the teams that were competitive with us were also doing doubles. We were rated in the top 10 nationally, and so were they.
You are not doing it to "train your body to recover quicker" -- you don't recover when you're running, you recover when you're not. You do doubles as a second stimulus. Think of your body like a children's merry-go-round. Is it easier to push it once per lap, or twice per lap?