To Hadd: malmo disagrees with you. Can you explain the disconnect?

darkness wrote:

Not sure if you are really this thick that you actually don't understand these things, or that you just enjoy trying to twist people's nipple. IF it is the first one, you are a moron.

I think it´s both. wellnow seems to argue about everythimg and with everybody. About this warmup crap, I have tried many ways and the results at middle distance races have been the same no matter what kind of warmup I´ve done. Once I missed the start since I was late and I left WITHOUT warmup at all and ran very close to my PB (at half marathon though) and once I could only do a 20min easy including strides warmup and ran 0.3secs from my 800m PB that time.

Remember wellnow, it´s endurance what matters the most.

wellnow wrote:

Rebecca Romero is very very driven. Since changing sports, she will not accept failure, even at the highest level. Her psychology is what sets her apart from the others.

sorry someone has to say this.....

mentality>physicality

Morten DK wrote:

... all that shit about having no kick when being a ST is really stupid...

Morten, I don't believe anyone reading this thread, or any coach in the Western world doubts that finishing speed can be improved in all runners with appropriate training. Where wellnow seems to disagree with us is that I would argue we are not all equally physically endowed with how much improvement we can actually make. My argument would be that those who are more-ST are more limited than those who are more-FT in how much of a final 200m kick they can generate, irrespective of any method training. Although everyone can and should work on their kick and that everyone can improve their kicking ability, there is a genetic component there that cannot be completely overcome by training.

But there is no need to take my word for it. Allow me to reproduce a longish quote from a paper by Bengt Saltin:

(quote)--------------

"Two examples of middle-distance runners ... one has more ST than FT fibres, and the other approx 50-50 distribution. Which is better? The 50-50 man probably has the better capability.

"By intensive endurance training he can improve the oxidative capacity of his FT fibres thereby producing enough endurance to last to the finish. At the finish he can also increase his speed and win the race.

"In endurance activities it seems important to have more ST fibres than FT fibres. For competition in distance running 5,000 and 10,000m it may not be advantageous to have too many ST fibres, [such a] runner could maintain a very high running speed for a long time but [be] unable to sprint.

"A runner with [75% ST] fibre composition may well be the world record holder for 5,000 and 10,000m but such a runner will never be an Olympic Champion at 5,000 and 10,000m. [To do so] he has to have a higher percentage of FT fibres. Only this fibre type can, by endurance and sprint training, improve both the oxidative and glycolytic capacity of his FT fibres.

"In the past, most long-distance runners were probably recruited from among those who had predominantly ST fibres. Today, those runners still can compete successfully in the marathon, but not at 5,000 or 10,000 because they have no finish "kick"."

(unquote)--------------

As examples of runners who have held WR for 5,000 / 10,000 and never become Olympic Champion at those events, I have already mentioned Clarke and Bedford. We might also include Radcliffe, since she ran what I believe was the fastest non-Chinese 10,000m at one point.

quad squad wrote:

I'm getting the impression that this ST/FT, skill v. aerobic conditioning science is far from settled and certainly imprecise.

Frankly, I don't see it as being an either/or thing. Obviously both components are required for maximal success. My disagreement with wellnow is that I believe physical conditioning has a greater impact than the "skill" of running. Indeed, I would argue that the correct physical conditioning (fast reps) serves to improve the "skill" of running (if we define skill in terms of running O2 economy).

He, on the other hand, seems to be arguing that metabolic conditioning peaks early (teens/early 20s) and that all further improvements in performance are due to skill factors which he fails to define adequately.

Some posters above, along with recent experience, suggest that asking wellnow a direct question is an exercise in futility, but let me try once more.

wellnow, would you define an improvement in the skill of running as a reduction in the oxygen cost of running? Could we measure this performance improvement due to skill training as an improvement in the oxygen cost of running?

wellnow wrote:

Rebecca Romero is very very driven... she will not accept failure, even at the highest level. Her psychology is what sets her apart from the others.

In what way would your definition of Paula Radcliffe differ from the above?

I think it's a little silly to say a percentage of muscle-fibers dictate your ability to change paces.

Now, if you're SO ST that you can't even break 60 in a 400, ok, you're going to have trouble closing it down. However, as you yourself have observed, Hadd, a kick is more a function of your ability to change gears and how fatigued you are at the point the kick begins than of top end speed.

In a Flotrack interview, Walker claimed to close his last lap at Montreal not too far off what he could run in an open quarter. Bannister makes the same assertion in his biography, as does Shorter in his own, etc, etc. My point is that your 400 might not be fast, but if you can have the fitness to close within 1-3 seconds of it, your kick isn't going to be terrible.

A Kenny Moore article on the testing he underwent in January of 1975 with the rest of the whos-who of American Distance Running at the time comes to mind: in it, Moore writes about the results of the muscle biopsy. He mentions that Don Kardong not known for any sort of kick, had nearly 40% FT fibers, whereas Jeff Galloway, known as a pretty solid closer, had only like 3% FT.

I agree with you 99% of the time, Hadd, but I think in this case this is a copout.

In the mid Seventies I ran in several "B" level races in Finland. I left the US with a 2 mile best of 10:42 run about a month before my trip. I had never been one for doing much warming up but at the meets in Finland I got into a pertty extensive warm up, usually going for nearly an hour and combining all sorts of different speeds.

I ended up setting all sorts of best times. I managed 9:23 for 3,000 meters, much better than my two mile, and 15:34 for 5,000. I attributed the improvements largely to the long warm ups.

But that was sort of it for serious track racing for me and once home I mostly did long road races where I did little to no warm up and just eased into a faster pace in the early part of a race. Eventually road races got shorter and I once entered a four mile race on the spur of the moment with no more warmup than jogging 200-300 yards from my car to the starting line. I ran nearly even splits opening with a 9:57 first two miles and closing in 9:56. Later I did a 4:48 mile, my only time under 5:00 in a one mile race, with a similar almost non-existent warm up.

I now think that I ran faster in Finland because I couldn't understand the lap times and didn't get into thinking I was going to die because I was running too fast too soon. But I'll never know.

CraigMac4h wrote:

A Kenny Moore article on the testing he underwent in January of 1975 with the rest of the whos-who of American Distance Running at the time comes to mind: in it, Moore writes about the results of the muscle biopsy. He mentions that Don Kardong not known for any sort of kick, had nearly 40% FT fibers, whereas Jeff Galloway, known as a pretty solid closer, had only like 3% FT.

Do you have a link to this? 3% seems really, really low. I don't know what the ranges are though for FT/ST. Do the ranges follow a normal distribution curve?

While not peer reviewed... Galloway claims 98% ST on his running site.

http://jeffgalloway.typepad.com/jeff_galloways_blog/2007/05/pre_and_me.html

Fink, Costill and Pollock Annals of NYAS volume 301 pages 323-327, 1977 is peer reviewed and has Galloway at 96%. They have a group of elite distance runners with an average of 79% ST but that includes Kardong at 50% and Pre at 27%. Their untrained and average runners have about 60% ST.

idiot alert wrote:

As usual, you´re avoiding to answer direct questions, so I´ll ask again: why did Marion Jones take EPO?

We are all very, very tired of your type of argument. You constantly avoid to answer questions. Instead you call people stupid, ignorant etc. What if people like JD or Canova would come here and disagree with you? I bet you would call them ignorant assholes, too, and (as usual) without a single shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Because Conte told her to.

Brian, sorry but you're wrong. I ran some very bad 1500's when I was young, and some very good 1500's when I was old.

Last year I was the fastest 1500m M45 in Britain. When I was 16, I didn't know how to warm up properly.

I don't need your fizzyology lectures, but thanks anyway.

Hadd wrote:

wellnow, would you define an improvement in the skill of running as a reduction in the oxygen cost of running? Could we measure this performance improvement due to skill training as an improvement in the oxygen cost of running?

The skill improvements in distance running are partly to do with a reduction in the oxygen cost of running. But of course we can improve this oxygen cost for some distances and still fall apart at longer distances.

All training is both neural and metabolic. Improvement in endurance require improvement in the ability to concentrate on the pace. Eventually during a long tempo run, your stride will begin to fall apart if you run too far. So the ideal way to train is to speed up towards the end, rather than to try to keep going when you cannot maintain the pace.

Also, the 100m sprint is mostly anaerobic, but improvement in economy to required to improve sprinting speed and endurance cannot be measured by oxygen consumption during such a short distance.

Usain Bolt's training focusses greatly on the skill aspects. His coach Glen Mills constantly reinforces the fact that he can do better, he can do better, he can do better, with regard to his technique througout the race.

Hadd wrote:

wellnow wrote:

Rebecca Romero is very very driven... she will not accept failure, even at the highest level. Her psychology is what sets her apart from the others.

In what way would your definition of Paula Radcliffe differ from the above?

*************************************************

Same mindset, but you could argue that Paula's task to win an Olympic medal in running is harder.

Also, regarding my point that the skills of running and cycling are not transferable, they are separate skills, and you have to train for them. Obviously triathletes have great skill in swimming cycling and running.

Wellnow

I'm going to guess that your ideas are based on having read Lore of Running and Matt Fitzgeralds brain training book as you do seem to be espousing ideas related to this way of thinking. However, I dont think you fully understand the models set out in these books (and remember that these ideas are not exactly universally accepted by those working in the field of exercise physiology).

You keep saying that running is simply a matter of 'skill'. If this is the case then why not simply 'practice' by running your chosen event on a daily basis? If your ideas are correct then this is the logical extension as the skill of running at e.g. 4 minute mile pace is very different to the skill of running at e.g 6 minute mile pace.

In reality the best endurance athletes in the world are doing huge volumes of rather low intensity training (i.e. using a different skill to that used in competition)with very small fractions of the the total load at event specific paces. Why? Because they can only achieve physiological overload thereby provoking further adaptation by moving away from specificity (because the total volume is limited at specific speeds). The end result of this (if the CG model you seem to support is correct) is that various running speeds 'feel' easier because the brain realises that the muscles can sustain a given load for longer without risk of the athlete damaging themselves. Therefore - better athletes perceive given loads as feeling easier because of superior peripheral physiology, not the other way round as you seem to suggest (i.e. they can achieve greater physical output because of some superior aspect of psychology). If this was the case then it would just be a case of the athletes who want it most winning races. Noakes himself says this is not the case when he states something like 'athletes will only achieve their goals if their CG is willing to allow that level of performance on any given day.' This then extends into a whole other area of discussion regarding personality, ego etc...

Of course the skill element is important, but you must have seen the typical graph present in even the most basic physiology texts outlining the response to the onset of a period of strength training. Initial gains are extremely rapid and are the result of improved neuromuscular characteristics (skill) but these rapidly plateau to be followed by a more gradual inmprovement in performance resulting from muscular adaptations. Therefore, a small amount of specific training is required in order to allow mobilisation of existing physiological resources, but long term improvements in performance can probably only be achieved through a reasonable volume of more general training.

Piran wrote:

- better athletes perceive given loads as feeling easier because of superior peripheral physiology, not the other way round as you seem to suggest (i.e. they can achieve greater physical output because of some superior aspect of psychology). If this was the case then it would just be a case of the athletes who want it most winning races.

No, I don't agree with that. "Superior peripheral physiology" what is that? I had superior peripheral physiology when I was younger, but I didn't know how to win races.

You have to learn how to make more efficient movements at faster speed for longer periods of time.

That is why I can't win a bike race, because I am out of practice, not because I don't have the physiology. I could ride 100 miles no problem, but not at a fast pace.

Why is the "just run fast" theory so popular with the Brits? It seems that the ones that I know in the States all espouse the same thing. i.e. - metabollic adaptation is all "rubbish".

Hadd I would love if you could answer to my thread!

Appreciating your knowledge

Hadd I would love if you could answer to my thread!

Appreciating your knowledge

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3132146&thread=3131659