aerobic capacity might be the wrong term. English is not my native language, sorry.
I meant what you describe : adaptation of the muscles, skeleton to the running stress, better recovery abilities, development of capillary beds etc.
aerobic capacity might be the wrong term. English is not my native language, sorry.
I meant what you describe : adaptation of the muscles, skeleton to the running stress, better recovery abilities, development of capillary beds etc.
Good lord some of yall need a physiology 101 lesson.
regardless slow twitch/fast twitch/ (type 1/2a/2b), genome expression (RR/xx/Rx) or other factors what's below is true regardless of the above.
The body uses adenosine triphosphate (ATP) for energy. When the body needs energy, a phosphate bond is broken off and energy is released leaving adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and a P group.
We have two energy systems, anaerobic and aerobic. The anaerobic energy system has three ways of producing energy while the aerobic only has one.
Anaerobically:
First we have ATP stored in our muscles to allow fast snap use. Think of a one rep max lift, something lasting less than three seconds and is at 100% capacity.
Second is the phosphocreatine system (ATP-PC). In this system, phosphocreatine acts as a buffer where phosphocreatine breaks apart and the spare P molecule goes to ADP where it is turned into ATP. This allows almost 100% energy capacity and last from 3 - 12 seconds or so, depending on demand.
Third is anaerobic glycolysis: this is where a glucose molecule is split and put through the "dark side" of the krebs cycle. 1 glucose molecule will eventually be turned into 2 ATP and some lactate produced. This is where lactate shuttling comes in. The better your body's ability to clear lactate, the more energy can be produced with this method. Higher lactate clearing rate = faster running. A 1500m runner uses 100% of their aerobic capacity + X% of their anaerobic glycolysis up to their threshold or ability to clear.
Aerobically: 1 glucose = 32/34 ATP depending on who you listen to. Obviously much more efficient, yet no where near as powerful as the anaerobic power. Now where does this all play into long runs?
Long runs at Z2/LOW Z3 will increase the muscle capillary density or the area where blood/oxygen transfer happens in the muscle. The more oxygen, the more efficient the muscle. At Z4 your body goes into survival mode and capillary beds do not increase in size. The effect of a long run and capillary destiny has diminishing returns after around an hour and at 90 minutes, the training effect does not go up. hence most long runs being 1 hour to 90 minutes when looking at capillary bed development.
The only reason to go longer is for musculoskeletal adaptations for marathon and ultra events lasting longer than two hours where structural injury is a legitimate risk.
Now go get a coach and learn the rest.
This is an interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
When you say, "long runs at Z2/LOW Z3 will increase the muscle capillary density or the area where blood/oxygen transfer happens," do we know about when in the long run this process begins to occur?
ExactlyThis wrote:
This is an interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
... do we know about when in the long run this process begins to occur?
Theoretically - 2 minutes. Then follows a logarithmic curve up to 90 minutes before plateauing entirely. By 60 minutes, you're at 9X% of potential and at 90 minutes, you're at 100%. I don't have the figures on me for 15, 30, 40 etc minutes but it is a logarithmic curve. This is why those who do 20 - 30 minute recovery runs or 40 minute easy runs on non workout days have better aerobic development - they have more time per week in the zone and it's in the rise of the curve.
Swim Bike Run wrote:
ExactlyThis wrote:
This is an interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
... do we know about when in the long run this process begins to occur?
Theoretically - 2 minutes. Then follows a logarithmic curve up to 90 minutes before plateauing entirely. By 60 minutes, you're at 9X% of potential and at 90 minutes, you're at 100%. I don't have the figures on me for 15, 30, 40 etc minutes but it is a logarithmic curve. This is why those who do 20 - 30 minute recovery runs or 40 minute easy runs on non workout days have better aerobic development - they have more time per week in the zone and it's in the rise of the curve.
How do times in HR zones translate to activities like cycling? Where you don't have the weight bearing and gravity factors.
Isn’t there also some benefit to burning through the glycogen reserves? That takes 1:45-2 hrs
Runner10287 wrote:
How do times in HR zones translate to activities like cycling? Where you don't have the weight bearing and gravity factors.
In terms of capillary density building, it's basically the exact same time re time domains.
Now I prefer longer rides simply because I enjoy cycling, I have to get used to being in the saddle for 4+ hours, and injury risk is lower due to non (repetitive) impact (now idiots in cars, thats another equation),
Most cyclist use a power meter to measure their actual power output in watts. We have something called a power curve or what the best ability is for X time. It's shape is log (1/2)X. My power curve from 90 minutes to 4 hours only drops 15 watts (a restroom stop essentially would lower my average by about this much), meaning the line is basically flat at this point as I am in my aerobic zone.
Otherwise it's the exact same and workouts are often similar. Today I had 4x4:00 at VO2 max with 3:00 recovery between. Tempo days might be 2x15 minutes at FTP (tempo) with 5:00 rest. Both disciplines are endurance focused repetitive motions.
an ok coach wrote:
Isn’t there also some benefit to burning through the glycogen reserves? That takes 1:45-2 hrs
Eh. depends on the purpose. The idea during a race is to fuel appropriately to not bonk. Depending on pace for depleting reserves it can take anywhere from 2 hours to 20 minutes. One of my favorite workouts for testing reserve capability is:
10 minute tempo.
4x4 minute at VO2 max with 4:00 recovery
10 minute tempo.
Those VO2 maxes zap glycogen reserves and force you to adapt.
an ok coach wrote:
Isn’t there also some benefit to burning through the glycogen reserves? That takes 1:45-2 hrs
Imo if you’re training for a race that lasts longer than 90 minutes than yes but for a shorter race no. In a marathon you experience glycogen depletion but not so much in a 5k. Therefore the 2 hour long run is necessary for a marathon but not for a 5k. That doesn’t mean overall high volume for a 5k won’t help to develop the most important aerobic system. You can still run a 2 hour “long run” for a 5k. However a double of one hour each would be better imo. The 5k runner still gets the same aerobic development, however, is able to recover faster because less glycogen depletion occurs. Again for a 5k you don’t need to train for glycogen depletion like you would a marathon.
But didn't Hadd also say that 2hrs was definitely better than one hour or 90 mins because of slow-twitch fibers improvement?
George213 wrote:
But didn't Hadd also say that 2hrs was definitely better than one hour or 90 mins because of slow-twitch fibers improvement?
This depends on what your purpose is. If you're looking to try and down-regulate fiber types, then longer is better. If you're looking to make your type II muscles stronger (what happens during hours 2+) then you might as well do squats, lunges, and plyo movements geared towards type II from the start.
Swim Bike Run wrote:
ExactlyThis wrote:
This is an interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
... do we know about when in the long run this process begins to occur?
Theoretically - 2 minutes. Then follows a logarithmic curve up to 90 minutes before plateauing entirely. By 60 minutes, you're at 9X% of potential and at 90 minutes, you're at 100%. I don't have the figures on me for 15, 30, 40 etc minutes but it is a logarithmic curve. This is why those who do 20 - 30 minute recovery runs or 40 minute easy runs on non workout days have better aerobic development - they have more time per week in the zone and it's in the rise of the curve.
Regardless of pace?
When I was doing long runs(30 years ago). The belief was after around 90 minutes the slow twitch fibers would fatigue enough to recruit fast twitch and then this would turn fast into oxygen type muscle fibers. Have no idea if this has been proven true or disproven.
This is quite important. You can burn through a ton of your glycogen even in 5k or 10k. The chances of you “bonking” during a 5k are very small of course, but it should be noted that fat reserves and glycogen reserves are always working together. You’re never exclusively relying on one system or the other, it’s just the ratio of fat to glycogen utilization. So these workouts where you’re using a higher ratio of fat are still helpful, even if you aren’t running a marathon. But they just aren’t as important as utilizing glycogen as fuel
not even relevant wrote:
Impala31 wrote:
whatever science says the long run is the best way to develop aerobic capacity. Bike is fine but nos as good as running.
That is why 5k-marathonner do it every week all year long (sometimes even 2/3 times a week). and 800-3k guys at least half of the year.
But if you feel like it is too much stress on your body, it is perfectly fine to do it only twice a month or keep the length in the 75-90' range until you feel more comfortable.
Honestly, any track workout is more risky for injury than a true easy long run.
Long runs are unimportant unless you're running a marathon. Injury risk is irrelevant; a track workout is more beneficial for 5K than a long run.
Lydiard proved this school of thought wrong 60 years ago.
No modern training program agrees with you.
There’s more to a training program than “specificity”
The clues are all over this thread.
You don't need long runs if you are a 5K person.
A long run doesn't need to be more than 90 minutes, but a few minutes over 90 is ideal.
Recovery runs should be 20-30 minutes maximum.
Easy days should be 40 minutes or so.
Doubling is better than not doubling.
tarckstar wrote:
You don't need long runs if you are a 5K person.
The 5k is 85% aerobic. AKA slow twitch muscle fibers used.
Long runs enhance slow twitch development.
Sure, you don't need to do long runs. But they help.
The 5k requires a huge combination of developed physical traits. Why would you choose to not work on one of them?
For base building, build up to run 80 minutes per day. Probably can't do that. So count the shorter efforts as "recovery days". Once you can handle 80 min. runs 6 days/week, you can start doing workouts. So, for similar effort, a young person running EZ 8 pace just runs 10 miles per day, and an old senior runner going at an EZ 11 pace runs just 7.27 miles per day. I think the reason why long runs are prescribed is that people don't believe in an optimal distance or running time, they don't get the notion of diminishing returns, so they try to run as far as possible. Or, when doing workouts, they have to do occasional long runs to remind their muscles what endurance running is all about. If they do too much threshold or vo2max work, they can detrain their endurance adaptations.
Great thread, thanks everyone! This is why I come to letsrun.com.
Check out Timo Mostert - Capillary Runs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb43uDveJI&t=19s