Ideal long run duration--60:00 or 2:00, nothing in between?

noko wrote:

Great thread Niko. I think Alfie was referring to runners who are more 'fast twitch' orientated in their makeup, do such runners need to adjust their easy day / recovery pace at all? Or do the same principles apply?

Sorry I did misunderstood the question.

The principle here is not to recruit the muscle fibers that you will train on the days of workouts. This means that you should keep the pace slow enough to recruit only ST fibers on recovery/easy days at all times even if you are a FT type guy as there wouldn't be any added benefit.

You see your heart and circulatory system is efficiently trained even at low paces as the stroke volume reaches almost full volume at 65% of HRmax. The rest is only the function of time – the longer you go the more benefit (unless you go long enough so the ST fibers get fatigued and you start to recruit FT fibers). So there is absolutely no added benefit of going faster on easy/recovery days. Just go by feel but keep below 70% HRmax. I would limit a single easy/recovery run to 40 minutes.

Work hard on workout days and go faster on long runs instead and you will be rewarded much more than by running few seconds per mile faster on easy days.[/quote]

Thanks noko,

So for Fast twitch runners:

Easy runs below 70% of hr max. What hr max %age do you recommend for the long run?

There's some evidence that lots of long run stimuli happen just before the 2-hour mark, and therefore a long run of just over 2 hours gives you the most bang for your buck. Coach J.K. wrote some 150IQ treatise on the subject

Alfie and Noko.

I have to kindly inform you that it doesn`t work the way as you suggest.

There is a scientifically determined reality that FT muscle fibers can be made to work as ST muscle fibers ( with one or a few exceptions ), but not the other way around.

How do you think this "transformation" takes place if not in the distance training run?

You can`t completely separate the work and stimulus of the FT and ST fibers.

How do strides fit into this principle? Strides, hill sprints, etc. would recruit FT fibers on an easy day. Some people do strides every day of the week.

The argument is that those are not elements of an easy run. They are elements of anaerobic work.

This knowledge is a compilation of many years of reading literature on training but most of the data about fiber recruitment (ladder % of VO2max particularly) comes from that of Thomas Schwartz (a.k.a Tinaman) work with some influence from Jack Daniels as well.

I don't think anyone has 100% bulletproof data on this. May be coaches with extensive many decade experience could relate but from logical and physiological point of view – the "fast twitch type" runners should take their easy days slower at least while they haven't fully developed aerobically.

Muscles consist of all fiber motor unit types – ST, FOG, FG with FOG being the most adaptive of them all.

FG (type IIx) fibers produce the most force, but are incredibly inefficient based on their high myosin ATPase activity, low oxidative capacity, and reliance on creatine phosphate.

FOG (type IIa) fibers have somewhat mixed characteristics that of ST and FG fibers with comparable tension of type IIx but use both aerobic and anaerobic energy systems so have a much higher oxidative capacity and fatigue much more slowly than type IIx (FG). They also are adaptive since you can increase their oxidative capacity through developing mitochondria, capillaries in FOG fibers. This way they shift from "anaerobic" to "aerobic" energy production with training but it required running at intensities that recruit these fibers for long duration (think long intervals, fast long runs). If you want to develop pure speed however you want them to become more FG-like.

Alacrity wrote:

Saturday Long Run? wrote:

How do strides fit into this principle? Strides, hill sprints, etc. would recruit FT fibers on an easy day. Some people do strides every day of the week.

The argument is that those are not elements of an easy run. They are elements of anaerobic work.

Yes, but as long as they are <10 sec long with sufficient recovery (~1 min) they will be alactic since they will recruit only type IIx fibers which rely on creatine phosphate system and doesn't produce much lactate.

I do either 10 sec progressive strides w/ 50 sec recovery after easy runs

After long intervals I do 20 sec reps w/ 100 sec recovery

Noko - how do strides, as Tinman prescribes them, fit in? Bouts of 20-30s with 40-60s recovery. These are a bit different than what you describe.

As a guy that could barely break 60, I wish I had known I could have recruited fast-twitch muscles. I had a cornea transplant when I was in HS and I thought maybe the same thing could be done with fast-twitch muscles, but my doctor said a 60 second 400 guy would reject the FT fibers almost immediately.[/quote]

There are more than one sub-2:12 Marathoners who also have sub-50 400 metres speed. There are many reasons why some are faster and some are slower sprinters. We can start having muscle twitch ratio discussions once we get down to sub-25 200 metres. I was a significantly faster sprinter than my 14 year old son, fall, 2019. By spring, 2020, he is now a significantly faster sprinter. Answers are not in genetic muscle twitch ratio.

I see in my coaching of FT runners ( higher % of FT fibers) that they follow the same

simple development as ST runners when it comes to the aerob requirement. The only differences

are that it takes more time to develop the aerob capacity with the FT runners and it`s in the beginning a wider gap between that runners quality speed sessions and aerob sessions speed compared to the ST runners. To balance the differences correct needs a lot of experience and skill. The Art of coaching.

As I use to say; Why try to coomplicate things that aren`t? Keep it simple! -J.S -

Saturday Long Run? wrote:

Noko - how do strides, as Tinman prescribes them, fit in? Bouts of 20-30s with 40-60s recovery. These are a bit different than what you describe.

I think that is way too short recovery. For a distance runner recovery ratio should be at least 1:3 but optimally closer to 1:5 (work:recovery) for fast repetitions, speed and economy work.

+1

noko wrote:

Also reading the article there is tremendous flaw by the author in assumption how fibers are recruited and therefore trained.

Yeah. I felt like I lost IQ points reading the idea of how muscle recruitment works. Personally I like the KISS rule. Why was running 2 hours harder than running 1:40? Because it is an extra 20 mins of running. Seems like that matters a heck of a lot more than slight differences in easy pace.

Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:

I see in my coaching of FT runners ( higher % of FT fibers) that they follow the same

simple development as ST runners when it comes to the aerob requirement. The only differences

are that it takes more time to develop the aerob capacity with the FT runners and it`s in the beginning a wider gap between that runners quality speed sessions and aerob sessions speed compared to the ST runners. To balance the differences correct needs a lot of experience and skill. The Art of coaching.

As I use to say; Why try to coomplicate things that aren`t? Keep it simple! -J.S -

In U.S., as I assume you know, XC and T&F at school is the usual path even though there are T&F clubs for those too young for high school sports. Asking a 400/800 U.S. athlete to participate in high school XC when said athlete has no other fall sport is usually harmless (unless a 400/800 gal/guy tries to be a full member of 1000 mile summer club). What about college 400/800 athletes? Some 400/800 gals/guys cannot participate in college XC at all. Some 400/800 gals/guys need to only train with 400m gals/guys but said athletes can also race 800m. Some 400/800 gals/guys can do a modified college XC training program, a few 400/800 guys can train in same manner as other college XC runners. Training 600yd/600m males & females can be a bit complicated.

Jan Stensson , Coach JS wrote:

Ideal long "normal" run 70-80 min where you get a really good boost of mitochondria

and enzymes.This length of the long run is enough if you go for distances under half/marathon.

Ideal long run if you go for half/marathon will be 90min - 2 hours 40 min where you teach the body to work with glycogen depletion.

I agree with this. I have always been taught and it does seem to work for marathon training your long run should be the same time duration as your race so you are prepared to be on your feet that long. I'd say most of my normal runs have fallen in the 70 to 85 min range. I had guys on my college team who did much shorter normal runs around 45 minutes. Usually they did not progress as much. Once they bumped it up to an hour or longer there was usually a good improvement.

Eliud does 30k (18.65 mi) fast and 40k (24.85 mi) medium, and alternates week by week.

Assuming he runs ~5 min pace for the 30k, and ~5:30 pace for the 40k,

that puts him at (~94 min) for the the fast long run, and (~137 min) for the medium long run.

I think this is a good model.

Keeps things fresh and stimulates.

Personally, I think running for time is better than distance, especially for slower people.

For the above average, sub-elite type runner, who is focused on the Mile-Marathon,

I think running 60-100 min for one week, and then 90-130 min is a good way to incorporate this concept.

For the 60-90 min week, say at 6:00 pace,

that puts you at 10-15 miles.

For the 90-120 min week, say at 6:30 pace,

that puts you at 13.85-18.5 miles.

This would be depending on your background and time of year.

Maybe a 1500m runner does 60 min (1 hr) and 90 min (1 hr 30 min).

Maybe a 5,000m runner does 70 min (1 hr 10 min) and 100 min (1 hr 40 min).

Maybe a 10,000m runner does 80 min (1 hr 20 min) and 110 min (1 hr 50 min).

Maybe a Half Marathoner does 90 min ( 1 hr 30 min) and 120 min (2 hrs).

Maybe a Marathoner does 100 min and (1 hr 40 min) and 130 min (2 hrs 10 min).

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I'd say most of my normal runs have fallen in the 70 to 85 min range. I had guys on my college team who did much shorter normal runs around 45 minutes. Usually they did not progress as much. Once they bumped it up to an hour or longer there was usually a good improvement.

Odds are you are just observing that 60mins of training is a lot more than 45. My experience is that for most people right around an hour is the sweet spot where you can still recover pretty well and repeat. Go up to 90 mins and you feel it a bit the next day.

All about building up to a comfortable level. It was quite a few years of competitive running before I ran a 100 mile week. But now that feels easy and I usually only back off to about 80 miles the week of a marathon. You build up to the longer singles like anything else in the sport.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

All about building up to a comfortable level. It was quite a few years of competitive running before I ran a 100 mile week. But now that feels easy and I usually only back off to about 80 miles the week of a marathon. You build up to the longer singles like anything else in the sport.

And just like everything else in this sport people hit personal limits. Few people are able to run ~1:45/day every day without breaking down. The ones that can always fail to recognize how unique that makes them.