Fast twitch vs Slow twitch interval training

I cant understand why slow twitch wont be able to have a huge anaerobic system Just because they are slow twitch

I understand that slow twitch wont get the same "cleaning" do to mitocontria etc but their anaerobic system van still be good? Cant you compared it to People with high vo2 max, but poor running econnomy?

otter wrote:

76chine wrote:

I could have smoked you in the 800 and 3200.

hmmm, maybe, but I dated the prom queen.

I was compared in appearance to Alain Delon by fashion photographers, so that was not the path for you to feel superior.

FinJ wrote:

I cant understand why slow twitch wont be able to have a huge anaerobic system Just because they are slow twitch

There are several technical posts on this thread about the differences.

The fast or slow twitch was one method to explain why some people seemed to be excellent in sprints but couldn't maintain a noticeably slower speed over a mile, let alone a couple of miles.

By contrast, other athletes didn't seem to gain much in speed no matter what the workouts were, but some could maintain pace at fairly close to their 400m speed for longer distances.

Tests were conducted (muscle biopsy) to see if very fast people had higher percentages of fast twitch, and if good long distance runners had higher percentages of slow twitch.

There were several reasons for the research, all of which were based on whether a person's athletic prowess could be predicted by genetics.

You do know O.P., most post stated on this thread are largely unproven bro science.

Larger athletes are going to have more difficulty doing aerobic activity than smaller athletes.

Larger athletes will often be ruined doing workouts with shorter recovery.

It is not uncommon that smaller athletes can do well with shorter recovery.

Energy system for 800m run is very similar to energy system for 200m swim.

Energy system for 50m swim is very similar to energy system for 200m dash, T&F.

Swim coaches of new teenage swimmers do not assume day 1 that slow 50 yard or slow 50 metre swimmers are distance swimmers. But in T&F too often coaches see a slow new athlete in 200m dash and will either place said slow 200m gal or guy in distance, throws or ignore the young athlete.

A poster brought up Duane Solomon. I wonder if some of these differences in best training practices are based on racial assumptions. Why was Duane Solomon compared to Nick Symmonds? Those two are have no similarity in regard to body build. Compare Solomon to Jim Ryun. Ruyn & Solomon are built very similar. Maybe a half inch height difference Maybe 5 pounds difference. We do not have Ryun's F.A.T. 400m personal best but it was rumored Ryun was 45.0 capable, definitely no slower than Solomon over 400m.

The overly simplistic posts in regard to muscle twitch ratio on this thread do not explain that 50 yard and 500 yard hs swimmers swim almost the same.

Thanks for the insight Coach. I wish I had that info 40 years ago when I was in the position of your FT kid. I will try to apply the principles to my current training.

600yd/600m man wrote:

A poster brought up Duane Solomon. I wonder if some of these differences in best training practices are based on racial assumptions. Why was Duane Solomon compared to Nick Symmonds? Those two are have no similarity in regard to body build. Compare Solomon to Jim Ryun. Ruyn & Solomon are built very similar. Maybe a half inch height difference Maybe 5 pounds difference. We do not have Ryun's F.A.T. 400m personal best but it was rumored Ryun was 45.0 capable, definitely no slower than Solomon over 400m.

.

There is zero chance Ryun was coming close to 45.0 and 46.0 was probably also pushing it. Somewhere around 47 is a reasonable guess given all we know. A lot comes down to how you come to the sport. Show up for XC and you get that distance runner vibe and become a 800/1500m guy. Show up for track and run a fast 400 and then the coach trys you in the 800, you are 400/800m guy.

The 800m is odd in that you have both approaches working pretty well. In the 5000m it seems like everyone is doing very similiar approaches (80-100mpw, couple workouts) with minor tweaks in the workouts (are you doing your quality aerobic work at 5k pace or HM, how are you doing your speed maintence)

You make some very good points, but I take umbrage to a couple.

New swimmers lack swimming skill. So a kid who is slow in the 50 will improve a lot doing big yardage just because he will be getting a ton of skill practice. Using high school swimming as an example is not the best comparison because the most skilled swimmer can win races across the entire range of high school distances. My son started swimming when he was 7 and as a result was the fastest kid on his high school team at all distances and all strokes as a senior. But, when he swam against true sprint swimmers, he’d get smoked.

I used Duane Solomon and Nick Symmonds as examples because they’ve been discussed on this board a bunch, as in “Nick Symmonds does huge volume in the off season”, or Duane Solomon only does 7 mile long runs”. Both of theses statements are backed up by the athletes in various flotrack videos. If it makes you feel better, the kid I had that I wrote about above that went from 1:58 to 1:50 in 2 years was a big muscular white kid.

Not sure the bro science you’re talking about, most of this stuff can be found in any ex phys text

FinJ wrote:

I understand that slow twitch wont get the same "cleaning" do to mitocontria etc but their anaerobic system van still be good? Cant you compared it to People with high vo2 max, but poor running econnomy?

I think it's more than just one variable. I mean people are made complex, the very best check all the boxes for their body type and distance. It has to come down to pace ran and how each runner responds the best to training to get there. Usually it's a process of trial and error.

Look at the differences in body types (and training from what I understand) in this race, but both are of the very best in the world at this distance.

76chine wrote:

otter wrote:

hmmm, maybe, but I dated the prom queen.

I was compared in appearance to Alain Delon by fashion photographers, so that was not the path for you to feel superior.

Hahaha. Excellent retort.

What an excellent thread!

Knowing who is FT or who is ST is sometimes obvious. I managed 60m at 8.2s when I was 14-15. I could lift my body weight in bench press (without much training). He could run 60m 1 sec faster at the same age and he could lift 120% of his body weight. He could also run the 800m 10% faster. He had bulkier legs, I had slender legs. I run longer and faster over long distances, could train more, improved better in endurance. He got the same training...

curious runner wrote:

Longer rest periods will allow for anareobic (glycolytic) system to be more heavily utilized. Faster twitch runners want to rely more on their anareobic strength instead of burning out their aerobic (oxygen-based) systems. Shorter rest periods or even continuous running is better for slow twitchers. EXAMPLE: 4x1 mile threshold vs 4 mile continuous threshold.

How accurate is the above statement?

If I'm understanding correctly, this means as a more fast-twitch runner I should be giving myself more rest between reps to allow my anaerobic engine to recover?

In other words... More recovery time between reps = more utilization of anaerobic system = higher quality reps = more gains in performance.

At the same time, if the aerobic system is my weakness, wouldn't I get more improvement in performance by focusing on strengthening it?

Still reading this thread, but assuming its true there could be 2 ways to interpret this into training - as Canefis said from Pete Pfitz you could do the opposite to this, to 'train your weaknesses' or, alternatively train like this to maximise your physiology.

Either way I find this fascinating. I have long wondered why certain (local to me) runners seem to improve and others do not - maybe the ones who are improving are (maybe by luck) just training exactly how their body needs to train.

My HS teammate was very fast, but not pure sprinter fast. He was outstanding in the 400m, and also in the 800m. Probably his best event was the indoor 600y, which he would win so easily despite his long stride on 220y tracks.

No amount of distance training was ever going to help him become a good distance runner, and our HS coach knew this (coach ran one year with CC team in mid-60s with Bowerman and Dellinger while in grad school at Oregon).

In fact, years later I visited him and his family (wife and kids) and we ran a few miles. He was not running track anymore and was rather persistent in doing his distance runs (3-5 miles, several times a week). I had to jog so slow not to run away, but this was just a casual run. He could run 3/4 of a mile (3:18 time trial as a senior), but a mile would not go well, although he could certainly run much faster than the average runner.

There are limited gains to train FT with ST workouts. He ran miles in HS, and could break 17 minutes for 5k (about 16;40), but there was little reason to train him to try and break 16 min, and no reason to try and break 15:30 for 5k).

It is the 800m where there seems to be a dichotomy, because fast 400m can train to run fast 800m, and fast milers can do the speed work to improve their 800m

However, I've known some very fast milers in HS who would stand no chance against me in the 800m, and I've know a few who would compete very well.

If you don't run 200m very fast, and a concerted effort to improve the 200m time doesn't prove to be very fruitful, there is your answer. If not so much speed, I suggest to do a lot of 200s, or 300s and 400s, not a lot of 800m or 1k or mile repeats.

I guess I don't fully understand the new trends. Frank Shorter was as good as it gets for someone who didn't dope, and a few of his workouts were listed back then. Frank really went after repeat 300s in one workout, and he ran a lot of them at a good pace. No wonder he could handle the first 10 miles or first half of a marathon when running world class times.

Is anyone aware of a training programme (1/2 marathon etc) specifically prepared and available for FT runners?

Yeah, I agree and modeled my training mostly (after trial and error) from what I read about Frank Shorter's training in the Lore of Running by Noakes- minus the 100+ weeks. :)

He had a short and longer track workout ( 220s & 1200s) and a LR with the second half faster, every week. I'm sure he did other workouts too, but according to the book, these were two he liked. Then as much mileage as you can handle was the fillers.

220s >400s you can really run fast, and that's what a slow guy like me needed every week in season, and some out of season. I found you could cut the rest (200 jog) and run them almost as fast as a long rest, but get a nice lactate/anaerobic/Vo2 Max, workout to boot by doing this. As long as I didn't do too much of this I was ok. If I got greedy, I got overworked and usually injured.

When you are slow, you got to work hard on that top end, just to keep up.

Great to hear that Shorter's workouts seemed best for you, but not surprised.

It seems as though the PED era created ridiculous standards for upcoming runners, concurrent with the internet emerging, so the connection to the past is gone.

However, adjusted for tracks and equipment, absent PEDs, and I think the old greats would still be great by today's standards.

I was really glad I found a 4 year old thread with a post from Jim Metcalf who ran against Jim Ryun. Metcalf said that after '68 the synthetic tracks were emerging everywhere, and that the 800m dropped by 2-3 seconds for elite runners. I wonder if that meant the mile dropped by 4-6 seconds. Jim Ryun could say how much, but I don't 'think he has.

I met Jerry Bright a long time ago, and he was talking about the old training methods, such as with Tommie Smith. Probably that was with Bud Winter. Not clear to me that any sprint coach is better even to this day, but maybe I missed someone.

"

a) 20x400 @10k pace with 60s rest

b)5x1 mile @10k pace with say 3 mins rest

If the FT does B, he will use his anaerobic system a lot over the first 2-3 mins of each interval and with the long rest it will recharge each time so he doesn't get a ton of work in

Do the 400s though and the FT use the anaerobic system for the first couple reps but there isn't enough time to recharge so for the last dozen it is stressing the aerobic system more"

Re the earlier post: can someone explain this to me?

With workout B, why can't the FT runner get a lot of work in? He can run each rep above AnT?

With workout A, why can the FT runner only use the anaerobic system for the first couple of reps?

This has turned into a good thread.

Alfie wrote:

"

a) 20x400 @10k pace with 60s rest

b)5x1 mile @10k pace with say 3 mins rest

If the FT does B, he will use his anaerobic system a lot over the first 2-3 mins of each interval and with the long rest it will recharge each time so he doesn't get a ton of work in

Do the 400s though and the FT use the anaerobic system for the first couple reps but there isn't enough time to recharge so for the last dozen it is stressing the aerobic system more"

Re the earlier post: can someone explain this to me?

With workout B, why can't the FT runner get a lot of work in? He can run each rep above AnT?

With workout A, why can the FT runner only use the anaerobic system for the first couple of reps?

:) Yeah, it's the pace that really comes into play. A fast twitch guy will find 10K pace pretty easy, so either way they will be good aerobic type workouts-IMO, but I'd lean toward the 1 miles.

And in my experience, the longer the work session, toward the end it is more anaerobic- not at the start, so you get anaerobic quicker by increasing the pace, lactate rises quicker as pace increases for everyone, it just takes more pace for the faster or runner in better shape.

Having said that, 5K pace seems to be better as an all around "aerobic" pace for faster and slower runners for shorter races. Both will be able to run faster increasing efficiency- esp. if 5k -1 mile is the race pace. I think this is pretty well recognized.

Now if we are talking marathon, of course 10K- Half pace becomes very important as well as work on each side of MP.