To train to your strengths or to train to your weaknesses

Hi there ,

Actually I'm really glad you asked this.

Obviously a large part of success is picking the right event so in your 2 hypothetical scenarios runner A may be an 800 runner whilst runner B a marathon guy?

I personally believe that one can focus on their weaknesses whilst maintaining strengths as it is easier to maintain an existing characteristic than it is to gain a new one.

E.g. already having good speed and doing weekly strides would maintain speed whilst you could focus on building endurance. At the end of the day though, I've found that my athletes are happiest and most confident when training to their strengths and we simply can't neglect the psychological side of the sport.

All the best

Depends on the target event.

If someone who does better with tempos and long runs, but wants to train for the 100m, there is no way around reducing his mileage and doing sprint specific training - flying 30s & 60s, 150s for speed endurance, etc. Lots of recovery, rest days, gym work, etc.

If someone who is more fast-twitch, but his target event is a half-marathon, he still needs to put in a lot of miles and do some longer tempo runs and CV/threshold intervals. 100s or 200s with long recoveries are simply too far away from the demands of a HM.

So target distance clearly trumps muscle fiber physiology. Muscle fiber physiology becomes more important when you have different types of runners training for the same target event - but even then, it depends on the exact event. For an 800m, a fast-twitch 400/800 runner like Rudisha would train a bit different than a 800/1500 like Symmonds. Both still need decent mileage, long reps, short reps and some speed, but speedy Rudisha can train with a little less mileage, fewer reps, but faster reps and more/harder sprints whereas the strength-based Symmonds would do a few more tempos, mile repeats and more mileage.

But for distances like a marathon, mileage and long workouts/long runs just become too important and even a runner with decent amount of fast-twitch fibers would still do better on 80 mpw with big workouts and big long runs than with 40 mpw and lots of 400s for example. Hope that makes sense!

Hi Laterunnerphil, can you not change muscle fibers actually though? If a marathon runner devoted years running to lifting weights and other explosive power reps exercises would they not develop fast twitch?

Years of work would surely do this?

fiberous wrote:

Hi Laterunnerphil, can you not change muscle fibers actually though? If a marathon runner devoted years running to lifting weights and other explosive power reps exercises would they not develop fast twitch?

Years of work would surely do this?

Humans have 3 types of muscle fibers

type I - slow-twitch

type IIa - fast-twitch intermediate

type IIx - fast-twitch explosive

At birth it is decided how many muscle fibers a human has in each category. A long distance runner like Ryan Hall or Eliud Kipchoge for example will have a lot of type I fibers. A sprinter like Bolt or LeMaitre will have lots of type IIx fibers.

Type IIa are the malleable ones - those that change with training in certain directions. Some people have more of them than others. Some, like Salazar have only type I fibers almost. No speed! No way he could train like a sprinter and expect anything out of it. His body just isn't capable of it.

Now how would you train Kipchoge for the 1500m, and how would you train Seb Coe? If I was about to train Kipchoge to a good 1500m time, say 3:33, I'd still prescribe him mostly work that fits his unique muscle fiber physiology - lots of mileage, strong, hard tempos, lots of 1k/mile reps, and just a little bit of speed. Too much speed work or anaerobic work would fry a runner that's not the type of it! Coe on the other hand, a guy with crazy speed, lots of type IIa fibers and less type I compared to Kipchoge, would benefit from doing more hard reps, fast 400s, "rhythm" work, like 20x200 at mile pace, anaerobic sessions, like 10x400 very, very fast, all-out sprints/hill sprints, more gym sessions/lifting, etc. If you give Coe the same training Kipchoge would use to a 3:33, he wouldn't get anywhere. But with the right training, he might surpass someone with Kipchoge in the 1500m, since Kipchoge just has too many slow-twitch fibers and is more naturally suited towards even longer distances than the 1500m.

For the record, Kipchoge ended up running 3:33, and Coe 3:29. In the 3000m, the shortest of the long-distance races, Coe ran 7:54 and Kipchoge 7:27.

When you look at Kipchoge from 1500->3000->5000->10000, you can see his pace doesn't drop much. His slow-twitch fibers make it so his 1500 can't be exceptionally fast despite his insane talent level, but he can still run very fast in long distances.

Coe on the other hand, drops significantly between each distance. That's the difference between someone having 80% ST fibers and someone having 60% ST fibers in their legs.

There is no magic training that would get Kipchoge to 3:29, and none that would get Coe to a 26 min 10k. You can shift your fibers in certain directions but you can't completely disregard the genetic distribution and think "anything is possible if you just train hard enough".

The problem here is that you don't know the muscle fiber physiology of either runner. Nor do you appear to know much about Coe's career.

Training is a process of stress and recovery that results in adaptation to the stress.

The more that training focuses on "changing" an athlete (from where s/he is now to where s/he needs to be for success in a given event), the more stressful that training is and the more it uses up the individual's adaptation reserves. (Terminology per Selye, kind of.)

In periodization, the initial training emphasis should focus on the individual's stronger points, because by itself this "alarm" phase of a new training cycle drains reserves. Then, when the athlete is past the alarm phase and is in the general adaptation phase, s/he can move progressively toward a greater emphasis on weak points--stuff that doesn't come as naturally.

As the peak events approach the athlete's emphasis should shift back toward his/her natural strengths in the last couple/few weeks, so that s/he is fresh.

Example: A 400/800 guy who finishes his track season and decides to go out for cross country next fall should NOT start the summer with an emphasis on a large volume of steady distance. That's not who he is!--and will use up his adaptation reserves in the summer, leaving him just trying to hang on in the competition season.

Instead he should start with a moderate volume of running--supplemented by other activities, aerobic and nonaerobic--with a good portion of it fartlek, especially "true" Holmér fartlek and/or Igloi-type intervals (to get some volume without too much call on reserves). As the summer and early season progress, emphasis can gradually shift toward more total volume and more of the sustained steady-state stuff.

Then to freshen up for the "big" meets he'll be running, he would gradually shift the focus to emphasize his "natural" abilities in the last couple weeks, and mostly lay off the stuff that doesn't come naturally to him.

So you're saying that genetics and innate ability actually play a role in success or lack thereof? Gasp! Back to the drawing board for me.

I am a senior year triathlete living with two athletic seniors at a D2 college.

We were having a discussion the other day on this very issue of muscle fibres.

One of my friends said that I could train my fast twitch fibres by tempo practises.

He suggested taking shorter strides (180RPM) could help them to develop.

I was just wondering what your opinion would be on using tempo workouts as a way of developing fast twitch fibres.

CouldTRIharder wrote:

I am a senior year triathlete living with two athletic seniors at a D2 college.

We were having a discussion the other day on this very issue of muscle fibres.

One of my friends said that I could train my fast twitch fibres by tempo practises.

He suggested taking shorter strides (180RPM) could help them to develop.

I was just wondering what your opinion would be on using tempo workouts as a way of developing fast twitch fibres.

The impact isn't hard enough at tempo paces to recruit FT fibers. You need to run at 10k pace or faster.

Think about it that way - if tempo running would be ideal to recruit FT fibers, why don't all sprinters start doing tempo runs now? Bolt etc. don't do tempo runs to recruit their FT fibers. They do all-out sprints to maximize recruitment, and if a distance runner wants to work on his kick and recruit maximum amount of fibers, he should also run at near max velocities, and/or do hard hill sprints.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

For the record, Kipchoge ended up running 3:33, and Coe 3:29. In the 3000m, the shortest of the long-distance races, Coe ran 7:54 and Kipchoge 7:27.

This is useless, as was most of your post because you don't know the runners' exact muscle fiber composition, and because you show a profound lack of knowledge concerning Coe.

But about the bit above, will you stop and think, just for a few seconds, about what each of those athletes dedicated their whole training to?

Coe competed in the 1500m, as an adult, from the age of 19 to the age of 32. He trained specifically for 800-Mile.

Kipchoge has 4, yes, FOUR listed times for 1500m, over a span of 8 years.

Do you really think Kipchoge fulfilled his 1500 m potential?

FYI, Coe ran his PR after 9 seasons! After 8 seasons his PR was only 1.25 seconds faster than Kipchoge's.

And you think Coe was a 14:06 5000m runner? Canova said that he once witnessed Coe running a solo 30k on the road in 1:39 That's 3:18/km or 5:18/mi

That was in 1988, a year when Coe ran 1:43 for the 800m.

Thanks for those replies. I think it's probably correct that an athlete finding these things easier/harder says a lot about what distance they should be running (ie: 800m or marathon as suggested).

I think I was really wondering about two athletes training for the same event, but coming at it from different strengths (speed vs endurance). The comparisons on people like Rudisha vs Symmonds were quite useful. That's the kind of answer I was interested in and seems to suggest training to strengths. Do you think that fibre composition is the biggest difference between these people? Instead of vO2 max, running economy, or some other physiological variable?

If a strength is easier to maintain since it comes naturally to an athlete, why doesn't improving their weaknesses fill in the gaps and make them a better runner?

laVitesseTue wrote:

Thanks for those replies. I think it's probably correct that an athlete finding these things easier/harder says a lot about what distance they should be running (ie: 800m or marathon as suggested).

I think I was really wondering about two athletes training for the same event, but coming at it from different strengths (speed vs endurance). The comparisons on people like Rudisha vs Symmonds were quite useful. That's the kind of answer I was interested in and seems to suggest training to strengths. Do you think that fibre composition is the biggest difference between these people? Instead of vO2 max, running economy, or some other physiological variable?

If a strength is easier to maintain since it comes naturally to an athlete, why doesn't improving their weaknesses fill in the gaps and make them a better runner?

These things are all related with each other.

To run fast over long distances, the muscles must be able to consume large amounts of oxygen - which depends on capillary density, amount of mitochondria, aerobic enzymes but also proportion of slow-twitch muscle fibers. Most elite 3k-5k runners (races mostly correlated to VO2MAX) have a VO2MAX above 80, up to around 90.

Coe only had a VO2MAX of 77, which is still very good but not outstanding. That was the limiter of his 3k and 5k. He had lots of FT fibers, had crazy speed, super strong anaerobic system (extremely useful in 400m, 800m, and also 1500m, but gets less and less useful after that). One reason his VO2MAX was low was he doesn't have the same proportion of ST fibers as Kipchoge, Bekele, Geb, etc. But he would smoke them in a 400, 800 and 1500 any time with his great speed.

Same thing with running economy/efficiency - someone with more FT fibers will be more efficient at faster paces. Bolt looks super smooth at 10-11s/100m pace. Can you imagine him doing a tempo at 6 min/mile pace or an easy jog at 9 min/mile pace? That would feel extremely awkward for him and he would suffer and struggle. A ST guy like Kipchoge however can do fast long runs and insane tempos and feel well.

CouldTRIharder wrote:

I am a senior year triathlete living with two athletic seniors at a D2 college.

We were having a discussion the other day on this very issue of muscle fibres.

One of my friends said that I could train my fast twitch fibres by tempo practises.

He suggested taking shorter strides (180RPM) could help them to develop.

I was just wondering what your opinion would be on using tempo workouts as a way of developing fast twitch fibres.

No. Won't work. Have to do supraVO2 to develop fast twitch.

You train to your strengths til they are maximized, then you train your weaknesses. The secret is knowing when to switch.