Ingebrigtsen long run

They rarely run over 1 hour tho so a 20 mile long run is unlikely

No. Jakob already runs over 180km. Sunday is his longest run of the week but it’s almost like a recovery day. A 20 mile long run would introduce fatigue that is counterproductive.

90 minute runs markedly increase mitochondrial and capillary development, so that would be worth it, though 2 hr runs would be counterproductive at this point.

+ 1

Could you link the scientific studies?

20 mile runs are for strava attention seekers.

I guess all of the greatest marathon runners in history were just Strava attention seekers, then? No one runs sub 2:05 without <20mi long runs

No one runs sub 2:05 without less than 20-mile long runs. So everyone who has run sub 2:05 has kept this long runs to below 20 miles? How do you know this?

yup. this is one of those things that people have always said, repeated and believed. It's distance running dogma. clearly, Jakob is doing okay with is never longer than 12 miles "long run." The majority consider him to be the best 5000 meter runner in the world. Is optimal mitochondrial and capillary development not needed to become the best in the world at 5000, or is total mileage and a high volume of 90%+ intensity reps a better or equal way to get there?

Well said. We need evidence.

If you're running 140/week, 20 is not a long run.

runningwritings.com

Training intensity and capillary growth: Do you believe all the studies, or just a few?

John Davis

Open link

There's a few new studies that suggest otherwise.

Frequency and volume of running seems to be the most reliable way to increase mitochondrial density, rather than the long-held belief that low-moderate intensity long distance runs were.

And moderate-hard interval training seems to be the best way to improve mitochondrial function.

As for capillarisation, the article above details an aggregate study, with "The main findings: compared to low-intensity training (<50% VO2max), moderate-intensity training (50-80% VO2max) increased capillary to fiber ratio by 21%, but higher-intensity intervals (80-100% VO2max) increased capillary to fiber ratio by 54%!"

Academic studies are really hard to extract long-term training ideals from.

Nearly any measurable endurance trait is improved more by very intense training than lower intensity when you look at the typical 4-8 week timescale of a peer reviewed study (nearly regardless of volume). This is the trap that everyone fell into when we tried to outsmart training by doing low-mileage and hard intervals for everything.

The really talented athletes were still good, but distance running as a whole took a huge step back for years until we got back to running more.

All that said, when we're looking at modern training (especially high mileage; double threshold), everyone is running so much that a long run really isn't necessary. Capillarization is going to happen over time with a big enough training stimulus. There are plenty of enzymes that see a big uptick the longer an effort goes, but those same enzymes are still going to pop up if we stimulate them enough.

I like long runs, but they're the first thing I'll drop if we need more recovery for anyone training in the college or high school level.

great to see letsrun upvoited this 10 to zero

this LSD of Lydiard, was and is misinterpreted greatly, where you were talking about 8 weeks base with 5 to 6 minute miles for the 80 to 120 miles per week, then 8 weeks doing a lot of quality middle distance with mileage and a racing high speed phase... and there was no dead mileage throughout, relaxed / with quality.

for the 1500, this marathon training has got to go, actually it has, and the long run has to go. though i really loved the long run myself.

however, having a good 5000m as strength for the 1500 is another matter.

optimally the 1500 goes at 55 secs per 400

and the 800 50 secs/lap

and the 5k at 60 seconds/lap

and the 400 at 43.

so they are all their own world with the 1500 most related to the 5000

and the marathon, that isn't in the calculations, a 1-3 minute race is not in the same category as a 2 hour race, with only common denominator that you need aerobic ability, the more the better, and slower pace training recruits the WRONG muscle fibers.

as for intensity, that would be the key, and for volume, you monitor recovery, and get back at it as soon as their is optimal adaptation, and monitoring that is where everyone is challenged,

very apparently the top 1500 guys are getting it right, with the consistency of late..

for the 1500 i would favor the steady 50 minute run combined with several repeat 2 1/2 minutes intense hill run repeats per weel, about 4 to 6 repeats would seem to be enough to fill the cup.

filling the cup, means that more just spills over and is useless and negative value.

with the above work, i'd add in 20% cross training, in the base work phase, and throw in a second session once a week of 100 to 150 fast repeats with full recovery, and totally enjoy that work. not push, but fly.

As for capillarisation, the article above details an aggregate study, with "The main findings: compared to low-intensity training (<50% VO2max), moderate-intensity training (50-80% VO2max) increased capillary to fiber ratio by 21%, but higher-intensity intervals (80-100% VO2max) increased capillary to fiber ratio by 54%!"

with the VO2 max work, THAT is where the specific training is, and #1, along with maintaining speed and building the aerobic engine.

the suggested hill repeats of 2min 30, are 85% to 90% VO2 max.

it you recover well, the body will adapt to a one off, 3 to 4 minute effort, so that is why 2 min 30 is chosen, for the highest response, and shortest duration to get the effect, which is to dump all your energy into a 3 minute or so time frame.

now, how many of these VO2 max sessions can you do? with the smaller volume suggested, and a superior athlete, the athlete can do quite a bit more than 2 of these sessions per week.

the top guys know how to monitor the recovery needed by now.

any "novelty" above, is to focus the quality work mostly on the specific time frame of the race, more than say run hard 10k to 15k instead,

Ingebrigtsen isn't capable of running 20 miles in one go.

There aren't any. It's the biggest line of bs in running.

Yeah, long runs are not useless, but for top athletes already doing high volume, long runs probably are the least bang for buck type of training.

After 15 years of career with the last 6-7 at the top of the world, forget that an athlete like Jakob can still have mitochondrial and capillary development. This is typical mistake coming from a wrong interpretation of Lydiard. Athletes with great continuity in training and with high volume and intensity finish their "aerobic house" after maximum 4-5 years, after this the improvement can be based on the development of intensity, and no more of the volume.

This is one of the reason because the "double threshold" doesn't work, like system, for preparing marathon. In this case, without long and fast run (sometimes over 45 km) athletes are not ready to stay long time on their legs and the body structure suffers if there is not adequate volume in SINGLE SESSIONS. Also, about the organic preparation, the way of fueling when you prepare marathon is something very different from all the other events, HM included. We can say that it's possible, with the right talent, to prepare in one season events from 1500m to 10000m, with some experience in HM during the fundamental period, that is the cycle of maximum volume. The same athlete, supposing can have talent for marathon too (it's not matematical that you can transfer to marathon the talent you have till HM...), can have a range 5000m - Marathon, but during the last 3 months of preparation for his marathon the range becomes 10000m - Marathon (we of course speak of good times in the events of support for the main target).