Training Fast Twitch type runners vs. Slow twitch

lazy are we

This is a very interesting topic. I'm sure everyone knows runners that respond well to a program that centers around intervals, while other runners respond to long runs and tempos.

I've always wondered why some athletes, who may not have a significant mileage base, can respond to tons of "speed work" without breaking down. I fall into more of a "strength" category that involves mileage and tempos.

Hopefully we can get some insight about the differences between "speed" and "strength" oriented runners.

Actually I am not lazy I put in some good training nothing too high but most miles are easy or maybe tempo pace. when I look back at my old logs (6 years ago) when I was training to run a good mile I also ran my best longer distances. My training was more centered around 2-3 harder workouts over short distances (200-800's)?

poop

An interesting subject. I was a small college 23 second 220 and 53 second 440 guy. After college I got into road racing a lot of 5ks and 10ks. I trained for years on mostly interval work and seemed to run my best times and have my best fitness on a steady regimen of one long interval workout (800m-3200m, one short interval workout (200m-800m), and one steady-state, about 90min. per week workout schedule totaling about 40mpw. In retrospect, I should also have run a larger volume of recovery mileage, but I found that mostly interval quality work suited me.

Look at your 200 speed, that's a better indicator of fast twitch fibers. You can run a 52 off mostly ST fibers.

Interesting topic. Looking back on my training over the last 15 years, I got my best results from running Long Slow Distance + Fast Short Intervals (200s, 400s). I usually race better the longer the distance (marathon). I have always considered myself the ultimate slow twitcher. Weekly staples back then:

Sun 3:00 hrs slow AM / 0:30 slow PM

Wed 0:90 with 16x200s hard AM / 0:30 slow PM

Fri 0:90 with 15K pace Tempo work AM / 0:30 slow PM

Kents wrote:

Look at your 200 speed, that's a better indicator of fast twitch fibers. You can run a 52 off mostly ST fibers.

When I was young, I could probably barely break 60 for 400. Now that I'm old, 70 is probably about my best.

I think there's a 3rd type of fiber besides FT and ST fibers. Let's call them "no twitch" fibers, or NT.

If a ST guy can run 52s for the 400, I swear I must be 90% NT fibers. It's the only possible reason I can be so slow though I train so much. :-)

MarcS, I would strongly suggest the basic program that very old runner posted. Although vor also mentioned that more recovery mileage would have been helpful, I would urge you to get a substantial fraction (not all) of such aerobic, recovery-type work from alternate-aerobic exercise, if available: bike (exercise or road), stair machine, swimming, etc., etc. One of the best routines I've seen is from a college coach who has his people do a triathlon or tetrathlon: 15-30 minutes each on three or four pieces of alternate-aerobic equipment.

A routine like the one suggested by vor (and me) would be fine for your "staple" workout sequence. If you identify a particular target race, say a 10k, then for about 4-6 weeks (only) beforehand you could add some more specific work. Actually, some of the very best specific workouts (for an athlete like you) would be to race (mostly *under* your target distance) and/or do a Lydiard-type "time trial" (mostly *at* your target distance), each of those last weeks.

[Those Lydiard "time trials" are actually strong, controlled runs at your racing distance--not what we usually think of as time trials (= all-out practice races).]

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: DIFFERENT THINGS WORK FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE. You're smart to question your current routine and to seek one that might work better for your body type.

There's ST, FT, and FTa/FTb -- intermediate fibers.

I agree--interesting topic. I found I tend to respond better to longer runs but at a higher intensity. For me, the longer the distance the better I race. I don't have much for quick speed--my best 400m was 71 seconds, but throw me in a 10k and I'll be able to hold 6 min/mi. I've found that the short, fast intervals don't seem to help me much with my 5k/10k races, unlike say doing an 8-miler at near tempo pace. I know some people though that once they start 200/400/600m intervals, their race times drop. Guess everyone's different.

Thanks Fellas/gals

Molls wrote:

I agree--interesting topic. I found I tend to respond better to longer runs but at a higher intensity. For me, the longer the distance the better I race. I don't have much for quick speed--my best 400m was 71 seconds, but throw me in a 10k and I'll be able to hold 6 min/mi. I've found that the short, fast intervals don't seem to help me much with my 5k/10k races, unlike say doing an 8-miler at near tempo pace. I know some people though that once they start 200/400/600m intervals, their race times drop. Guess everyone's different.

Love this discussion. I'm the opposite of Molls. In my forties, yet can still run a sub-60 400 at will, (best of 51.2 at age 21), but holding 6:00 pace for 10k is tough despite running 50-70mpw with 5k-10k reps, threshold runs, etc. I love short reps of 100-300m at 80-90%, hate tempo runs.

Perhaps we all need to let our bodies tell us what works best. This year I'm switching it up, less miles more "fun" workouts like 8-10x200 at 80-90%. Also gonna dive into masters track and take a shot at a sub 2:00 800.

I think the opposite is true. I'm predominantly slow twitch, and a friend I used to train with was mostly fast twitch. I found that I respond very well to low mileage (20-30 per week) with lots of intervals and tempo runs. Early in my running career I ran mostly high mileage (about 80 per week) and performed very poorly in races. And adding a lot of extra mileage to intervals and tempo runs didn't make much (if any) difference.

My friend could easily beat me in interval workouts, but he had more trouble with tempo and long runs. His race performance improved most when he focused mostly on long runs.

I think that you have to give most attention to areas where you are weakest to perform well. I naturally have a high aerobic capacity but lack the speed needed to race well. My friend had the speed, but needed to develop his aerobic capacity to race well.

My thoughts on the matter: fast-twitch people need lots of distance to run well. The key is that the pace has to be easier/slower than for a slow-twitch person. ST people can handle a daily run at a higher intensity than FT people can. Too much daily intensity will cause the FT person to go stale/flat quickly. My best guess is that this has to do with the fuel sources being utilized by each type. More carbs than fat for the FT person and more fat than carbs for the ST person. A FT person can find themselves in a chronic glycogen depletion situation easily.

That said, I do think that the FT person NEEDS more short distance speedwork than the ST person does and the ST person needs longer speedwork. Overall distance for both can be very similar, it's the diffent mix of intensities that is the key.

I agree with the last two posters, FT need LESS intensity and ST need more. Work on what you can't do.

"Work on what you can't do."

I definitely DISAGREE. If you are 90% slow-twitch (like me), why spend a lot of time working on 10% of your muscle fibers? Sure you will need to do some sharpening work, but most guys that are 90% ST don't need much sharpening. I have coached several guys like that: after about the third or fourth interval workout of the season, their anaerobic system (what little there is of it) is pretty much maximized. A few more interval workouts won't hurt them, but they don't help much either.

Other distance runners, who are more FT, need more intervals. Personally, I have seen three (top level runners only included) in my 20 years of running and coaching high school in Missouri. I call it the Pyrah-Perkins-Boone syndrome. These three guys all responded well to lots of intervals and relatively low mileage. Every other good distance runner that I know (that was a top level runner) responded better to a more endurance-based program. That is probably because the overwhelming majority of runners who have more FT fibers are SPRINTERS. I hate to dis my beloved, but runners become distance runners by default. I have never met a guy with 9.9 100m speed who wanted to be a 3200m runner, but I have met lots guys who want to be sprinters and just don't have the wheels who end up being distance runners. This probably goes back to childhood: most 6 years olds will challenge their buddies to a race to the fence at the edge of the playground, not a 10-lap race around the playground.

Sean Nunn

Raytown South

Sean, I'm with you 100%.

Yeah I agree with Sean. To use an extreme example, asking Shawn Crawford to run 100 miles per week in order to focus on his weakness won't work.

You should train according to your inherent speed, ie., fiber type, which most people know by the end of high school. Can't break 26 for a 200 in high school? Unless you are a real late developer your future is in the distances. Hellooo tempo runs.