mitochondria and running???

I read, I believe in Lore of Running by Timothy Noakes, that at any given workload that it takes 8 weeks for mitochondria to adapt most of the way.

I don't have the book on me right now, and like I said I'm not positive thats where I read it. The idea was something like workload=intensity x duration. The mitochondria work on the law of diminishing returns, so at this given workload, they might be 40% adapted after the first week, 60% after the second, 70% after the third, etc. Those numbers were completely made up, but you get the idea.

It depends on how frequently you run, how long you run, what kind of workouts you're doing, etc. The most important thing to learn about running is that there are no absolutes. Your coach says 20 months, but does that mean that you'll stop adapting after 20 months?

To answer your question:

Over time you will become more efficient, although that is not necessarily because of your mitochondria. Your bones will get denser, your tendons and ligaments will get stronger, your musculature will change. If your coach has you doing runs of 90+ minutes, then the mitochondria in your muscles will multiply and the capillary beds will grow to more efficiently distribute blood.

Take your time, and let the training take place. You will get faster the more you run. Patience is a very important thing to learn.

Mitochondria are purple is what I learned from a book by Guy Brown called the Energy of Life Free Press 1999. The issue of Mitochondria is complex. Lynn Margulis of UMASS has a endosymbiont theory of chloroplasts and mitochondria. It may be that your own mitochondria, the little engines that make you go, are not even human.

Tom

The endosymbiotic theory is pretty well accepted now for both mitochondria and chloroplasts, but that is totally irrelevant to this.Also, despite what pictures you saw in that book, they're not purple unless stained that way.

Derderian wrote:

Mitochondria are purple is what I learned from a book by Guy Brown called the Energy of Life Free Press 1999. The issue of Mitochondria is complex. Lynn Margulis of UMASS has a endosymbiont theory of chloroplasts and mitochondria. It may be that your own mitochondria, the little engines that make you go, are not even human.

Tom

I didn't see the mitochondria nor was there a picture but Brown said that if all other masking pigments were eliminated, such as skin color or even hemoglobin, people would be purple because there are so many mitochondria and that's what color they are.

I don't know if I should believe that a Guy Brown said mitochondria are purple.

What color are they?

But my point is that the answer to the OP's question is complex.

Tom

Are mitochondria the force?

Are mitochondria θeɪtən???

Derderian wrote:

I didn't see the mitochondria nor was there a picture but Brown said that if all other masking pigments were eliminated, such as skin color or even hemoglobin, people would be purple because there are so many mitochondria and that's what color they are.

I don't know if I should believe that a Guy Brown said mitochondria are purple.

What color are they?

But my point is that the answer to the OP's question is complex.

Tom

In my experience, mitochondria of an unstained cell are clearish under a microscope. That said most things are are clear under a light microscope because the light is so bright, so to be honest they may very well have a purple color to them.

The other statement is ridiculous. Of course if mitochondria are purple and you took every other pigment away you'd be purple. If you took away every pigment but green, you'd be green.

Purple people is ridiculous of course.

But back to the OP question. We inherit our mitochondria from our mothers and no doubt each set is as different as our mothers are from each other and so would be their response to training. But I bet no one has actually studied the mitochondrial response to various kinds of training to get a general idea. I have imagined that under stimulus they divide like bacteria and double so explain sudden hugh leaps in fitness. Or do each get bigger? Or just better at making energy?

Tom

all my coach talks about is running for time and not for miles because of mitochandria being built. is this true and is it that much better than running mileage cause i suspect hes full of **** and if it was that good everybody would be doing it

it's too bad the tinman/phoenix thread is gone as that had chock full of good stuff (it was one of 2 threads I saved the html for).

In training: running for time is better than running for miles.

I was told running is not about the distance, but time on your feet. Plus, running for time takes pressure off younger runners from training too hard on recover/easy days. Additionally, it is easy for teams with a variety of runners with different ability levels to negotiate their training.

Example.

Runner A: 4:10 miler

Runner B: 4:25 miler

Understandably, these runners will run different distances in 50 minutes based off of recovery pace. Since runner A has a faster recover pace in comparison to runner B.

I don't know about mitochondrial levels. Although i don't think the body reacts to how far you ran, instead how long (time) you ran.

With all this being said... I still count miles. go figure.

It really doesn't matter. Running 5 miles in 30 minutes is the same as running for 30 miuntes and completing 5 miles.

As far as running 1 mile in 5 minutes or 1 mile in 10 minutes, then there's a difference. Doing one way will cause your body to adapt in a certain way and doing it the other will cause it to adapt in a different way. As far as mitochondria, its going to be based on time, as long as you're at a certain intensity.

what intensity....under 630??

The force, mitochondia is.

mitichlorians(sp?) are the force. mitochondria are the force of the running world. the question is, who is the one prophesized about who will bring balance to the running world?

i hear if you run blindfolded and barefoot you can let the mitochondria control your actions and you can feel them flowing through you, becoming one with nature, like the jungle cat.

search your feelings, you know it be true...

This thread might help you:

"MITOCHONDRIA QUESTION for phoenix, tinman and others"

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=269985&page=0

In reply to the original question by 'psyched out'.. this is a GREAT question as far as science is concerned. but in context of your question, it seems you are more concerned about performance.. therefore, don't worry about little things like 'how long does it take for mitochondria to adapt'...Just run everyday, and it will come. There are plenty of other factors that limit performance, so as an athlete I wouldn't worry so much about little things like that.

But you definitely asked a great question. And there certainly is an answer out there...But again it's more of a scientific question that probably doesn't relate a whole lot to your performance in the grand scheme of things..

20 months seems kind of arbitrary -- how would a coach know such a thing with any degree of precision? I wonder what he is talking about. I always read that long term mitochondria changes occurs in 6 week cycles, but I don't know how many cycles is typical.

If we talk about performance improvements, I like the graph here (scroll down to the graph if you want) to illustrate different sources of improvements over time:

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm

The time scales might be different for everyone, but as a general illustration, it seems helpful to understanding why different paces are necessary for improvements in the short, medium, and long term.

I don't know exactly how mitochondrial improvements are linked to each of these components, but mitochondria are just one component.