Hadd question - Why do the 90-minute runs if the rat studies showed they were no better than 60 minutes?

Better yet, why do runs even an hour long when performance in all distance events is dependent solely on muscle force generation, with aerobic development being of negligible importance?

See powerrunning.com for details.

RichardG wrote:

Better yet, why do runs even an hour long when performance in all distance events is dependent solely on muscle force generation, with aerobic development being of negligible importance?

See powerrunning.com for details.

Sorry, broseph, pseudoscience doesn't cut it around these parts.

Annoying when someone, instead of answering your question, starts their reply with "Better yet..."

Tell you what, I like my question. If you can't answer it, please get your own thread.

Because after an hour or so you start to utilize more fat stores which makes you a more efficient distance runner.

if you think the most effective training for you is the one prescribed to RODENTS based upon fakeass science, then by all means do 60 minute runs instead of 80 minutes.

You had it right in the first 15 words, then you lost it. Would you suggest following training prescribed for RODENTS by fakeass religion or fakeass experience?

There is no problem with the science in the article. There is a huge problem with people, who don't understand the limits of science, trying to change the training wisdom of the ages based on the physiology of RODENTS.

ubh76 wrote: There is a huge problem with people, who don't understand the limits of science, trying to change the training wisdom of the ages based on the physiology of RODENTS.

The physiology of rodents isn't all that different from ours, thats why they use rodents in studies like this. Morphologically, they're obviously very different from us, but their muscle cells and our muscle cells are damn near identical. Their lungs and our lungs work the same way, ditto on their hearts. Shaped differently, but function the same.

Playing devils advocate, whats to say that training wisdom of the ages is automatically better?

I agree that the rodent physiology is a good model, like I said, there is nothing wrong with the science. The OP asked why do 90 min runs since rat studies say they don't help. The rat studies are based on a small number of rats over a short time with one protocol of how to get them to run and so on. The wisdom of the ages, if it really is all that, and not a deveils advocate on the internet, is base on a huge number of experiments.

clarify please wrote:

(page 9): Hadd states "Although Dudley found that 90 mins was not better than 60 mins, Holloszy had shown that 2hrs was definitely better than one hour."

I think this is suggesting that the "magic" happens between 90 and 120 minutes.

Anything under that is too short to show the real benefits. That's why 60 and 90 are considered the same.

drivel wrote:

The physiology of rodents isn't all that different from ours, thats why they use rodents in studies like this. Morphologically, they're obviously very different from us, but their muscle cells and our muscle cells are damn near identical. Their lungs and our lungs work the same way, ditto on their hearts. Shaped differently, but function the same.

Playing devils advocate, whats to say that training wisdom of the ages is automatically better?

There has been considerable criticism about using quadrupeds as the test animals for bipedial movement.

If something "works"--and has worked for a long, long time (such as long runs over 90 minutes)--then it is doubtful that any science could ever disprove it. Better science may help us understand it, but it will almost never disprove it.

answer man wrote:

clarify please wrote:

(page 9): Hadd states "Although Dudley found that 90 mins was not better than 60 mins, Holloszy had shown that 2hrs was definitely better than one hour."

I think this is suggesting that the "magic" happens between 90 and 120 minutes.

Anything under that is too short to show the real benefits. That's why 60 and 90 are considered the same.

Answer man is getting at my point.

I'm not saying long runs aren't important. The rat studies Hadd cites say 2 hour runs are VERY important.

I'm just questioning why, after stating that 90 is no better than 60, he goes and schedules a bunch of 75 and 90 minute runs.

I've read the Hadd training doc several times, and he certainly didn't explain his logic about this. In fact, the data he presents conflicts with his schedules... that's why I asked about it.

You guys saying rat studies are useless don't get it. Hadd obviously thought there was some validity to the studies, or he wouldn't have cited them.

How do we know that a 90 minute run is the same for a rat as it is for a human? Since they have different metabolisms and are smaller and whatever else, maybe you need to adjust the time.

This is too funny. Rats have their place in science...not exeracise physiology.

1. They have four legs. Primarily made of fast twitch fibers. Four legs i stead of two = less force needed to run= different energy systems utilized than humans at different times.

2. Rats don't have to circulate blood to extremities like humans.

3. They are horizontally positioned when running instead of vertical like humans = less energy utilization.

I will never take training advice based on experiments with rats.Absurd! These experiments should be conducted with humans to have any validity in my opinion.

-Dr. Duh

I got frustrated with nobody understanding Hadd's approach to distance training enough to answer the original question, so I let the thread die.

I'm trying again.

If you think rat research is worthless for humans, no need to respond. I've heard plenty of that in the above posts.

Obviously Hadd found some benefit from the rat study research. He cited them them to explain the need for 2 hour long runs, and why it's important to run easy/moderate enough to develop mitochondria in the slow-twitch muscles rather than bypassing them like many do by training too fast.

My big question is, as stated in the original post, why after saying that 90 minutes is no better than 60 minutes, does Hadd go and prescribe 2 90-minute runs per week.

Any insight would be appreciated, whether it is links to research, or personal/coaching experience, or just a thoughtful reply.

One reason I'm asking is because if 2 hours is where the biggest gains are made, maybe my base training would be better spent fitting in 2 2-hour runs per week, rather than the Hadd-recommended 2 hour + 2 x 90 minute runs.

Thanks in advance.

clarify please wrote:

One reason I'm asking is because if 2 hours is where the biggest gains are made, maybe my base training would be better spent fitting in 2 2-hour runs per week, rather than the Hadd-recommended 2 hour + 2 x 90 minute runs.

Thanks in advance.

And I'll apologize in advance for seeming rude, but you've had 17 months where you could have tried out the 2x2hr experiment for yourself.

Why are you asking when you could have been doing?

Why are you concerned about these studies using rats? Why aren't you more concerned with the studies using HUMANS????

Humans are more of a problem.

When they can't keep swimming in the barrels, sometimes their families get upset.

Running on Empathy wrote:

And I'll apologize in advance for seeming rude, but you've had 17 months where you could have tried out the 2x2hr experiment for yourself.

Why are you asking when you could have been doing?

No worries, doesn't seem rude.

I was just getting into running when I started the original thread, am still building my mileage each cycle. I've only recently reached the point where I could do 1 2-hour run per week.

So, if I get no meaningful insight from this thread, I will probably have to do what you suggest. But I'd rather not have to reinvent the wheel personally for every question I have about training. Usually there are people with experience and thoughtful answers/suggestions. Maybe not in this case.

clarify please wrote:

Running on Empathy wrote:

And I'll apologize in advance for seeming rude, but you've had 17 months where you could have tried out the 2x2hr experiment for yourself.

Why are you asking when you could have been doing?

No worries, doesn't seem rude.

I was just getting into running when I started the original thread, am still building my mileage each cycle. I've only recently reached the point where I could do 1 2-hour run per week.

So, if I get no meaningful insight from this thread, I will probably have to do what you suggest. But I'd rather not have to reinvent the wheel personally for every question I have about training. Usually there are people with experience and thoughtful answers/suggestions. Maybe not in this case.

Fair enough.

My two cents ........ rat studies are useful for things like testing the effects of drugs et al, but are rather useless for most exercise physiology comparisons due to the reasons already pointed out.