"Depletion runs" from the Chris Solinsky interview. This might be the worst idea I've ever heard.

i apologize for being a moron...

This is something cyclists often do. The idea is you do an all out effort up a long hill. Six hours later, you repeat. The idea is not to match the earlier time, but to see how close you can come. You'll be surprised how close you can come even when you start off feeling like you are on empty. And it is amazing for your psyche. Albeit it is much easier from an all out 1 hour effort on a bike than on a run.

All very true but one must consider the typical training loads of elite marathoners (2:10 or faster) are usually in the ballpark of 120-160 mile per week with 2-3 runs per day. In addition, most elite marathoners perform 2-3 high quality running sessions at lactate threshold, MLSS and 10km pace (95-98% of Vo2max).

Given this training, most elite marathon runners are in a constant strugle trying to prevent chronic glycgen depletion and/or a caloric deficit state so that they can maintain the training neceessary to be a fast marathoner. There is no need to voluntarily deplete when you are just trying to keep you head above the water.

Also the typical elite marathoning training describe above would most likely MAXIMIZE some of the mechanisms describe by Baar to increase mitchondirial biogenesis, intramuscular glycogen stores, and slow glycolysis etc.

Therefore for an elite marathoner to try to incoporate regular depletion runs for a possible neglible effect increases the risk of a compromise immune function, inability of connective tissue to repair and adapt to the large eccentric loads required of marathon training, hormonal dysfunction, and overtraining. Another aspect is the long term effects (1yr or more) of these depletion training techniques in long distance male and female runners.

Hopefully, a comparitive study with a control group of elite 2:10 marathoners will be performed to ascertain whether this type of depletion training is really more effective.

Laslty, for national class or lower ranked marathon runners (slower than 2:12-2:18) who are running between 70-110 miles a week at a frequency of 1-2 runs a day (who have not maximized their training) this method might work to improve performance.

Athleticsillustrated wrote:

John Hadd and Dr. Peter Snell both discovered that if you run out of glycogen stores on a run, you activate fast twitch fibers.

Actually you don´t activate fast twitch fibers if you run slow, but once ST fibers are getting empty the fuel reserves of the FT fibers will be used by the ST fibers.

"Phoenix:

Some have assumed that glycogen depletion is concomitant with fiber recruitment. This is not the case.

**Fibers do NOT have to be recruited to be glycogen depleted**

It is much more likely that the ft fibers are dumping their glycogen in the form of lactate which is then being used for fuel by the heart and st fibers when st fiber fuel is depleted."

Didn't Lydiard say that long runs should be done without fueling up?

Most of his races look like depletion runs lately.

Run-Free --

you are absolutely correct, hence my point #10 in my long summary.

However, I would say that 1970's/1980's marathoners who didn't take their nutrition and recovery as seriously as elite athletes now, would've naturally done more low CHO availability sessions - but again, accidentally. Aggressive workout fueling and post-workout re-fueling, even at 130miles per week, will do a very good job at keeping ones muscle glycogen relatively high for a lot of hours per day (yes, low immediately post workout).

But, yes, elite athletes who train a lot, already may undertake some low CHO availability training...especially the Africans who might not have immediately access to recovery calories and/or fueling calories.

Ha, great post, Trent. While the odds of convincing a Letsrun poster to change his or her mind are roughly zero, hopefully your post will help clear up some of the misconceptions from people who weren't familiar with the topic.

On that note, for anyone still reading this thread: if you have a question, read Trent's post before asking it. Then read it twice more.

Oh, and to the OP: you keep saying this sounds like advice someone who's not very experienced with marathons would give. While everyone (including Trent) would acknowledge that there's still lots of debate about how and if to implement this strategy, it definitely something the vast majority of elite marathoners and coaches are at least aware of. It's been pretty much the hottest topic in endurance sports science for the past six or seven years, with tons of research being published.

Depletion runs = Manorexia

hold the phone wrote:

Oh, and to the OP: you keep saying this sounds like advice someone who's not very experienced with marathons would give. While everyone (including Trent) would acknowledge that there's still lots of debate about how and if to implement this strategy, it definitely something the vast majority of elite marathoners and coaches are at least aware of. It's been pretty much the hottest topic in endurance sports science for the past six or seven years, with tons of research being published.

As with the amount of high quality (rare on this site nowadays) discussion my thread has generated, I can see that! It seems counterintuitive, but then again, I'm not up on the research like many posters here.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

A lot of science based training methodology from CrossFit has spilled over into mainstream running through the last few years.

Oh Please. The only thing that's ever spilled over from CrossFit is body fluids from someone dropping something on themselves. There's not a single unique training paradigm in CrossFit other than trademarking the name.

Depletion runs were in Noakes' books nearly 30 years ago (maybe more, I don't feel like going upstairs to grab my copy to check the date), long before most CrossFit was trademarked, and before any "CrossFit'r" was old enough to off themselves with a weight bar.

I purposely wasn't clear and didn't elaborate. Stellingwerff's point about later sessions needing fuelling, as well as quality sessions needing fuelling for optimal conditions is correct....but we don't need my endorsement of his points.

And in regards to slow running...a couple things (without much elaboration) Snell feels that at least 7 minute miles are required. So for a 2:40 to 3:00 marathon runner that is a fair effort to race pace run. It would be "slow" for the much faster athletes, but anyway 7 was like the minimum benchmark.

Also, in regards to "slow" ...well...some people need to be reminded that Lydiard would say "slow" and mean that in comparison to your ability to run a 1:44/5 800m or 4:05 mile or 13-something 3 mile....race...the long run is slow...but not slow as long runs go...

Trent Stellingwerff wrote:

4) This is NOT about adapting the body to utilize more fat as a fuel during the marathon! (major mis-conception of this thread).

6) This approach is about providing the body with the stimulus during the bulk of training to MAKE MORE MITOCHONDRIA!

9) Again, read the case study, we do NOT emphasize this in the last phase before competition, at this point, you want to maximize your body’s ability to use CHO as fuel, but ideally within the mitochondria (that you have stimulated from both training hard, training volume, but also for elites who are HYPER adapted, periodic low CHO availability training).

Coaches love to say their training is scientifically based, and researchers love to say their scientific results have practical counterparts. Fact is though, that nothing in your post gives any credence to Canova's "special block" (two workouts the same day at roughly marathon pace) in the last phase before competition.

We can hence conclude that "depletions runs" that failed coaches like McMillan recommends and that Chris Solinsky wants to run, has no scientific backing.

Bump. Any recent thoughts? I'm thinking depletion runs are unnecessary with modern fueling and proper b4 race nutrition.

Could a reason the above aren't at the 2016 trials be injury/burnout due to these depletion runs, making them a bad idea?

If you want to run a hilly race, you have to get used to some hills in training.

If you want to run a race where you are in a low-carb state, you have to get used to being in a low-carb state in training.

Modern fueling during and before race nutrition helps that individual race but it won't cover all of your energy requirements during the event.

I know several marathon trials qualifiers and many, if not most, run fuelesss long runs on an empty stomach.

If you want to break 3:00, quit sipping on the Gatorade and sucking on gel packs and get out there and train.

Don't they do depletion runs in Kenya all the time? Not everyone has a full meal everyday and sometimes food is scarce

Wow.

I've done this - it isn't fun.

I don't. I don't avoid hills either.

I get your point.

1) There are new runners using gels on every single run. That's pointless.

2) I've done plenty of 25km runs without gels or food. Just water. No issues.

3) I've done 20-24 milers without fuel. They're miserable, not useful, IMO, and like OP I think we need to rethink depletion running. What's the point of struggling in completely bonked?

4) If they are so helpful, why not train like that all the time? IMO, it's a bad idea. For my 18-24 milers, I'm going to take fuel from now on and do fast finish. I see no need to limp in after bonking in training just to get used to it.

Underfueling is the same as overtraining. It is pointless.

Doesn't mean it's ideal. Besides, there is a huge range between a 2:45 qualifier and a 2:25 qualifier.