no twitch wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:Mechanics is nearly everything.
Correct. My good mechanics would keep me the race for 9700m, at which point I often got my ass handed to me.
Don't feel bad. All the current 10,000 meter men are in the same boat when Mo Farah is in the race.
If you were among the best at team sports in grade school- fast twitch.
If you were the last pick before the fatties- slow twitch.
YYYYYY wrote:
If you were among the best at team sports in grade school- fast twitch.
If you were the last pick before the fatties- slow twitch.
Seen too many 6'3" and taller high school varsity basketball players with slow speed and poor coordination to know that really isn't true. But they could sink shots and play a bit of defense, which is why they were valuable. But fast twitch? No, they didn't have much in the way of fast twitch.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Mediocrity wrote:No, most people are 50/50 with a genetically terrible cardiovascular system, as well as poor running economy and mechanics.
Fast-twitch vs slow-twitch is primitive bro science rooted in obsolete lab-coat bullshit. It's like talking about "lactic acid." Nobody who thinks in such terms will ever get anywhere, though they will have plenty of ready excuses for their failure, e.g. "guess I'm slow twitch."
Mechanics is nearly everything.
All elites would run the 100 if this were true. It isn't.
sorry but 9 feet or more would be considered a very good jump for an average height male. If you can't jump 1 1/2 X your height you're not a fast twitch athlete. I should have stated it that way assuming the OP was average height. I'm sure Locke has a SLJ of over 7 1/2 feet. I've had 5'3" students with 9 foot SLJs and taller kids with 10+
And a standing long jump is not a skill, admittedly a STJ and HJ are which is why I didn't use them as a bench mark. I've never met a true sprinter or jumper without a good SLJ but many who did not have the coordination to do a STJ. It's also a quick test that doesn't require equipment like the bench press test mentioned earlier.
coach wrote:
sorry but 9 feet or more would be considered a very good jump for an average height male. If you can't jump 1 1/2 X your height you're not a fast twitch athlete. I should have stated it that way assuming the OP was average height. I'm sure Locke has a SLJ of over 7 1/2 feet. I've had 5'3" students with 9 foot SLJs and taller kids with 10+
And a standing long jump is not a skill, admittedly a STJ and HJ are which is why I didn't use them as a bench mark. I've never met a true sprinter or jumper without a good SLJ but many who did not have the coordination to do a STJ. It's also a quick test that doesn't require equipment like the bench press test mentioned earlier.
Your 5'3" student with the 9 foot SLJ, how fast could he run 60m or 100m? Have to admit I'm finding it hard to believe someone 5'3" can do a 9 foot SLJ.
I'm thinking muscular power has as much or more to do with a SLJ than fast twitch. I think the only sure way to test for fast twitch is with an MRI (the new technique now in use) or muscle biopsy (the old technique).
unfortunately most of the kids in my school never do track just basketball.
I've never had a kid run under 7 seconds in a 55 without a good SLJ.
I've worked in poor urban schools and I use the SLJ because it is easy.
"No, most people are 50/50 with a genetically terrible cardiovascular system, as well as poor running economy and mechanics."
This could be the most important thing written so far. The vast majority of people are between 45% and 55% slow twitch. Many of the "tests" listed so far have something to do with if you might be a sprinter but not really tell you much between the two ends of the distance runner spectrum.
Assuming they're training for the same mid-d or distance race, should fast-twitch and slow-twitch runners train differently for maximum benefit or would it not make much of a difference?
great question and I'd love to hear what experts have to say. I know Canova and others speak of different types of 800 meter runners and how they should train differently but I'd be interested as well in reading how 1500-5000 meter runners should train based on their physiological differences.
viarails wrote:
Assuming they're training for the same mid-d or distance race, should fast-twitch and slow-twitch runners train differently for maximum benefit or would it not make much of a difference?
Everything I've read and viewed indicates an athlete with a high fast twitch percentage would be wasting time training for middle and long distances (with the exception of maybe the 800m.) Same for high slow twitch people training for sprints. There is an old saying, "your event chooses you."
I recall reading an exercise physiology book that said distance training will have an effect on fast twitch fibers, making them behave kind of like slow twitch, but not as effective. This must be the reason top sprint coaches don't want their sprinters running any sort of distance, because it will dull their fast twitch response. I've heard that Glen Mills doesn't want his sprinters running more than 8 minutes continuously. Seems very plausible. Maybe someone like Sprintgeezer will see this thread and fill us in.
What kind of stupid a$$ suggestion is 'dunk a basketball.' Even a 100m dash doesn't tell you anything out of context. The bench press test that coach d posted is a good normalized metric.