What is the science behind "base"?

If you ran in college you have talent, it just might be buried in a few extra pounds after the years of not running, but you'll get back to being pretty fast IF that's what you want to do. i.e you want to work hard enough to get it back.

Just like college or exNBA guys can still shoot the lights out at the gym, old runners still have that "gift". It's just buried.

10 years of no activity is too long for any physiological adaptations from exercise to remain. Most studies that look at the effects of detraining take subjects with 3 MONTHS of no exercise as detrained. Athletes tend to lose at least half their aerobic fitness in this time.

Genetics do determine how fast an athlete responds to training, this is proven, easily measurable and seen anecdotally all the time.

Muscle memory is a real effect but I do not know if it would still be there after 10 years.

The real long term gains that may survive the 10 years are skills which are learned, have been practiced a lot and are kept in your brain and nervous system. Skills like pushing yourself, your running economy, pacing, stride pattern etc.

If we were talking about 1 year, then things would be different.

It makes music sound good.

Density of mitochondria is part of it, but by no means the whole story. Capiliarity, blood flow volume, cardiac output, the mixture of muscle fibre types, better fat metabolism.... These things all contribute to performance and respond to aerobic training, but the extent of the response is in part genetically determined.

"Density of mitochondria is part of it, but by no means the whole story. Capiliarity, blood flow volume, cardiac output, the mixture of muscle fibre types, better fat metabolism"

Of these, only the mixture of muscle fibre types would survive 10 years. That's part of the "talent", which in itself is part of the answer. Other parts:

- learned motor skills

- mileage in the legs : acquired economy through bones, joints, ligaments, tendons -related adaptations

formerD1 wrote:

This is not because of some long-forgotten base from 10 years ago. It is simply a matter of better genes and natural ability.

Wrong, its that AND "muscle memory", to call it something simple.

Some years back I was talking with Peter Snell and we sort of got into this. He told me that he'd had his VO2 max tested three times in his life, once in his racing prime, once in the early 70s after he'd retired but was still young and finally when he was about 60, not sure of his exact age.

He said it was about the same in the last test as it had been in the first which was done when he could run under 4:00 for the mile. He concluded, based upon his test results and other things he's studied, that cardiovascular fitness doesn't go away once it's established unless "one becomes almost totally sedentary. It's muscles that lose fitness."

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Star wrote:

You are confusing the word.

It's bass.

It's a deep attitude that helps you run better.

Hmm... Please discus more.

Hmm... Sounds fishy to me.

This has been my experience as a post-D1 athlete just getting back into running after about ten years off.

I don't know shit about the science of it all, but after 3 years of a month here and month there (10 mpw when healthy, tops..) I'm closing the last 5K of my 13-15 mile long runs at 6:1X and faster off a just few months of injury free training. Expecting to comfortably race under 6:00 for 10K with half marathon in my sights eventually. Only recently have I felt the benefits of having some base (read: "aerobic strength") under me...

I still smoke cigarettes on weekends and probably drink more than most runners. I'll have to cut it out if they begin to feel like limiting factors. I chalk it up to good form/stride, being accustomed to running at a certain cadence, and definitely genes--- which is body type AFAIK since no one else on either side of my family is athletic.

I wonder if people are confusing base, which is accumulated aerobic capacity (which definitely atrophies..) for the ability/talent/memory aspects, which are not base the way I understand it.

Maybe not "capacity" in that last paragraph, because that seems like potential. That seems borderline speculative.

Perhaps accumulated aerobic fitness*** is better terminology. A current state of ability: Size of one's engine.

HRE wrote:

Some years back I was talking with Peter Snell and we sort of got into this. He told me that he'd had his VO2 max tested three times in his life, once in his racing prime, once in the early 70s after he'd retired but was still young and finally when he was about 60, not sure of his exact age.

He said it was about the same in the last test as it had been in the first which was done when he could run under 4:00 for the mile. He concluded, based upon his test results and other things he's studied, that cardiovascular fitness doesn't go away once it's established unless "one becomes almost totally sedentary. It's muscles that lose fitness."

Gunder Hagg was also tested 17 years after he retired and his was still off the charts.

I know neurons will make adaptations more quickly once they have already made it. Muscles might work in a similar way. That they might regain mirochondria more quickly when stress is initially reintroduced.

I thought I'd just share my experience. In HS I worked like a dog and brought my 2 mile just under 10 minutes, then I went to college and decided not to do track (didn't like the coach). I've tried getting back into it once or twice (on attempt 3 now), and I've done a few 5ks at various levels of preparation.

no training whatsoever: 19:15

3 weeks of base: 18:50

8-10 weeks of base: 17:29

Based on that I'd say there's some advantage to having previously run at a high level of intensity. I would guess learned running economy contributes a lot. Former elite swimmers have a similar advantage over Joe-schmo swimmer at the same level of fitness.

.[/quote]

10 years of no activity is too long for any physiological adaptations from exercise to remain. Most studies that look at the effects of detraining take subjects with 3 MONTHS of no exercise as detrained. Athletes tend to lose at least half their aerobic fitness in this time.

Genetics do determine how fast an athlete responds to training, this is proven, easily measurable and seen anecdotally all the time.

Muscle memory is a real effect but I do not know if it would still be there after 10 years.

The real long term gains that may survive the 10 years are skills which are learned, have been practiced a lot and are kept in your brain and nervous system. Skills like pushing yourself, your running economy, pacing, stride pattern etc.

If we were talking about 1 year, then things would be different.[/quote]

I agree that running economy, stride patttern and basic co-ordination/ nerve patterns persist for a long time. In college, I could run an all out 400 in 53-55, mile in 4:10-4:20 , 5k-8k races at 4:45-5 flat pace, base mileage at 5:40- 6:15 pace and easy runs at 6:30-7:00 pace.

I am in my late 30s now and have taken extended breaks due to other interests, injury, family, etc. I train intermittently but never go over 25 miles a week. I have basically slowed my pace down by one gear for each distance. However, that is due to my lack of conditioning not my "ability".

When I run a 17 flat 5k road race now, it doesn't feel nearly as hard as a 5k on the track or even an 8k cross country race did in college. Instead, it feels like a reasonably hard tempo run. My legs think/ know they can go faster, but I simply haven't maintained the engine.

In college 20x400 w/1 min rest in 70 was a breezy 5k tuneup. Now, I run 6x400 in 70 with 1 minute rest before my annual sub-5 mile challenge. The pace feels natural, but I know that if I try to keep doing repeats I'll get injured or cramp up due to subpar fitness. In a perfect world I probably should do more volume at a slower pace but I don't really see the point.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

All your base are belong to us.

At least quote Jason Fox on that one...

HS_Letsrunner wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

All your base are belong to us.

At least quote Jason Fox on that one...

... Especially with that Calvin & Hobbes reference...

The reason eh come back better is neurological training. Every physical task you perform is learned not only by your brain, but by your nervous system as a whole. Those people that get to be crazy fast have taught their bodies to move that much faster than you. That neuromuscular training come back very quickly (like riding a bike. Lol for cliches, but it's true)

You math doesn't add up to much base. So you are in your early 30s and haven't run for 10 years. Did you quit right out of college?

Okay so if you started in high school, and then quit after 4-5 years of college, then you might have a grand old total 8-10 years of running. That doesn't qualify you to talk like an expert on base! Base is what you get after 10-15 years of logging the miles.

Yes, I quit right after I graduated, like basically every other senior on the team.

I'm not expert on base or science whatsoever, which is why I asked people more informed to fill us in on the science (which they have!).

My modest goals are to 1) quit smoking 2) quit drinking (done!) 3) lose 8lbs 4) run a 2:50 marathon, 5) run Boston, Paris and NYC marathons and call it quits :) Oh, and I'm never running more than 50mpw ever again!