Why is 90 minutes a long run? Do the special adaptations start at 90min or have you already benefitted?

90 minutes is long when people are over 50 years old. At that age your body changes and energy is shifted to growing ear and nose hair .

stuff people say... wrote:

Let think this through wrote:

No, Canova does specific workouts for fat adaption. For example, sometimes doing two marathon specific workouts a day in which he has them eat no carbohydrates between the two workouts.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3923991&page=2

The point of that training is to get used to running at marathon pace when somewhat glycogen depleted. This is not a 'fat adaption' it's a skill adaption, maintaining a pace for longer. Your body knows how to burn fat it doesn't need to be taught. Fat adaption is just stuff people say, because they don't know any better.

You say tomato and I say tomato.

One problem with this sort of discussion is that the word long is subjective. Getting a long prison sentence is different from waiting a long time in a dentist's waiting room or being stuck in traffic for a long time. I think a big reason most runners think of 90 minutes as a long run is because most of their runs are somewhat shorter. But some guys run that long or even longer regularly. Bob Deines routinely ran for two hours each day six times a week with a run closing in on three hours on Sundays. Jeff Julian, who I mentioned earlier, routinely ran 20 or more miles each morning before work during his base phase. I doubt that either of these guys would call a 90 minute run "long."

On the other end, a jogger who runs 20-25 minutes in his runs is likely to feel like he's doing a long run if he goes for 40-50 minutes. Most of us here would disagree but that's mostly based on our own experiences just as the jogger's use of the word is based on his.

Let think this through wrote:

You say tomato and I say tomato.

You say stuff that other people say and I tell you why it's nonsense.

Running at race pace when slightly glycogen depleted is beneficial in improving efficiency and there are lots of ways to do it. But it's not a 'fat adaption' it's a skills adaption and the lack of recognition of this fact is behind a huge amount of the BS that people talk about running.

stuff people say... wrote:

Let think this through wrote:

You say tomato and I say tomato.

You say stuff that other people say and I tell you why it's nonsense.

Running at race pace when slightly glycogen depleted is beneficial in improving efficiency and there are lots of ways to do it. But it's not a 'fat adaption' it's a skills adaption and the lack of recognition of this fact is behind a huge amount of the BS that people talk about running.

Arguing over semantics.

You can spend years thinking you know stuff and acting on it. When you find out you were wrong and why, you might consider a more enlightened approach?

Depends how much you really care though doesn't it?

gold medal with walk breaks wrote:

Bob schul country wrote:

Bobs 1964 Gold medal year...his longest run was his 1/2 mile warm ups and cool downs. The whole year.

I know this because he told me

So you're saying he didn't race?

We are talking about training here. Sure he raced. He was undefeated at all distance he ran and held 5 American records and 1 world record for that year with no "long runs"

stuff people say... wrote:

Let think this through wrote:

No, Canova does specific workouts for fat adaption. For example, sometimes doing two marathon specific workouts a day in which he has them eat no carbohydrates between the two workouts.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3923991&page=2

The point of that training is to get used to running at marathon pace when somewhat glycogen depleted. This is not a 'fat adaption' it's a skill adaption, maintaining a pace for longer. Your body knows how to burn fat it doesn't need to be taught. Fat adaption is just stuff people say, because they don't know any better.

So this is your new thing, Jon?

stuff people say... wrote:

You can spend years thinking you know stuff and acting on it. When you find out you were wrong and why, you might consider a more enlightened approach?

Depends how much you really care though doesn't it?

Jon Orange detected!!

OK, you started out with:

One person replied to that with:

So you replied with:

So someone replied with:

In which you replied with:

In which the person corrected you showing Canova saying he does specific workouts to work on the bodies abablity to use fat as fuel. When you said one did not need to do this.

So than you back track, claiming that it is not about fat adaptation. But about getting the, " to get used to running at marathon pace when somewhat glycogen depleted. This is not a 'fat adaption' it's a skill adaption, maintaining a pace for longer." When you have depleted your glycogen storage, what does your body than use as energy?

After this response the person said:

So you replied with:

So, you do need to work on your body using other sources as fuel when you are running out of glycogen? But at first you said one does not need to work on this? Than you followed up with:

So, what is it? At first you said it is nonsense, and one does not need to work on using other sources of fuel when you run out of sugar. When that person showed Canova saying he does work on this aspect. You than respond with, it is about improving efficiency at race pace, when you are becoming glycogen depleted. Just out of curiosity, when you run out of sugar. Than what does your body use as fuel?

Radical CJ wrote:

A lot of websites cite the 90 mins, but I think it's suitability depends on the distance you are training for.

90 mins is inadequate for marathon training.

In my opinion it is probably also inadequate for half marathon training, unless you are a beginner who's goal is completion only.

Its suitability, not it’s

Whose goal, not who’s

can you follow the logic??? wrote:

So, what is it? At first you said it is nonsense, and one does not need to work on using other sources of fuel when you run out of sugar. When that person showed Canova saying he does work on this aspect. You than respond with, it is about improving efficiency at race pace, when you are becoming glycogen depleted. Just out of curiosity, when you run out of sugar. Than what does your body use as fuel?

You are aware of Jon Orange and his theories, no?

He's going to duck and dodge and then bring up Lance and his TT up a specific Alp and then hit repeat.

This is a huge Ask wrote:

can you follow the logic??? wrote:

So, what is it? At first you said it is nonsense, and one does not need to work on using other sources of fuel when you run out of sugar. When that person showed Canova saying he does work on this aspect. You than respond with, it is about improving efficiency at race pace, when you are becoming glycogen depleted. Just out of curiosity, when you run out of sugar. Than what does your body use as fuel?

You are aware of Jon Orange and his theories, no?

He's going to duck and dodge and then bring up Lance and his TT up a specific Alp and then hit repeat.

Jon orange, the person who doesn't understand how blood doping works.

quickndirty wrote:

ou might find this link more interesting, where Hadd discusses the Dudley results in more detail, including specifically "THE INFLUENCE OF EXERCISE DURATION", with some graphs:

The 90 minutes versus 60 minutes conclusion was strictly about slow-twitch red fibers. When looking at fast-twitch red fibers, for example, these adaptations maxed out at 75 minutes and 90 minutes (depending on intensity).

There was also an East German study which evaluated the relation of duration of training to performance improvement. My recollection is something like this:

- up to 1:45, a linear return from training

- between 1:45 and 2:05, an even better return, like a double bonus

- thereafter a diminishing return

That Dudley study was on rats, so while interesting with respect to fiber-type stimulation, it would be a bit spurious to extrapolate the times to humans.

If anyone has a link or the authors/title of that East German study, that would be great! Though we might similarly raise eyebrows, as extrapolating times and findings to humans without prodigious volumes of anabolic steroids, amphetamines, and growth hormones circulating in their systems would probably also be a bit spurious,

Running 90 minutes probably produces special adaptations that make you good at running 90 minutes.

The idea that they make you good at running a minute and 45 seconds, or even 13 minutes, is nonsense though. Good example of overthinking things.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Running 90 minutes probably produces special adaptations that make you good at running 90 minutes.

The idea that they make you good at running a minute and 45 seconds, or even 13 minutes, is nonsense though. Good example of overthinking things.

So for the last 50+ years all the elite runners from the 800m-5000m(with a few exceptions) have been training wrong?

prove this "all with a few exceptions" truism. I don't believe it.

Even if they nearly all did, I still wouldn't believe it was effective. Track's dirty little secret is most elite coaches aren't geniuses. Success always boils down to the race-specific part of their training program, whatever form it takes. It hardly matters how you slice up VO2max and speed work, as long as the athlete does the right volume and frequency, with the right timing for race season, and doesn't overtrain.

Bad Wigins wrote:

prove this "all with a few exceptions" truism. I don't believe it.

Even if they nearly all did, I still wouldn't believe it was effective. Track's dirty little secret is most elite coaches aren't geniuses. Success always boils down to the race-specific part of their training program, whatever form it takes. It hardly matters how you slice up VO2max and speed work, as long as the athlete does the right volume and frequency, with the right timing for race season, and doesn't overtrain.

You already won moran of the year, you can take the rest of the year off. These posts do not count for next year.

so, you can't prove anything? Figures.