Let's end the mileage debate once and for all

This is nonsense. The only time Ngeny beat El Guerrouj was in Sydney. Do you have a source that says Ngeny only ran 50 mpw, or did you make that up, too?

You sure are focused on muscle twitch ratio. Have you had a muscle biopsy? Some runners seem highly focused on twitch ratio. So many runners make excuses based on perceived twitch ratios. Most posters on letsrun have never raced sub-55 400m. Most posters on letsrun have not and will not race sub-32:30 10000m. If twitch ratio were much of a reason for performance, those two groups should not cross. If twitch ratio actually meant a lot, no sub-32:30 10K gal/guy should ever be able to race sub-55 400m and vice versa. It's hard to place value on twitch ratio due to the infrequency of biopsies. If there were data showing twitch ratio at six days old, six weeks old, six months old, age 6, age 16, age 26, age 36 and so on and ratios never changed then the science of twitch ratio would have some value. Twitch ratio biopsies are merely a snap shot in time. Humans shed cells and grow new cells everyday of one's life.

Best way to see if you are slow or fast twitch is your vertical jump, not how fast you run.

Best way to see if you are slow or fast twitch is your vertical wrote:

Best way to see if you are slow or fast twitch is your vertical jump, not how fast you run.

Verticle jumping is not a highly scientific answer to twitch ratio debate. As one goes from new born to age fifteen and at the same time, one's verticle jumping ability passes 20 inches, does one's muscle twitch ratio change over the years? By the time one is age 65 and one cannot vertically jump more than two inches, has muscle twitch ratio changed again? Verticle jumping ability could be merely: coordination, height to weight ratio, strength to weight ratio and wear & tear on Achilles.

too focus on twitch ratio wrote:

Best way to see if you are slow or fast twitch is your vertical wrote:

Best way to see if you are slow or fast twitch is your vertical jump, not how fast you run.

Verticle jumping is not a highly scientific answer to twitch ratio debate. As one goes from new born to age fifteen and at the same time, one's verticle jumping ability passes 20 inches, does one's muscle twitch ratio change over the years? By the time one is age 65 and one cannot vertically jump more than two inches, has muscle twitch ratio changed again? Verticle jumping ability could be merely: coordination, height to weight ratio, strength to weight ratio and wear & tear on Achilles.

Yes.

"Types IIA and IIB muscle fibers decrease with age in the area percentage, fiber number percentage, and mean fiber area, whereas Type I fibers increase in area and number but not in size. Morphologically, Type II fibers appeared smaller and flatter. Investigations suggest deterioration in muscle quality and balancing coordination in elderly patients. A research done provided data to help determine treatments for reversing muscle fiber changes and reducing the number of falls and related fractures in patients.[6]The reduction in number of muscle fibers contributes more to the decrease of whole muscle cross-sectional area than does the reduction in area of individual fibers. The individual fast-twitch type II fibers decrease in cross-sectional area suggest that the relative contribution of fast-twitch type II fibers to force generation is less in the older adult."

It is safe to say that seniors, ages 65 to 85 are more sedentary than 15 to 35 year olds. Sixty-five to 85 year olds often only walk or swim slowly. Besides a few on letsrun, not too many in 65 to 85 year old group are doing circuit training, plyometrics or doing 50 & 100 (yard or metre) sprints. Changes from fast twitch to slow twitch for seniors bolsters my theory that muscle twitch ratios are activity driven from birth.

"suggest that genetic factors underlie 30 to 80 percent of the differences among individuals in traits related to athletic performance. "

The thing with fiber ratios is it's not important for 80% of runners, who are in the middle, but extremely important for those who are heavy FT or heavy ST for their events.

Yes, most here don't run sub 55 400m/33 10k, talent is obviously king. When we say a 1500m runner with a PB of 3:33 and 47-48s 400m speed is FT and one with a PB of 3:33 and 51s 400m speed is ST, we are comparing two talented runners with different strengths.

Biopsy is not needed, you can do max lactate test (400-600m all-out) and check the lactate value every 2 min until it drops. If it gets 15-20, it's certainly FT if it only gets to 11 it's ST, in-between would be a mix (assuming 5k distance).

A world class marathoner might only get up to 7 mmol, whereas a world class 400m runner can get to 25 mmol and higher.

Other tests are jumps (vertical, or single-leg-hops), doing a set of 100m repeats with other runners with same 5k PR (if you always finish last, you are the ST guy), running a half-marathon with other runners with same 5k PR (if you smoke them in the half, you are more ST), or even simply watching the way how someone runs (bouncy stride vs grinder).

Changes in fibers are possible, to some extent. Changes from ST to FT are impossible, but FT can change to ST (in a study on XC skiers, they had 11% more ST after 8 years of endurance training). So you can't turn a Lagat into a Bolt, but you can turn him into a good marathoner which is exactly what happened.

Piano_Man87 wrote:

jamin wrote:

Let's restrict the discussion to 5k-10k distance races. These are races where the amount of time you run each day on "Low-mileage" is still 2x to 4x the amount of the time the race takes to complete.

5K/10K guys still do high mileage. Lowest I've heard of is Lagat at like 60-70mpw. Most of these other guys are more like 80-90mpw. Ben True, Chris Solinsky. Some guys even more than that.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7046641

Like I said, the mileage debate has been over for years. If 25-40mpw yielded elite results, then show me an elite who runs that small amount.

Bruce Tulloh

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

So you're proving mileage is over rated by by citing a rigged study that you made up and other imaginary scenarios? there's a reason all the best distance runners 5000 on up run lots of miles. It definitely works.

Bruce Tulloh didn't run a lot of miles so it definitely doesn't!

Mileage makes champs wrote:

No, just no. Slow vs fast twitch runner mileage requirements will be different.

Curious about this comment. Ive heard its more important for FT runners to keep easy days easier because it is stressing the system they arent as strong in but hadnt heard about mileage difference. Can you shed some more light on this?

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Bolt is perfect build to run witchever distance he wanted.

Bolt is far from the perfect marathon build. at 6'3" he is too big to succeed at the longer distances

From a mileage perspective it still seems like FT guys can get away with higher mileage.

Peter Snell ran 100 mile weeks. He ran 1:44 on grass. Do not give me this crap that he was more ST. If you run 1:44 on grass you’re FT.

Ovette ran over 100 miles per week in base phase. He was also FT. He was a sprinter in his youth.

Centro was 90-100+ per week. He has run 1:44 and has sub-50 400m speed. Maybe as fast as 48.

Rupp, Levins, Farah? They had good sprint speed. I have a tough time saying anybody with sub-50 400m speed is ST. These three all ran high mileage.

The only way to really find out is by trial and error. Try running 80, 90, 100 miles per week. Give it time to soak in. Give yourself time to get there.

Ultimately the musculoskeletal system needs to be strong enough to handle the mileage and you need to recover properly (sleep, eat enough, etc.)

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

So you're proving mileage is over rated by by citing a rigged study that you made up and other imaginary scenarios? there's a reason all the best distance runners 5000 on up run lots of miles. It definitely works.

Bruce Tulloh didn't run a lot of miles so it definitely doesn't!

You're talking about a elite from the early 60s with a 5000 PB of 13:49.

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Piano_Man87 wrote:

5K/10K guys still do high mileage. Lowest I've heard of is Lagat at like 60-70mpw. Most of these other guys are more like 80-90mpw. Ben True, Chris Solinsky. Some guys even more than that.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7046641

Like I said, the mileage debate has been over for years. If 25-40mpw yielded elite results, then show me an elite who runs that small amount.

Bruce Tulloh

An elite from 60 years ago when people knew sweet FA about training?

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Bruce Tulloh

An elite from 60 years ago when people knew sweet FA about training?

So Arthur Lydiard knew sweet FA about training?

Bruce Tulloh himself said that he later doubled his mileage but could never improve on his times.

Just a reminder wrote:

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Bruce Tulloh didn't run a lot of miles so it definitely doesn't!

You're talking about a elite from the early 60s with a 5000 PB of 13:49.

You're from the 2019's. What's your 5000PB?

Piano_Man87 wrote:

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Bruce Tulloh

An elite from 60 years ago when people knew sweet FA about training?

Jim Spivey! 13:15 at 5000m, 3:31 at 1500m !

Truce Bulloh wrote:

Bruce Tulloh himself said that he later doubled his mileage but could never improve on his times.

Exceptions do not prove the rule. Besides, you should've went with someone with a faster PB like Doug Padilla. Who ran 13:15 5000 off of just 50-60 MPW. Even in this context, Doug ran 30 odd seconds faster than Bruce who only did 30 MPW, which I leave what you conclude from that.

PS. Bruce did not make the 1960 Olympic 5000 finial and the person won won it was Murray Halberg.