burning off muscle? - Page 2

Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald
>> <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Topic switch -- what's with the recent interest in
>> running anyway ? I mean, you've always followed the
>> research, but it appears that recently you're taking it
>> up a level by purchasing almost every running book on the
>> market, and hanging out in the running newsgroup. Are you
>> running these days, or are you just gravitating towards
>> weenie forums as the endurance work kicks in ?
>
>
> Running? Me. Hell no, only when chased.
>
> I'm simply very interested in endurance stuff right now (I
> tend to go through phases), looking at both similarities
> and differences between the training of different
> endurance sports interests me on both a research related
> and a personal level.
>
> For example, two a days/the morning run.
>
> Runners routinely do them, I recall seeing it mentioned
> that it has turned good runners into great runners
> (perhaps a hyperbolic statement).
>
> Swimmers have trained twice daily for years. Their
> workouts are more interval/intensity based.
>
> Based on recent research on gene expression/adaptation, I
> think it makes a lot of sense to do it this way. in short,
> you're keeping the genes involved in adaptation
> upregulated chronically which, given sufficient recovery,
> should generate better adaptation and performance.
>
> Cyclists never do this as far as I can tell, at least I've
> never seen it recommended or discussed. I don't think
> Xcountry skiiers or rowers do either but I have found very
> little on their training so far.
>
> I find this interesting. I wonder why this is the case.
>
> Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
> work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
> runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
> circumstances. A cyclist may go 1-6 hours.
>
> I think this is easy to explain: at a given speed running
> burns on average, 2-3 times the calories as cycling over
> the same time frame. In that energy utilization (invovled
> with biochemical signalling pathways via something called
> AMPk) is a key aspect of adaptation, that would imply that
> a running workout of 20-60 minute equates to 1-3 hours of
> cycling, 1-2 hours running equates to 2-6 hours of cycling
> or so. This is consistent with generally suggested norms.
>
> perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is simply
> one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60 minute
> morning run (in addition to the second run) would mean 1.5
> to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6 later in
> the day. Would leave no time for anything else.
>
> On and on it goes.
>
> Lyle
>
>
Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
the rides.

A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning ride,
a long nap and going on an evening ride when the temps cool
down. toddwells.net is one guy that talks about doing two a
days a lot. He's one of those guys that doesn't need to know
how or why, so you won't see any physiology on his website.

gym gravity wrote:

> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>

>> perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is
>> simply one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60
>> minute morning run (in addition to the second run) would
>> mean 1.5 to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6
>> later in the day. Would leave no time for anything else.
>>
>> On and on it goes.
>>
>> Lyle
>>
>>
> Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
> rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
> prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
> the rides.

Uhh, didn't I suggest that in the one unsnipped section I
left above? Still, if adding a 2 hour spin in the morning
improved performance, I bet pros would find a way to get it
in. Go 6-8am, 2 hour spin to get things going gene
expression wise. Eat a couple of meals at 8, long ride from
12-1pm on or even later depending on the length. Possibly.

>
> A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
> days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
> take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning
> ride, a long nap and going on an evening ride when the
> temps cool down. toddwells.net is one guy that talks about
> doing two a days a lot. He's one of those guys that
> doesn't need to know how or why, so you won't see any
> physiology on his website.

Didn't know that, probably ought to delve into mountain bike
training a bit more.

Thanks for the heads up.

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> On 2004-06-30, Lyle McDonald
> <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
>>work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
>>runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
>>circumstances.
>
>
> Besides marathon guys who are training slower than 6
> minutes per mile (e.g. non-elite marathoners), and
> ultramarathon runners, there are few who go beyond 2 hrs.
> I suspect muscle damage may have something to do with it.
> Cycling burns the hell out of your legs while you're doing
> it, but you get no eccentric work and not nearly as much
> DOMS (I get almost none after a tough ride even when I'm
> completely detrained).

Yes, and this is certainly another difference between
the sports.

I think it's also why swimmers can do intensity stuff daily,
no impact forces and relatively low efficiency in the water
may prevent CNS overtraining with constant speed/high
intensity work.

still, I wonder how much more muscle damage occurs as
duration increases with running, assuming you've built
up to it....

Lyle

> Lyle McDonald wrote:

>>
>> Or what about the differences in duration of endurance
>> work between say cycling and running. A long run for a
>> runnr might be 2 hours, might push to 3 under some
>> circumstances. A cyclist may go 1-6 hours.
>>
...
>> perhaps the reason that cyclists don't do 2/days is
>> simply one of time. To get the equivalent of a 45-60
>> minute morning run (in addition to the second run) would
>> mean 1.5 to 2-3 hours on the bike. Then an additional 5-6
>> later in the day. Would leave no time for anything else.
>>

gym gravity wrote:

> Road racers (professional or nearly) tend to do such long
> rides it isn't possible because of the length of the most
> prestigious races. They sandwich their interval stuff into
> the rides.
>
> A lot of pro mountain bikers on the other hand do two a
> days, since the length of their races is 2-3 hours, they
> take the liberty of having a big lunch after a morning
> ride, a long nap and going on an evening ride when the
> temps cool down.

Following these thoughts (long workouts make it impractical
to do multiple workouts in 1 day and duration of cycling
road races being longer than mt bike races), wouldn't
predominance of 2/day vs 1 longer/day workout be more
related to goals and duration of events and maybe prep time
(driving, changing, warmup, etc), rather than discipline.

To be sure, some doing long events will also do some short
intensive workouts, but probably only as their recovery from
the long workouts allows. I'm suggesting this because where
I am (Alaska) we have winter races (not any that I plan on
doing) of 100, 350, and 1100 miles in length (14 hrs to a
couple weeks) where you can run, xc ski, or mt bike, but
have to maintain whatever weapon you started with. So the
sport doesn't dictate the length.

Of course if people cross-train or doing multi-sport, then
they are more likely to do 2/day also.

Just a different perspective.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
news:10e64iui1et8i77@corp.supernews.com...
> Didn't know that, probably ought to delve into mountain
> bike training
a
> bit more.

Riding the roads on a skinny tire bike is like running the
roads, boring. Besides, you get a much better workout
mile for mile even if you pedal the Mountain bike on the
roads - lots heavier, more work, etc..

If your looking for building running endurance and staying
injury free, try making one of the two a days the MB.

-DougF

> I think it's also why swimmers can do intensity stuff
> daily, no impact forces and relatively low efficiency in
> the water may prevent CNS overtraining with constant
> speed/high intensity work.
>
> still, I wonder how much more muscle damage occurs as
> duration
increases
> with running, assuming you've built up to it....

As I build up my long runs to 5 to 8 hours I don't find my
muscle damage is increased as the time increases. If that
was the case my recovery would not take a day or two but a
week or two or end up in a fetal position. The secret is to
build the time within your recovery abilities. Unfortunately
measuring one's recovery ability takes great patience, years
and experimentation.

-DougF

Dot wrote:

> Following these thoughts (long workouts make it
> impractical to do multiple workouts in 1 day and duration
> of cycling road races being longer than mt bike races),
> wouldn't predominance of 2/day vs 1 longer/day workout be
> more related to goals and duration of events and maybe
> prep time (driving, changing, warmup, etc), rather than
> discipline.
>
> To be sure, some doing long events will also do some short
> intensive workouts, but probably only as their recovery
> from the long workouts allows. I'm suggesting this because
> where I am (Alaska) we have winter races (not any that I
> plan on doing) of 100, 350, and 1100 miles in length (14
> hrs to a couple weeks) where you can run, xc ski, or mt
> bike, but have to maintain whatever weapon you started
> with. So the sport doesn't dictate the length.
>
> Of course if people cross-train or doing multi-sport, then
> they are more likely to do 2/day also.
>
> Just a different perspective.
>
> Dot
>

not sure what you are saying, because what I was saying was
that the training was related to goals and not to the
discipline (Maybe *I* wasn't explicit enough)...that there
are a bunch of pro-cross country mountain bikers that do two
a days because they feel they can, since this type of race
is always 2-3 hours long. They aren't limited in time to
train, They have dedicated themselves to the sport to the
degree that they have moved and live an a climate that is
favorable for training (Tuscon, Durango, southern
California) so they don't have to drive to a trail head.
Ultra mtb (12hr races, 24 hr races, and beyond) and marathon
mtb (~100km) are still emerging sports, so when I say "pro"
I'm talking about the traditional NORBA and UCI ($)
sanctioned races. The ultra guys train more like pro road
riders (by that I mean UCI ($) pro) in doing the majority of
their training on long rides, most of the time on the road
(because of the beating that riding off road will put on the
body and the bikes). The "pioneers" of these races are ex-
UCI pros that have slowed down with age and still love
riding and racing, or guys that have completely burned out
on the competitiveness of the "circuits".

To throw a spanner in the works, by the way, one of the best
24 hour mtb racers trains almost exclusively with 3 hour
"intense" rides. He says that when he gets into the grove
for 24 hour pace, everything feels slow and easy. I think
this has to do with the level of competition in fringe
sports, that he can beat lots of guys that theoretically are
training smarter. Not so when you look at the traditional
euro pro road and mtb races. The level of competion is
thick, specialization is key, and if you aren't doing
everything to maximize your strong points, while keeping
your weaknesses in check, you'll be off the back and out of
a contract ($$$).

Doug Freese wrote in message ...
>
>> I think it's also why swimmers can do intensity stuff
>> daily, no impact forces and relatively low efficiency in
>> the water may prevent CNS overtraining with constant
>> speed/high intensity work.
>>
>> still, I wonder how much more muscle damage occurs as
>> duration
>increases
>> with running, assuming you've built up to it....
>
>As I build up my long runs to 5 to 8 hours I don't find my
>muscle damage is increased as the time increases. If that
>was the case my recovery would not take a day or two but a
>week or two or end up in a fetal position. The secret is to
>build the time within your recovery abilities.
>Unfortunately measuring one's recovery ability takes great
>patience, years and experimentation.

As one attempting to learn to go longer consistently in
training this reads very true. Knowing your recovery
ability is the most important and something I've yet to
master by far.

- Tony
>
>-DougF

gym gravity wrote:

> not sure what you are saying, because what I was saying
> was that the training was related to goals and not to the
> discipline (Maybe *I* wasn't explicit enough)...that there
> are a bunch of pro-cross country mountain bikers that do
> two a days because they feel they can, since this type of
> race is always 2-3 hours long. They aren't limited in time
> to train, They have dedicated themselves to the sport to
> the degree that they have moved and live an a climate that
> is favorable for training (Tuscon, Durango, southern
> California) so they don't have to drive to a trail head.
> Ultra mtb (12hr races, 24 hr races, and beyond) and
> marathon mtb (~100km) are still emerging sports, so when I
> say "pro" I'm talking about the traditional NORBA and UCI
> ($) sanctioned races. The ultra guys train more like pro
> road riders (by that I mean UCI ($) pro) in doing the
> majority of their training on long rides, most of the time
> on the road (because of the beating that riding off road
> will put on the body and the bikes). The "pioneers" of
> these races are ex-UCI pros that have slowed down with age
> and still love riding and racing, or guys that have
> completely burned out on the competitiveness of the
> "circuits".
>
> To throw a spanner in the works, by the way, one of the
> best 24 hour mtb racers trains almost exclusively with 3
> hour "intense" rides. He says that when he gets into the
> grove for 24 hour pace, everything feels slow and easy. I
> think this has to do with the level of competition in
> fringe sports, that he can beat lots of guys that
> theoretically are training smarter. Not so when you look
> at the traditional euro pro road and mtb races. The level
> of competion is thick, specialization is key, and if you
> aren't doing everything to maximize your strong points,
> while keeping your weaknesses in check, you'll be off the
> back and out of a contract ($$$).

There are also drastic differences between mtb and road
racing. Road racing (excepting pure TT) relies heavily on
team tactics and strategy as much as fitness. Add in the
additional factor of stage races (where winning the overall
may not mean winning all or even any individual stages) and
that's another factor. MTB is more of an individual sport,
closer to an individual time trial with a lot of
technical/skill requirements. Running appears to have some
team tactics (rabbits and such) but no stage races that I'm
aware of. The benefits of drafting are far less (compared to
cycling where a rider can save oodles of energy letting a
teammate pull him). Many cyclists on the team are there to
support the rider that actually has a chance of winning, I
don't know that this is the case in running and I'm sure
it's not hte case in MTB.

Lyle

gym gravity wrote:
>
> not sure what you are saying, because what I was saying
> was that the training was related to goals and not to the
> discipline (Maybe *I* wasn't explicit enough)...

ooops, got it. I hadn't interpreted the more general nature
of your statement.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Running appears to have some team tactics (rabbits and
> such) but no stage races that I'm aware of.

Some of the multi-day running races, like Marathon des
Sables, Tuscarora 6-day, and several (many?) others, are at
least partly stage races while in others you're free to go
as you please.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd
Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Dot wrote:
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> Running appears to have some team tactics (rabbits and
>> such) but no stage races that I'm aware of.
>
>
> Some of the multi-day running races, like Marathon des
> Sables, Tuscarora 6-day, and several (many?) others, are
> at least partly stage races while in others you're free to
> go as you please.
>

Ah, learned something new today, didn't realize there were
multi-day running races. Still, they seem the exception
rather than the norm.

Lylle

"Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in message
news:10ec2g0l56mbc56@corp.supernews.com...

> Ah, learned something new today, didn't realize there were
> multi-day running races. Still, they seem the exception
> rather than the norm.

There are always some crazies that feel the need to take the
sport to another level. Fairly common are the 24-72 hour
runs which is some dizzying small loop like 400 meter track
where the winner is the one with the largest total miles.
Then there is the Sri Chinmoy 3,100 mile race. These are not
staged in in the purest sense but they sure do lake a few
days and sleep or not to sleep is your option. There are
always individuals that are running across some continent or
multi-continents or the entire Appalachian (to name just one
) trail. These are staged in that you try to run/walk N
miles a day.

-DougF

That is just crazy!
"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:uibGc.58753$a92.43894@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:10ec2g0l56mbc56@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Ah, learned something new today, didn't realize there
> > were multi-day running races. Still, they seem the
> > exception rather than the norm.
>
> There are always some crazies that feel the need to take
> the sport to another level. Fairly common are the 24-72
> hour runs which is some dizzying small loop like 400 meter
> track where the winner is the one with the largest total
> miles. Then there is the Sri Chinmoy 3,100 mile race.
> These are not staged in in the purest sense but they sure
> do lake a few days and sleep or not to sleep is your
> option. There are always individuals that are running
> across some continent or multi-continents or the entire
> Appalachian (to name just one ) trail. These are staged in
> that you try to run/walk N miles a day.
>
> -DougF

On 2004-07-05, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> "Lyle McDonald" <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:10ec2g0l56mbc56@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Ah, learned something new today, didn't realize there
>> were multi-day running races. Still, they seem the
>> exception rather than the norm.
>
> There are always some crazies that feel the need to take
> the sport to another level. Fairly common are the 24-72
> hour runs which is some dizzying small loop like 400 meter
> track where the winner is the one with the largest total
> miles. Then there is the Sri Chinmoy 3,100 mile

Have you heard of those 24hr relays ? Basically, everyone
takes turns at running a mile. And repeats over all night.
Some of my teammates have run these.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/