Lyle: HR data, episode 1 - Page 3

"Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<GabFc.42657$a92.16302@twister.nyc.rr.com>...

> > FWIW I cannot really brag about my 5M pace, but I
> > would out- run any N.Y. poster in this newsgroup at
> > 70% HRmax:-)

> Hmmm, why N.Y. he asks? Ok I'll nibble.(...)

Sorry, I didn't intend it as troll for you - I meant N.Y.C.
and I plain forgot there is a N.Y....

Anders

"Anders Lustig" <touho3@excite.com> wrote in message
news:e621e2ab.0407052319.70b48caf@posting.google.com...
> "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<GabFc.42657$a92.16302@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
>
>
> > > FWIW I cannot really brag about my 5M pace, but I
> > > would out- run any N.Y. poster in this newsgroup at
> > > 70% HRmax:-)
>
> > Hmmm, why N.Y. he asks? Ok I'll nibble.(...)
>
> Sorry, I didn't intend it as troll for you - I meant
> N.Y.C.

Oh yes, NYC should be separate state/country. The
negative stigma that is attached to NYC is unbelievable.
Many of my races pull people from 5 or six of the
surrounding states and as you meet people that invariably
ask, where are you from. I usually respond UPSTATE N.Y,
where we steal your women and not your wallet. They
instantly understand the metaphor.

> and I plain forgot there is a N.Y....

Flush NYC and we have a beautiful state.

-DougF

Anders Lustig wrote:

> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
> message news:<10eas13ronlpb1f@corp.supernews.com>...

>>Fair enough. Still, seems hard to see how they are getting
>>much if any adaptation (outside of practicing what is a
>>very unusual movement pattern) of many hours at such a low
>>intensity.
>
>
> Those hours are usually interspersed with short bouts at a
> higher intensity, whether natural intervals such as up-
> hills or "technical intervals". Although the percentage of
> volume (and the sheer volume in itself) ata low intensity
> is high, there is no room for long, dumb, "merely fat-
> burning" workouts.

Fair enough.

>
>
>
>>Might be like swimming in this regards: the rather unusual
>>biomechanics of the sport (in addition to involving the
>>relatively less used upper body msucles) require a ton of
>>overdistance work (relative to the comopetition event).
>
>
> I cannot think of the biomechanics as unusual, but
> certainly XC skiing differs from cycling or running
> in that the technical aspect requires constantly a
> lot of work.

As well, the involvement of upper body in a quite aerobic
fashion. Have seen it suggsted that this is another part
of the copious swim volumes, you're trying to
induce/maintain aerobic adaptations in muscle groups
(upper body) that receive literally zero aerobic stimulus
through daily activity.

In contrast to legs which are receiving (admittedly low
level) stimulation during all daily activity.

talkign to a friend who was a collegiate swimmer, he told me
that upper body endurance/strength would go away much faster
than lower which would tend to support that idea.

There is also the issue of adding upper body work to lower
body in terms of skweing the VO2/HR relationship, HR will be
higher with upper body work at any fixed VO2. As I metioned
in a followup, it maybe that a 140 HR in skiing corresponds
to a higher HR in non-upper body involvement activities. So
the %VO2 max being trained at is actually no different for a
skiier at 150 vs. a runner/cyclist at 150.

A medline search turned up some comparative data between
different activities but I have to pull the studies at the
library to see what's up.

Lyle

Lyle McDonald wrote:

> Anders Lustig wrote:
>
>> Lyle McDonald <lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote in
>> message news:<10eas13ronlpb1f@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
>>> Fair enough. Still, seems hard to see how they are
>>> getting much if any adaptation (outside of practicing
>>> what is a very unusual movement pattern) of many hours
>>> at such a low intensity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Those hours are usually interspersed with short bouts at
>> a higher intensity, whether natural intervals such as up-
>> hills or "technical intervals". Although the percentage
>> of volume (and the sheer volume in itself) ata low
>> intensity is high, there is no room for long, dumb,
>> "merely fat- burning" workouts.
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Might be like swimming in this regards: the rather
>>> unusual biomechanics of the sport (in addition to
>>> involving the relatively less used upper body msucles)
>>> require a ton of overdistance work (relative to the
>>> comopetition event).
>>
>>
>>
>> I cannot think of the biomechanics as unusual, but
>> certainly XC skiing differs from cycling or running
>> in that the technical aspect requires constantly a
>> lot of work.
>
>
> As well, the involvement of upper body in a quite aerobic
> fashion. Have seen it suggsted that this is another part
> of the copious swim volumes, you're trying to
> induce/maintain aerobic adaptations in muscle groups
> (upper body) that receive literally zero aerobic stimulus
> through daily activity.
>
> In contrast to legs which are receiving (admittedly low
> level) stimulation during all daily activity.
>
> talkign to a friend who was a collegiate swimmer, he told
> me that upper body endurance/strength would go away much
> faster than lower which would tend to support that idea.
>
> There is also the issue of adding upper body work to
> lower body in terms of skweing the VO2/HR relationship,
> HR will be higher with upper body work at any fixed VO2.
> As I metioned in a followup, it maybe that a 140 HR in
> skiing corresponds to a higher HR in non-upper body
> involvement activities. So the %VO2 max being trained at
> is actually no different for a skiier at 150 vs. a
> runner/cyclist at 150.

Let's try that again.

So the %VO2 max being traind at is actually no different for
a skiier at 140 vs. a runner cyclist at 150.

Lyle

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-02, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Kenyans and middle-distance speedsters aside, for those
>> of us who like to cycle or trail run for several hours,
>> slow is good and HRMs can be useful
to
>> moderate the pace in the beginning to save some glycogen
>> for later. Even
if
>> you eat as much as possible, after a few hours you'll run
>> out of glycogen and wear out your legs if you start too
>> fast. This being said, I think
that
>> once one is comfortable with the kind of mpw they want to
>> run, they
should
>> gradually bring up their speed.
>
>IMO it's better to add more speed work if one can,
>especially LT work.
>
>> For example, I have lots of type IIa (fast twitch
>> aerobic/anaerobic)
muscle
>> fibers, but less type 1 (slow twitch aerobic). Probably I
>> have lots of
type
>> IIb also but for distance running these aren't used. I
>> have to research this more, but from over 20 years of
>> training on the bike and running, I think type IIa take
>> alot longer to recover than type I because they are
more
>> versitile but not as efficient aeobically as type I.
>
>What makes you you think that ?
>
>> Therefore people like me - and I know this from
>> experience - probably do better running longer less times
>> per week than the more frequent but shorter workouts you
>> advocate. Type IIa fibers are good for 1 to 2 hours then
>> they are pretty much degraded in performance and take a
>> while to recover. For me to
build
>> my ability to do orienteering races (80 to 100 mins on
>> back to back days) I've found over the years that running
>> a few times a week longer simply works better than
>> running daily shorter runs with a long run on the
weekend.
>> When I run daily it wears out my legs even if the runs
>> are short. When you're telling people they have to start
>> running more frequently to
improve
>> their running that may not be the best course for
>> everyone.
>
>If you like running the way you run, that's fine -- it may
>even be good as far as your goals are concerned. But IMO
>the above reasoning about
recovery is
>just silly. Given time, anyone (anyone who can complete an
>ultra anyway)
can
>adapt to running 5 times a week (the key word here is
>"adapt"!), and they
can
>usually do this fairly quickly. This training protocol may
>not be optimal
for
>competing in ultras or running orienteering races, or even
>providing you
with
>maximal enjoyment -- but it's nonsense to say that it
>places onerous
demands on
>recovery.

I didn't say it places onerous demands on recovery; I said
some people may recover better that way. Perhaps age is a
factor, and I was suggesting that the type of muscles one
has could also be a factor. In my searching so far, I've
found no studies demonstrating that with the same volume
running less frequently or more frequently is better than
the other, or what each option is better for.

I did find descriptions of muscle fiber types and it appears
that there are many more subtypes than I knew about before
and that they seem to form a spectrum which ranges from slow-
twitch pure aerobic to pure fast-twitch pure anareobic. Some
fast-twich can be converted to through training into a more
areobic form (type IIa), though it seems slow-twich do not
change nor can any variety of fast-twitch be converted into
pure slow-twitch. Fatiguability is higher in type IIa than
in slow-twich, thus perhaps people who rely more on type IIa
for everyday runs (even in fairly slow running) take longer
to recover. Again there are no studies on this, but those
who are like me will know what I mean.

I did also find various references to people being very
sucessful racing with more rest in their programs, with
varying amounts of volume, notably some experiments of Jeff
Galloway, and George Sheehan, who apparently trained hard a
few times a week with less volume and raced very well as a
master (though I'm not suggesting a decrese in volume).
>
>Provided that one receives adequate rest, and training
>intensity is
appropriate,
>you should be fine. You reduce intensity for longer runs
>-- so it's
plausible
>short runs are more taxing per unit distance. Try doing
>those long runs at
the
>same pace you perform your short runs, they're suddenly not
>so easy on
recovery.
>
>Keep in mind that the typical beginner does not have a low
>intensity
training
>option. That is, as I argued previously, many beginners
>will simply not be
able
>to run at a heart rate of less than 75% max. Their heart
>rate will jump
above
>that even at a painfully slow 12 minute per mile pace. So a
>long run at a
very
>low training intensity is *not* an option for the typical
>beginner.
>
>> It may be the best thing for slow twitch types, but it
>> may be counterproductive for fast-twitch types.
>
>"Fast twitch types", such as sprinters, bodybuilders,
>olympic lifters, gymnasts, swimmers, etc train daily. Why ?
>Because the skill component of
their
>sport demands frequent attention. These guys are not only
>"fast twitch
types",
>they are performing workouts which heavily utilise fast
>twitch muscles.
>
>Even though one could make a good argument that the olympic
>lifters would
be
>better off with more recovery time, it appears that the
>frequency effects trump this. They are able to pack in the
>extra workouts by having days
where
>they don't go all-out.
>
>What you're saying is not only at odds with my experience,
>it's at odds
with
>the way the vast majority of competitive athletes train.

There seems to be a mix of views on this, and no formal
studies that I could find. Just because the vast majority of
people may believe that higher frequency of training is
better, this does not prove that it's better for everyone,
at every age, or for every goal. Conventional wisdom is
often wrong. If you know of any studies please let me know.
While it may appear to be common sense that more frequent
but shorter workouts are easier to recover from and better
in some ways than less freqent training, not all the
processes of recovery and muscle soreness appear to be well
understood. There may be significant benefits to going
longer less frequently that are also not understood. I would
think running longer will stimulate more conversion of type
IIb muslces to type IIa. Also some people, even those who
can run ultras, may not recover as well on easy running days
as with either complete rest or light crosstraining. I know
that some ultra runners often do very light training (in
some cases none) between much larger weekend sessions with
great results.

- Tony

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

Lyle McDonald wrote in message
<10eg8t0fnoml615@corp.supernews.com>...
>Tony wrote:
>
>
>> But how many people consistently overtrain out of
>> compulsion?
>
>Far too many.
>
>
>> For example, I have lots of type IIa (fast twitch
>> aerobic/anaerobic)
muscle
>> fibers, but less type 1 (slow twitch aerobic). Probably I
>> have lots of
type
>> IIb also but for distance running these aren't used.
>
>how do you know this?

Because until my sophmore year of high school I was always
the fastest sprinter in school, and I couldn't run 1/2 mile
without dying. When I changed to soccer I had a great deal
of trouble building endurance at first and when I switched
to midfield I was stretched to my areobic limit and relied
far more on my anaerobic capacity. Sometimes it took me 3 or
4 days to recover between games, even at a young age.
>
>
> Therefore people like
>> me - and I know this from experience - probably do better
>> running longer less times per week than the more frequent
>> but shorter workouts you advocate. Type IIa fibers are
>> good for 1 to 2 hours then they are pretty much degraded
>> in performance and take a while to recover. For me to
build
>> my ability to do orienteering races (80 to 100 mins on
>> back to back days) I've found over the years that running
>> a few times a week longer simply works better than
>> running daily shorter runs with a long run on the
weekend.
>
>What about shorter recovery runs on the in-between days?

My normal runs are usually done at about 145 HR, which is
about 75% of max, and about 20 bpm below what I think is my
current LT. Recovery runs would be less than 135. I find
that its not the cardio stress, but the impact of the
running motion that stresses me; thus for me the concept of
recovery "run" is somewhat of an oxymoron. For me recovery
is better done on the bike at about 120-125 HR.
>
>> When I run daily it wears out my legs even if the runs
>> are short.
>
>What intensity of running?

Less than 75% of max HR.
>
>Lyle

On 2004-07-05, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't say it places onerous demands on recovery; I said
> some people may recover better that way.

I don't find this plausible, because it's inconsistent with
everything that I've experienced and seen -- but, YMMV.

As I pointed out in the other post, I think it's
important to note that there's a big difference between
5x/week and training every day (in fact one can get in 12
training sessiobs a week via 2-a-days and still have a
day off training)

> Perhaps age is a factor, and I was suggesting that the
> type of muscles one has could also be a factor. In my
> searching so far, I've found no studies demonstrating that
> with the same volume running less frequently or more
> frequently is better than the other, or what each option
> is better for.

For competing races over very long distances, runs of longer
duration have a specificity advantage.

> Fatiguability is higher in type IIa than in slow-twich,
> thus perhaps people who rely more on type IIa for everyday
> runs (even in fairly slow running) take longer to recover.
> Again there are no studies on this, but those who are like
> me will know what I mean.

I don't see any evidence that this has an effect on the
training frequency tradeoffs, as I pointed out before (In
fact all the evidence says that it doesn't).

> I did also find various references to people being very
> sucessful racing with more rest in their programs, with
> varying amounts of volume, notably some experiments of
> Jeff Galloway, and George Sheehan, who apparently trained
> hard a few times a week with less volume and raced very
> well as a master (though I'm not suggesting a decrese in
> volume).

Galloway "decreased" his milage from 140mpw. I recommend
"less volume" than 140mpw, for most people.

> There seems to be a mix of views on this, and no formal
> studies that I could find.

I can assure you that I would not do very well if I had to
fit my 70 miles per week into three workouts. At some point
or other, one needs to just increase the number of workouts.

> Just because the vast majority of people may believe that
> higher frequency of training is better, this does not
> prove that it's better for everyone, at every age, or for
> every goal.

Well, as I said, not for every goal, no. Age may be a factor
(but not for either of us). I simply don't buy your muscle
fiber type idea, because several "fast twitch" sports are
dominated by people who train very frequently (e.g.
gymnastics)

For someone training for marathons or longer, someone on
similar milage to me (70 or so) may be better served by 1-a-
days, whereas I do 2-a-days. The 1-a-day schedule may be
more stressful, but the adaptions associated with that
stress are critical to the runners success.

> recover from and better in some ways than less freqent
> training, not all the processes of recovery and muscle
> soreness appear to be well understood.

Go out and run a 70 mile week -- in one day. And then you'll
understand. (-;

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

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-04, Lyle McDonald
><lylemcd@grandecomIMRETARDED.net> wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Keep in mind that the typical beginner does not have a
>>> low intensity
training
>>> option. That is, as I argued previously, many beginners
>>> will simply not
be able
>>> to run at a heart rate of less than 75% max. Their heart
>>> rate will jump
above
>>> that even at a painfully slow 12 minute per mile pace.
>>> So a long run at
a very
>>> low training intensity is *not* an option for the
>>> typical beginner.
>>
>> True but the beginner is unlikely to ahve the tolerance
>> for a long run in the first place. Fatigue will set in
>> too quickly.
>
>I agree. That's why they will need to focus on several
>short runs at first.

I agree too, I'm not talking about beginners, though I would
never suggest to a beginner to try to run every day. I
always tell my friends to crosstrain, to mix running with
walking when needed, and to add running frequency slowly to
avoid injury.
>
>>> "Fast twitch types", such as sprinters,
>>> bodybuilders, olympic lifters, gymnasts, swimmers,
>>> etc train daily. Why ?
>>
>> Well, bodybuilders almost always alternate muscle groups.
>> At the very least, one day between bodyparts.
>>
>> Sprinters typically only run maximally 2-3 times per
>> week, workouts in between are lower intensity tempo
>> running.
>
>Yes, exactly. But the 5-a-week running schedule that I
>advocate also
includes
>(in fact, consists entirely of) sub-maximal workouts. I put
>forth this
example,
>as a counter to Tony's claim that "fast twitch types" can't
>train every
day. This
>example demonstrates that they can do precisely this, by
>judicious
application of
>the "hard-easy" principle.

Well, I never said fast-twitch types can't train every day.
During many different periods I've run daily. I suggested
that the recovery rate for people with a greater amount of
fast-twitch may be higher, so that more frequent running may
not be optimal. Based on the bodybuilding examples, when
muscles are exercised, as the strength needed is increased,
the muscle types are called upon in the following order:
first slow twitch (type I), then medium twitch (type IIa),
then finally fast twitch (type IIb). And it is also known
that because type IIb are not fueled areobically, they will
fatigue very fast. Type IIa are only partially aerobic, and
will fatigue faster than type I. Thus, if a person has a
relatively minor amount of type I muscle, type IIa, then
type IIb will be required if the strength needed to run
calls upon them. Then because those types are more
fatiguable, they will take longer to recover. The
bodybuilding literature seems to support this, but I didn't
find any running examples. For some, like me, even easy runs
may tax type IIa muscles and they may recover better,
particularly for older athletes, on more than 24 hours of
rest. The added muscl-skeletal stress of running may make a
"recovery run" counterproductive for some types of people.

- Tony

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

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-05, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't say it places onerous demands on recovery; I
>> said some people
may
>> recover better that way.
>
>I don't find this plausible, because it's inconsistent with
>everything that
I've
>experienced and seen -- but, YMMV.
>
>As I pointed out in the other post, I think it's important
>to note that
there's
>a big difference between 5x/week and training every day (in
>fact one can
get
>in 12 training sessiobs a week via 2-a-days and still have
>a day off
training)
>
>> Perhaps age is a factor, and I was suggesting that the
>> type of muscles one has could also be a factor. In my
>> searching so
far,
>> I've found no studies demonstrating that with the same
>> volume running
less
>> frequently or more frequently is better than the other,
>> or what each
option
>> is better for.
>
>For competing races over very long distances, runs of
>longer duration have
a
>specificity advantage.
>
>> Fatiguability is higher in type IIa than in slow-twich,
>> thus perhaps
people
>> who rely more on type IIa for everyday runs (even in
>> fairly slow running) take longer to recover. Again there
>> are no studies on this, but those
who
>> are like me will know what I mean.
>
>I don't see any evidence that this has an effect on the
>training frequency tradeoffs, as I pointed out before (In
>fact all the evidence says that it doesn't).

For some people any running is a strength workout, not just
an aerobic one. This happens any time the load is greater
than the slow-twitch muscles alone can handle. Then the fast
twitch type IIa are activated and they fatigue more rapidly
than the slow-twitch. For heavy runners or for people with
very little slow twitch this may apply. This principle is
well understood in weightlifting circles. So this is what
I'm talking about. If every run is a strength workout of
some measure that will mean it takes longer to recover. I
will post something interesting I read about that relates to
this soon.

>
>> I did also find various references to people being very
>> sucessful racing with more rest in their programs, with
>> varying amounts of volume, notably some experiments of
>> Jeff Galloway, and George Sheehan, who apparently trained
>> hard a few times a week with less volume and raced very
>> well as a master (though I'm not suggesting a decrese in
>> volume).
>
>Galloway "decreased" his milage from 140mpw. I recommend
>"less volume" than 140mpw, for most people.

Yes, Galloway seems to be all over the map on this, but I
read this thing about him experiencing the same thing I seem
to experience now, which is if I train daily or more
frequently I just don't seem to recover as well, even with
the same volume. It may be an age related thing because it
occurred to Galloway when he turned 40 as well (I'm 41).

>
>> There seems to be a mix of views on this, and no formal
>> studies that I
could
>> find.
>
>I can assure you that I would not do very well if I had to
>fit my 70 miles
per
>week into three workouts. At some point or other, one
>needs to just
increase
>the number of workouts.

If you did that you would be doing some kind of intense
ultra training, say
17.5, 17.5 and 35. Your point is well taken and I would
never presume to say there's anything wrong with
your plan.

>
>> Just because the vast majority of people may believe that
>> higher frequency of training is better, this does not
>> prove that it's better for everyone, at every age, or for
>> every goal.
>
>Well, as I said, not for every goal, no. Age may be a
>factor (but not for
either
>of us). I simply don't buy your muscle fiber type idea,
>because several
"fast twitch"
>sports are dominated by people who train very frequently
>(e.g. gymnastics)
>
>For someone training for marathons or longer, someone on
>similar milage to
me
>(70 or so) may be better served by 1-a-days, whereas I do
>2-a-days. The
1-a-day
>schedule may be more stressful, but the adaptions
>associated with that
stress
>are critical to the runners success.
>
>> recover from and better in some ways than less freqent
>> training, not all
the
>> processes of recovery and muscle soreness appear to be
>> well understood.
>
>Go out and run a 70 mile week -- in one day. And then
>you'll understand.
(-;

Well Doug did that last month. Lets ask him lol...

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

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrncek9gn.kc6.abuse@panix2.panix.com...

> Go out and run a 70 mile week -- in one day. And
> then you'll
understand. (-;

Ouch, thats one hell of way to learn. Actually I ran
about 85 miles that week with the one outing of 70. My two
day later DOMS was minimal and returned to some easy junk in
three days. I did walk a little the two days after to keep
the stiffness down. My sleep and eating pattern is what
really gets clobbered for those two days -
eat/brief_coma.eat/brief_coma/.....

As for training I brake some of the common guides. If I run
50 miles in a week one of the runs is likley 20-25 miles
with lots of elevation. When I kick it to 60 miles, heavier
training, my long run gets increased to 25-35. In essence
my long run is usually about 50% of my total. I invariable
take the day before off and either bike or walk the day
after. I'm excluding the once in blue moon back-2-
back(sat/sun) runs.

Right or wrong I stay injury free and farly competive in my
age group. Next year is new decade so who knows, just
showing up may drag some iron. If I can find some light
weight Depends I could run faster.

-DougF

On 2004-07-05, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I agree. That's why they will need to focus on several
>>short runs at first.
>
> I agree too, I'm not talking about beginners,

Fair enough, and I understand that there are advantages in
doing a few long runs.

> though I would never suggest to a beginner to try to run
> every day.

Yes, but there's a huge difference between 5 days a week and
7 days a week. In fact even one rest day makes a big
difference. I wouldn't recommend going over 5 days a week
until after a year or so of training.

> I always tell my friends to crosstrain, to mix running
> with walking when needed, and to add running frequency
> slowly to avoid injury.

Yep. And there's individual variation in "slowly", but
most people can get up to 5/week fairly quickly with
consistent training.

> Well, I never said fast-twitch types can't train every
> day. During many

I think part of the confusion here is that you're mixing up
"5 a week" with "every day". These are not the same at all.

> when muscles are exercised, as the strength needed is
> increased, the muscle types are called upon in the
> following order: first slow twitch (type I), then medium
> twitch (type IIa), then finally fast twitch (type IIb).
> And it is also known that because type IIb are not fueled
> areobically, they will fatigue very fast. Type IIa are
> only partially aerobic, and will fatigue faster than type
> I. Thus, if a person has a relatively minor amount of type
> I muscle, type IIa, then type IIb will be required if the
> strength needed to run calls upon them. Then because those
> types are more fatiguable, they will take longer to
> recover. The bodybuilding literature seems to support
> this, but I didn't find any running examples. For some,
> like me, even easy runs may tax type IIa muscles and they
> may recover better, particularly for older athletes, on
> more than 24 hours of rest.

The muscles "recover better" if you give them a month or so.
But you're not going to get faster by resting all the time,
so you need to find the appropriate amount of recovery.

There are several load parameters that one can adjust
independently, so it's not accurate to say that you can't
recover adequately from a 5/week schedule.

It may be correct to say that the accomodations you need to
make to handle a 5-a-week schedule will produce non-optimal
results, but this depends on goals.

If the goal is general aerobic conditioning, or building a
foundation for racing distances of 5k-half marathon, the 5-a-
week schedule is a good one.

> The added muscl-skeletal stress of running may make a
> "recovery run" counterproductive for some types of people.

I personally don't believe there is a such thing as a
"recovery run". Any run ultimately adds to the
training workload.

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

On 2004-07-06, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> For some people any running is a strength workout, not
> just an aerobic one. This happens any time the load is
> greater than the slow-twitch muscles alone can handle.
> Then the fast twitch type IIa are activated and they
> fatigue more rapidly than the slow-twitch. For heavy
> runners or for people with very little slow twitch this
> may apply. This principle is well understood in
> weightlifting circles.

As long as the run stays at aerobic intensity, it's still
aerobic, right ?

It's already pointed out that one can utilise type II
muscles daily on a submaximal basis with no ill effect
(sprinters, gymnasts, etc).

> So this is what I'm talking about. If every run is a
> strength workout of some measure that will mean it takes
> longer to recover.

Not really. If I do a single explosive repetition on the
bench press, and have someone hand me the bar so that it's
concentric-only, that's a strength workout, but it requires
very little recovery.

An all out set of 12 reps on the other hand will require
more recovery. In other words, sub-maximal exercise may not
require much recovery time, even if fast twitch muscles are
recruited.

FWIW, African distance runners have 40-60% type II fibers.
These are the guys who run 3-a-days.

> Yes, Galloway seems to be all over the map on this, but I
> read this thing about him experiencing the same thing I
> seem to experience now, which is if I train daily or more
> frequently I just don't seem to recover as well, even with
> the same volume. It may be an age related thing because it
> occurred to Galloway when he turned 40 as well (I'm 41).

It also occurred after years of running at 140mpw. 41 years
is still young enough to be pretty competitive (e.g. Colleen
De Reuck is 40), and I know people older than you who train
pretty hard. I don't doubt that it makes *some* difference,
but you're nowhere near "old man" territory yet.

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

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-05, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>I agree. That's why they will need to focus on several
>>>short runs at
first.
>>
>> I agree too, I'm not talking about beginners,
>
>Fair enough, and I understand that there are advantages in
>doing a few long runs.
>
>> though I would never suggest to a beginner to try to run
>> every day.
>
>Yes, but there's a huge difference between 5 days a week
>and 7 days a week. In fact even one rest day makes a big
>difference. I wouldn't recommend
going
>over 5 days a week until after a year or so of training.
>
>> I always tell my friends to crosstrain, to mix running
>> with walking when needed, and to add running frequency
>> slowly to avoid injury.
>
>Yep. And there's individual variation in "slowly", but most
>people can get
up
>to 5/week fairly quickly with consistent training.

Agreed.

>
>> Well, I never said fast-twitch types can't train every
>> day. During many
>
>I think part of the confusion here is that you're mixing up
>"5 a week" with "every day". These are not the same at all.

Yes, I agree 5 days allows for some good rest.

>
>> when muscles are exercised, as the strength needed is
>> increased, the
muscle
>> types are called upon in the following order: first slow
>> twitch (type
I),
>> then medium twitch (type IIa), then finally fast twitch
>> (type IIb). And
it
>> is also known that because type IIb are not fueled
>> areobically, they will fatigue very fast. Type IIa are
>> only partially aerobic, and will fatigue faster than type
>> I. Thus, if a person has a relatively minor amount of
type
>> I muscle, type IIa, then type IIb will be required if the
>> strength needed
to
>> run calls upon them. Then because those types are more
>> fatiguable, they will take longer to recover. The
>> bodybuilding literature seems to
support
>> this, but I didn't find any running examples. For some,
>> like me, even
easy
>> runs may tax type IIa muscles and they may recover
>> better, particularly
for
>> older athletes, on more than 24 hours of rest.
>
>The muscles "recover better" if you give them a month or
>so. But you're not going to get faster by resting all the
>time, so you need to find the
appropriate
>amount of recovery.

Well they will recover better but then lose any training
effect. The goal is to exercise, recover, and
supercompensate and then do your next workout when you are
supercompensating. So what I'm saying is that, particularly
for your important workouts, the timing must good or you
won't be building on the supercompensation from the last
workout. This applies to long runs and to speedwork mostly,
but for some people normal paced runs are in some measure a
strength workout instead of a purely aerobic workout. Thus
this can interfere with the recovery of the more important
workouts if the load is too high. I believe what you're
saying is that you shouldn't do those other workouts - eg.
long run or speedwork - unless you can run more
consistently first.
>
>There are several load parameters that one can adjust
>independently, so
it's
>not accurate to say that you can't recover adequately
>from a 5/week
schedule.

Agreed.
>
>It may be correct to say that the accomodations you need to
>make to handle
a
>5-a-week schedule will produce non-optimal results, but
>this depends on
goals.
>
>If the goal is general aerobic conditioning, or building a
>foundation for racing distances of 5k-half marathon, the
>5-a-week schedule is a good one.

For racing I defer to you on those distances, though I don't
claim to know a great deal about ultra preparation yet
either. It's a learning process. For general aerobic
conditioning, a program of 2 or 3 runs with crosstraining
will do just as well.

- Tony
>
>> The added muscl-skeletal stress of running may make a
>> "recovery run" counterproductive for some
types
>> of people.
>
>I personally don't believe there is a such thing as a
>"recovery run". Any
run
>ultimately adds to the training workload.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
>On 2004-07-06, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> For some people any running is a strength workout, not
>> just an aerobic
one.
>> This happens any time the load is greater than the slow-
>> twitch muscles
alone
>> can handle. Then the fast twitch type IIa are activated
>> and they fatigue more rapidly than the slow-twitch. For
>> heavy runners or for people with very little slow twitch
>> this may apply. This principle is well
understood
>> in weightlifting circles.
>
>As long as the run stays at aerobic intensity, it's still
>aerobic, right ?
>
>It's already pointed out that one can utilise type II
>muscles daily on a submaximal basis with no ill effect
>(sprinters, gymnasts, etc).
>
>> So this is what I'm talking about. If every run is a
>> strength workout of some measure that will mean it takes
>> longer to recover.
>
>Not really. If I do a single explosive repetition on the
>bench press, and
have
>someone hand me the bar so that it's concentric-only,
>that's a strength
workout,
>but it requires very little recovery.
>
>An all out set of 12 reps on the other hand will require
>more recovery. In
other
>words, sub-maximal exercise may not require much recovery
>time, even if
fast
>twitch muscles are recruited.

Sub-maximal efforts on consecutive days can wear you out. If
you haven't experienced this problem with recovery then it
doesn't affect you in the same way. Are you trying to tell
me its all in my head? I've trained and raced very hard in
the past, and I surprized many of my friends because I beat
them in orienteering races and I wasn't the gifted long
distance runner among them. Experience counts for something.
Some people really can't go much above 40-50 miles/wk which
was about my limit in the past, maybe getting as high as 60
some weeks.

>
>FWIW, African distance runners have 40-60% type II fibers.
>These are the
guys who
>run 3-a-days.

Yes that's normal I believe, but that means they have 40-60%
type I, and I haven't had a biopsy done, but I would guess
I'm well below 30% type I.

>
>> Yes, Galloway seems to be all over the map on this, but I
>> read this thing about him experiencing the same thing I
>> seem to experience now, which is
if
>> I train daily or more frequently I just don't seem to
>> recover as well,
even
>> with the same volume. It may be an age related thing
>> because it occurred
to
>> Galloway when he turned 40 as well (I'm 41).
>
>It also occurred after years of running at 140mpw. 41 years
>is still young
enough
>to be pretty competitive (e.g. Colleen De Reuck is 40), and
>I know people
older
>than you who train pretty hard. I don't doubt that it
>makes *some*
difference,
>but you're nowhere near "old man" territory yet.

I wasn't trying to compare myself to Galloway, and I've
never been capable of 140+ mpws. My only point is that
people have to learn to experiment with what works for them
and that one size does not fit all. You seem to be claiming
that physiology does not make a difference, period. I'm
saying that myself and others have found we do better on
more rest. I believe that you should actually feel the
supercompensation from the last workout, or the previous
workout period, or the previous long run to some extent the
next time you perform those same activities. Learning to
listen to your body and trying to figure out what it needs
to get better can't be a bad thing IMO. BTW, I'm not arguing
with you that 5x/week is too much. For most people that's a
good range to shoot for, but for some who enjoy running
slightly longer, similar benefits will come also from
3x/week or 4x/week.

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

On 2004-07-06, Tony <qtrader2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sub-maximal efforts on consecutive days can wear you out.
> If you haven't experienced this problem with recovery then
> it doesn't affect you in the same way. Are you trying to
> tell me its all in my head?

Not at all. I'm saying that one can adjust a bunch of
different loading parameters. If someone were soliciting
advice on how to set up a training program, I would be
reluctant to recommend that they reduce training load by
changing training frequency.

But if a self-coached runner said "I only train 3 times a
week and it works for me", I wouldn't insist that they
change (-;

> Yes that's normal I believe, but that means they have 40-
> 60% type I, and I haven't had a biopsy done, but I would
> guess I'm well below 30% type I.

That's not the point -- the point is that even runners who
are predominantly type II can use very high training
frequencies.

The problems with your theory are:

(1) you haven't shown that you're below 30% type II. This is
an extraordinary claim (that's less type II than most
strength athletes). Unless you can bench approximately
double your body weight, or run a very competitive 60m
time, I'd find this very surprising.

(2) the available data suggests that even athletes who are
predominantly type II (including elite sprinters, who
are the extreme) are able to maintain high training
frequencies. So even if it *is* true that you have a lot
of type II fibers, and you are unable to handle high
training frequencies, the same is not true of other
athletes with similar muscle composition.

> that's a good range to shoot for, but for some who enjoy
> running slightly longer, similar benefits will come also
> from 3x/week or 4x/week.

Depends on the details of the training plan you're
following and the level of adaption, but in your case it's
probably true.

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