Yeah, that's what I get when I said "all systems turn on at the same time." Sprinters are still using oxygen, but the ATP used in the first few seconds isn't primarily being generated by breathing + glucose. Right?
Sorry I missed this and I get what you mean now. I don't know all that much about oxygen uptake kinetics but it's true you are much more hyperglycolytic during the beginning of a near maximal effort before VO2 has time to rise into the extreme domain but the other way to think about it is that your aerobic system so to speak is never off or else you would literally be dead and we're back to the previous point about how they cannot be fully independent.
I steadily increased mileage throughout college. 60s as a freshman, 70s as a sophomore, 80s as a junior, 90 as a senior, 90-100 as a 5th year. My best times came as a junior. 80-90 seemed to be my sweet spot. I regressed after that. I tried running even more post collegiately. 110, 120 even 140. I only got worse.
Were you faster at 100 than 50? I am guessing noticeably. No one can say if your limit is at 10 hours of training or 14. But odds are it isn’t down at 6.
If someone is running 10+ hours, volume wouldn’t be my first concern. Running 3 hours? It is all volume…
I was faster at 100 miles per week than I was at 50 miles per week, but not for long. Once I increased to 110 and beyond I was much slower than I was in high school topping-out at 50 miles per week.
To the point of the thread, increasing mileage certainly does improve performance. However, you have to know your limits and be honest with yourself about that. I just couldn't accept that the higher mileage was making me slower, even though it was. I probably should have gone back down to like 85 mpw after my performances got worse and were more inconsistent when I was running above 90 miles per week.
There is certainly nothing special you get from jogging 10 minute miles that you wouldn't get in a higher dose from running a similar duration at a tempo pace or greater intensity. It's the amateurs that can typically handle a greater proportion of this because they have much more time to recover between runs and they cannot devote all their time to training anyway.
Fair enough, however if the amateur runner is doing this, how do they optimally train their ST muscles fibres, and improve their ability to burn fat?
Fair enough, however if the amateur runner is doing this, how do they optimally train their ST muscles fibres, and improve their ability to burn fat?
Ah, that has become a bit of a hot button issue thanks to a certain trend that has recently become popular. Maximum fax oxidation is being conflated to a point around lactate turn point 1 despite that it is highly variable between individuals and to my knowledge cannot be found outside of a lab, but more importantly, the consensus is that you don't have to train near fat max to get better at utilizing fat.
In a way, human physiology is vastly complex, there are certainly adaptations more prevalent at one intensity vs. another, but training itself can be made very simple. Either it improves VO2 max, lactate threshold, running economy, and possibly a fourth element that is being called durability, or it doesn't. We know that just about any reasonable training distribution will still provide these key adaptations if the workload is there and it is suited to the athlete. Sure maybe one style of training may lead faster improvements but barring serious injury all elites will eventually reach a place way beyond the point of diminishing returns and adding more intensity or more volume will not help them.
Now we can face the elephant in the room which is genetics, forget drugs and super shoes for a second. The best runners could have probably made their way to the top in any number of ways, the worst runners will always get fruitless results. Elites can naturally can train longer without injury at the same intensity so simple linear regression modeling will tend to show that increased volume = increased performance, losing all the nuance that has already been discussed in this thread.
As for what amateurs should do, well let's say after a couple of years trying out different distributions they get to the point where they can reasonably infer they will probably never be world class despite their efforts, that is something many of us have to face in various avenues and there is no shame in it. At that point, why be autistic about training at all? Do whatever you enjoy that you think gives good results, let consistency and time take you to the point of diminishing returns or beyond.
Fair enough, however if the amateur runner is doing this, how do they optimally train their ST muscles fibres, and improve their ability to burn fat?
Ah, that has become a bit of a hot button issue thanks to a certain trend that has recently become popular. Maximum fax oxidation is being conflated to a point around lactate turn point 1 despite that it is highly variable between individuals and to my knowledge cannot be found outside of a lab, but more importantly, the consensus is that you don't have to train near fat max to get better at utilizing fat.
In a way, human physiology is vastly complex, there are certainly adaptations more prevalent at one intensity vs. another, but training itself can be made very simple. Either it improves VO2 max, lactate threshold, running economy, and possibly a fourth element that is being called durability, or it doesn't. We know that just about any reasonable training distribution will still provide these key adaptations if the workload is there and it is suited to the athlete. Sure maybe one style of training may lead faster improvements but barring serious injury all elites will eventually reach a place way beyond the point of diminishing returns and adding more intensity or more volume will not help them.
Now we can face the elephant in the room which is genetics, forget drugs and super shoes for a second. The best runners could have probably made their way to the top in any number of ways, the worst runners will always get fruitless results. Elites can naturally can train longer without injury at the same intensity so simple linear regression modeling will tend to show that increased volume = increased performance, losing all the nuance that has already been discussed in this thread.
As for what amateurs should do, well let's say after a couple of years trying out different distributions they get to the point where they can reasonably infer they will probably never be world class despite their efforts, that is something many of us have to face in various avenues and there is no shame in it. At that point, why be autistic about training at all? Do whatever you enjoy that you think gives good results, let consistency and time take you to the point of diminishing returns or beyond.
Great post. Unfortunately there are still many on this forum that will stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to accept the wise words that you said ( especially about genetics, tolerance to training and ultimate potential), in their belief that the right training approach or ultimate mix of volume and intensity is right around the corner, and as soon as they find it…the sky’s the limit…
Am I missing something? There are a few on here that report that their results improved as they increased their training volumes over the years…
But what about the simple variable of time? That doesn’t appear to factor into the thinking of many.
What if, instead of starting out at 30 mpw and over five years increasing it to 70 mpw… the same person just remained at 30? (using this as an arbitrary number… insert your own start and end point). Progress may well have occurred, even to the same extent just due to the time spent training.
Am I missing something? There are a few on here that report that their results improved as they increased their training volumes over the years…
But what about the simple variable of time? That doesn’t appear to factor into the thinking of many.
What if, instead of starting out at 30 mpw and over five years increasing it to 70 mpw… the same person just remained at 30? (using this as an arbitrary number… insert your own start and end point). Progress may well have occurred, even to the same extent just due to the time spent training.
Of course consistency is one of the most important factors. The issue is more - will you be a better runner maintaining 30 mpw over a number of years, or a higher number over a number of years. Those who run decent volumes consistently tend to have more resilience to injury. The thing to avoid is wild swings in volume.
It's always the same debate here when we talk about the need of high volume or not. The people here advocate and always say " up the mileage" do that because they don't know, they simply don't have the knowledge and experience, how to effectively reach individual top performance on just relatively low volume.They don't understand there are really " junk mileage" and the opposit " high energy power low mileage" optimizing mitochondria, enzymes and capillaries and still stay in the easy running zone.Just ask you the question, " How is it possible several runners in history have accomplished world class top times on relatively low mileage? ". Many try to explain it by saying it must have to do with they are just supertalented and had run even faster on more volume. After now over 50 years of running experience, both as a national elite runner and now 8 years as an online running coach I can say with 100% sureness they are wrong. It's mainly about perfect individual ' exact' paces and a smart weekly low mileage training mix to fast improve with less risk of injuries and overdoing.🇸🇪🧙♂️🇸🇪
I can say with 100% "sureness" you are wrong.
Evidence? How many years ago has Sammy Nyokaye run his most recent PR?
Ingebrigtsens do high mileage. Kelvin Kiptum does high mileage.
There are 2 problems with you:
1 - you hold on to the few exceptions and try to make them the rule.
2 - your ego.
There are 2 problems with you ))
1) You don't understand a very important part in my DANCAN coaching system. It works BOTH ways, low or high volume doesn't matter.I have of course never told that high mileage doesn't work because we all know the vast majority of top runners last decenniums succeded that way.But it's very good to see evidence, both in my coaching and in the running history, that great results have been done by runners at all levels on relatively low volume too.
2) You are stuck in old believes and don't have visions like me backed up by very long experience of running grounded in scientific and practical knowings.
🧙♂️The Magician , Swedish power online running coach. 🇸🇪 Welcome to magically fast improve your running! 🏃♀️🏃🖐🏆
Am I missing something? There are a few on here that report that their results improved as they increased their training volumes over the years…
But what about the simple variable of time? That doesn’t appear to factor into the thinking of many.
What if, instead of starting out at 30 mpw and over five years increasing it to 70 mpw… the same person just remained at 30? (using this as an arbitrary number… insert your own start and end point). Progress may well have occurred, even to the same extent just due to the time spent training.
Plenty of people do that. They do the same training and run the same time at the turkey trot every year.
if there was some way to avoid volume, some elite would do it. There are elites at the lower end of volume (60-70mpw) as 1500m/3000m runners but nobody is down at 35mpw.
The nuance is always that you can’t do more volume than you can handle. It is easy to say your HS XC will dominate if you all do 80mpw for 3 years. It is a lot harder to do that and remain healthy. And there are limits. 90 being good doesn’t mean 120 is better. But very few people are at that point.
Evidence? How many years ago has Sammy Nyokaye run his most recent PR?
Ingebrigtsens do high mileage. Kelvin Kiptum does high mileage.
There are 2 problems with you:
1 - you hold on to the few exceptions and try to make them the rule.
2 - your ego.
There are 2 problems with you ))
1) You don't understand a very important part in my DANCAN coaching system. It works BOTH ways, low or high volume doesn't matter.I have of course never told that high mileage doesn't work because we all know the vast majority of top runners last decenniums succeded that way.But it's very good to see evidence, both in my coaching and in the running history, that great results have been done by runners at all levels on relatively low volume too.
2) You are stuck in old believes and don't have visions like me backed up by very long experience of running grounded in scientific and practical knowings.
🧙♂️The Magician , Swedish power online running coach. 🇸🇪 Welcome to magically fast improve your running! 🏃♀️🏃🖐🏆
Funny how in such a long and detailed reply you "forgot" to answer my question about Sammy Nyokaye.
Please answer it.
If anyone is stuck in old beliefs it is you, using science from the 1930s.
No it is not that simple. You improve very fast at first and then hit a plateau or worse get injured.
You should aim to be as fast as possible on as little mileage as possible. THEN increase mileage over the years (yes years, this is a long term commitment).
If you can run a 16 or 17 minute 5K on 30 miles a week then you have the talent to go further.
Well yes, volume is the simple answer and it's the general answer for most things. Do something more often, you will likely get better at it (except golf.)
Well yes, volume is the simple answer and it's the general answer for most things. Do something more often, you will likely get better at it (except golf.)
Golf too, but only if you have the correct mechanics and swing. If you don't, then all the practice you put in is only reinforcing bad habits that will make your scores balloon.