Long runs

[Iconoclast]

There seems to be a growing consensus that long runs don't really hold much benefit for a fighter.

It doesn't appear to help with the explosivenes required by a fighter. In the time it takes to do a five/ten mile run, could a fighter be training in a more productive manner?

Or do long runs have a real benefit?

What say yee?

[Jim_Williams]

10 mile runs are pointless.

3 mile is decent, then do sprints, hill sprints and other things.

[andyt1992]

can't be a bad thing.
http://www.therunningbug.co.uk/ArticleDetails.aspx?Title=The+Benefits+of+Running+-+Why+Start+in+the+First+Place%3F

[Wiegieboard]

I do long runs and I have to agree that the running itself doesn't really benefit combat sports on its own.
I was doing 15 mile mountain runs after a layoff from mma class and when I stepped back on the mat I was absolutely fucked very quickly. As the weeks went on my mat fitness increased. It seems that mma, striking and wrestling is specific cardio for mma training in my opinion.

[David Butlin]

Good to clear your head and maintain weight pre fight.

D

[Smurfette5ft]

Most long distance runners tend to have lower heart rates, blood pressure, and outstanding endurance. Also, it gives a faster recovery time after an “adrenaline dump”. My concern is that it’s notoriously bad for the knees; so I do wonder how that factors in with the constant exchanges of kicks, knees, ect.

[Rs1]

As with alot of sport its never just 1 thing that makes you....competitive, its a training regime that covers all bases that seperates the good from the great. Running should definatly be including but frequency is way more important that banging out high mileage single runs. Included in your run(once warmed up) should be sprints, hill work etc, this gives you the explovisness.....coupled with circuits/weight training ofcourse.

[IceKid]

i just swim alot instead, cant stand running.

[OHarra]

There seems to be a growing consensus that long runs don't really hold much benefit for a fighter.

It doesn't appear to help with the explosivenes required by a fighter. In the time it takes to do a five/ten mile run, could a fighter be training in a more productive manner?

Or do long runs have a real benefit?

What say yee?

For fighting fitness it is better to do runs of around 3 to 4 miles and sprints to finish.

I do enjoy middle distance running as a hobby any way so longer runs are good for general fitness. I just don't do long runs if I'm training for a fight.

Sometimes with work and family commitments it is easier to fit in a run for 40 mins than to try to get to the gym etc.

[ross90]

Id much rather do a shorter run of between 3-6 miles, and improve on my time than do a very long run. cross country is good as well as the terrain changes a lot on some of my trails, through water, woods, across the moor then stone and gravel paths, up and down hills etc. Rather than a long ass 10 miler on flat roads that bores the hell out of me. and when Im finished with a nice hilly fast paced run, i do hill sprints or firemans carries on a field with sandbags, or even just shuttle runs, 100m best effort 100m jogging getting my breath back. for around 15 minutes to half an hour. a mixture of explosive cardio ability and endurance is good if you get the balance right.

But as David Butlin said it clears your head so its good to destress that way and maintaining weight is important if your close to a fight and distance runs are good for that as well. Its not all bad, as smurfette said, as long as you get a decent pair of running shoes and aren't running in something with no support etc. you will be fine. I got achillies tendonitis and was in agony with it a few months back. bought some running shoes from a running shop, got them fitted correctly and put in some sorbothane insoles and its now like running on clouds.

Ross

[Smiler]

Hmmm...

I used to think that it had no benefit for fighting...and, to be honest, for fight physical fitness maybe it doesn't.

But it really helps with the head...I was needing to get out over Christmas so I went up the Kilpatricks to the North of Glasgow in the snow...9miler through a foot of snow, at some stages wading thigh deep through snow in my Evolution fight gear shorts where the snow was caught on bracken....it really got my head clear!

Although it needs to be put in conjunction with sprints, hill repeats, downhill and assisted sprints etc, explosivity like when we fight, I do actually now believe there are some good benefits.

I run only cross country, and therefore every footfall is individual. This means that my joints get a nice complete workout and I am training for joint strength.

When I run longer distances over varied terrain I will mainly be in the fat burning zone and therefore I will be stressing my body in different ways to fight prep whilst still burning fat...

Plus I really enjoy it, and thats not a bad thing!

Smiler

[6million$man]

think people hav generally got this right. Running long distance trains a different energy system to the ones used in mma so it's not of great benefit. Could spend your time doing something much more effective for sure. I've seen high level triathletes gas completely in a very very short time doing bjj.

[lewdog29]

Physiologically speaking long distance steady state running has no place in the combat athletes training regimin. It can actually worsen your performance. High intensity interval training has far more benefit..

[Smiler]

Lew, that's what I used to think, but now I'm not so sure...

Whereas HIIT is definately the 20% that gives the 80% of the rewards my studying has led me to learn that there are positive physiological benefits applicable for fighting from long runs, done appropriately, and for the right reasons...

But it all needs to be done as part of an overall approach...and not a be all and end all...

Smiler

[lewdog29]

Well from from my point of view.. the degenerative effects steady state cardio has on explosive power is reason enough not to do it. Not to mention the low intensity you're working at during steady state.. but thats just my opinion..Here is a section of an article written by mike boyle explaining why intensity is so important and how you can get more from less..

"In case you have been in a cave for the last decade let’s quickly review some research. A recent study, done in Canada at McMaster University and often referenced as the Gibala Study after lead researcher Martin Gibala, compared 20 minutes of high intensity interval training, consisting of a 30 second sprint followed by a four minute rest, with 90 to 120 minutes in the target heart rate zone. The result was amazing. Subjects got the same improvement in oxygen utilization from both programs. What is more amazing is that the 20 minute program only requires about two minutes and 30 seconds of actual work.

A second study that has become known as the Tabata study again shows the extreme benefits of interval training. Tabata compared moderate intensity endurance training at about 70 percent of VO2 max to high intensity intervals done at 170 percent of VO2 max. Tabata used a unique protocol of 20 seconds work to 10 seconds rest done in seven to eight bouts. This was basically a series of 20 second intervals performed during a four minute span. Again, the results were nothing short of amazing. The 20/10 protocol improved the VO2 max and the anaerobic capabilities more than the steady state program."

PS: I would recomend reading Boyle's stuff on conditioning he is considered an industry leader in the subject..

[Justin Devonshire]

one of my main reasons for being against long distance cardio is that working at a certain percentage of your heart rate for a prolongued time is simply an un-natural demand of our body.

Its totally synthetic and goes against what our bodies are designed to do. By nature, humans are anaerobic creatures. We survived by learning to sprint after prey, lift and throw heavy objects, and jump high.

These are all anaerobic, power-based activities, and combat is also one of the most fundamental and natural survival activities our species has known. This is why MMa is a power-based, high-intensity sport.

What does a low-intensity, non-power based exercise such as distance running have to do with this?


Still, as smiler puts it, there may be some mental benefits to long distance work and i can respect that. I've had guys tell me that it 'clears thier heads' and allows them to relax. Plus its nice to sometimes have a day off of high-intensity circuits and weight lifting.


As long as these trainees understand that the main benefit of long distance cardio is mental and not physiological, then I ddon't have a problem with it.

[Rob T]

By nature, humans are anaerobic creatures. We survived by learning to sprint after prey, lift and throw heavy objects, and jump high.

What evidence do you have for this?

Tribes in Africa use the persistence hunt method. Humans are out-sprinted by most animals (certainly those which we would be hunting for food) but can run for a longer time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting - just checked this and persistence hunting is thought to have been the earliest hunting method used by humans.

[Justin Devonshire]

I don't have 'evidence' of it, but its well known based on the fact that human muscles are designed to contract at high speeds / force.

[Rob T]

What I just posted totally contradicts what you said about hunting though.

Pedantic I know but... humans are also not designed for anything, we are adapted to our environment like all other animals.

[Justin Devonshire]

Then to adapt to the high-intensity demands of MMA we should train our muscles at high-speeds and forces, to reflect the environment of the sport.

Thats the main important point, isnt it?

[Rob T]

I purposely only quoted part of your post for a reason :)

[Justin Devonshire]

Fair play! I'll refrain from talking about evolutionary theories from now on and stick to what I know!:)

[6million$man]

Fair play! I'll refrain from talking about evolutionary theories from now on and stick to what I know!:)

Probably wise!

[Smiler]

Hi,

Explosive sustained power is the way to go first...and although I do believe as my earlier posting that long slow runs DO actually have some benefit, explosive and sustained power is the way to go.

Where long slow runs are useful:
Mind clearing/meditation/enjoyment
Active recovery - stresses body in a different way, therefore you can still train but allow your fight muscles to recover
Fat loss - if you run slow enough, otherwise its just calorie burn

As you can see, all this is ancillary to what I believe the second aims should be:
Explosive power training
Strength endurance
Dynamic strength
Joint strengthening
Aerobic and anaerobic systems
Mobility work

And of course the first aims of training would be technique, sparring, technique, sparring, and some more technique and sparring!

Smiler

[6million$man]

Hi,

Fat loss - if you run slow enough, otherwise its just calorie burn



...burning more calories than you eat causes you to lose fat. Nothing to do with running fast or slow.

[AlexEnlund87]

Long Runs will have a positive effect on any sports performer where there are periods of rest!

[Smiler]

Hi 6million$man, sorry, a common mistake - don't mistake weight loss for fat loss...they are different.

Weight loss is about energy in and energy out...

Fat loss is about switching to fat as an energy source...

They are 100% different...

Smiler

[6million$man]

Weight loss and fat loss are synonymous assuming other compartments remain stable. What do you mean by weight loss if you're not talking about fat loss? If you use the 4 compartment model, the only things you could be loosing are water, protein or minerals. If you're talking about different intensities utilising different energy stores (eg. glycogen vs adipose) there's some truth in it, but overall it doesnt matter where the energy comes from seeing as net energy change is the same regardless of the source.

I think it's misleading to describe them as 100% different, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

[Predator]

I Agree with Smiler and Butlin,

Helps keep your weight down, Really helped me mentally, ipod in hit the River. I dont run far, About 2 miles at a slow pace and last mile fast. No reason i just like it that way.

Altough im not a fan of running in the cold. I like it nice and sunny so i dont run at all in the winter.

[Bateman]

I am running shuttles and skipping, long runs are out for me

[Smiler]

Hi 6million$man,

First thing to do is to look at the physical criteria for when fat is utilised as an energy source, and the conditions on which this takes place, and then look at where this takes place in various conditioning work...

Weight loss and fat loss are definately different. In fact, it is possible to be rapidly losing weight while putting fat on...

Smiler

[Bateman]

Hi Smiler,

I can agree that running is good for fat loss , but would you sugest alternative options to running as it is impact on the body and knees ?
Would shuttle runs not be better ?

thanks

[Jimmy Boogaloo]

*takes close interest in Smiler's reply*

[Grizzly.]

As a qualified conditioning coach and personal trainer its been proven that long distance running aren't really very beneficial unless your running a marathon. To burn fat you want to keep distances short and mix them will short hill running and sprints, running too far can burn too many calories which you may not store in the system thus eating away at the muscle in your legs and although making you slimmer, will steal your abs away from you. Hope I've helped whoever.

Also, if you can, try to run more on fields and if possible sand, its just as hard even harder on sand and less hazardous on joints that running on the road, certainly no running in the snow.

[6million$man]

I agree with Grizzly, I'm not disputing that you can do specific types of exercise to burn fat more effectively.

What I'm disagreeing about is how you can lose weight (but gain fat) without losing muscle, water or minerals. It defies the laws of physics! Also, running "slowly enough" does not cause fat burn as opposed to "just calorie burn". If you're burning fat, you're burning calories.

[errol]

Hi 6million$man,

First thing to do is to look at the physical criteria for when fat is utilised as an energy source, and the conditions on which this takes place, and then look at where this takes place in various conditioning work...

Weight loss and fat loss are definately different. In fact, it is possible to be rapidly losing weight while putting fat on...

Smiler

Just out of interest, when does this happen?

[errol]

I agree with Grizzly, I'm not disputing that you can do specific types of exercise to burn fat more effectively.

What I'm disagreeing about is how you can lose weight (but gain fat) without losing muscle, water or minerals. It defies the laws of physics! Also, running "slowly enough" does not cause fat burn as opposed to "just calorie burn". If you're burning fat, you're burning calories.

All things being equal (plasma fatty acids, insulin, glucose etc) muscles exercising at lower intensities do tend to utilize a greater percentage of energy as fatty acids rather than glucose (from the blood stream and as stored glycogen). So in that sense, running slower does burn more fat (per kcal expended) than running faster.

[6million$man]

True that low energy exercise utilises more fat in terms of percentage, but percentage fat burned doesn't have a bearing on total calorie expenditure and therefore weight loss. i.e. you might burn a higher percentage fat, but you burn a lower percentage of carbs to keep energy balance.
There was a controlled trial carried out with two groups of men. One group performed long-duration, low-intensity exercise, while the other group performed short-duration, high-intesity exercise. The two groups were matched to have identical calorie expenditure and the result was both groups lost the same amount of body fat. Therefore, it doesnt matter how you burn the calories, it still comes down to the laws of thermodynamics! Based on that evidence, the best thing to do to burn fat is high-intensity short-duration exercise because it takes less time and you can work your technique instead! (I'm not saying there aren't other benefits to long runs though)

[6million$man]

I know it's only wikipedia, but this is a quick summary of high-intensity, short-duration training.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

[6million$man]

This is another god summary. Check out the "what about fat loss" subtitle.

http://www.cbass.com/FATBURN.HTM

[errol]

I don’t disagree with any of the above I simply replied to your earlier post (which was slightly incorrect). In fact, re: short or long cardio sessions I agree with you (although I will say I think there are a lack of good studies looking at in depth at muscle metabolism, gene expression etc to make conclusive statements)

The truth is that the compartment that energy comes from (and whether that compartment is/is not replenished post exercise) depends on a multitude of parameters including intensity and duration of exercise, pre and post exercise nutrition, plasma hormones balance, time of day, individual metabolism ….etc,etc,etc,etc.

[6million$man]

I wasn't disagreeing with you either, you clearly know your stuff! I was just posting some general info on the topic for anyone who's interested.

Not sure what was incorrect about my statement though:

"running "slowly enough" does not cause fat burn as opposed to "just calorie burn". If you're burning fat, you're burning calories."

[errol]

Sorry, hadn't meant to be argumentative :)

It’s just that there tends to be a lot of misinformation when it comes to metabolism and this can be counter productive.

I thought your statement gave the impression that the % of calories expended as fat was not related to intensity of exercise. I apologize if I misunderstood you.

[Grizzly.]

Its impossible to lose weight, but gain fat, without losing water minerals or muscle. Damn that hurt my brain.

[6million$man]

No need to apologise- can be tricky writing/understanding posts on a forum!

[LewisJ]

I generally agree with 6million$man, but I think there are 2 different situations to consider.

1. If you're talking about someone who's running for weight/ fat loss then the most important thing is the energy deficit that is created, therefore if you only have 1 hour to run, the further you run the more calories you'll expend, so assuming your energy intake is maintained the more weight/fat you'll lose.

2. If you're talking about a pro mma athlete who's already training 2-3 times a day then the intensity of the run should be low enough that it's going to minimise its effects on the trainig program.

[Smiler]

Hi!

Its easy on a forum to give just quick answers...hence lots of discussion...but we're all nearly coming from the same source. Lewisj has a good summary in 2., and in 1. is correct of course too.

Running is not hard on the joints should you run with correct style and surface...and you are free from injuries...

There's still some fat loss/weight loss issues - Errol know's where I'm coming from here...

Note on fat gain and weight loss - simplification, but have a look at the body's starvation modes. Over a year ago I found some pubmed studies on Atkins, where people lost weight but put on fat by getting the Atkins incorrect...basically the body storing fat and metabolising muscle...and have a look at the fact that you store 4g of water for every 1g of carb and you can see the water effect on low carbs...

Bateman, I actually use walking for pure fat loss without affecting any of my other training. I actually use a 20kg weighted vest as well, but this isn't essesntial by any means! You could use swimming, any cardio machine...

I think I've been taken to task on trying to answer a complex point simply, but basically I agree that if you are not doing pro sport, and are fit, then HIIT is the best way to go for just about everything, including fat loss, and calorie control. But...

If you are a pro athlete or an 'un-conditioned' person where HIIT may not be appropriate for additional fat loss, then I would strongly recommend low aerobic activity, such as walking, for the fat burn. No excessive stress on the body for the un-conditioned, and for an athlete they will not be breaking down their much needed tissue, and can also utilise it as active recovery, while utilising fat as an energy source.

As an athlete I think that moderate intensity work is the devil, and should only be used for sport-specific technical training. Moderate activity doesn't target fat and breaks down the muscles.

High intensity burns more calories, releases the fat burning hormones and enzymes, and greatly improves your conditioning.

So, High and low = good, moderate - bad...

Damn, this is all so much a simplification and only a tiny part of the story...

Smiler

[6million$man]

TTT

10 characters

[simonmobiledisco]

I thought this was pretty much QED

[Wiegieboard]

Interesting thread.
P.S. walking uphill for fat loss ftw. When I'm training in the summer for fellrunning and hillwalking in the summer, I'm about a stone to a stone and a half lighter than I am in the winter where I train to powerlift much more intensely.

[simonmobiledisco]

I'm too busy to post links, but what smiler is alluding too and is an important factor in how running affects the CNS.

You can just isolate the exercise away from the program. Ie there is no simple this is better than that. If you are training intensively for sports then walking for fat loss would have lower impact to the other training, therefore the the sport can be performed at a higher intensity burning more calories. also recovery will be better allowing for sustained training without breaks.

You always here about footballer getting stick for earning 50K and not being able to play 3 games in a week. but the body, like most machines, has a capacity and if you exceed that it starts to fail