Running Research News And Events

VP TRAINING-JUST RIGHT FOR MARATHONS AND 5KS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0500

At this time of year, marathon runners are looking for the perfect "tune-up" workouts for their marathons - sessions which spike fitness and increase the likelihood that an up-coming marathon can be completed at goal speed. 5-K runners, on the other hand, are searching for sessions which will produce one last 5-K PR before the season ends.

Strangely enough, both groups of runners can employ the same kind of training - in the form of VP workouts. Performed properly, VP (variable-pace) sessions produce major up-swings in aerobic capacity, vVo2max, and lactate threshold, all of which are important for 5-K and marathon success. VP training also enhances running economy at both 5-K and marathon speeds, making goal pace for either race more sustainable.

VP running is very similar to traditional interval training, but it differs from classic interval work in a fundamental way: When you conduct intervals, you ordinarily alternate between a high-quality velocity (your work-interval speed) and a rather-low-quality pace (your recovery, jogging speed). In VP training, you interchange two very important, high-quality running speeds during the course of your workout.

How is a VP workout actually constructed? Here's a perfect example of this unique form of training:

Carry out a thorough warm-up which fires up your cardiovascular and neuromuscular systems. Then, run 400 meters at your current (or reasonable-goal) 5-K pace and - without stopping for recovery - run 400 meters at your current, goal, or estimated marathon pace. Once you have completed the marathon - pace 400, return - without a break - to 5-K pace for another 400 meters. Finally, scamper through a fourth 400 - back at marathon tempo again. To summarize, you will have run four 400s in succession (1600 meters total) no recovery at all; the first and third 400s will have been at 5-K speed and the second and fourth at marathon pace. Jog lightly for three to four minutes to recover.

To learn more about VP training (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.21 Issue 5) and many more running/marathon related topics.

Simply select Vol. 21 Issue 5, in the "back issues" box, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information.
Subscribe Now.

DOES CROSS-TRAINING IMPROVE RUNNERS PERFORMANCE?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Have your running times stopped improving, leaving you wondering what you can do to give it a kick-start? Are your training runs boring and you�re looking for something to make it fun again? Cross Training

Have you reached a point where you just cannot squeeze any more running into your schedule because you�ll get injured? Are you getting injured frequently?

If any of these are happening to you, consider cross training (CT). Recent research shows that supplementing, or even replacing part of your running program with other forms of exercise might be just what you need to avoid boredom, minimize injuries, and take your running to a new level.

What is cross training? The term refers to a wide variety of training activities that are not your primary focus (running), but may still have a positive crossover effect on your running. Indeed many coaches apply cross training to experienced marathoners and beginners alike. Successful athletes in most sports practice some form of cross training. Cross Training

Cross Training became a buzzword back in the 1980�s, with the advent of triathlons. Triathletes were forced to indulge in multi-sport training because of their three events. Soon afterwards, runners took up cross training and many found racing times and training performances improving, and they were injured less.

But for a long time, research proving the effectiveness of cross training lagged behind. What, then, are the purported advantages of cross training?

Running Performance Improvement
One of the strongest arguments in favor of cross training is the concept that you can do extra endurance training with less strain on your running muscles and joints. This indirect conditioning is most beneficial when the runner feels he or she is maxing out on their mileage, and (based on past experience) further running would put them over the edge, precipitating injury.

Somewhere around 50 miles per week seems to be the breakdown point for many semi-serious runners, although this self destruct point is relative to many variables in runners; years running, age, gender, experience, natural biomechanics, etc. What we do know is that when runners flirt with this much mileage, injuries soon follow.

Non-specific cross-training that uses other aerobic activities enables the runner to get more endurance training in without further compromising the running muscles and joints. It uses the same muscle groups in a different (non weight-bearing) way.

Even more exciting for the competitive runner who has reached a plateau, is the fact that these added workouts can be done at high intensity, further stimulating the aerobic (citric acid cycle) pathway for increased gains in maximal oxygen uptake.

A high intensity cycling session, for example, enables the runner to develop increased lactate tolerance, buffering capacity, and fuel resynthesis, without undergoing the high impact stress on the legs of an interval-training workout.

A runner who already performs 2-3 high intensity workouts weekly, risks injury or overtraining by adding more running workouts at this level. However, throwing in an intense stairclimber or cycling session gives the runner an extra workout each week that could help take him or her to a new level, without the added trauma of high intensity running.

It�s also possible that cross-training may activate more motor units, and thus muscle fibers, and develop much needed strength in the upper body that is generally neglected in runners although there is no direct research proving any of these claims at this time. Cross Training

However, research has shown that endurance type training does transform type IIa muscle fibers into type IIbs, meaning they�ve taken on endurance characteristics. In addition, endurance training makes many other changes to muscle tissue including increased mitochondrial density increased capillary density, increased metabolic enzyme activity, and increased glycogen storage.

Cross Training for injury prevention
With repetitive movement like running that operate through a restricted range of motion it�s easy to overwork the same muscles and joints, leading to injuries. These injuries are primarily caused by trauma to the muscles, tendons, joints, strength imbalances, shortened muscles, and decreased flexibility caused by your legs going through the same motion thousands of times. It�s thought that cross training will re-establish symmetry between your muscle groups.

By doing extra endurance work in other low impact or low weight bearing aerobic activities like cycling, stair climbing, swimming, deep-water running, or using the elliptical trainer, you get an �active rest�, with virtually no stress on your joints, and you�ll recover from those pesky lower extremity injuries or muscular soreness far faster than rest alone.

At least this is what common sense tells us about cross training. Surprisingly, a study by Murphy et al concluded that cross training might not reduce injury rate. Another study found that, �cycling can be a great choice for runners to loosen the repetitive stress of running that contributes to overuse injuries. But cycling may come with its own set of problems, particularly back pain�.

Another study (Cipriani et al) concluded that �multisport training may also contribute to a specific category of injuries, those related to the cumulative effects of cross-training�. This points to the need to know how to balance the different demands of a multi-sport training program--more about this later. Cross Training

Cross Training for Variety in Your Training Program
Avoiding burnout is one of the most appealing aspects of cross training for the serious runner. Anything you can do to reduce the boredom and monotony that sets in after several months of doing the same training will benefit your running.

If you�re not enjoying your running sessions you�ll soon find yourself skipping workouts, leading to decreased training volume, and inevitably, reduced performance. Cross training enables you to take a mental break from the stress of single-sport training and gives you much needed variety by breaking your program up and adding spice to your routine.

For exercise enthusiasts using running as their primary means of developing cardio-respiratory fitness, cross training will balance the strength and endurance between muscle groups. However, this advice is written for the runner looking to improve racing and training performance, so will not dwell on general fitness benefits of cross training.

What cross-training activities are complementary to running?
Several activities have been shown to complement running effectively, including cycling, stair climbing, deep-water running, swimming, and using the elliptical trainer.

The Principle of Specificity
Note that all these exercises use the legs for a major part of propulsion. Despite this similarity, an important principle of exercise science is glaringly defied by cross training�that of specificity.

This aged principle states that if you are to improve in a specific sport, you should practice that activity solely, and by throwing other similar activities into the mix you confuse your neuromuscular system, thus actually retarding your running progress.

One study (Foster et al) more or less confirmed this principle. Well-trained men and women added either running or swimming to their baseline running schedules, versus a group that continued their baseline running. The training period was for 8 weeks. Cross Training

After the post-tests were done, the extra running group improved in a test that measured lactate build up at a set velocity, while the other groups did not. And the researchers had the sense to put in a field test that actually measured running times over 2 miles. Again the extra running group improved the most, by 26.4 seconds, with the cycling group improving its times by 13.2 seconds. The running baseline group did not improve its time significantly. So, according to this study, cross training may improve running performance, but not as much as a running only program.

You see, you�re supposed to use the same type, speed, duration, and range of motion of an activity to improve your desired sport, in this case running. Because of their differing emphasis on various muscle groups, the nervous and muscular systems work in contrasting ways during different activities. This explains why world-class athletes like Tour de France cyclists, for example, are not world-class marathoners.

These elite cyclists exercise most of the muscle groups used in running, but in a very different way. Thus they are extremely efficient at cycling, but would be only average in distance running because their neuromuscular system is not efficient in the mechanics of running.

Lance Armstrong recently ran the Boston Marathon (April, 2008), recording a time of 2:50:58. Certainly this time is not to be sneezed at, but a thousand Boston marathoners can boast that they beat the 7-time winner of Le Tour.

But, like many age-old tenets of exercise science, there is contradicting research showing that indeed some activities can help improve other sports.
The case for strength training has been made convincingly enough now, that most elite endurance athletes, including runners, do some form of resistance training.

But what effect do aerobic activities have on running? Certainly coaches will tell you the best way to training for running is by running, yet some recent studies appear to contradict this principle. And for a long time no published study had linked cross training with actually improving running performances, until recently. . . .

Then a study by Ruby et al., had three groups of exercisers do a ten-week training program of running, or cycling, or a mixture of both. Their results found that all groups improved VO2 max. (The oxygen processing ability of the body) similarly. So, this study showed that at least a combined cross-training program achieves similar fitness to sports specific training. Cross Training

Another study (Millet et al), looked at cross-training effects in elite triathletes. It concluded that a certain amount of cross-transfer training occurs between cycling and running, but not with swimming.

One of the most promising studies to validate cross-training, conducted by Mutton et al., looked at the effects of running four days/week compared with a combined cycling (2 days/week) and running (2 days/week) schedule, for a total of four days/week, over a five week training program.

The results for both groups were almost identical, both groups improving VO2 max significantly, and reducing their 5 km run times by 7% (running only) and 8% (running/cycling). This showed that augmenting a running program with cycling showed no decrease in performance over a running only program.

Another cycling/running study at the university of Toledo found similar results, when 10 well-trained runners (who averaged 30-35 miles/week), added 3 cycling workouts per week to their existing training schedules, for 6 weeks. The workouts were all high intensity, such as 5-minute interval efforts, 150-second and 75-second high intensity bursts, and a longer duration workout of 50 minutes at 80% of maximal heart rate. Another group of runners added three similar running workouts to their training schedule.

After 6 weeks the running/cycling group times came down by almost 30 seconds, from 18:16 to 17:48, or 3%, which was almost the same as the running only group�s average. The conclusions were that adding extra running sessions was no better than adding extra cycling sessions.

A California State University study also used two groups of runners for a study on cross training. A running only group and a cycling only group performed a 9-week training program. At the end of the training both groups performed the same in running tests. Cross Training

An interesting study in 2003 found triathletes who cycled at a fast cadence reduced their 2-mile times by 7% on average. The implications are that cycling at a faster speed cadence similar to running improves running performance. The researchers theorize that the neuromuscular effects of fast cycling transfer to running, if done at a similar cadence.

A review by Tanaka concluded that there is clearly some transfer of training effects, (VO2 max.), from cycling to running. This is most noticeable when running is the main cross-training method. Swimming however, has minimal effects on running or cycling. Perhaps, after all, the specificity principle isn�t as significant as many coaches and exercise scientists have long believed.

At the very least, it appears that certain activities preserve and maintain running fitness while the runner is doing less, or even no, running. This in itself could be a reason for the runner to cross-train. Cross Training

DEHYDRATION�IT�S NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Traditional ideas about drinking during running have lost their steam. The old, dried-up philosophy is that dehydration is to be avoided at all costs and that runners should drink, drink, and then drink some more during their prolonged efforts to avoid overheating and enhance performance. Such desiccated thinking ignores the facts that overheating is caused by environmental conditions and running pace and that the best runners usually end their races more dehydrated than slower individuals.Dehydration

Dehydration: It�s just not what it used to be. In the old days of running, dehydration was a very bad thing, something to be feared. If your sweat losses were great enough during a run, you
automatically became dehydrated, and if you were dehydrated you were suffering from a disease, a pathological condition. Automatically, your risk of overheating � and thus �heat cramps,� �heat exhaustion,� and heat stroke went up, and your performance capacity went down.

Such thinking had a scientific seal of approval, thanks to a classic piece of research carried out by C. H. Wyndham and N. B. Strydom, published in 1969, with the rather ominous title, �The Danger of an Inadequate Water Intake during Marathon Running� (1). This study purported to show that deficient drinking during prolonged running produced dehydration and thus significant health risks. For most runners and coaches, that all seemed logical enough. After all, wouldn�t dehydration reduce plasma volume and thus curtail blood flow to the skin during exercise (a key cooling mechanism)? If an athlete�s body were low on fluid, wouldn�t sweat rates tend to dry up, further impairing the cool-off process?

And� in the dehydrated state - wouldn�t blood flow to the muscles drop, thus decreasing oxygen delivery to the sinews and putting the brakes on running pace? It was hard to answer �no� to those questions, and the solution seemed to be to drink, drink, and then drink some more during
extended running in order to fend off any possibility of desiccation. Today, many runners find themselves securely enmeshed in the dehydration-is-terrible-therefore drink- as-much-as possible during- exercise paradigm. Dehydration

There�s just one problem with all of this: It�s just plain wrong. As Tim Noakes of the University of Cape Town points out, the classic study of Wyndham and Strydom did not really pinpoint any dangers associated with miserly water consumption during marathon running (2). In fact, the
investigation actually revealed that the runners who were dehydrated to the greatest extent were the most-successful � they were the winners of the races which were analyzed!

Nonetheless, the Wyndham-Strydom paper put in place a widely accepted, much-trusted bit
of (il)logic regarding exercise in the heat, namely that (1) dehydration during running causes heat stroke, (2) the only way to prevent heat stroke is to thwart dehydration, and (3) individuals who collapse during exercise in the heat must have a heat disorder related to dehydration, which can only be treated with fluid therapy. Over the past 15 years, Noakes has steadily dismantled this (il)logical structure (although the dismantling has not been adequately noticed by the running community).

First, Tim and his colleagues at the University of Cape Town were able to show that body temperature in marathoners is not related to dehydration status (3). Post-marathon rectal temperatures were taken from 30 fit marathon runners (average VO2max = 58.3 ml.kg 1.min-1) to see if the temps would be related to extent of dehydration, running velocity during the race, and/or estimated, within-race metabolic rates. As it turned out, the marathoners� body temperatures were significantly linked with their running paces and metabolic rates, not with dehydration. Dehydration

The faster the marathoners ran, the hotter they were. Greater dehydration, though, did not lead to higher internal temperatures. This kind of finding, while somewhat unexpected (given the popularity of the dehydration paradigm), certainly makes sense. After all, about 75 percent of the energy created during running is heat energy � only 25 percent is actually utilized for propulsion.

Faster running means that heat is produced at higher rates, and thus one would expect marathon race pace to be fairly tightly linked with body temperature. Subsequent work by Noakes and co-workers verified the lack of connection between dehydration and overheating � and reinforced the idea that dehydration does not hurt performance. In one study carried out with participants in the 2000 South African Ironman Triathlon, percentage change in body weight during competition (a marker of dehydration) was totally unrelated to post-race rectal temperature or finishing time (4). In a second comprehensive investigation which included athletes from both the 2000 and 2001 South African Ironman competition, body temperature was again not tightly linked with extent of dehydration, and dehydration also failed to predict the risk of medical complications of any kind following the event (5).

Says Noakes, �Humans evolved to run long distances in extreme heat as they chased antelope in
Africa. If they couldn�t do that, they couldn�t survive. Sweating evolved as an adaptation that allowed us to chase the antelope; with sweating, we wouldn�t overheat during the chase. The antelope, in contrast, could not sweat (and still can�t), and thus they overheated, had to slow down, and were captured� (6). Got it? Our ancestors engaged in heavy sweating. It dehydrated them but kept them cool. The poor antelope couldn�t sweat, stayed well-hydrated, and were the losers in this hunting �game.� Dehydration

Dehydration was a good thing, because it helped to prevent overheating. As Noakes points out, the �Bushmen� (San) of southern Africa often wait to begin their hunts until ambient temperature reaches about 40 degrees Centigrade (~ 104 degrees Fahrenheit), knowing that pursuits under such conditions will overheat their prey. In one situation about which Noakes is aware, Bushmen
ran for six hours, while the temperature reached 46 degrees Centigrade (~ 115 degrees Fahrenheit), before overcoming their victims. During those six hours, the San pursuers drank a maximum of one liter of fluid each. They ended up dehydrated � but happy with their success, and without medical complications.

�That is how we evolved the ability to run and the capacity to sweat,� says Noakes. �And sweating� and its associated dehydration � protected us from heat stroke; it did not - and does not - cause it.� �One of the concerns I have is that this condition of dehydration has now become a medical disease. Dehydration actually means that your body fluid stores are reduced. That does not mean that you have a medical condition as a result or that there is an automatic medical crisis caused by fluid loss from the body.

What now frequently happens is that runners, during prolonged exercise, may begin to develop various symptoms, and they often believe that these symptoms are caused by the �disease� called dehydration. Instead of saying, �I have a headache,� a runner tends to immediately make the diagnosis of dehydration because he has been taught that all symptoms during exercise indicate that the medical condition called dehydration must be present. Of course, the runner also believes that there is only one cure � drinking more fluid.� �A key thing for your readers to remember is that dehydration is not a medical condition with specific symptoms and signs like tuberculosis or pneumonia. Dehydration

Rather, dehydration is purely a biological state in which total body water content is reduced. There is absolutely no evidence that - at the levels of dehydration achieved by normal runners � symptoms appear which are the exclusive results of those reductions in body water.� As Noakes points out, runners can actually fare quite well from a performance standpoint while in the dehydrated state. �What they can do in the heat was clearly shown by the winner of the Olympic
Women�s Marathon race in 2004. Mizuki Noguchi, the victor, ran without distress in 35-degree heat (105 degrees Fahrenheit), even though she was drinking very little and thus must have been in a dehydrated condition.�

In fact, as Noakes suggests, moderate levels of dehydration may convey some direct advantages (in addition to the indirect benefits associated with cooling). The moderately dehydrated athlete is lighter than the well-hydrated individual, and thus his/her running economy should be enhanced. In addition, VO2max is expressed per kilogram of body weight, and thus dehydration-related losses in weight might increase VO2max. It is likely that it is no accident that Wyndham and Strydom�s winning marathoners were the most-dehydrated individuals in their overall investigation.

Don�t take all of this the wrong way, though: You�ll still want to consume a sports drink during your exertions lasting an hour or more, especially since the sports drink will provide carbs for your muscles as they gradually become glycogen-depleted during your efforts. The point is that you do not need to over-drink � either before or during your long run or race. Attempting to match your fluid-intake rate with your sweat rate is unnecessary. Rather, a reasonable intake of five to six ounces of sports drink (e. g., five to six regular swallows) every 15 minutes or so during your run is appropriate, even though your sweat rate (and thus body water loss) will probably be greater than that.Dehydration

Note, too, that overdrinking is not only unnecessary: it carries with it a risk of a real medical condition � hyponatremia. Consuming lots of plain water during prolonged running in an effort to ward off dehydration constitutes one of the main risks of developing this sometimes-deadly disorder. As Noakes says, it is far better simply to drink according to the dictates of thirst. �As long as athletes drink according to thirst during their efforts, they will develop neither severe dehydration nor over hydration.� In a recent paper providing guidelines for fluid replacement, Noakes urges athletes not to consume more than 800 ml (~ 27 ounces) of fluid per hour as they exercise (7). ©

References
(1) �The Danger of an Inadequate Water Intake during Marathon Running,� South African Medical Journal, Vol. 43 (29), pp. 893-896, 1969
(2) �Dehydration during Exercise: What Are the Real Dangers?� Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 5 (2), pp. 123-128, 1995
(3) �Metabolic Rate, not Percent Dehydration, Predicts Rectal Temperature in Marathon Runners,� Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, Vol. 23 (4), pp. 443-449, 1991
(4) �Weight Changes, Sodium Levels, and Performance in the South African Ironman Triathlon,� Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 12 (6), pp. 391-399, 2002
(5) �Weight Changes, Medical Complications, and Performance during an Ironman Triathlon,� British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 38 (6), pp. 718-724, 2004
(6) Tim Noakes, personal communication
(7) �Fluid Replacement during Marathon Running,� Clinical Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 13 (5), pp. 309-318, 2003

CAN YOU BE PULLED TO HIGHER-SPEED RUNNING?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0500

A RECENT ARTICLE in The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (JSCR) enhances our knowledge of what it takes to improve stride rate, a key factor in speed amelioration (1). As the previous essay in this book pointed out, your running speed is a function of two key variables, stride length and stride rate. In fact, your speed is simply stride length multiplied by stride rate. If � when you move along at your maximal intensity � you cover four meters with each stride and take 90 strides (180 steps) per minute, your max velocity is 4 × 90 = 360 meters per minute, or 6 meters per second. Expressed another way, your best-possible pace is 400/6 = 66.67 seconds per 400 meters.

This number is of much more than esoteric interest. As Leena Paavolainen, Heikki Rusko, and several other excellent researchers have pointed out, max running speed (defined as your best-possible velocity in a 20- to 50-meter race, embarked upon from a �flying� start) is a terrific predictor of your success in the mile, 3-K, 5-K, 10-K, and �even� the marathon. To put it another way, �anaerobic prowess� leads to great success in aerobic events. The bottom line is that the factors which are great for improving 20- to 50-meter sprint time (i.e., longer stride length and higher stride rate) are also wonderful for upping performance in long-distance events. For the latter, you just need to make sure you have the underlying physiological capacity necessary to sustain the higher speeds (associated with longer strides and loftier stride rates) you acquire during training. Become A Faster Runner

In the JSCR article, researchers from the National Academy of Sports Medicine and California State University-Chico took a look at what happens when good-quality collegiate sprinters run very fast while being simultaneously �towed� with an elastic cord. Although this might seem a little strange to you, there is a logical argument supporting this practice as a means of improving stride rate. Here�s the concept: You are running very fast, using your best-possible stride rate, but the elastic cord attached to your body forces you to move even more quickly (since the cord in effect continuously drags your body forward, adding additional velocity to the max speed which you are intrinsically capable of producing).

Since the elastic cord is making you move faster than you ordinarily do, you have no choice but to increase your stride rate (the number of steps you take per minute). Otherwise, your body will be unsupported at critical moments during the gait cycle, and you will topple forward onto your face.

Does this sound reasonable? Sure � in theory. But what actually happens when runners� max speeds are artificially increased by means of an elastic tow rope? Is stride rate optimized?

If stride rate were truly upgraded as a result of tow training, it would be a good thing, of course. If you carried out a number of �towed� workouts, your nervous system would learn how to handle a higher stride rate, and � as long as stride length was not compromised � max running speed would be improved. Other runners would begin to worry about you, or � if they did not worry about you � they would at least begin to be concerned about your sudden, seemingly unexplainable and dramatic accelerations during races.

Well, brace yourself: I have a bit of bad news. In the Cal study, the elastic cord towing had no affect whatsoever on stride rate. Here, I�m not even talking about long-term changes in stride rate, the kind you might see after eight weeks of rigorous training. No, the elastic-cord towing did not even advance stride rate during workouts in which the elastic cord was utilized. Become A Faster Runner

That�s right: Stride rate (during maximal 20-meter sprints) was about 127.5 strides (255 steps) per minute � with and without the elastic-cord towing. To put it bluntly, the elastic-cord towing did not produce any change in stride rate during training. Thus, one would not expect elastic-cord towing to be a valid technique for improving stride rate over extended periods of work.

True, running speed with the elastic cord was greater, compared with velocity without the �free tow.� This makes sense: If you have an elastic cord pulling you along, you should be able to move faster than usual! This increase in speed was completely a function of stride length, which burgeoned by about 7 percent with the cord (from 1.9 to 2.03 meters per stride).

Does that mean that elastic-tow training is a great method for expanding stride length? Actually, no! As the Cal researchers (Rodney Corn and Duane Knudson) were able to point out, the fattening of stride length was not the result of greater force production by the runners� leg muscles; it was almost entirely due to the pull of the elastic cord. Basically, the runners were responding to the cord-towing by positioning their feet further in front of their centers of mass with each foot strike, an effect which could actually enhance braking forces (and decrease speed) if carried over to non-towed running. Elastic-cord towing may be a lot of fun, but its value as a speed-enhancing technique has yet to be verified.

So, how do you actually spike stride rate in order to boost your max running speed? The best evidence we have suggests that maximal strength training and explosive work (the use of high-speed sprints and very quick strengthening movements) represent the proper path to a higher stride rate.Become A Faster Runner

The Science of Kenyan Eating

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0500

It's strange, but true: The nutritional practices of the best endurance athletes in the world have not been carefully studied.

Those "best endurance athletes" are clearly the Kenyan runners. Attempting to verify this fact for you is probably unnecessary, but it can at least be noted that one study found that athletes from one collection of Kenyans, the Kalenjin tribe, had won approximately 40 percent of all major international middle-and long-distance running competitions in the 10-year period from 1987 to 1997 (1). In addition, approximately half of all the male athletes in the world who have ever run the 10K in less than 27 minutes hail from Kenya. When they are allowed to enter freely, Kenyan athletes dominate road races around the world. It would be possible to continue in this vein for many more sentences. 20 Kenyan Commandments

And yet, until now the eating habits of the very top-level Kenyan runners have not been examined in a scientific way, even though the Kenyans' nutritional practices must assuredly represent a key reason for their running success. The person who might argue that "If only the Kenyans would eat differently, they could run much faster," would appear to be flimsy ground. The Kenyans are doing things right when they sit down at their dinner table, or they would not be so dominating in international competitions.

To answer these questions, Yannis Pitsiladis of the international Centre of East African Running Science in Glasgow, Scotland, along with Mike Boit (the Olympic bronze-medal winner from the 1972 Games), Vincent Onywera, and Festus Kiplamai from the Exercise and Sports Science Department at Kenyatta University in Nairobi and the Department of Foods, Nutrition, and Dietetics at Egerton University in Njoro, Kenya, recently monitored everything that went into the mouths of 10 elite Kenyan runners over a seven-day period at a training camp near Kaptagat, Kenya (2). This brace of Kenyan athletes was truly top-level, including several Olympic medalists and also first-place finishers from the Paris and Athens World Championships.

(1) Breakfast at 8:00

(2) Mid-morning snack at 10:00

(3) Lunch at 13:00

(4) Afternoon snack at 16:00

(5) Supper at 19:00

To learn more about More News Concerning The Science of Kenyan Eating (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.21 Issue 1 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply enter "the science of Kenyan eating", in the Search-Archives" box to the right. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. EAT LIKE A CHAMP

Where Do You Go For The Ultimate In 5-K Training?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Have you been scrambling to find the Solution to your 5-K training woes? Would you like to knock another minute or two off your 5-K time? If so, you have arrived at the right place. Running Research News, has blended their training philosophies and cutting-edge techniques into a top-notch 5-K training program.

RRNews' Intermediate 5-K Program is designed to propel your 5-K performances to a higher level. Your running is about to change! With RRNews' program, you will reach a new performance pinnacle - where you will regard yourself as an outstanding runner, not just someone who runs. RUNNING AT ITS FASTEST

Every training scheme has to have a basic foundation, and RRNews' 5-K program is built around high-quality running workouts and a "backbone" of strength training for running. Running-specific strength training keeps you away from injury, reduces fatigue, improves your running efficiency, and ultimately makes you much faster. All of these thing are of course great for the 5K.

The traditional method of training for the 5K, with a base of mileage, followed by tempo training, some hill work, and then several weeks of speed training, has gone out the window, thanks to recent advances in the field of exercise physiology. As Nietzsche once said, to perform at your very best it is important "to climb as high into the pure icy Alpine air as a philosopher ever climbed, up to where all the mist and obscurity cease and where the fundamental constitution of things speaks in a voice rough and rigid but inescapably comprehensible." To reach their true performance peaks, 5-K runners need to optimize VO2max, running economy, vVO2max, lactate-threshold speed, running-specific strength, power, and race-specific preparations. The program you are about to embark on will do all of these things for you! RUNNING AT ITS FASTEST

The program is clear, concise, and straightforward to carry out, taking you day by day through 26 weeks of transforming training. The overall scheme follows RRNews philosophy of progressing from easier to harder workouts, of moving from strengthening exercises which are less specific to running to those which are more specific, and of progressing to workouts which are more and more like the demands of running at 5-K goal pace in your most-important race of the season. Recently, one of RRNews runners used the program to improve her 5-K time from 24:30 to 19:36! RUNNING AT ITS FASTEST

With RRNews training, the goal is not to knock yourself out with tons of hard work and then hope for the best on race day. With this new program, you gradually work your way up to higher and higher levels of fitness, so that you are totally ready to "breathe the pure Alpine air" and climb to your highest-possible level of performance when it really matters.

Welcome! We are here to help you reach your highest goals as a runner. RUNNING AT ITS FASTEST!.

A FINE FOOTSTRIKE

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0500

How do we actually "take the brakes off" during the stance phase of the gait cycle? Two factors must be at work: First, our nervous systems must be highly reactive, so that muscular actions which inhibit forward propulsion can be inhibited from the moment of impact and muscular actions which boost propulsion can be instigated without hesitation. Second, our movements must be well-coordinated, so that there is no need to spend extra time (and energy) restoring the body's equilibrium position in response to awkward movements. Footstrike must be an explosive time, not a period in which weakly controlled joint movements must be corrected prior to toe-off or in which the leg muscles "throw on the brakes." What we want to achieve is both extreme quickness and incredible control. Footstrike-related deceleration must be minimized.

A routine for you; to dramatically enhance quickness, abbreviate the time duration of footstrike, and decrease energy wastage during the footstrike portion of walking and running, carry out the following routine several times a week:

(1) Jog along with very springy, short steps, landing on the mid-foot area with each contact and springing upward after impact. As you move along your ankles should act like coiled springs, compressing slightly with each mid-foot landing and then recoiling quickly - causing you to bound upward and forward. Move along for one minute with quick, little spring-like strides, alternating right and left feet as you would during regular running. After this minute is completed, jog in your regular manner for about 10 seconds, and then "spring-jog" for about 20 meters, alternating three consecutive spring-like contacts with your right foot with three contacts with the left (e.g., three hops on your right foot, three hops on your left, three more on your right, etc., until you have traveled about 20 meters). Jog in your usual manner for 10 seconds again, and then spring-hop along for meters on your right foot only, before shifting over to 20 meters on the left foot alone (make certain that you land in the mid-foot area with each ground contact).

(2) Perform two 40-second sets of one-leg hops in place on each leg. Stand in a relaxed position, with your full body weight supported on your left foot only. Lift your left heel slightly, so that the force of body weight is passing through the ball of the left foot (your right knee is flexed so that your right knee is off the ground). Then, hop rapidly on your left foot at a cadence of 2.5 to 3 hops per second (25 to 30 foot contacts per 10 seconds) for the prescribed time period, while maintaining relaxed, upright posture. Your left foot should strike the ground in the area of the mid-foot and spring upwards rapidly, as though it were contacting a very hot burner on a stove. Your hips should remain fairly level as you do this; try to minimize vertical displacement of your upper body.

(3) "Box-hop" with "sticks" for 60 seconds on your right foot, rest for a few seconds, and then shift over to 60 seconds of box hopping on your left foot. After resting for a moment, repeat with each foot. The box utilized for this exercise should be sturdy and about six inches in height. To perform the exercise, stand about two meters away from the box, and then hop forward quickly toward the box on one foot only. As you near the box, hop up onto the box surface (continuing to hop on only the chosen foot), and then hop quickly off the "far" side of the box. When you land on the other side, hop forward explosively, i. e., with as little ground-contact time as possible. In this explosive hop, try to avoid significant vertical oscillation of your center mass; you are trying for length, not height. When you land from this explosive hop, continue hopping on the same foot four more hops, and when your foot touches down after the fourth hop. "stick" your position, i. e., and stop movement completely while remaining relaxed and nicely balanced on your single foot. Jog back to the starting point on both feet, and then continue the exercise on the chosen foot until the time limit is up. Following a short rest, do the hopping routine on the other foot.

(4) Complete 10 high-knee explosions with your right leg, rest for a few seconds, and repeat with your left leg. To carry these out, stand with erect but relaxed posture with your fully body-weight supported on your right foot. Begin by jumping very lightly in place on your right foot only, but then suddenly - while maintaining fairly erect posture - jump vertically while swinging your right knee up toward your chest (your left arm should swing forward as your right knee comes up). Land back on your right foot in a relaxed and resilient manner, jump lightly for a few moments, and repeat nine more times, before resting briefly and continuing the pattern on your left leg.

(5) Perform 3X 20 seconds of Shane's In-Place Accelerations. To carry these out, stand with erect but relaxed posture with your feet directly below your shoulders. Begin by simply jogging in place, but then - when you feel ready - begin to dramatically increase your in-place "stride rate", building up fairly quickly to as rapid rate of striding as you can sustain (remember that you are not moving forward to any significant degree). Keep your feet close to the ground as you do this; you're not shooting for high knee lift but rather for dramatically minimized foot-contact times. Maintain erect but relaxed posture. As you accelerate up to "top speed". it sometimes help to turn your legs slightly outward at the hips.

To minimize the risk of injury, at least at first, please make sure that all of these activities are completed on a "forgiving" surface (soft dirt, grass, cushioned artificial turf, or wooden gym floor).

The above quintet of quicksilver exercise will of course enhance the reactivity of your nervous system and thus help to minimize footstrike time. Naturally, strength and coordination of the weight bearing leg are also needed to ensure that energy will not be wasted correcting non-optimal leg and body movements associated with footstrike. As mentioned, the overall idea is to create quick-to-act legs which channel all available energy toward forward propulsion, without the need to correct anti-propulsive movements.

Stay tuned for exercises that strengthens the legs tremendously and improves balance and coordination to a close to maximal extent.

To learn more about A Fine Foot strike (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.17I ssue 5 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER: FAST, EXPONENTIAL DECAY MAY BE THE WAY

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement about how tapering periods should be constructed. These debates revolve around how long a tapering period should be, the extent to which training volume, intensity, and frequency should be reduced during a taper, and also - very importantly - the rate at which these variables should be reduced.

One dispute has centered around whether tapers should contain "step reductions" in training or " exponential decays." In a step reduction, total training is reduced by a certain amount, and the new volume of training is sustained throughout the tapering period. In an exponential-decay situation, the quantity of training decreases steadily over the course of the taper (there is no step-down in volume but rather a continuous slide), reaching bare-bones levels at the end of the tapering period. One popular step-down strategy is to clip training by 5 to 70 percent and then maintain the new, lower volume of work for one to three weeks. Traditionally, exponential decays have been linked with shorter durations of time, often four to eight days.

Until now, the relative merits of step-reduction and exponential-decay tapering have been poorly evaluated. Several years ago, outstanding tapering theorist Joe Houmard asked 5-K runners to cut training by 70 percent for three weeks (a step reduction). At the end of the 21 -day period, the runners' 5-K race times were not significantly better, nor did the runners exhibit greater muscular power (Houmard, J. et al., "Testosterone, Cortisol, and Creatine Kinase Levels in Male Distance Runners during Reduced Training, " international Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 11, pp. 41-45, 1990). In contrast, a seven-day exponential decay in which training volume was reduced each day and overall weekly volume dropped by 85 percent produced dramatic improvements in 5-K race times and muscular power (Houmard, J. et al., "The Effects of Taper on Performance in Distance Runners," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 26, pp. 624-631, 1994).

This has led some tapering theorists to argue that when training volume is reduced aggressively and progressively to an extremely low level, performance is improved to a greater extent, compared with a single (or even several-) step reduction over a more extended period of time. Some anti-step scientists even go on to argue that step reductions usually maintain performance but do not enhance it.

Such arguements are not completely fair, however, since step-reduction tapering has been linked with fairly impressive gains in physical capacity. For example, in a classic study carried out by renowned exercise physiologist Dave Costill in his laboratory at Ball State University, collegiate swimmers reduced training volume from 10,000 (!) to 3200 yards per day during a 15-day period (Costill, D. et al., "Effects of Reduced Training on Muscular Power in Swimmers," Physician and Sportsmedicine, Vol. 13, pp.94-100, 1985).

After this 15-day step-reduction taper, the swimmers' performance times improved by 3.6 percent, their arm strength and power swelled by up to 25 percent, and blood-lactate levels were lower during 200-yard swimming "sprints". These results led Costill to recommend - in his fine book Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology - tapering periods of approximately two-weeks duration, with volume set at about one-third of usual levels (a large step reduction).

In later work, Raymond Kenitzer and Catherine Jackson asked 15 female collegiate swimmers to pare training volume by about 60 percent over a four-week period (Kenitzer, R. and Jackson, C., "Blood Lactate Concentration in Female Competitive Collegiate Swimmers during End Season Taper," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 21 (2), p.S23, 1989).

For the long distance swimmers involved in the study, volume dropped from 8000 daily yards to 3500 yards. During this step-reduction taper, blood-lactate levels fell steadily for about two and one-half weeks, and performances increased progressively over the same time frame. After two and one-half weeks, however, lactate concentrations and performance times both began to worsen. Kenitzer and Jackson drew the obvious conclusion: 60-percent, step-reduction tapers lasting up to 17 to 18 days are good things.

Step reductions can do more than maintain performance levels. However, the exponential cause was advanced pretty dramatically shortly after the publication of Kenitzer's work. Another scientist with a strong interest in tapering, Duncan MacDougall of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario (Canada), asked a group of well-conditioned runners who were averaging 45 to 50 miles of running per week to try out three different kinds of one-week tapers. The three startegies were:

(1) Doing nothing at all during the week (a 100-percent step-reduction),

(2) Running about 18 miles during the week at a leisurely pace, with a complete-rest day at the end of the week (a 64-percent step reduction), and

(3) Undergoing a drastic exponential decay in training over the week, with an emphasis on quality running. Using this strategy, the runners completed five hard 500-meter intervals on the first day of decay, four 500-meter blasts on the second day, 3 X 500 on day three, just 2 X 500 on day four, and a single 500-meter surge on day five. After a rest on day six, they were ready to be tested on day seven (as were the employers of strategies one and two). Importantly, each 500-meter interval was performed at about one mile race pace, and since the runners warmed up with 500 meters of inchmeal running before the quality intervals were undertaken, the total training volume for the week was about 10K, or just over six miles. Thus, this decay involved an overall 87- to 88-percent reduction in training (MacDougall, D. et al., "Physiologic Effects of Tapering in Highly Trained Athletes," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol.22 (2), Supplement, #801, 1990)

To learn more about Planning the Right Taper (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 5 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

THE LYDIARD TRAINING SYSTEM REVISITED: HOW EXERCISE SCIENCE EVALUATES ARTHUR LYDIARD'S RUNNING SCHEDULES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 16 May 2010 00:00:00 -0500

In New Zealand, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a short, stocky, fiercely determined man named Arthur Lydiard experimented with his own body to see how much running the human body could take. Running up to 200 miles in a week, he writes in his book Run to the Top, ��(I) was so determined to find just what the human body would stand without actually cracking that I frequently exhausted myself completely and had to walk the last few miles home�.

After 9 years of experimentation he developed a sequence of training phases, cobbling together marathon-type distance training, hill-springing, leg-speed work, repetition training, medium-pace training, interval training and sharpening and freshening. And soon his runners met with unparalleled success, winning the Olympic Games gold, silver and bronze medals, and accumulated world records like small change. So great was their domination of the local running scene that his runners would meet several months before New Zealand track championships and literally decide who would win each distance event. Lydiard�s training system used aerobic marathon type conditioning before proceeding to faster, higher intensity, anaerobic running in preparation for racing. It revolutionized running around the world, and has remained relatively unchanged since.

And therein lies the problem. No significant changes have been made to Lydiard�s system since, apart from individual adaptations to running in more severe climates such as in Finland, where deep snow curtails the runner�s ability to train outside for several months each year, or where it�s simply too hot to run outside in desert climates. Lydiard remained inflexible with his schedules for many years. For example, he advised runners to run 100 miles per week in their conditioning phase. However, the majority of recreational runners don�t have the ability to run 100 miles per week. Biomechanics, age, and time constraints have proven major limiting factors many runners simply disintegrate attempting to run this much mileage.

Other phases of Lydiard�s training have also proven unrealistic for recreational or even elite runners. The hill springing phase of his program has caused sprained ankles among runners not strong enough for the rigors of this highly ballistic, high impact technique, or sore legs that temporarily incapacitate the runner. Also, many runners never attempt the time trials recommended by Lydiard, because they don�t know what they are or how to do them. More recently, exercise science has shown several other techniques to be advantageous to runners, such as strength training, which Lydiard shunned, claiming that runners get strong enough through their running.

What has changed since Lydiard devised his system is an exponential increase in knowledge from exercise science, based on thousands of research papers and experiments. Several dozen new fields in this discipline have opened up in the past three decades. Today�s most basic exercise science textbooks contain far more information about endurance training and sports nutrition than was ever known back in the 1950s and 1960s. Here I summarize seven major changes that are recommended to runners contemplating using Lydiard�s system. These recommended changes are based on the results of exercise science over the past 3 decades.

Change #1.

Perform running fitness tests before and after your �build-up�. How do we know that long distance running has improved our fitness? Subjectively, we feel we can cover longer distances more comfortably, to the extent where we believe we are ready to run a marathon. But how can we really know? Elite runners have access to a university or Olympic training center treadmill test for VO2 max and anaerobic threshold, so they can have these tests done before and after �build-up�. But most of us don�t have access to these sophisticated tests, so we need to turn to field tests. Towards applying field tests, let�s use a basic exercise science approach to our training. Most research papers that investigate running performance use field tests along with lab measurements. Field tests are simple, easily administered, and reveal a lot of valuable information about our fitness state. Lydiard himself administered field tests. He would often have his runners compete in a marathon upon completion of their �build-up� phase. But that�s an extreme way to measure your fitness because there�s a lot of muscle cell damage done in a marathon, and it takes a long time to recover, wasting your valuable training time. I don�t recommend a marathon as a field test.

Here I provide an example of a field test that you may try. Choose 2-3 distances and do time trials on a track or an accurately measured flat road surface that preferable has accurately measured mile markers. Suggested time trial distances:

1 or 2 miles

3 or 5 miles

10K or 10 miles

Choose one distance from each of these three categories. Your time trials should be performed over a 2-week conditioning period, with 2-3 days of recovery jogging between trials to allow your legs to recover. These time trials should be done solo, without the aid of a pacer, as you want your post conditioning time trial to be under identical circumstances. Note the weather conditions, temperature, humidity, wind strength and anything else that could impact your times in these trials.

Record your time for each distance in the preconditioning tests, then again after your �buildup�. You can easily calculate your percentage improvement in each distance. If you find little improvement from your pre- to post- �build up� tests, you might consider adding another 2-4 weeks to your conditioning �build-up�.

Change #2.

Include periodization recovery during the �build-up� conditioning phase. Periodization is now a commonly used technique when planning endurance training schedules for cycling, swimming, cross-country skiing, triathlons, and most other endurance sports. It incorporates lower volume recovery running, something that many runners have great difficulty integrating into training schedules. It allows recovery from incessant long running by programming in a lower mileage recovery week every few weeks. Most runners do this on a 3 weeks increasing mileage block, followed by a 1 week recovery block. This is referred to as a step type approach, where running volume increases for three consecutive weeks, followed by a lower mileage fourth week. In this lower mileage week, often called an adaptation week, the intensity of the running can also be reduced.

The purposes of periodization are to program recovery running into the training schedules, as well as to:

� allow muscle glycogen levels to replete

� encourage muscle tissue regeneration and healing

� provide a mental break from the constant grind of long hard running

Who are the proponents of periodization?

Dr. David Costill recommended periodization training as far back as 1986 in his book �Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology�. What is interesting is how few of the books by the �experts� on running training recommend periodization during the �build-up� conditioning phase. So how is periodization used to plan training schedules? It looks something like this:

Conditioning Program for advanced distance runner, allowing recovery week every 4 weeks.

Periodized Conditioning Program for Advanced Runner

Miles

120

100 _ * * *

80 _ * * * * _ * * *

60 * * * * * * * * * * *

40 * * * * * * * * * * *

20 * * * * * * * * * * *

0 * * * * * * * * * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Week

Conditioning program for semi-serious runner, allowing recovery week every 3 weeks.

Peridiodized Conditioning Program for Semi-Serious Runner

Miles

80 *

70 * * *

60 * * * * * *

50 * * * * * * * * *

40 * * * * * * * * * * *

30 * * * * * * * * * * *

20 * * * * * * * * * * *

10 * * * * * * * * * * *

0 * * * * * * * * * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Week

Change #3.

Include Anaerobic Threshold (AT) training during the conditioning �build-up� phase

What is AT?

AT is running �at a pace that produces an elevated yet steady state accumulation of lactic acid�, according to Jack Daniels, PhD., in his book �Daniel�s Running Formula�.

Why should we do this? AT running may be one of your most valuable training techniques, as it :

What is AT?

AT is running �at a pace that produces an elevated yet steady state accumulation of lactic acid�, according to Jack Daniels, PhD., in his book �Daniel�s Running Formula�.

Why should we do this? AT running may be one of your most valuable training techniques, as it :

Include Anaerobic Threshold (AT) training during the conditioning �build-up� phase

increases your AT cruising speed of long training runs, thereby
increasing your overall pace
increases your VO2 max
prepares you for track workouts to come.

In fact, many sports-medicine therapists and physicians insist that "loading" a recently hobbied ligament in a reasonable way, even after fairly severe ligamentous damage, actually enhances the healing process, forcing ligaments to recover in a manner which is best for strenght, stability, and - ultimately - performance.

Which approach is correct? In an attempt to understand the differing effects of "loading" or "unloading" a ligament following injury, exercise scientists at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Houston, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Ames Research Center in California recently surgically cut the medical collateral ligaments (MCLs) in the knees of laboratory rats. Three or seven weeks after the incisions, mechanical and morphological properties were measured in ligaments, muscles, and bones of weight bearing and non-weight-bearing rats and were compared with the same properties in sham-operated rats.

As it turns out, the ligament testing revealed that there were significant reductions in maximal force, stress tolerance, and elastic properties in the ligaments of animals which had their hind limbs suspended following the surgery to avoid weight-bearing activity. Strikingly, mineral density of the femur (the upper leg bone), femoral strength, calf-muscle mass, and the mass of the tibialis-anterior muscle group were all down-played in the "unload group." In addition, collagen fibers in the MCLs of the surgery-treated, unloaded animals were misaligned (collagen is a protein, and collagen fibers form the main structural and supportive network of ligaments and tendons; if the fibers are not aligned properly, ligaments strength is compromised).

As a result, the researchers concluded that "stress levels from ambulation" (i.e., from weight-bearing activity) are necessary to form structurally competent, continuous, collagen fibers in ligaments which are engaged in healing following an injury. The Wisconsin-Texas-California researchers noted that the results support their contention that leg unloading following injury or surgery actually impairs the healing of fibrous connective tissue. Naturally, one does not want to place so much force on a damaged ligament that healing is harmed, nor does one want to induce further damage by placing inappropriate forces on a ligamentous structure. However, judicious weight-bearing activity appears to be beneficial for even fairly traumatic injuries to ligaments; such exercise stimulates a process by which the collagen in ligaments forms structurally competent, continuous fibers which have the greatest-possible strength and injury resistance.

To learn more about injury prevention, nutrition, strength training, and how to train more effectively. Sign-up for a subscription to Take Your Training Further

The 10-Minute Alternative To Stretching

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

If your pre-workout stretching doesn't seem to be doing much for you, give the following 10-minute warm-up routine a try.

(1) Increase your heart rate, so that the initial stages of your training session don't overtax your ticker

(2) Prepare your muscles for strenuous activity

(3) Wake up your nervous system - so that it's ready to control your muscles properly during a vigorous workout. This protocol will do all three, and it only takes 10 minutes:

* Wake up your leg muscles (1 minute): Walk in a relaxed fashion, alternating light, relaxed steps with long, exaggerated strides. On each extended stride, vigorously swing the opposite arm forward.

* Wake up your heart and leg muscles (4 minutes): As you jog unbelievably slowly, notice any tight spots in your body and focus on unkinking the tension.

* Wake up your nervous system (1 minute): Skip - in place or in a forward direction - while trying to lift your knees as high as possible.

* Wake up your heart (2 minutes): Run at the basic pace you'll utilize in your workout for one minute, and then jog very easily for one minute.

* Give your nervous system a green light (2 minutes): Hop lightly on both feet for about 20 seconds, and then hop lightly on your right foot for 15 seconds and your left for 15 seconds. Walk easily for 10 seconds, and then jump continuously - as high as possible on both feet - for 15 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds, and then try "hot-stove" jumping, getting your feet barely off the ground on each jump and trying to make as many contacts with the ground (with both feet) as you can in 20-25 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds or so.

* Run!

To learn more about running, training, nutrition, injury prevention, and strength training. Sign-up for Running Research News and keep your running in full force RRNews

THRESHOLDS OF TRAINING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Exercise terminology is supposed to help us figure out how to train, but that is certainly not the case with the term "Anaerobic Threshold" and "Aerobic Threshold." The Anaerobic Threshold does not occur at a point at which muscles plunge downward in a lack-of-oxygen spiral, and the Aerobic Threshold does not signal an underlying limit in the oxygen-delivery-and utilization system, as some coaches and experts implied.

When we exercise, it is possible to cross over many thresholds and transition points. For example, research carried out by the British scientist, R. McNeil Alexander, tells us that the movement speed of 2 meters per second represents an important boundary. At velocities of 2 meters per second or less (e.g., at all tempos of 13:24 per mile or slower), walking requires less energy than runnign, and so we almost always walk at such lethargic speeds.

If we want to move faster than 2 meters per secod, we invaribly jog or run, because running is more economical than walking at such tempos. Humans (and other animals) automatically adjust gait to minimize the energy cost of locomotion, and so we rarely see individuals jogging at 15-minute per mile tempo - or walking with 10-minute per mile alacrity.

Another important transition occurs at a walking speed of about 5 kilometers per hour (a tempo of around 19 minutes per mile). Exercise scientists have known for years that if one plucks an average person off the street and asks him/her to walk "normally" he/she will usually settle in at a pace of about 4.8 to 5 kilometers per hour. This is nothing new: The first truly human footprints, left in Kenya/Tanzanian mud two million years ago and preserved for study today, suggest that these first imprint-leavers were strolling through East Africa, following their cattle, at a rate of 5 kilometers per hour, too!

Why is 5 kilometers per hour such a popular walking speed? AT velocities above 5 kilometers per hour, the oxidation of carbohydrate by leg muscles increases dramatically, and as a result perceived effort rises significantly. At 5 kilometers per hour and below, carb-burning falls, fat breakdown ascends, and perceived effort moderates considerably. The human brain monitors carbohydrate oxidation during exercise quite carefully - and rather perversely cranks up perceived effort when carb-burning is on the upswing. In effect, the brain tries to keep exercisers from burning up their precious carbohydrate (glycogen) stores by making exertion which produces high rates of carbohydrate oxidation feel very difficult. This is a key reason why sustained runs at a high intensity such as vVO2max feels so incredibly hard. Nothing bad is really happening to your muscles at vVO2max - it's just that your brain doesn't like red-hot exertions, given it's constant worries over glcogen depots in your muscles. On the other hand, the brain is content at paces of ~5 kilometers per hour and below because carb-burning is minimal, and thus 5km/hour is a universal walking speed. If you walk faster than 5 km/hour, your brain sounds warning bells; to turn down these internal tocsins, you naturally return to 5 (incidentally, speeds below 5 carry with them the feeling that one will never arrive at a destination, and thus they are very lightly used).

Another transition point - this time running one - has often been called the "anaerobic threshold." In fact, you can't be a real runner until you have used the term anaerobic threshold in a sentence at least once. And - you can't be a truly hip runner until you have advised a running friend that the concept of an "anaerobic threshold " is hopelessly out of date.

If you are a regular reader of Running Research News, you will know that back in the dark, early days of exercise science, the phrase anaerobic threshold was minted to denote an exercise intensity at which there was a systematic rise in blood lactate. It was thought that this was the result of hypoxia )low oxygen) in the muscles, and thus the word "anaerobic" (without oxygen) seemed somewhat appropriate.

A lackadaisical anaerobic threshold (i.e., a case in which blood lactate began to pile up at a slow running speed) was viewed as a bad thing, and the remedy was usually thought to be high-mileage training, which was supposed to enhance the functioning of the cardiovascular system and improve the delivery of oxygen to the muscles (and the utilixation of oxygen once it got there). As you can see, this seemed to make sense: If anaerobic threshold occurred because of a lack of oxygen, then runners should do things which ensured that lots of oxygen would be flowing toward their muscles. What could be better for the heart and the oxygen-delivering capillaries than running tons of miles?

However, such conceptions ignored the simple and unavoidable facts that anaerobic threshold occurs at just 50 percent of max aerobic capacity in many untrained individuals and at 85 percent of max aerobic capacity in a large number of elite runners - in other word in situations in which oxygen is quite plentiful and the oxygen-delivery-and-utilization system has not been taxed to its limit. It's clear that the anaerobic threshold is not caused by a lack of oxygen in the muscles, and thus we shouldn't call the transition point an "anaerobic" threshold. The term "lactate threshold", without any implied mechanisms related to oxygen, is much better.

To learn more about Thresholds of Training (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 21 Issue 10 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

ABOVE-THRESHOLD TRAINING ENHANCES GH LEVELS, PROMOTES LEANNESS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

There's no doubt about it: High-intensity training sharpens your speed and improves your running economy. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom says that upbeat running also increases your risk of injury, overtraining, and "burn-out." Fast running also enhances the breakdown of carbohydrate - not fat - for fuel, and high-velocity workouts are of shorter duration than long, slow runs, leading to less calorie burning. For those reasons, speedy running isn't supposed to be as good as long, slow ambling at trimming excess corpulence from the body. Training

Those knocks on upscale training seem logical enough, but hold on! Recent research demonstrates that fast training is far better than inchmeal pacing at boosting blood levels of an important chemical called human growth hormone (GH). Produced by the pituitary gland, GH also helps break down fat and heightens body leanness. Since swift training sessions amplify GH levels, it may be time to bring on the speed!!

In recent growth-hormone research carried out at the University of Virginia, 16 healthy female runners gradually expanded their training mileage from five to 40 weekly miles over a 12-month time span. Nine of the woman ran six times per week and completed all of their training at or below their lactate threshold running speed (LTRS), the velocity above which large amounts of lactic acids begin to accumulate in the blood. Generally, LTRS corresponds with a heart rate of 80-88 percent of maximum and a running pace which is 10 to 15 seconds per mile slower than 10K race pace.

The seven other women also trained six times weekly, but three of their sessions were conducted at much higher speeds. In fact, up to one-half of their weekly mileage, not to exceed five miles per workout or 15 miles per week, was completed at above-LTRS velocities. Usually, the above-LTRS workouts consisted of intervals run on the track at a speed about half-way between LTRS and two-mile race pace. Although training speeds differed, total weekly mileage was the same for the two groups ("Endurance Training Amplifies the Pulsatile Release of Growth Hormone: Effects of Training Intensity," journal of Applied Physiology. Training

After one year of training, both groups improved maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), but the improvements were significantly greater in the above-LTRS runners. The higher intensity trainees boosted their average VO2max from 44.2 to 50.1 ml/kg/min, a 13-percent advance which is comparable to lowering 10K times from 45:58 to only 41:16. Both groups of athletes also increased lean body mass, but the above-LTRS runners tended to achieve greater reductions in fat weight and percent body fat.

Pulses of Growth Hormone

The biggest difference between the groups, though, was in the growth hormone production. Above-LTRS trainers nearly doubled the average amount of growth hormone in their blood, and their "pulsatile" release of GH was also dramatically heightened (The pituitary gland releases growth hormone not continuously but in sudden "pulses," or surges, at various times of the day). Since muscles and bones are especially responsive to abrupt increases in GH levels, this improved pulsatility could greatly enhance bone and muscle repair.

Prior studies had suggested that endurance training might gradually diminish the amount of growth hormone released from the pituitary gland, but the Virginia research indicates that at-the-below-LTRS training maintains GH levels while above-threshold intensities might - because of heightened GH - recover more quickly from strenuous workouts and races, uses fuel more efficiently during exercise, and amplify body leanness.

Also, since growth hormone stimulates the formation of new bony tissue, master's runners who want to fend off age-related decline in bone mass might profit from an increased frequency of above LTRS sessions. Chunkier runners who train slowly tend to produce miserly amounts of growth hormone, so above LTRS exercise should help heavier harriers break down fat and become leaner. Although it's unrealistic to expect masters or overweight runners to spend huge amounts of time exercising at above-threshold intensities, the Virginia scientists suggest that a schedule of three times a week for 20-30 minutes at slightly above threshold should be enough to jump-start GH production.

However, it takes time for the above-threshold training to promote growth-hormone levels. In the Virginia research, which utilized subjects who were initially untrained, growth hormone levels didn't begin to increase dramatically until eight months of above-threshold running had been completed. It's possible that training above threshold for only six months of the year - and training easily for the other six months - might not spike blood concentrations of GH: Fairly regular "doses" of upscale running may be required.

Speed Kills?

The link between chronic above-threshold training and enhanced blood-GH levels suggests that experienced runners might want to revamp their "base" training and that novice joggers should consider adjusting their initial workouts. Runners doing base or beginning training often rely almost exclusively on slow, steady miles, but it may be far better to mix moderate quantities of above- LTRS intervals with the easier runs. Inclusion of speed into base training won't lead to surges in injury rates; in fact, it might lower the frequency of injuries because the augmented GH could do a better job of fortifying bones, muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Recent research in Holland confirms that early, up-tempo training actually tends to downgrade - not increase - average injury rates. In the Virginia study, above threshold runners were not injured more often than the slower trainees, even though as much as 38 percent of their weekly miles were completed at above-threshold intensities. Generally, scientific surveys have been able to link higher total mileage - but not faster training speeds - with a greater risk of injury. Speed seems to produce problems primarily when it is combined with unusually high mileages or when large amounts of speed are added to a training program too quickly. Even beginning runners are ready for reasonable doses of speed. Training

If you decide to increase your above-LTRS training, it makes sense to add the speed in amounts which your body can tolerate easily. One sensible rule is to tag on no more than an additional half-mile of above-threshold work each week. How fast should you run? An easy way to accrue more above-LTRS miles is simply to run at your current 10K-race speed, which is usually two to three percent faster than LTRS. For example, during a few of your easy runs, cruise along for a half-mile at 10K speed midway through the run and then scoot through another half-mile at 10K intensity near the end of the workout. Or, instead of doing a three-mile easy run, jog two miles easily and then complete two 400-meter intervals at 10K tempo, with 400 meters of easy running after each interval. Even neophyte runners can insert several fast 100-meter intervals inside their short, easy runs.

"Strides" - 20 to 30-seconds bursts at current one-mile race pace - represent another great way to add more above threshold running to a training program. Most runners can ultimately attach four to eight 150-meter strides to three or four of their usual weekly workouts without risking excess fatigue, injury, or mental burnout. Although the strides are short, stride mileage can add up surprisingly quickly: Just 10 strides - five on one day and five on another - add nearly a full mile of above threshold running to a weekly training schedule. In addition, an experienced runner who currently logs 40 miles per week, including 10 miles at above-threshold speed, can increase his/her percentage of above-threshold miles from 25 percent to 31 percent - comparable to the levels reached by the above-threshold trainers in the Virginia study - simply by adding a total of 22 150-meter strides to your usual training too abruptly; about five additional strides per week represent the maximal allowable increase.

Although intense running is claimed to increase the risk of "burnout" and overtraining, it's more likely that a gradually-increased quantity of above-LTRS sessions will boost your growth hormone production, bolster your speed, strengthen your muscles and connective tissues, optimize fat breakdown, and help you develop the ability to recover from tough training sessions and hard races more quickly. Training

Part 1 In Our New Series On Running Injuries, Foot Types, And Orthotics: Do Low-Arched Feet Predispose a Runner To Injury

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

About 65 percent of endurance runners suffer from significant injury each year (with injury defined as a physical problem which is serious enough to limit normal training). Common wisdom suggests that the function of the foot and ankle is linked in some way with this extremely high rate of injury. Specifically, it is believed that specific foot shapes, as well as poor foot and ankle function and strength, predispose runners to problems. "Low-arched" feet, for example, are thought to increase the risk of a running-related malady. Perhaps paradoxically, "high-arched" feet are also viewed with disrespect - they are believed to be injury-promoting, too. Almost universally, "weak ankles" are linked in runners' minds with a large catalog of impairments, including shin splints, Achilles-tendon flare-ups, and sore knees.

Gradually, a large segment of the running community has come to accept the idea that the wearing of orthotics devices while running can compensate for potential weaknesses and structural faults and reduce the risk of injury. Implicit in this acceptance is the belief that orthotics will magically restore normal function in the lower limbs during running. Tens of thousands of athletes run with orthotics in their shoes in the belief that this practice will decrease their chances of getting hurt.

Are all of these assumptions correct? Do specific foot configurations spike a runner's risk of injury? Can orthotics actually change the kinematics of the foot and ankle in just the right way, reducing the forces placed on vulnerable muscles and connective tissues during gait? Is it possible that orthotics might reduce the impact forces traveling up the legs during running - and thus thwart "overuse" injuries? Can orthotics compensate for "injury-prone", abnormally constructed feet and ankles and keep athletes with bad anatomical set-ups out of trouble?

To find the answers to these key questions, Mohsen Razeghi and Mark Edward Batt of the Centre for Sports Medicine at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom recently carried out an extensive review of the scientific literature concerning the cause of overuse injuries, as they related to biochemical abnormalities and the use of orthotics (1).

Their findings shatter many of the myths about injury, foot structure, and orthotic shoe inserts which have become very popular in the running community and shed much welcome light on the difficult-to-untangle relationships between foot type, orthodics, and running-related injury.

To learn more about Running Injuries, Foot Types, and Orthotics (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.21 Issue 2 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply enter "can foot type predict running injury?", in the Search-Archives" box to the right. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

Neural Input Predicts Performance

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Let's face it: Most of us define the limits of endurance running performance in terms of the ability to transport and utilize oxygen.

We speak of expanding the heart as a result of endurance training-so that it can send more oxygen to the leg muscles. We talk about enriching capillary beds around muscle fibers-so that muscle cells can greedily devour more oxygen. We note that one goal of training is to build up higher concentrations of "aerobic enzymes" in our muscles- and higher densities of mitochondroa, the little structures which permit oxygen-dependent energy creation to proceed. And we orate about VO2max (the maximal-possible rate of oxygen consumption), vVO2max (the minimal running velocity which elicits VO2max), TlimvVO2max (the duration of time that vVO2max can actually be sustained), and even running economy (the oxygen "cost" of running at a specific speed), saying that these oxygen-related variables are critical predictors of running success.

This kind of thinking dates all the way back to 1923, when noted physiologists A.V. Hill and H. Lupton published a paper which contended that "hypoxia" (low oxygen levels) in muscles during strenuous exertion produced fatigue and therefore limited exercise performance (1). This "oxygen-limitation paradigm" for explaining fatigue and endurance performance seemed to be verified in later research. For example, a variety of studies completely in the 1970s suggested that VO2max was responsible for setting the upper limit for endurance performance (2, 3, & 4).

One small problem for the paradigm popped up when researchers noted that athletes with identical values for VO2max could have quite-different performances! These variations in competitive times were postulated to result from differences in economy between runners (5 & 6). Here's how that kind of situation might work: Let's say that VO2max is 70 ml.kg-1.min-1 for both Runner A and Runner B, but when A cruises along at 4:40 per mile pace he is using all 70 of those mls (per kilogram per minute), while at 4:40 Runner B is utilizing just 63 ml.kg-1.min-1 (he is more economical). You can see that B would win any race conducted at 4:40 tempo (the speed is easier for him-it is a smaller fraction of VO2max). The same could be said for any race involving a pace slower than 4:40 (it would be significantly easier for Runner B). At faster-than-4:40 velocity, A would immediately be above VO2max and would begin to really struggle, while B would still have "room to maneuver" before VO2max was actually attained. A would be a decent runner, but B would be taking home the cash prizes.

Of course, no one bothered to examine closely the performance differences which still existed between runners with the same running economy and VO2max values, but the bottom line was that it seemed fully possible to explain performance differences in terms of oxygen utilization, even in cases when there were no differences in VO2max between runners. If VO2max was not the performance determinant, then oxygen utilization (economy) would fill the bill. Ultimately, a "consensus" emerged that VO2max and running economy were the major variables which determined endurance racing ability (7 & 8). To find out more information about training, BUY NOW To start a subscription to Running Research News.

FATS, VITAMINS, AND YOUR SORE ACHILLES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

What has Soren Mavrogenis been doing lately?

That question has not exactly been rolling off athletes' lips, especially since Soren's latest published paper - "Pyeloureteral Junction Stenosis and Ureteral Valve Causing Hydronephrosis" (Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, Vol.35(3), pp. 245-247, June 2001) - has nothing at all to do with athletics. But give the fellow a chance! In addition to his pyeloureteral pursuits, the Dane is currently carrying out extremely interesting research on the treatment of athletic injuries, and his findings may one day help you bounce back from an injury more quickly than expected and as a result set a new personal record or win an important competition. A physiotherapist with Denmark's Olympic Committee, Mavrogenis has effectively treated several hundred cases of recurrent inflammatory injuries with a novel dietary supplement (Reuters Health, April 27, 2001). Tested for the first time in 1996 on a group of rowers from Denmark's National Rowing Team, Soren's nostrum appears to have remarkable anti-inflammatory properties (research on the overall healing properties of the treatment will be published in a peer-reviewed journal shortly).

Of course, most routine athletic injuries are treated with icing, rest, physiotherapy, and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and Soren does not sermonize against the use of either rest or ice. However, the innovative Dane does leave the NSAIDS on the shelf, instead relying on a combination of essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals to soothe inflammation and restore injured body parts. He has reportedly found success with a variety of ailments, including both "tennis elbow" and golf elbow."

Soren's supplement does contain fats, so you might be reasonably asking, "Don't golfers already eat enough fat?" That's a reasonable question, but the problem, of course, is that they usually eat the wrong fats (i.e., the ones which seem to be pro-rather than anti-inflammatory). Soren's nutritional supplement contains a rich lode of inflammation-fighting omega-3 fatty acids (from fish oil), some omega-6 fats (from borage oil), four vitamins (A, B6, C, and E), and also the minerals selenium and zinc. According to Mavrogenis, most patients respond positively to the treatment in just two to three weeks, although very serious cases may require several months. "The results of this research confirm our clinical observations and leave us with the clear impression that inflammatory injuries can be treated without the use of NSAIDS. I see this as a ......breakthrough in modern physiotherapy. For the first time, we are able to offer our patients a safe and reliable treatment for stress injuries with chronic inflammatory response. In fact, it is our experience that with this new treatment, as opposed to conventional treatment, athletes are able to train actively while receiving treatment," says Soren. "The bad cases require the use of intensive ultrasound and certain massage techniques in addition to the antioxidants and essential fatty acids, but in the milder cases the use of nutrients alone is adequate," notes Mavrogenis. Norwegian sports authorities have been carefully watching Soren's work (naturally, Norwegians do not want Danes to leave them behind). Since inflammatory injuries to shoulders, elbows, knees, and Achilles tendons account for one-fourth of all job-related absences in Norway, Soren's anti-inflammatory regimen is now being tested by NIMI (no need to mention that this is Norsk Idrettsmedisinsk Institut). one of Scandinavia's foremost treatment facilities for sports injuries. We'll report on NIMI's findings in a future issue of this newsletter.

But isn't this all a little far-fetched? How can a few fatty acids - plus several vitamins and minerals - foster fast healing in an elbow nearly wrecked by overuse on the tennis courts - or in a knee inflamed by hundreds of miles of endurance running? The story just sounds too good to be true.

But it may not be. Bear in mind that scientific research has actually been fairly kind to the idea that omega-3 fatty acids and anti-oxidants can help to control inflammatory injuries. To understand why this is, remember that exercise generates increased quantities of "oxygen free radicals" and increases lipid peroxidation (the oxidative attack on key fats found in cell membranes, including muscle-fiber membranes fall apart and produce leaky, non-functional muscle cells.

As a defense against this disastrous possibility, the human body produces a fairly potent anti-oxidant called superoxide dismutase; superoxide -dismanyus production speeds up when individuals embark on regular and at least moderately strenuous training programs. Evidence suggests, however, that the superoxide-dismantus system is prone to being overwhelmed. Prolonged submaximal exercise has been shown to result in elevated amounts of skeletal-muscle lipid-peroxidation byproducts, indicating significant damage to the muscles (Free Radicals and Tissue Damage Produced by Exercise," Biochem Biophys Res Commun, Vol. 107, pp. 1198-1205, 1982). Clearly, the superoxide-dismutase system lets a significant number of free radicals "through its net."

Before we continue, let's review our story: Exercise can greatly increase the production of cell-damage free radicals. The magnified rates of lipid peroxidation resulting from this oxygen radical production may cause muscle damage. The human body has its own anti-radical defense system, but it doesn't provide complete protection from injury. In addition, the damage produced in the muscles as a result of exercise can "snowball" over relatively short periods of time. For example, in one study researchers found more muscle damage three days after a strenuous workout than they had found one hour after exercise ceased ("Adaptive Response in Human Skeletal Muscle Subjected to Prolonged Eccentric Training, " International Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 4, pp. 177-183, 1983). This was a bit surprising, since researchers believed significant muscle repair would have occurred during the three-day interim. In another investigation, exercise scientists found that intense exercise produced immediate muscle damage, but the damage actually became much worse 24 and 48 hours after the workout was over, even though no follow-up exercise had taken place ("Ultrastructural Changes after Concentric and Eccentric Contractions of Human Muscle," Journal of Neurol Science, Vol. 61, pp. 109-122, 1983). In other word, in a muscle traumatized by exertion, there is a post-exercise period lasting for up to three days or more in which muscle damage is actually accelerated, rather than minimized, even when no further exercise occurs.

To learn more about how to Fats, Vitamins, and Your Sore Achilles (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 3 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

BEST LACTATE-THRESHOLD WORKOUTS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 -0500

What is the best possible workout for advancing your running velocity at lactate-threshold? Best Lactate-Threshold

That is an important but "dangerous" question. After all, a single workout does not exist in a training vacuum, producing adaptations which occur totally uniquely, without any influence from the overall training plan in which the workout is deployed. In one set of circumstances, for example, a session of 3 X 1600 at 5-K race pace might help put a sharper edge on a runner's vVO2max. In a different context, the 3 X 1600 could push the same athlete "over the brink" into an over-trained state.

Nonetheless, we know that certain sessions can produce unique effects on lactate-threshold speed, and that these effects are often specific to the runner involved in the training. For example, running for 60 minutes at a moderate pace (below lactate-threshold velocity) probably will have a significant, positive effect on lactate-threshold speed for the relatively inexperienced runner who has been logging about 10 to 15 miles of running per week. However, this same session would have no effect at all on lactate-threshold velocity for the experienced, 70-mile per week runner who has been engaged in lots of high-quality training. The latter individual would probably have to soar up to intensities of 90 to 95 percent of VO2max and beyond to get lactate-threshold speed moving in the right direction.

As you can see, it is possible to give specific workouts the "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" sign when it comes to lactate-threshold improvement, and one of our tasks as runners is to identify the sessions which are likely to have the greatest impact on threshold and then position them properly in our training. Best Lactate-Threshold

But how do we identify such sessions? Fortunately, that job has been made easier for us, thanks to recent work carried out by Carl Paton and Will Hopkins of the Centre for Sport and Exercise Science at the Waikato Institute of Technology and the Department of Sport and Recreation at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand (1). Paton and Hopkins have conducted an extensive literature search for scientific papers dealing with the effects of training on the performance and physiology of endurance athletes.

This search used stringent criteria. For examplem Paton and Hopkins excluded studies which investigated the effects of training on performance in subjects who were merely recreationally active, instead of being involved in serious training. The New-Zealand duo also eliminated inquiries carried out with individuals who did not have the characteristics of serious endurance athletes ( for example, exercisers with low aerobic capacities, low training frequencies, etc.). The studies examined by Paton and Hopkins also had to be peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal.

In addition to looking for research which explored the link between training and improvement in lactate-threshold speed, Paton and Hopkins also searched for studies whick looked at the effects of training on general endurance performance, maximum power (measured during an incremental test), maximal oxygen consumption, exercise economy, and body mass. Included in the Paton-Hopkins diggings were studies which focused on moderate- and high-intensity interval training, tempo running, plyometrics, and resistance training.

The study which produced the greatest increase in lactate threshold in runners was the research (often mentioned in the pages of Running Research News) carried out by Leena Paavolainen and Heikki Rusko in which experienced runners reduced their mileage from 70 to 45 miles per week, substituting( for this mileage) explosive training which includes progressive series of jumps, bounds, hops, and very fast running(2). The jumping-bounding-hopping-sprinting workouts designed by Paavolainen-Rusko team, carried out three times a week for nine weeks, yielded about a 6.8-percent increase in lactate threshold. Best Lactate-Threshold

Almost as good for threshold were the workouts employed by Edmund Acevedo and Allan Goldfarb of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in their study of seven well-trained male distance runners (3). These runners had an average age of 22, and they were actively involved in competitive racing; mean VO2max was 65.3 ml.kg-1.min-1. As the study began, the young runners were training six to seven days per week, averaging five to 12 miles of daily running. Weekly volume averaged 50 to 65 miles before and throughout the investigation. RRNEWS Subscription

HIGH-REP, SHORT-RECOVERY STRENGTH TRAINING GETS RUNNERS INTO HYDROGEN-MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

When you are running fast, hydrogen icons (protons) tend to pile up in your leg-muscle cells. Although it is no longer clear that such accumulations automatically induce fatigue (1), it is very probable that they can have a negative impact on overall muscle-cell function (2). When you are finishing the last 400 metes of a 1500-meter, 5-K, or 10-K race at a furious pace, climbing a hill during challenging competition, or making a powerful within-race surge, it is nearly certain that you are better off if your leg-muscle concentrations of protons are moderate, rather than high. High-Rep, Short-Recovery Strength Training

But how do you maintain proper proton prudence during hard running? We know that high- intensity interval training can help in this matter (3), but the effects of strength training on hydrogen-ion frugality are less clear. One inquiry found that athletes who engage in regular strength training have better proton regulation, compared with non-strength-trained individuals (4), but the control subjects in this research were untrained individuals, leading skeptics to suggest that training per se - and not necessarily strength training - causes proton modulation to prosper.

Nonetheless, there is good reason to believe that resistance training might give muscle cells a hand with their hydrogen problems. One key is that vigorous, high-rep strength training has been shown to produce a large drop in intramuscular pH and a significant rise in blood-lactate concentration - similar to the changes which occur during high-intensity running (5). These "signals" associated with resistance training may act as they do after top-quality running, producing appropriate muscular adaptations and upgrades in hydrogen-handling capacity.

To find out if strength training really works in this way, highly regarded researcher David Bishop and his team from the School of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the university of Western Australia recently worked with 16 female athletes who were involved in such sports as hockey, netball, and soccer (6). Eight of the subjects carried out a high-repetition strength-training program (with three to five sets of 15 to 20 reps per exercise) over a five week period, while the other eight served as controls. High-Rep, Short-Recovery Strength Training

Both groups continued with their usual athletic pursuits over the five-week time frame, and the strength-training regime utilized a combination of free weights and exercise machines. The first six exercises of the strength-training workouts emphasized the legs and included squats, lunges, and step-ups (all completed with free weights), along with leg presses, leg extensions, and leg curls (performed with machines). To balance out the leg activities, upper-body exertions were incorporated into the sessions, including bench presses and shoulder presses (with free weights), along with seated rows and lat-pull-downs (carried out on machines), and even good-old-fashion sit-ups.

The resistance utilized per set was gradually reduced so that the athletes could perform at least 15 reps in each 40-second time period.

For each exercise, the appropriate number of sets (three to five) was completed before the athlete moved on to the next exertion. Each set was performed for 40 seconds ( and thus for 15 to 20 reps), followed by a 20-second rest. Since this rest period was fairly short, the resistance for sets following the first one was reduced (so that the athletes could still hit 15 to 20 repetitions within their sets). This meant that the first set was conducted at 70 percent of the RM load (e.g., 70 percent of the resistance which could be handled for three - and only three reps), the second set at 60 percent of 3RM, and sets three through five at 50 percent of 3RM.

The athletes actually completed two to three sets of each exercise during the first two weeks of the project and then three to five sets during the last three weeks of the research. When the subjects could complete 20 reps of a particular exercise for all sets during two straight workouts, the total load was upgraded by the smallest amount available for the relevant piece of equipment. As a practical matter, this meant that the advance in weight lifted during an exercise such as leg pressing was about 10 percent per week. A five-minute warm-up on an exercise bike tuned up the women prior to each strength-training session. High Rep, Short Recovery Strength Training

And how did the female athletes respond to all this lifting? After the leg exertions within a typical strengthening session, blood-lactate levels soared to an average of 9.1 mmol L-1, similar to the concentration which is commonly observed after a hard running workout conducted at an above-lactate-threshold intensity. Heart rate was also rather lofty, scoring at 85 percent of max.

Although body mass did not change, leg-press 3RM strength improved by 23 percent after five weeks (but remained unchanged for controls). The strength training also improved the ability of the athletes to carry out a high-intensity sprint-interval training session which involved 5 X 6 seconds of maximal sprinting, with 24-second recoveries. Total work performed during this workout advanced by 110 to 12 percent after five weeks for the strength-trained athletes, but not at all for the control individuals. Peak power attained during each of the sprints also advanced for strength-trained females (but again, not for controls).

To learn more about how High-Rep, Short-Recovery Strength Training Gets Runners Into Hydrogen-Management Industry (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 22 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. Running Research News Subscription

PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER: FAST, EXPONENTIAL DECAY MAY BE THE WAY

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0500

Almost all athletes and coaches agree that tapering - the reduction of training in a systematic way - is a good thing, because it ensures good recovery from heavy training (Gibla, M. et al., "The Effects of Tapering on Strength Performance in Trained Athletes," International Journal od Sports Medicine, Vol. 15, pp. 492-497, ) and is a key part of preparation for an important competition (Shepley, B. et al., "Physiological Effects of Tapering in Highly Trained Athletes, " Journal of Applied Physiology, 72, pp. 706-711, 1992). Unfortunately, there is a wide disagreement about how tapering periods should be constructed. These debates revolve around how long a tapering period should be, the extent to which training volume, intensity, and frequency should be reduced during a taper, and also - very importantly - the rate at which these variables should be reduced. PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER

One dispute has centered around whether tapers should contain "step reductions" in training or "exponential decays." In a step reduction, total running is reduced by a certain amount, and the new volume of training is sustained throughout the tapering period. In an exponential-decay situation, the quantity of training decreases steadily over the course of the taper (there is no step-down in volume but rather a continuous slide), reaching bare-bones levels at the end of the tapering period. One popular step-down strategy is to clip training by 65 to 70 percent and then maintain the new, lower volume of work for one to three weeks. Traditionally, exponential decays have been linked with shorter durations of time, often four to eight days.

Until now, the relative merits of step-reduction and exponential-decay tapering have been poorly evaluated. Several years ago, outstanding tapering theorist Joe Houmard asked 5-K runners to cut training by 70 percent for three weeks (a step reduction). At the end of the 21-day period, the runners' 5-K race times were not significantly better, nor did the runners exhibit greater muscular power (Houmard, J. et al., "Testosterone, Cortisol, and Creatine Kinase Levels in Male Distance Runners during Reduced Training, " International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 11, pp. 41-45). In contrast, a seven-day exponential decay in which training volume was reduced each day and overall weekly volume dropped by 85 percent produced dramatic improvements in 5-K race times and muscular power (Houmard, J. et al., :The Effects of Taper on Performance in Distance Runners," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 26, pp. 624-631).

This has led some tapering theorist to argue that when training volume is reduced aggressively and progressively to an extremely low level, performance is improved to a greater extent, compared with a single (or even several) step reduction over a more extended period of time. Some anti-step scientists even go on to argue that step reductions usually maintain performance but do not enhance it. PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER

Such arguments are not completely fair, however, since step-reduction tapering has been linked with fairly impressive gains in physical capacity. For example, in a classic study carried out by renowned exercise physiologist Dave Costill in his laboratory at Ball State University, collegiate swimmers reduced training volume from 10,000 (1) to 3200 yards per day during a 15-day period (Costill, D. et al., "Effects of Reduced Training on Muscular Power in Swimmers," Physician and Sports Medicine, Vol. 13, pp. 94-100). After this 15-day step-reduction taper, the swimmers' performance times improved by 3.6 percent, their arm strength and power swelled by up to 25 percent, and blood-lactate levels were lower during 200-yard swimming "sprints." These results led Costill to recommend - in his fine book Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology - tapering periods of approximately two-weeks duration, with volume set at about one-third of usual levels (a large step reduction).

In later work, Raymond Kenitzer and Catherine Jackson asked 15 female collegiate swimmers to pare training volume by 60 percent over the four-week period (Kenitzer, R. and Jackson, C., "Blood Lactate Concentration in Female Competitive Collegiate Swimmers during End Season Taper, " Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 21(2), p. S23). For the long distance swimmers involved in the study, volume dropped from 8000 daily yards to 3500 yards. During this step-reduction taper, blood-lactate levels fell steadily for about two and one-half weeks, and performance times both began to worsen. Kenitzer and Jackson drew the obvious conclusion: 60-percent, step-reduction tapers lasting up to 17 to 18 days are good things.

(1) Doing nothing at all during the week (a 100 percent step-reduction),

(2) Running about 18 miles during the week at a leisurely pace, with a complete-rest day at the end of the week (1 64-percent step reduction), and

(3) Undergoing a drastic exponential decay in training over the week, with an emphasis on quality running. Using this strategy, the runners completed five hard 500-meter intervals on the first day of decay, four 500-meter blasts on the second day, 3 X 500 on day three, just 2 X 500 on day four, and a single 500-meter surge on day five. After a rest on day six, they were ready to be tested on day seven (as were the employers of strategies one and two). Importantly, each 500-meter interval was performed at about one-mile race pace, and since the runners warmed up with 500 meters of inchmeal running before the quality intervals were undertaken, the total training volume for the week was about 10K, or just over six miles. Thus, this decay involved an overall 87- to 88-percent reduction in training (MacDougall, D. et al., "Physiologic Effects of Tapering in Highly Trained Athletes," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 22(2), Supplement, #801). PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER

The performance test on day seven involved running as far as possible at one-mile race pace, and the 64-percent-step-reduction runners did fairly well, advancing endurance time at this speed by 6 percent (the 100-percent-reduction runners failed to improve at all). However, the exponential runners blew the roof off MacDougall's lab, raising endurance time at one-mile pace by a full 22 percent! The expo folks also possessed enhanced leg-muscle enzyme activity, augmented total blood volume, increased red-blood-cell density, and greater muscle-glycogen storage, compared to the step-reducing runners.

These results certainly made exponential-decay tapering look better than step-reduction plans, but a few comments are in order. First, note that MacDougall's decaying runners employed a relatively high quantity of quality running during their taper - about 7.5 kilometers out of a total volume of 10K (75 percent). It is possible that the 64-percent-step-reduction runners would have fared far better if they had been able to include quality work in their training as well.

In addition, the expo-decay runners trained during their taper week at exactly the pace which was utilized for testing. Thus, their tapering period was highly "neural," i.e., it "tuned up" their nervous systems and prepared their neuromuscular systems for the exact intensities and most-efficient patterns of coordination and overall movement which would be used in the test. As you can see, MacDougall's work did not really compare step-reduction tapering with exponential-decay cutbacks but instead merely contrasted two widely disparate tapering plans.

Nonetheless, MacDougall's unique exponential plan looked mighty good, and further work by Joe Houmard and his colleagues added weight to the idea that tapering should proceed along a "steep-slide" course. Inspired by MacDougall (Houmard had used the Ontario taper to prepare very successfully for a marathon), Houmard asked eight experienced runners (six males and two females) who had been running about 43 miles per week to abbreviate their running to 6.2 miles of interval training and seven miles of jogging. Almost all of the interval training consisted of high-intensity, 400-meter intervals at about 5-K race pace or slightly faster. PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER

The exponential part of the plan was modeled along MacDougall lines: On the first day, the runners completed eight 400-meter intervals, on the second day they clipped off 5 X $00, on day three they hit 4 X 400, and on day four they tried 3 X 400, followed by 2 X 400 on days five and six and 1 X 400 on day seven. During the workouts, recovery intervals (composed of walking or resting) lasted just long enough to let heart rates drop to 100 to 110 beats per minute, and an 800-meter easy jog was performed both as a pre-workout warm-up and post-training-session cool-down (this accounted for the seven miles of jogging for the week). A control group of eight runners maintained their usual training volume of 43 miles per week.

When a 5-K race was held on the eighth day of the study (the day immediately following the one-week taper), the exponentially-advantage runners trimmed average 5-K times by statistically significant 29 seconds, from 17:16 to 16:47 (all eight of the runners were able to improve their clockings). The exponentially- tapered folks also improved running economy by a rather dramatic 6 percent, while the control group improved neither economy nor 5-K performance.

To learn more about how PLANNING THE RIGHT TAPER (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 17-5 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

An odd thing about running is that many runners believe that the best way to optimize aerobic capacity (VO2max) is to run lots of miles. However, the scientific study which detected the greatest improvement ever recorded in VO2max in well trained runners actually linked an upswing in intense training and a decrease in mileage with the big jump in VO2max. BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

The study of interest, completed by Timothy Smith, Lars McNaughton, and Kylie Marshall of the University of Tasmania in Australia and Kingston University in the United Kingdom, shook up the training of five experienced runners (1). These harriers were fit (average VO2max was 61.5 ml O2 kg-1min-1), and they were utilizing a variety of different training techniques prior to the onset of research, including long-slow distance work, speed work, tempo training, over speed efforts, and weight training. All five were primarily middle distance runners, and their average age was 23.

Before the investigation began, each runner completed three VO2max tests, which also were used to determine V max (the minimal running velocity which caused a runner to hit maximal aerobic capacity, or VO2max). These exams were completed on a Quinton treadmill. The initial treadmill speed was set at 10 kilometers per hour for two minutes, jumped to 12 kilometers per hour for one minute, and moved up to 14 kilometers for an additional minute. After that, the velocity increased by one kilometer per hour each minute until exhaustion was reached. Oxygen consumption was carefully measured during this incremental test, and VO2max was assumed to have been reached when a runner met at least two of the following three criterias: volitional exhaustion, a heart rate within five beats per minute of predicted max heart rate (using the familiar formulas of 220 - age), and an increase in running speed with no further increase in oxygen consumption. Vmax was defined as the slowest running speed (from the tests) which produced an oxygen-consumption rate equal to V)2max.

To make things interesting, each runner also completed a 3-K time trial and three Tmax tests. Tmax is simply the length of time a runner can keep going at Vmax, and each Tmax test was preceded by a 15-minute warm-up consisting of five minutes of running at 60 percent of Vmax. The treadmill velocity was then set at 18 kilometers per hour (lower than Vmax for each runner), the runner mounted the treadmill quickly, and the treadmill was up-regulated to Vmax within 10 seconds. Each runner then tried to hang on as long as possible, with verbal encouragement provided by the investigators. BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

After all this testing, the runners were probably happy to embark on the four-week training program developed by Smith, McNaughton, and Marshall. This 28-day plan focused on two very intense sessions each week; within each workout, all six intervals were completed right at Vmax, a fairly scalding interval intensity. A notable aspect of this training was that the durations of the work intervals were set at anywhere from 60 percent of Tmax to 75 percent of Tmax! That's unusual: Traditionally, with Vmax training (also known as vVo2max training), runners set their work interval lengths at about 20 to 50 percent of Tmax and do not move above 15 minutes of total running at Vmax per workout.

Let's say, for example, that a runner's Vmax corresponds with a pace of 90 seconds per 400 meters (4.44 meters per seconds) and that his/her T max is six minutes. Obviously, 50 percent of six minutes is three minutes. Ordinarily, a "stringent" Vmax session for this runner would then be 5 work intervals with a duration of 50 percent of Tmax, i.e., X 800 in three minutes each, for a total dose of 15 minutes of Vmax running.

If we put this same runner on Smith-McNaughton-Marshall plan, however, things would get much rougher. In the fourth week of S-M2 plan, for example, one workout involved 6 work intervals at Vmax with durations of 75 percent of Tmax. For our hypothetical runner from the last paragraph, this would mean stepping up from 5 X 800 in three minutes each to 6 X 1200 in 4:30 each, with all 1200s completed right at Vmax. That would entail 27 minutes total of Vmax running Red-hot!!

Basically, the runners completed two similar sessions each week, with the rest of their work consisting of "recovery runs". This simple - but very challenging - approach to training produced major gains in performance and fitness. For example, at the end of the four-week period average 3-K time improved from 616.6 to 599.6 seconds. Mean speed in the 3K ascended from 4.9 meters per second to 5.1 meters per second, about a 4-percent upgrade.

To learn more about how BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY (the full article can be read by purchasing VOL. 23-2 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to RUNNING RESEARCH NEWS is another way to receive valuable information about running.

AN OVERALL VIEW OF TRAINING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

In preparing for events ranging in length from 800 to 100,000 meters, you should always emphasize the quality of your training over mere volume. That is, you should stress speed (and the development of a higher maximal running speed), instead of placing your primary
focus on the accumulation of mileage. Great Workouts

Why is this so? If you had 100 runners standing before you and you wanted to figure out which ones would finish near the front in a race (regardless of whether that race covered 800 meters, 10K, a marathon, or 100K), one of the simplest and most effective forecasting techniques would be to time each runner in a 20-meter dash!

The runners with the fastest 20-meter times would also be the individuals with the quickest clockings for 5K – and for the marathon! On the other hand, if you ranked the runners according to weekly average mileage, you would no relationship at all between training distance per week and performance time!

It has been verified in research carried out by Heikki Rusko, Leena Paavolainen, and Ari Nummela of the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland with 17 male endurance runners (1). In this Finnish research, the connection between 20-meter and 5000-meter race velocities was extremely strong, even though the average 20-meter speed of 8.15 meters per second was roughly 76-percent faster than 5-K alacrity.

As it turned out, 20-meter time was a better predictor of 5-K speed than that vaunted �aerobic� variable, VO2max, and 20-meter burning was almost as good as another big-name physiological characteristic – running economy. Great Workouts

Could the 20-meter, 5-K connection detected by the Finns be purely a fluke? If you think so, consider the research carried out at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in which Aaron Sinnett, Kris Berg, and their colleagues determined that performance times for 10,000 meters can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy using two other attributes of speed and power – 300 meter sprint time and plyometric leaping distance (2). Sinnett, Berg, and co-workers also found significant correlations between 10-K performance and 50-meter sprint time, as well as vertical jumping ability.

Why are researchers finding that �anaerobic� physiological attributes are so important for success in almost purely �aerobic� events? To put it another way, why are exercise scientists discovering that measures of speed and explosiveness are great predictors of performance in races which seem to rely more on endurance than
on power?

To understand this completely, let�s take a close look at the Nebraska-Omaha study carried out by Sinnett, Berg, et al. In this fascinating work, the researchers examined 36 e experienced runners (20 men and 16 women) whose 10-K times varied from 32:36 to 56:24.

The age of these runners ranged from 19 to 35 years, and 27 of the athletes were preparing for a marathon as the research was conducted. The 36 subjects were running about 30 miles per week and had trained five times weekly for at least six months before the study started. Nineteen of the 36 subjects engaged in some form of strength training, and 27 had completed a marathon at some point in their running careers. They were not beginners! Great Workouts

Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint.

In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the �phosphagen system� within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other �fuels� for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place).

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true �anaerobic� test.

The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the �glycolytic energy system,� an oxygenindependent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and
lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).

The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible
with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels rise off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps. Great Workouts

For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up.

In the counter-movement jumps, the �snap-back� of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost. For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work �from a standing start.�

As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i. e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties.

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, since the enhanced
elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, �You run as though you have springs for legs.� Great Workouts

Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner�s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat.

The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance. Great Workouts

To summarize, one �anaerobic� attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. �Aerobic� variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running
economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in
performance). Two �anaerobic� attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic
characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races.

Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. Great Workouts

For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

For example, in Heikki Rusko�s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints.

During Rusko�s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were �in harness,� with their special, light-weight, leather �straightjackets� connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased producing adequate power).

As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race!

Rusko�s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach
your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now.

Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of highintensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not highvolume, running.

As was the case with Rusko�s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy.
As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in welltrained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (�anaerobic�) running (5). Great Workouts

Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE).

You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max).

TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner�s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal
and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely �put in the bank:� The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Great Workouts

IS RUNNING BAD FOR MTOR & RAPTOR?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Endurance runners are generally not crazy about the idea of carrying out consistent, progressive, running-specific strength training. Part of the reason for this is a wide spread belief in two of the pervasive myths associated with running- that strength training can harm aerobic development and endurance and that aerobic training makes it nearly impossible to upgrade raw muscular strength. However, research reveals that the "conflict" between strength and endurance training is often imaginary.

If you go to the gym to lift weights four or five days a week, your muscles will begin to travel in a certain direction. They'll decide to upgrade their diameter and volume, and as a result your strength may improve dramatically. If you are only pushing weights around in the gym, and nothing more, however, you will sink when you undertake an activity which requires considerable endurance, in spite of your enhanced muscular strength. Your muscles won't know how to behave in a 10-K race, for example, and you'll finish far behind individuals with considerably less sinuosity and strength.

On the other hand, if you eschew the gym and simply run at a moderate tempo for about an hour or so, five days a week, your muscles will take an entirely different trajectory. They'll get busy synthesizing increased quanities of aerobic enzymes and higher densities of mitochrondria, and they may signal surrounding capillaries to create bushy new networks of small blood vessels. If there are any fast-twitch fibers hanging around in your muscles, they'll go through at least a partial atrophy and may commence a kind of metamorphosis which makes them look more like their slow twitch cousins. After eight weeks or so, moderate-intensity endurance exercise will be a snap, but a trip into the gym would most likely reveal a surprising lack of strength and coordination. Your muscles would be far different and far weaker, compared with the sinews which would pop out after a steady diet of gymming.

Traditionally, many exercise physiologist and coaches have said that these two possible directions are contradictory, that is, that if you push muscles on a path toward strength it will retard their development of greater endurance, and vice-versa. As a result of this kind of thinking, many endurance athletes avoid strength training altogether.

This story concerning the potential conflicts associated with simultaneous strength and endurance training certainly goes back to the 1970s, when Dr. Robert Hickson, then a post-doc researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, discovered that the running workouts he was completing with his mentor, Dr. John Holloszy, were causing muscles to fall off his body like autumn leaves (1). Hickson went on to complete a study in which he demonstrated that endurance training had a negative impact on the gains in stength associated with concurrent resistance training (2). The "lesson" from this research was adopted by the running community: If you were a runner, it made little sense to carry out strength training, since endurance-running activities would throttle the possible emergence of greater strength. Furthermore, the two activities were too disparate - "aerobic" vs. "anaerobic" in the parlance of the day - to be joined together in any serious runner's training log.

However, it would seem to be incautious and a bit hasty to conclude from Hickson's initial research that all strength training should be cast aside by the running crowd. Indeed, Hickson's own follow-up study, published eight years later, has often been over looked. In that inquiry, experienced runners who had reached a "steady-state levels of performance" (e.g., who had stagnated) carried out strngth training three times a week for 10 weeks, with their regular endurance training remaining constant during this period (3). This research, far from revealing problems associated with synching strength training with endurance work, revealed that the addition of strength training was linked with a 13-percent enhancement of endurance during intense running.

Other studies failed to show that endurance training harmed the development of strength. In one of the most ingenious of these investigations, some subjects performed endurance training with the other leg. A second group of athletes carried out strength training on one leg and the combo of endurance and strength with the lower limb. The endurance training was composed of five three-minute bouts of cycling per workout at an intensity of 90 to 100% VO2max, while the strength training centered on six sets of 15-22 reps of leg presses with maximal resistance (4).

After 22 weeks (a beautifully long time frame in the exercise-science world), the legs which engaged in both endurance and strength training were just as strong as the lower appendages which performed strength training only. An interesting aspect of this research was that the same leg muscles were used for both the endurance and strength training, and the movements involved (pushing on a bike pedal and pressing a platform) were similar mechanically. This contradicted one view which had been held - that endurance-training's depressing effect on strength would be particularly strong if the same muscles were engaged in both types of training. After all, individual muscles could never go in two directions at once, right? If asked to do so, they would abandon gains in strength in favor of endurance-related changes, just as Hickson's quads lost mass when he became a serious runner.

In this study, however, muscles engaged in endurance training had no problem at all with the task of building up strength when they were asked to do so. It is very cool that the movements involved (pedaling and pressing) overlapping biomechanically, suggesting that the development of running-specific strength would not be retarded by high-quality running workouts.

To learn more about how to Is Running Bad For Mtor & Raptor? (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 22 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. SIGN-UP NOW!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR RUNNING GOES DOWNHILL

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Charging up hills boosts leg-muscle strength and improves your running economy, but what about running down hills? If you carry out repeats on a neighborhood incline, you've got to jog back down the hill before you surge upward again. Does such downhill ambling do anything special for you - aside from giving your knees a good jarring?

Of course! As we have mentioned previously in the pages of Running Research News, downhill running can help prevent leg-muscle soreness, especially in the quadriceps muscles in the front of the thigh. Soreness often results when one's muscles are challenged by a greater-than-normal number of eccentric contractions, in which the muscles attempt to shorten while they are actually being elongated.

The "quads" are notorious soreheads, mainly because gravity pulls the knee downward (e.g., produces knee flexion) with every footstrike during the act of running. This flexing stretches out the quads at the exact time they are contracting (attempting to shorten) to prevent excessive knee flexion. The resulting, repetitive strain (which occurs about 90 times per minute per leg) can produce significant quadriceps-muscle damage. If you simply complete your usual volume of training, your quads have already adapted to that amount of strain and ordinarily don't protest too much. However, if you run more miles than you are accustomed to, your quads tend to complain quite loudly. If you have ever boosted your mileage quickly or run a marathon, you know the feeling.

Downhill running actually magnifies this eccentric, "pulling-apart" stress on the quads, because the leg "falls" a little farther than normal with each stride. Thus the accelaration of the leg is greater at impact (footstrike), and the forces which produce knee flexion are consequently greater. The quads, of course, are still trying to carry out their yeoman-like work of resisting knee flexion, but the stress on them is much higher. Microscopic tears in the quads' muscle fibers and connective tissues can occur, and considerable soreness can result.

That doesn't mean that downhill running is bad for you, though: In the long run, it is actually good, because those old quads of yours adapt fairly readily. Once they've been exposed to some downhill running, they'll be sore, sure, but if you run downhill a few weeks later, the quads will be considerably "tougher" - and less apt to get sore. In addition, if - after your downhill exposure - you run longer than usual on the flat, your quads will also be less likely to get hurt. The soreness protection gained from downslope running does seem to carry over to regular efforts. Down Hill

The Six-Week Factor

In fact, for yet-to-be-explained reasons, the soreness insurance provided by a single bout of downhill running can often last for six weeks or more. Several years ago, scientists at the University of Massachusetts asked 109 individuals to perform two sets of 35 maximal, eccentric contractions of the biceps muscle in the upper part of one arm. Basically, these eccentric contractions consisted of lowering a very heavy weight, which forced the biceps muscles to elongate as the weight was lowered at the same time they were attempting to shorten to stabilize the weight's movement.

After this unusual workout, biceps soreness and tightness peaked about two to three days later, and maximal swelling occurred a few days after that. Biceps strength declined immediately after the rigorous session and stayed below-par for 10 days.

However, when the individuals tried the same biceps routine six weeks later (with no intervening biceps training), there was appreciably less soreness and little loss of muscle strength. The biceps muscles were somehow protected from problems as a result of that initial eccentric session.

Interestingly enough, the protection didn't last much longer than six weeks. When a second group of subjects waited 10 weeks after their initial eccentric workout to stress their biceps again, their biceps were thrown into uncontrollable agony and lost most of their strength. What was going on? Why could the bicep "remember" what happened six weeks before - but not 10 weeks before?

The Massachusetts researchers speculated that a strenuous bout of eccentric exercise "teaches" the nervous system how to better control and distribute the forces that are acting on particular muscles. In theory, this lessens the strain on individual muscle fibers when eccentric activity tries to "tear them apart" - and thereby reduces muscle damage and consequent pain. Just as the nervous system can learn to do this, it can also forget, and this forgetting seems to take place after six to 10 weeks. Six-Week Factor

Australian Rats Reveal Sarcomere Secrets

Nice theory, but does it really work that way? To check it out, scientists at Monash University in Australia asked 16 laboratory rats to work out on treadmills over a five-day period. Eight of these rats participated only in "uphill" (inclined) running, while the other eight ran only "downhill" (declined running). Actual workouts consisted of five-minute work intervals with 1.5-minutes recoveries, starting with three work intervals on the fifth day. Running speed during the work intervals was a rather modest 16 meters per minute. After five days, the rats' quadriceps muscles were tested for strength and then biopsied.

A key finding was that the quadriceps muscle cells of the decline-trained rats contained almost 10-percent more sarcomeres per cell, compared to the quads of the inclined rodents. To understand what sarcomeres are, bear in mind that a muscle cell is a barrel-shaped structure, and each "barrel" is filled with several hundred to several thousand cyclindrical, threadlike structures called myofibrils. To picture this, simply imagine a pipe-shaped structure (the muscle cell) stuffed with countless numbers of small cylindrical wires (the myofibrils). Incidentally, when we say that a muscle cell is shaped like a pipe, we are referring to a section of cylindrical water pipe, not to a pipe used for smoking purposes.

The myofibrils themselves are composed of microscopic, cylindrical compartments laid end to end (picture tiny cyclinders or spools glued together at their ends to make one long cylinder). These compartments are called the sarcomeres, and within the sarcomeres are the proteins (filaments) which actually allow muscles to both shorten and elongate. As special filaments slide inward (toward the middles of the sarcomeres), the myofibrils and overall muscle cell shorten, but when the filaments slide outward, the muscle gets longer.

As mentioned, downhill running induced the muscle cells to add more sarcomere to their myofibrils. Why is this increase in number of sarcomeres beneficial, and how can it prevent muscle damage and soreness? Since muscle-cell length itself didn't change significantly as a result of the downhill running, the fact that there were more sarcomeres per muscle cell was elongating, each sarcomere in a downhill-trained muscle would have to elongate less, and thus each sarcomere would be less likely to sustain internal damage. Sarcomere Secrets

To learn more about how WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR RUNNING GOES DOWNHILL (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.14-6 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Manys runners loathe the idea of dropping mileage and replacing the "lost" miles with explosive strength training, but new research from Finland reveals that such a strategy can significantly improve maximal running speed and leg muscle power - workout any loss in maximal aerobic capacity. In the new investigation, experienced runners reduced weekly mileage by 20 percent and upgraded maximal running velocity by 3 percent. REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

What happens if you suddenly decided to chop 20 percent of your usual miles from your weekly log - and then replaced that lost mileage with explosive training which required a comparable amount of time? Many runners would suggest that such a move would deplete maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), because of the lower overall volume of endurance training which would be conducted. Furthermore, many coaches and runners would say that the change would produce a drop in fitness and race performances, because of the necessarily abridged maximal aerobic capacity. Given such thinking, it is not at all surprising that so few runners carve away at their mileage and substitute explosive work for their endurance-type training.

However, there have been various hints in the scientific literature that such substitutions could produce surprising benefits. Some research, for example, has shown that "anaerobic work capacity" (the kind of thing which is fostered by explosive training) can have an important impact on endurance performance (1). In addition, Tim Noakes' now classic paper revealed that "neuromuscular characteristics" {basically, the ability of muscles to produce high amounts of force very quickly) could predict endurance-performance capability more successful than good-old VO2max (2). Producing force quickly is a key adaptation associates with explosive training. Thus, these inquires suggest that the traditional thinking about mileage and high-power work might be wrong.

Fortunately, the question of what really happens when endurance work is replaced by explosive training intrigued by Jussi Mikkola, Heikki Rusko, and their colleagues at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland. Recently, Mikkola, Rusko, and their co-workers asked 13 well-trained young runners (nine males, four females) who were training about 8.8 hours per week to pare 1.7 hours from their weekly logs (leaving about 7.1 hours of endurance training) - and then to incorporate 1.7 hours of explosive training into their schedules each week for a period of eight weeks (thus maintaining the usual 8.8 total hours of effort). These runners were young (average age = 17.3 years) and fit (mean VO2max = 62.4 ml'kg-1 min-1). REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

The explosive training was carried out three times a week (which meant that each session lasted for about 34 minutes). The workouts consisted of high-speed sprint intervals ((5 to 10) X (30 to 150 meters)), jumping exercises with no additional resistance (alternate-leg jumps, and hurdle jumps), and "gym exercises" with fairly light resistance (half squats, knee extensions, knee flexions, calf raises, abdominal curls, and back extensions). For the gym exertions, two to three sets of six to 10 repetitions were utilized, and the underlying philosophy for all of the explosive movements was to use very high action velocities.

And, yes, this was a Heikki Rusko study, so there was a very nice control group - 12 individuals in all (nine men and three women) who were also young (17.3 years) and fit (VO2max = 61.8 ml'kg-1min-1). These controls pretty much stayed away from the explosive training during the eight-week period, instead focusing on 8.5 hours per week of endurnce training.

Muscle strength, jumping ability, and 30-meter running speed were measured in both the explosive and control groups at the beginning and end og the eight week period. And - since this was a Rusko study - all runners performed a maximal anaerobic running test, or MART (Rusko is one of the primary developers of the MART). A MART can be completed on a treadmill (3 & 4), but in this research the testing took place on an indoor track. Basically, a MART is a series of 150-meter runs, with 100-second recoveries between runs and a five meter flying start before each 150-meter effort. The velocities of the 150-meter runs are tightly controlled. In this research, the first was carried out at 39.4 meters per second (101.5 seconds per 400 meters) for females and 4.75 meters per second (84 seconds per 400 meters) for males. After that, the velocity was increased by .41 meters per second for each consecutive 150-meter effort. At the well equipped Rusko lab in Jyvaskyla, the runners were guided into running at the correct velocity by a "light rabbit" (a moving light which moved around the track at the required speed). In a MART, the last 150-meter run is completed at maximal effort, and ordinarily about nine to 10n 150-meter surges are completed per test. Fairly fast speeds are attained during the test. For example, a male runner who manages to perform 10 150-meter runs would complete the last effort at no less than 8.44 meters per second (47 seconds per 400 meters, if he could "hold on" that long).

Over the course of eight weeks, the explosive training paid major dividends. The maximal speed in the MART (the velocity attained for the last 150-meter sprint) increased by 3 percent in the explosively trained runners - but failed to budge at all in the regular, endurance-trained subjects. Furthermore, 30-meter speed (the top velocity achieved in a 30-meter sprint which was preceded by a 20-meter flying start) advanced by 1.1 percent for the explosive runners - but was stagnant for control individuals. REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

To learn more about how REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES (the full article can be read by purchasing VOL. 23-3 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to RUNNING RESEARCH NEWS is another way to receive valuable information about running.

DO TRIATHLETES HAVE FEWER INJURIES? WHICH TRIATHLETES GET HURT?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

In theory, triathletes should have fewer overuse injuries, compared to other endurance athletes. After all, "cross training" is believed to minimize the risk of injury (and is even prescribed for injured athletes as a way to recovery), and triathletes cross train routinely. A triathlete whose main strength is running, for example, could be described as cross training for two-thirds of all workouts (if running, swimming, and cycling workouts occur with equal frequencies). Indeed, initial reports indicate that overuse injuries may be lower for triathletes; one study found an annual overuse- injury frequency of 41 percent in a group of triathletes, compared with the usual 50 to 65 percent injury rates found in "pure" runners ("An Epidemiological Investigation of Training and Injury Patterns in British Triathletes, "British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol.28, pp. 191-196,). TRIATHLETES

However, other research has identified a 90 percent (!) injury rate in triathletes, well above the norm for endurance-sport participants ("Overuse Injuries in Ultraendurance Triathletes," American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 17, pp. 514-518). Indeed, some sports-medicine experts argue that triathletes are more prone to injury, since each of the three triathlon sports tends to trigger a particular type of malady.

Swimming, for example, is known to induce shoulder injuries, which are seldom seen in running. Biking is associated with a higher risk of low-back problems, which are usually not a problem in endurance swimmers. In addition, triathletes often carry out more total workouts per week, compared with " straight" swimmers, runners, or cyclists. From these perspectives, triathlon competition might be considered a "high-risk" sport.

So the question remains: Do triathletes get injured more or less often, compared with "specialist" endurance athletes? In addition, which triathletes are at the highest risk for injury? Do psychological state, physical build, age, and gender play a role in determining risk? How about the number of years of triathlon experience, the time spent competing, training pace, and even stretching?

To answer these questions, researchers at Staffordshire University in Stoke-on-Trent recently examined the five-year training programs of 12 elite triathletes from British National Squad, 17 national-development-team memebrs, and 87 male club triathletes ("Injury and Training Characteristics of Male Elite, Development Squad, and Club Triathletes," International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 19, pp. 8-42). An injury was defined as any musculoskeletal problem causing cessation of training for at least one day, a reduction in training mileage, the taking of pain medicine, or the seeking of mediacl aid. Overuse injuries were recorded separately from traumatic injuries, such as those resulting from bicycle accidents. TRIATHLETES

As it turned out, injury prevalence did not differ significantly between the ability groups; 75 percent of elite, 75 percent of developmental, and 56 percent of club athletes suffered an overuse injury during the five-year period ( the downturn in injury rate in the club athletes was not statistically significant); total time taken off from training as a result of injury was also not different between groups.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the three groups in the proportions of athletes sustaing injury in particular parts of the body; for example, club athletes were no more likely to sustain Achilles-tendon injuries, compared with developmental and elite triathletes. The knee, Achilles tendon, and lower back tended to be the most-injured body areas for the athletes overall. Injury occurrence was not linked to age, height, weight, or body-mass index.

The Curse of Running

As you might expect, running injuries were responsible for most of the problems, accounting for from 58 to 64 percent of all injuries in the three groups; cycling was far back with 16 to 34 percent, and swimming produced very few difficulties. A key question then was: What factors increased the risk of running injury? The Staffordshire-University researchers were able to identify total weekly triathlon training distance (the sun of running, swimming, and biking mileage), weekly cycling distance (!), swimming distance per week, total number of workouts per week, cycling training pace, and number of weekly running workouts as key risk factors for running injury.

These findings might seem surprising at first. After all, why would an extra hour spent swimming or an extra 40K on the bike increase an athlete's risk of developing a running injury? The key, of course, is that while such efforts do not produce the kind of impact damage to muscles associated with running, they can - when carried out in large-enough volume - retard muscular recovery enough so that muscles respond less well to the stress of running and are thus more vulnerable to being injured as a result of run training. TRIATHLETES

Triathlon training is a true "balancing act;" workouts which ultimately improve cycling or swimming fitness can sometimes hurt running capacity or even increase the risk of sustaining a running injury by temporarily retarding muscular recovery. In such cases, it might be better to attempt to improve cycling or swimming fitness less avidly and thus maintain the ability to run strongly and without injury. When a triathlete plans a high-quality bike or swim workout, he/she needs to take into account not only the effect the session will have on bike/swim fitness but also the impact it will have on subsequent running efforts. If a killer bicycle exertion boosts cycling fitness a notch or two but prevents the completion og high-quality running workouts, what has actually been gained?

For many triathletes who want to improve overall performance - and who are training within limited time frames, the key may be to assess in which sport the greatest gain can be made, i.e., the sport in which the greatest improvement in overall race clocking can be attained. That sport will then be emphasized most heavily in training - and workouts in the other two activities which might hinder development in the "high-improvement" sport will be eschewed.

What about injury? Is the triathlon truly a high-risk sport? The 75-percent injury figures cited above seem high, but it's important to note that such a rate of overuse injury was observed over a five-year period; in comparsion, studies have found that 50 to 65 percent of endurance runners are injured during just one year of training. Thus, overuse-injury frequency often ranges from nine to 12 training sessions per week. Avoidance of a pattern of "hammering away" in a high impact sport such as running and an engagement with three different movement patterns (running, swimming, cycling) does indeed seem to be beneficial, from an injury-prevention standpoint. On the other hand, the three-movement plan probably does not give triathletes an advantage over pure swimmers and cyclists; since the latter do not include running in their training schemes, they are likely to have lower injury rates, compared with athletes.

Here is our final take-home point: Since triathlon injuries tend to revolve around the knee, lower back, and Achilles tendon, triathletes should spend extra time strengthening those parts of their bodies in functional ways, i.e., during movement patterns which mimic those occurring naturally in their sports. TRIATHLETES

To learn about Glucosamine and Chrondroitin Sulfate: Great Theraphy For Athletes' Joints?, Is The Use Of Variable Pace Better Than Keeping An Even Keel?, Or Rage Against The Machine: Re-Build Your Body Without Expense Exercise Equipment (the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu, or type in another topic of interest. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

What You Don't Know About Running Injuries Can Hurt You

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Don't get too bummed out if you've had a running-related injury during the past 12 months. After all, you're in the majority. Scientific studies show that about 60-65 percent of all runners are injured during an average year (By definition, an "injury" is a physical problem severe enough to force a reduction in training).

When compared to many other endurance sports, the risks associated with running are higher. For example, runners miss about 5-10 percent of their workouts due to injury, while racewalkers are absent just over 1 percent of the time, and step-aerobics participants go AWOL with a frequency of less than 1 percent ("Incidence and Severity of Injury Following Aerobic Training Programs Emphasizing Running, Racewalking, or Step Aerobics," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 25(5), p. S81, 1993).

Still, running is far from being the most injury-producing sport. In recent study in the Netherlands, running ranked fourth-behind outdoor soccer, indoor soccer, and volleyball - in the total number of injuries produced per year, and whne injuries were expressed per hour of actual activity, running was well down the list - in 14th place (Sportblessures breed Uitgemeten, Haarlem, DeVrieseborch, 1990).

In addition, running's 65-percent-injury and 5-percent-absence rates could be significantly lower - if runners knew more about the actual causes of injuries and made a few simple adjustments in their training schedules. In fact, research suggests that running injuries could be cut by around 25 percent (Sport for All:Sport Injuries and their Prevention, Council of Europe, Netherlands Institute of Sports Health Care, Oosterbeek, 1989).

Lets identify where injuries are likely to occur. The five anatomical "hotspot" for running injuries are: (1) The knee (25-30 percent of all running injuries occur ther) (2) The calf and shin (20 percent of all injuries) (3) The ilio-tibial band - a long sheath of connective tissue which runs from the outside of the hip down to the lateral edge of the knee (10 percent) (4) The Achilles tendon (8-10 percent) (5) The foot - the focal point for hobbling injuries like plantar fasciitis (10 percent)

To learn how to minimize your injury risk (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.9 Issue 5) and many more running related topics. Simply enter What You Don't Know About Running Injuries Can Hurt You, in the "search archives" box, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information. SIGN-UP NOW

How Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Part one--Why Rank and File Runners Should do Resistance Training

The year I turned 20, I graduated from junior to senior grade as a distance runner in New Zealand.

Now I would be running the 3,000-meter steeplechase against seasoned steeplechasers who were faster and stronger than me and chewed us young steeplechasers up for breakfast. However, my running was maxed out--any more and I would have injured myself. So I asked, 'What could I do to get within range of these guys?'

A friend suggested I try weight training to make myself stronger. Maybe that would help? With nothing to lose I started lifting weights three times a week. I felt very strong during my races and my steeplechase time came down by 15 seconds. I even managed to get to the New Zealand Championships in the senior race. Since then there has been no doubt in my mind concerning the positive effects of strength training on distance running performance.

The majority of non-elite runners do not strength train to improve their running performance. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

Because of the time consumed by running, most runners cannot find the time or do not have the interest to lift weights, while many do not think it will help them race faster.
However, of all the sports endurance events, distance running has the most impressive research results to support weight training as a technique to improve your running. It is a given that elite runners these days lift weights as an integral part of their training regime. They will all tell you that strength training has made them faster.

The irony here is that research shows weight training has a greater improvement on unfit or less fit runners than elite runners in the parameters of anaerobic threshold, running economy, and neuromuscular characteristics. That�s right--if you�re a runner doing 20 to 50 miles per week, you stand to gain some marvelous improvements compared with elite runners.

A study done a few years ago found that trained runners improve their running economy from 4% to 8% with resistance training. Even small improvements in running economy can have a large impact on longer distance events such as the marathon or 10K races. A 4% improvement for a 41:39 10K runner would reduce this time by 100 seconds.

But what about the rank and file runner, with 10K times between 35 and 60 minutes? Can resistance training help this group bring their times down? Several studies have shown that recreational runners who lift weights improve their performance. One study found lactate threshold, or the point where you start accumulating significant amounts of lactic acid, to be increased after a period of resistance training in untrained individuals.

Many studies of elite runners have not found this benefit from resistance training--indirect proof that rank and file runners have more to gain from strength training than elite runners.
But the study I believe to be the most promising looked at novice cycling and running trained subjects who added strength training three days per week for ten weeks. The results were exciting. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

The participants improved leg strength by an average of 30%, but thigh girths were unchanged, meaning they did not add any muscle bulk--something that would slow distance runners down.

And although their oxygen processing abilities were unchanged (as you would expect to find in people doing weight training), their cycling and treadmill running times to exhaustion at 80% of VO2 max were lengthened from 71 minutes to a staggering 85 minutes. Even their short-term high-powered (maximal 4 to 8 minute effort) endurance cycling and running were lengthened by 11% and 13%. In addition, six of the eight runners in this study improved their 10K times from an average of 42:27 to 41:43.

Other research has found similar results. Thus it is clear, that weight training can help you run faster for longer with the same effort and oxygen consumption. Attending a sports medicine conference recently, I heard one speaker make a comment that rang true. The athletes who are winning these days are ones who can maintain high wattage for longer than their competitors, i.e., they sustain their power at a high percentage of their VO2 max--now acknowledged as a major contributor to success in endurance events.Strength Training Will ImproveYour Running

The question is, if you are a recreational runner spending two to three extra hours each week doing weight training, would you be better off spending this time running? Will weight training adversely affect your running? And will weight training make you tighter and less flexible? The answers are no, no, and no. In one study, coaches were surprised to find that substituting 32% of total endurance training in elite distance runners for strength training improved runners' 5K performance significantly.

Other research demonstrated that strength training does not reduce endurance performance in non-athletes.

Studies investigating the effects of weight training on flexibility found weightlifters possess average to above average flexibility in most joints.

So how, then, does strength training actually improve running performance? The theory goes something like this. Your running speed is dependent on the force applied to the ground during each foot strike and the time over which this force is applied. The faster and more powerful the foot strikes, the faster you will run. Thus, if you improve the power you exert during each of your steps, you will run faster. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

Resistance training improves the tensile strength of your leg muscles, and thus enhances the recoil or return of energy with each foot compression or step. Additionally, your neuromuscular system becomes better coordinated from resistance training, enabling you to run using less energy and less oxygen.

A typical comment heard from runners I have coached who have taken up weight training is "I'm able to finish 10K races with a longer, sustained drive, and strong finish." Others claim that strength training has helped them relax their arms during the early and middle stages of their races. Women in particular have a lot to gain because they tend to be 20% to 40% weaker than their male counterparts in the major body regions (legs and upper body strength).

Other major benefits that weight training are theorized to have for runners includes injury prevention, correction of muscular imbalances, increase in stride length, improvement in core stability, and increase in basic speed. Although there is not yet enough evidence for all coaches and exercise scientists to agree on, these aspects should not be completely ignored and today are accepted reasons why coaches ply their runners with strength training.

Here, for example, is how resistance training can help prevent injuries. Lifting weights may help correct imbalances and biomechanical deficiencies such as the ratio of strength between the quadriceps and hamstrings groups. (Hamstrings tend to overpower quadriceps in distance runners.)Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

When all the research is examined, it is safe to claim that weight training is likely to improve your running, while it has never been found to detract from your performance. Now that I have sold you on its benefits, here is some practical advice on what to do and how to do it.

Part Two--Weight Training Advice and Programming for the Runner

There are several different types of resistance training equipment available in your local fitness club--free weights, Universal systems, Nautilus, Cam Systems, etc. They use different types of resistance, e.g., air pressure, fluid resistance, friction, pulleys, gravity, etc. Which of these is best? It does not matter--as long as you are pushing or pulling against resistance and overloading the muscle, you will gain strength.

Ideally, a combination of modes is best, so try using a mix of free-weights and fixed machine equipment. Your workouts should only last about 45 minutes to an hour, including warm-up time and stretching.

How do we go about improving our strength? We must overload our muscles with a resistance that is slightly more than we are used to pushing or pulling. Resistance (or weight) should be increased every few workouts or weeks and not every workout.

General sequencing strategies include using multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises. Work your large muscle groups before small muscle groups. This way you will not pre- fatigue your small muscles, which would make it more difficult to work the larger ones later. Do heavy weight training exercises that require greater force before lighter exercises, for the same reason. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

If you can manage three to four workouts with weights each week, I would recommend a split workout, where you alternate exercising the upper body with the legs and trunk. To achieve balance between muscle groups, alternate pushing exercises with pulling exercises on the opposite side of the body.

THE 10-MINUTE ALTERNATIVE TO STRETCHING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

If your pre-workout stretching doesn't seem to be doing much for you, give the following 10-minute warm-up routine a try. Bear in mind that a good warm-up should do three things for you:

(1) Increase your heart rate, so that the initial stages of your training session don't over tax your ticker, (2) Prepare your muscles for strenuous activity, and (3) Wake up your nervous system - so that it's ready to control your muscles properly during vigorous workout. This protocol will do all three, and it only takes 10 minutes:

(2) Wake up your leg muscles (1 minute): Walk in a relaxed fashion, alternating light, relaxed steps with long, exaggerated strides. On each extended stride, vigorously swing the opposite arm forward.

(3) Wake up your heart and leg muscles (4 minutes): As you jog unbelievably slowly, notice any tight spots in your body and focus on unkinking the tension.

(4) Wake up your nervous system (1 minute): Skip - in place or in a forward direction - while trying to lift your knees as high as possible.

(5) Wake up your heart (2 minutes): Run at the basic pace you'll utilize in your workout for one minute, and then jog very easily for one minute.

(6) Give your nervous system a green light (2 minutes): Hop lightly on both feet for about 20 seconds, and then hop lightly on your right foot for 15 seconds and your left for 15 seconds. Walk easily for 10 seconds, and then jump continuously - as high as possible on both feet - for 15 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds, and then try "hot-stove" jumping, getting your feet barely off the ground on each jump and trying to make as many contacts with the ground (with both feet) as you can in 20-25 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds or so.

(7) Run!

A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. Best 2010

POST-WORKOUT CARBOHYDRATE ALONE DOESN'T LOWER MUSCLE SORENESS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Tough workouts promote heightened fitness, but they can also lead to so much muscle soreness that athletes are unable to train effectively during the days after a rigorous session. To promote more consistent training and to limit muscle damage, exercise scientists have searched for ways to prevent excessive post-work-out soreness.

One popular anti-soreness recommendation has been for athletes to ingest ample amounts of carbohydrate shortly after a strenuous training session. The idea is that the extra carbohydrate would quickly make its way into muscle cells, providing plenty of fuel to kick-start the repair process which takes place after a workout. The rapid repair would then block muscles from becoming overly inflamed.

Unfortunately, a new study carried out at California State University suggests that pot-workout carbos don't have much effect on muscle pain. In the California research, 20 males started muscle-soreness ball rolling by completing eight sets of 10 eccentric muscle contractions on bench press, arm curl, and single leg extension machines (Eccentric contractions, in which muscles are stretched while they are trying to shorten, are noted for inducing soreness. With weight machines, eccentric contractions generally take place as a weight is being lowered). During the four hours after the workout, subjects consumed either a placebo or a carbohydrate-containing sports drink which provided .4 grams of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight.

Muscle soreness increased appreciably both 24 and 48 hours after the eccentric workout, but there were no differences between the two groups; the carbohydrate-ingesters did NOT have less muscle pain. Likewise, blood levels of creatine kinase (a muscle enzyme used as a marker of muscle damage) were similar in the two groups.

Why didn't the post-workout carbohydrate limit muscle soreness? The subjects' muscle membranes may have been damaged by the strenuous weight-training sessions, so carbohydrate migt have had a rough time even making it across the membranes into the interiors of the muscle cells. However, it's also possible that carbohydrate alone can't cure muscle soreness; it would have been nice if the Cal State researchers had added a third group of athletes to their study - a group which consumed surplus carbohydrate AND protein. The protein might have knitted together damaged muscle areas, while the carbohydrate could have yielded the energy necessary for repair, downplaying overall soreness.

The Cal State study didn't measure "functional recovery" in the two groups, so it's possible that the carbohydrate group might have been stronger than the placebo group following the eccentric workout, even though soreness levels were similar. The Cal State researchers also used relatively untrained subjects; experienced strength trainers might have been able to use the supplemental carbohydrate more effectively.

It's also important to mention that the Cal State study doesn't mean that post-training carbohydrate is worthless. In fact, other investigations have shown that taking in carbohydrate after workouts speeds glycogen replacement and suitably prepares athletes for training on subsequent days, even if it doesn't dampen. 2010 Training

WHAT ARE MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF MARATHON EXPERIENCE WORTH TO YOU?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:00:00 -0600

NEW MOON OF A NEW YEAR

IS YOUR MARATHON TRAINING UP TO THE TEST?

TRAIN SMART In this advanced and intermediate marathon training programs, RRNews provides you with the most-accurate, most-current, scientifically validated training techniques. These strategies are totally unique and unparalleled; you won't find them anyplace else. Our clients pay as much as $3000 for private training consultations. As Nietzsche said, In the mountains of truth, you will never climb in vain; either you will get up higher today, or you will exercise your strength in order to go higher tomorrow. When climbing your "marathon mountains," you have to choose wisely.

To help you with your ascent, RRNews is now sharing with you everything we have learned about the marathon. RRNews is offering two, 26-week training programs which take runners to their very peaks of marathon fitness. These programs have everything - all of the special running workouts, strengthening sessions, nutritional strategies, and injury-preventing techniques you need to set a marathon PR. Ultimately, it's about your results, right? Each of the programs progresses, day by day, through 26 weeks of optimal training; all workouts are concise and easy to understand. Each phase of marathon training is covered (general strengthening, running-specific strengthening, hill work, and speed development), so that you will achieve your premier performance on marathon day. You won't ever obtain the best results if you train blindly, without an understanding of the scientific principles of marathon training.

Don't try to re-invent the wheel: It's too-much work, for too-little reward. Face it: If you try to prepare yourself to run your best-possible marathon all on your own or with a below-standard training program you have obtained somewhere else, there is no guarantee that you will ever see the results you deserve. TRAIN SMART What will happen when you combine your motivation and determination with a training system which is proven to bring in BIG PR RESULTS? You'll blow your running friends (and foes) away with your astonishing performance improvement, and - most importantly - your heart will soar as you cross the finish line in a time that you never thought could be attainable. TRAIN SMART

This is your PERSONAL INVITATION to sign up for a 26-week program and to be part of a Select Group which trains according to the recommendations of the world's-leading authority on sports training! We have analyzed the training techniques of many of the top marathon runners in the world (including athletes such as quadruple-world- record-holder Tegla Loroupe and Sammy Lelei) and has successfully coached marathon runners with a wide range of abilities. His programs contain everything you need to optimize your performances - even how to use sports drinks during your long runs and how to warm up on race morning. You'll love the training, and you will love the fact that you no longer have to worry about how to prepare yourself to run your best-possible marathon. The intermediate-level program is for marathoners who are currently able to run at least 25 miles per week and can progress to 40-plus weekly miles over the course of the program.

The advanced-level training is for runners who have the capability of running 40 miles per week and can move up to 60-plus weekly miles during the 26-week period. If you think that either of RRnew's schedules is "just another marathon program," think again! These programs uniquely satisfy all of the requirements for PR marathon performances, and they have already transformed the running of marathoners from all over the world. To obtain either program, simply TRAIN SMART to be taken directly to the marathon schedules in our store. Here you will be given an opportunity to purchase and download either (or both) of the 26-week packages. The price is just $297 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $197) for the intermediate program (about $7 per week) and $397 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $297) for the advanced schedule ($11 per week) - real bargains for more than six months of scientifically validated training which has been tested on runners with a wide range of abilities. TRAIN SMART

WHAT TO DO IF THE INJURY BUG BITES?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:00:00 -0600

Because our programs emphasizes running-specific strengthening, outstanding recovery, and moderate total mileage levels, your risk of injury is low. In case an Achilles tendon, a plantar fascia, a knee, or some other portion of your anatomy does begin to complain as your training proceeds, however, here are some tips to follow which will help you get over the injury and continue with your schedule: Training

(1) If you experience any pain at all while running, stop your workout immediately.

(2) Recover (with rest) until the symptoms are no longer present while running, and then continue with your schedule.

(3) If you need more than a day or two to recover from an injury, substitute bike workouts for the running sessions (provided the bike sessions do not aggravate the injured area). Use intensities and time durations on the bike which are similar to the ones associated with the scheduled running workouts.

(4) If you are experiencing significant tightness, please be certain to thoroughly stretch out the tight area after all of your workouts. Training

after all of your workouts. Training

DOES HEAVY-DUTY WEIGHTLIFTING LEAD TO OSTEOARTHRITIS IN THE HIP?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Critics of high-resistance weightlifting have contended that the activity increases the risk of osteoarthritis in the hips. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease which involves the breakdown of cartilage within joints, which eventually may cause bones to rub against each other. Osteoarthritis tends to strike the hands and weight-bearing joints of the body, including the hips, knees, feet, and back. Pain and loss of movement are common features of the disease.

In a new review paper, researchers at the University Hospital in Rotterdam weighted the evidence for and against the idea that heavy load-bearing enhances the risk of hip degeneration. Their conclusion? "Overall, moderate evidence was found for a positive association.....between previous heavy physical workload and the occurences of hip osteoarthritis." In fact, the Rotterdam investigators found that heavy work appeared to roughly triple the risk of hip osteoarthritis (The Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 28, pp.2520-2528, 2001). The "heavy work" analyzed in the Rotterdam research included various types of on-the-job activity, including farm work lasting at least 10 years and working in an occupation which required the regular lifting of objects weighing 55 pounds or more. Such job-related exertion significantly increased the risk of hip osteoarthritis.

Before you jump to the conclusion that heavy lifting hurts the hips, however, bear in mind that the mechanism underlying the increased risk of hip osteoarthritis remains unclear. In fact, principal Dutch investigator Dr. Annet Lievense admits that one explanation for the linkage between high physical workloads and hip osteoarthritis "is that peoplewith highly physically demanding jobs may obtain treatment earlier and/or more often than people in less demanding occupations - not neccessarily because they have a higher incidence of osteoarthritis, but possibly because they are more handicapped by it when it occurs." As a result, "these people will be over-represented" in the arthritic group.

In other words, heavy lifters might not really have more osteoarthritis than individuals who are sedentary or who engage in light activities. it's just that pain - when experienced by the heavy hitters - might keep them from performing their jobs or other activities and thus cause them to seek out medical help. In fact, strenuous activity in the hard hitters might provoke pain more frequently, compared with sedentary folks, even though the overall condition of the hip joints might be roughly equivalent between the groups. Pain can stop a laborer from lifting boxes or an athlete from elevating a barbell, but it usually does not prevent a sedentary person from rolling over on a couch. Thus, the active person is more likely to seek out medical care and be counted as an osteoarthritis sufferer in a scientific study, compared with someone who pops ibuprofen and lies around waiting for the arthrithis pain to ebb.

To learn more about how Does Heavy-Duty Weightlifting Lead To Osteoarthritis In The Hips?, Why "Anaerobic" Factors Do Such A Great Job Of Predicting "Aerobic" Performances, And Can Perking up Proprioception Pare Your Probability Of Injury And Produce Peak Performance? (these full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 10 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. Or simply search foryour favorite topics. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

PEAKING FOR YOUR BEST PERFORMANCE

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

In 1972 a 21-year-old runner from New Zealand, Rodney Dixon, narrowly squeaked onto the New Zealand team for the Munich Olympics by running just under four minutes for the mile. However Dixon was chronically over trained-he�d been running for 2-3 hours each day. One and a half hours of running through hills and farmland in the mornings, and speed sessions most afternoons. Stories of these training runs were legendary amongst the New Zealand runners. Peaking Performance

As if these odds weren�t bad enough, Dixon badly twisted his ankle as he jogged across a field about ten days before the heats of the Olympic 1500 meters. This put him out of action for over a week. This enforced rest gave Dixon a breather, allowing his body to recover from the months of hard running he�d put in. He was jogging by the end of the week, but not able to run fast.

Then PLO terrorists invaded the games village and took several Israeli athletes hostage and attempted to use them as hostages at an airport. Sadly, a rescue attempt went awry and all athletes and terrorists were killed. This held up the opening of the Games for another day to allow a memorial service be conducted for the Israeli athletes.

By this time Dixon was finally ready to run at full speed in his heat of the 1500 meters. As a complete unknown, he reached the final, placing third. There�s a great picture of an unbelieving Dixon, hands covering his face, in tears on the victory stand unable to comprehend that he is now an Olympic medallist. Peaking Performance

The rest is history--Dixon went on to become one of the most versatile and famous distance runners in the world, in the 1980�s, on the track, road, and cross-country, dominating the US road racing scene for several years, setting all sorts of records, even winning the New York Marathon.

What does this have to do with tapering and peaking for competition?

Dixon learned a vital lesson early in his running career--the importance of allowing the body to rest before competition. His sprained ankle forced him to lie up and recover from his overtraining, so he was in his best ever form by race time. He freely credits his injury and the extra days of rest as the reason for his bronze medal.

The majority of elite athletes in most endurance sports are chronically over trained at any given time. Smart athletes have learned by experience that a tapering period is critical for them to get their absolute best performance. Most coaches in any endurance sport agree their biggest problem with athletes is getting them to recover from hard training efforts, and complying with a tapering or peaking phase in their programs.

The famous Finnish distance runner Lasse Viren who won the 5000 and 10000 meters double at the 1976 and 1980 Olympics claims that it was a peaking technique taught to him by the late New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard that enabled him to win two Olympic Gold�s in two Olympic Games. Peaking Performance

Viren says, "The question is not why I run this way, but why so many others cannot". This was Viren�s way of saying that most elite distance runners lack the confidence to rest up for a week or so before major races.

Why is this tapering necessary? You might think that reducing your training significantly for a week or two before a competition would cause you to lose your hard-earned endurance. Not so, according to Dr. David Costill, former researcher and head of the renown exercise science department at Ball State University, Indiana. Long periods of intense training actually decrease an athlete�s performance capacity. Thus by reducing training duration and intensity a week or two before competition muscle tissue damage caused by intense training heals up, and the body�s energy reserves replenish. Proteins enter the muscle fibers and repair the micro tears in them.

Several studies find a marked increase in muscular strength with a tapering period, probably caused by a reduction in the shortening velocity of the fast twitch muscle fibers. Translated this means that the "power" muscle fibers contract quicker after rest.

Another research paper shows that runners and swimmers who reduce their training by about 60% for 15-21 days experience no losses in VO2 max (maximal oxygen uptake) or endurance performance. Furthermore, swimmers demonstrate increases in arm strength and power ranging from 17.7% to 24.6%, considered ideal for athletes about to compete in a major championship. Lactate levels are also lower after tapering at any given workload.

Research may be fine in a lab setting, but does this information have any practical benefits? Most interesting is that swimmers following this tapering program improved their times 3.5-3.7%. This equates to a 40-minute 10k runner decreasing his/her time to 38 minutes, 48 seconds-certainly worth the effort. Peaking Performance

Another research paper looked at the effects of tapering combined with carbohydrate loading (with a diet of about 60-70% carbohydrates) for four days before an endurance event. Glycogen stores in liver and muscle tissue almost doubled, resulting in significant improvements in marathon performances, up to 15 minutes.

Additionally, the peaking phase gives the athlete a mental rest from hard grinding workouts. Mental preparation and attitude are almost as important as physical training for maximum performance. The fresher the athlete is the more he/she can concentrate on race pace judgment, self-motivation, strategy planning, psychological arousal and relaxation.

What are the expert�s guidelines for tapering? It should be longer for longer events. A marathon taper could be 2-3 weeks, a 10k taper somewhere around 7-10 days, and a 1500 meter track race could be 4-7 days.

Aim to reduce your overall mileage to 30% to 50% of previous totals. It�s ok to maintain your usual running intensity (speed), although this too should be cut back a few days before the big race to 60% to 70% of maximal heart rate. The occasional faster than race pace burst is ok during a taper, as long as you have complete recovery. Obviously extended and highly anaerobic workouts and racing during the tapering phase are counterproductive.

Are there benefits to recreational joggers (who run around 20 miles per week) tapering before an event? Probably not--a further reduction in training for low mileage would lead to a decline in cardio respiratory fitness.

With these guidelines in mind, let�s look at what some of Seattle�s top runners do for their tapering in preparation for a marathon. Alyson Deckert, 41, is one of the area�s elite marathoners. She�s run three Olympic Marathon trials, and qualified for this year�s trials too. With a best time of 2:38:01, she has obviously been successful in tapering for a marathon or three. Peaking Performance

Her tapering begins three weeks out; she cuts back her mileage by about 25%, from a usual weekly average of 75 miles, to 60 miles. The second week out she cuts back further to 45-50 miles, still including one fast marathon pace tempo run. In her final week she logs 25-30 miles, with only 2-3 days running, and a couple of days off. She might do runs of 8, 10 and 8 miles in this week, but the last day of running is three days before the marathon. During the last week she�ll also load up on carbohydrates and make sure she is getting enough fluids such as Gatorade and fruit juice.

Greg Crowther, with a best marathon of 2:22:32 and many other times consistently near that, easily ranks in the Pugets Sound�s top five male marathoners. With a Ph.D in physiology, his research background to has guided him with his tapering program . He also starts three weeks out, cutting back to a lighter than normal mileage. His last long run is three weeks before race day--a 20-22 mile run with the first 6 miles at a comfortable pace, followed by 6-8 miles at his planned marathon race pace, then the final 2-4 miles as a cool down.

Two weeks out he�ll still do a speed work out, perhaps 2-3 one-mile repeats, thus maintaining some quality training, while continuing with some longer runs, (although still shorter than usual). His final week he�ll take a day off running, but still include a shorter interval track session such as 3 x 800 meters repeats, (or 600 meter repeats), plus 2.5-3 miles on the track at marathon pace on another day.

These higher intensity workouts are easy enough for him to recover from, yet keep his neuromuscular system in tune with his anticipated race pace. His short runs in the final week are easy 5 milers, with a short slow jog the day before the marathon.

Uhli Steidl, number one ranked marathoner in Washington State who placed 12th at last year�s Boston Marathon in 2:19:54, also does a three week taper. He�s had 30 marathons to perfect his peaking process, and has a best time of 2:13: 56.

He cuts his normal weekly mileage from 110-130 miles to 80-90 miles, three weeks out. Two weeks before a big marathon he�ll cut back further to 70 miles, then only run 40 miles the final week before the marathon. Four to five days before the marathon he�ll do a 3 miles at his anticipated marathon race pace or 10 x 400 meters at marathon race pace. Peaking Performance

All three of these elite marathoners follow the general guidelines outlined above. Other factors obviously contribute to the distance runner achieving his or her optimal performance in a marathon or shorter distances. These include such things as how many races the runner has had, leading up to the major event; the athlete should obviously not peak for every competition prior to the championship event; the importance of achieving a fine balance between good health and top level competition; controlling the nervous excitement leading up to the big competition; and adjusting to the time zone and environmental conditions if necessary.

One final aspect of tapering needs to be considered. The results of a well-planned tapering program are that the runner or triathlete will feel like the competition is almost effortless. This could result in a foolhardy early pace, and blow the results of the tapering. Starting at a realistic pace will ensure that the athlete does not find him or herself in an anaerobic state right from the start.

Thus, peaking is designed to achieve a superior biological state where the athlete tapers his/her training for a period of 7-21 days, depending on the distance. The goal is to achieve good health, complete physical readiness, and a strong psychological state for competition, all of which will lead to maximum performance. Peaking Performance

"FREE CHAPTER" GREAT WORKOUTS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

CHAPTER I
AN OVERALL VIEW OF TRAINING

The runners with the fastest 20-meter times would also be the individuals with the quickest clicking�s for 5K – and for the marathon! On the other hand, if you ranked the runners according to weekly average mileage, you would no relationship at all between training distance per week and performance time!

While this linkage is surprising to runners and coaches, the majority of whom think that the 20-meter sprint is an �anaerobic� event and that running events like the 10K and marathon are purely �aerobic� endeavors, the simple 20-meter test is very accurate. It has been verified in research carried out by Heikki Rusko, Leena Paavolainen, and Ari Nummela of the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland with 17 male endurance runners (1). In this Finnish research, the connection between 20-meter and 5000-meter race velocities was extremely strong, even though the average 20-meter speed of 8.15 meters per second was roughly 76-percent faster than 5-K alacrity. As it turned out, 20-meter time was a better predictor of 5-K speed than that vaunted �aerobic� variable, VO2max, and 20-meter burning was almost as good as another big-name physiological characteristic – running economy. GREAT WORKOUTS

To understand this completely, let�s take a close look at the Nebraska-Omaha study carried out by Sinnett, Berg, et al. In this fascinating work, the researchers examined 36 experienced runners (20 men and 16 women) whose 10-K times varied from 32:36 to 56:24. The age of these runners ranged from 19 to 35 years, and 27 of the athletes were preparing for a marathon as the research was conducted. The 36 subjects were running about 30 miles per week and had trained five times weekly for at least six months before the study started. Nineteen of the 36 subjects engaged in some form of strength training, and 27 had completed a marathon at some point in their running careers.

They were not beginners! Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint. In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the �phosphagen system� within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other �fuels� for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place). GREAT WORKOUTS

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true �anaerobic� test. The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the �glycolytic energy system,� an oxygen independent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

For the jump with counter-movement, the athletes started in a standing position next to the Vertec device, quickly descended into a semi-crouched, flexed-knee position, and then – without the slightest hesitation – jumped straight up with maximum power and attempted to touch the highest-possible point on the Vertec instrument. For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up. In the counter-movement jumps, the �snap-back� of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost.

For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work �from a standing start.� As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i.e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties. GREAT WORKOUTS

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, and since the enhanced elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, �You run as though you have springs for legs.� Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner�s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

The final test of �anaerobic� prowess – the plyometric leap test – was initiated from a standing position, from which the athletes performed three consecutive forward leaps by springing from one foot to the other; for the third and last leap, the athletes landed on both feet. In effect, the plyometric leap test was just like the triple jump performed in track and field, except that the leap exam was carried out from a standing rather than a running start.
Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat. The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance.

Just by itself, plyometric leap distance explained a whopping 74 percent of the variation in 10-Krace times for the entire group of 36 runners. Together with 300-meter sprint performance, plyometric leap distance accounted for an incredible 78 percent of the variance! To summarize, one �anaerobic� attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. �Aerobic� variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in performance). Two �anaerobic� attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

If you are somewhat shocked about the ability of �anaerobic� factors such as plyometric leaping distance, counter-movement jump height, 300-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, and 20-meter clocking to predict distance running performances, you shouldn�t be. For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such
enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

Greater force will translate to longer strides, and quicker force production will mean faster strides; the combination taken together can lead to major improvements in running velocity – and the ability to run faster in your chosen competitive distance. There are other fundamental reasons for this linkage between �anaerobic� and �aerobic� factors, which I will explain in a moment, and several other research studies also connect such apparent �opposites.� For example, in Heikki Rusko�s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints. During Rusko�s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

This pattern (20 seconds of fast running alternating with 100 seconds of recovering) continued for as long as possible, with each successive 20-second jaunt taking place at a speed which was .35 meters per second faster than the previous work interval. The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were �in harness,� with their special, light-weight, leather �straightjackets� connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased
producing adequate power).

The average speed at the collapse point was 6.57 meters per second (4:05 per mile), so you can see that the Finnish harriers did quite well on the four-degree treadmill grade. Naturally, the speed attained wasn�t as great as during the 20-meter races (wherein 8.15 meters per second turned out to be the average velocity), since the 20-meter pacing occurred on flat ground with �fresh legs� and the VMART test took place in the face of considerable built-up fatigue (the 20-meter sprints were helped along, too, by their short duration of approximately 2.5 seconds, while VMART had to be sustained for 20 seconds).
As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race! GREAT WORKOUTS

The question you have to be asking right now (especially if you are a 5-K runner) is: How can I optimize my VMART? That is the right question to ask, especially since it is certain that the optimization of VMART will improve your performances significantly, even if you are an 800-meter runner – and even if you are a 100-K competitor. Rusko�s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now. Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

The findings of Rusko and Berg are supported by those of the great South-African researcher Tim Noakes, who may have gotten this whole �paradigm shift� rolling with an elegant study published in 1988 (3). In Noakes� investigation, endurance performance was well predicted by the top speeds which athletes could attain on a treadmill; those runners with the highest peak running speeds also had the best endurance race times in their portfolios. As was the case with Rusko�s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy. As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in well trained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (�anaerobic�) running (5).

In yet another study, famed exercise physiologist Dave Costill and his associate Joe Houmard took a close look at the physiological qualifications of 10 runners who trained about 50 miles per week and averaged a not-too shabby 16:43 for the 5K (6). Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE). You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max). GREAT WORKOUTS

In Costill�s 5-K runners, anaerobic power was measured during short sprints and vertical jumps. TTE was calculated in this way: A stopwatch started as an athlete began running on a flat treadmill at an intensity of 85 percent of VO2max (which normally translates into around 90-92 percent of max heart rate). The treadmill grade was then increased by 3 percent every two minutes, and the clock stopped when the runner could no longer continue at the appropriate pace. TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner�s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly
anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

The fundamental mechanisms underlying the connection between outstanding anaerobic capacities and exceptional endurance performances are not really difficult to grasp. As we have already mentioned, the factors which promote very high sprint speeds (more force applied to the ground, force applied more quickly) will also foster considerably faster distance running. In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

To put it another way, if endurance-runner A has a peak running velocity of 8 meters per second, and endurance-runner B has a max of just 6.8 meters per second, runner A has a much better chance of running a 5K in 15 minutes flat (i. e., at 5.56 meters per second). For runner A, 15-flat pace would be just 70 percent of maximal speed; for B, it would be way up there at 82 percent of max. There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely �put in the bank:� The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

To put some more numbers on this kind of thinking, if you have a max speed of 8.15 meters per second, a 5-K alacrity of 4.63 meters per second (for an 18-minute 5-K finishing time) would be only 57 percent of your running-speed max, whereas if you�re a poor soul with a maximum of just 7 meters per second, you would have to settle in at 66 percent of your max during an 18-minute 5K, and the pace would feel (to your mind, muscles, and lungs) quite a bit tougher. Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Other so-called �anaerobic� attributes besides peak speed should also have a strong impact on your middle and long-distance performances. Think about Rusko�s VMART tests, for example: You�ll recall that the VMART exam consisted of 20-second work intervals and 100-second recoveries. GREAT WORKOUTS

The work intervals were carried out on a treadmill with a four-degree grade, and the speed of the work intervals progressed from 7:13 per mile to 6:36 per mile to 6:05, 5:38, 5:15, 4:55, 4:37, 4:21, 4:05, and – for some of the athletes – even to 3:55 and 3:43. This means that the top-dog VMART runners would have to be superb not only at running fast but also at minimizing leg-muscle fatigue during high-intensity effort. The fatigue minimization would be a function of good �buffering� within muscles (i. e., the ability to deal with increases in muscle acidity associated with very fast running) and an excellent lactate clearance capacity. These attributes would give athletes high anaerobic capacities and also great success during fast-paced middle- and long-distance competitions. Although it may be difficult for some athletes and coaches to accept, better buffering within muscles is not fostered by long running (since little buffering is required during prolonged efforts).

Similarly, an outstanding lactate clearance capacity is not developed through high-volume work (since there is little lactate to clear when training speeds are mainly sub-maximal). Ultimately, the optimization of VMART hinges on whether a program of high quality training is utilized.

Noakes himself did some theorizing on this important matter. Based on his laboratory investigations (in which he uncovered the great importance of peak running velocity in determining distance performance ability), Noakes believed that something called �muscle contractility� was very important for running success. To him, muscle contractility was a measure of the quickness and forcefulness of muscle contractions; it was not an indicator of muscular endurance, at least when monitored at medium to slow speeds. As he pointed out, individuals with excellent muscle contractility can achieve very high workloads during their training sessions. Such training can position an athlete to carry out more work at a high fraction of max running velocity, which of course would be one of the best ways to optimize that critical performance variable.

Note, too, that exceptional contractility would also expand plyometric leaping distance, the variable which Sinnett, Berg, et al. found to be so predictive of 10-K performance (2).
Taking a slightly different approach, Heikki Rusko argued that �neuromuscular characteristics� were a key component of racing success. By this, he meant that runners whose muscles were capable of explosive, coordinated contractions (as evidenced by high VMART speeds and excellent 20-meter times) would have a definite edge in competitions. Heikki supported these contentions by showing that running velocity was inversely related to foot-strike time, both in the 20-meter dash and the 5K itself. GREAT WORKOUTS

In both events, if you could �sort� a large group of runners by their foot-strike times, with the fastest foot strikers on one end and the slowest on the other, you would also have done a nice job of assembling the runners according to their race speeds (for both 20 and 5000 meters). The best 5-K runners were not the ones with the best maximal aerobic capacities and running economies; in fact, those variables had fairly weak predictive power.

The top-of-the-class runners were the ones with powerful neuromuscular characteristics, as evidenced by their explosive foot strikes. Let�s take a moment to put some numbers on this, too. A reduction in foot-strike time of just 1/300 of a second could reduce 5-K time by 10 seconds for a 16-minute 5-K runner (provided the abbreviation in foot-strike time did not lead to a loss of stride length). In addition, trimming contact time by only 1/100 of a second could lead to a 30-second 5-K improvement. Interestingly, the difference in average contact time between the fastest and slowest 5-K runners in Rusko�s study was about 27 milliseconds (2.7 hundredths of a second), and this difference was associated with a 54-second difference in 5-K finishing time.

Rusko was also able to show that stride rate was directly related to 5-K speed; the higher the stride rate, the quicker the 5-K finish time. Since stride lengths were comparable among the 5-K runners, it was the decrease in foot-strike time which increased stride rate. Since it occurred without a drop in stride length, the more-abridged (i. e., more-explosive) foot-strike pattern allowed runners to eat up more real estate during each minute of running. As a runner, you should be aware that the so-called �anaerobic� characteristics which have a strong impact on middle- and long-distance running performance – plyometric leap distance, 20-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, 300-meter sprint clocking, foot-strike time, stride rate, muscle contractility, neuromuscular characteristics, VMART, muscle buffering capacity, and max running speed – are all very trainable.

Just running miles won�t optimize these variables, however; to improve your power characteristics, you will need to utilize a training program which emphasizes high-intensity workouts like the ones described in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The conventional methods of training for middle and long-distance races are dead. Although many runners and coaches are blissfully unaware of the situation, the worlds of middle- and long-distance running are currently going through a major paradigm shift, in which the emphasis is changing from the pursuits of mileage, �strength,� and higher aerobic capacity to the quest for greater power and the ability to sustain high power outputs for lengthier periods of time. It�s no longer enough to run miles and to worry only about your aerobic development, with a little �speed frosting� added on top of the program shortly before a major competition. In fact, it never was enough; we simply did not have enough scientific information to demonstrate that it was wrong to think that high-power, �anaerobic� traits could not help and might even hurt distance-running performances. Once we began to learn that anaerobic characteristics are helpful to distance runners, we began to see that the paradox of anaerobic traits improving aerobic performances is not really a paradox at all. Power factors (such as plyometric leaping ability, 50-meter sprint time, muscle contractility, etc.) which make sprinters faster also make middle- and long-distance runners faster.

The really good news is that power factors can be improved by even the most plodding of runners. The great news is also that such improvement is not a risky business, even if you are a relatively inexperienced runner. If you train to improve your power in a progressive and reasonable way, the process is not injury-producing; it is actually injury preventing (because your muscles and connective tissues develop an improved capacity to withstand large forces). If you are training correctly, your power and endurance characteristics will come together to produce your best-possible race times, from 800 meters all the way up to an ultra-marathon. Your overall goal, in fact, is to optimize your power while simultaneously maximizing those key physiological factors mentioned in the Introduction (vVO2max, lactate threshold, and economy) – the physiological factors which will allow you to sustain high power out puts in your preferred races. This book is filled with workouts which will help you optimize both your power and stamina, as well as your ability to handle the specific demands of your preferred race distances. GREAT WORKOUTS

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

These a

VITAMINS C AND E SEEM TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR ENDURANCE ATHLETES' AIRWAYS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Relatively low levels of ozone (<120micrograms/m3) can affect lung function in endurance athletes, making it more difficult to bring large volumes of air into thelungs (Respiratory Effects of Low-Level Photochemical Air Pollution in Amateur Cyclists," American Journal od Resp. Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 150, pp.962-996, 1994). As a result, exercise scientist have searched for years to find ways to minimize ozone-related respiratory problems in athletes. Vitamins C And E

Ozone, also known as O3, is actually an unstable form of oxygen. If you have been even mildly interested in atmospheric science and air pollution over the past few years, you are well aware that there is "good ozone" and also "bad ozone" in the earth's atmosphere. The "good ozone" occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, approximately 10 kilometers above the earth. There, it forms a protective layer which helps to shield the earth from the harmful rays of the sun.

At ground level, however, the very same gas becomes "bad ozone." Ground-level ozone can harm human lung tissue, crops, and manufactured materials. The ground-level O3 is formed when nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases (hydrocarbons) react chemically in the presence of sunlight. Nitrogen oxides, of course, are produced by fuel-burning engines; reactive organic gases are released by motor vehicles, solvents, a variety of different consumer products, and petroleum-processing plants.

Ground-level ozone tend to induce bronchoconstriction (narrowing of the airways), which decreases air flow into the lungs and potenially limits oxygen delivery to the blood. Even though endurance athletes have well-trained respiratory systems, they are quite prome toozone-induced problems. That's because athletes can maintain very high ventilation rates for prolonged periods of time - and thus drag more ozone into their lungs, compared to "couch potatoes". In addition, the "mouth breathing" (instead of routine nasal breathing) associated with heavy exercise takes away one of the body's key lines of defense against ozone - the trapping of ozone molecules in the nasal membranes, which prevents the irritating gas from reaching the lower air passages. If you live in or near an urban area, it's likely that ozone is having at least some impact on your respiratory function when you train and race. Vitamins C And E

What can you do to protect yourself from ozone's effects? Theorizing that antioxidants might help control ozone-related damage to the airways, researchers in Mexico City recently gave "antioxidant cocktails" to street workers exposed to fairly high levels of ozone. These cocktails contained vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, and they did indeed have a protective effect on lung function in the workers (:Antioxidant Supplementation and Respiratory Function among Workers Exposed to High Levels of Ozone," American Journal of Respiratory Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 158, pp. 226-232, 1998).

Dutch Cyclist, Ozone, and Vitamins C and E

These workers were not exercising hevily, however. Would a similar cocktail have a beneficial effect in endurance athletes - even at lower ambient levels of ozone? To find out, researchers at Wageningen Agricultural University and the Netherlands Institute of Health Sciences in the Netherlands recently divided 38 Dutch cyclists (35 males and three females) into two groups: Members of one group received a daily dose of 500mg of vitamin C and 100 mg of vitamin E, while cyclists in the second group ingested only a placebo. The study was carried out in a "double-blind" manner (neither researchers nor athletes initially knew who was actually getting the potentially protective vitamins).

During the study, the cyclists worked out and competed in their usual manner. Average workout duration was 104 minutes, and mean workout heart rate was 141 beats per minute, but race pulse rates ascended to an average of 173 bpm. The athletes' lung functions were checked after workouts and races ( a total of 380 different tests were performed). Ozone concentrations were moderate; average ozone level was 77 micrograms/m3, and he range ws 14-186 micrograms/m3; this corresponds roughly with an average of .055 ppm and a range going up around .12 ppm ("Double- Blind Intervention Trial on Modulation of Ozone Effects on Pulmonary Function by Antioxidant Supplements," American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 149, pp. 306-314, 1999).

Blood levels of vitamin E shot up about 48 percent in the supplement group, and plasma vitamin C rose by 4 percent; concentrations of two vitamins were essentially unchanged in placebo cyclists. When the researchers looked at average ozone levels during the eight hours before testing, they unearthed an interesting fact: As ozone levels increased, the amount of air the athletes could force out of their lungs in one second and the quantity of air they could exchange with the enviroment decreased in the placebo group - but were unchanged in the vitamin-ingesting cyclists. In other words, the vitamins seemed to protect cyclists from losses in respiratory function associated with ozone exposure. Vitamins C And E

For example, when ozone levels increased by about 100 micrograms/m3, the placebo riders could force 95 ml less air out of their lungs during a forced exhalation, while the drop-off for the supplementers was only 1 ml. C and E seemed to be reducing the extent of bronchoconstriction.

It's unclear what effects these differences would have on performance times, but it's clear that the C and E supplementation helped keep the athletes' airways more open and should have made intense exercise feel more comfortable. In a separate study, subjects took daily vitamin C (250mg), vitamin E (100mg), and a vegetable-based cocktail for two weeks, after which they were exposed to ozone levels of 800 micrograms/m3 (.4ppm) during two hours of exercise. During this period of exercise and ozone exposure, decrements in lung functioning were modest in the supplementers, compared to individuals who took in only a placebo ("The Role of Dietary Antioxidants in Ozone-Induced Lung Injury in Normal Human Subjects, " American Journal of Respir. Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 157 (supplement): A195, 1998).

But, do you really need to worry about ozone's effects on your lungs? After all, isn't it true that air quality is getting better?

Well, ground-level ozone levels are dropping. For example, last year ozone levels in the Los Angeles area exceeded California state standards on "only" 114 days. While that might seem like a lot, it was down from an average of 242 over the limit days 20 years ago.

Health advisories - when ozone soars above .15ppm and everyone is advised to avoid vigorous outdoor exercise - were in effect on "just" 43 days in Los Angeles 1998, down from 184 outrageous days in 1977, and there were "only" 12 "stage-1 Episodes", when ozone levels rocket above .20 ppm and people start getting really sick.

In other words, the air is getting cleaner, but in major urban areas like Los Angeles it still contains enough ozone to produce problems. Even the Dutch countryside, which is not notorious for its severe air pollution, contained air with enough ozone to interfere with respiratory function in the Dutch cyclists described above. Unless you live in a pristine wilderness, taking vitamin C and E to protect your lungs seems to be a fairly reasonable thing to do. It won't neccessarily help you attain a new PR, but it should have at least some positive influence on airway function. Vitamins C And E

In addition to taking Vitamins C and E, what else might you do to protect your lungs from ozone? Here are some tips:

Train during time periods when ozone levels tend to be lower - early in the morning or late in the evening.
Don't train during time periods when ozone levels exceed .12 ppm.
If your newspaper doesn't publish daily ozone levels pay attention to its "Pollutant Standards Index." If this index is below 100, then ozone levels are usually not too damaging.
If you're going to be racing in a city with ozone problems, try to get there a few days ahead of time so that your respiratory system can adapt to the foul air. While that may seem crazily stressful to your body, it's important to remember that your respiratory system can adapt to ozone exposure, lessening (although not elimanating) the negative reaction to the gas. In other words, the first time you plunk yourself down in an ozone soup, you might have a severe exercise-limiting reaction, whereas a couple of days in the broth will make your airways less reactive and get you breathing - and running - like one of the natives.

To learn more about Vitamin C and E, along with other informative topics. Like:

Things were so easy, until VVO2MAX and then TLIMVVO2MAX had to come along
3 X 1600: A fine workout - and a great way to predict your 5K time
RONALDO DA COSTA'S Unique marathon training
ANDRO is linked with a higher risk of cancer
Is there an increased risk of arthritis in runners' knees?
What caused a stress fracture in the sacrum?
Getting tired too early in races

(the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol.15 Issue 2 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. SUBSCRIBE NOW!

Running With Style�Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

There�s little that coaches and exercise scientists haven�t examined in their never-ending quest to improve human performance. Two such hot and controversial topics, which have received a lot of attention over the past decade, are running technique/efficiency and running economy.

Coaches have had runners perform seemingly endless drills for many years in an effort to improve technique without any good reason as to why runners should perform these drills. It�s been more a matter of intuitive reasoning coupled with trial and error experimentation, i.e., �it seems like it should improve their running style and make them run faster�.

Contrary to this intuitive reasoning, Krahenbuhl et al. (1997) found that emphasizing �proper� running technique (arm movements and body alignment) did little to enhance running economy in short-term training programs. But behind the scenes, in the biomechanists and exercise physiology labs, scientists have been quietly going about their business and have now amassed a large volume of research to point runners in the right direction for maximizing their running technique and economy.

What is Running Efficiency?

Current research indicates two ways to improve our running�through technique modification or by adding additional training of some type. The first, technique modification, is called running efficiency. A runner with good mechanical efficiency exerts greater force and power for the same amount of energy than a runner with poorer efficiency. Efficiency is all about examining the biomechanical structure of the running body and its relationship to how it functions.

By understanding how the structural units of the body (such as muscles, bones, tendons) work when we run, biomechanics can determine better ways to improve performance. For example, breaking down the sequence of the running action into sub-components and then working on these individual movement sequences help runners move more efficiently. Some major aspects of running efficiency currently being examined are running technique and style, stride frequency and cadence, stride length, and breathing rate.

What is Running Economy?

The second way to improve our running movement is through better running economy, which like efficiency is the sum of the influences of many variables. Exercise scientists look closely at everything from the oxygen cost of running and pulmonary ventilation, to muscle fiber typing and how strength and flexibility affect running economy�the results of which will surprise you. A runner with good movement economy consumes less oxygen at a given running speed. For example, given two runners with identical VO2 max figures, the runner who can race at a faster pace (exerting greater force) while processing the same amount of oxygen will ultimately win.

The fact is, running economy and efficiency are closely related. A runner�s biomechanics and efficiency are one of the chief determinants of running economy. It�s highly likely that a runner with a smooth, efficient running technique will have excellent running economy, especially at the elite level. For example, there are very few ugly ducklings in Olympic distance finals these days.

One only has to watch Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele flowing effortlessly, yet powerfully, around the track, averaging 61-second laps for 10,000-meters, to see a superb combination of running efficiency and economy. The big difference between running efficiency and running economy is that an efficient running technique boils down to higher mechanical power output per unit of energy, while economy is measured by oxygen consumption for movement velocity at a given speed�quite simple really!

The first part of this two part series considers all things biomechanical. In other words, running efficiency and how to improve running efficiency. Part two (Jan/Feb 2009 issue) explores running economy and techniques to improve running economy.

Advantages of Improving Running Efficiency

What then are the benefits of improving the mechanics in running technique, and thus our running efficiency? A runner with good biomechanical efficiency will run farther and faster per unit energy expended than someone with poor efficiency. Or another way of saying it is, � will use less energy to do the same work (driving across the ground) than a less efficient runner. Thus the efficient runner goes faster or maintains a high cruising speed for longer.

The question remains, can we improve our running technique? Here�s what some running coaches say about this often-debated topic:

Brown and Graham (1983), in their book Target 26, claim that �� as a general rule, reasonably smooth and efficient running form evolves after many months and miles on the roads. Because each of us is structurally different, you would expect variation in individual styles. ... you are probably better off not changing your style�.

Daws (1985), in his book Running Your Best, says running technique �� is an individual matter. Over the course of years of running it becomes natural, or well established. Changing it disturbs the runner�s balance�. However, Daws concedes it may be necessary to change idiosyncrasies of running style if the current style actually inhibits performance.

Glover and Florence Glover (1999), in their book The Competitive Runners Handbook, claim that technique is the most ignored ingredient in successful racing. However they mention, �� some runners have form quirks that apparently offset musculoskeletal asymmetries naturally, and shouldn�t be changed�.

Galloway (1986), in Galloway�s Book on Running, believes � � there is no single prescription for efficient running, for we are all put together differently. Never force a particular running style on yourself that doesn�t feel right�.

The generally consensus among these coaches is that one should not tinker with one�s running style unless it is inefficient. Most coaches know the frustration of working on a runner�s form to the point where it looks pretty good, only to have the runner revert back to his old ungainly style when fatigued from hard training, or in the middle of a race.

Running Efficiency�Changing Running Technique

Is it possible to change a runner�s style to improve efficiency? For every study that finds no improvement in running performance with attempts to improve technique (see Box 1), there are other studies, such as Cureton et al. 1997 and Joyner 1993 demonstrating that training adjustments to improve the efficiency of children�s and adult�s activities can happen and does improve exercise performance.

Running technique just happens to be a difficult proposition to change because, in many cases, the apparent inefficient movements that some runners exhibit may actually be counterbalancing a structural deficiency elsewhere in the body. However, improving running technique can be done! A recent study by Fletcher et al. (2008) on the Pose ® technique created quite a stir among biomechanists and coaches.

With the Pose ® technique, the runner balances his/her body weight vertically by aligning the shoulder, hip and ankle over the support leg with the foot strike impacting on the ball of the foot, instead of the standard heel-toe movement. Although the Pose ® technique runners improved their post-test 2,400-meter time by an average of 24.7 seconds, compared to a meager 3 second decrease in a heel-toe strike group of runners, the Pose ® runner�s improvement was not statistically significant. Despite this, I know plenty of runners who�d give anything to improve their 3K running time by 25 seconds! Nevertheless, runners should be cautious about making wholesale changes in running technique.

Box 1. Studies concluding little or no improvement in performance from modifying running style

Krahenbuhl (1983) stated that proper technique does not enhance performance, there are other studies

A study at Wake Forest University found that 5 weeks of modifying running style resulted in no change in running economy.

A cooperative study (Tseh et al. 2008) between University of North Carolina and Middle Tennessee State University found that specific gait manipulation produce marked decrements in running economy among trained female distance runners.

There also maybe a correlation between running efficiency and speed. Costill (1986) mentions in his book that the faster the running pace, the less efficient the runner�s movement. Film analyses has revealed that middle distance and sprint runners, at running speeds of 7-12 mph, have significantly higher vertical oscillation movement when compared to marathoners. Exaggerated up and down bouncing vertical movement is unfavorable to the economy of the long distance runner because our energy is best transferred into horizontal movement instead of upward movement.

Increasing Running Efficiency through Stride Length and Stride Frequency

Biomechanists will tell you that there are three ways one can increase running speed:

Ø increase the number of steps per minute (stride frequency or turnover)

Ø increase the distance of each stride

Ø increase both simultaneously

Research on these topics started in 1944 when a Danish study (Hogberg 1952) looked at the stride patterns of their 5K and 10K champion. When running speed increased from 9.3 km/hour (5.8 mph) to 17.8 km/hour (11 mph), stride frequency increased only by about 10% but stride length increased a whopping 83%. Once the runner exceeded 23 km/hour (14.3 mph) however, speed increased due to increased stride frequency, also known as leg turnover. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

The take home message is distance runners are better off concentrating on increasing stride length, and sprinters are better off increasing both leg turnover and stride length. As a general rule, increased stride length should increase distance-running speed.

Only at faster speeds, such as the final sprint at the end of a race, does stride frequency become a factor (see Box 2 for increasing stride frequency). Thus a prudent distance coach will give his athletes drills aimed at lengthening stride, but still throw in the occasional fast leg turnover drill to ensure they are not left behind in the home straight.

Box 2. How can we increase stride frequency?

You can tinker with your stride rate by counting how many footfalls you make in one minute. If your rate is less than 180, you may benefit by increasing the cadence.

How much should we increase our stride length?

Each runner will have an optimum combination of stride length and stride frequency, and it depends on the individual�s mechanics. But avoid over-striding, because the foot lands in front of the body�s center of gravity creating a braking motion.

Too short a stride and we consume too much oxygen because we�re inefficient at that pace. McArdle et al. (2007), in their textbook Exercise Physiology, suggested that, �� well-trained runners should run at the stride length they have selected through years of running�. They claim that, �� biomechanical analysis may help the athlete correct minor irregularities in movement patterns while running. For the competitive runner, any minor improvement in movement economy generally improves performance�. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

The important thing to remember is that each runner establishes her/his best cruising speed and stride length where oxygen consumption is the lowest. This is best measured on a treadmill with a metabolic cart analyzing oxygen consumption at varying paces. Another interesting technique to modify stride length was used by Morgan et al. (1994).

They used the intervention of a short-term audiovisual feedback program focusing on optimizing stride length for runners with uneconomical stride length patterns, and found that runners benefited from this feedback. However neither of these techniques are practical for most of us. So we can do the next best thing, run at varying speeds on a flat 400-meter track and note the pace where you subjectively seem to cruise at a nice fast steady state.

We tend to self-select an optimum pace and stride length for ourselves. Then, for example, we can train to increase the optimal pace through interval sessions.

While we�re discussing stride length, an interesting but related tangent is a study by Esteve-Lanao et al. (2008) who examined the loss of stride length with fatigue. They found that periodized strength training (see Running Research News volume 24 issue 6, August 2008) reduced the loss of stride length during endurance running�a decided advantage for marathoners who try to maintain their form towards the end of the 26.2-mile event. Loss of form can add minutes to a runner�s time. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

Here are some figures on stride length at various speeds.

Running Speed

Stride Frequency

Stride Length

8:03

180/minute

1.1 meters

6:26/mile

180/minute

1.4 meters

4:50/mile

180-200/minute

1.85 meters

Box 3. Interesting factoids related to running efficiency and force

What is the role of muscle and tendon length? Scholz et al. (2008), from the University of Amsterdam, looked at variation in the storage and reutilization of elastic energy in Achilles tendons. They found that there is an advantage to having shorter legs, there is more force generated through a shorter lever.

What is the role of muscle stiffness? A study (Arampatzis et al. 2006), at the German Sport University of Cologne, found that runners with the best economy had higher contractile strength and higher tendon stiffness, thus increasing the force potential of the muscle while running. This is discussed in greater detail in part two of this series on running economy.

Breathing Rate and Pattern

Daniels (2005), in his book Daniel�s Running Formula, describes the importance of being aware of your breathing pattern while running as a useful tool when gauging training and racing pace. Most elite runners breathe with a 2-2 rhythm; that is two steps (one with right and one with left foot) while breathing in, and two steps while breathing out. Most good runners take about 180 steps per minute, giving them about 45 breaths per minute. During particularly hard racing, runners might breathe with a 1-2 rhythm, and when running slowly breathe at a 3-3 rate. Breathing rates can be used to monitor your pace during a race. Running up hills for instance, you can try to maintain a 2-2 rhythm, to ensure you�re maintaining a constant intensity and not getting into an anaerobic zone.

Other Biomechanical Factors

In addition to the above, many other biomechanical factors have been examined for efficacy in improving running efficiency�more than can be detailed here. They include: average or slightly smaller than average height for men, slightly greater than average height for women, ectomorphic (thin) stature, low percentage body fat, narrow pelvis and smaller than average feet, gait patterns, effective exploitation of stored elastic energy, lightweight well-cushioned shoes, breathing/stride rate, among many others. These profiles will be examined in a future article.

Clearly, improving running technique is a complex process. How might we go about improving our running technique and efficiency? Here�s a handy checklist for you to use. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

Technique Advice and Checklist Dos and Don�ts

Don�t . . . .

swing your arms sideways across the centerline of your chest
have excessive head movement and rolling
flap your wrists
allow your elbows to cross forward past your torso
have much vertical oscillation (upward movement)
have side to side movement
bring your knees up high in front of you

Do . . .

start being aware of your technique and form while running
move arms forward and backwards from the shoulders
keep shoulders down, arms and face relaxed
keep elbows at (about) a 90 degree bend
carry your arms between your waistline and chest
carry your hands forward near your chest with a short compact arm swing and back as far as the seams of your pants
relax your wrists and hands
push your chest forward slightly
rotate your pelvis slightly forward
keep trunk slightly forward, but maintain an upward body position
keep your upper body forward over your feet
have your foot strike the ground under the bent knee after the leg has begun to swing back under the body (not on its way out)
land on your heels and roll through to the forefoot for take-off
keep your center of gravity over your foot
transfer your weight evenly from one foot to the other
strive for optimal stride length
occasional leg turnover workouts to increase stride frequency
make sure your arms and legs are synchronized in the same rhythm
when speeding up, drive more with your arms
try to run with a rhythmic flow
run with �light feet� and bounce quickly and lightly off the ground
monitor your breathing pattern

Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

VP TRAINING�JUST RIGHT FOR MARATHONS AND 5KS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

A little-known type of training�VP effort�is great for improving marathon and 5-K performance capacities. VP workouts differ from traditional interval sessions because they allow no easy, jogging recoveries. Instead, marathon and 5-K paces are alternated over running segments which may last for up to 2400 meters or more.

At this time of the year, marathon runners are looking for the perfect �tune-up� workouts for their marathons�sessions which spike fitness and increase the likelihood that an upcoming marathon can be completed at goal speed.

5-K runners, on the other hand, are searching for sessions which will produce one last 5-K PR before the season ends.

Strangely enough, both groups of runners can employ the same kind of training � in the form of VP workouts. Performed properly, VP (variable-pace) sessions produce major upswings in aerobic capacity, vVO2max, and lactate threshold, all of which are important for 5-K and marathon success. VP training also enhances running economy at both 5-K and marathon

speeds, making goal pace for either race more sustainable.

VP running is very similar to traditional interval training, but it differs from classic interval work in a fundamental way: When you conduct intervals, you ordinarily alternate between a high-quality velocity (your work-interval speed) and a rather-low quality pace (your recovery, jogging speed). In VP training, you interchange two very important, high quality running speeds during the course of your workout.

How is a VP workout actually constructed?

After your short furlough, run 1600 meters while utilizing the same pattern (400 meters at 5-K pace, 400 meters at marathon tempo, etc.). Jog easily again for three to four minutes, and then complete one more 400-400-400-400 ensemble before cooling down. You will have completed 3 X 1600, with 2400 meters total at 5-K pace and 2400 meters at marathon speed. For subsequent

VP training, you may add an additional (fourth) 1600 (provided all went well with 3 X 1600). If you are an advanced runner, you may work up to 5-6 X 1600 in a reasonable fashion. Note that your average pace for the 1600s will be in-between 10-K and half-marathon speed.

Let�s say, for the sake of argument, that you run your 5Ks at a tempo of 6:12 per mile. Remember that your pace slows down by roughly four seconds per 400 meters every time you double your race distance (from Horwill�s Law of Running). Thus, your 10-K tempo would be 6:28, your half-marathon pace would be 6:44, and your marathon alacrity would be about 7:00. Within your VP 1600s, 800 meters would be completed at 6:12 tempo and 800 would be knocked off at 7:00. Thus, your average pace would be 6:36 �halfway between 10-K (6:28) and half-marathon (6:44) speeds.Of course, if you are a 5-K runner you might be saying: Wait

a minute � how can such tepid, below-10-K-velocity running boost my 5-K chances?

That�s a logical question, but you should not be worried. Bear in mind that each 1600 within a VP session features 800 meters right at current or goal 5-K speed. Thus, half of all the running you conduct within a VP is right on target, undertaken at a very high intensity (5-K speed generally corresponds with ~ 95 percent of VO2max). Note, too, that 400s at 5-K pace take on a

different quality when they are conducted immediately after 400s at marathon tempo, instead of being undertaken after inchmeal, jogrecovery intervals. The intensity of marathon 400s is high enough so that 5-K-paced 400s will be completed at higher fractions of VO2max, at higher percentages of maximum heart rate, and with higher levels of blood lactate, compared with a situation in which easier recoveries are utilized.

And that leads to another great progression possibility with VP. If you are a 5-K runner and your initial VP session goes well, you can throw away the 1600s and utilize 2000-meter segments. Within each 2000 meters of running, the first, third, and fifth 400s

would be at 5-K pace, the second and fourth at marathon tempo. This would provide you with two opportunities (within each segment of the VP) to challenge yourself with 5-K running without significant recovery, instead of the usual one (that is, the third and fifth 400s of a 2000-meter segment would be uniquely challenging, in contrast with just the third 400 of a 1600-meter jaunt).

When you change over from 1600- to 2000-meter segments, it is reasonable to begin with 2 X 2000 and then �graduate� to 3 X 2000 at a later date (advanced runners may earn their VP Ph. D. by moving up to 4-5 X 2000).

Runners who are primarily interested in the marathon will find VP training to be particularly tasty, since it constantly forces them to find and sustain marathon pace in the face of fatigue induced by 5-K-tempo running. In addition, the spike of intensity added to training by the inclusion of the 5-Kpaced 400s will boost fitness to a greater extent, compared with similar amounts of running at marathon tempo only. One very cool progression for the marathon runner is to move to 2400-meter segments: With 2400s, a marathoner must dial up marathon speed three times per segment, each time after a relatively scalding 5-K burst (of course,

with 1600- or 2000-meter segments, this must be done just twice). The marathoner may start with 2 X 2400 and move up to 3 X 2400 (advanced individuals will progress to 4 X 2400).

Note that VP work represents terrific pace judgment training; after a few VPs, 5-K and marathon runners develop a great �feel� for their paces in the respective races. VP effort also enhances running economy at both 5-K and marathon velocities, and a VP session

is exactly the kind of work out a marathoner can conduct about a week in advance of a marathon, when he/she is searching for a workout which will both advance fitness and develop additional ease and confidence at marathon tempo. For many marathoners, a VP session

of 3-4 X 1600 would be just right when conducted about seven days in advance of the big day (to obtain more information about how to train during the last month before a m a r a t h o n , pl e ase g o t o h t t p : / /w w w . r u n n i n g r e s e a r c h n e w s . c o m /b a c k i s s u e D e t a i l s . p h p ?x=xYE6k2j054jfdX1m6DQxschwGgXrMDhiHgKoHWq66ko%3D

Figuring your 5-K and marathon paces for your VP workout is fairly easy. For the shorter distance tempo, take a recent, typical 5-K time, convert it into seconds, and divide by 12.5. The result will be the time (in seconds) you should take to complete each 5-K-based 400 within your VP.

For example, if you run the 5K in 19 minutes, 19 X 60 = 1140 seconds, and 1140 divided by 12.5 = 91 seconds per 400. You can also utilize a goal 5-K time or pace, which will ordinarily be two to four seconds per 400 faster than your current 5-K capability.

For the marathon, take your expected time in the race, convert it into seconds, and divide this rather-large number by 105.5 to obtain the time you should take to run each marathon-paced 400 within your VP. Of course, your expected pace for the marathon should be reasonable, based on previous marathons or on Horwill�s-Law conversions from your recent performances in shorter races. We can�t forget about 10-K runners, who can also profit greatly from VP training. Running the 5-K-paced intervals of the VP without significant recovery will make 10-K speed feel easier, and it will allow 10-K runners to include faster segments within their 10-K competitions.

We cannot close this article without including the �Finnish formula� for VP training. VP work is popular in Finland (1), and many serious Finns like to conduct a VP workout with just one set of gradually expanding length. In other words, they will � over time � gradually increase the number of 400s in the first set to six, eight, 10, 12, 14, etc., until the workout eventually consists of continuous running with no three- to four-minute breaks (there is no second set).

The VP workout simply ends when fatigue makes it impossible to maintain the desired pace(s). Some experienced harriers have gradually worked their way up to 24 400s without stopping (12 at each important pace), and this is almost like running at 15-K race pace for six miles.

VP training is very specific to the 5K and marathon, and it can do wonders for your aerobic capacity, lactate threshold, running economy, pace judgment, stamina, and confidence. Carrying out VP training is challenging and fun, and VP provides a welcome break from conventional

interval training. Best of all, when it is part of a carefully constructed program, VP training will help you achieve significant improvements in performance.© VP TRAINING�JUST RIGHT FOR MARATHONS AND 5KS