Race Faster By Running Like Hannibal Lecter
Two of the biggest trends in endurance performance are heat training and cold racing. They are obviously flip sides of the same coin.
In training, runners are using multiple layers of sweat clothes as well as saunas, hot tubs, hot baths, and relatively low cost “sauna blankets” like this one (not an endorsement; I haven’t tried it.)
In racing, elites have turned to pre-start ice vests along with plenty of ice during events (under caps, in shirts, in bras, in shorts, etc). This is especially true in some of the hotter, ultra runs.
Here’s a new one--the Hannibal Lecter approach. It’s a cryo-facial mask--an ice mask.
A paper titled “Effects of Cryo-Facial Mask on Running Performance in Amateur Middle-Distance Runners” used a randomized, cross-over design to test the effects of an ice mask on running performance.
Result: After wearing the ice mask vs no mask, runners lasted 13% longer in a time-to-exhaustion test. In a second, “constant load” test, they had a lower heart rate after wearing the ice mask.
Conclusion: A pre-run ice mask potentially lowers “the negative effects of heat stress during running.” Therefore, it could “offer a practical and convenient method to optimize performance and enhance overall training outcomes.”
An Internet search turns up many ice mask products that seem mostly intended to reduce face wrinkles headaches. Take a look on your own. I can’t wait to see who becomes the first runner to wear a Hannibal Lecter ice mask during a race. More at Cryobiology.
Speaking Of Cold: Training Breakthroughs From Northern Europe
In recent years, the “Norwegian system” of “double thresholds” endurance training has dominated discussion of optimal training. It’s based on relatively long intervals at a restrained pace vs. shorter, faster intervals.
Here’s a fantastic (and free) paper tracing the evolution of training theory from other Northern European countries--mostly Scandinavian. It includes subjects like Paavo Nurmi, fartlek training, the initial breakthrough of interval training from Woldemar Gerschler, a more “controlled” interval system, true LSD long slow distance as proposed by Ernst van Aaken, the Norwegian system, and polarized training.
It includes much more than I can summarize here, so I suggest you read the whole piece. It’s a history story--not a jargon-filled biomedical article.
For me, the most interesting part was a review of Dutch trainer Herman Verheul and his contributions to training theory. It’s not a name I’ve come across before.
But I enjoyed learning about him, and especially reading his simple table that provides interval training paces any runner can use. Basically, you run a variety of interval sessions that include 200 meter repeats at mile pace, 1000 meter repeats at half marathon pace, and 2000 meter repeats at marathon pace.
These are controlled-but-not-difficult paces, though Verheul does endorse a high volume of repeats--15 x 200 meters, and 6 x 1000 meters. They are also paces I have long used in my own training, and they are now part of a system endorsed by top Verheul athlete, Klass Lok at easyintervalmethod.com.
The new paper has many similar, easy-to-follow charts and tables. If I were you, I’d print this one and save it. That’s what I’ve done. More at Sports Research International.
Why You Should Be Eating More Oat Bran
Upfront advisory: This summary highlights a recent mouse study. I usually steer away from animal studies, but this one grabbed my attention. You’ll soon understand why.
First, it’s a “training” study, at least in a loose sense. Second, it involves a simple food that gets super-high marks in human nutrition research.
The study investigated how oat bran consumption affected “skeletal muscle function and athletic performance” of mice that performed moderate intensity exercise while on a high fat diet.
Without oat bran, this diet increased “chronic systemic inflammation” and “muscle dysfunction.” To the contrary, when the mice were fed oat bran, they improved their “endurance treadmill running distance.” In addition, the oat bran had a positive probiotic effect that significantly reduced inflammation.
Conclusion: Even though the mice were fed a harmful, high-fat diet, consumption of oat bran “improved skeletal muscle dysfunction.”
Oat bran is significantly richer in beta-glucans than whole oats. And a recent review of beta-glucan consumption (in humans) “unequivocally demonstrated their dietary benefits” vs heart disease. Here’s the exercise training study (with mice) at Food & Function.
Are You Built For Speed Or Endurance?
I find myself drawn to studies based on evolutionary biology, and math modeling. This one combines both. Although I’m skeptical about the conclusion.
The research team asked itself: What’s the optimal body size for a human attempting to run fast? That’s a cool question.
Along the way, they noted the animal speed record holders on land, in the water, and in air: the cheetah, 65 miles/hour; the yellowfin tuna and wahoo, 48 mph; and the white-throated needletail swift, 70 mph.
They then used a biological tool called OpenSim to experiment with human sizes and running speeds. They needed to find out what would happen to muscle size and muscle force production as we grow larger and smaller than typical humans in the 130 pound to 150 pound range.
It’s no surprise to learn that a human will never beat the fastest cheetah. It was intriguing to learn that if you balloon up to 2000 pounds, you won’t be able to stand and support yourself. At the other end of the spectrum--if you were ultra-light--you would bounce off the ground so quickly that you wouldn’t produce enough force to move fast.
So an “in between” size and weight are best for running speed. That’s good news for those of us who weigh somewhere between 10 pounds and 1000 pounds.
But where’s the sweet spot? In this article, the author says the math model predicts 104 pounds. He then notes that this is close to Eliud Kipchoge’s 110-pound weight, as if Eliud is a particularly fast human being.
Hello!!?? Can you say “Usain Bolt,” who weighed in at 207 pounds?
So here’s my advice about running speed and body weight. If you want to win the Olympic 100-meter, do a lot of strength training to build leg muscle that produces tremendous force when you sprint down a track.
However, stay under 1000 pounds. In all likelihood, you don’t need to weigh more than Bolt.
On the other hand, if you want to run the marathon, aim for less weight. Few of us are going to get down to Kipchoge’s weight.
The good news? When Kelvin Kiptum ran his world record 2:00:35 marathon, he carried 143 lbs on his 5’ 11” frame.
All this analysis made me wonder what animal would be fastest over 26.2 miles. It turns out the Road Runner cartoon probably got things right.
Animal studies have shown that an ostrich can run 31 mph for extended periods of time, giving it a marathon personal best of roughly 45 minutes. There’s nothing you can do with your body weight to equal that performance. More at The Conversation.
From Form to Function: The Science of Running Economy
Every runner wants to improve his/her running economy--a crucial variable in all endurance races. The less oxygen you consume at a given running speed, the longer you can maintain that speed.
But how to do this? Various running gurus have all sorts of running form tips they tell us to follow. But it’s also possible that running economy is largely an inherent function of the muscle fibers we’re born with.
Slow twitch Type 1 fibers tend to have good economy, while fast twitch Type 2 fibers are better for sprint-power athletes than for marathoners.
In this paper, researchers sought “to resolve the ongoing debate” about muscle fiber distribution and running economy. They did so by “addressing potential confounding factors often overlooked in prior research, such as the effect of different running speeds, the homogeneity of investigated groups, and the potential impact of the adopted running gait.”
Running form, including your stride, is a key piece here. That’s the part many self-appointed experts think they have solved. But wait a minute.
In this trial, the investigators started with two groups of runners whose muscle-fiber types they knew from previous biopsies. They had a group of FT (fast twitch) runners and a ST (slow twitch) group.
Then they had the runners perform a series of treadmill tests to determine their running economy. They also measured the running form characteristics (stride length, stride frequency, various leg angles, and so on) of all runners.
Result: The ST group had a running economy 7.8% better than the FT group. However, the groups didn’t differ in running form. They had “almost identical kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity patterns.”
Conclusion: Muscle fiber type explains “some of the observed variability in running economy,” and slow-twitch fibers are more economical than fast-twitch. On the other hand, muscle fibers don’t have any effect on running form. It seems likely, then, that running form doesn’t have a large effect on economy.
This doesn’t mean that running form, and changes of running form, have no impact on injury prevention. They can. But changing your running economy and performance is more challenging. More at Scandinavian J of Medicine & Science in Sports.
Ironman Triathlete Kristian Blummenfelt Sets Total-Training Record
Five years ago, a research report garnered a lot of attention when it postulated an upper limit to human daily energy expenditure (calories burned). This wasn’t a topic much explored previously, and the paper argued that humans couldn’t exceed about 2.5 x our basal metabolic rate. At least not over long time frames.
The research included an analysis of participants in the Race Across the USA (six marathons per week for 20 weeks) and other endurance feats.
Some exercise scientists didn't accept the upper-limits theory. Now a Norwegian group has published contrary findings based on 3 years of training data from top triathlete Kristian Blummenfelt, both an Olympic champion and an Ironman champion. They used the gold standard “doubly labeled water” technique to assure the accuracy of their findings.
Result: Blummenfelt’s daily energy expenditure ranged from 7,019 to 8,506 calories per day as he trained anywhere from 1308 hours to 1,480 hours per year. That’s 25 hours per week to 28.5 hours per week.
Conclusion: This amount of training “likely exceeds the proposed metabolic ceiling for sustained total energy expenditure.” Therefore, “This not only questions the validity of the current metabolic limits but also suggests a new perspective on what is physiologically achievable in world-class athletes.” More at J of Applied Physiology.
Ladies: Build Your Strength At Every Age
Here’s a simple, powerful study that measured knee flexor strength of women runners vs nonrunners, and also of women under age 50 and over 50.
I’d argue that knee flexor strength is one of the most important muscle measurements we’ve got. Your knees get you up and down, and move you around. Also, the stronger your knees, the better your balance and stability. What’s more critical than these functions, especially in midlife and beyond?
The study included 147 women. Among them, 85 were runners.
Result: In both groups, younger women had stronger knee flexor muscle than older women. This is what we’d expect. However, whether under age 50 or over 50, the runners “had greater strength and higher muscle quality than inactive women” relative to body mass.
That is, the runners might not have had more total muscle, but they had more for their relative weight. This is “a better predictor of physical function than absolute muscle strength” and hence “more practical than absolute strength data.”
Conclusion: “Continuing an aerobic and strengthening training routine is a viable choice for improving muscular strength and quality in both young and old women.” More at Geriatrics.
Listen To Your Brain. Mostly. But Not Always
We hear endless stories of incredible performance. Some people set marathon world records, some run marathons at 80, some run marathons on artificial legs.
All of these great efforts inspire us. They might also convince us we should pushing past the pain barrier, as we imagine others are doing.
Some famous sporting aphorisms also steer us in this direction. You know: “No guts, no glory.” Or: “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Or ultra runner Dean Karnazes, who has said: "Run when you can, walk if you have to, crawl if you must; just never give up."
But wait a minute. That’s our wild, heroic imagination talking to us. What about reality? Are there times when it’s smarter to stop than to push through?
Of course there are. And here’s hoping we’re all smart enough to recognize those times if/when we encounter them.
We need to find a balanced place in that tug of war between central fatigue (the brain) and peripheral fatigue (the rest of the body.)
This article states: “It’s one thing to train your brain for adversity… it’s another thing entirely to run yourself into the ground.” Agreed.
Getting to a balance point comes from learning to monitor your body during training and racing. Pay attention to pain for sure. A stress fracture is a good reason to stop. There are others--like a hard fall that injures or breaks a bone.
Also, pay close attention to heart rate and relative perceived exertion. When you need to pull back, or even pull out, do so.
“On the other hand, if your HR is in check and your muscles feel strong, pushing through central fatigue can improve both physical performance and mental endurance.” More at Simplavida.
SHORT STUFF You Don’t Want To Miss
GREAT QUOTES Make Great Training Partners
“The marathon is a negotiation not to listen to the devil on your left shoulder but the cheerleader on your right.”
--Deena Kastor, bronze medalist, 2004 Olympic Marathon