August 17, 2023 xx
Marathon training puzzle: Should you cross-train during your buildup?
We all know that the more miles you log in your marathon training, the better you’re likely to run on race day. That’s good news for the well-disciplined. But it’s also widely believed that cross-training is a great way to get strong and healthy.
The problem? Assuming you’re not a fulltime, professional runner, how do you achieve both in a real-life world that places many demands on your time? It’s one of those eternal training questions.
The below article digs into the issue, providing a solid list of PROs and CONs. It even rounds up a few scientific studies, though none are specific enough to resolve the conundrum.
Which sounds like this in every-day terms: I’ve got 5 hours a week for my marathon training. Should I do running workouts only, or should I mix together running and cross-training?
Like I said, a good and eternal training question. This article concludes: “Cross training can be a fantastic complement to your marathon training program, enhancing your overall fitness and reducing the risk of injuries. Remember, moderation is key – don’t overdo it with cross training to the point where it hinders your running progress.”
If I were forced to vote, I’d opt for running-only for the last 8 weeks of your marathon buildup. Try to run 4 to 5 times a week, and take good recoveries on the days when you can’t run.
After your marathon, ease back into a mixture of running and cross-training. A concentrated period of run-training is the best way to prepare for a marathon. A balanced program of running and other activities is the best way to lead a long and healthy life. More at Sport Coaching NZ.
Eliud Kipchoge’s secret core-training device
I thought I had finally unlocked the key to Eliud Kipchoge’s amazing two decades of world-beating excellence. He’s a big core-training proponent! Indeed, in the photos at the below link, he seems to be using a revolutionary new device the rest of us have never seen.
Then I looked a second time. And a third. And I finally realized I wasn’t looking at a hush-hush new gizmo.
In fact, Kipchoge was walking around his training camp while holding a small bedside table. The table was turned upside down so he could grasp the underside, and fill it with various odds and ends from camp. The more junk on the table, the greater the total weight, and the more effective the core-training effect.
No, Kipchoge doesn’t sit atop the globe because he’s got more high-tech doodads than anyone else. These days, the rest of us even have shoes and drinks like his. Kipchoge’s secret is 20 years of consistent, unrelenting training with great attention to detail. More at Twitter/Eliud Kipchoge.
What makes super shoes “super”--the plate, or the foam?
Here’s a study that was funded by Saucony, but the company wasn’t trying to prove its shoes superior to others, so we can read the results with an open mind. In this case Saucony asked a topnotch independent researcher to answer a question we’ve all been wondering about.
What’s putting the “super” in super shoes? Is it the stiff midsole plate, often made of carbon fiber? Or is it the miraculous new midsole material, often Pebax? This is a question runners and scientists have been seeking to answer since super shoes first reached the mass market.
Here, veteran super-shoe researcher Wouter Hoogkamer tested runners in 4 different Saucony shoes with these characteristics: A) a carbon plate and super foam; B) a carbon plate with a traditional EVA foam; C) super foam but no plate; and D) an EVA midsole and no plate.
The test subjects were 14 “trained runners” who ran a number of different 5-minute trials in each shoe on a laboratory treadmill while their running economy was measured. Then Hoogkamer et al compared the results on a shoe by shoe basis.
And the winner? If you guessed carbon + foam, you’re right. The runners performed best in these modern-day super shoes, which appear to remain the gold standard for racing. The runners performed worst in the EVA shoes with no plate.
The inbetween shoes with either a plate or super foam finished … in between, in a virtual tie. They were better than the last-generation EVA shoes, but not as good as plate + foam combined.
These variations are becoming more important in the consumer marketplace, as shoe companies add more shoes at more price points with either stiff plates or super foams, but not necessarily both. As usual, we runners will have to try the various products to see which perform best for us during different types of training.
Conclusion: “Changing EVA to PEBA superfoam or adding a plate both improve running economy by a similar amount, 1.3%. However, both changes combined result in less improvement (2.1%) than the sum of their parts.” More at Footwear Science.
Endurance boost or myth? The scientific truth about nose breathing
A widely circulated photo created quite an Internet sensation last week. It shows top tennis pro Iga Swiatek practicing with her mouth taped over. Fans of nasal breathing took this as proof of their favored technique even though Swiatek said, “It’s harder to breathe when you’re only breathing through your nose.”
Okay, but does nasal breathing improve your endurance? The Washington Post (subscription required) found some physiologists who agreed with this method, but most experts pooh-poohed it. This was especially true of Nick Tiller, an ultramarathoner and respiratory function PhD. He compiled a list of six key studies in the field.
In sum, the research indicates that nasal breathing can sustain modest to intense exercise, but there’s no advantage to it. Most athletes find it more natural to use “oronasal” breathing (mouth and nose combined) during hard efforts. More at Twitter/NickTiller.
Optimizing your recovery: Make sure your easy days are doing their job
We distance runners tend to use terms like “recovery run,” “easy run,” “cross-training day” and even “day off” rather loosely. It’s evident that these days are meant to follow days that were harder and/or longer than normal, but the specific hows and whys are often less clear.
Here coach Andrew Simmons explains his philosophy on recovery runs along with the specific nuts and bolts. He believes recovery runs should last just 20 to 30 minutes to remove metabolic waste without incurring more body stress. If you’re feeling particularly fatigued, you can choose “passive recovery” which could include massage. Or maybe you’d prefer really passive recovery--a nap.
Either way, make sure that your recovery day is actually that. And not just another piling-on-the-fatigue day. That path leads to a deadend or worse--a falling off the cliff.
Interesting note: Simmons sides with recent studies adding fuel to the thought that women may need less recovery than men. More at Training Peaks.
Arthritis myth debunked: Marathon running doesn’t cause knee/hip issues
Here’s more good news concerning the old wives’ tale about running and knee/hip arthritis. It comes from the medical team at the Chicago Marathon. Over a several year period, they surveyed 3804 Chicago participants.
The researchers were particularly interested in debunking the “current dogma” that running causes arthritis, so they asked not just about arthritis pains, but also about age, years of running, mileage, lifetime marathons completed, family history, and so on. In total they posed 30 running-related questions to each subject.
The respondents looked like this: average age, 43.9; 52.2% male; 27.9 miles/week of running (with one outlier claiming 180); average pace, 8:52; 9.5 previous marathons (with one at 664); BMI, 23.8; years of running, 14.7.
The paper didn’t report average marathon finish time, but we know from other data that this would be right around 4:30 (10:18 pace). Previous similar studies with marathoners have included much smaller numbers of usually more elite runners.
Results: Overall, just 7.3% of runners reported hip or knee arthritis, with 70% of these cases at the knee. After multivariate analysis, the researchers concluded that, as expected, a history of previous hip/knee arthritis or previous hip/knee surgery were strongly linked to joint pain and arthritis. Family history was also a strong predictor, as was higher BMIs.
Looking for the good news? There was plenty here. Increasing age reduced the odds for pain, but slightly increased the odds for arthritis. Sex was not a risk factor for arthritis, but did increase the odds for hip/knee pain. Higher weekly mileage and more previous marathons were linked to less pain. “Notably, neither the number of marathons completed, running pace, weekly running mileage nor the reported number of years running were found to increase the risk of hip/knee arthritis.”
Unfortunately, many general practitioners haven’t gotten the message, as a full 24.2% of runners in the study “who discussed running with their healthcare provider were suggested to either stop or reduce their amount of running.”
Most--caution: snarky comment forthcoming--didn’t listen to their doctor. A full 94.2% of marathon respondents told the researchers that they planned to run another marathon. And why not? They appeared to have little risk of pain/arthritis, and much opportunity to continue with a running lifestyle known to increase dozens of important health outcomes.
Conclusion: “From this largest surveyed group of marathon runners, the most significant risk factors for developing hip or knee arthritis were age, BMI, previous injury or surgery, and family history. There was no identified association between cumulative running history and the risk for arthritis.” More at Sports Health.
Ginormous study proves value of exercise vs cancer
Here’s a bigger than big analysis of the protective effect of exercise against cancer in studies including more than 30 million total subjects. Individuals who achieved about 150 minutes per week of moderate to vigorous exercise--the guideline recommended by many health groups--were 15% less likely to die from cancer than those not hitting the guideline. More at British J of Sports Medicine with free full text.
A separate paper garnered big headlines because it had a rip-roaring message: “You only need 3 minutes a day of exercise to lower your cancer risk.” Among more than 22,000 adults, those who engaged in vigorous leisure-time exercise for as little as 3.4 to 3.6 minutes enjoyed a 17 to 18% “reduction in total incident cancer risk” vs those getting no vigorous exercise. One more minute/day of vigorous exercise lowered the cancer to a 31 to 32% reduction. More at JAMA Oncology.
Lastly, here’s a deep, clearly written (by a physician) blog about exercise and cancer benefits. These include the use of exercise for patients who are rehabbing their health-fitness after cancer and cancer treatments. The blog notes that exercisers have an increased risk of skin cancer presumably due to time spent in sun. So watch out for that one.
Otherwise, just keep logging as many minutes/week as you can, and don’t forget that a few minutes of high-intensity exercise adds a little frosting to the cake. More at Dr. Scott Lear.
SHORT STUFF you don’t want to miss
>>> Long run variations: 5 different types of long runs to get you marathon-ready
>>> Guaranteed weight loss: The secret to every successful pounds-off program (infographic)
>>> Does fasting make you faster? A deep dive into the science of fasting before exercising