Agreement at last! Everyone swears by this great half-marathon workout
A training question on Reddit yielded a flurry of eager answers. But that’s not what makes this link interesting.
It’s the fact that most of the respondents largely agreed with each other. Instead of favoring dozens of different workouts, they seemed unified in their approach. That says a lot, I think. A simple key workout is producing good results for a lot of runners.
Okay, enough beating about the bush. Here’s the question: “What’s your favorite half-marathon workout?” That’s a good one, as the half-marathon is such a popular race distance, and the universal stepping stone to a top marathon.
To assess the full range of responses, you should read the below link. But if you only want my executive summary, here it is: Run 3 x 2 miles at half-marathon pace with several minutes of recovery walk/jog between the 2-mile repeats.
Why is this workout so successful? Because it’s tough but do-able. It will definitely help you prepare for an upcoming half marathon. It’s also a great one to include in your training arsenal as you get ready for any race distance. More at Reddit Advanced Running.
Are super gels more important than super shoes?
The sodium bicarbonate story has been simmering just below the news headlines for a year or longer, nearly invisible against all the super shoes buzz. But it exploded last week with an excellent, deep story by Jonathan Gault at LetsRun.com. At the same time, I’ve heard other marathon experts say they believe the revolution in super gels is boosting marathon performance more than super shoes.
Gault reported that a Maurten sodium bicarb mix has been widely used by elite runners at the On Athletic Club--it’s a legal mix, to be clear--by Kelvin Kiptum in his 2:00:35 marathon world record, and possibly for several years by Norwegian middle distance ace Jakob Ingebrigtsen. (The Ingebrigtsen camp refuses to confirm or deny the rumors.)
Maurten itself claims that two-thirds of all medalists from the 800 through 10,000 meters at the 2023 Worlds used the new product (not including steeplechase runners). Maurten’s hydrogel formula was earlier supported for its ability to allow runners to consume more carbs without gut distress. (See next item). Now the company is suggesting the same for hydrogel and sodium bicarbonate.
When Gault questioned a number of athletes, he received distinctly mixed responses. Almost everyone said they felt some kind of “weird” when using the bicarb, but sometimes the weird seemed to help them run fast. Several mentioned the well-known stomach distress, but said, given the coming Olympic year, they would probably keep experimenting.
On Athletic’s coach, Dathan Ritzenhein, and coach agent Stephen Hass said most international mid distance runners have tried the bicarb system, which is believed most effective for racing efforts of 2 to 5 minutes. There’s no clear biological reason why a marathoner would benefit from it, but Molly Seidel also supposedly used it at Chicago, where she ran a personal best.
Scientists like Canadian endurance nutritionist Trent Stellingwerff say they aren’t ready to back a bicarb approach, because there’s no solid research to date that supports it. Here’s the full LetsRun story.
Alex Hutchinson got into the discussion back in March in a story at Outside Online. Like the LetsRun article, it notes the use of Maurten’s bicarb product by Jonas Vingegaard, winner of the last two Tour de France events. That certainly points toward an endurance application.
Lastly, here’s an auto-generated transcription of a 72 minute podcast with Dr. Jason Siegler, who seems to be the leading research expert in the field. I’ve put it on a website I’m calling RLRH Notes.
The secret of fast marathon running: Consuming mega carbs en route
Sodium bicarbonate might be the next new thing, but so is basic in-race fueling with carbohydrates. Not so long ago, runners were advised to consume at most 30 grams (120 calories) of carbs/hour of running. More than that, and you risked upsetting your GI tract.
This advice has changed dramatically in the last handful of years. One reason: An accumulation of evidence like the paper below that mathematically analyzes what Paula Radcliffe would have needed during her 2:15:25 of 2003. Answer: as much as 150 grams/hour.
The math is based on Andrew Jones’s famous report (with free full text) detailing how Radcliffe improved her vo2 max and running economy over an 11-year period from 1992. There’s a problem with 150 grams/hour, however: “This exceeds maximal reported rates of exogenous carbohydrate oxidation,” which is 120 grams/hour. Take in more, and you likely develop stomach sickness.
So the paper backs off a bit. It suggests: “Carbohydrate supplementation at a rate of at least 90 grams/hour is recommended to maintain exercise intensity.” Of course, if you run slower, you don’t need as much energy/hour.
Still, midrace carbs are the key to a top marathon performance, as they’re essential to keep you humming along at your chosen pace. More at Research Gate/SportsPerfSci with free full text.
Save yourself: Modestly hard short sprints are good enough
Speedwork doesn’t have to involve all-out sprinting to be effective and performance-enhancing. In fact, a new study has shown that 10-second sprints at 80% effort improve performance as much as the same sprints at 100%.
This occurred because “training at 80 percent of one's maximum still gets the heart rate up significantly higher than a runner's typical training,” noted the senior author.
In this trial, a group of veteran runners deviated from their normal training for 6 weeks. During that time, they ran 30-20-10 intervals 3 times a week for 15 to 20 minutes per workout. Here’s what this means: The runners ran slow for 30 seconds, then moderate for 20 seconds, then fast for 10 seconds (for a total of 60 seconds). They repeated this routine 5 times (5 minutes), then took a several minute rest period.
After the rest period, they repeated the 5-minute “block” and rest period again. In total, they did 3 to 5 blocks per workout. Roughly half of the subjects ran their 10-second sprints at 80 percent effort; the other half ran 100%.
“Before” and “After” this training, the 2 groups completed a 5K time trial. Both improved by the same amount, about 3%, though the 80% sprinters actually trended a bit higher than the 100% group.
Conclusion: “Lack of time is a common barrier to regular physical activity, and 30-20-10 training has been identified as a time-efficient exercise strategy to improve performance and health.” Also, non-maximal 30-20-10 training is associated with “a lower perceived effort” than other interval training.”
Thus, 30-20-10 training is “specifically applicable to people who are not highly motivated or able to do maximal-intensity training.” More at Scandinavian J of Medicine & Science in Sports with free full text. Also, a very complete press release here at Science Daily.
Best running headlamps for dealing with winter darkness
This is not my area of expertise, and I try to avoid running in the dark. But I realize that’s not possible for many, particularly those who have to rise early to train in the winter months. All I really care about is safety on the run. For everybody.
As for product reviews, I trust the runner-tested ones at “I Run Far” more than most. (They do receive an affiliate commission, which they acknowledge.)
The name of the game here is safety--not just being seen by vehicles, but being able to see various road hazards from sticks and stones to patches of ice. One of the top rated headlamps costs just $35, which looks like a great value. Others are pricier, but come with lamps that double as a detachable flashlight. That seems a very hand approach.
The reviewers note that: “Battery and lighting technology improvements have made headlamps brighter, lighter, and longer lasting.” Good. Also, one of the products they tried is “the Most Ridiculously Bright Running Headlamp We’ve Seen.” Well, there’s a place for everything.
The “Comments” section includes additional advice from well-informed readers. Stay safe this winter. Be seen. Be able to see the road/trail in front of you. More at I Run Far.
Wim Hof Method gets a “thumbs down” from research experiment
One of the most-discussed research papers of the week delved into the Wim Hof health practice. You know--the “multi-disciplinary approach to physical and mental well-being combining cold exposure, breathing exercises, and meditation.” The paper investigated the Wim Hof practice, and its effect on heart function, blood pressure, artery health, and even “different psychological parameters.”
If you’re not familiar with Wim Hof, he’s a Dutch extreme athlete who preaches a health-fitness practice that combines cold exposure, breathing exercises, and mindfulness meditation. It’s the cold part--particularly cold water showers, or winter bathing in frigid lakes--that has attracted the most attention.
The research involved 42 adults who were randomized into two groups that followed the Wim Hof method, or didn’t, for 15 consecutive days. Conclusion: “Contrary to the claim by Wim Hof, performing the WHM on a daily basis for 15 days did not exert positive effects on cardiovascular parameters, perceived stress, affect, and vitality in this study.”
Therefore: “In a group of healthy individuals, the short-term application of this method did not exert any positive effects.” More at Nature with free full text, and also an excellent summary at Substack/Brady Holmer.
[Please note: This was not an exploration of the pros and cons of ice/cold water soaking as a post-workout recovery routine for a runner’s legs. On that question, the debate continues. Here’s a short article on the subject by a marathon-running physical therapist.
Which is more difficult--The Boston Marathon or New York City?
Here’s an article on a topic that runners love to debate, even though there’s nothing we can do about it.
We all agree that flat marathon courses like Berlin, Chicago, and London are faster than hilly courses like Boston and New York. But which of those two U.S East Coast events is actually tougher?
This is one of those reports based on Strava data. And it poses the exact question above. Unfortunately, it then presents various bits and pieces of pacing data that do nothing to answer the question.
So here’s some additional info to inform a decision. According to MarathonGuide’s excellent marathon finishers database, Boston has a much faster average finish time: 3:42 vs 4:40 at New York [in 2023]. Of course, Boston also has strict qualifying standards, so only fast runners can enter. In other words, we’re comparing apples and oranges here, and these results aren’t helpful in answering the basic question.
How about the course records? Both Boston and New York attract world class fields every year. How fast have the fastest winners run? The course records at Boston are 2:03:02 and 2:19:59 vs 2:04:58 and 2:22:31 at New York.
So New York looks slightly more difficult.
But the Boston course follows a more or less straight line from West to East, meaning that runners get an assist from a tailwind in some years. Whereas anyone who has run New York knows that the course shim shams through the 5 boroughs. On the same day, you get a tailwind at some points, and a pesky headwind at others.
The best analysis was done by Ken Young, founder and big kahuna at the Association of Road Racing Statisticians (ARRS). Before his death in 2018, Young compared times of elite men and women who had run both Boston or New York, and other major marathons. He then devised a “Race Time Bias” for marathon courses. It was designed to precisely answer the headline question at the top of this summary.
Young found that Paris and Berlin were the two fastest courses in his database at the time. At the other end of the scale, Boston and New York were among the two slowest. They were almost equally tough, with ratings of +82.8 seconds (Boston) and +91.3.
Young didn’t believe in rounding off numbers--not if he had precise information to base his analyses on. So that’s the best answer to our question: Between Boston and New York, it’s close to a tie-game on marathon difficulty.
Here’s what I tell runners headed to either of these marathons. New York is great fun, but tough. Enjoy it; don’t expect a fast time. Boston has a “small window” for fast times if you get good weather, and run smart. It has a “big window” for slow times if you get bad weather, and run stupid.
You get to choose. You get to reap the benefits or suffer the consequences. Weigh your decision carefully. More at Outside Online.
Are marathon shoes faster than track shoes?
World Athletics, the governing body of track and field including the Olympic Games, has established different rules for the allowable thickness (stack height) of road running shoes vs track running shoes. The former can be 40 mm thick but the track shoes only 25 mm. Does this make a difference?
According to a new paper, the answer is … sometimes. Researchers gathered 14 “highly trained athletes” and asked them to do 2 time-trials in each of 2 shoes--the Nike ZoomX Dragonfly with a 25 mm stack height and the Nike ZoomX Vaporfly Next % 2” with a 40 mm height.
The first time trial lasted 3 minutes, or about ¾ of a mile. The second trial lasted 9 minutes, or roughly 2 miles.
Results? “There was a small worthwhile improvement” [of 0.97%] of the marathon shoe over the track shoe in the 3-minute trial, with no such difference in the 9-minute test. The extra thickness seemed to help in the shorter distance but not the longer one. A bit strange, as I would have expected the opposite.
Conclusion: “The use of legal and illegal running shoes altered the runners form, which only influenced the mid-distance performance.” More at J of Strength & Conditioning Research.
SHORT STUFF you don’t want to miss
>>> Lower is better: A low resting heart rate is linked to better heart health and longer life. Graphic.
>>> Physics goes physical: Harvard physics prof sets a female record for the U.S. TransCon run.
>>> Podium pride: Here are the shoes that “won” the New York City Marathon.
GREAT QUOTES make great training partners
Since Thanksgiving is the most popular road racing day of the year …
"Let gratitude be the pillow upon which you lay your head each night."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
That’s all for now. Thanks for reading. RLRH won’t be published next week, Nov. 23. The next edition will come out on Nov. 30. Happy Thanksgiving. Amby