Surprising training methods of the world’s fittest 75-yr-old
(Disclosure: I wrote the below-linked article.) In a recent lab test, Hans Smeets broke the unofficial world record for the highest vo2 max by a 75 year old. His score was roughly equivalent to that of a young man in his mid 20s. And Smeets isn’t just a lab rat. He has won dozens of world championships in his age group, excelling in particular in the 800 meters and 1500 meters.
How can an old guy be so fit? Smeets admits that probably 50% of his success comes from good genetics. The other 50%, according to exercise physiologist Bas van Hooren, is Smeets’s consistent training through the last several decades. Surprisingly, much of this training has been slow. Smeets says he often walks up several of the biggest hills on training routes near his home.
“Speed training produces more damage,” notes Van Hooren. “By doing higher volumes of easy training, masters athletes might gain positive adaptations with less damage and need for recovery.”
More at Outside Online.
The 6 worst foods you can eat (and the 5 best)
A big new Harvard study delved into the likely causes of diabetes, a major global health concern of the present and future, particularly as more people gain access to more processed foods, sugar, and fats. I use the word “cause” loosely as these sorts of observational diet studies can’t actually prove cause and effect. That said, I don’t think many doubt the conclusions of this paper.
It gathered data from 184 countries and pinned increasing rates of diabetes squarely on “suboptimal diet.” In particular, certain “bad foods” (my usage, not from the paper) were a major problem. The six worst of these: refined rice and wheat, processed meats, unprocessed red meat, sugar sweetened beverages, potatoes, and fruit juice.
It’s particularly important to limit these foods because they contribute 60.8% to the diabetes burden. And you can only reduce your diabetes risk by 39.2% by consuming “good foods” (my usage). The best of these: whole grains, yogurt, fruits, non-starchy vegetables, and nuts and seeds.
More at CNN.com and free full text of the journal report at Nature.
What shoe company won the Boston Marathon?
Or could I have prevented my post-Boston soreness by racing in a different shoes? (I wore a pair of Saucony supershoes.)
Everyone’s talking about the fact that the top 3 male finishers at Boston wore Adidas shoes, not Nikes. Meanwhile, the female winner wore shoes from “On,” a company that has enjoyed big market success due to the street appeal of its shoes, and has also sponsored a visible elite team. However, its earlier running shoes were a bit clunky. Apparently that has changed.
Now comes the question: Have other brands caught or even surpassed Nike, the leader since its stealth introduction of super shoes in 2016? Here’s a shoe count from Outside Online. It tallies who wore what among the top 25 male and female runners at Boston. The podium looked like this: Adidas--16; Nike--14; Asics--8.
A British newspaper story drew fascinating comments from England’s 42-year-old elite marathoner Chris Thompson, and runner-biomechanist Geoff Burns. Thompson said he’s hearing about runners logging 160+ miles a week in training, because the super-foams provide dramatic recovery-benefits. “There’s no shying away from it: super shoes have a huge impact on performance,” says Thompson, who pegs that impact at 4 minutes for an elite male marathoner.
Burns says the benefit is relatively more for slower runners. Why? Because the fast folks encounter greater wind resistance, which subtracts from any performance gain. Slower runners don’t face much wind resistance, so they don’t have to subtract anything from their shoe-enhanced boost. More at The Guardian.
Not for women only (but mostly)
More research is beginning to focus on women-only subject groups, as women may react differently than men to exercise and other stressors. For example, it’s fairly well established that women runners have twice (or more) the risk of bone stress injuries. What to do?
This study measured the effect of strength training on bone mineral density (BMD) of college-age female runners. When the runners added 16 weeks of strength training to their typical training program, they increased their total body BMD. This could lead to a decrease in bone injuries. More at The J of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness (free full text).
Another paper looked at ways female runners change their stride, through an “internal focus” or an “external focus.” The goal was to lower impact forces of each stride when the foot hits the surface. Result: Participants were most successful at lowering impact forces when they employed an external focus, such as looking around at their surroundings. The researchers hypothesized that this approach worked better because it helped maintain a relaxed running form, which lowers impact forces. More at J of Sport Rehabilitation.
Speaking of forces, females apparently run with less pain and greater efficiency when they restrict breast movement. Researchers asked 13 recreational women runners (average age 37, average cup size “C”) to perform 3 separate treadmill running trials in a lab. The women ran with: 1) no bra; 2) a low-support bra; or 3) a high support bra.
Subjects ran most comfortably and efficiently with high-support, which increased their knee “stiffness” (usually associated with higher running economy) while decreasing their “knee joint excursions,” or bending. The authors stated that their paper emphasized “the importance of proper breast support in female runners.” More at Frontiers in Sports & Active Living (free full text).
How to get the most from interval training
Interval training is well-established as a valuable method for endurance runners. It may also be a bit dangerous, injury-wise, because you can get overly fatigued in a hard interval session. And that could be the trigger leading to injury.
So here the investigators performed a systematic review of studies to see if interval training (IT) might affect running-form biomechanics in a way that would increase injury risk. They found 9 papers where: “(1) participants were experienced runners, (2) the training sessions included IT, (3) the studies evaluated the acute effects of the IT training sessions (4) and the studies evaluated kinematics parameters as outcome measure.”
Result: The rest period (the “interval”) between fast repeats turned out to be a significant factor. Specifically, when doing fast repeats of 200 meters to 1000 meters, the runners need longer recovery periods (2 to 3 minutes) to prevent the kind of muscle fatigue and bad running form that could produce an injury. For longer, slower repeats greater than 1000 meters, recoveries can last just a minute or 2.
Conclusion: “Coaches and athletes must consider the relative intensity and recovery periods of IT, and the type of IT, to prevent excessive fatigue which can negatively affect running kinematics.” This is true because “ IT sessions performed at high intensity lead to significant acute changes in running kinematics, whereas medium intensity IT did not cause acute kinematic changes.” More at Gait & Posture (free full text).
Two great ways to boost running economy (with a slight edge to plyometrics)
We’d all like to improve our running economy for the same reason we’d like to get more miles/gallon from the car we drive: It makes life better, more efficient. Some past studies have shown that strength training and plyometric exercises can improve running economy, so in this new paper the authors pitted one against the other.
Thirty-one male recreational runners were divided into two groups. One spent 8 weeks doing its normal modest running, plus 40 to 80 minutes per week (in a gradually increasing amount) of dynamic strength training. The second group did the same, only with plyometric training.
The dynamic strength exercises included hill running, squats, step jumps, and the like. The plyometrics included downhill running, drop jumps, hopping, and the like.
Result: Both groups improved their running economy about 2 percent on average, with a slight edge for the plyometrics. Surprisingly, the improvements occurred “with minimal to no changes in running biomechanics” such as stride frequency or contact time.
In other words, plyometrics and dynamic strength exercises both improve running economy, but it’s hard to say exactly how they do this. The authors speculate that the mechanism is better “neuromuscular adaptation.” More at Sports Biomechanics (free full text).
Downhill running benefits keep adding up
My legs have mostly recovered from this year’s bashing in the Boston Marathon. But the post-Boston recovery process is never fun, so I’ve resolved to do more downhill training next year, guided in part by some new research.
The first study reported the results of 10 downhill training sessions undertaken over a 4-week period with several days of rest between sessions. The workouts got longer (from 15 minutes to 30 minutes) and harder during the 4 weeks, but were maintained at “moderate and tolerable running speeds.”
After four weeks, the subjects exhibited “Rapid neuromuscular adaptations of the knee extensors” of a “magnitude typically seen after a period of very high-intensity eccentric resistance training.” However the short training period and/or modest running intensity were not enough to boost aerobic capacity.
The investigators nonetheless believe that downhill-run training can increase “physical performance in athletic populations by providing a safe and effective alternative method (to resistance training) for inducing strength gains.” Also, since downhill running produced positive neural adaptations without adding muscle mass (weight), it could be particularly helpful for distance runners. More at European J of Applied Physiology (free full text). Here’s an infographic summarizing the results.
Another paper examined changes in biomechanics that occur after a 30-minute downhill run. It increased contact time (duty factor) and decreased flight time, which aren’t optimal for efficient running. Also, subjects reported an increase in muscle pain and perceived exertion. However, when the same downhill run was repeated 3-weeks later, with no special training in between, these biomechanical changes were much less pronounced. Now the subjects were more efficient while also reporting less pain and effort.
This improvement is called a “repeated bout effect.” The paper showed that just one session of downhill running produced positive outcomes 3 weeks later. You don’t have to do a lot of downhill training, because a little bit goes a long way. More at European J of Sport Science (free full text).
Here’s a magazine article from Runner’s Tribe with tips to improve your downhill running. It emphasizes a short stride and high stride frequency. Here’s more of the same from a Swiss-based mountain runner. Finally, here’s a great article from HIIT Science that explains both the cons and pros of downhill training.
What happens when you train on a treadmill that tilts side to side?
Imagine running on a treadmill that rolls side to side like a ship in a wavy sea. You probably wouldn’t enjoy that, but it’s close to what trail runners face in their favorite environments. Likewise, the treadmill utilized in this experiment could tilt 7 degrees to each side, and the tilt could change every 1 to 3 seconds.
Researchers put 20 high fit runners on this treadmill to see how it affected their oxygen consumption and muscle activation from 8 lower limb muscles. I would have expected some big changes, but that’s not what was found. Apparently our bodies are well tuned for running across Earth’s many undulations. Of course, uphill slope and running speed do make a big difference. More at International J of Environmental Research & Public Health.
SHORT STUFF you don’t want to miss
>>> Get in the zone: How to find the right heart-rate training zones for different workouts.
>>> Good carbs, bad carbs: What’s wrong with carbohydrates? Nothing. If you choose the right ones.
GREAT QUOTES make great training partners
"You have to forget your last marathon before you try another. Your mind can't know what's coming."
--Frank Shorter