August 17, 2023

 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

August 10, 2023

 How to bust through that rut, and run faster than ever

Training for increased fitness and better performance requires stress, and recovery. Stress, and recovery. If you don’t stress enough, you can’t expect improvement. If you stress too much, without the required recovery, you run smack into overtraining--now often called over-reaching.

Is there a middle ground? Sure. But it’s also possible that the middle ground represents a level where you don’t improve as much as you’d like to. In that case, what’s your next move?

This article proposes a training adjustment called “overloading.” Translation: You train significantly harder, while making sure that you a stagger into over-reaching territory. 

To do this, you must limit the length of time that you overload--usually from 3 days to 3 weeks. For most recreational runners, I like a 4-day approach where day 3 is a recovery day. For example, if you’re training for a marathon, you might run significantly longer than usual on days 1, 2, and 4, with an easy day or rest day on day 3. 

Those 4 days would represent your overload period. Then you’d take several more easy days before sliding back into your normal routine.

However, in this study with free full text, triathletes followed a 3-week overload training routine. The ones who did about 30% more training than normal, improved performance by 5% after a taper. Another group that completed an additional 20% more training, clearly did too much. Their performance decreased, and several became ill.

There’s no proven recipe for organizing your own overload training. But the approach makes sense, and might be worth trying if you’re frustrated by your lack of improvement. More at Outside Online.

Beat the hills. (Really!) Just follow this simple trick

All runners who enter races on hilly courses notice when we perform well--on the flats, uphills, or downhills--relative to other runners around us. And we gnash our teeth when others pull away from us.

Naturally, we would like to increase our efficiency where we are weak. Many notice this effect most on uphills or downhills. The present study has a solution for you--at least when it comes to the uphills.

Researchers asked a group of 19 runners to perform in a lab while running 10K per hour pace on a level treadmill, inclined (uphill) treadmill, and declined (downhill) treadmill. In all cases, they measured subjects’ “cost of running”--ie, their efficiency--while also looking at variables like time on the ground, stride length, and ground forces. 

There were essentially no links between the measured variables and efficiency during level or downhill running. The latter is a bit surprising, as other studies have shown a superiority of short contact time in downhill running.

On the uphills, those runners who used longer contact times and longer strides exhibited better efficiency. This occurs because you are fighting gravity when running uphill, and gravity wins any time you are floating through the air between footfalls. When you’re on the ground pushing forward, at least you have a leg (literally) in the game. Keep the knees low--no bounding. In fact, effective hill running looks like walking taken to the next gear. More at Scientific Reports with free full text.

Is sodium bicarbonate the next big endurance hack?

Many observers have noted a lot of great performances on the track and in the Tour de France this year, and wondered if athletes are using sodium bicarbonate to improve their races. This study doesn’t answer that question, but adds to our knowledge about sodium bicarbonate boosting to improve time to exhaustion (TTE), a frequent metric in endurance experiments.

It also adds quite a bit more, especially about the role that a placebo effect could have. Here, researchers used a--get ready for a mouthful--”randomised, crossover, counterbalanced, double-blind, placebo-controlled design” to tease out the results.

Basically, they gave sodium bicarbonate to recreational cyclists before the cyclists completed a TTE trial that lasted 8 to 12 minutes. For runners, you could think of this as something close to a 2-mile time trial. The subjects also did a placebo trial for comparison purposes. And of course all subjects completed the test once before the experimental period began.

Each cyclist completed two sodium bicarbonate trials--one where the sodium bicarb was mixed in a drink, and one delivered by capsule. Cyclists improved their TTE test by an average of 27 seconds on the drinks, and 23 seconds with the capsules. Both results amounted to a significant difference from the pre-experimental test.

Why the difference? Here’s what the researchers think: Because there was a strong “taste” component to the drink, but not with the capsule, the riders knew something was going on, and may have assumed it was a beneficial boost. This “expectancy” caused them to ride harder when they received the drink vs the no-taste capsule. 

Conclusion: “Participants higher expectancy” with the drink resulted in them “exerting themselves harder … which subsequently leads to a greater decline in blood bicarbonate and larger improvements in performance.”

Important note: “All participants reported GI discomfort” from both the drinks and the capsules, with no difference between the two approaches. More at Sports Medicine-Open with free full text.

All gain, no pain: The right way to “break in” super shoes

Super shoes are at least 7 years old now, if you date them from Nike’s secretive introduction in the Olympic year of 2016. You’d think maybe our obsession with them would slow down. But, no, all those super fast times being run this summer, plus a continuation of research papers, keeps the fire burning. Here are two more of those recent reports.

The first found that both slower runners and a faster group improved their running economy similarly when wearing a shoe with a stiff plate. Some had speculated that only faster runners benefit from stiff plates because you have to put a lot of force (speed) into them to get the bend-and-reflex reaction. There was some hint of that here, but the differences seemed small.

The researchers also noted that the improvements in running economy were “accompanied by small modifications in running kinematics.” That’s good, because larger changes would have increased injury worries. More at Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

Those concerns are still being voiced by an international team of running-injury physicians, including Adam Tenforde and Amol Saxena, recognized U.S. experts. They’ve written a new editorial in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. 

The editorial discusses TARS (“technically advanced running shoes”) and urges sportsmed docs to adopt a balanced and “scientific process to determine how best to ensure safety for our athletes.”

They note that TARS are linked to “decreased cadence, longer flight times, higher peak vertical ground reaction forces, and altered foot kinetics and kinematics compared with habitual footwear.”

While admitting “current knowledge gaps,” the authors advise particular super shoe caution for runners who have had “prior bone stress injury of the foot, lower extremity tendinopathy or plantar fasciopathy.” 

If you do decide to buy and wear super shoes, the authors suggest this strategy: First, do your easy runs in super shoes to get your body accustomed to any changes. If things go well, begin using super shoes for tempo runs and faster training, and in your races. From this point, continue wearing your older, more familiar shoes on easy and typical-day runs, and super shoes for race-pace training. More at British J of Sports Medicine.

Warning: You can eat all day, and still be lacking carbs

It’s possible to be eating all the time, or at least to appear that way, without consuming enough calories to fuel a strong training plan. This is particularly true if you’re always eating salads, and perhaps skipping the salad oils. 

Here sports nutritionist Anne Guzman describes in great detail how such a scenario can “backfire” with a hard-training athlete named Gillian (not her real name). Gillian knows she’s supposed to pack in plenty of carbohydrates, so she does. She consumes “real foods” that are mostly carb--kale, broccoli, cantaloupe, lettuce, peppers, cucumbers, and other unprocessed fruits and vegetables.

She often combines these foods in several large daily salads. These make her feel full, and also feel good about consuming a high-carb diet. Only … she’s not getting that many carbohydrates.

In actuality, she’s eating a high-volume, “low energy density” diet that might be terrific for an obese individual trying to lose weight. But not for someone training several hours a day, as Gillian is.

As a result, “Gillian is often tired, bloated, and lacking stamina. She’s inconsistent in her performances and seems to be getting sick more often.”

Things change, and Gillian begins feeling better and performing better, after she begins adding the following foods to her daily meals and snacks: brown rice, bananas, dates, maple syrup, and bagels with honey. She also consumes more fuel during workouts--sugary drinks and/or gels/blocs.

Outcome: Gillian notices a big increase in her “stamina, top-end repeatability, as well as her energy for everyday life.” More at Ann Guzman Nutrition Solutions.

Carbohydrates work well for endurance athletes because hard-exercising muscles are most efficient when burning carbs. But there are other reasons as well. The brain really appreciates carbs (and you don’t want to go out for a long run without bringing your brain along). Researchers examined how mouth rinsing with a carb solution differed from mouth rinsing with a non-nutritive, no carb sugar substitute. They did this by measuring electrical activity in a specific area of the brain, and found that “controlled visuospatial attention was increased after carbohydrate rinsing.” 

This result “may suggest a central mechanism underlying the ergogenic effects of carbohydrate mouth rinsing on endurance performance.” More at Nutrients with free full text.

Don’t drain your brain. (You need all the friends you can get)

The above item reminded me of this one. Before I ran my first Comrades Marathon 3 decades ago, I read every book I could find about the famous South African ultramarathon. I remember one photo page in particular: It showed historic 5-time winner Arthur Newton sitting in a camp chair while listening to classical music on one of those huge, old Victrola record players from the 1920s. This is what he did to recover from long, hard training days.

I can’t believe that the Internet doesn’t include a copy of this photo, but I can’t find it. Here’s an early Victrola to refresh your memory.

Newton might have been an ultra athlete well ahead of his times. According to this article on recovery techniques, we should focus more on the brain, and less on pills and gizmos. One quoted expert says: “You always have some degree of neural-physiologic fatigue. Your brain just doesn’t control your muscles as well when you’re fatigued.”

Some good strategies to boost your brain recovery: “Seeing a movie, hanging out with friends, or lying down and listening to music.” More at Fast Talk Labs.

Surprise! 75 yr old female runners have super endurance

At last month’s Western States 100 mile, Courtney Dauwalter broke the female course record by an incredible 78 minutes, and finished just 5.5% behind male winner, Tom Evans. The usual male-female difference in distance racing is 10 to 11%, so Dauwalter’s performance fueled the old question: Are women relatively better than men in ultra-distance competitions?

A new report dove into that question with the help of 1.1 million Swiss race competitors over the last 20 years. It found a striking result in the 75+ age groups, where the women appeared to be closing in fast on the guys. “Elderly female ultra-marathoners (75 years and older) displayed a performance difference of less than 4% compared to male ultra-marathoners.”

However, this could have been an artifact produced  by the very few female ultra-runners over age 75. If the only women left competing at this age were the very-best women, that would skew the results. Or maybe there’s a bio-physiological reason why 75-yr old Jeannie Rice beat the Boston Marathon men in her division by more than 20 minutes last April. More at Scientific Reports with free full text.

Keep your cool--Foods and drinks that help you handle the heat

Runners have long been advised about methods to avoid heat illness and dangerous heat stroke by paying attention to weather conditions, clothing choices, their fitness, and appropriate pace adjustments. Much less attention has been paid to nutritional approaches. But now a big new paper has tackled the subject. Here’s a brief summary of the key findings.

Carbohydrates are good, though a bit double-edged, because they might increase your energy and motivation in the heat, which could potentially push you over the edge. “Prior alcohol consumption should be avoided.” 

Dehydration is not as strongly linked to heat illness as many presume, and it’s always important to avoid overhydration that could lead to hyponatremia. Nevertheless, “individuals should ensure they begin exercise in a hydrated state.” 

Glutamine has been shown to reduce heat-stroke mortality in animal studies, but not in humans though there are some positive indications. Also, bovine colostrum supplementation may reduce small intestine permeability--a good thing. 

There’s little data and/or inconsistent data regarding antioxidants and probiotics. Sodium bicarbonate’s tendency to cause GI distress could cause dehydration and heat risk. Menthol mouth rinsing might lower your perception of the heat’s impact, thereby increasing danger. 

Creatine doesn’t appear to be a problem, but low energy intake could increase heat risk by lowering immunity and raising susceptibility to illness. More at Experimental Physiology with free full text.

SHORT STUFF you don’t want to miss

>>> I double dare you: Can you handle 5 minutes of core exercises for runners? Great video instruction.

>>> Old myths die hard: There’s actually no difference in strength or muscle growth between those who use free weights vs those using machines.

>>> Running to, or running from? “Mental health issues are common” among ultra runners.

GREAT QUOTES make great training partners

“Endurance is one of the most difficult disciplines, but it is to the one who endures that the final victory comes.”

--Buddha

That’s all for now. Thanks for reading. See you again next week. Amby