Stop Leaning Forward
Many runners have had friends and maybe even coaches tell them to “lean forward more” while running. This is usually followed by some sort of logic like: “When you lean forward, gravity helps you run faster.”
Gravity is a real thing, and it can help you achieve many things. Like, for example, smashing your face to the ground. However, if your goal in running is to continue moving forward smoothly and efficiently, you need a more nuanced understanding of the best biomechanics.
That’s what several California researchers explored in a recent experiment. They asked 16 young runner-subjects (half female) to run on a laboratory treadmill with 5 different running postures. The 5 postures were: 1) upright; 2) slight forward lean from the hips; 3) maximal forward lean from the hips; 4) slight forward lean from the ankles; and 5) maximal forward lean from the ankles.
We’ve all heard that we shouldn’t lean forward from the hips. If anything, lean slightly forward from the ankles. That’s the most common advice from the most respected coaches. Let’s see how it pans out.
Prior research in this arena has produced mixed results. In this case, the investigators hypothesized that they would see no significant differences between running postures.
They were wrong. Instead, they observed that “running with an increased forward postural lean (up to 8 degrees) increased metabolic cost by 8%.” When you increase your metabolic cost, your running economy plummets. The goal is always to lower metabolic cost.
And it didn’t matter whether the runners leaned forward from the ankles or the hips. Both were equally bad. Running with a lean forced the hip and thigh muscles to do more work to stabilize the falling-forward body. This is what reduced the subjects' running economy.
Conclusion: “Running with a large forward postural lean reduced running economy and increased reliance on less efficient extensor leg muscles. In contrast, running with a more upright or moderate forward postural lean may be more energetically optimal, and lead to improved running performance.” More at PLos ONE with free full text.
The Most Important Training Lesson You’ll Ever Learn
I’ve heard this principle from other sources as well, but Greg McMillan makes a strong case for it here: “The musculoskeletal system adapts more slowly than the other systems.”
He calls this the most important training lesson because if you violate it, you’ll get injured. Then you’ll have to recover, and begin to rebuild your fitness all over again. Not the best path forward.
“While your cardiovascular, neurological, and mental systems adapt very quickly to running,” says McMillan, “the musculoskeletal system (the muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones, and fascia) adapts much more slowly.”
McMillan, a top online coach with a masters degree in exercise science, believes that the musculoskeletal system takes 25% to 50% longer to adapt than other systems. That’s a very big number, and not one that’s easy to substantiate with objective data.
But there’s plenty of anecdote and consensus runner wisdom to go around. And you won’t find many coaches or physiologists who disagree. That’s why we have running aphorisms like the “10 Percent Rule,” and so many training-plans with “Cut-Back Weeks.” These are designed to limit the increasing stress on your musculoskeletal system.
McMillan’s training lesson emphasizes a key but paradoxical running concept: Progressing gradually in training can get you to your goal more quickly than moving ahead fast. Because you’ll face fewer setbacks down the road.
Or, as McMillan writes: “The key lesson is to have patience and intentionally hold yourself back, even if you feel ready for more. Give your body the extra time it needs to physically adapt to the training. Do this properly from the start, and you’ll set yourself up for long-term running success!” More at McMillan Running.
How To Zone In On Your Best Training Paces
I’ve shared this “Endurance Terminology” chart before. I tend to think of it as more of a Zones Chart than anything else, especially now as zones become an ever-more-common term in endurance training and physiology.
Basically, this chart gives you a quick, shorthand view of Zones, Heart Rates, Paces, Relative Perceived Exertion, Thresholds and more. The “more” includes how long you can hold each zone or intensity, and where your energy will come from (carbs, fats, etc).
You can use it to make sense of various workout recommendations from coaches and physiologists who lean on one measure more than others. They all have fans and proponents. The chart allows you to “eyeball” them all in one place.
It’s meant to be printed out for the front of your refrigerator, or wherever you pin important reference reminders.
To give credit where credit is due, it appears the chart dates back to an early analysis by Alan Couzens in a 2008 blog. It has been updated and shared by Daniel Moore and Gordo Byrn, who provides additional descriptions of how Zones 1 through 5 feel as you run them.
Some runners like to follow numbers. Some like to run by feel or perceived effort. This chart allows you to see how all the parts fit together. They aren’t different or magical, or better or worse. They’re just pieces of the training puzzle. More at X Fluid Athletics.
Two Simple Exercises That Test Your Injury Risk
A new “umbrella systematic review” has dug into mountains of information on running injuries, trying to find an answer or two. However, we’re making slow progress on this important front.
Indeed, “none of the systematic reviews presented a rating of moderate or high confidence.” In other words, the evidence is still low-level.
The authors did uncover two exercises that “can potentially aid in identifying” runners at risk of injury. The two exercises are the “drop squat” and the “active straight leg raise.”
The Internet is full of information and videos about these two exercises. I’d advise following the simpler, less-dramatic approaches.
Beyond these two tests, we have this additional information about injury risks. It seems that BMI might not be a big factor, but height is. That is, taller runners tend to get more injuries.
This could be why we see so many top marathon runners of small stature (and weight). They can train hard without getting injured, and then race hard.
Other negative factors: More alcohol consumption, participation in other sports [probably with a lot more twisting and torquing movements than running], and prior injuries. Beginning runners, marathon runners, and frequent racers also tend to have more injuries.
Biomechanical analysis can add valuable information. For example, lack of pelvic stability and specific foot patterns can hint at future injury woes.
Conclusion: “These findings offer valuable insights” but we need more research before we can be confident about “conclusive relationships and informed training strategies for injury risk reduction.” More at J of Sport & Health Science.
A Training Strategy With A 2-For-1 Bonus Payoff
Everyone recognizes that occasional hard training days are essential in any progressive training plan. But these days don’t occur in isolation.
They are part of a continuum that also includes the day-before and the day-after. And more if you want to take the really long view.
We know recovery is essential, so that takes care of the day-after a hard training effort. It should be easy or cross training or complete rest every now and then.
But what about the day before a hard training day? A day when you might tackle some speedy, tough intervals aimed at increasing your vo2 max.
Should the day before be “easy” to set you up for a great hard day? Or can you sneak in some additional training stimulus?
“Yes, go for it,” argues training expert and multiple book author Matt Fitzgerald. He says he and other top coaches have had success by offering their runners a moderately hard day-before. Fitzgerald believes this approach will “prime” you for the following day.
For example, you might do a moderately hard tempo run the day before you run intervals on the track.
A word of caution: This approach works best for veteran runners who are already “moderately to highly fit.” If you’re not there yet, the “twofer” will leave you too fatigued for a strong followup day. So don’t go there.
Fitzgerald has a lucky number he suggests to gauge your readiness. If you’re training about 7 hours a week, you can consider the twofer. More at Training Peaks.
You Want To Train Like A World-Record Ultra Runner?
It’s always interesting--and sometimes a bit scary--to learn about the actual training methods of a world-record-setter. Especially if that runner is an ultramarathon star.
In this case, we know that the runner being described is Alexsandr Sorokin, because who else “broke 8 world records in 2021 and 2022, including the 24-hour run in which he ran 319.6 km?”
That 24-hour race total is, in miles, a mind-boggling 198.6 miles. It means Sorokin averaged about 7:15 per mile for 24 hours. Here’s a report on that effort from I Run Far.
The authors of this paper about Sorokin’s training obtained his data from Strava, uploaded from his Coros watch, over a nearly 2-year period in 2021 and 2022.
They found that Sorokin averaged from 106 miles/week to 163 miles/week, depending on where he was in a training block and upcoming race cycle. During this time, he regularly did “interval training” with repeats that ranged from 1000 meters to 10,000 meters. His average training pace was, interestingly enough, about the same as his pace for the 24-hour run--7:15 per mile.
Sorokin hit a top training week of 236 miles about a month before his most important races. Then he began tapering. Good thing.
Conclusion: “These findings suggest that training for ultramarathon races should include high-volume running at varied paces and intensity with cross-training to avoid injuries.” More at International J of Sports Physiology & Performance.
Norwegian Would If Norwegian Could
I was surprised to see a recent Alex Hutchinson “Sweat Science” column on Norwegian training. Had I missed something new?
Not really. Not anything big. It turns out that Hutchinson was mainly mulling over the recent Bowerman Mile at the Prefontaine Classic in Eugene, OR. He wasn’t alone.
Just about everyone was entranced by the race, widely labeled a “preview” of the Paris Olympic 1500. Scotland’s Josh Kerr won in 3:54.34, followed by Norwegian Jacob Ingebrigtsen in 3:45.60 and … in 11th place, a 17 year old from Australia named Cam Myers. Myers ran 3:50.15.
Ingebrigtsen, with his frequent and super-fast 1500/mile races, has become a poster-child for Norwegian training. Hutchinson observed: “The underlying philosophy of Norwegian training is that a harder workout isn’t always a better one.” True, true, true.
Another trenchant nugget: “Sexy new things don’t stay sexy and new forever.” Especially if the poster child starts losing, which is inevitable.
Two years ago, a top-shelf group of researchers compared Norwegian training with previous systems. They concluded: “Rather than a revolutionary training model, it seems much more the result of an evolutionary pattern.”
Training systems come and go, and sometimes come around again. The next “evolutionary pattern” awaits us. We don’t know where it’s hiding, or who will push it to the forefront. But it’s out there somewhere, waiting to be discovered and popularized.
In the meantime, you won’t go too far wrong by following Michael Joyner’s training haiku. After all, he has been around and seen a lot. Joyner was the guy who first predicted a sub-2-hour marathon. And he did that way back in 1991. Here’s Joyner’s haiku:
Run a lot of miles
Some faster than your race pace
Rest once in a while.
More of Alex Hutchinson’s Bowerman Mile thoughts here at Outside Online.
Not So Awesome Sauce
It was a bad week for Spring Energy, a company that makes sports nutrition products. Several skeptics more or less simultaneously submitted one of Spring Energy’s most popular products--Awesome Sauce--to independent labs to see if the gel lived up to its claimed contents. It didn’t.
Awesome Sauce became popular several years ago because it claimed to pack 180 calories into a modest-sized gel package. At about the same time, reports from sports nutrition journals began to advocate that endurance athletes should increase their calorie-consumption on the go over what was previously recommended.
Voila! Awesome Sauce appeared to be in the right place at the right time, and sales took off. Until several skeptics decided to dig deeper on their own.
One independent test revealed that Awesome Sauce contained just 76 calories--way below the promoted 180. Other tests also seemed to find discrepancies. Ultra runners and former Awesome Sauce users screamed “Foul!” as Spring Energy stuck to its claims, while acknowledging that different batches might contain different calorie amounts.
At least one independently tested gel from Gu did match its nutrition claims.
The message here appears the same as with all sports supplements: Buyer beware. But also, self test all nutritional products to see how you feel and run with them. If a product works for you, that’s more important than its precise nutritional makeup. More in a very complete report from Run Outside.
SHORT STUFF You Don’t Want To Miss
GREAT QUOTES Make Great Training Partners
“We are not given a short life, but we make it short; we are not ill-supplied but wasteful of it.”
--Seneca
That’s all for now. Thanks for reading. See you again next week. Amby