A newer, simpler, better way to train
Okay, take a deep breath. I’m going to try to summarize a 208-page PhD thesis. It’s titled “A novel approach to training analysis for distance runners based on race-pace,” and is written by Mark Kenneally, a former elite Irish marathon runner.
When Kenneally was a 2:13 marathoner a decade ago, and wanting to improve, he read everything he could find about endurance training. And he was confused. Because what he read in the top scientific journals seemed quite different from what he was hearing from the best runners and their coaches.
In some ways, this wasn’t surprising. Training methods are always bouncing in and out of favor. Or perhaps we should say they are “evolving.” You had your intervals in the 1950s and early 1960s, massive volume in the ‘70s and ‘80s, lactate threshold (tempo training) in the 90s, a tempo revolt in the 2000s, and the HIT infatuation of the last decade.
Kenneally himself was reading a lot of positive articles about HIT workouts and polarization, but hearing that the world’s best marathon runners seemed more focused on lactate-threshold work. Strange, because this training had been declared a black hole or dead zone that should be almost entirely avoided.
Additionally, he came to believe that training analysis and programs were overwhelmed by laboratory gibberish--all the physiology measures like heart rate, vo2 max, blood lactate, critical speed, and the “zones” separating one type of training from another. For example, the ever popular 80/20 training method is all about zones.
That’s because the guys and women writing journal papers make precise calculations of physiological measure. What else are you going to do with your PhD and expensive lab equipment?
But runners don’t train by their physiology--at least not Kenyan runners who lack digital straps on their chest, wrist, and other body parts. They train by pace: 5 minutes per mile, or 7:00, or 9:00, or whatever works for you.
And while an 800/1500 runner obviously must do some training in Zone 3 (serious speed), a marathoner may not need any Zone 3 work at all. So zones don’t have much across-the-board utility.
Kenneally came to believe it makes more sense to base your training on “race pace” of your goal race. No matter what your key event, you still do 80+ percent of all running at a slow, relaxed pace.
Then, as you get closer to a major competition, do more training at your goal race pace. If you’re a miler, run fast 200s. If you’re entered in a half marathon, do 3 to 6-mile tempos at your half marathon pace.
If it’s a marathon you’re chasing, you might do long tempo runs (of 10 to 12 miles) at marathon pace. Always remember that training is a rehearsal, not the real thing, so be sure to leave something in reserve on these long tempos.
Why should you follow the Kenneally system? There certainly aren’t any RCTs to support it. He argues several main points. For one, many lab studies using physiology markers have been performed on swimmers, cyclists, and cross-country skiers. These endurance athletes don’t endure as much “pounding” as runners. They can probably do more HIT training with less muscle damage than runners.
It’s also possible, perhaps for the same or a related reason, that runners need more time to reach their potential. Less HIT training likely reduces injuries and increases longevity in the sport. The payoff doesn’t come next month but many miles down the road.
Kenneally began his thesis by reviewing recent exercise physiology papers. This review led him to conclude that “polarized training” was the superior approach. He writes: “However, the world’s best athletes were observed to train in a manner contrary to this claim.” So he undertook a thesis project to look more closely, and now he has a PhD too. More at University of the Basque Country.
Important, unexpected result: Stroke risk lowered, not raised, by atrial fibrillation in endurance exercisers
One of the few bad outcomes associated with long term vigorous exercise is an apparent increase in rates of atrial fibrillation. This is worrisome because AF is linked to a higher risk of stroke. And no one wants that.
However, regular exercisers are weird. Some of the bad stuff that happens to non-exercisers doesn’t happen to those who stay active. One example of this is coronary artery calcium. Large CAC deposits are deadly in men who don’t exercise, especially if they are overweight smokers. But in exercisers, the risk basically disappears.
Now it seems the same may be true for AF. When Norwegian researchers investigated 500 men who were over age 65 and had been frequent participants in the Birkebeiner 33 mile cross country ski race, they found that the athletes did in fact have a higher incidence of AF. However, “the long-term risk of stroke was substantially reduced [by 40 percent] compared with non-athletes.” So the skiers suffered fewer strokes, which is the feared and dangerous outcome. More at BMJ Open Heart.
Movement is exercise, and it doesn’t take much to produce health benefits
In some quarters, the “Exercise is medicine” approach is morphing to “Movement is medicine.” There are several reasons for this. Some believe that “exercise” is an intimidating term to many sedentary folks. But there’s also the fact that it doesn’t take much very intense movement to have a significant health impact.
In fact, it only takes 4 to 5 minutes a day of VILPA (Vigorous Intermittent Lifestyle Physical Activity) to attain essentially the same health benefits as the 15 daily minutes of VPA (Vigorous Physical Activity) or 30 minutes of MPA (Moderate Physical Activity) noted by most global exercise recommendations. This eye-opening result comes from a new, big-data paper that followed more than 25,000 non exercising British citizens for almost 7 years.
The subjects were classified as nonexercisers because, you guessed it, they didn’t exercise on a regular basis. Some did, however, sprint after buses, climb stairs fast, mow the lawn, and engage in other “lifestyle” forms of VILPA. These efforts often lasted just 45 seconds at a time, but they recurred 5 to 6 times daily, to reach a sum of 4 to 5 minutes. And they were associated with much better health outcomes than those who didn’t ever break into “vigorous, intermittent” activity.
VILPA had never been measured before. You can think of it as “running hard” while VPA is “running comfortably” and MPA is “walking.” Any of these routines yields roughly a 40 percent mortality reduction over a set period of years.
Leading exercise epidemiologist and first author Emmanuel Stamatakis noted: “A few very short bouts totalling three to four minutes a day could go a long way, and there are many daily activities that can be tweaked to raise your heart rate for a minute or so.” More at Nature Medicine (free full text).
16 science-backed benefits of running
I don’t recommend every article about the benefits of running and high-level fitness, because we have heard much of it before. On the other hand, it’s often a good idea to be reminded of that which we already know.
Especially if the reinforcement helps us keep going--the ultimate goal. So here are 16 mostly-scientific benefits of running. I’ve found that their relative importance have changed for me through the years (and decades). Now things like “Running makes you happier” and “Running connects us” rank higher than ever. More at RunStreet.
Run “quiet” for fewer injuries and no loss of speed
It’s nice, if a bit rare, when a simple piece of running advice proves to have measurable benefits. This study describes one such stride technique.
The researchers wondered what might happen if they asked a group of experienced subjects to “run quieter.” So they designed a study to find out. Here’s the protocol.
Fifteen female runners with a 5K PR under 23 minutes ran on a laboratory treadmill to allow for measurements of their running economy and various forces they generated. Next they did a comfortable 15-minute run while an audio device recorded the sound of their running footfalls on the treadmill. Throughout the effort, they were instructed to “run quieter.” They were also given feedback every 3 minutes regarding the decibels they were producing
For their next week of normal run training at home, the subjects were asked to remember and repeat how they had run quieter in the lab. Then they came back to the lab for retesting of all their initial measurements.
Result? First, running economy didn’t change. That’s good news. You wouldn’t want to improve one set of measures while lowering another. Also, ground reaction force and loading rate decreased. This might lower injury risks.
The researchers concluded: “Simple instructions to ‘run quietly’ can yield immediate and sustained reductions in force profiles, which do not influence running economy.” Runners might benefit from “periodically monitoring foot strike decibel level and focusing on reducing” it. More at Journal of Sport Rehabilitation.
Which does more for your endurance: Altitude training or heat training?
The paper noted here was written about cyclists preparing for the great multi day tours. The findings should mostly apply to distance runners. The basic question: What’s better, altitude training or heat training?
Physiologists have known for a century that altitude training can improve hemoglobin mass and thus boost oxygen efficiency in endurance sports. Usually it requires three weeks residence at 7500 feet or slightly more. There’s reason to believe in the “Live high-Train low” approach (you can maintain speed better at low altitude workouts) but newer research seems to favor “Live high-Train high.”
The concept of heat training for endurance is newer but well established. Heat training improves the “sudomotor response”--you sweat more efficiently and fare better under hot conditions--and can also increase blood plasma and hemoglobin levels if you stay at least 3 weeks in the heat.
It would be nice to combine both methods to get an additive effect, but “It appears the two may clash if imposed in combination.” So which environmental training technique wins this battle? The one that mimics where you’ll face your next big race. In distance running, you’re more likely to face heat challenges as in the summer Olympics or World Championships or even unusually warm spring/summer marathons.
Which brings up the question of heat training in winter time for a spring marathon. Is there any point in trying the old multiple “sweat shirts” method? Sure. It might produce “physiological adaptations comparable to natural exposure” while also allowing you to “complete the rest of your weekly training in cooler conditions” to maintain a faster pace. More at Scandinavian J of Medicine & Science in Sports.
What’s wrong? “My half-marathon pace is way better than my marathon pace.”
This is one of the most common complaints heard from runners who haven’t achieved the marathon of their goals and dreams. They seem to have all the bases covered, and have run a strong half-marathon tuneup … but … then comes marathon race day, and things don’t work out as planned.
What went awry? It could be one or many things. The discussion here lists the leading candidates. If you’re unhappy with your recent marathon performances, you could find a solid answer or two. More at Reddit.
The latest “truth” about 8 x 8 oz glasses of water/day
In 1968, I was part of a small group of Boston Marathon runners who were weighed before and after the race by pioneering running physiologist David Costill. On a warm, sunny day, I lost nearly 10 pounds, or about 7 percent of my body weight. Ever since, I have closely followed research regarding sweat rates, hydration guidelines, and so on.
As a result, I wasn’t surprised by a recent headline about research that debunked the common advice to drink 8 glasses of water (8 ounces each) per day. I’ve read (and written) variations on this report for decades.
However, I was surprised when I read the full text. First, by the mindblowing amount of innovative data that the global research team pulled together. Super-impressive! Second, by the lack of debunking. Or perhaps more accurately, by the lack of evidence for any specific guideline. No one knows how much you should be drinking.
Here’s why, as the new paper makes clear: Human needs for water consumption are hugely variable. They depend primarily on your genetics, your weight, your activity level, your environment (hot or cold), and the amount of water in foods that you consume. Too many variables to allow for a simple answer.
The researchers actually identified a handful of individuals who needed the equivalent of 40 glasses of water a day. Others who are small, sedentary, and living in a cold (or air conditioned) climate probably need fewer than 8 glasses a day. The rest of us are over/under the 8 glasses rule, and we need to determine our personal hydration.
Now back to the paper’s impressive data gathering. A long list of researchers cooperated to measure doubly-labeled water turnover of more than 5000 individuals from26 countries. They also had objective basal energy expenditures for a third of their sample, and they calculated adjustments for local weather (Northern Europe vs equatorial Africa, for example).
There was no average or “correct” amount of daily water drinking because there is no average individual or environment. Most interesting is the fact that we still don’t have good data regarding human water intake from foods. Water obtained from foods is water we don’t have to drink from the faucet and other sources. It’s also likely to be declining in a world of ultra processed foods.
The CDC recommends that adult men take in 125 ounces of water a day, and women 91 ounces from both drinks PLUS water-containing foods. In 8-oz glasses, that amounts to 15.6 and 11.4. Runners obviously need more. So keep drinking plenty of fluids, the healthier the better. And check out this list of foods that contain a lot of water. They are all good options.
The researchers undertook this massive project in part due to their concerns about a looming worldwide water crisis, and disparities in access to healthy water. More at Science.
Tiger Woods has a common runner injury--plantar fasciitis
Many distance runners have found their training and racing routine frustrated by plantar fasciitis, which can be painful and difficult to overcome. One journal called it “the most common musculoskeletal disease of the foot.” Still, PF didn’t receive much attention--certainly not in the mainstream media.Then Tiger Woods announced that he was battling the sore-heel condition, and everything changed.
The NY Times “Well” section published an article advising soft gel heel cups or maybe self-massage with a plastic soft-drink bottle containing frozen water. One doctor said, “There’s no magic pill or treatment--just stretch, rest and ice.”
You’ll find much more at the following link, a lengthy medical review of PF and runners. The senior author, Adam Tenforde, is an expert in the field as well as a former elite runner with Ryan Hall at Stanford. The review doesn’t offer any magic either, but supports platelet rich plasma and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT). More at Life (free full text).
A brand-new trial of ESWT concludes: “The use of extracorporeal shock wave therapy reduced the intensity and frequency of pain, and improved daily and recreational activity.” And a new “prospective case series” found barefoot running on grass lowered pain scores after 6- and 12-weeks. It added, tantalizingly, that “the intervention may also address some impairments of the foot associated with plantar fasciitis.” More at J of Clinical Medicine, and at Int J of Environmental Research & Public Health.
SHORT STUFF you don’t want to miss
>>> Ladies, be careful. A too-tight heart-rate chest strap could lead to Mondor’s disease. (Here’s the definition of Mondor’s disease.)
GREAT QUOTES make great training partners
“Believe you can, and you’re halfway there.”
--Theodore Roosevelt
That's it for now. Thanks for reading. See you next week. Amby