Running Research News And Events

BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

An odd thing about running is that many runners believe that the best way to optimize aerobic capacity (VO2max) is to run lots of miles. However, the scientific study which detected the greatest improvement ever recorded in VO2max in well trained runners actually linked an upswing in intense training and a decrease in mileage with the big jump in VO2max. BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

The study of interest, completed by Timothy Smith, Lars McNaughton, and Kylie Marshall of the University of Tasmania in Australia and Kingston University in the United Kingdom, shook up the training of five experienced runners (1). These harriers were fit (average VO2max was 61.5 ml O2 kg-1min-1), and they were utilizing a variety of different training techniques prior to the onset of research, including long-slow distance work, speed work, tempo training, over speed efforts, and weight training. All five were primarily middle distance runners, and their average age was 23.

Before the investigation began, each runner completed three VO2max tests, which also were used to determine V max (the minimal running velocity which caused a runner to hit maximal aerobic capacity, or VO2max). These exams were completed on a Quinton treadmill. The initial treadmill speed was set at 10 kilometers per hour for two minutes, jumped to 12 kilometers per hour for one minute, and moved up to 14 kilometers for an additional minute. After that, the velocity increased by one kilometer per hour each minute until exhaustion was reached. Oxygen consumption was carefully measured during this incremental test, and VO2max was assumed to have been reached when a runner met at least two of the following three criterias: volitional exhaustion, a heart rate within five beats per minute of predicted max heart rate (using the familiar formulas of 220 - age), and an increase in running speed with no further increase in oxygen consumption. Vmax was defined as the slowest running speed (from the tests) which produced an oxygen-consumption rate equal to V)2max.

To make things interesting, each runner also completed a 3-K time trial and three Tmax tests. Tmax is simply the length of time a runner can keep going at Vmax, and each Tmax test was preceded by a 15-minute warm-up consisting of five minutes of running at 60 percent of Vmax. The treadmill velocity was then set at 18 kilometers per hour (lower than Vmax for each runner), the runner mounted the treadmill quickly, and the treadmill was up-regulated to Vmax within 10 seconds. Each runner then tried to hang on as long as possible, with verbal encouragement provided by the investigators. BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY

After all this testing, the runners were probably happy to embark on the four-week training program developed by Smith, McNaughton, and Marshall. This 28-day plan focused on two very intense sessions each week; within each workout, all six intervals were completed right at Vmax, a fairly scalding interval intensity. A notable aspect of this training was that the durations of the work intervals were set at anywhere from 60 percent of Tmax to 75 percent of Tmax! That's unusual: Traditionally, with Vmax training (also known as vVo2max training), runners set their work interval lengths at about 20 to 50 percent of Tmax and do not move above 15 minutes of total running at Vmax per workout.

Let's say, for example, that a runner's Vmax corresponds with a pace of 90 seconds per 400 meters (4.44 meters per seconds) and that his/her T max is six minutes. Obviously, 50 percent of six minutes is three minutes. Ordinarily, a "stringent" Vmax session for this runner would then be 5 work intervals with a duration of 50 percent of Tmax, i.e., X 800 in three minutes each, for a total dose of 15 minutes of Vmax running.

If we put this same runner on Smith-McNaughton-Marshall plan, however, things would get much rougher. In the fourth week of S-M2 plan, for example, one workout involved 6 work intervals at Vmax with durations of 75 percent of Tmax. For our hypothetical runner from the last paragraph, this would mean stepping up from 5 X 800 in three minutes each to 6 X 1200 in 4:30 each, with all 1200s completed right at Vmax. That would entail 27 minutes total of Vmax running Red-hot!!

Basically, the runners completed two similar sessions each week, with the rest of their work consisting of "recovery runs". This simple - but very challenging - approach to training produced major gains in performance and fitness. For example, at the end of the four-week period average 3-K time improved from 616.6 to 599.6 seconds. Mean speed in the 3K ascended from 4.9 meters per second to 5.1 meters per second, about a 4-percent upgrade.

To learn more about how BEST TRAINING FOR MAXIMIZING AEROBIC CAPACITY (the full article can be read by purchasing VOL. 23-2 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to RUNNING RESEARCH NEWS is another way to receive valuable information about running.

AN OVERALL VIEW OF TRAINING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:00:00 -0600

In preparing for events ranging in length from 800 to 100,000 meters, you should always emphasize the quality of your training over mere volume. That is, you should stress speed (and the development of a higher maximal running speed), instead of placing your primary
focus on the accumulation of mileage. Great Workouts

Why is this so? If you had 100 runners standing before you and you wanted to figure out which ones would finish near the front in a race (regardless of whether that race covered 800 meters, 10K, a marathon, or 100K), one of the simplest and most effective forecasting techniques would be to time each runner in a 20-meter dash!

The runners with the fastest 20-meter times would also be the individuals with the quickest clockings for 5K – and for the marathon! On the other hand, if you ranked the runners according to weekly average mileage, you would no relationship at all between training distance per week and performance time!

It has been verified in research carried out by Heikki Rusko, Leena Paavolainen, and Ari Nummela of the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland with 17 male endurance runners (1). In this Finnish research, the connection between 20-meter and 5000-meter race velocities was extremely strong, even though the average 20-meter speed of 8.15 meters per second was roughly 76-percent faster than 5-K alacrity.

As it turned out, 20-meter time was a better predictor of 5-K speed than that vaunted �aerobic� variable, VO2max, and 20-meter burning was almost as good as another big-name physiological characteristic – running economy. Great Workouts

Could the 20-meter, 5-K connection detected by the Finns be purely a fluke? If you think so, consider the research carried out at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in which Aaron Sinnett, Kris Berg, and their colleagues determined that performance times for 10,000 meters can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy using two other attributes of speed and power – 300 meter sprint time and plyometric leaping distance (2). Sinnett, Berg, and co-workers also found significant correlations between 10-K performance and 50-meter sprint time, as well as vertical jumping ability.

Why are researchers finding that �anaerobic� physiological attributes are so important for success in almost purely �aerobic� events? To put it another way, why are exercise scientists discovering that measures of speed and explosiveness are great predictors of performance in races which seem to rely more on endurance than
on power?

To understand this completely, let�s take a close look at the Nebraska-Omaha study carried out by Sinnett, Berg, et al. In this fascinating work, the researchers examined 36 e experienced runners (20 men and 16 women) whose 10-K times varied from 32:36 to 56:24.

The age of these runners ranged from 19 to 35 years, and 27 of the athletes were preparing for a marathon as the research was conducted. The 36 subjects were running about 30 miles per week and had trained five times weekly for at least six months before the study started. Nineteen of the 36 subjects engaged in some form of strength training, and 27 had completed a marathon at some point in their running careers. They were not beginners! Great Workouts

Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint.

In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the �phosphagen system� within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other �fuels� for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place).

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true �anaerobic� test.

The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the �glycolytic energy system,� an oxygenindependent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and
lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).

The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible
with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels rise off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps. Great Workouts

For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up.

In the counter-movement jumps, the �snap-back� of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost. For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work �from a standing start.�

As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i. e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties.

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, since the enhanced
elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, �You run as though you have springs for legs.� Great Workouts

Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner�s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat.

The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance. Great Workouts

To summarize, one �anaerobic� attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. �Aerobic� variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running
economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in
performance). Two �anaerobic� attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic
characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races.

Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. Great Workouts

For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

For example, in Heikki Rusko�s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints.

During Rusko�s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were �in harness,� with their special, light-weight, leather �straightjackets� connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased producing adequate power).

As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race!

Rusko�s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach
your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now.

Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of highintensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not highvolume, running.

As was the case with Rusko�s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy.
As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in welltrained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (�anaerobic�) running (5). Great Workouts

Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE).

You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max).

TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner�s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal
and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely �put in the bank:� The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Great Workouts

IS RUNNING BAD FOR MTOR & RAPTOR?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Endurance runners are generally not crazy about the idea of carrying out consistent, progressive, running-specific strength training. Part of the reason for this is a wide spread belief in two of the pervasive myths associated with running- that strength training can harm aerobic development and endurance and that aerobic training makes it nearly impossible to upgrade raw muscular strength. However, research reveals that the "conflict" between strength and endurance training is often imaginary.

If you go to the gym to lift weights four or five days a week, your muscles will begin to travel in a certain direction. They'll decide to upgrade their diameter and volume, and as a result your strength may improve dramatically. If you are only pushing weights around in the gym, and nothing more, however, you will sink when you undertake an activity which requires considerable endurance, in spite of your enhanced muscular strength. Your muscles won't know how to behave in a 10-K race, for example, and you'll finish far behind individuals with considerably less sinuosity and strength.

On the other hand, if you eschew the gym and simply run at a moderate tempo for about an hour or so, five days a week, your muscles will take an entirely different trajectory. They'll get busy synthesizing increased quanities of aerobic enzymes and higher densities of mitochrondria, and they may signal surrounding capillaries to create bushy new networks of small blood vessels. If there are any fast-twitch fibers hanging around in your muscles, they'll go through at least a partial atrophy and may commence a kind of metamorphosis which makes them look more like their slow twitch cousins. After eight weeks or so, moderate-intensity endurance exercise will be a snap, but a trip into the gym would most likely reveal a surprising lack of strength and coordination. Your muscles would be far different and far weaker, compared with the sinews which would pop out after a steady diet of gymming.

Traditionally, many exercise physiologist and coaches have said that these two possible directions are contradictory, that is, that if you push muscles on a path toward strength it will retard their development of greater endurance, and vice-versa. As a result of this kind of thinking, many endurance athletes avoid strength training altogether.

This story concerning the potential conflicts associated with simultaneous strength and endurance training certainly goes back to the 1970s, when Dr. Robert Hickson, then a post-doc researcher at Washington University in St. Louis, discovered that the running workouts he was completing with his mentor, Dr. John Holloszy, were causing muscles to fall off his body like autumn leaves (1). Hickson went on to complete a study in which he demonstrated that endurance training had a negative impact on the gains in stength associated with concurrent resistance training (2). The "lesson" from this research was adopted by the running community: If you were a runner, it made little sense to carry out strength training, since endurance-running activities would throttle the possible emergence of greater strength. Furthermore, the two activities were too disparate - "aerobic" vs. "anaerobic" in the parlance of the day - to be joined together in any serious runner's training log.

However, it would seem to be incautious and a bit hasty to conclude from Hickson's initial research that all strength training should be cast aside by the running crowd. Indeed, Hickson's own follow-up study, published eight years later, has often been over looked. In that inquiry, experienced runners who had reached a "steady-state levels of performance" (e.g., who had stagnated) carried out strngth training three times a week for 10 weeks, with their regular endurance training remaining constant during this period (3). This research, far from revealing problems associated with synching strength training with endurance work, revealed that the addition of strength training was linked with a 13-percent enhancement of endurance during intense running.

Other studies failed to show that endurance training harmed the development of strength. In one of the most ingenious of these investigations, some subjects performed endurance training with the other leg. A second group of athletes carried out strength training on one leg and the combo of endurance and strength with the lower limb. The endurance training was composed of five three-minute bouts of cycling per workout at an intensity of 90 to 100% VO2max, while the strength training centered on six sets of 15-22 reps of leg presses with maximal resistance (4).

After 22 weeks (a beautifully long time frame in the exercise-science world), the legs which engaged in both endurance and strength training were just as strong as the lower appendages which performed strength training only. An interesting aspect of this research was that the same leg muscles were used for both the endurance and strength training, and the movements involved (pushing on a bike pedal and pressing a platform) were similar mechanically. This contradicted one view which had been held - that endurance-training's depressing effect on strength would be particularly strong if the same muscles were engaged in both types of training. After all, individual muscles could never go in two directions at once, right? If asked to do so, they would abandon gains in strength in favor of endurance-related changes, just as Hickson's quads lost mass when he became a serious runner.

In this study, however, muscles engaged in endurance training had no problem at all with the task of building up strength when they were asked to do so. It is very cool that the movements involved (pedaling and pressing) overlapping biomechanically, suggesting that the development of running-specific strength would not be retarded by high-quality running workouts.

To learn more about how to Is Running Bad For Mtor & Raptor? (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 22 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. SIGN-UP NOW!

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR RUNNING GOES DOWNHILL

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Charging up hills boosts leg-muscle strength and improves your running economy, but what about running down hills? If you carry out repeats on a neighborhood incline, you've got to jog back down the hill before you surge upward again. Does such downhill ambling do anything special for you - aside from giving your knees a good jarring?

Of course! As we have mentioned previously in the pages of Running Research News, downhill running can help prevent leg-muscle soreness, especially in the quadriceps muscles in the front of the thigh. Soreness often results when one's muscles are challenged by a greater-than-normal number of eccentric contractions, in which the muscles attempt to shorten while they are actually being elongated.

The "quads" are notorious soreheads, mainly because gravity pulls the knee downward (e.g., produces knee flexion) with every footstrike during the act of running. This flexing stretches out the quads at the exact time they are contracting (attempting to shorten) to prevent excessive knee flexion. The resulting, repetitive strain (which occurs about 90 times per minute per leg) can produce significant quadriceps-muscle damage. If you simply complete your usual volume of training, your quads have already adapted to that amount of strain and ordinarily don't protest too much. However, if you run more miles than you are accustomed to, your quads tend to complain quite loudly. If you have ever boosted your mileage quickly or run a marathon, you know the feeling.

Downhill running actually magnifies this eccentric, "pulling-apart" stress on the quads, because the leg "falls" a little farther than normal with each stride. Thus the accelaration of the leg is greater at impact (footstrike), and the forces which produce knee flexion are consequently greater. The quads, of course, are still trying to carry out their yeoman-like work of resisting knee flexion, but the stress on them is much higher. Microscopic tears in the quads' muscle fibers and connective tissues can occur, and considerable soreness can result.

That doesn't mean that downhill running is bad for you, though: In the long run, it is actually good, because those old quads of yours adapt fairly readily. Once they've been exposed to some downhill running, they'll be sore, sure, but if you run downhill a few weeks later, the quads will be considerably "tougher" - and less apt to get sore. In addition, if - after your downhill exposure - you run longer than usual on the flat, your quads will also be less likely to get hurt. The soreness protection gained from downslope running does seem to carry over to regular efforts. Down Hill

The Six-Week Factor

In fact, for yet-to-be-explained reasons, the soreness insurance provided by a single bout of downhill running can often last for six weeks or more. Several years ago, scientists at the University of Massachusetts asked 109 individuals to perform two sets of 35 maximal, eccentric contractions of the biceps muscle in the upper part of one arm. Basically, these eccentric contractions consisted of lowering a very heavy weight, which forced the biceps muscles to elongate as the weight was lowered at the same time they were attempting to shorten to stabilize the weight's movement.

After this unusual workout, biceps soreness and tightness peaked about two to three days later, and maximal swelling occurred a few days after that. Biceps strength declined immediately after the rigorous session and stayed below-par for 10 days.

However, when the individuals tried the same biceps routine six weeks later (with no intervening biceps training), there was appreciably less soreness and little loss of muscle strength. The biceps muscles were somehow protected from problems as a result of that initial eccentric session.

Interestingly enough, the protection didn't last much longer than six weeks. When a second group of subjects waited 10 weeks after their initial eccentric workout to stress their biceps again, their biceps were thrown into uncontrollable agony and lost most of their strength. What was going on? Why could the bicep "remember" what happened six weeks before - but not 10 weeks before?

The Massachusetts researchers speculated that a strenuous bout of eccentric exercise "teaches" the nervous system how to better control and distribute the forces that are acting on particular muscles. In theory, this lessens the strain on individual muscle fibers when eccentric activity tries to "tear them apart" - and thereby reduces muscle damage and consequent pain. Just as the nervous system can learn to do this, it can also forget, and this forgetting seems to take place after six to 10 weeks. Six-Week Factor

Australian Rats Reveal Sarcomere Secrets

Nice theory, but does it really work that way? To check it out, scientists at Monash University in Australia asked 16 laboratory rats to work out on treadmills over a five-day period. Eight of these rats participated only in "uphill" (inclined) running, while the other eight ran only "downhill" (declined running). Actual workouts consisted of five-minute work intervals with 1.5-minutes recoveries, starting with three work intervals on the fifth day. Running speed during the work intervals was a rather modest 16 meters per minute. After five days, the rats' quadriceps muscles were tested for strength and then biopsied.

A key finding was that the quadriceps muscle cells of the decline-trained rats contained almost 10-percent more sarcomeres per cell, compared to the quads of the inclined rodents. To understand what sarcomeres are, bear in mind that a muscle cell is a barrel-shaped structure, and each "barrel" is filled with several hundred to several thousand cyclindrical, threadlike structures called myofibrils. To picture this, simply imagine a pipe-shaped structure (the muscle cell) stuffed with countless numbers of small cylindrical wires (the myofibrils). Incidentally, when we say that a muscle cell is shaped like a pipe, we are referring to a section of cylindrical water pipe, not to a pipe used for smoking purposes.

The myofibrils themselves are composed of microscopic, cylindrical compartments laid end to end (picture tiny cyclinders or spools glued together at their ends to make one long cylinder). These compartments are called the sarcomeres, and within the sarcomeres are the proteins (filaments) which actually allow muscles to both shorten and elongate. As special filaments slide inward (toward the middles of the sarcomeres), the myofibrils and overall muscle cell shorten, but when the filaments slide outward, the muscle gets longer.

As mentioned, downhill running induced the muscle cells to add more sarcomere to their myofibrils. Why is this increase in number of sarcomeres beneficial, and how can it prevent muscle damage and soreness? Since muscle-cell length itself didn't change significantly as a result of the downhill running, the fact that there were more sarcomeres per muscle cell was elongating, each sarcomere in a downhill-trained muscle would have to elongate less, and thus each sarcomere would be less likely to sustain internal damage. Sarcomere Secrets

To learn more about how WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR RUNNING GOES DOWNHILL (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.14-6 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Manys runners loathe the idea of dropping mileage and replacing the "lost" miles with explosive strength training, but new research from Finland reveals that such a strategy can significantly improve maximal running speed and leg muscle power - workout any loss in maximal aerobic capacity. In the new investigation, experienced runners reduced weekly mileage by 20 percent and upgraded maximal running velocity by 3 percent. REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

What happens if you suddenly decided to chop 20 percent of your usual miles from your weekly log - and then replaced that lost mileage with explosive training which required a comparable amount of time? Many runners would suggest that such a move would deplete maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), because of the lower overall volume of endurance training which would be conducted. Furthermore, many coaches and runners would say that the change would produce a drop in fitness and race performances, because of the necessarily abridged maximal aerobic capacity. Given such thinking, it is not at all surprising that so few runners carve away at their mileage and substitute explosive work for their endurance-type training.

However, there have been various hints in the scientific literature that such substitutions could produce surprising benefits. Some research, for example, has shown that "anaerobic work capacity" (the kind of thing which is fostered by explosive training) can have an important impact on endurance performance (1). In addition, Tim Noakes' now classic paper revealed that "neuromuscular characteristics" {basically, the ability of muscles to produce high amounts of force very quickly) could predict endurance-performance capability more successful than good-old VO2max (2). Producing force quickly is a key adaptation associates with explosive training. Thus, these inquires suggest that the traditional thinking about mileage and high-power work might be wrong.

Fortunately, the question of what really happens when endurance work is replaced by explosive training intrigued by Jussi Mikkola, Heikki Rusko, and their colleagues at the Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland. Recently, Mikkola, Rusko, and their co-workers asked 13 well-trained young runners (nine males, four females) who were training about 8.8 hours per week to pare 1.7 hours from their weekly logs (leaving about 7.1 hours of endurance training) - and then to incorporate 1.7 hours of explosive training into their schedules each week for a period of eight weeks (thus maintaining the usual 8.8 total hours of effort). These runners were young (average age = 17.3 years) and fit (mean VO2max = 62.4 ml'kg-1 min-1). REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

The explosive training was carried out three times a week (which meant that each session lasted for about 34 minutes). The workouts consisted of high-speed sprint intervals ((5 to 10) X (30 to 150 meters)), jumping exercises with no additional resistance (alternate-leg jumps, and hurdle jumps), and "gym exercises" with fairly light resistance (half squats, knee extensions, knee flexions, calf raises, abdominal curls, and back extensions). For the gym exertions, two to three sets of six to 10 repetitions were utilized, and the underlying philosophy for all of the explosive movements was to use very high action velocities.

And, yes, this was a Heikki Rusko study, so there was a very nice control group - 12 individuals in all (nine men and three women) who were also young (17.3 years) and fit (VO2max = 61.8 ml'kg-1min-1). These controls pretty much stayed away from the explosive training during the eight-week period, instead focusing on 8.5 hours per week of endurnce training.

Muscle strength, jumping ability, and 30-meter running speed were measured in both the explosive and control groups at the beginning and end og the eight week period. And - since this was a Rusko study - all runners performed a maximal anaerobic running test, or MART (Rusko is one of the primary developers of the MART). A MART can be completed on a treadmill (3 & 4), but in this research the testing took place on an indoor track. Basically, a MART is a series of 150-meter runs, with 100-second recoveries between runs and a five meter flying start before each 150-meter effort. The velocities of the 150-meter runs are tightly controlled. In this research, the first was carried out at 39.4 meters per second (101.5 seconds per 400 meters) for females and 4.75 meters per second (84 seconds per 400 meters) for males. After that, the velocity was increased by .41 meters per second for each consecutive 150-meter effort. At the well equipped Rusko lab in Jyvaskyla, the runners were guided into running at the correct velocity by a "light rabbit" (a moving light which moved around the track at the required speed). In a MART, the last 150-meter run is completed at maximal effort, and ordinarily about nine to 10n 150-meter surges are completed per test. Fairly fast speeds are attained during the test. For example, a male runner who manages to perform 10 150-meter runs would complete the last effort at no less than 8.44 meters per second (47 seconds per 400 meters, if he could "hold on" that long).

Over the course of eight weeks, the explosive training paid major dividends. The maximal speed in the MART (the velocity attained for the last 150-meter sprint) increased by 3 percent in the explosively trained runners - but failed to budge at all in the regular, endurance-trained subjects. Furthermore, 30-meter speed (the top velocity achieved in a 30-meter sprint which was preceded by a 20-meter flying start) advanced by 1.1 percent for the explosive runners - but was stagnant for control individuals. REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES

To learn more about how REPLACING MILES WITH EXPLOSIVE MOVES (the full article can be read by purchasing VOL. 23-3 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to RUNNING RESEARCH NEWS is another way to receive valuable information about running.

DO TRIATHLETES HAVE FEWER INJURIES? WHICH TRIATHLETES GET HURT?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:00:00 -0600

In theory, triathletes should have fewer overuse injuries, compared to other endurance athletes. After all, "cross training" is believed to minimize the risk of injury (and is even prescribed for injured athletes as a way to recovery), and triathletes cross train routinely. A triathlete whose main strength is running, for example, could be described as cross training for two-thirds of all workouts (if running, swimming, and cycling workouts occur with equal frequencies). Indeed, initial reports indicate that overuse injuries may be lower for triathletes; one study found an annual overuse- injury frequency of 41 percent in a group of triathletes, compared with the usual 50 to 65 percent injury rates found in "pure" runners ("An Epidemiological Investigation of Training and Injury Patterns in British Triathletes, "British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol.28, pp. 191-196,). TRIATHLETES

However, other research has identified a 90 percent (!) injury rate in triathletes, well above the norm for endurance-sport participants ("Overuse Injuries in Ultraendurance Triathletes," American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 17, pp. 514-518). Indeed, some sports-medicine experts argue that triathletes are more prone to injury, since each of the three triathlon sports tends to trigger a particular type of malady.

Swimming, for example, is known to induce shoulder injuries, which are seldom seen in running. Biking is associated with a higher risk of low-back problems, which are usually not a problem in endurance swimmers. In addition, triathletes often carry out more total workouts per week, compared with " straight" swimmers, runners, or cyclists. From these perspectives, triathlon competition might be considered a "high-risk" sport.

So the question remains: Do triathletes get injured more or less often, compared with "specialist" endurance athletes? In addition, which triathletes are at the highest risk for injury? Do psychological state, physical build, age, and gender play a role in determining risk? How about the number of years of triathlon experience, the time spent competing, training pace, and even stretching?

To answer these questions, researchers at Staffordshire University in Stoke-on-Trent recently examined the five-year training programs of 12 elite triathletes from British National Squad, 17 national-development-team memebrs, and 87 male club triathletes ("Injury and Training Characteristics of Male Elite, Development Squad, and Club Triathletes," International Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 19, pp. 8-42). An injury was defined as any musculoskeletal problem causing cessation of training for at least one day, a reduction in training mileage, the taking of pain medicine, or the seeking of mediacl aid. Overuse injuries were recorded separately from traumatic injuries, such as those resulting from bicycle accidents. TRIATHLETES

As it turned out, injury prevalence did not differ significantly between the ability groups; 75 percent of elite, 75 percent of developmental, and 56 percent of club athletes suffered an overuse injury during the five-year period ( the downturn in injury rate in the club athletes was not statistically significant); total time taken off from training as a result of injury was also not different between groups.

In addition, there was no significant difference between the three groups in the proportions of athletes sustaing injury in particular parts of the body; for example, club athletes were no more likely to sustain Achilles-tendon injuries, compared with developmental and elite triathletes. The knee, Achilles tendon, and lower back tended to be the most-injured body areas for the athletes overall. Injury occurrence was not linked to age, height, weight, or body-mass index.

The Curse of Running

As you might expect, running injuries were responsible for most of the problems, accounting for from 58 to 64 percent of all injuries in the three groups; cycling was far back with 16 to 34 percent, and swimming produced very few difficulties. A key question then was: What factors increased the risk of running injury? The Staffordshire-University researchers were able to identify total weekly triathlon training distance (the sun of running, swimming, and biking mileage), weekly cycling distance (!), swimming distance per week, total number of workouts per week, cycling training pace, and number of weekly running workouts as key risk factors for running injury.

These findings might seem surprising at first. After all, why would an extra hour spent swimming or an extra 40K on the bike increase an athlete's risk of developing a running injury? The key, of course, is that while such efforts do not produce the kind of impact damage to muscles associated with running, they can - when carried out in large-enough volume - retard muscular recovery enough so that muscles respond less well to the stress of running and are thus more vulnerable to being injured as a result of run training. TRIATHLETES

Triathlon training is a true "balancing act;" workouts which ultimately improve cycling or swimming fitness can sometimes hurt running capacity or even increase the risk of sustaining a running injury by temporarily retarding muscular recovery. In such cases, it might be better to attempt to improve cycling or swimming fitness less avidly and thus maintain the ability to run strongly and without injury. When a triathlete plans a high-quality bike or swim workout, he/she needs to take into account not only the effect the session will have on bike/swim fitness but also the impact it will have on subsequent running efforts. If a killer bicycle exertion boosts cycling fitness a notch or two but prevents the completion og high-quality running workouts, what has actually been gained?

For many triathletes who want to improve overall performance - and who are training within limited time frames, the key may be to assess in which sport the greatest gain can be made, i.e., the sport in which the greatest improvement in overall race clocking can be attained. That sport will then be emphasized most heavily in training - and workouts in the other two activities which might hinder development in the "high-improvement" sport will be eschewed.

What about injury? Is the triathlon truly a high-risk sport? The 75-percent injury figures cited above seem high, but it's important to note that such a rate of overuse injury was observed over a five-year period; in comparsion, studies have found that 50 to 65 percent of endurance runners are injured during just one year of training. Thus, overuse-injury frequency often ranges from nine to 12 training sessions per week. Avoidance of a pattern of "hammering away" in a high impact sport such as running and an engagement with three different movement patterns (running, swimming, cycling) does indeed seem to be beneficial, from an injury-prevention standpoint. On the other hand, the three-movement plan probably does not give triathletes an advantage over pure swimmers and cyclists; since the latter do not include running in their training schemes, they are likely to have lower injury rates, compared with athletes.

Here is our final take-home point: Since triathlon injuries tend to revolve around the knee, lower back, and Achilles tendon, triathletes should spend extra time strengthening those parts of their bodies in functional ways, i.e., during movement patterns which mimic those occurring naturally in their sports. TRIATHLETES

To learn about Glucosamine and Chrondroitin Sulfate: Great Theraphy For Athletes' Joints?, Is The Use Of Variable Pace Better Than Keeping An Even Keel?, Or Rage Against The Machine: Re-Build Your Body Without Expense Exercise Equipment (the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu, or type in another topic of interest. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

What You Don't Know About Running Injuries Can Hurt You

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Don't get too bummed out if you've had a running-related injury during the past 12 months. After all, you're in the majority. Scientific studies show that about 60-65 percent of all runners are injured during an average year (By definition, an "injury" is a physical problem severe enough to force a reduction in training).

When compared to many other endurance sports, the risks associated with running are higher. For example, runners miss about 5-10 percent of their workouts due to injury, while racewalkers are absent just over 1 percent of the time, and step-aerobics participants go AWOL with a frequency of less than 1 percent ("Incidence and Severity of Injury Following Aerobic Training Programs Emphasizing Running, Racewalking, or Step Aerobics," Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 25(5), p. S81, 1993).

Still, running is far from being the most injury-producing sport. In recent study in the Netherlands, running ranked fourth-behind outdoor soccer, indoor soccer, and volleyball - in the total number of injuries produced per year, and whne injuries were expressed per hour of actual activity, running was well down the list - in 14th place (Sportblessures breed Uitgemeten, Haarlem, DeVrieseborch, 1990).

In addition, running's 65-percent-injury and 5-percent-absence rates could be significantly lower - if runners knew more about the actual causes of injuries and made a few simple adjustments in their training schedules. In fact, research suggests that running injuries could be cut by around 25 percent (Sport for All:Sport Injuries and their Prevention, Council of Europe, Netherlands Institute of Sports Health Care, Oosterbeek, 1989).

Lets identify where injuries are likely to occur. The five anatomical "hotspot" for running injuries are: (1) The knee (25-30 percent of all running injuries occur ther) (2) The calf and shin (20 percent of all injuries) (3) The ilio-tibial band - a long sheath of connective tissue which runs from the outside of the hip down to the lateral edge of the knee (10 percent) (4) The Achilles tendon (8-10 percent) (5) The foot - the focal point for hobbling injuries like plantar fasciitis (10 percent)

To learn how to minimize your injury risk (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.9 Issue 5) and many more running related topics. Simply enter What You Don't Know About Running Injuries Can Hurt You, in the "search archives" box, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information. SIGN-UP NOW

How Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Part one--Why Rank and File Runners Should do Resistance Training

The year I turned 20, I graduated from junior to senior grade as a distance runner in New Zealand.

Now I would be running the 3,000-meter steeplechase against seasoned steeplechasers who were faster and stronger than me and chewed us young steeplechasers up for breakfast. However, my running was maxed out--any more and I would have injured myself. So I asked, 'What could I do to get within range of these guys?'

A friend suggested I try weight training to make myself stronger. Maybe that would help? With nothing to lose I started lifting weights three times a week. I felt very strong during my races and my steeplechase time came down by 15 seconds. I even managed to get to the New Zealand Championships in the senior race. Since then there has been no doubt in my mind concerning the positive effects of strength training on distance running performance.

The majority of non-elite runners do not strength train to improve their running performance. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

Because of the time consumed by running, most runners cannot find the time or do not have the interest to lift weights, while many do not think it will help them race faster.
However, of all the sports endurance events, distance running has the most impressive research results to support weight training as a technique to improve your running. It is a given that elite runners these days lift weights as an integral part of their training regime. They will all tell you that strength training has made them faster.

The irony here is that research shows weight training has a greater improvement on unfit or less fit runners than elite runners in the parameters of anaerobic threshold, running economy, and neuromuscular characteristics. That�s right--if you�re a runner doing 20 to 50 miles per week, you stand to gain some marvelous improvements compared with elite runners.

A study done a few years ago found that trained runners improve their running economy from 4% to 8% with resistance training. Even small improvements in running economy can have a large impact on longer distance events such as the marathon or 10K races. A 4% improvement for a 41:39 10K runner would reduce this time by 100 seconds.

But what about the rank and file runner, with 10K times between 35 and 60 minutes? Can resistance training help this group bring their times down? Several studies have shown that recreational runners who lift weights improve their performance. One study found lactate threshold, or the point where you start accumulating significant amounts of lactic acid, to be increased after a period of resistance training in untrained individuals.

Many studies of elite runners have not found this benefit from resistance training--indirect proof that rank and file runners have more to gain from strength training than elite runners.
But the study I believe to be the most promising looked at novice cycling and running trained subjects who added strength training three days per week for ten weeks. The results were exciting. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

The participants improved leg strength by an average of 30%, but thigh girths were unchanged, meaning they did not add any muscle bulk--something that would slow distance runners down.

And although their oxygen processing abilities were unchanged (as you would expect to find in people doing weight training), their cycling and treadmill running times to exhaustion at 80% of VO2 max were lengthened from 71 minutes to a staggering 85 minutes. Even their short-term high-powered (maximal 4 to 8 minute effort) endurance cycling and running were lengthened by 11% and 13%. In addition, six of the eight runners in this study improved their 10K times from an average of 42:27 to 41:43.

Other research has found similar results. Thus it is clear, that weight training can help you run faster for longer with the same effort and oxygen consumption. Attending a sports medicine conference recently, I heard one speaker make a comment that rang true. The athletes who are winning these days are ones who can maintain high wattage for longer than their competitors, i.e., they sustain their power at a high percentage of their VO2 max--now acknowledged as a major contributor to success in endurance events.Strength Training Will ImproveYour Running

The question is, if you are a recreational runner spending two to three extra hours each week doing weight training, would you be better off spending this time running? Will weight training adversely affect your running? And will weight training make you tighter and less flexible? The answers are no, no, and no. In one study, coaches were surprised to find that substituting 32% of total endurance training in elite distance runners for strength training improved runners' 5K performance significantly.

Other research demonstrated that strength training does not reduce endurance performance in non-athletes.

Studies investigating the effects of weight training on flexibility found weightlifters possess average to above average flexibility in most joints.

So how, then, does strength training actually improve running performance? The theory goes something like this. Your running speed is dependent on the force applied to the ground during each foot strike and the time over which this force is applied. The faster and more powerful the foot strikes, the faster you will run. Thus, if you improve the power you exert during each of your steps, you will run faster. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

Resistance training improves the tensile strength of your leg muscles, and thus enhances the recoil or return of energy with each foot compression or step. Additionally, your neuromuscular system becomes better coordinated from resistance training, enabling you to run using less energy and less oxygen.

A typical comment heard from runners I have coached who have taken up weight training is "I'm able to finish 10K races with a longer, sustained drive, and strong finish." Others claim that strength training has helped them relax their arms during the early and middle stages of their races. Women in particular have a lot to gain because they tend to be 20% to 40% weaker than their male counterparts in the major body regions (legs and upper body strength).

Other major benefits that weight training are theorized to have for runners includes injury prevention, correction of muscular imbalances, increase in stride length, improvement in core stability, and increase in basic speed. Although there is not yet enough evidence for all coaches and exercise scientists to agree on, these aspects should not be completely ignored and today are accepted reasons why coaches ply their runners with strength training.

Here, for example, is how resistance training can help prevent injuries. Lifting weights may help correct imbalances and biomechanical deficiencies such as the ratio of strength between the quadriceps and hamstrings groups. (Hamstrings tend to overpower quadriceps in distance runners.)Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

When all the research is examined, it is safe to claim that weight training is likely to improve your running, while it has never been found to detract from your performance. Now that I have sold you on its benefits, here is some practical advice on what to do and how to do it.

Part Two--Weight Training Advice and Programming for the Runner

There are several different types of resistance training equipment available in your local fitness club--free weights, Universal systems, Nautilus, Cam Systems, etc. They use different types of resistance, e.g., air pressure, fluid resistance, friction, pulleys, gravity, etc. Which of these is best? It does not matter--as long as you are pushing or pulling against resistance and overloading the muscle, you will gain strength.

Ideally, a combination of modes is best, so try using a mix of free-weights and fixed machine equipment. Your workouts should only last about 45 minutes to an hour, including warm-up time and stretching.

How do we go about improving our strength? We must overload our muscles with a resistance that is slightly more than we are used to pushing or pulling. Resistance (or weight) should be increased every few workouts or weeks and not every workout.

General sequencing strategies include using multiple-joint exercises before single-joint exercises. Work your large muscle groups before small muscle groups. This way you will not pre- fatigue your small muscles, which would make it more difficult to work the larger ones later. Do heavy weight training exercises that require greater force before lighter exercises, for the same reason. Strength Training Will Improve Your Running

If you can manage three to four workouts with weights each week, I would recommend a split workout, where you alternate exercising the upper body with the legs and trunk. To achieve balance between muscle groups, alternate pushing exercises with pulling exercises on the opposite side of the body.

THE 10-MINUTE ALTERNATIVE TO STRETCHING

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

If your pre-workout stretching doesn't seem to be doing much for you, give the following 10-minute warm-up routine a try. Bear in mind that a good warm-up should do three things for you:

(1) Increase your heart rate, so that the initial stages of your training session don't over tax your ticker, (2) Prepare your muscles for strenuous activity, and (3) Wake up your nervous system - so that it's ready to control your muscles properly during vigorous workout. This protocol will do all three, and it only takes 10 minutes:

(2) Wake up your leg muscles (1 minute): Walk in a relaxed fashion, alternating light, relaxed steps with long, exaggerated strides. On each extended stride, vigorously swing the opposite arm forward.

(3) Wake up your heart and leg muscles (4 minutes): As you jog unbelievably slowly, notice any tight spots in your body and focus on unkinking the tension.

(4) Wake up your nervous system (1 minute): Skip - in place or in a forward direction - while trying to lift your knees as high as possible.

(5) Wake up your heart (2 minutes): Run at the basic pace you'll utilize in your workout for one minute, and then jog very easily for one minute.

(6) Give your nervous system a green light (2 minutes): Hop lightly on both feet for about 20 seconds, and then hop lightly on your right foot for 15 seconds and your left for 15 seconds. Walk easily for 10 seconds, and then jump continuously - as high as possible on both feet - for 15 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds, and then try "hot-stove" jumping, getting your feet barely off the ground on each jump and trying to make as many contacts with the ground (with both feet) as you can in 20-25 seconds. Walk for 10 seconds or so.

(7) Run!

A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. Best 2010

POST-WORKOUT CARBOHYDRATE ALONE DOESN'T LOWER MUSCLE SORENESS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Tough workouts promote heightened fitness, but they can also lead to so much muscle soreness that athletes are unable to train effectively during the days after a rigorous session. To promote more consistent training and to limit muscle damage, exercise scientists have searched for ways to prevent excessive post-work-out soreness.

One popular anti-soreness recommendation has been for athletes to ingest ample amounts of carbohydrate shortly after a strenuous training session. The idea is that the extra carbohydrate would quickly make its way into muscle cells, providing plenty of fuel to kick-start the repair process which takes place after a workout. The rapid repair would then block muscles from becoming overly inflamed.

Unfortunately, a new study carried out at California State University suggests that pot-workout carbos don't have much effect on muscle pain. In the California research, 20 males started muscle-soreness ball rolling by completing eight sets of 10 eccentric muscle contractions on bench press, arm curl, and single leg extension machines (Eccentric contractions, in which muscles are stretched while they are trying to shorten, are noted for inducing soreness. With weight machines, eccentric contractions generally take place as a weight is being lowered). During the four hours after the workout, subjects consumed either a placebo or a carbohydrate-containing sports drink which provided .4 grams of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight.

Muscle soreness increased appreciably both 24 and 48 hours after the eccentric workout, but there were no differences between the two groups; the carbohydrate-ingesters did NOT have less muscle pain. Likewise, blood levels of creatine kinase (a muscle enzyme used as a marker of muscle damage) were similar in the two groups.

Why didn't the post-workout carbohydrate limit muscle soreness? The subjects' muscle membranes may have been damaged by the strenuous weight-training sessions, so carbohydrate migt have had a rough time even making it across the membranes into the interiors of the muscle cells. However, it's also possible that carbohydrate alone can't cure muscle soreness; it would have been nice if the Cal State researchers had added a third group of athletes to their study - a group which consumed surplus carbohydrate AND protein. The protein might have knitted together damaged muscle areas, while the carbohydrate could have yielded the energy necessary for repair, downplaying overall soreness.

The Cal State study didn't measure "functional recovery" in the two groups, so it's possible that the carbohydrate group might have been stronger than the placebo group following the eccentric workout, even though soreness levels were similar. The Cal State researchers also used relatively untrained subjects; experienced strength trainers might have been able to use the supplemental carbohydrate more effectively.

It's also important to mention that the Cal State study doesn't mean that post-training carbohydrate is worthless. In fact, other investigations have shown that taking in carbohydrate after workouts speeds glycogen replacement and suitably prepares athletes for training on subsequent days, even if it doesn't dampen. 2010 Training

WHAT ARE MORE THAN 20 YEARS OF MARATHON EXPERIENCE WORTH TO YOU?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:00:00 -0600

NEW MOON OF A NEW YEAR

IS YOUR MARATHON TRAINING UP TO THE TEST?

TRAIN SMART In this advanced and intermediate marathon training programs, RRNews provides you with the most-accurate, most-current, scientifically validated training techniques. These strategies are totally unique and unparalleled; you won't find them anyplace else. Our clients pay as much as $3000 for private training consultations. As Nietzsche said, In the mountains of truth, you will never climb in vain; either you will get up higher today, or you will exercise your strength in order to go higher tomorrow. When climbing your "marathon mountains," you have to choose wisely.

To help you with your ascent, RRNews is now sharing with you everything we have learned about the marathon. RRNews is offering two, 26-week training programs which take runners to their very peaks of marathon fitness. These programs have everything - all of the special running workouts, strengthening sessions, nutritional strategies, and injury-preventing techniques you need to set a marathon PR. Ultimately, it's about your results, right? Each of the programs progresses, day by day, through 26 weeks of optimal training; all workouts are concise and easy to understand. Each phase of marathon training is covered (general strengthening, running-specific strengthening, hill work, and speed development), so that you will achieve your premier performance on marathon day. You won't ever obtain the best results if you train blindly, without an understanding of the scientific principles of marathon training.

Don't try to re-invent the wheel: It's too-much work, for too-little reward. Face it: If you try to prepare yourself to run your best-possible marathon all on your own or with a below-standard training program you have obtained somewhere else, there is no guarantee that you will ever see the results you deserve. TRAIN SMART What will happen when you combine your motivation and determination with a training system which is proven to bring in BIG PR RESULTS? You'll blow your running friends (and foes) away with your astonishing performance improvement, and - most importantly - your heart will soar as you cross the finish line in a time that you never thought could be attainable. TRAIN SMART

This is your PERSONAL INVITATION to sign up for a 26-week program and to be part of a Select Group which trains according to the recommendations of the world's-leading authority on sports training! We have analyzed the training techniques of many of the top marathon runners in the world (including athletes such as quadruple-world- record-holder Tegla Loroupe and Sammy Lelei) and has successfully coached marathon runners with a wide range of abilities. His programs contain everything you need to optimize your performances - even how to use sports drinks during your long runs and how to warm up on race morning. You'll love the training, and you will love the fact that you no longer have to worry about how to prepare yourself to run your best-possible marathon. The intermediate-level program is for marathoners who are currently able to run at least 25 miles per week and can progress to 40-plus weekly miles over the course of the program.

The advanced-level training is for runners who have the capability of running 40 miles per week and can move up to 60-plus weekly miles during the 26-week period. If you think that either of RRnew's schedules is "just another marathon program," think again! These programs uniquely satisfy all of the requirements for PR marathon performances, and they have already transformed the running of marathoners from all over the world. To obtain either program, simply TRAIN SMART to be taken directly to the marathon schedules in our store. Here you will be given an opportunity to purchase and download either (or both) of the 26-week packages. The price is just $297 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $197) for the intermediate program (about $7 per week) and $397 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $297) for the advanced schedule ($11 per week) - real bargains for more than six months of scientifically validated training which has been tested on runners with a wide range of abilities. TRAIN SMART

WHAT TO DO IF THE INJURY BUG BITES?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:00:00 -0600

Because our programs emphasizes running-specific strengthening, outstanding recovery, and moderate total mileage levels, your risk of injury is low. In case an Achilles tendon, a plantar fascia, a knee, or some other portion of your anatomy does begin to complain as your training proceeds, however, here are some tips to follow which will help you get over the injury and continue with your schedule: Training

(1) If you experience any pain at all while running, stop your workout immediately.

(2) Recover (with rest) until the symptoms are no longer present while running, and then continue with your schedule.

(3) If you need more than a day or two to recover from an injury, substitute bike workouts for the running sessions (provided the bike sessions do not aggravate the injured area). Use intensities and time durations on the bike which are similar to the ones associated with the scheduled running workouts.

(4) If you are experiencing significant tightness, please be certain to thoroughly stretch out the tight area after all of your workouts. Training

after all of your workouts. Training

DOES HEAVY-DUTY WEIGHTLIFTING LEAD TO OSTEOARTHRITIS IN THE HIP?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Critics of high-resistance weightlifting have contended that the activity increases the risk of osteoarthritis in the hips. Osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease which involves the breakdown of cartilage within joints, which eventually may cause bones to rub against each other. Osteoarthritis tends to strike the hands and weight-bearing joints of the body, including the hips, knees, feet, and back. Pain and loss of movement are common features of the disease.

In a new review paper, researchers at the University Hospital in Rotterdam weighted the evidence for and against the idea that heavy load-bearing enhances the risk of hip degeneration. Their conclusion? "Overall, moderate evidence was found for a positive association.....between previous heavy physical workload and the occurences of hip osteoarthritis." In fact, the Rotterdam investigators found that heavy work appeared to roughly triple the risk of hip osteoarthritis (The Journal of Rheumatology, Vol. 28, pp.2520-2528, 2001). The "heavy work" analyzed in the Rotterdam research included various types of on-the-job activity, including farm work lasting at least 10 years and working in an occupation which required the regular lifting of objects weighing 55 pounds or more. Such job-related exertion significantly increased the risk of hip osteoarthritis.

Before you jump to the conclusion that heavy lifting hurts the hips, however, bear in mind that the mechanism underlying the increased risk of hip osteoarthritis remains unclear. In fact, principal Dutch investigator Dr. Annet Lievense admits that one explanation for the linkage between high physical workloads and hip osteoarthritis "is that peoplewith highly physically demanding jobs may obtain treatment earlier and/or more often than people in less demanding occupations - not neccessarily because they have a higher incidence of osteoarthritis, but possibly because they are more handicapped by it when it occurs." As a result, "these people will be over-represented" in the arthritic group.

In other words, heavy lifters might not really have more osteoarthritis than individuals who are sedentary or who engage in light activities. it's just that pain - when experienced by the heavy hitters - might keep them from performing their jobs or other activities and thus cause them to seek out medical help. In fact, strenuous activity in the hard hitters might provoke pain more frequently, compared with sedentary folks, even though the overall condition of the hip joints might be roughly equivalent between the groups. Pain can stop a laborer from lifting boxes or an athlete from elevating a barbell, but it usually does not prevent a sedentary person from rolling over on a couch. Thus, the active person is more likely to seek out medical care and be counted as an osteoarthritis sufferer in a scientific study, compared with someone who pops ibuprofen and lies around waiting for the arthrithis pain to ebb.

To learn more about how Does Heavy-Duty Weightlifting Lead To Osteoarthritis In The Hips?, Why "Anaerobic" Factors Do Such A Great Job Of Predicting "Aerobic" Performances, And Can Perking up Proprioception Pare Your Probability Of Injury And Produce Peak Performance? (these full articles can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 10 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. Or simply search foryour favorite topics. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

PEAKING FOR YOUR BEST PERFORMANCE

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

In 1972 a 21-year-old runner from New Zealand, Rodney Dixon, narrowly squeaked onto the New Zealand team for the Munich Olympics by running just under four minutes for the mile. However Dixon was chronically over trained-he�d been running for 2-3 hours each day. One and a half hours of running through hills and farmland in the mornings, and speed sessions most afternoons. Stories of these training runs were legendary amongst the New Zealand runners. Peaking Performance

As if these odds weren�t bad enough, Dixon badly twisted his ankle as he jogged across a field about ten days before the heats of the Olympic 1500 meters. This put him out of action for over a week. This enforced rest gave Dixon a breather, allowing his body to recover from the months of hard running he�d put in. He was jogging by the end of the week, but not able to run fast.

Then PLO terrorists invaded the games village and took several Israeli athletes hostage and attempted to use them as hostages at an airport. Sadly, a rescue attempt went awry and all athletes and terrorists were killed. This held up the opening of the Games for another day to allow a memorial service be conducted for the Israeli athletes.

By this time Dixon was finally ready to run at full speed in his heat of the 1500 meters. As a complete unknown, he reached the final, placing third. There�s a great picture of an unbelieving Dixon, hands covering his face, in tears on the victory stand unable to comprehend that he is now an Olympic medallist. Peaking Performance

The rest is history--Dixon went on to become one of the most versatile and famous distance runners in the world, in the 1980�s, on the track, road, and cross-country, dominating the US road racing scene for several years, setting all sorts of records, even winning the New York Marathon.

What does this have to do with tapering and peaking for competition?

Dixon learned a vital lesson early in his running career--the importance of allowing the body to rest before competition. His sprained ankle forced him to lie up and recover from his overtraining, so he was in his best ever form by race time. He freely credits his injury and the extra days of rest as the reason for his bronze medal.

The majority of elite athletes in most endurance sports are chronically over trained at any given time. Smart athletes have learned by experience that a tapering period is critical for them to get their absolute best performance. Most coaches in any endurance sport agree their biggest problem with athletes is getting them to recover from hard training efforts, and complying with a tapering or peaking phase in their programs.

The famous Finnish distance runner Lasse Viren who won the 5000 and 10000 meters double at the 1976 and 1980 Olympics claims that it was a peaking technique taught to him by the late New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard that enabled him to win two Olympic Gold�s in two Olympic Games. Peaking Performance

Viren says, "The question is not why I run this way, but why so many others cannot". This was Viren�s way of saying that most elite distance runners lack the confidence to rest up for a week or so before major races.

Why is this tapering necessary? You might think that reducing your training significantly for a week or two before a competition would cause you to lose your hard-earned endurance. Not so, according to Dr. David Costill, former researcher and head of the renown exercise science department at Ball State University, Indiana. Long periods of intense training actually decrease an athlete�s performance capacity. Thus by reducing training duration and intensity a week or two before competition muscle tissue damage caused by intense training heals up, and the body�s energy reserves replenish. Proteins enter the muscle fibers and repair the micro tears in them.

Several studies find a marked increase in muscular strength with a tapering period, probably caused by a reduction in the shortening velocity of the fast twitch muscle fibers. Translated this means that the "power" muscle fibers contract quicker after rest.

Another research paper shows that runners and swimmers who reduce their training by about 60% for 15-21 days experience no losses in VO2 max (maximal oxygen uptake) or endurance performance. Furthermore, swimmers demonstrate increases in arm strength and power ranging from 17.7% to 24.6%, considered ideal for athletes about to compete in a major championship. Lactate levels are also lower after tapering at any given workload.

Research may be fine in a lab setting, but does this information have any practical benefits? Most interesting is that swimmers following this tapering program improved their times 3.5-3.7%. This equates to a 40-minute 10k runner decreasing his/her time to 38 minutes, 48 seconds-certainly worth the effort. Peaking Performance

Another research paper looked at the effects of tapering combined with carbohydrate loading (with a diet of about 60-70% carbohydrates) for four days before an endurance event. Glycogen stores in liver and muscle tissue almost doubled, resulting in significant improvements in marathon performances, up to 15 minutes.

Additionally, the peaking phase gives the athlete a mental rest from hard grinding workouts. Mental preparation and attitude are almost as important as physical training for maximum performance. The fresher the athlete is the more he/she can concentrate on race pace judgment, self-motivation, strategy planning, psychological arousal and relaxation.

What are the expert�s guidelines for tapering? It should be longer for longer events. A marathon taper could be 2-3 weeks, a 10k taper somewhere around 7-10 days, and a 1500 meter track race could be 4-7 days.

Aim to reduce your overall mileage to 30% to 50% of previous totals. It�s ok to maintain your usual running intensity (speed), although this too should be cut back a few days before the big race to 60% to 70% of maximal heart rate. The occasional faster than race pace burst is ok during a taper, as long as you have complete recovery. Obviously extended and highly anaerobic workouts and racing during the tapering phase are counterproductive.

Are there benefits to recreational joggers (who run around 20 miles per week) tapering before an event? Probably not--a further reduction in training for low mileage would lead to a decline in cardio respiratory fitness.

With these guidelines in mind, let�s look at what some of Seattle�s top runners do for their tapering in preparation for a marathon. Alyson Deckert, 41, is one of the area�s elite marathoners. She�s run three Olympic Marathon trials, and qualified for this year�s trials too. With a best time of 2:38:01, she has obviously been successful in tapering for a marathon or three. Peaking Performance

Her tapering begins three weeks out; she cuts back her mileage by about 25%, from a usual weekly average of 75 miles, to 60 miles. The second week out she cuts back further to 45-50 miles, still including one fast marathon pace tempo run. In her final week she logs 25-30 miles, with only 2-3 days running, and a couple of days off. She might do runs of 8, 10 and 8 miles in this week, but the last day of running is three days before the marathon. During the last week she�ll also load up on carbohydrates and make sure she is getting enough fluids such as Gatorade and fruit juice.

Greg Crowther, with a best marathon of 2:22:32 and many other times consistently near that, easily ranks in the Pugets Sound�s top five male marathoners. With a Ph.D in physiology, his research background to has guided him with his tapering program . He also starts three weeks out, cutting back to a lighter than normal mileage. His last long run is three weeks before race day--a 20-22 mile run with the first 6 miles at a comfortable pace, followed by 6-8 miles at his planned marathon race pace, then the final 2-4 miles as a cool down.

Two weeks out he�ll still do a speed work out, perhaps 2-3 one-mile repeats, thus maintaining some quality training, while continuing with some longer runs, (although still shorter than usual). His final week he�ll take a day off running, but still include a shorter interval track session such as 3 x 800 meters repeats, (or 600 meter repeats), plus 2.5-3 miles on the track at marathon pace on another day.

These higher intensity workouts are easy enough for him to recover from, yet keep his neuromuscular system in tune with his anticipated race pace. His short runs in the final week are easy 5 milers, with a short slow jog the day before the marathon.

Uhli Steidl, number one ranked marathoner in Washington State who placed 12th at last year�s Boston Marathon in 2:19:54, also does a three week taper. He�s had 30 marathons to perfect his peaking process, and has a best time of 2:13: 56.

He cuts his normal weekly mileage from 110-130 miles to 80-90 miles, three weeks out. Two weeks before a big marathon he�ll cut back further to 70 miles, then only run 40 miles the final week before the marathon. Four to five days before the marathon he�ll do a 3 miles at his anticipated marathon race pace or 10 x 400 meters at marathon race pace. Peaking Performance

All three of these elite marathoners follow the general guidelines outlined above. Other factors obviously contribute to the distance runner achieving his or her optimal performance in a marathon or shorter distances. These include such things as how many races the runner has had, leading up to the major event; the athlete should obviously not peak for every competition prior to the championship event; the importance of achieving a fine balance between good health and top level competition; controlling the nervous excitement leading up to the big competition; and adjusting to the time zone and environmental conditions if necessary.

One final aspect of tapering needs to be considered. The results of a well-planned tapering program are that the runner or triathlete will feel like the competition is almost effortless. This could result in a foolhardy early pace, and blow the results of the tapering. Starting at a realistic pace will ensure that the athlete does not find him or herself in an anaerobic state right from the start.

Thus, peaking is designed to achieve a superior biological state where the athlete tapers his/her training for a period of 7-21 days, depending on the distance. The goal is to achieve good health, complete physical readiness, and a strong psychological state for competition, all of which will lead to maximum performance. Peaking Performance

"FREE CHAPTER" GREAT WORKOUTS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

CHAPTER I
AN OVERALL VIEW OF TRAINING

The runners with the fastest 20-meter times would also be the individuals with the quickest clicking�s for 5K – and for the marathon! On the other hand, if you ranked the runners according to weekly average mileage, you would no relationship at all between training distance per week and performance time!

While this linkage is surprising to runners and coaches, the majority of whom think that the 20-meter sprint is an �anaerobic� event and that running events like the 10K and marathon are purely �aerobic� endeavors, the simple 20-meter test is very accurate. It has been verified in research carried out by Heikki Rusko, Leena Paavolainen, and Ari Nummela of the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland with 17 male endurance runners (1). In this Finnish research, the connection between 20-meter and 5000-meter race velocities was extremely strong, even though the average 20-meter speed of 8.15 meters per second was roughly 76-percent faster than 5-K alacrity. As it turned out, 20-meter time was a better predictor of 5-K speed than that vaunted �aerobic� variable, VO2max, and 20-meter burning was almost as good as another big-name physiological characteristic – running economy. GREAT WORKOUTS

To understand this completely, let�s take a close look at the Nebraska-Omaha study carried out by Sinnett, Berg, et al. In this fascinating work, the researchers examined 36 experienced runners (20 men and 16 women) whose 10-K times varied from 32:36 to 56:24. The age of these runners ranged from 19 to 35 years, and 27 of the athletes were preparing for a marathon as the research was conducted. The 36 subjects were running about 30 miles per week and had trained five times weekly for at least six months before the study started. Nineteen of the 36 subjects engaged in some form of strength training, and 27 had completed a marathon at some point in their running careers.

They were not beginners! Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint. In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the �phosphagen system� within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other �fuels� for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place). GREAT WORKOUTS

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true �anaerobic� test. The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the �glycolytic energy system,� an oxygen independent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

For the jump with counter-movement, the athletes started in a standing position next to the Vertec device, quickly descended into a semi-crouched, flexed-knee position, and then – without the slightest hesitation – jumped straight up with maximum power and attempted to touch the highest-possible point on the Vertec instrument. For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up. In the counter-movement jumps, the �snap-back� of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost.

For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work �from a standing start.� As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i.e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties. GREAT WORKOUTS

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, and since the enhanced elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, �You run as though you have springs for legs.� Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner�s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

The final test of �anaerobic� prowess – the plyometric leap test – was initiated from a standing position, from which the athletes performed three consecutive forward leaps by springing from one foot to the other; for the third and last leap, the athletes landed on both feet. In effect, the plyometric leap test was just like the triple jump performed in track and field, except that the leap exam was carried out from a standing rather than a running start.
Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat. The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance.

Just by itself, plyometric leap distance explained a whopping 74 percent of the variation in 10-Krace times for the entire group of 36 runners. Together with 300-meter sprint performance, plyometric leap distance accounted for an incredible 78 percent of the variance! To summarize, one �anaerobic� attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. �Aerobic� variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in performance). Two �anaerobic� attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

If you are somewhat shocked about the ability of �anaerobic� factors such as plyometric leaping distance, counter-movement jump height, 300-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, and 20-meter clocking to predict distance running performances, you shouldn�t be. For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such
enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

Greater force will translate to longer strides, and quicker force production will mean faster strides; the combination taken together can lead to major improvements in running velocity – and the ability to run faster in your chosen competitive distance. There are other fundamental reasons for this linkage between �anaerobic� and �aerobic� factors, which I will explain in a moment, and several other research studies also connect such apparent �opposites.� For example, in Heikki Rusko�s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints. During Rusko�s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

This pattern (20 seconds of fast running alternating with 100 seconds of recovering) continued for as long as possible, with each successive 20-second jaunt taking place at a speed which was .35 meters per second faster than the previous work interval. The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were �in harness,� with their special, light-weight, leather �straightjackets� connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased
producing adequate power).

The average speed at the collapse point was 6.57 meters per second (4:05 per mile), so you can see that the Finnish harriers did quite well on the four-degree treadmill grade. Naturally, the speed attained wasn�t as great as during the 20-meter races (wherein 8.15 meters per second turned out to be the average velocity), since the 20-meter pacing occurred on flat ground with �fresh legs� and the VMART test took place in the face of considerable built-up fatigue (the 20-meter sprints were helped along, too, by their short duration of approximately 2.5 seconds, while VMART had to be sustained for 20 seconds).
As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race! GREAT WORKOUTS

The question you have to be asking right now (especially if you are a 5-K runner) is: How can I optimize my VMART? That is the right question to ask, especially since it is certain that the optimization of VMART will improve your performances significantly, even if you are an 800-meter runner – and even if you are a 100-K competitor. Rusko�s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now. Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

The findings of Rusko and Berg are supported by those of the great South-African researcher Tim Noakes, who may have gotten this whole �paradigm shift� rolling with an elegant study published in 1988 (3). In Noakes� investigation, endurance performance was well predicted by the top speeds which athletes could attain on a treadmill; those runners with the highest peak running speeds also had the best endurance race times in their portfolios. As was the case with Rusko�s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy. As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in well trained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (�anaerobic�) running (5).

In yet another study, famed exercise physiologist Dave Costill and his associate Joe Houmard took a close look at the physiological qualifications of 10 runners who trained about 50 miles per week and averaged a not-too shabby 16:43 for the 5K (6). Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE). You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max). GREAT WORKOUTS

In Costill�s 5-K runners, anaerobic power was measured during short sprints and vertical jumps. TTE was calculated in this way: A stopwatch started as an athlete began running on a flat treadmill at an intensity of 85 percent of VO2max (which normally translates into around 90-92 percent of max heart rate). The treadmill grade was then increased by 3 percent every two minutes, and the clock stopped when the runner could no longer continue at the appropriate pace. TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner�s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly
anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

The fundamental mechanisms underlying the connection between outstanding anaerobic capacities and exceptional endurance performances are not really difficult to grasp. As we have already mentioned, the factors which promote very high sprint speeds (more force applied to the ground, force applied more quickly) will also foster considerably faster distance running. In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

To put it another way, if endurance-runner A has a peak running velocity of 8 meters per second, and endurance-runner B has a max of just 6.8 meters per second, runner A has a much better chance of running a 5K in 15 minutes flat (i. e., at 5.56 meters per second). For runner A, 15-flat pace would be just 70 percent of maximal speed; for B, it would be way up there at 82 percent of max. There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely �put in the bank:� The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

To put some more numbers on this kind of thinking, if you have a max speed of 8.15 meters per second, a 5-K alacrity of 4.63 meters per second (for an 18-minute 5-K finishing time) would be only 57 percent of your running-speed max, whereas if you�re a poor soul with a maximum of just 7 meters per second, you would have to settle in at 66 percent of your max during an 18-minute 5K, and the pace would feel (to your mind, muscles, and lungs) quite a bit tougher. Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Other so-called �anaerobic� attributes besides peak speed should also have a strong impact on your middle and long-distance performances. Think about Rusko�s VMART tests, for example: You�ll recall that the VMART exam consisted of 20-second work intervals and 100-second recoveries. GREAT WORKOUTS

The work intervals were carried out on a treadmill with a four-degree grade, and the speed of the work intervals progressed from 7:13 per mile to 6:36 per mile to 6:05, 5:38, 5:15, 4:55, 4:37, 4:21, 4:05, and – for some of the athletes – even to 3:55 and 3:43. This means that the top-dog VMART runners would have to be superb not only at running fast but also at minimizing leg-muscle fatigue during high-intensity effort. The fatigue minimization would be a function of good �buffering� within muscles (i. e., the ability to deal with increases in muscle acidity associated with very fast running) and an excellent lactate clearance capacity. These attributes would give athletes high anaerobic capacities and also great success during fast-paced middle- and long-distance competitions. Although it may be difficult for some athletes and coaches to accept, better buffering within muscles is not fostered by long running (since little buffering is required during prolonged efforts).

Similarly, an outstanding lactate clearance capacity is not developed through high-volume work (since there is little lactate to clear when training speeds are mainly sub-maximal). Ultimately, the optimization of VMART hinges on whether a program of high quality training is utilized.

Noakes himself did some theorizing on this important matter. Based on his laboratory investigations (in which he uncovered the great importance of peak running velocity in determining distance performance ability), Noakes believed that something called �muscle contractility� was very important for running success. To him, muscle contractility was a measure of the quickness and forcefulness of muscle contractions; it was not an indicator of muscular endurance, at least when monitored at medium to slow speeds. As he pointed out, individuals with excellent muscle contractility can achieve very high workloads during their training sessions. Such training can position an athlete to carry out more work at a high fraction of max running velocity, which of course would be one of the best ways to optimize that critical performance variable.

Note, too, that exceptional contractility would also expand plyometric leaping distance, the variable which Sinnett, Berg, et al. found to be so predictive of 10-K performance (2).
Taking a slightly different approach, Heikki Rusko argued that �neuromuscular characteristics� were a key component of racing success. By this, he meant that runners whose muscles were capable of explosive, coordinated contractions (as evidenced by high VMART speeds and excellent 20-meter times) would have a definite edge in competitions. Heikki supported these contentions by showing that running velocity was inversely related to foot-strike time, both in the 20-meter dash and the 5K itself. GREAT WORKOUTS

In both events, if you could �sort� a large group of runners by their foot-strike times, with the fastest foot strikers on one end and the slowest on the other, you would also have done a nice job of assembling the runners according to their race speeds (for both 20 and 5000 meters). The best 5-K runners were not the ones with the best maximal aerobic capacities and running economies; in fact, those variables had fairly weak predictive power.

The top-of-the-class runners were the ones with powerful neuromuscular characteristics, as evidenced by their explosive foot strikes. Let�s take a moment to put some numbers on this, too. A reduction in foot-strike time of just 1/300 of a second could reduce 5-K time by 10 seconds for a 16-minute 5-K runner (provided the abbreviation in foot-strike time did not lead to a loss of stride length). In addition, trimming contact time by only 1/100 of a second could lead to a 30-second 5-K improvement. Interestingly, the difference in average contact time between the fastest and slowest 5-K runners in Rusko�s study was about 27 milliseconds (2.7 hundredths of a second), and this difference was associated with a 54-second difference in 5-K finishing time.

Rusko was also able to show that stride rate was directly related to 5-K speed; the higher the stride rate, the quicker the 5-K finish time. Since stride lengths were comparable among the 5-K runners, it was the decrease in foot-strike time which increased stride rate. Since it occurred without a drop in stride length, the more-abridged (i. e., more-explosive) foot-strike pattern allowed runners to eat up more real estate during each minute of running. As a runner, you should be aware that the so-called �anaerobic� characteristics which have a strong impact on middle- and long-distance running performance – plyometric leap distance, 20-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, 300-meter sprint clocking, foot-strike time, stride rate, muscle contractility, neuromuscular characteristics, VMART, muscle buffering capacity, and max running speed – are all very trainable.

Just running miles won�t optimize these variables, however; to improve your power characteristics, you will need to utilize a training program which emphasizes high-intensity workouts like the ones described in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The conventional methods of training for middle and long-distance races are dead. Although many runners and coaches are blissfully unaware of the situation, the worlds of middle- and long-distance running are currently going through a major paradigm shift, in which the emphasis is changing from the pursuits of mileage, �strength,� and higher aerobic capacity to the quest for greater power and the ability to sustain high power outputs for lengthier periods of time. It�s no longer enough to run miles and to worry only about your aerobic development, with a little �speed frosting� added on top of the program shortly before a major competition. In fact, it never was enough; we simply did not have enough scientific information to demonstrate that it was wrong to think that high-power, �anaerobic� traits could not help and might even hurt distance-running performances. Once we began to learn that anaerobic characteristics are helpful to distance runners, we began to see that the paradox of anaerobic traits improving aerobic performances is not really a paradox at all. Power factors (such as plyometric leaping ability, 50-meter sprint time, muscle contractility, etc.) which make sprinters faster also make middle- and long-distance runners faster.

The really good news is that power factors can be improved by even the most plodding of runners. The great news is also that such improvement is not a risky business, even if you are a relatively inexperienced runner. If you train to improve your power in a progressive and reasonable way, the process is not injury-producing; it is actually injury preventing (because your muscles and connective tissues develop an improved capacity to withstand large forces). If you are training correctly, your power and endurance characteristics will come together to produce your best-possible race times, from 800 meters all the way up to an ultra-marathon. Your overall goal, in fact, is to optimize your power while simultaneously maximizing those key physiological factors mentioned in the Introduction (vVO2max, lactate threshold, and economy) – the physiological factors which will allow you to sustain high power out puts in your preferred races. This book is filled with workouts which will help you optimize both your power and stamina, as well as your ability to handle the specific demands of your preferred race distances. GREAT WORKOUTS

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

For these tests, each athlete�s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

These a

VITAMINS C AND E SEEM TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR ENDURANCE ATHLETES' AIRWAYS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:00:00 -0600

Relatively low levels of ozone (<120micrograms/m3) can affect lung function in endurance athletes, making it more difficult to bring large volumes of air into thelungs (Respiratory Effects of Low-Level Photochemical Air Pollution in Amateur Cyclists," American Journal od Resp. Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 150, pp.962-996, 1994). As a result, exercise scientist have searched for years to find ways to minimize ozone-related respiratory problems in athletes. Vitamins C And E

Ozone, also known as O3, is actually an unstable form of oxygen. If you have been even mildly interested in atmospheric science and air pollution over the past few years, you are well aware that there is "good ozone" and also "bad ozone" in the earth's atmosphere. The "good ozone" occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, approximately 10 kilometers above the earth. There, it forms a protective layer which helps to shield the earth from the harmful rays of the sun.

At ground level, however, the very same gas becomes "bad ozone." Ground-level ozone can harm human lung tissue, crops, and manufactured materials. The ground-level O3 is formed when nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases (hydrocarbons) react chemically in the presence of sunlight. Nitrogen oxides, of course, are produced by fuel-burning engines; reactive organic gases are released by motor vehicles, solvents, a variety of different consumer products, and petroleum-processing plants.

Ground-level ozone tend to induce bronchoconstriction (narrowing of the airways), which decreases air flow into the lungs and potenially limits oxygen delivery to the blood. Even though endurance athletes have well-trained respiratory systems, they are quite prome toozone-induced problems. That's because athletes can maintain very high ventilation rates for prolonged periods of time - and thus drag more ozone into their lungs, compared to "couch potatoes". In addition, the "mouth breathing" (instead of routine nasal breathing) associated with heavy exercise takes away one of the body's key lines of defense against ozone - the trapping of ozone molecules in the nasal membranes, which prevents the irritating gas from reaching the lower air passages. If you live in or near an urban area, it's likely that ozone is having at least some impact on your respiratory function when you train and race. Vitamins C And E

What can you do to protect yourself from ozone's effects? Theorizing that antioxidants might help control ozone-related damage to the airways, researchers in Mexico City recently gave "antioxidant cocktails" to street workers exposed to fairly high levels of ozone. These cocktails contained vitamin C, vitamin E, and beta-carotene, and they did indeed have a protective effect on lung function in the workers (:Antioxidant Supplementation and Respiratory Function among Workers Exposed to High Levels of Ozone," American Journal of Respiratory Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 158, pp. 226-232, 1998).

Dutch Cyclist, Ozone, and Vitamins C and E

These workers were not exercising hevily, however. Would a similar cocktail have a beneficial effect in endurance athletes - even at lower ambient levels of ozone? To find out, researchers at Wageningen Agricultural University and the Netherlands Institute of Health Sciences in the Netherlands recently divided 38 Dutch cyclists (35 males and three females) into two groups: Members of one group received a daily dose of 500mg of vitamin C and 100 mg of vitamin E, while cyclists in the second group ingested only a placebo. The study was carried out in a "double-blind" manner (neither researchers nor athletes initially knew who was actually getting the potentially protective vitamins).

During the study, the cyclists worked out and competed in their usual manner. Average workout duration was 104 minutes, and mean workout heart rate was 141 beats per minute, but race pulse rates ascended to an average of 173 bpm. The athletes' lung functions were checked after workouts and races ( a total of 380 different tests were performed). Ozone concentrations were moderate; average ozone level was 77 micrograms/m3, and he range ws 14-186 micrograms/m3; this corresponds roughly with an average of .055 ppm and a range going up around .12 ppm ("Double- Blind Intervention Trial on Modulation of Ozone Effects on Pulmonary Function by Antioxidant Supplements," American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 149, pp. 306-314, 1999).

Blood levels of vitamin E shot up about 48 percent in the supplement group, and plasma vitamin C rose by 4 percent; concentrations of two vitamins were essentially unchanged in placebo cyclists. When the researchers looked at average ozone levels during the eight hours before testing, they unearthed an interesting fact: As ozone levels increased, the amount of air the athletes could force out of their lungs in one second and the quantity of air they could exchange with the enviroment decreased in the placebo group - but were unchanged in the vitamin-ingesting cyclists. In other words, the vitamins seemed to protect cyclists from losses in respiratory function associated with ozone exposure. Vitamins C And E

For example, when ozone levels increased by about 100 micrograms/m3, the placebo riders could force 95 ml less air out of their lungs during a forced exhalation, while the drop-off for the supplementers was only 1 ml. C and E seemed to be reducing the extent of bronchoconstriction.

It's unclear what effects these differences would have on performance times, but it's clear that the C and E supplementation helped keep the athletes' airways more open and should have made intense exercise feel more comfortable. In a separate study, subjects took daily vitamin C (250mg), vitamin E (100mg), and a vegetable-based cocktail for two weeks, after which they were exposed to ozone levels of 800 micrograms/m3 (.4ppm) during two hours of exercise. During this period of exercise and ozone exposure, decrements in lung functioning were modest in the supplementers, compared to individuals who took in only a placebo ("The Role of Dietary Antioxidants in Ozone-Induced Lung Injury in Normal Human Subjects, " American Journal of Respir. Crit. Care Medicine, vol. 157 (supplement): A195, 1998).

But, do you really need to worry about ozone's effects on your lungs? After all, isn't it true that air quality is getting better?

Well, ground-level ozone levels are dropping. For example, last year ozone levels in the Los Angeles area exceeded California state standards on "only" 114 days. While that might seem like a lot, it was down from an average of 242 over the limit days 20 years ago.

Health advisories - when ozone soars above .15ppm and everyone is advised to avoid vigorous outdoor exercise - were in effect on "just" 43 days in Los Angeles 1998, down from 184 outrageous days in 1977, and there were "only" 12 "stage-1 Episodes", when ozone levels rocket above .20 ppm and people start getting really sick.

In other words, the air is getting cleaner, but in major urban areas like Los Angeles it still contains enough ozone to produce problems. Even the Dutch countryside, which is not notorious for its severe air pollution, contained air with enough ozone to interfere with respiratory function in the Dutch cyclists described above. Unless you live in a pristine wilderness, taking vitamin C and E to protect your lungs seems to be a fairly reasonable thing to do. It won't neccessarily help you attain a new PR, but it should have at least some positive influence on airway function. Vitamins C And E

In addition to taking Vitamins C and E, what else might you do to protect your lungs from ozone? Here are some tips:

Train during time periods when ozone levels tend to be lower - early in the morning or late in the evening.
Don't train during time periods when ozone levels exceed .12 ppm.
If your newspaper doesn't publish daily ozone levels pay attention to its "Pollutant Standards Index." If this index is below 100, then ozone levels are usually not too damaging.
If you're going to be racing in a city with ozone problems, try to get there a few days ahead of time so that your respiratory system can adapt to the foul air. While that may seem crazily stressful to your body, it's important to remember that your respiratory system can adapt to ozone exposure, lessening (although not elimanating) the negative reaction to the gas. In other words, the first time you plunk yourself down in an ozone soup, you might have a severe exercise-limiting reaction, whereas a couple of days in the broth will make your airways less reactive and get you breathing - and running - like one of the natives.

To learn more about Vitamin C and E, along with other informative topics. Like:

Things were so easy, until VVO2MAX and then TLIMVVO2MAX had to come along
3 X 1600: A fine workout - and a great way to predict your 5K time
RONALDO DA COSTA'S Unique marathon training
ANDRO is linked with a higher risk of cancer
Is there an increased risk of arthritis in runners' knees?
What caused a stress fracture in the sacrum?
Getting tired too early in races

(the full articles can be read by purchasing Vol.15 Issue 2 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. SUBSCRIBE NOW!

Running With Style�Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

There�s little that coaches and exercise scientists haven�t examined in their never-ending quest to improve human performance. Two such hot and controversial topics, which have received a lot of attention over the past decade, are running technique/efficiency and running economy.

Coaches have had runners perform seemingly endless drills for many years in an effort to improve technique without any good reason as to why runners should perform these drills. It�s been more a matter of intuitive reasoning coupled with trial and error experimentation, i.e., �it seems like it should improve their running style and make them run faster�.

Contrary to this intuitive reasoning, Krahenbuhl et al. (1997) found that emphasizing �proper� running technique (arm movements and body alignment) did little to enhance running economy in short-term training programs. But behind the scenes, in the biomechanists and exercise physiology labs, scientists have been quietly going about their business and have now amassed a large volume of research to point runners in the right direction for maximizing their running technique and economy.

What is Running Efficiency?

Current research indicates two ways to improve our running�through technique modification or by adding additional training of some type. The first, technique modification, is called running efficiency. A runner with good mechanical efficiency exerts greater force and power for the same amount of energy than a runner with poorer efficiency. Efficiency is all about examining the biomechanical structure of the running body and its relationship to how it functions.

By understanding how the structural units of the body (such as muscles, bones, tendons) work when we run, biomechanics can determine better ways to improve performance. For example, breaking down the sequence of the running action into sub-components and then working on these individual movement sequences help runners move more efficiently. Some major aspects of running efficiency currently being examined are running technique and style, stride frequency and cadence, stride length, and breathing rate.

What is Running Economy?

The second way to improve our running movement is through better running economy, which like efficiency is the sum of the influences of many variables. Exercise scientists look closely at everything from the oxygen cost of running and pulmonary ventilation, to muscle fiber typing and how strength and flexibility affect running economy�the results of which will surprise you. A runner with good movement economy consumes less oxygen at a given running speed. For example, given two runners with identical VO2 max figures, the runner who can race at a faster pace (exerting greater force) while processing the same amount of oxygen will ultimately win.

The fact is, running economy and efficiency are closely related. A runner�s biomechanics and efficiency are one of the chief determinants of running economy. It�s highly likely that a runner with a smooth, efficient running technique will have excellent running economy, especially at the elite level. For example, there are very few ugly ducklings in Olympic distance finals these days.

One only has to watch Ethiopian Kenenisa Bekele flowing effortlessly, yet powerfully, around the track, averaging 61-second laps for 10,000-meters, to see a superb combination of running efficiency and economy. The big difference between running efficiency and running economy is that an efficient running technique boils down to higher mechanical power output per unit of energy, while economy is measured by oxygen consumption for movement velocity at a given speed�quite simple really!

The first part of this two part series considers all things biomechanical. In other words, running efficiency and how to improve running efficiency. Part two (Jan/Feb 2009 issue) explores running economy and techniques to improve running economy.

Advantages of Improving Running Efficiency

What then are the benefits of improving the mechanics in running technique, and thus our running efficiency? A runner with good biomechanical efficiency will run farther and faster per unit energy expended than someone with poor efficiency. Or another way of saying it is, � will use less energy to do the same work (driving across the ground) than a less efficient runner. Thus the efficient runner goes faster or maintains a high cruising speed for longer.

The question remains, can we improve our running technique? Here�s what some running coaches say about this often-debated topic:

Brown and Graham (1983), in their book Target 26, claim that �� as a general rule, reasonably smooth and efficient running form evolves after many months and miles on the roads. Because each of us is structurally different, you would expect variation in individual styles. ... you are probably better off not changing your style�.

Daws (1985), in his book Running Your Best, says running technique �� is an individual matter. Over the course of years of running it becomes natural, or well established. Changing it disturbs the runner�s balance�. However, Daws concedes it may be necessary to change idiosyncrasies of running style if the current style actually inhibits performance.

Glover and Florence Glover (1999), in their book The Competitive Runners Handbook, claim that technique is the most ignored ingredient in successful racing. However they mention, �� some runners have form quirks that apparently offset musculoskeletal asymmetries naturally, and shouldn�t be changed�.

Galloway (1986), in Galloway�s Book on Running, believes � � there is no single prescription for efficient running, for we are all put together differently. Never force a particular running style on yourself that doesn�t feel right�.

The generally consensus among these coaches is that one should not tinker with one�s running style unless it is inefficient. Most coaches know the frustration of working on a runner�s form to the point where it looks pretty good, only to have the runner revert back to his old ungainly style when fatigued from hard training, or in the middle of a race.

Running Efficiency�Changing Running Technique

Is it possible to change a runner�s style to improve efficiency? For every study that finds no improvement in running performance with attempts to improve technique (see Box 1), there are other studies, such as Cureton et al. 1997 and Joyner 1993 demonstrating that training adjustments to improve the efficiency of children�s and adult�s activities can happen and does improve exercise performance.

Running technique just happens to be a difficult proposition to change because, in many cases, the apparent inefficient movements that some runners exhibit may actually be counterbalancing a structural deficiency elsewhere in the body. However, improving running technique can be done! A recent study by Fletcher et al. (2008) on the Pose ® technique created quite a stir among biomechanists and coaches.

With the Pose ® technique, the runner balances his/her body weight vertically by aligning the shoulder, hip and ankle over the support leg with the foot strike impacting on the ball of the foot, instead of the standard heel-toe movement. Although the Pose ® technique runners improved their post-test 2,400-meter time by an average of 24.7 seconds, compared to a meager 3 second decrease in a heel-toe strike group of runners, the Pose ® runner�s improvement was not statistically significant. Despite this, I know plenty of runners who�d give anything to improve their 3K running time by 25 seconds! Nevertheless, runners should be cautious about making wholesale changes in running technique.

Box 1. Studies concluding little or no improvement in performance from modifying running style

Krahenbuhl (1983) stated that proper technique does not enhance performance, there are other studies

A study at Wake Forest University found that 5 weeks of modifying running style resulted in no change in running economy.

A cooperative study (Tseh et al. 2008) between University of North Carolina and Middle Tennessee State University found that specific gait manipulation produce marked decrements in running economy among trained female distance runners.

There also maybe a correlation between running efficiency and speed. Costill (1986) mentions in his book that the faster the running pace, the less efficient the runner�s movement. Film analyses has revealed that middle distance and sprint runners, at running speeds of 7-12 mph, have significantly higher vertical oscillation movement when compared to marathoners. Exaggerated up and down bouncing vertical movement is unfavorable to the economy of the long distance runner because our energy is best transferred into horizontal movement instead of upward movement.

Increasing Running Efficiency through Stride Length and Stride Frequency

Biomechanists will tell you that there are three ways one can increase running speed:

Ø increase the number of steps per minute (stride frequency or turnover)

Ø increase the distance of each stride

Ø increase both simultaneously

Research on these topics started in 1944 when a Danish study (Hogberg 1952) looked at the stride patterns of their 5K and 10K champion. When running speed increased from 9.3 km/hour (5.8 mph) to 17.8 km/hour (11 mph), stride frequency increased only by about 10% but stride length increased a whopping 83%. Once the runner exceeded 23 km/hour (14.3 mph) however, speed increased due to increased stride frequency, also known as leg turnover. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

The take home message is distance runners are better off concentrating on increasing stride length, and sprinters are better off increasing both leg turnover and stride length. As a general rule, increased stride length should increase distance-running speed.

Only at faster speeds, such as the final sprint at the end of a race, does stride frequency become a factor (see Box 2 for increasing stride frequency). Thus a prudent distance coach will give his athletes drills aimed at lengthening stride, but still throw in the occasional fast leg turnover drill to ensure they are not left behind in the home straight.

Box 2. How can we increase stride frequency?

You can tinker with your stride rate by counting how many footfalls you make in one minute. If your rate is less than 180, you may benefit by increasing the cadence.

How much should we increase our stride length?

Each runner will have an optimum combination of stride length and stride frequency, and it depends on the individual�s mechanics. But avoid over-striding, because the foot lands in front of the body�s center of gravity creating a braking motion.

Too short a stride and we consume too much oxygen because we�re inefficient at that pace. McArdle et al. (2007), in their textbook Exercise Physiology, suggested that, �� well-trained runners should run at the stride length they have selected through years of running�. They claim that, �� biomechanical analysis may help the athlete correct minor irregularities in movement patterns while running. For the competitive runner, any minor improvement in movement economy generally improves performance�. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

The important thing to remember is that each runner establishes her/his best cruising speed and stride length where oxygen consumption is the lowest. This is best measured on a treadmill with a metabolic cart analyzing oxygen consumption at varying paces. Another interesting technique to modify stride length was used by Morgan et al. (1994).

They used the intervention of a short-term audiovisual feedback program focusing on optimizing stride length for runners with uneconomical stride length patterns, and found that runners benefited from this feedback. However neither of these techniques are practical for most of us. So we can do the next best thing, run at varying speeds on a flat 400-meter track and note the pace where you subjectively seem to cruise at a nice fast steady state.

We tend to self-select an optimum pace and stride length for ourselves. Then, for example, we can train to increase the optimal pace through interval sessions.

While we�re discussing stride length, an interesting but related tangent is a study by Esteve-Lanao et al. (2008) who examined the loss of stride length with fatigue. They found that periodized strength training (see Running Research News volume 24 issue 6, August 2008) reduced the loss of stride length during endurance running�a decided advantage for marathoners who try to maintain their form towards the end of the 26.2-mile event. Loss of form can add minutes to a runner�s time. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

Here are some figures on stride length at various speeds.

Running Speed

Stride Frequency

Stride Length

8:03

180/minute

1.1 meters

6:26/mile

180/minute

1.4 meters

4:50/mile

180-200/minute

1.85 meters

Box 3. Interesting factoids related to running efficiency and force

What is the role of muscle and tendon length? Scholz et al. (2008), from the University of Amsterdam, looked at variation in the storage and reutilization of elastic energy in Achilles tendons. They found that there is an advantage to having shorter legs, there is more force generated through a shorter lever.

What is the role of muscle stiffness? A study (Arampatzis et al. 2006), at the German Sport University of Cologne, found that runners with the best economy had higher contractile strength and higher tendon stiffness, thus increasing the force potential of the muscle while running. This is discussed in greater detail in part two of this series on running economy.

Breathing Rate and Pattern

Daniels (2005), in his book Daniel�s Running Formula, describes the importance of being aware of your breathing pattern while running as a useful tool when gauging training and racing pace. Most elite runners breathe with a 2-2 rhythm; that is two steps (one with right and one with left foot) while breathing in, and two steps while breathing out. Most good runners take about 180 steps per minute, giving them about 45 breaths per minute. During particularly hard racing, runners might breathe with a 1-2 rhythm, and when running slowly breathe at a 3-3 rate. Breathing rates can be used to monitor your pace during a race. Running up hills for instance, you can try to maintain a 2-2 rhythm, to ensure you�re maintaining a constant intensity and not getting into an anaerobic zone.

Other Biomechanical Factors

In addition to the above, many other biomechanical factors have been examined for efficacy in improving running efficiency�more than can be detailed here. They include: average or slightly smaller than average height for men, slightly greater than average height for women, ectomorphic (thin) stature, low percentage body fat, narrow pelvis and smaller than average feet, gait patterns, effective exploitation of stored elastic energy, lightweight well-cushioned shoes, breathing/stride rate, among many others. These profiles will be examined in a future article.

Clearly, improving running technique is a complex process. How might we go about improving our running technique and efficiency? Here�s a handy checklist for you to use. Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

Technique Advice and Checklist Dos and Don�ts

Don�t . . . .

swing your arms sideways across the centerline of your chest
have excessive head movement and rolling
flap your wrists
allow your elbows to cross forward past your torso
have much vertical oscillation (upward movement)
have side to side movement
bring your knees up high in front of you

Do . . .

start being aware of your technique and form while running
move arms forward and backwards from the shoulders
keep shoulders down, arms and face relaxed
keep elbows at (about) a 90 degree bend
carry your arms between your waistline and chest
carry your hands forward near your chest with a short compact arm swing and back as far as the seams of your pants
relax your wrists and hands
push your chest forward slightly
rotate your pelvis slightly forward
keep trunk slightly forward, but maintain an upward body position
keep your upper body forward over your feet
have your foot strike the ground under the bent knee after the leg has begun to swing back under the body (not on its way out)
land on your heels and roll through to the forefoot for take-off
keep your center of gravity over your foot
transfer your weight evenly from one foot to the other
strive for optimal stride length
occasional leg turnover workouts to increase stride frequency
make sure your arms and legs are synchronized in the same rhythm
when speeding up, drive more with your arms
try to run with a rhythmic flow
run with �light feet� and bounce quickly and lightly off the ground
monitor your breathing pattern

Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency

VP TRAINING�JUST RIGHT FOR MARATHONS AND 5KS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0600

A little-known type of training�VP effort�is great for improving marathon and 5-K performance capacities. VP workouts differ from traditional interval sessions because they allow no easy, jogging recoveries. Instead, marathon and 5-K paces are alternated over running segments which may last for up to 2400 meters or more.

At this time of the year, marathon runners are looking for the perfect �tune-up� workouts for their marathons�sessions which spike fitness and increase the likelihood that an upcoming marathon can be completed at goal speed.

5-K runners, on the other hand, are searching for sessions which will produce one last 5-K PR before the season ends.

Strangely enough, both groups of runners can employ the same kind of training � in the form of VP workouts. Performed properly, VP (variable-pace) sessions produce major upswings in aerobic capacity, vVO2max, and lactate threshold, all of which are important for 5-K and marathon success. VP training also enhances running economy at both 5-K and marathon

speeds, making goal pace for either race more sustainable.

VP running is very similar to traditional interval training, but it differs from classic interval work in a fundamental way: When you conduct intervals, you ordinarily alternate between a high-quality velocity (your work-interval speed) and a rather-low quality pace (your recovery, jogging speed). In VP training, you interchange two very important, high quality running speeds during the course of your workout.

How is a VP workout actually constructed?

After your short furlough, run 1600 meters while utilizing the same pattern (400 meters at 5-K pace, 400 meters at marathon tempo, etc.). Jog easily again for three to four minutes, and then complete one more 400-400-400-400 ensemble before cooling down. You will have completed 3 X 1600, with 2400 meters total at 5-K pace and 2400 meters at marathon speed. For subsequent

VP training, you may add an additional (fourth) 1600 (provided all went well with 3 X 1600). If you are an advanced runner, you may work up to 5-6 X 1600 in a reasonable fashion. Note that your average pace for the 1600s will be in-between 10-K and half-marathon speed.

Let�s say, for the sake of argument, that you run your 5Ks at a tempo of 6:12 per mile. Remember that your pace slows down by roughly four seconds per 400 meters every time you double your race distance (from Horwill�s Law of Running). Thus, your 10-K tempo would be 6:28, your half-marathon pace would be 6:44, and your marathon alacrity would be about 7:00. Within your VP 1600s, 800 meters would be completed at 6:12 tempo and 800 would be knocked off at 7:00. Thus, your average pace would be 6:36 �halfway between 10-K (6:28) and half-marathon (6:44) speeds.Of course, if you are a 5-K runner you might be saying: Wait

a minute � how can such tepid, below-10-K-velocity running boost my 5-K chances?

That�s a logical question, but you should not be worried. Bear in mind that each 1600 within a VP session features 800 meters right at current or goal 5-K speed. Thus, half of all the running you conduct within a VP is right on target, undertaken at a very high intensity (5-K speed generally corresponds with ~ 95 percent of VO2max). Note, too, that 400s at 5-K pace take on a

different quality when they are conducted immediately after 400s at marathon tempo, instead of being undertaken after inchmeal, jogrecovery intervals. The intensity of marathon 400s is high enough so that 5-K-paced 400s will be completed at higher fractions of VO2max, at higher percentages of maximum heart rate, and with higher levels of blood lactate, compared with a situation in which easier recoveries are utilized.

And that leads to another great progression possibility with VP. If you are a 5-K runner and your initial VP session goes well, you can throw away the 1600s and utilize 2000-meter segments. Within each 2000 meters of running, the first, third, and fifth 400s

would be at 5-K pace, the second and fourth at marathon tempo. This would provide you with two opportunities (within each segment of the VP) to challenge yourself with 5-K running without significant recovery, instead of the usual one (that is, the third and fifth 400s of a 2000-meter segment would be uniquely challenging, in contrast with just the third 400 of a 1600-meter jaunt).

When you change over from 1600- to 2000-meter segments, it is reasonable to begin with 2 X 2000 and then �graduate� to 3 X 2000 at a later date (advanced runners may earn their VP Ph. D. by moving up to 4-5 X 2000).

Runners who are primarily interested in the marathon will find VP training to be particularly tasty, since it constantly forces them to find and sustain marathon pace in the face of fatigue induced by 5-K-tempo running. In addition, the spike of intensity added to training by the inclusion of the 5-Kpaced 400s will boost fitness to a greater extent, compared with similar amounts of running at marathon tempo only. One very cool progression for the marathon runner is to move to 2400-meter segments: With 2400s, a marathoner must dial up marathon speed three times per segment, each time after a relatively scalding 5-K burst (of course,

with 1600- or 2000-meter segments, this must be done just twice). The marathoner may start with 2 X 2400 and move up to 3 X 2400 (advanced individuals will progress to 4 X 2400).

Note that VP work represents terrific pace judgment training; after a few VPs, 5-K and marathon runners develop a great �feel� for their paces in the respective races. VP effort also enhances running economy at both 5-K and marathon velocities, and a VP session

is exactly the kind of work out a marathoner can conduct about a week in advance of a marathon, when he/she is searching for a workout which will both advance fitness and develop additional ease and confidence at marathon tempo. For many marathoners, a VP session

of 3-4 X 1600 would be just right when conducted about seven days in advance of the big day (to obtain more information about how to train during the last month before a m a r a t h o n , pl e ase g o t o h t t p : / /w w w . r u n n i n g r e s e a r c h n e w s . c o m /b a c k i s s u e D e t a i l s . p h p ?x=xYE6k2j054jfdX1m6DQxschwGgXrMDhiHgKoHWq66ko%3D

Figuring your 5-K and marathon paces for your VP workout is fairly easy. For the shorter distance tempo, take a recent, typical 5-K time, convert it into seconds, and divide by 12.5. The result will be the time (in seconds) you should take to complete each 5-K-based 400 within your VP.

For example, if you run the 5K in 19 minutes, 19 X 60 = 1140 seconds, and 1140 divided by 12.5 = 91 seconds per 400. You can also utilize a goal 5-K time or pace, which will ordinarily be two to four seconds per 400 faster than your current 5-K capability.

For the marathon, take your expected time in the race, convert it into seconds, and divide this rather-large number by 105.5 to obtain the time you should take to run each marathon-paced 400 within your VP. Of course, your expected pace for the marathon should be reasonable, based on previous marathons or on Horwill�s-Law conversions from your recent performances in shorter races. We can�t forget about 10-K runners, who can also profit greatly from VP training. Running the 5-K-paced intervals of the VP without significant recovery will make 10-K speed feel easier, and it will allow 10-K runners to include faster segments within their 10-K competitions.

We cannot close this article without including the �Finnish formula� for VP training. VP work is popular in Finland (1), and many serious Finns like to conduct a VP workout with just one set of gradually expanding length. In other words, they will � over time � gradually increase the number of 400s in the first set to six, eight, 10, 12, 14, etc., until the workout eventually consists of continuous running with no three- to four-minute breaks (there is no second set).

The VP workout simply ends when fatigue makes it impossible to maintain the desired pace(s). Some experienced harriers have gradually worked their way up to 24 400s without stopping (12 at each important pace), and this is almost like running at 15-K race pace for six miles.

VP training is very specific to the 5K and marathon, and it can do wonders for your aerobic capacity, lactate threshold, running economy, pace judgment, stamina, and confidence. Carrying out VP training is challenging and fun, and VP provides a welcome break from conventional

interval training. Best of all, when it is part of a carefully constructed program, VP training will help you achieve significant improvements in performance.© VP TRAINING�JUST RIGHT FOR MARATHONS AND 5KS

What Are Your Training Plans?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Do You Wish Someone Gave You A Proven Plan?

Here's A Freebie You Do Not Want To Miss Out On...

Have you been wondering how to pull your training and workouts together? Do you been struggling and want to know how to improve drastically and set new PR's? Have you been over training which have resulted in injuries? Do you want the latest up-to-date information on running, training, injury prevention, marathon or 5K performance improvement.

Look no further!!

For Twenty Five Years - Running Research News has been helping runners just like you achieve the highest levels in their sport.

While keeping active people up-to-date on the latest information about training, sports nutrition, and sports medicine. RRN publishes practical, timely new material which improves workouts, prevents injuries, and heightens overall fitness.

We want to help you reach your running goals. By giving you several "FREEE" bonuses when you become a subscribers. You won't recognize all the amazing additions available to our members. I'll tell you about these "must have" bonuses we are offering right now in a moment.

But first I want to share with you just a few of the previous issues of Running Research News:

_ How Distance Runners Can Deal With Post-Training and Post-Racing Soreness, Inflammation and Pain

_ The Protein Needs of Distance Runners

_ A Survey of Sports Drinks and Gels

_ Aging and Running: Do We Have to Get Slower As We Age? The Effects of Aging on Distance Running Training and Performance

_ Hydration and Running Performance for Distance Runners

_ Does the Warm-Up Improve Performance and Prevent Injury in Distance Runners?

_ Free Radicals and Antioxidants- What These Mean for Distance Runners

_ Running With Style�Part Two: Running economy

è YOUR PROVEN PLAN

And, in this month�s issue we discuss:

** Does Caffeine Improve Distance Running Performance? The Definitive Answer to Every Distance Running, Coffee Lover�s Question

You will discover; what the research shows and how the benefits observed for ultra endurance events lasting over 4 hours.

Plus, whether the introduction of caffeine into sports bars versus through capsules or liquid have validity.

If you have been wondering what the piles of research boil down to in practical terms for the distance runner who wants to shave some time from his or her 10K or marathon?

Come check out what�s new at Running Research News and become a member again! Sign up Now to take advantage of this INSANE offer.

** Seven Reasons Why Every Distance Runner Should Train on Trails

Why should distance runners run on trails? It�s as close as you�ll ever get to use the term �fun� when running. You�ll know why you should run on trails. But aesthetic reasons aside, there are some strong physiological benefits for �roadies�, �trackies� and marathoners to run on soft surfaces whenever possible.

Do you want to know; The 7-Secret Reasons why you should include some sort of trail or soft surface running in your weekly training schedules regardless of whether you are a hardcore road racer, track �sprinter�, or marathoner?

à 6 FREE BONUSES

As I mentioned earlier you can take advantage of 3 bonuses (for a total of 6 articles) just for becoming a Running Research News member. It won't break the bank either for you to directly apply to your training and running.

By joining Running Research News right now. You will receive:

_ �Running With Style�Part I: Improving Technique for Better Running Efficiency�

_ �How Running and Exercise Boost Your Immune System�

_ �Proper nutrition for long distance events�

_ �Have you gone mental?�

_ �Hydration and Running Performance for Distance Runners�

_ �Does the Warm-Up Improve Performance and Prevent Injury in Distance Runners?�

All for FREE!!!! And, You will have access to all 3 issues (for a total of 6 articles) immediately. No waiting for the delivery person to arrive. Before you start applying these techniques to your running. Once your renewal has been processed we will upload these issues into your RRNews account. These bonuses are absolutely FREE as our way of saying WELCOME ABOARD!!

à YOUR PROVEN PLAN

Running Research News: IS Your New Secret Weapon For Your Training, Injury Prevention and Running.

Imagine how every aspect of your running can dramatically and consistently improve, just by knowing how to train, prevent injury, eat nutritiously and even "mentally" prepare...

Imagine your training and running transforming under the Running Research News Powers you will soon know and have because of your RRNews Membership! Don't delay, subscribe TODAY! Put us to the test, plus get 3 bonus issues (for a total of 6 articles) completely FREE so you have nothing to lose and everything to gain!

Reach Higher,

P.S. Picture yourself eliminating the fear that's holding you back... and replacing it with a mindset and proven training techniques that take you ahead of the pack. As you consistently succeed throughout the process... you�ll end up with LASTING results that keep you thriving!

P.P.S. If you sign up by midnight on Wednesday the 23^rd of

September. We will also throw in one extra month

TOTALLY FREEEE�..How can you pass up this incredible end of the summer offer to join RRNews? You will be getting 11 months plus 3 bonus issues (for a total of 6 articles) of RRNews if you sign up before midnight tomorrow Wednesday the 23^rd of September.

è 6 FREEE BONUSES

POWER UP - BECOMING A STRONGER AND FASTER RUNNER

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Many training plans designed for running races will use a fairly simple approach to get an athlete to the finish line. Generally, this plan will run for a few months, especially if the goal race is a marathon. The training days start out at very low mileage (2-3 miles per day) for maybe 4 days a week at an easy pace. Perhaps one day of each weekend will be devoted to a long run, which may start out at 5 miles. RRNews

Each week the mileage increases incrementally until about 4 weeks before the race when you max out at 20 miles. Of course, mid-week run sessions remain fairly modest by comparison. The point here is to start small and work your way up gradually. Avoid injury by increasing mileage slowly and at the same time build aerobic endurance. So it seems that repetition, consistency and a slow build are vital when training for any distance of running race.

Perhaps last year your goal was to finish a 10k, a half marathon, or a full marathon. This is a common and commendable goal, especially for a first-timer. You crossed that finish line and it was exhilarating. You decided right away that it was not your last race, probably the first of many in fact. A few days (or maybe hours) passed and you started to study your splits.

You�re still very happy about the race result, but now you�re starting to wonder, �How much faster could I have gone today? I�m sure I could beat that time.� Then you start thinking of what you could have changed to make that faster time a reality. �I felt thirsty the whole race. I should have taken in more fluids. I should have taken in more calories. I should have run 5 times a week instead of 4, etc.� RRNews

Granted, those ideas could improve your splits, provided that you under-hydrated and under-fueled for this particular race. Running 5 times a week versus 4 may also help, though it may also lead to injury if not done properly. The type of workout you chose to do on this extra (5th) day can also make a difference in your race splits.

Ok, so how can we achieve those faster splits? One way is to increase your power. I�ll focus on a few ways that runners can do this and I�ll provide a few sample training sessions that will help you start to POWER UP.

Of course, building endurance is a must if you want to go faster and/or farther in each this year�s races. After all, you can�t run a marathon without putting in the time out there on the roads and trails. Strength, or power as I�ll refer to it, will also go a long way to helping you achieve those faster splits in your big race(s) for 2008. The long winter months provided ample opportunity for easy tempo runs that allowed you to keep a decent baseline for aerobic fitness. Power Up

But it also gives you a chance to get those leg muscles working in concert with your heart. The time has come to start preparing for your first (or biggest) race of the season. And let�s face it, sometimes it can get a little monotonous doing tempo running out on the sidewalks and/or roads. Sometimes you just need to change it up a bit, whether this is a change of scenery or just a different type of training. There are plusses to both in my opinion and both can be extremely beneficial to your performance. First, I�ll give you some sample workouts that can break the monotony of everyday running.

Hill Repeats
Most people despise running (or biking or walking for that matter) up hills. If you�re a competitive person, this is where you can gain an advantage over the field. If you can learn to love hills, then you�ll also become very good- and fast- at running up them. In my own training, I like to include hills whenever possible. Granted, Michigan is a flat state, especially in the southeast, but you can always find a road/trail with an uphill grade. The point is that even if your race is on a flat course, running hills in training will still positively impact your race-day performance. A great way to utilize hills is by doing hill repeats. Such an exercise can be incorporated into your training schedule as often as once per week.

The first thing is to find a decent-sized hill, something with a fairly shallow grade that extends for about ¼ mile if you can find it. You can probably envision a perfect hill as you read this article. Here is an example of a hill workout that I like to do in my own training:

-Begin the workout with a 10-15 minute warm-up. Perhaps you live close enough to your dream hill that running to the hill will suffice.
-Once you arrive, determine an appropriate start and end point of each hill repeat as per the recommendations above.
-The first rep should be run at moderate to low intensity, especially if this is your first experience running hills. You�ll want to start out fairly �easy� as it�s always good to strive for negative splits (box 1) during a training session or a race.
-Descend with a slow to moderate job as this portion of the workout is your chance to relax and recover. A slow descent will also reduce the chance for an injury.
-When you get to the bottom, don�t sit around, go right back up the hill. You want to keep those muscles slightly fatigued and you also don�t want to cool down too much. This will detract from your benefit of running hills in the first place.
-Do 4 or 5 hill repeats unless the hill is fairly short, then it may be a good idea to do a few more. And remember to pick up the pace on each subsequent repetition. Just make sure to save enough energy for your cool-down run back home! Power Up

Change Your Pace
As I mentioned early, changing things up a bit can yield positive results in your race-day performance and likely in your mental outlook as well. Simply reducing the monotony of the �usual� run will make trainings more fun and they will likely seem to go by more quickly. Fartlek training was originally designed in the 1930�s for the Swedish cross-country team in their quest to finally beat the Finns. Indeed, fartlek is more than just a funny word. It�s also a great technique for building speed in your run trainings.

The fartlek method can also be called interval training and is concentrated on both speed and endurance training. Simply put, you run faster than race-pace for a portion of a given training session, and then go back to your typical pace. A typical fartlek session should be at about 60-80% of your maximum heart rate. This will lead to a relatively low amount of physical discomfort, which indicates that you are still in the aerobic zone (i.e. using oxygen). Fartlek training can be modified to the needs of any athlete, especially a runner, as it can be used to mimic the activities that would take place during a 10k, half-marathon or full marathon.

When performing a fartlek training session, it will be most beneficial to find an undulating or at least a non-flat route. As I explain the sample workout, you will see why a flat course may not be appropriate.

-As with all training sessions, you will want to warm up for 10-15 minutes with a slow to moderate pace.
-Following the warm-up you should increase the intensity (steady, hard effort) significantly for about 1 to 1 ¼ mile. Perhaps this interval is your 5k pace, perhaps a bit faster. It�s really up to you. Just make it faster than your marathon pace for sure! This speed interval should be difficult so you�ll need a bit of a recovery afterwards.
-Slow down to your warm-up pace for about 5 minutes to give your heart a chance to slow down.
-After about 5 minutes, or whenever you feel properly recovered, increase your speed to marathon pace. Stay at this pace for another 5 minutes or so.
-Throw in some 50m sprints, approximately one per minute, until you start to feel fatigued. Be honest with yourself and don�t give in to fatigue too early. But once you do reach that point of fatigue end the sprint intervals and remain at marathon pace.
-Now do 4 or 5 �quick steps� about every 30 seconds. This little exercise will simulate speeding up to prevent someone from passing you in a race (it will be helpful- and probably a little fun- to imagine yourself in a race while doing fartlek training).
-Find a small-ish hill of about 200 yards and run up it full speed. Once you get to the top, increase your speed to 5k pace and continue for 1 minute.
-Slow down to marathon pace until you feel recovered.
-Repeat the workout. The number of repeats may be dictated by time (you had planned to run for one hour) or perhaps by the number of repetitions. As you become stronger, strive to do one more repetition. Power Up

Track Workouts
In your quest for greater speed there is one obvious place that should not be overlooked- the local track. Even if you don�t have a membership to a gym or recreation center, a track should still be something you have access to. Nearly everyone lives close to a high school and nearly all (public) high schools have tracks that the public is allowed to use. Take advantage of this valuable resource once every week or two and get in some speed work. No matter the distance race for which you are training, track workouts will be extremely helpful and will make you faster� guaranteed!

-Begin with a warm-up of 10-15 minutes. The jog to the track may be appropriate if you live close enough. If that is out of the question, I recommend running 2km (5 laps) at a slow pace.
-After the warm-up do some high knee lifts, �butt-kicks� (as I call them), single-leg jumps (stride, jump, stride, jump, etc), side steps, etc.
-The base workout is a pyramid
-400m (1 lap)
-800m
-1,200m
-1,600m
-1,200m
-800m
-400m
- All repetitions should be run at 10k pace (or 5k if you are able). Work hard to keep the same pace throughout the entire workout. Don�t try to be Superman, at least not right away.
-Cool down with 1,600m at easy pace and make sure to stretch! Power Up

GET YOUR LACTATE-THRESHOLD SPEED IN 30 MINUTES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Your running speed at lactate threshold, an important predictor of performance, can be determined fairly accurately with a 30-minute test. This speed can then become an important "frontier" in your training, with velocities above the threshold qualifying as high-quality exertions and speeds below the threshold counting as "easy efforts." However, training at your lactate-threshold speed is not the optimal way to upgrade your velocity at threshold.

As my youngest daughter Sabrina might say, there are at least 30 kabillion ways to estimate your lactate threshold. Some of them are even accurate.

Your running speed at lactate threshold is, of course, something to be concerned about. After all, various studies have suggested that lactate-threshold speed is the best predictor of endurance performance (1 & 2). Lactate-threshold velocity is simply the speed above which lactate begins to accumulate rather dramatically in the blood. It works as an endurance event predictor because lactate is a key fuel, much-preferred by the muscles, and pile-ups in the blood indicate that the muscles lack the machinery necessary to process lactate at high rates (a bad thing, since lactate is such an important source of energy).

Because lactate threshold is important and it can be estimated in various ways, many coaches and training books prescribe or recommend workouts which involve running for varying amounts of time at lactate-threshold velocity. This practice harkens back to the research of Swedish physiologist Bertil Sjodin and his colleagues (3), who appeared to find that a weekly 20-minute workout at lactate-threshold speed, when carried out over a 14-week period, improved lactate-threshold velocity significantly. Bertil's bunnies were not compared with runners, who worked at paces faster than their thresholds, and in fact there was not even a control group in Bertil's inquiry, but the practice of running at threshold caught on, and it is still extremely popular today. In-vogue running books and beloved running magazines recommend training at threshold, and exercise scientists in respected laboratories report that they are regularly contacted by runners and triathletes who would like to know the "best" way to estimate lactate threshold; frequently, these athletes have been instructed by their coaches to carry out a significant amount of training at threshold each week.

So, let's say that you'd like to be a conventional sort of runner and carry out some at threshold training, with continuous runs at your threshold pace. What is the best way to estimate your threshold?

You could have your threshold speed measured at an exercise-physiology laboratory, of course. You would end up with an extensive print-out of your blood lactate readings at various running speeds, and you might even enjoy a chat with an exercise physiologist about what the data points really mean. But, the procedure would be expensive and time consuming, and your test would probably be conducted on a treadmill, with no assurance that your lactate profile would be identical to the one obtained while you were running on something like, say, good-old Mother Earth. Also, you would need to perform the test several times over the course of a season, as your fitness changes, and that means having lots of bucks and - hopefully - living not too far from a hospitable exercise physiology laboratory.

Naturally, you could utilize one of the commercially available, portable, lactate analyzers, which are pretty accurate and have come down in price to reasonable levels. However, you must prick your finger or ear repeatedly to carry out the threshold test, and you must be a little savvy with your blood sampling and handling techniques. With all the bloodletting, your mind may not be completely focused on your running (thus giving you a false reading for threshold speed, and you can easily screw up the bloody part of the process. Don't forget, too, that when the bloodbath is over you will still have to "fit the curve" (graph your blood-lactate levels as a function of running speed). Once your graph looks nice, you also must decide in unerring fashion exactly where lactate threshold is to be found on the upward-curving line.

In contrast with these first two possibilities, Jack Daniels' "VDOT method" for determining lactate-threshold velocity is a bit easier on your wallet and pain receptors. Described in his book, Daniels' Running Formula, the VDOT method calls for you to enter your performances at a variety of distances into equations and tables developed by Daniels (4). Your velocity at lactate threshold, along with other important training speeds (including interval pace and marathon tempo, for example), can then be calculated.

A 3200-meter time trial is also considerably more facile to conduct than a full-blown lactate-threshold exam and has been thought by some to provide a reliable estimate of lactate-threshold velocity. For this test, you only need to do one thing: On a day when you are feeling great and gale-force winds are not whipping across the track, you perform a maximal-effort 3200-meter run. You then calculate your lactate-threshold velocity (LTV) with the following equation:

LTV (in meters/minute) = 509.5 -20.82 X [3200-meter time in minutes]

Let's say, for example, that you completed your 3200-meter run in 12:15. Changing 12:15 to 12:25 minutes and plugging it into your equation, we have the following:

LTV = 509.5 - 20.82[12.25]

LTV = 509.2 -255.05

LTV = 254.45 meters per minute (or 1609/254.45 = ~ 6:19 per mile)

Although this technique appears to be slightly suspect (note in this case how close LTV is to the full blast 3200-meter speed), research has found that it predicts the running speed linked with blood-lactate levels of 4.0 mmol'L-1 pretty accurately, and the running speed coinciding with 4.0 mmol'L-1 is often considered to be LTV (5).

If you don't like surging around the track eight times, you can also employ a 30-minute time trial to reckon your lactate-threshold speed. This method, recommended in lay publications marketed to competitive athletes (6 & 7), involves warming up and then gradually accelerating up to a tempo which is deemed to be the best-possible pace which can be sustained for 30 continuous minutes. When this tempo is attained, the 30-minute time period begins; during the 30 minutes, the pace may be varied up or down slightly, as necessary, but the idea is to work at one's best-possible intensity throughout the 30-minute period. The 30-minute exam can be completed on a track, measured course, or treadmill with a 1-percent grade, and LTV is obtained simply by dividing the distance covered during 30 minutes (in meters) by 1800 seconds (30 minutes). For example, a runner covering 8000 meters in 30 minutes would have an estimated LTV of 8000/1800 = 4.5 meters per second, for a tempo of 400/4.5 = ~ 89 seconds per 400 meters. The calculating can also be done in U.-S. units to derive minutes per mile, i.e., 30 minutes divided by 4.97 miles equals 6.04 minutes per mile, or about 6:02 pace.

And yes, there is also the Conconi test - which is more ponderous to conduct but has been examined carefully in a variety of different scientific studies. To carry out the latest and greatest version of Conconi, you'll need to place cones at 100-meter intervals on a 400-meter track (the name of this test did not come from cones, though). You then begin running rather cautiously - but you also increase your running velocity as uniformly as possible every minute by an amount that boosts heart rate by not more than eight beats per minute(!). So, you have to keep careful track of your heart rate, and you also must pay special attention to your friend (a companion is required for this test), who lets you know about the passing of each minute with a whistle blow; your crony also records the running time for each 100-meter segment. These 100-meter times are used to figure an average running velocity for each minute of the test, and the heart rates during the last 10 seconds of each minute of the test are obtained from the memory of your heart-rate monitor and are utilized to figure the average heart rate per minute at the recorded running speed. Speed continues to increase until near-maximum intensity is attained, and then a final phase of acceleration pushes you up to your max velocity. You're not done, yet, though! Lactate-threshold velocity is then calculated by graphing heart rate (on the y axis) with running velocity (x Axis) for each minute of the test. The LTV is supposed to occur at the point at which the linear relationship between heart rate and running speed abruptly ends - in effect where heart rate shoots up disproportionately as running speed increases by the standard amount (please see ref. # 8 for even-more agonizing details of this whole process). Any votes for the 3200-meter test?

To learn more about how to Get Your Lactate-Threshold Speed in 30 Minutes (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 21 Issue 8 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running. BUY NOW.

Why Do Carbs Save � And Even Boost � The Production Of Proteins?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0500

When training increases in volume or intensity, considerations related to total carbohydrate intake, the timing of carb intake, and the impacts of diet and training load on protein metabolism become particularly crucial, because upswings in training can deplete muscle-glycogen stores and throw athletes into a state of "negative nitrogen balance," in which they are losing more protein than they are making. To see what sort of nutritional strategy might be best for athletes who are undergoing an increase in total training load and who want to max-out muscle glycogen and stay positive with protein, Mark Tarnopolsky and his colleagues at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario recently studied 10 active female athletes over two separate, one-week periods (8). The choice of female athletes as subjects was particularly appropriate, since many sports-active females have abnormally low protein (9) and total-calorie (10) intakes. Marathon

Prior to the onset of the study, all 10 women had participated regularly in some form of endurance activity; the average training load was three 45-minute workouts per week. All of the athletes were eumenorrheic, and they were tested only during the mid-follicular phases of their menstrual cycles (days four through 11). Average VO2max, measured during progressive cycling to fatigue, was 46.3 ml/kg-min.

The athletes completed two separate seven-day interventions � a control trial and a post-exercise-supplementation trial. During these two trials, the athletes� energy, carbohydrate-, and protein-intake patterns were exactly the same: The women consumed approximately 2160 calories per day and 1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day (and thus 86 grams of protein each day). The overall composition of their diets was 58-% carbohydrate, 16-% protein, and 26-% fat.

On days one, three, and four of the seven-day trials, the women worked out in the mornings by cycling for one hour at an intensity of 65% of VO2max (about 76% of max heart rate). On day three, the women completed a second, additional one-hour workout at 37

65% VO2max in the afternoon, and on day six the athletes finished off a 90-minute exertion at the 65-% VO2max intensity. On the seventh day they didn�t rest, instead cycling for as long as possible at 75% VO2max (about 85% of maximal heart rate). Thus, the volume associated with each week�s training schedule was nearly 150% above the usual level (335 versus 135 minutes). Marathon

During the study, both the control and post-exercise-supplementation groups made use of a beverage produced by Mead-Johnson Canada Inc. which is called "Results." 66% of the calories in this quaffable came from carbohydrate, while 23% originated in protein, and 11% were derived from fat. The post-exercise-supplementation athletes imbibed "Results" immediately after their one-hour bike rides ended, while the control groups consumed the same amount of the Mead-Johnson product at breakfast, well before the bicycle exertions were undertaken. As mentioned, total energy, carbohydrate, and protein intakes were identical in the two groups; the only difference was in the timing of the "Results" ingestion.

And what an impact that difference had! When the beverage called "Results" was taken right after exercise instead of at breakfast, the experimental results were significantly different for a wide range of variables, including fat oxidation, carbohydrate concentrations, protein breakdown, exercise capacity, and body weight! As you might expect, carbohydrate breakdown tended to be greater during workouts when the extra carbohydrate (from "Results") was taken in the morning, before the workout, rather than after the training session. Also not surprisingly, fat oxidation was greater during exercise when "Results" intake was postponed until after a workout was over. These findings are simple to explain: When athletes take in extra carbohydrate at breakfast, their liver and muscle stores of glycogen tend to rise, and thus they have more carbohydrate fuel available for prolonged exercise later in the day. When carbohydrate intake prior to exercise is more minimal, fat is forced to supply more of the energy needed for long exertion.

The key results, though, related to nitrogen balance, body mass, and performance. When "Results" was taken in after exercise rather than at breakfast, nitrogen balance was positive, which simply means that the athletes were taking in more nitrogen than they were losing (which is another way of saying that their protein stores were increasing). When "Results" was taken at breakfast, on the other hand, nitrogen balance during the heavy training was negative (protein was being lost). In addition to saving protein, drinking "Results" right after workouts also prevented excessive losses in body weight during the heavy training. When "Results" was quaffed after training sessions, the athletes lost 1.5 pounds during the seven-day period of extended training, but when "Results" was just a breakfast potable the loss in mass totaled 3.1 pounds, a statistically significant difference. Last (but not least), use of "Results" after workouts - rather than at breakfast - allowed the athletes to exercise an average of 47-% longer (!) during the 75-% VO2max effort which took place on day seven. As you take in these results, again remember that the athletes were eating the same amount and type of food during the two different trials; the only difference was the timing of the "Results" guzzling! Marathon

90-minute exertion at the 65-% VO2max intensity. On the seventh day they didn�t rest, instead cycling for as long as possible at 75% VO2max (about 85% of maximal heart rate). Thus, the volume associated with each week�s training schedule was nearly 150% above the usual level (335 versus 135 minutes). Marathon

the beverage called "Results" was taken right after exercise instead of at breakfast, the experimental results were significantly different for a wide range of variables, including fat oxidation, carbohydrate concentrations, protein breakdown, exercise capacity, and body weight! As you might expect, carbohydrate breakdown tended to be greater during workouts when the extra carbohydrate (from "Results") was taken in the morning, before the workout, rather than after the training session. Also not surprisingly, fat oxidation was greater during exercise when "Results" intake was postponed until after a workout was over. These findings are simple to explain: When athletes take in extra carbohydrate at breakfast, their liver and muscle stores of glycogen tend to rise, and thus they have more carbohydrate fuel available for prolonged exercise later in the day. When carbohydrate intake prior to exercise is more minimal, fat is forced to supply more of the energy needed for long exertion.

the only difference was the timing of the "Results" guzzling! Marathon

DOES CROSS-TRAINING IMPROVE RUNNERS PERFORMANCE?

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0500

Have your running times stopped improving, leaving you wondering what you can do to give it a kick-start? Are your training runs boring and you�re looking for something to make it fun again? Cross Training

Have you reached a point where you just cannot squeeze any more running into your schedule because you�ll get injured? Are you getting injured frequently?

If any of these are happening to you, consider cross training (CT). Recent research shows that supplementing, or even replacing part of your running program with other forms of exercise might be just what you need to avoid boredom, minimize injuries, and take your running to a new level.

What is cross training? The term refers to a wide variety of training activities that are not your primary focus (running), but may still have a positive crossover effect on your running. Indeed many coaches apply cross training to experienced marathoners and beginners alike. Successful athletes in most sports practice some form of cross training. Cross Training

Cross Training became a buzzword back in the 1980�s, with the advent of triathlons. Triathletes were forced to indulge in multi-sport training because of their three events. Soon afterwards, runners took up cross training and many found racing times and training performances improving, and they were injured less.

But for a long time, research proving the effectiveness of cross training lagged behind. What, then, are the purported advantages of cross training?

Running Performance Improvement
One of the strongest arguments in favor of cross training is the concept that you can do extra endurance training with less strain on your running muscles and joints. This indirect conditioning is most beneficial when the runner feels he or she is maxing out on their mileage, and (based on past experience) further running would put them over the edge, precipitating injury.

Somewhere around 50 miles per week seems to be the breakdown point for many semi-serious runners, although this self destruct point is relative to many variables in runners; years running, age, gender, experience, natural biomechanics, etc. What we do know is that when runners flirt with this much mileage, injuries soon follow.

Non-specific cross-training that uses other aerobic activities enables the runner to get more endurance training in without further compromising the running muscles and joints. It uses the same muscle groups in a different (non weight-bearing) way.

Even more exciting for the competitive runner who has reached a plateau, is the fact that these added workouts can be done at high intensity, further stimulating the aerobic (citric acid cycle) pathway for increased gains in maximal oxygen uptake.

A high intensity cycling session, for example, enables the runner to develop increased lactate tolerance, buffering capacity, and fuel resynthesis, without undergoing the high impact stress on the legs of an interval-training workout.

A runner who already performs 2-3 high intensity workouts weekly, risks injury or overtraining by adding more running workouts at this level. However, throwing in an intense stairclimber or cycling session gives the runner an extra workout each week that could help take him or her to a new level, without the added trauma of high intensity running.

It�s also possible that cross-training may activate more motor units, and thus muscle fibers, and develop much needed strength in the upper body that is generally neglected in runners although there is no direct research proving any of these claims at this time. Cross Training

However, research has shown that endurance type training does transform type IIa muscle fibers into type IIbs, meaning they�ve taken on endurance characteristics. In addition, endurance training makes many other changes to muscle tissue including increased mitochondrial density increased capillary density, increased metabolic enzyme activity, and increased glycogen storage.

Cross Training for injury prevention
With repetitive movement like running that operate through a restricted range of motion it�s easy to overwork the same muscles and joints, leading to injuries. These injuries are primarily caused by trauma to the muscles, tendons, joints, strength imbalances, shortened muscles, and decreased flexibility caused by your legs going through the same motion thousands of times. It�s thought that cross training will re-establish symmetry between your muscle groups.

By doing extra endurance work in other low impact or low weight bearing aerobic activities like cycling, stair climbing, swimming, deep-water running, or using the elliptical trainer, you get an �active rest�, with virtually no stress on your joints, and you�ll recover from those pesky lower extremity injuries or muscular soreness far faster than rest alone.

At least this is what common sense tells us about cross training. Surprisingly, a study by Murphy et al concluded that cross training might not reduce injury rate. Another study found that, �cycling can be a great choice for runners to loosen the repetitive stress of running that contributes to overuse injuries. But cycling may come with its own set of problems, particularly back pain�.

Another study (Cipriani et al) concluded that �multisport training may also contribute to a specific category of injuries, those related to the cumulative effects of cross-training�. This points to the need to know how to balance the different demands of a multi-sport training program--more about this later. Cross Training

Cross Training for Variety in Your Training Program
Avoiding burnout is one of the most appealing aspects of cross training for the serious runner. Anything you can do to reduce the boredom and monotony that sets in after several months of doing the same training will benefit your running.

If you�re not enjoying your running sessions you�ll soon find yourself skipping workouts, leading to decreased training volume, and inevitably, reduced performance. Cross training enables you to take a mental break from the stress of single-sport training and gives you much needed variety by breaking your program up and adding spice to your routine.

For exercise enthusiasts using running as their primary means of developing cardio-respiratory fitness, cross training will balance the strength and endurance between muscle groups. However, this advice is written for the runner looking to improve racing and training performance, so will not dwell on general fitness benefits of cross training.

What cross-training activities are complementary to running?
Several activities have been shown to complement running effectively, including cycling, stair climbing, deep-water running, swimming, and using the elliptical trainer.

The Principle of Specificity
Note that all these exercises use the legs for a major part of propulsion. Despite this similarity, an important principle of exercise science is glaringly defied by cross training�that of specificity.

This aged principle states that if you are to improve in a specific sport, you should practice that activity solely, and by throwing other similar activities into the mix you confuse your neuromuscular system, thus actually retarding your running progress.

One study (Foster et al) more or less confirmed this principle. Well-trained men and women added either running or swimming to their baseline running schedules, versus a group that continued their baseline running. The training period was for 8 weeks. Cross Training

After the post-tests were done, the extra running group improved in a test that measured lactate build up at a set velocity, while the other groups did not. And the researchers had the sense to put in a field test that actually measured running times over 2 miles. Again the extra running group improved the most, by 26.4 seconds, with the cycling group improving its times by 13.2 seconds. The running baseline group did not improve its time significantly. So, according to this study, cross training may improve running performance, but not as much as a running only program.

You see, you�re supposed to use the same type, speed, duration, and range of motion of an activity to improve your desired sport, in this case running. Because of their differing emphasis on various muscle groups, the nervous and muscular systems work in contrasting ways during different activities. This explains why world-class athletes like Tour de France cyclists, for example, are not world-class marathoners.

These elite cyclists exercise most of the muscle groups used in running, but in a very different way. Thus they are extremely efficient at cycling, but would be only average in distance running because their neuromuscular system is not efficient in the mechanics of running.

Lance Armstrong recently ran the Boston Marathon (April, 2008), recording a time of 2:50:58. Certainly this time is not to be sneezed at, but a thousand Boston marathoners can boast that they beat the 7-time winner of Le Tour.

But, like many age-old tenets of exercise science, there is contradicting research showing that indeed some activities can help improve other sports.
The case for strength training has been made convincingly enough now, that most elite endurance athletes, including runners, do some form of resistance training.

But what effect do aerobic activities have on running? Certainly coaches will tell you the best way to training for running is by running, yet some recent studies appear to contradict this principle. And for a long time no published study had linked cross training with actually improving running performances, until recently. . . .

Then a study by Ruby et al., had three groups of exercisers do a ten-week training program of running, or cycling, or a mixture of both. Their results found that all groups improved VO2 max. (The oxygen processing ability of the body) similarly. So, this study showed that at least a combined cross-training program achieves similar fitness to sports specific training. Cross Training

Another study (Millet et al), looked at cross-training effects in elite triathletes. It concluded that a certain amount of cross-transfer training occurs between cycling and running, but not with swimming.

One of the most promising studies to validate cross-training, conducted by Mutton et al., looked at the effects of running four days/week compared with a combined cycling (2 days/week) and running (2 days/week) schedule, for a total of four days/week, over a five week training program.

The results for both groups were almost identical, both groups improving VO2 max significantly, and reducing their 5 km run times by 7% (running only) and 8% (running/cycling). This showed that augmenting a running program with cycling showed no decrease in performance over a running only program.

Another cycling/running study at the university of Toledo found similar results, when 10 well-trained runners (who averaged 30-35 miles/week), added 3 cycling workouts per week to their existing training schedules, for 6 weeks. The workouts were all high intensity, such as 5-minute interval efforts, 150-second and 75-second high intensity bursts, and a longer duration workout of 50 minutes at 80% of maximal heart rate. Another group of runners added three similar running workouts to their training schedule.

After 6 weeks the running/cycling group times came down by almost 30 seconds, from 18:16 to 17:48, or 3%, which was almost the same as the running only group�s average. The conclusions were that adding extra running sessions was no better than adding extra cycling sessions.

A California State University study also used two groups of runners for a study on cross training. A running only group and a cycling only group performed a 9-week training program. At the end of the training both groups performed the same in running tests. Cross Training

An interesting study in 2003 found triathletes who cycled at a fast cadence reduced their 2-mile times by 7% on average. The implications are that cycling at a faster speed cadence similar to running improves running performance. The researchers theorize that the neuromuscular effects of fast cycling transfer to running, if done at a similar cadence.

A review by Tanaka concluded that there is clearly some transfer of training effects, (VO2 max.), from cycling to running. This is most noticeable when running is the main cross-training method. Swimming however, has minimal effects on running or cycling. Perhaps, after all, the specificity principle isn�t as significant as many coaches and exercise scientists have long believed.

At the very least, it appears that certain activities preserve and maintain running fitness while the runner is doing less, or even no, running. This in itself could be a reason for the runner to cross-train. Cross Training

Your Fine Friend, Fatigue

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0500

If you carry out challenging interval workouts during your training, you are studying the true nature of fatigue.

After all, you have probably had the following experience: You decide on a workout, say 10 X 400 in 90 seconds each (we've selected a familiar type of training session and an arbitrary time for each work interval). Your warm-up goes well, and you're off and running!

The pace you have chosen is an ambitious one, but you are feeling great the first time around the track, and you cover the initial 400 in 87 seconds. The second one is 88, the third 89, and from the fourth one on you are struggling a bit to hit your target of 90. For the most part, you stay on track, but one interval, we'll say the eighth, slides up to 92.

The ninth feels really tough, but you hang in there and produce a 90. You have reached the point in the workout at which fatigue should be close to maximal. After all, you are a believer in the traditional concept of fatigue. You know that as you continue to run quickly, for one work interval after another, your intramuscular pH is dropping fast, reflecting the tide of hydrogen ions which are flooding your muscle cells(1). That devastating fall in pH is interfering with the release of calcium ions into your muscles' sarcoplasmic areas (2), making it much-more difficult for your muscle fibers to contract forcefully (3). As a result, adhering to planned pace is becoming a major undertaking.

And then, something magical happens! At the point when muscular fatigue is greatest, when pH has bottomed out, when calcium ions have been locked away for the day, when muscle contractility has ebbed, you uncork your best 400 of the day - an 85! Who said that running does not have its magical moments?

Huh? If muscle fatigue is truly a function of metabolic events inside muscles, that last 400 should have been the slowest, not the fastest interval of the day. Our views of fatigue - and of what determines running pace during workouts and races - must be wrong!

Indeed, that is what recent research carried out at the University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch, and the Sports Science Institute of South Africa is telling us. In this investigation, eight healthy males (average age = 22 years) completed "anaerobic-capacity" tests in the laboratory on a Monark friction-braked cycle ergometer (4). To gain a better understanding of the nature of fatigue and of pacing strategies during high-power exertions, the South-African researchers used an element of deception with the subjects. Specifically, the young men were informed that they would be completing four 30-second maximal trials, as well as one 33-second and one 36-second maximal effort on the bike. In reality, they completed two trials of 30 seconds, two tests of 33 seconds, and a duo of 36-second exams.

The deception took place in the following way: Prior to one of the 33-second tests, the cyclist were told that it was actually a 30- second exertion, and the same was true for one of the 36-second affairs. The researchers hoped to determine whether the subjects would subconsiously alter pace or strategy during the "informed" 36-second trial (when they were told that the trial would last for 36 seconds), for example, compared with the "deception" 36-second trial, when the cyclists thought they would only be cycling for 30 seconds. The cyclist were allowed to watch a clock during all of their maximal exertions, but - ingeniously - the scientists had programmed the clock to run more slowly during the deception 36-second trial, so that it would tick off 30 "seconds" during what was really 36-second time frame.

To learn more about Fatigue (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.22 Issue 2) and many more running related topics. Simply enter fatigue, in the "search archives" box, or enter any subject you wish to learn more about. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information.
SIGN-UP NOW

BEST LACTATE-THRESHOLD WORKOUTS

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0500

What is the best possible workout for advancing your running velocity at lactate-threshold? Best Lactate-Threshold

That is an important but "dangerous" question. After all, a single workout does not exist in a training vacuum, producing adaptations which occur totally uniquely, without any influence from the overall training plan in which the workout is deployed. In one set of circumstances, for example, a session of 3 X 1600 at 5-K race pace might help put a sharper edge on a runner's vVO2max. In a different context, the 3 X 1600 could push the same athlete "over the brink" into an over-trained state.

Nonetheless, we know that certain sessions can produce unique effects on lactate-threshold speed, and that these effects are often specific to the runner involved in the training. For example, running for 60 minutes at a moderate pace (below lactate-threshold velocity) probably will have a significant, positive effect on lactate-threshold speed for the relatively inexperienced runner who has been logging about 10 to 15 miles of running per week. However, this same session would have no effect at all on lactate-threshold velocity for the experienced, 70-mile per week runner who has been engaged in lots of high-quality training. The latter individual would probably have to soar up to intensities of 90 to 95 percent of VO2max and beyond to get lactate-threshold speed moving in the right direction.

As you can see, it is possible to give specific workouts the "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down" sign when it comes to lactate-threshold improvement, and one of our tasks as runners is to identify the sessions which are likely to have the greatest impact on threshold and then position them properly in our training. Best Lactate-Threshold

But how do we identify such sessions? Fortunately, that job has been made easier for us, thanks to recent work carried out by Carl Paton and Will Hopkins of the Centre for Sport and Exercise Science at the Waikato Institute of Technology and the Department of Sport and Recreation at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand (1). Paton and Hopkins have conducted an extensive literature search for scientific papers dealing with the effects of training on the performance and physiology of endurance athletes.

This search used stringent criteria. For examplem Paton and Hopkins excluded studies which investigated the effects of training on performance in subjects who were merely recreationally active, instead of being involved in serious training. The New-Zealand duo also eliminated inquiries carried out with individuals who did not have the characteristics of serious endurance athletes ( for example, exercisers with low aerobic capacities, low training frequencies, etc.). The studies examined by Paton and Hopkins also had to be peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal.

In addition to looking for research which explored the link between training and improvement in lactate-threshold speed, Paton and Hopkins also searched for studies whick looked at the effects of training on general endurance performance, maximum power (measured during an incremental test), maximal oxygen consumption, exercise economy, and body mass. Included in the Paton-Hopkins diggings were studies which focused on moderate- and high-intensity interval training, tempo running, plyometrics, and resistance training.

The study which produced the greatest increase in lactate threshold in runners was the research (often mentioned in the pages of Running Research News) carried out by Leena Paavolainen and Heikki Rusko in which experienced runners reduced their mileage from 70 to 45 miles per week, substituting( for this mileage) explosive training which includes progressive series of jumps, bounds, hops, and very fast running(2). The jumping-bounding-hopping-sprinting workouts designed by Paavolainen-Rusko team, carried out three times a week for nine weeks, yielded about a 6.8-percent increase in lactate threshold. Best Lactate-Threshold

Almost as good for threshold were the workouts employed by Edmund Acevedo and Allan Goldfarb of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro in their study of seven well-trained male distance runners (3). These runners had an average age of 22, and they were actively involved in competitive racing; mean VO2max was 65.3 ml.kg-1.min-1. As the study began, the young runners were training six to seven days per week, averaging five to 12 miles of daily running. Weekly volume averaged 50 to 65 miles before and throughout the investigation. RRNEWS Subscription

THE LYDIARD TRAINING SYSTEM REVISITED: HOW EXERCISE SCIENCE EVALUATES ARTHUR LYDIARD'S RUNNING SCHEDULES

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0500

In New Zealand, in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a short, stocky, fiercely determined man named Arthur Lydiard experimented with his own body to see how much running the human body could take. Running up to 200 miles in a week, he writes in his book Run to the Top, �…(I) was so determined to find just what the human body would stand without actually cracking that I frequently exhausted myself completely and had to walk the last few miles home�.

After 9 years of experimentation he developed a sequence of training phases, cobbling together marathon-type distance training, hill-springing, leg-speed work, repetition training, medium-pace training, interval training and sharpening and freshening. And soon his runners met with unparalleled success, winning the Olympic Games gold, silver and bronze medals, and accumulated world records like small change. So great was their domination of the local running scene that his runners would meet several months before New Zealand track championships and literally decide who would win each distance event. Lydiard�s training system used aerobic marathon type conditioning before proceeding to faster, higher intensity, anaerobic running in preparation for racing. It revolutionized running around the world, and has remained relatively unchanged since.

And therein lies the problem. No significant changes have been made to Lydiard�s system since, apart from individual adaptations to running in more severe climates such as in Finland, where deep snow curtails the runner�s ability to train outside for several months each year, or where it�s simply too hot to run outside in desert climates. Lydiard remained inflexible with his schedules for many years. For example, he advised runners to run 100 miles per week in their conditioning phase. However, the majority of recreational runners don�t have the ability to run 100 miles per week. Biomechanics, age, and time constraints have proven major limiting factors many runners simply disintegrate attempting to run this much mileage.

Other phases of Lydiard�s training have also proven unrealistic for recreational or even elite runners. The hill springing phase of his program has caused sprained ankles among runners not strong enough for the rigors of this highly ballistic, high impact technique, or sore legs that temporarily incapacitate the runner. Also, many runners never attempt the time trials recommended by Lydiard, because they don�t know what they are or how to do them. More recently, exercise science has shown several other techniques to be advantageous to runners, such as strength training, which Lydiard shunned, claiming that runners get strong enough through their running.

What has changed since Lydiard devised his system is an exponential increase in knowledge from exercise science, based on thousands of research papers and experiments. Several dozen new fields in this discipline have opened up in the past three decades. Today�s most basic exercise science textbooks contain far more information about endurance training and sports nutrition than was ever known back in the 1950s and 1960s. Here I summarize seven major changes that are recommended to runners contemplating using Lydiard�s system. These recommended changes are based on the results of exercise science over the past 3 decades.

Change #1.

Perform running fitness tests before and after your �build-up�. How do we know that long distance running has improved our fitness? Subjectively, we feel we can cover longer distances more comfortably, to the extent where we believe we are ready to run a marathon. But how can we really know? Elite runners have access to a university or Olympic training center treadmill test for VO2 max and anaerobic threshold, so they can have these tests done before and after �build-up�. But most of us don�t have access to these sophisticated tests, so we need to turn to field tests. Towards applying field tests, let�s use a basic exercise science approach to our training. Most research papers that investigate running performance use field tests along with lab measurements. Field tests are simple, easily administered, and reveal a lot of valuable information about our fitness state. Lydiard himself administered field tests. He would often have his runners compete in a marathon upon completion of their �build-up� phase. But that�s an extreme way to measure your fitness because there�s a lot of muscle cell damage done in a marathon, and it takes a long time to recover, wasting your valuable training time. I don�t recommend a marathon as a field test.

Here I provide an example of a field test that you may try. Choose 2-3 distances and do time trials on a track or an accurately measured flat road surface that preferable has accurately measured mile markers. Suggested time trial distances:

1 or 2 miles

3 or 5 miles

10K or 10 miles

Choose one distance from each of these three categories. Your time trials should be performed over a 2-week conditioning period, with 2-3 days of recovery jogging between trials to allow your legs to recover. These time trials should be done solo, without the aid of a pacer, as you want your post conditioning time trial to be under identical circumstances. Note the weather conditions, temperature, humidity, wind strength and anything else that could impact your times in these trials.

Record your time for each distance in the preconditioning tests, then again after your �buildup�. You can easily calculate your percentage improvement in each distance. If you find little improvement from your pre- to post- �build up� tests, you might consider adding another 2-4 weeks to your conditioning �build-up�.

Change #2.

Include periodization recovery during the �build-up� conditioning phase. Periodization is now a commonly used technique when planning endurance training schedules for cycling, swimming, cross-country skiing, triathlons, and most other endurance sports. It incorporates lower volume recovery running, something that many runners have great difficulty integrating into training schedules. It allows recovery from incessant long running by programming in a lower mileage recovery week every few weeks. Most runners do this on a 3 weeks increasing mileage block, followed by a 1 week recovery block. This is referred to as a step type approach, where running volume increases for three consecutive weeks, followed by a lower mileage fourth week. In this lower mileage week, often called an adaptation week, the intensity of the running can also be reduced.

The purposes of periodization are to program recovery running into the training schedules, as well as to:

• allow muscle glycogen levels to replete

• encourage muscle tissue regeneration and healing

• provide a mental break from the constant grind of long hard running

Who are the proponents of periodization?

Dr. David Costill recommended periodization training as far back as 1986 in his book �Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology�. What is interesting is how few of the books by the �experts� on running training recommend periodization during the �build-up� conditioning phase. So how is periodization used to plan training schedules? It looks something like this:

Conditioning Program for advanced distance runner, allowing recovery week every 4 weeks.

Periodized Conditioning Program for Advanced Runner

Miles

120

100 _ * * *

80 _ * * * * _ * * *

60 * * * * * * * * * * *

40 * * * * * * * * * * *

20 * * * * * * * * * * *

0 * * * * * * * * * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Week

Conditioning program for semi-serious runner, allowing recovery week every 3 weeks.

Peridiodized Conditioning Program for Semi-Serious Runner

Miles

80 *

70 * * *

60 * * * * * *

50 * * * * * * * * *

40 * * * * * * * * * * *

30 * * * * * * * * * * *

20 * * * * * * * * * * *

10 * * * * * * * * * * *

0 * * * * * * * * * * *

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Week

Change #3.

Include Anaerobic Threshold (AT) training during the conditioning �build-up� phase

What is AT?

AT is running �at a pace that produces an elevated yet steady state accumulation of lactic acid�, according to Jack Daniels, PhD., in his book �Daniel�s Running Formula�.

Why should we do this? AT running may be one of your most valuable training techniques, as it :

What is AT?

AT is running �at a pace that produces an elevated yet steady state accumulation of lactic acid�, according to Jack Daniels, PhD., in his book �Daniel�s Running Formula�.

Why should we do this? AT running may be one of your most valuable training techniques, as it :

Include Anaerobic Threshold (AT) training during the conditioning �build-up� phase

increases your AT cruising speed of long training runs, thereby
increasing your overall pace
increases your VO2 max
prepares you for track workouts to come.

How do you do AT running?

The pace is somewhere between your current 10K pace and your 2-hour long run pace. i.e. you can maintain it for 50-60 minutes. These do not need to be full, hard interval training intensity type workouts, but they should be faster than your normal road running pace. AT runs can be done in bursts of 3-10 minutes, with a brief (1-3 minute) recovery jog, or they can be longer steady paced efforts lasting up to 10 miles. You should aim to maintain a steady pace the entire distance. I recommend using a heart rate monitor for AT runs, as you can quantify your speed and heart rate to establish a cruising speed. Expect to be running between 75% and 85% of maximal heart rate in these runs. AT workouts can be done every week or two.

Change #4

Include one day per week of interval training or higher intensi

DON'T FORGET TO EAT

info@runningresearchnews.com (Teressa Blanchett) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0600

When embarking on a long drive or road trip, one typically starts by filling the gas tank. Since fuel is consumed throughout the adventure, you are required to make periodic re-fueling stops to avoid running out of gas. The number and frequency of re-fueling stops is based on your speed, the distanced traveled, traffic congestion, road conditions, etc. And when you finally reach that final destination it is generally a good idea to top off the gas tank in preparation for local travel excursions (or the return trip). A road trip provides a great analogy for the preparation, participation, and recovery from a long distance running event. Simply put, you want to be assured that your fuel tank is full prior to your event, you want to maintain your energy reserves throughout the race to avoid �bonking�, and after the event recovery should be first and foremost on your list of �things to do�. All too often runners don�t follow these simple rules of the road and the consequences can be disastrous. Here, I�ll provide some useful information regarding proper nutrition for before, during and after and training sessions and races. Follow these simple guidelines and expect to see immediate results!

�Fill the Tank� before your event

In the months leading up to your race you trained hard, you watched your diet and maintained the recommended diet composition of 60-70% carbohydrate, 15-20% protein, and fat 10-15% fat. The few days before the race you consumed high carbohydrate, low fat meals and your gas tank is full! You�ve had plenty of sleep throughout the week so you�re well rested for the next day�s event. Race morning arrives and you�re feeling confident and ready to race. Although your well-planned meals have boosted your body�s energy stores, the question still remains: Is the

gas tank full? While you sleep, your body burns blood sugar (glucose) and your brain burns liver glycogen, thereby depleting your energy stores. And you haven�t even begun the race yet! Thus it is necessary to top off your fuel tank on race day. Pre-fueling with proper nutrients and fluids prior to your race will assure that your blood volume and electrolyte levels are optimal. Now you�re ready to head over to the start line.

Conversion Factors

1 gram carbohydrate = 4 calories

1 gram protein = 4 calories

1 gram fat = 9 calories

1 kg = 2.2046 lbs

But perhaps we should first discuss the proper way to �fill the tank� prior to your race? First of all, give yourself plenty of time in the morning. In my opinion, there is no need to increase your stress level by rushing around the morning of a race. Besides, your body needs time to respond to a meal. You can�t just eat a big breakfast, wait 30 minutes, and head out for a run. Not only will you experience painful cramping, but you will also quickly realize that your energy isn�t as high as you thought it would be. The reason? If you eat solid foods for breakfast (which most people do) then make sure to eat two to three hours prior to your event. This gives your body ample time to absorb essential nutrients into the bloodstream. If you prefer to take your breakfast in fluid form, you may only need 1.5 to 2 hours before the race. Fluid meals are easier to process so your body will therefore extract the nutrients a bit faster. There are many ways to construct a beneficial pre-race meal. However, the composition of such a meal should be as follows: consume a total of 1.0- 2.5 grams/kg (body weight) with 60-70% from carbohydrate, 15-20% from protein, and < 10% from fat. The generally accepted ratio of carbohydrates to protein is 4:1. This translates to a prerace meal of approximately 350 calories for a 72.6 kg (160 lb) individual.

It�s important to point out that not all carbohydrates are created equal. The question then becomes, �What kind of carbohydrate should I consume?� Prior to the race you want to consume carbohydrates (Box 2) that have a low glycemic index (GI; See Box 3 and Box 4). Carbohydrates with a low GI will provide an athlete with a more consistent supply of energy as opposed to those with a high GI, which can create energy �peaks and troughs�. Table 1 provides some examples of foods and their associated GI values.

Table 1.

During the Race

Earlier I stressed the importance of re-fueling and hydrating during your race. Now I�ll expand a bit on that. Improper hydration and/or nutrition during an event will almost certainly lead to reduced performance. Even worse is encountering the infamous �wall� 90-120 minutes into your race or at about kilometer 35-38 (mile 21.7-23.6) of a marathon. This can obviously ruin a race and may even prevent you from crossing the finish line. Hitting the wall is the physiological response indicating that your glycogen stores have been depleted and your body instead has to rely on fat and/or protein for energy. Essentially, your body is beginning to cannibalize itself. Unlike glycogen, fat and protein catabolism requires oxygen, i.e., increased flow of oxygen to the muscles. This results in reduced effort and speed, which allows sufficient oxygen to be transported to the muscles. Ultimately this leads to muscle fatigue, cramps, and/or heavy legs and an overall reduction in performance. Many people might read the previous sentences and think, �Great, I can burn more fat and lose more weight if I run on an empty tank, right?� Actually you cannot. Remember this line: Fat burns in a fire of carbohydrates. Learn it, live it, love it.

Although adequate fueling prior to a race is imperative, fueling during the race itself is crucial, especially in longer events. As was stated previously, glycogen is converted to glucose which supplies energy to our bodies. Thus, we must strive to minimize glycogen depletion and keep glucose levels high during the course of a race. To achieve this, carbohydrates must be consumed at regular intervals throughout the race to counter glycogen depletion. The difference, however,

is these are not the same carbohydrates consumed several hours before the race. Before the race you consume low GI carbs but during the race you should consume high GI carbs. Foods with high GI carbs are quickly absorbed into your blood stream and are more readily available for energy. During the race you should consume about 40 gm of carbohydrate per hour. Sports drinks are ideal as they supply both carbohydrate and fluid, and the carbohydrate is absorbed quickly. Moreover, fluids are easier to ingest and process during a race, as I mentioned earlier. Sports gels are also a great source of high GI carbohydrates and electrolytes and may be consumed during an event.

Be careful though and make sure to drink the recommended amount of water with each gel. Failure to do so will lead to dehydration and cramping and a less-than-pleasurable experience.

In my opinion, it is best to consume a gel slowly, a bit at a time, over the course of a mile.

Poor race-day results are most commonly influenced by muscle fatigue, dehydration and overheating. What are some of the causes of these conditions and how can you avoid them? Muscle fatigue is caused by muscle damage, which we feel as muscle soreness. To make muscle they first must be damaged, allowed to heal/recover, and then damaged again, etc. However, this information is of very little consequence if we are in the middle of a race and fatigue sets in.

During the race we want to minimize damage to our muscles and promote peak performance throughout the event. Thus, recognizing what we can do to reduce the likelihood of muscle fatigue is crucial. Symptoms and causes of muscle fatigue includes: dehydration, increase in body temperature, low blood sugar, low muscle and liver glycogen, and mental fatigue.

Dehydration is likely the most common affliction known to befall every athlete, no matter their ability. When someone becomes dehydrated, there is a reduction in the body�s blood volume. Blood is of course responsible for transporting oxygen, nutrients and glucose, throughout your body and it also helps to monitor and regulate body temperature. Therefore, it seems apparent that a drop in blood volume can have major consequences in a race. During the early stages of

dehydration your body�s cooling process speeds up causing an increase in heart rate. Sweat cools the skin surface which then helps to cool the blood. But with a reduction in blood volume, the entire body�s cooling system is compromised. This will obviously lead to overheating, which I will discuss shortly. To circumvent dehydration, drink fluids containing electrolytes (Gatorade®, Powerade®, etc) at least every 15 minutes throughout the race. It is important to drink the prescribed mixture of electrolyte drinks as they are formulated to replenish what is lost during exercise. Diluting the solution may lead to an imbalance of electrolytes in your body. As a side note, drinking too many dilute fluids during intense exercise can have equally dangerous implications.

Hyponatremia is essentially the opposite of dehydration, and happens when the body is overly hydrated but contains too few electrolytes. Just like dehydration, this condition can lead to extreme fatigue, coma and even death. As I mentioned earlier, overheating can be caused by dehydration. However, body temperature is also a function of other factors including air temperature, humidity, and acclimation to the local climate to name a few. As races are scheduled independent of weather conditions, avoiding periods of high temperatures and humidity can�t always be accomplished. Thus, to counter overheating during a race one must remain hydrated and wear appropriate clothing for the environmental conditions.

Moisture wicking clothing is a must as it pulls moisture off the skin (not through it mind you) and keeps the body cool. This is also important in cold weather where it is important to stay as dry as possible.

Long distance events can be extremely fatiguing to the average athlete. To reduce the likelihood of fatigue you should do the following:

� Maintain blood volume (remain hydrated) and electrolyte levels by consuming sports fluid drinks at least every 15 minutes. Do not use thirst as an indicator of when to consume fluids; by the time your body tells you it�s thirsty it is too late

� Maintain blood glucose levels and reduce the rate of muscle glycogen depletion by adequately pre-fueling prior to the race and consuming high GI carbohydrates during the race

� Minimize muscle break down and fatigue (minimize using protein as an energy reserve) by maintaining glucose levels and minimizing glycogen depletion

� Limit mental fatigue (see article this issue). Following the above general guidelines will help you maintain the highest energy output for the length of your race. It is essential that fluids and carbohydrate intake commence prior to the onset of fatigue.

Post-Race Fueling

Thus far I have mentioned just a few of the reasons for fueling before and during a race and/or training session. Proper fueling at these times will help you to a better finish no matter the distance of your race. One more thing to consider in your quest for faster splits is post-race nutrition. Although I stressed the importance of minimizing muscle damage, some damage is unavoidable. Therefore, your post race nutrition plan must account for this. After a long race it is necessary to restore your depleted reserves. Of course you want to regain homeostasis (the stable condition within your body). You also want to decrease the time it takes your muscles to recover from the damage they sustained in the race. Protein is especially important in post-race recovery. An athlete should consume the same 4:1 ratio of carbs to protein (preferably whey protein) after a workout (any workout, really). You may recall that this is the same ratio recommended for pre-race fueling. The great thing about post race nutrition is that it can come in any form, solid or liquid so the choice is up to you. BUT, the time frame for post-race recovery is especially important. You must act fast if you want to reap the benefits. Your window of opportunity is only about 15-45 min minutes after the race. After that, your body will go into �starvation mode� and will experience a rapid drop-off inability to replenish the body. If you miss the window of opportunity your body is then unable to boost muscle glycogen levels, immune function will be impaired, muscles will breakdown further, metabolism will slow and fat catabolism (burning) will slow! That said, do yourself a favor and get in the food line early!

Besides, you�ve got to be hungry after a race, right? Also following the race you should replenish fluid loss at 150% beyond your actual weight loss. To do this you should weigh yourself before and after the race; the difference should then be multiplied by 1.5 to determine the quantity of fluid to consume. For example, if you lose 1 pound during exercise (equals 16 ounces) then you need to consume 24 ounces of fluid to make up the deficit.

Obviously there is a lot of important information out there regarding proper fueling for training and racing. I have only covered a small portion of that information and kept it fairly basic.

The simple guidelines I have provided will not unlock the secrets of the universe but I can guarantee that by following them, you will see marked improvements in your training and racing. So find out what your favorite training/racing fuel is, and stick with it� at least, for a while.

Remember, anyone can go out there and train hard. You can do the same, but do so with more knowledge than the average athlete. Train wisely.

To learn more about �Race Day Nutrition,� �Muscle Fatigue,� or �Going Mental� (these full articles can be read by purchasing VOL. 23-10 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to RUNNING RESEARCH NEWS is another way to receive valuable information about running.