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.

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.

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!

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 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

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 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

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

                                                                     CHAPTER 5
WHY RTLV IS ONE OF THE BEST-POSSIBLE PREDICTORS OF PERFORMANCE
As I mentioned in Chapter 4, your RVLT is simply the running velocity above which lactate begins to pile up in your blood. Bear in mind that this sudden lactate pile-up is completely normal. Every endurance runner in the world has a RVLT; as workout difficulty increases, everyone eventually reaches an intensity at which lactate begins to burgeon in the blood. However, the actual value of RVLT reveals lot about how well you can function as a runner. If your RVLT is reached at a relatively slow speed, or example, it often means that theoxidative energy systems in your muscles are not working very well. If hey were operating at a high level, they would easily break down the modest amounts of pyruvate and lactate produced at the low speed, and lactate would not pour out into the blood. FREE CHAPTER

As indicated, a mediocre RVLT might mean that you are not getting enough oxygen inside your muscle cells (to oxidize pyruvate). It might also mean that you do not have adequate concentrations of the enzymes necessary to break down pyruvate at high rates, or that your mitochondria are too few and far between. And since blood lactate depends not only on lactate formation and spillage but also on how well your muscles and other tissues can remove lactate from the blood once it appears, a low RVLT can mean that your muscles, heart, and other tissues are not very good at extracting lactate from the blood.

In practical terms, a key goal of your training should be to progressively move your RVLT to higher and higher speeds, because doing so will mean that your oxidative energy systems are improving and/or that your muscles are getting better at pulling lactate out of the blood and using it for energy. Having a low RVLT is a symptom that all is not well with your muscles’ machinery for breaking down pyruvate, using oxygen, and clearing lactate from the blood.

There is also a strong link between RVLT and how difficult your running feels to you. Any running speed above RVLT tends to feel difficult, while exerting yourself below RVLT is comparatively comfortable. Thus, as RVLT increases over time (thanks to the good training you will be conducting), previously uncomfortable paces suddenly begin to feel more comfortable and sustainable, and you will actually begin to complete your races at much-faster paces than before (because those more-quicksilver tempos will feel more manageable). FREE CHAPTER

In mathematical terms, there is a fairly tight connection between RVLT and your competitive velocities. For example, your 10-K race speed is usually about 2.5-percent faster than your RVLT, while your halfmarathon race is ordinarily no better than 2.5-percent below RVLT. If you are really putting forth your best efforts in your 10Ks and half-marathons, those relationships are nearly irrevocable, which means that without improving your RVLT it is very difficult to upgrade your 10-K and half-marathon speeds.

Generally, 5-K race pace is about 2.5-percent faster than 10-K speed (and thus 5-percent quicker than RVLT), which brings up an interesting point. An absolute law of running is that the farther you stray above RVLT, the shorter will be the duration of your exertions. For example, 5-K pace, although just 2.5-percent hotter than 10-K striding, can usually be sustained for only 48 percent as long as 10-K pace.

Nonetheless, you should not be depressed at all about the tight grip which RVLT appears to have on your race performances: It’s actually great news! RVLT responds readily to smart training, and if you manage to heighten your RVLT by just 2.5 percent (an easy change to make) your old 10-K pace will become your new half-marathon tempo, and your previous 5-K speed will now be your new 10-K velocity! Your new 5-K velocity will in fact be 2.5-percent faster than your previous PR. An upswing in RVLT automatically means that you can hold your present race paces for longer periods of time – and thus boost your average race speeds (for example, a prior 3-K pace could be held for the full duration of a 5-K race). As your RVLT rises, so do your actual performances! FREE CHAPTER

In fact, it’s important to note that for many endurance athletes improving RVLT can be the key to unlocking better performances. A variety of different studies have revealed that RVLT can be the single-best predictor of performance – better even than that vaunted physiological variable, VO2max, aka maximal aerobic capacity (1 & 2).

Runners and coaches sometimes wonder why RVLT is such a great fitness indicator and race predictor. As they express it, why can’t VO2max and/or running economy do just as good a job of predicting how well a runner will do in races?

This is the first time I have mentioned running economy, so I should explain it. Running economy is simply the oxygen cost of running at a particular speed. For example, if runner A and runner B are racing each other at a tempo of six minutes per mile, but runner A requires 10-percent less oxygen (and therefore energy) per minute to hold that pace, then runner A is by definition more economical. Runner A will also usually win the race, because he/she will tend to find the pace to be less difficult (and thus there is an increased chance that A can move up to faster speeds during the race; almost certainly, A will experience less fatigue). Basically, runners with enhanced economy are better able to conserve energy during competitions, and they also find fast paces to be less stressful (because they are conducted at a smaller percentage of VO2max), compared to runners with poorer economy.

Of course, you might think that VO2max would be the best performance predictor, since it is a function of both heart size and the muscles’ ability to use oxygen to provide the energy needed for running. If you have a big pump (heart) and well-trained muscles, two things which are correlated with good performances, your VO2max will indeed be pretty high. Indeed, elite male endurance athletes generally have VO2max readings above 75 ml.kg-1.min-1, while elite females generally check in at 70 ml.kg-1.min-1 and above. In contrast, an “average Joe” plucked off the streets may have a VO2max of about 40 to 44 ml.kg-1.min-1.  FREE CHAPTER

However, VO2max is actually a coarse predictor of performance, because it doesn’t tell you anything about economy. If a runner’s VO2max is through the stratosphere but his/her economy is shoddy, performances may suffer mightily, and the runner may easily be beaten by another individual with a lower VO2max but more-salubrious economy. For example, let’s say that Jean and Ann are competing with each other in a half-marathon, running at about the same rugged pace through the first eight miles of the race. Jean’s VO2max is 78, while poor Ann checks in at “only” 70, so Jean should win from the standpoint of aerobic capacity. But, hold on: As they fight it out, it costs Ann just 60 ml.kg-1.min-1 of oxygen to maintain the pace, which is 60/70 or 86 percent of her maximum. Meanwhile, Jean of the lofty VO2max is struggling. Although she has kept pace so far, her efficiency is actually 20-percent worse than Ann’s. Jean’s actual cost is 72 ml.kg-1.min-1, or 92 percent of her max, and so the pace feels much tougher to Jean than it does to Ann. In fact, Jean won’t be able to continue much longer without slackening her pace, and Ann will go on to win, in spite of her lower VO2max. The trouble with VO2max is that it just does not contain enough information to be a great performance predictor. VO2max says nothing at all about running economy.

Economy by itself isn’t such a powerful predictor, either, because it doesn’t reveal anything about VO2max.

RVLT, on the other hand, includes information about lactate dynamics (and thus indirectly about oxygen utilization) and about economy. Basically, it is impossible to have poor economy and a great RVLT simultaneously. That’s because bad economy means that lots of energy must be used to maintain a particular pace, and high rates of energy consumption generally mean heavy duty carbohydrate (glycogen and glucose) breakdown rates. Lots of glucose metabolism means big-time glycolysis and – you guessed it – high rates of lactate production. It’s difficult to have a great RVLT if lactate is spewing all over the place.

In contrast, great economy means minimal energy expenditure, lower rates of carbohydrate metabolism, calmer rates of glycolysis, and therefore reduced lactate production, which goes hand in hand with a nice RVLT. Thus, a runner with a fine RVLT is usually also one with nifty economy, and that is why RVLT can be such a great performance predictor. RVLT actually includes information about three key predictors of running success – lactate-breakdown capacity (via oxidative metabolism), the ability to clear lactate from the blood,
and running economy.

As mentioned, it’s great news that RVLT is very responsive to training. In fact, it is much-more responsive than VO2max in most experienced runners. If you have been running for several years, VO2max may not move upward at all over the course of a single training year, while RVLT might soar! FREE CHAPTER

Remember Marc Rogers – our St.-Louis-Marathon winner (from Chapter 1)? You’ll recall that Marc won the race not because of a big move in VO2max, which actually was completely static despite a very impressive training regime, but because of a huge lift-off in RVLT. Marc’s internal machinery for oxidizing pyruvate and clearing lactate improved dramatically during his pre-marathon training, lifting his RVLT from 78 to 90 percent of his VO2max. As a result, he was the one who took home the first-place trophy.

Why is RVLT so dynamic? “The skeletal muscles can adapt rather suddenly and strikingly to training, producing major gains in RVLT,” says Marc. “In contrast, VO2max is a fairly stable cardiovascular variable in experienced endurance runners. To understand that, bear in mind that VO2max is to a large degree dependent on the size of the left ventricle of the heart, the key heart chamber which pumps oxygenated blood out to the body. The left ventricle just does not change very much in volume after you have been training for a number of years. That’s why VO2max may not rise at all – or may only increase by 1 or 2 percent, even with a high volume and/or intensity of training. Meanwhile, RVLT can be expected to increase by from 4 to 20 percent over the course of several months, given the appropriate training stimuli” (3).

Scientific research strongly supports Marc’s notion that VO2max can be a rather stubborn, static variable – while RVLT is extremely dynamic. When scientists at Georgia State University and the Emory University School of Medicine followed nine elite distance runners over a two-and-one-half-year period during which the athletes prepared for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles, they found that VO2max remained unchanged in these nine serious athletes over the entire 30-month period, while RVLT advanced by
an average of 6 percent. The RVLT upswing corresponded with either improved PRs or higher competitive rankings for the runners involved in the study (4). Unfortunately, many endurance athletes do not realize how important RVLT training really is.

As mentioned, another exciting aspect of RVLT improvement is that it seems to be much-less limited by the aging process, compared with upswings in VO2max and enhancements of economy (5 & 6). To put it another way, as you get older one of your best opportunities for improving performance is via RVLT upgrading.

That should not be a big surprise. Remember that as you get older your maximal heart rate tends to decline by an average of one beat per year, and the strength and flexibility of the left ventricle, your heart’s primary pumping chamber, also tend to diminish. These factors downgrade maximal cardiac output, a key component of VO2max. Meanwhile, both those pesky little muscle mitochondria which play such a large role in aggrandizing RVLT (remember that they are the “stages” upon which pyruvate is broken down for energy
via the Krebs cycle), and also the aerobic enzymes which give RVLT a kick-start, are not necessarily reduced by the aging process. In fact, they may increase almost as much in 60-year-old athletes as they would in competitors who are 30 years younger (7)! FREE CHAPTER

The ability of older runners to make significant advances in RVLT helps to explain a fascinating piece of research carried out several years ago by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis. In that investigation, eight masters athletes (average age 56) were compared with eight young runners (average age 25). Both groups ran the same number of miles per week (41) and also happened to have the same 10-K performance
ability (average finishing time was around 41:30). As it turned out, VO2max in the older competitors was almost 10-percent lower, compared with the youngsters (again illustrating the poor predictive power of maximal aerobic capacity), and running economy was fairly similar in the two groups. So why were the hoary harriers able to keep up with the rosy-cheeked saplings?

If you guessed RVLT, you are right! Both the old and young runners reached RVLT at a speed of about 230 meters per minute (about seven minutes per mile), so it was no surprise that both groups ran their 10Ks at a pace of around 6:45 per mile (as I mentioned earlier, RVLT and 10-K pace are predictably linked together). The higher VO2max values of the younger runners were irrelevant for predicting relative performances (their lofty VO2max readings did not foretell superior 10-K times, compared with the older runners), because
the RVLTs of the senior runners occurred at a higher percentage of VO2max.

In fact, RVLT for the masters competitors settled in at 85 percent of VO2max, while RVLT for the striplings coincided with just 79 percent of maximal aerobic capacity. As a result, the older runners were able to complete their 10Ks at about 88 to 90 percent of VO2max, while the salad-days youngsters could only handle 81 percent (remember that runners can usually complete their 10-K races at an intensity which is just 2 to 3 percent above lactate-threshold intensity). You might be thinking that the older runners should have won the
10Ks (since their RVLTs were at a higher percentage of VO2max), but since they had lower VO2maxs, 85 percent of their (lower) maximal aerobic capacities turned out to produce the same RVLT as the younger-runners’ 79 percent of their (higher) VO2maxs. And since the two-group’s RVLTs were the same, their performances in 10-K races were identical, too (8).

There’s another important lesson here. If you are a masters athlete who is serious about maintaining or raising your level of performance, you need RVLT training (and advancement) even more than a younger athlete does. That’s because after the age of 40 or so VO2max begins a relentless decline which trims about ½ percent from your maximal aerobic capacity each year, even if you train extremely vigorously (if that seems like small aerobic potatoes, bear in mind that it adds up to a minimum of a 5-percent loss in VO2max each 10 years). The drop-off in VO2max is related to the fact that the heart becomes a stiffer, less-potent pump as middle age progresses. Thus, the muscles are supplied with less oxygen-rich blood during strenuous exercise, and VO2max edges downward. There’s little you can do about this oxygen-utilization free-fall: Your VO2max is going to diminish. However, you can compensate for the loss of aerobic capacity by continuing to improve
your RVLT. Since RVLT is such a good predictor of performance, you can improve or maintain race times as you get older by pushing RVLT steadily upward.

However, it really doesn’t matter whether you are young or old: You can and should work steadfastly on upgrading your RVLT. Giving your RVLT a hefty shove to a higher movement speed (and a higher percentage of your VO2max) will allow you to keep pace with – and often beat – other runners who have higher maximal aerobic capacities than yours. It can also help you reach the PRs you have always dreamed about. If you don’t care about competing, heightening RVLT will allow you to train longer and more intensely than you
ever have before, which will significantly raise your overall fitness and help you lose weight and improve your body composition.

To read more about RVLT, and many more running related improvement. Click here to purchase Lactate Lift-Off 2nd Edition. FREE CHAPTER

But how do you maintain proper proton prudence during hard running? We know that high- intensity interval training can help in this matter (3), but the effects of strength training on hydrogen-ion frugality are less clear. One inquiry found that athletes who engage in regular strength training have better proton regulation, compared with non-strength-trained individuals (4), but the control subjects in this research were untrained individuals, leading skeptics to suggest that training per se - and not necessarily strength training - causes proton modulation to prosper.

Nonetheless, there is good reason to believe that resistance training might give muscle cells a hand with their hydrogen problems. One key is that vigorous, high-rep strength training has been shown to produce a large drop in intramuscular pH and a significant rise in blood-lactate concentration - similar to the changes which occur during high-intensity running (5). These "signals" associated with resistance training may act as they do after top-quality running, producing appropriate muscular adaptations and upgrades in hydrogen-handling capacity.

To find out if strength training really works in this way, highly regarded researcher David Bishop and his team from the School of Human Movement and Exercise Science at the university of Western Australia recently worked with 16 female athletes who were involved in such sports as hockey, netball, and soccer (6). Eight of the subjects carried out a high-repetition strength-training program (with three to five sets of 15 to 20 reps per exercise) over a five week period, while the other eight served as controls. High-Rep, Short-Recovery Strength Training

Both groups continued with their usual athletic pursuits over the five-week time frame, and the strength-training regime utilized a combination of free weights and exercise machines. The first six exercises of the strength-training workouts emphasized the legs and included squats, lunges, and step-ups (all completed with free weights), along with leg presses, leg extensions, and leg curls (performed with machines). To balance out the leg activities, upper-body exertions were incorporated into the sessions, including bench presses and shoulder presses (with free weights), along with seated rows and lat-pull-downs (carried out on machines), and even good-old-fashion sit-ups.

The resistance utilized per set was gradually reduced so that the athletes could perform at least 15 reps in each 40-second time period.

For each exercise, the appropriate number of sets (three to five) was completed before the athlete moved on to the next exertion. Each set was performed for 40 seconds ( and thus for 15 to 20 reps), followed by a 20-second rest. Since this rest period was fairly short, the resistance for sets following the first one was reduced (so that the athletes could still hit 15 to 20 repetitions within their sets). This meant that the first set was conducted at 70 percent of the RM load (e.g., 70 percent of the resistance which could be handled for three - and only three reps), the second set at 60 percent of 3RM, and sets three through five at 50 percent of 3RM.

The athletes actually completed two to three sets of each exercise during the first two weeks of the project and then three to five sets during the last three weeks of the research. When the subjects could complete 20 reps of a particular exercise for all sets during two straight workouts, the total load was upgraded by the smallest amount available for the relevant piece of equipment. As a practical matter, this meant that the advance in weight lifted during an exercise such as leg pressing was about 10 percent per week. A five-minute warm-up on an exercise bike tuned up the women prior to each strength-training session. High Rep, Short Recovery Strength Training

And how did the female athletes respond to all this lifting? After the leg exertions within a typical strengthening session, blood-lactate levels soared to an average of 9.1 mmol L-1, similar to the concentration which is commonly observed after a hard running workout conducted at an above-lactate-threshold intensity. Heart rate was also rather lofty, scoring at 85 percent of max.

Although body mass did not change, leg-press 3RM strength improved by 23 percent after five weeks (but remained unchanged for controls). The strength training also improved the ability of the athletes to carry out a high-intensity sprint-interval training session which involved 5 X 6 seconds of maximal sprinting, with 24-second recoveries. Total work performed during this workout advanced by 110 to 12 percent after five weeks for the strength-trained athletes, but not at all for the control individuals. Peak power attained during each of the sprints also advanced for strength-trained females (but again, not for controls).

To learn more about how High-Rep, Short-Recovery Strength Training Gets Runners Into Hydrogen-Management Industry  (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. Running Research News Subscription

That question has not exactly been rolling off athletes' lips, especially since Soren's latest published paper - "Pyeloureteral Junction Stenosis and Ureteral Valve Causing Hydronephrosis" (Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, Vol.35(3), pp. 245-247, June 2001) - has nothing at all to do with athletics. But give the fellow a chance! In addition to his pyeloureteral pursuits, the Dane is currently carrying out extremely interesting research on the treatment of athletic injuries, and his findings may one day help you bounce back from an injury more quickly than expected and as a result set a new personal record or win an important competition. A physiotherapist with Denmark's Olympic Committee, Mavrogenis has effectively treated several hundred cases of recurrent inflammatory injuries with a novel dietary supplement (Reuters Health, April 27, 2001). Tested for the first time in 1996 on a group of rowers from Denmark's National Rowing Team, Soren's nostrum appears to have remarkable anti-inflammatory properties (research on the overall healing properties of the treatment will be published in a peer-reviewed journal shortly).

Of course, most routine athletic injuries are treated with icing, rest, physiotherapy, and the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and Soren does not sermonize against the use of either rest or ice. However, the innovative Dane does leave the NSAIDS on the shelf, instead relying on a combination of essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals to soothe inflammation and restore injured body parts. He has reportedly found success with a variety of ailments, including both "tennis elbow" and golf elbow."

Soren's supplement does contain fats, so you might be reasonably asking, "Don't golfers already eat enough fat?" That's a reasonable question, but the problem, of course, is that they usually eat the wrong fats (i.e., the ones which seem to be pro-rather than anti-inflammatory). Soren's nutritional supplement contains a rich lode of inflammation-fighting omega-3 fatty acids (from fish oil), some omega-6 fats (from borage oil), four vitamins (A, B6, C, and E), and also the minerals selenium and zinc. According to Mavrogenis, most patients respond positively to the treatment in just two to three weeks, although very serious cases may require several months. "The results of this research confirm our clinical observations and leave us with the clear impression that inflammatory injuries can be treated without the use of NSAIDS. I see this as a ......breakthrough in modern physiotherapy. For the first time, we are able to offer our patients a safe and reliable treatment for stress injuries with chronic inflammatory response. In fact, it is our experience that with this new treatment, as opposed to conventional treatment, athletes are able to train actively while receiving treatment," says Soren. "The bad cases require the use of intensive ultrasound and certain massage techniques in addition to the antioxidants and essential fatty acids, but in the milder cases the use of nutrients alone is adequate," notes Mavrogenis. Norwegian sports authorities have been carefully watching Soren's work (naturally, Norwegians do not want Danes to leave them behind). Since inflammatory injuries to shoulders, elbows, knees, and Achilles tendons account for one-fourth of all job-related absences in Norway, Soren's anti-inflammatory regimen is now being tested by NIMI (no need to mention that this is Norsk Idrettsmedisinsk Institut). one of Scandinavia's foremost treatment facilities for sports injuries. We'll report on NIMI's findings in a future issue of this newsletter.

But isn't this all a little far-fetched? How can a few fatty acids - plus several vitamins and minerals - foster fast healing in an elbow nearly wrecked by overuse on the tennis courts - or in a knee inflamed by hundreds of miles of endurance running? The story just sounds too good to be true.

But it may not be. Bear in mind that scientific research has actually been fairly kind to the idea that omega-3 fatty acids and anti-oxidants can help to control inflammatory injuries. To understand why this is, remember that exercise generates increased quantities of "oxygen free radicals" and increases lipid peroxidation (the oxidative attack on key fats found in cell membranes, including muscle-fiber membranes fall apart and produce leaky, non-functional muscle cells.

As a defense against this disastrous possibility, the human body produces a fairly potent anti-oxidant called superoxide dismutase; superoxide -dismanyus production speeds up when individuals embark on regular and at least moderately strenuous training programs. Evidence suggests, however, that the superoxide-dismantus system is prone to being overwhelmed. Prolonged submaximal exercise has been shown to result in elevated amounts of skeletal-muscle lipid-peroxidation byproducts, indicating significant damage to the muscles (Free Radicals and Tissue Damage Produced by Exercise," Biochem Biophys Res Commun, Vol. 107, pp. 1198-1205, 1982). Clearly, the superoxide-dismutase system lets a significant number of free radicals "through its net."

Before we continue, let's review our story: Exercise can greatly increase the production of cell-damage free radicals. The magnified rates of lipid peroxidation resulting from this oxygen radical production may cause muscle damage. The human body has its own anti-radical defense system, but it doesn't provide complete protection from injury. In addition, the damage produced in the muscles as a result of exercise can "snowball" over relatively short periods of time. For example, in one study researchers found more muscle damage three days after a strenuous workout than they had found one hour after exercise ceased ("Adaptive Response in Human Skeletal Muscle Subjected to Prolonged Eccentric Training, " International Journal of Sports Medicine, Volume 4, pp. 177-183, 1983). This was a bit surprising, since researchers believed significant muscle repair would have occurred during the three-day interim. In another investigation, exercise scientists found that intense exercise produced immediate muscle damage, but the damage actually became much worse 24 and 48 hours after the workout was over, even though no follow-up exercise had taken place ("Ultrastructural Changes after Concentric and Eccentric Contractions of Human Muscle," Journal of Neurol Science, Vol. 61, pp. 109-122, 1983). In other word, in a muscle traumatized by exertion, there is a post-exercise period lasting for up to three days or more in which muscle damage is actually accelerated, rather than minimized, even when no further exercise occurs.

To learn more about how to Fats, Vitamins, and Your Sore Achilles  (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol. 17 Issue 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. BUY NOW.

Those knocks on upscale training seem logical enough, but hold on! Recent research demonstrates that fast training is far better than inchmeal pacing at boosting blood levels of an important chemical called human growth hormone (GH). Produced by the pituitary gland, GH also helps break down fat and heightens body leanness. Since swift training sessions amplify GH levels, it may be time to bring on the speed!!

In recent growth-hormone research carried out at the University of Virginia, 16 healthy female runners gradually expanded their training mileage from five to 40 weekly miles over a 12-month time span. Nine of the woman ran six times per week and completed all of their training at or below their lactate threshold running speed (LTRS), the velocity above which large amounts of lactic acids begin to accumulate in the blood. Generally, LTRS corresponds with a heart rate of 80-88 percent of maximum and a running pace which is 10 to 15 seconds per mile slower than 10K race pace.

The seven other women also trained six times weekly, but three of their sessions were conducted at much higher speeds. In fact, up to one-half of their weekly mileage, not to exceed five miles per workout or 15 miles per week, was completed at above-LTRS velocities. Usually, the above-LTRS workouts consisted of intervals run on the track at a speed about half-way between LTRS and two-mile race pace. Although training speeds differed, total weekly mileage was the same for the two groups ("Endurance Training Amplifies the Pulsatile Release of Growth Hormone: Effects of Training Intensity," journal of Applied Physiology.

After one year of training, both groups improved maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max), but the improvements were significantly greater in the above-LTRS runners. The higher intensity trainees boosted their average VO2max from 44.2 to 50.1 ml/kg/min, a 13-percent advance which is comparable to lowering 10K times from 45:58 to only 41:16. Both groups of athletes also increased lean body mass, but the above-LTRS runners tended to achieve greater reductions in fat weight and percent body fat.

                                                     Pulses of Growth Hormone

The biggest difference between the groups, though, was in the growth hormone production. Above-LTRS trainers nearly doubled the average amount of growth hormone in their blood, and their "pulsatile" release of GH was also dramatically heightened (The pituitary gland releases growth hormone not continuously but in sudden "pulses," or surges, at various times of the day). Since muscles and bones are especially responsive to abrupt increases in GH levels, this improved pulsatility could greatly enhance bone and muscle repair.

Prior studies had suggested that endurance training might gradually diminish the amount of growth hormone released from the pituitary gland, but the Virginia research indicates that at-the-below-LTRS training maintains GH levels while above-threshold intensities might - because of heightened GH - recover more quickly from strenuous workouts and races, uses fuel more efficiently during exercise, and amplify body leanness.

Also, since growth hormone stimulates the formation of new bony tissue, master's runners who want to fend off age-related decline in bone mass might profit from an increased frequency of above LTRS sessions. Chunkier runners who train slowly tend to produce miserly amounts of growth hormone, so above LTRS exercise should help heavier harriers break down fat and become leaner. Although it's unrealistic to expect masters or overweight runners to spend huge amounts of time exercising at above-threshold intensities, the Virginia scientists suggest that a schedule of three times a week for 20-30 minutes at slightly above threshold should be enough to jump-start GH production.

However, it takes time for the above-threshold training to promote growth-hormone levels. In the Virginia research, which utilized subjects who were initially untrained, growth hormone levels didn't begin to increase dramatically until eight months of above-threshold running had been completed. It's possible that training above threshold for only six months of the year - and training easily for the other six months - might not spike blood concentrations of GH: Fairly regular "doses" of upscale running may be required.

                                                                Speed Kills?

The link between chronic above-threshold training and enhanced blood-GH levels suggests that experienced runners might want to revamp their "base" training and that novice joggers should consider adjusting their initial workouts. Runners doing base or beginning training often rely almost exclusively on slow, steady miles, but it may be far better to mix moderate quantities of above- LTRS intervals with the easier runs. Inclusion of speed into base training won't lead to surges in injury rates; in fact, it might lower the frequency of injuries because the augmented GH could do a better job of fortifying bones, muscles, tendons, and ligaments. Recent research in Holland confirms that early, up-tempo training actually tends to downgrade - not increase - average injury rates. In the Virginia study, above threshold runners were not injured more often than the slower trainees, even though as much as 38 percent of their weekly miles were completed at above-threshold intensities. Generally, scientific surveys have been able to link higher total mileage - but not faster training speeds - with a greater risk of injury. Speed seems to produce problems primarily when it is combined with unusually high mileages or when large amounts of speed are added to a training program too quickly. Even beginning runners are ready for reasonable doses of speed.

If you decide to increase your above-LTRS training, it makes sense to add the speed in amounts which your body can tolerate easily. One sensible rule is to tag on no more than an additional half-mile of above-threshold work each week. How fast should you run? An easy way to accrue more above-LTRS miles is simply to run at your current 10K-race speed, which is usually two to three percent faster than LTRS. For example, during a few of your easy runs, cruise along for a half-mile at 10K speed midway through the run and then scoot through another half-mile at 10K intensity near the end of the workout. Or, instead of doing a three-mile easy run, jog two miles easily and then complete two 400-meter intervals at 10K tempo, with 400 meters of easy running after each interval. Even neophyte runners can insert several fast 100-meter intervals inside their short, easy runs.

"Strides" - 20 to 30-seconds bursts at current one-mile race pace - represent another great way to add more above threshold running to a training program. Most runners can ultimately attach four to eight 150-meter strides to three or four of their usual weekly workouts without risking excess fatigue, injury, or mental burnout. Although the strides are short, stride mileage can add up surprisingly quickly: Just 10 strides - five on one day and five on another - add nearly a full mile of above threshold running to a weekly training schedule. In addition, an experienced runner who currently logs 40 miles per week, including 10 miles at above-threshold speed, can increase his/her percentage of above-threshold miles from 25 percent to 31 percent - comparable to the levels reached by the above-threshold trainers in the Virginia study - simply by adding a total of 22 150-meter strides to your usual training too abruptly; about five additional strides per week represent the maximal allowable increase.

Although intense running is claimed to increase the risk of "burnout" and overtraining, it's more likely that a gradually-increased quantity of above-LTRS sessions will boost your growth hormone production, bolster your speed, strengthen your muscles and connective tissues, optimize fat breakdown, and help you develop the ability to recover from tough training sessions and hard races more quickly.

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.

(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:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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. (6) Run!

Happy Holidays !!

click here In his advanced and intermediate marathon training programs, Owen Anderson, Ph. D., provides you with the most-accurate, most-current, scientifically validated training techniques. His strategies are totally unique and unparalleled; you won't find them anyplace else. Owen's 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, Owen is now sharing with you everything he has learned about the marathon. He has created 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. click here 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. click here

This is your PERSONAL INVITATION to sign up for a 26-week program created by Owen Anderson, Ph. D., and to be part of a Select Group which trains according to the recommendations of the world's-leading authority on sports training! Owen has 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 Owen's schedules is "just another marathon program," think again! Owen's 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 click here 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 $299 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $99) for the intermediate program (about $11 per week) and $399 (PRICE SLASHED!! For a Limited time- Now $199) for the advanced schedule ($15 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.

Which muscle - or muscle group - fatigue to the greatest extent during a marathon? That is not a trivial question. Understanding which sinew - or collection of sinews - is most apt to lose its normal functioning during a marathon is very useful information. If there is a muscle which is most likely to fail during the 26.2-mile event, marathon runners can focus intently on strengthening this muscle in a running-specific way during their pre marathon training, lessening the possibility that it will spoil things on race day.

To find out which muscle is most likely to interfere with the opportunity to set a marathon PR, Dr. W. Schobersberger and his colleagues at the Medical University of Innsbruck in Austria recently monitored 13 runners (12 male an one female) who completed the Tirol Speed Marathon (1). These competitors performed isokinetic muscle tests three to four days before and then 18 hours after the marathon (isokinetic muscle actions are ones in which the speed of contraction is kept constant). Both legs were tested, and strength testing involved both concentric and eccentric contractions of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles (concentric actions involve force production and shortening of the muscle; eccentric actions involve force production as the muscle lengthens). The idea was to see which muscles had lost the most strength as a result of the completion of the race.

The Tirol Speed Marathon itself is a very interesting race (http://www.tirol-speed-marathon.com/home.1.0.html?&L=2). It begins in the world famous Brenner Pass in the Austrian Alps and ends in the historic Innsbruck, Austria and is called a “Speed Marathon” for good reason: The Brenner Pass is at about 1400 meters of altitude, but the finish in Innsbruck is elevated by only ~ 585 meters. Thus, the average downhill inclination is approximately 2 percent, which is conducive to running a very fast marathon time. In addition to promoting speed, this is the kind of course which should really beat up the quads. The quadriceps muscles, after all, are responsible for controlling knee flexion each time a foot hits the ground during running. They are the “insurance” which in effect keeps a leg from collapsing at the knee every time a force of three to four times body weight travels up the lower limb afte