Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2197 times)

    Viich, As I noted earlier, I've never thought my training recommendations were particularly radical but some folks really get bent out of shape about them and the research data supporting them. You can see clear evidence of that in the last 2 pages of this thread.
    Then why the websites and recurring manifestos that all say the same thing?
    Rich_


      More excerpts from the book Run Faster... Power "Running is not typically thought of as a power sport, but it truly is." I particularly liked that quote since it is a point I've been making for so long now. "There are two power-related ways to improve your race time at any distance. First, you can increase your maximal stride power in a way that does not diminish the average percentage of maximal stride power that you can sustain throughout the race... A second power-related way to boost your running performance is to increase the average percentage of your maximal power output that you can sustain throughout a race."
      Rich World's Fastest Slow Runner
      Rich_


        More excerpts from Run Faster Running Economy "The term 'running economy' refers to the energy cost of running at a given speed. Reducing the energy cost of running at your goal pace will help you sustain that pace all the way to the finish line." A while back I wrote an article making this very point - running economy is about energy use, not oxygen consumption. Therefore, when running economy improves it means the amount of energy you are burning at any particular pace is less. I propose that one of the main reasons that energy usage declines is because the muscle fibers have become more powerful. More powerful individual muscle fibers means fewer overall muscle fibers have to be activated to run at any particular pace.
        Rich World's Fastest Slow Runner


        Feeling the growl again

          More excerpts from Run Faster Running Economy "The term 'running economy' refers to the energy cost of running at a given speed. Reducing the energy cost of running at your goal pace will help you sustain that pace all the way to the finish line." A while back I wrote an article making this very point - running economy is about energy use, not oxygen consumption. Therefore, when running economy improves it means the amount of energy you are burning at any particular pace is less. I propose that one of the main reasons that energy usage declines is because the muscle fibers have become more powerful. More powerful individual muscle fibers means fewer overall muscle fibers have to be activated to run at any particular pace.
          Quotes, no doubt, taken out of their real context. Just like conveniently forgetting to mention that the authors in that other article completely disagreed with your interpretation of the data? "running economy is about energy use, not oxygen consumption" So I suppose we're all running marathons anaerobically now? Good, then I can stop wasting energy by breathing when I run...this is an idiotic statement even by your standards. energy use = oxygen use. Period. Nobody said muscle improvement isn't involved. It's your idiotic notion that it's the ONLY thing that makes you a loon.

          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

           

          I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

           

          Rich_


            More from Run Faster "There is really very little difference in the type of fitness that is needed to run your best 5K and the type that is needed to run your best marathon, or any intermediate distance. (Elite male runners run less than 45 seconds per mile slower in the marathon than they do in the 5K.) If you're in shape to run your best time at any distance between 5K and the marathon, you won't be far off optimal shape for any other distance." Think about that for a moment and then ask yourself, "What, physiologically, explains this fact?" It's not VO2max because at distances beyond 5K you don't run at VO2max. It's not lactate threshold because a) there is no lactate threshold, b) lactate doesn't cause fatigue, and (for those who still believe there is a lactate threshold and that it is somehow important to performance) c) the only distance you might run at lactate threshold is the marathon - all other distances are run at some other pace than lactate threshold pace. I suggest the answer is found in the one performance related physiological entity that is active and consistent at any and all race distance. That one entity is muscle.
            Rich World's Fastest Slow Runner
              <removed to="" boycott="" dick=""></removed>
              Rich_


                Gopher, Choice c is included for those who still cling to the belief that there is a lactate threshold and that it is somehow important in performance. My apologies for not being completely clear in that post.
                Rich World's Fastest Slow Runner
                Rich_


                  More from Run Faster "Individual runners recover differently from different types and patterns of training." That is an excellent point. Should all runners strive to run a particular weekly mileage? I suggest no because of the reason above - varying rates of recovery. "Typically, the higher your overall talent level and fitness level are, the faster you'll recover." Several years ago I formulated "the running theory of everything". This theory stated that recover was associated with talent; that, generally speaking, the higher your level of talent the faster you tended to recover. Data from the Berne Gran Prix study provided support for this theory. The training implication of this theory is that optimal weekly run volume for a group of similar runners (similar age, sex, health, nutrition, training history, etc) is not the same - it is dependent, to a large degree, on the inborn talent level of each runner. I sent my theory and the Berne study data to Dr. Tim Noakes, asking him to review and comment. His response was that he thought it was correct, that no one had thought of it before, and congratulated me on the theory. On the other hand, this particular theory has met with tremendous opposition in the general running community, especially from a vocal few. The training implications of this theory were just to painful to accept by some. It appears that at least two others are now echoing the basic tenet of the running theory of everything.
                  Rich World's Fastest Slow Runner
                    Anecdotal info: In 2005 after having been back in training for a few months, I hired an online coach from one of the big-name stables. The first step in the program was to run a 5k race to serve as a benchmark for training paces, which I did in 21:30. The next step was to build my mileage up to a peak of 50 mpw. I had been running 25-30 before that. We also picked out a goal race 4 months later in which I hoped to run 19:40. After reaching the mileage peak, 3 weeks before the goal race, I entered a 5k and ran 19:43. Along with building the mileage up, I had done a few tempo runs and a couple brief interval sessions of moderate intensity. Now for the sharpening phase: the coach dropped my mileage down to 25 mpw, had me run some short, hard intervals and rest 2 days each week. I ran my goal race in 19:40, which was somewhat of a disappointment considering it was only 3 seconds faster than what I’d run duriing the buildup. The plan from here was to continue with the low mileage, high quality plan and run some all-comers meets. The deterioration had already started to set in. I ran my next 5k in 20:34, and followed it up with 3 more that were slower than 20 minutes. The coach seemed to lose interest and gave some indications that he thought I just "didn’t have it". I “fired” him even though I had prepaid. I started running more miles with not as much intensity. Within 2 months of beginning the milage push I ran 19:41, essentially back to where I was the last time I’d run that many miles. Along the way I met up with another coach who has an almost direct opposite philosphy. We hit it off right away. He doesn’t have me run that hard in training but is a big believer in mileage and “resting” with easy running rather than days off. He also stresses avoiding what he calls “super hero workouts”, with most quality running done at a “comfortably hard” pace rather than hammering my brains out…consistency rules. This approach has enabled me to incease mileage to where I’m running more miles now at age 62 than I ever have in my life. Last week I ran a half marathon at sub-20 5k pace, including the final 5k. With the "low mileage-hight quality" approach I couldn't run a single 5k at that pace.
                    Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                      Here's what I said in the other thread:
                      I've descovered that he has NO interest whatsoever, and he has said it himself, with running or training at all. He is interested in theories. And good for him for that. But I really don't think his theories has any use to those who run or those who are interested in improving their training/performance.
                      Here's what Dick countered, whining:
                      I've never said or implied any such thing. Why would you spread such a lie?
                      And here what he said a few posts ago:
                      The topic of this thread is "physiology" not "training" because the book and I agree on some physiological points related to muscle, not training methods.
                      And I said this, among many others who Dick claims get "bend out of shape" with his "revolutionary view", at CoolRunning forum as well; I thought this was a running forum, not Journal of Science or Physiology (not that that's what he's talking about either...). I'm curious, though... Now all of a sudden Brad Hudson is THE man in Dick's life; wonder if he mentioned, in his book, "oxygen" or "long run" or "recovery jog" at all... Or he's totally centered his training method around "3 intensity workouts a week" and "muscle power" only... Or if there's a lot more in his book than quates he used here... Knowing Brad is more or less a Lydiard-type coach (I haven't read the book but a friend of mine who has told me he actually menttions the influence of Lydiard in his book; the man Dick was so readily mock about in the first thread I came across with him...), I'd be very surprised if he neglects volume of training... Jim: That's quite interesting... I actually might have done the same with your old coach in terms of cutting back the mileage before the target race; thought I would be a bit more forgiving with the intensity... It is true, in a way, that what I do is pretty much 3 (or thereabouts) "point workouts" a week; a long run, a tempo and intervals (right now, steps). Except that I fill it up with 7~10 other workouts a week in a form of "jogging". I hadn't "trained" this much in years and I feel very fit (except for my Achilles pain!); I've improved my 5k time by a minute just this season alone. And now I got a new goal--to get your times by the time I get 60! ;o) Very impressive; good on ya!


                      Dave

                        Thanks for a great post, Jim.

                        I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

                        dgb2n@yahoo.com

                        TJoseph


                          Great post Jim! People want to believe that quality trumps quantity because they won't or can't put the time in. If you look at the training of the fastest people on this board like Jim, they are all logging high miles. For me, it is easier to believe Jim's approach works than Rich's because he actually tells us how it worked for him.
                            Linus got new glasses. Charlie Brown asked: "Oh, you got new glasses? Are they for near-sighted or far-sighted?" Linus said, "Which is which?" Charlie Brown goes, "Well, which is which... Is near-sighted when you can see... Wait. Is it far-sighted when you can see..." and goes on and on and on... Linus finally said, "I wear glasses so I can see better," and walked. away
                            TJoseph


                              Linus got new glasses. Charlie Brown asked: "Oh, you got new glasses? Are they for near-sighted or far-sighted?" Linus said, "Which is which?" Charlie Brown goes, "Well, which is which... Is near-sighted when you can see... Wait. Is it far-sighted when you can see..." and goes on and on and on... Linus finally said, "I wear glasses so I can see better," and walked. away
                              And is the moral of the story: If you don't understand the question, answer a different question? Or is it: If you don't understand the question you are asking, you won't understand the answer anyways?
                                People want to believe that quality trumps quantity because they won't or can't put the time in.
                                Quality and consistency.
                                I propose that one of the main reasons that energy usage declines is because the muscle fibers have become more powerful. More powerful individual muscle fibers means fewer overall muscle fibers have to be activated to run at any particular pace.
                                "Lactate Shuttle" could be an explanation for why endurance training helps speed.
                                In 1999, for example, he showed that endurance training reduces blood levels of lactate, even while cells continue to produce the same amount of lactate. This implied that, somehow, cells adapt during training to put out less waste product. He postulated an "intracellular lactate shuttle" that transports lactate from the cytoplasm, where lactate is produced, through the mitochondrial membrane into the interior of the mitochondria, where lactate is burned. In 2000, he showed that endurance training increased the number of lactate transporter molecules in mitochondria, evidently to speed uptake of lactate from the cytoplasm into the mitochondria for burning.
                                And maybe there's no peace in this world, for us or for anyone else, I don't know. But I do know that, as long as we live, we must remain true to ourselves. - Spartacus