5 Common Myths about Lactic Acid and Running

There are 5 common myths about Lactic Acid and that still persists today among coaches and athletes.

1. “The burn” felt in the leg muscles during fast running is caused by a buildup of lactic acid

2. Lactic Acid provides soreness experienced the day after an especially tough workout

3. Lactic Acid is a metabolic waste product formed in muscles during vigorous exercise

4. Lactic Acid shows up in the muscles when athletes run to a point of oxygen debt

5. Lactic Acid is fatigue during intense running

Science tells us that all 5 of these assertions about Lactic Acid are untrue.

Author Owen Andreson dispels these myths in quick order in his book Running Science:

Lactic acid doesn’t produce burning sensations, it doesn’t induce soreness, and it’s not a form of metabolic garbage that must be eliminated from muscle cells as quickly as possible.

The burn experienced during high-speed running is probably a protective mechanism created by the nervous system in order to stop runners from damaging their muscles with too much high-speed effort.

The soreness experienced 24 to 48 hours after a tough workout is most likely the result of an inflammatory process occurring in muscle cells that have been partially damaged by very strenuous running; lactic acid is not involved.

In addition, oxygen shortfalls are not required in order to make lactic acid appear in the muscles and blood, and lactic acid does not induce fatigue. The truth is that lactic acid is produced in the body all the time, even when athletes are at rest, because it’s a natural byproduct of the key energy-producing process of glycolysis. Furthermore, running velocity at lactate threshold occurs at 60 to 88 percent of VO₂ Max, that is, at an exercise intensity at which oxygen is not yet limiting since VO₂ Max has not been reached.

The concentration of lactic acid in the muscles and blood can rise significantly whenever a carbohydrate-containing meal is consumed; many of the ingested carbs are broken down glycolytically to pyruvic acid, which is then converted to lactic acid. If lactic acid really caused muscle soreness and fatigue, runners would experience muscle pain and tiredness every time they wolfed down their favorite carbohydrate-rich meals!

Anderson goes on to define Lactic Acid’s, or more accurately, lactate’s, real role in the body as follows:

Instead of being a dangerous compound that wreaks havoc inside muscle cells, lactic acid (or, more accurately, lactate, which is just lactic acid without a hydrogen ion) plays a paramount role in carbohydrate processing throughout a runner’s body. Lactate can move out of the muscles and travel through the bloodstream to the liver; the liver can then use lactate to produce glucose, a runner’s most important source of carbohydrate fuel. This is an incredibly significant role for lactate because the liver relies on glucose to maintain normal blood sugar levels.

In addition, up to 50% of the lactate produced during a very tough workout or race may be used eventually to synthesize glycogen in the muscles. Glycogen is the key storage form of carbohydrate in the body. This is important because the muscles use carbohydrates as the major energy source during high-quality workouts and competitive endurance performances. Far from damaging tissues or inducing soreness, the glycogen that comes from lactate provides the energy needed to carry out subsequent, high-quality workouts; the glycogen can be broken down into countless molecules of glucose, which then undergo glycolysis. During exercise, lactate is also an irreplaceable source of immediate energy for muscles and other tissues because lactate can be converted back to pyruvate, which can then quickly enter the energy-producing Krebs cycle. cycle. Enhancing the ability to use lactate can improve a runner’s race times rather dramatically. Thus, lactate can go two ways in muscles: (1) into glycogen formation, or energy storage, or (2) into energy creation via pyruvate’s entry into the Krebs cycle. Developing the ability to process lactate effectively helps athletes run faster and longer.

Source: Running Science, Anderson, Chapter 10.

Research Article: The Effect of Strength Training on Performance in Endurance Athletes

Research article The Effect of Strength Training on Performance in Endurance Athletes, C .Beattie, I. Kenny, M. Lyons and B.Carson. (2014). Sports Medicine 44:845-865

BACKGROUND

Economy, velocity/power at maximal oxygen uptake (vVO₂ Max / wVO₂ Max) and endurance-specific muscle power tests (i.e. maximal anaerobic running velocity vMART), are now thought to be the best performance predictors in elite endurance athletes. In addition to cardiovascular function, these key performance indicators are believed to be partly dictated by the neuromuscular system. One technique to improve neuromuscular efficiency in athletes is through strength training.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to search the body of scientific literature for original research investigating the effect of strength training on performance indicators in well-trained endurance athletes - specifically economy, vVO₂ Max / wVO₂ Max and muscle power (VMART).

METHODS

A search was performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science search engines. There were twenty-six studies that met the inclusion criteria (athletes had to be trained endurance

The results showed that strength training improved time trial performance, economy, vVO₂ Max / wVO₂ Max and vMART in competitive endurance athletes.

CONCLUSION

The present research available supports the addition of strength training in an endurance athlete’s program for improved economy, vVO₂ Max / wVO₂ Max, muscle power and performance. However, it is evident that further research is needed. Future investigations should include valid strength assessments (i.e. squats, jump- squats, drop jumps) through a range of velocities (maximal strength ↔ strength-speed ↔ speed-strength ↔ reactive- strength), and administer appropriate strength programs (exercise, load & velocity prescription) over a long-term intervention period (> 6 months) for optimal transfer to performance.

View the full research article here: The Effect of Strength Training on Performance in Endurance Athletes

The 4 Phases of the Adaptation Phenomenon

An expert from the book The Science of Winning:

The adaptation phenomenon is ruled by the “principle of super-compensation” which follows 4 distinctive phases (fig. 1):

Phase 1

During this phase the athlete completes a large volume of training; they become tired and their physical performance drops (curve decline).

Phase 2

The so-called recovery phase induced by very low-intensity training (regeneration training or active rest) and rest between training sessions. The physical performance will now return to the starting level (curve rise equals compensation for the hard work).

This phase allows for several biological adaptations to take place:

• Normalization of the cell environment: waste products are removed, the pH-values normalize and the cell structures recover

• Recovery of neuromuscular stimulation processes: a tired muscle does not react optimally to stimuli from the nerves. This will be restored when the muscle recovers

• Concentration and activity of enzymes and hormones will be restored

• Energy sources are replenished. Glycogen and other fuel sources are restored

Phase 3

The super-compensation phase: physical performance increases above the initial level. The athlete can now handle the same load as before but with less strain or a more intense load with the same ease.

Phase 4

If training is not carried on, the improvement in physical capacity will be progressively lost.

Source: The Science of Winning: Planning, Periodizing and Optimizing Swim Training, Olbrecht, Ch. 1.

Link — Review of Various Periodization Models with Examples

Geoffrey Chiu, writing on his website gcperformancetraining.com, gives a simple, but detailed review of various periodization models.

Below is a list of periodization models he reviews along with the basic introduction he gives on each.

You can read Geoffrey’s full post here.

TRADITIONAL PERIODIZATION

Popularized by sport scientists such as Matveyev and Tudor Bompa, traditional periodization (TP) (often referred to as "linear periodization ) was one of the first models of periodization created. TP is characterized by the concurrent development of technical, cardiovascular and strength-related abilities, whereby the initial phase is high-volume and low-intensity in nature, progressing towards a low-volume and high-intensity training protocol.  

REVERSE PERIODIZATION

Reverse periodization (RP) is a model offered by Ian King, an Australian strength & conditioning coach, who characterized RP as initial phases of low-volume, high-intensity training, moving onto higher volume, lower-intensity training as a competition nears. This is essentially a "reverse" of the TP model. 

UNDULATING PERIODIZATION

Undulating periodization, specifically daily (DUP) and weekly (WUP) undulating periodization are models that can be characterized by a greater frequency of variation in volume and intensity, achieved on the daily and weekly level. In comparison to TP, the greater variation of training is suggested to be more optimal for experienced athletes and team sports athletes.

BLOCK PERIODIZATION

Block periodization (BP) originally called the Coupled Successive System by Yuri Verkoshansky, was developed and popularized by figures such as Verkoshansky himself, Anatoliy Bondarchuk and Vladimir Issurin. BP is considered an advanced periodization-model directed towards advanced, elite-level athletes. The basis behind BP is that elite-level athletes who are reaching the functional limits of their physical performance require highly concentrated training loads in order to further increase performance. In BP, a concentrated high-volume load "block" of training is directed towards a select group of physical capabilities, where these adaptations can be realized in the subsequent low-volume block.

Read Geoffrey’s full post here.

The 3 Requirements for a Successful Supercompensation Process

An expert from the book The Science of Winning:

Requirements for a Successful Super-Compensation Process:

1. A healthy body: inflammation, overtraining, mental stress, etc. strongly reduce the possibility for super-compensation

2. Adequate training intensity and volume: This is probably the most delicate, even crucial aspect of successful training. Indeed, the training must be just long enough (volume) and just hard enough (intensity) to stimulate the body in such a way as to induce morphological (structural) and functional adaptations. When training is too hard and/or too long, it will break down the body too much and will actually impede the process of super-compensation. So, the real art is always adjusting intensity and volume to meet the purpose of the training as well as the conditioning and mental state of the athlete.

3. Enough rest (passive or active rest): rest or regenerative workouts will make up most of an athlete’s training time. Insufficient rest or insufficient low-intensity training (regeneration training) between important training sessions prevents the body from achieving super-compensation This brings us to one of the most important and overriding principles in training: Rest of generation is the most essential part of training for inducing optimal biological adaptions.

Source: The Science of Winning: Planning, Periodizing and Optimizing Swim Training, Olbrecht, Ch. 1.

Answers to the Question — How Long Does it Take an Athlete to Realize Optimal Supercompensation Effects from Different Types of Training?

In supercompensation, the athlete can handle the same training load or a greater load with ease in the subsequent workouts if recovery is adequate and the new stress is timed properly.

This adaptive phenomenon is an ongoing wavelike process, with its high moments (when recovery has been fully realized) and low moments (the intense fatigue after a physically stressful workout or competition).

How long does it take an athlete to realize optimal supercompensation effects from different types of training?

Below is a chart with guidelines from "The Science of Winning" — a superb book on how to plan effective endurance training.

From page 19, The Science of Winning: Planning, periodizing, and optimizing swim training

It is important to recognize that training adaption time will change with the particular quality being trained and the system that is being stressed.

The readiness of the athlete determines the response to the training stimulus.

For an optimal adaptive response to occur, some training task requires complete recovery before they can be repeated — others do not.

Here's a list of the highest fatigue levels under which an athletic quality can be successfully developed.

Activities of high neural demand such as:

• Maximum Speed

• Maximum Strength

• Explosive Strength (or Speed Strength)

All demand complete recovery before the next exposure in training. This goes for repetitions in a single workout and from workout to workout.

High neural demand works maximally stress the nervous system resulting in fatigue.

Fatigue is generally defined as a drop in the capacity to produce strength. This is a result of an alteration in neuromuscular function, which usually causes the skeletal muscles to contract in response to electrical stimuli produce by the central nervous system.

Neuromuscular fatigue is generally divided into two types: Central Fatigue and Peripheral Fatigue.

Central Fatigue represents a drop in the recruitment of motor units by the brain or a reduction in the frequency of impulses.

Peripheral Fatigue is linked to an alternating in the nerve messages, to perturbation of the excitation/contracting couple and/or to a drop in the muscle fiber’s intrinsic capacity to produce strength.

Conversely, some training tasks can be trained with incomplete recovery. Those activities are of high metabolic demand such as Aerobic Endurance, Strength Endurance, and Speed Endurance.

Finally, recognize that every athletic quality has it own time for full adaption. As a rule of thumb, expect noticeable changes in the following qualities to be realized on the following time horizons:

• Flexibility/Mobility improves and adapts from day-to-day.

• Strength improves and adapts from week-to-week.

• Speed improves and adapts from month-to-month.

• Work capacity and endurance improves year-to-year.

Sources:

• Athletic Development, Gambetta, Ch. 5

• Endurance Training — Science and Practice, Mujika, Ch. 1

• The Science of Winning: Planning, Periodizing and Optimizing Swim Training, Olbrecht, Ch.1

Notes on Weight Lifting For Runners

Training regimes using concurrent endruance and heavy-resistance exercise have found to improve long-duration endurance performance in untrained-to-well trained individuals more than endurance training alone.

Using strength exercises with a moderate (3 - 8) number of repetitions performed in a set and a modest number of sets (2 - 5), and not performed to failure seems to produce the largest enhancement in strength, muscle power, and performance than high training volumes and/or repetitions to failure.

In the training of athletes who want to avoid gains in body mass, it is interesting to note that concurrent strength and endurance training can result in increased maximal muscle strength and rapid force capacity without any corresponding increases in muscle fiber size and anatomical cross-section area.

Concurrent training in endurance athletes seems to result in an increased Rate of Force Development and/or reduced time to peak force.

Strength training for runners should involve multiple exercises (2-3) for main targeted muscle groups, using heavy loads (85 of 3 Rep Maximum), performance in sets of 3-5, using periodized training progression for a total duration of 6-16 weeks.

Sources:

Aagaard and Raastad, Chapter 6, Endurance Training – Science and Practice

Aagaard et al., 2011. Effects of resistance training on endurance capacity and muscle fiber composition in young top‐level cyclists.

Bishop, et al., 1999. The effects of strength training on endurance performance and muscle characteristics.

Hickson et al, 1988. Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance.

Hoff, et al., 2002. Maximal Strength Training Improves Aerobic Endurance Performance.

Lonsnegard et al., 2011. The effect of heavy strength training on muscle mass and physical performance in elite cross country skiers.

Research Article: Maximal Strength Training Improves Aerobic Endurance Performance

Research article Maximal Strength Training Improves Aerobic Endurance Performance, J. Hoff, A. Gran, J. Helgerud (2002). Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12, 336-339

Purpose:

The present study investigated the effect of maximal strength training on running economy (RE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (V˙ O2max) and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic speed (MAS).

Responses in one-repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, maximal oxygen consumption, RE, and time to exhaustion at MAS were examined.

Methods:

Seventeen well-trained (nine male and eight female) runners were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group.

The intervention group (four males and four females) performed half-squats, four sets of four repetitions maximum, three times per week for 8 wk, as a supplement to their normal endurance training.

The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period.

Results:

The intervention manifested significant improvements in 1RM (33.2%), RFD (26.0%), RE (5.0%), and time to exhaustion at MAS (21.3%). No changes were found in VO2max or body weight.

The control group exhibited no changes from pre to post values in any of the parameters.

Conclusion:

Maximal strength training for 8 wk improved RE and increased time to exhaustion at MAS among well-trained, long-distance runners, without a change in maximal oxygen uptake or body weight.

View the full research article here: Maximal Strength Training Improves Aerobic Endurance Performance

Plyometrics and Distance Running — Research and Training Recommendations

The following is a post on research and training recommendations from the now-defunct website Running Research News which was run in the early 2000s by Owen Andreson, author of the excellent book Running Science.

Another excellent book from Anderson is Running Form.

Anderson has contributed so much valuable information on training to the distance running community. I personally am indebted to him and share his archive work so more can learn from him.

Plyometrics and Distance Running

By Owen Anderson, Ph. D.

Evidence that plyometric training improves running economy and distance-running performance continues to pile up. In recent research carried out by Rob Spurrs and colleagues from the Human Movement Department at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, just six weeks of plyometric work (with 15 total plyometric sessions) improved 3-K run time by almost 3%!

17 male distance runners with an average age of 25 who had been actively training for approximately 10 years participated in the Australian investigation; nine were assigned to a control group, and eight took part in the experimental, plyometric training (1). Prior to the study, all 17 athletes had an average weekly training volume of 60 to 80 kilometers (37 to 50 miles). None of the subjects had performed plyometric exercises during the three months leading up to the study.

Runners in the experimental group completed two plyometric workouts per week for three weeks and then three plyometric sessions each week during the final three weeks of the study. Prior to each plyometric session, all of the runners carried out a 20-minute, dynamic warm-up which included leg swings, ankle bounces, skips, and run-throughs; some static stretching was also performed. The plyometric training was designed to be progressive, in the sense that the exercises became more complex, more sets of drills were completed, and the total number of foot contacts per session increased during the six-week period. The plyometric drills included squat jumps, split-scissor jumps, double-leg bounds, alternate-leg bounds, single-leg forward hops, depth jumps, double-leg hurdle jumps, and single-leg hurdle hops. For all of the exercises, the runners were instructed to give maximal efforts with minimal ground-contact times.

The pervading theme for all of the exercises used in the investigation was to get as high as possible with the least amount of ground-contact time. For the double- and alternate-leg bounds and also for the single-leg forward hop (i. e., the drills which focused more intently on horizontal movements), this theme was also applied - but with the added instruction that the greatest-possible horizontal distance should be covered with the most-abbreviated-possible ground contact.

After the six weeks of explosive training, average 3-K performance improved by 16.6 seconds (2.7%) in the plyometric group, dropping from approximately 10:28 to 10:12; meanwhile, control-group runners failed to improve 3-K times. Plyometrically trained runners also upgraded their "five-bound" test distance by 7.8% and countermovement jump height by a sizable 13.2%. The five-bound test called for the runners to cover the greatest horizontal distance possible by performing a series of five forward jumps with alternate left and right foot contacts. The countermovement jump test involved three countermovement jumps on a Swift Performance Jump Mat (countermovement jumps include a significant squatting action prior to jumping). For these countermovement jumps, the runners attempted to jump for maximal height while keeping their hands placed on their hips (to reduce potential propulsive contributions from the upper body). The best of the three jumps was recorded for analysis. Improvement in both the five-bound and countermovement tests indicated that the plyometric runners had significantly improved maximal force production in their leg muscles and/or coordination during intense movements. Control runners failed to improve on either test.

The plyometric group also made significant improvements in another key area - running economy.

Economy, which is simply the rate of oxygen consumption required to run at specific rate of movement, was checked at three different running speeds, and the plyometrically trained runners improved economy at all three velocities. Their economy was 6.7-% better at 12 kilometers per hour, 6.4-% improved at 14 kilometers per hour, and 4.1-% more up-to-date at 16 kilometers/hour, compared with the beginning of the six-week study. Control runners failed to improve economy at all!

Making plyometric training look better still, maximal isometric force in the calf muscles of the plyometric runners swelled by 11 to 14% over the course of the six-week investigation, and the rate of force production by the calf muscles showed strong positive trends in the plyometric athletes, advancing by about 14 to 15%. Control runners failed to show any signs of improvement.

Quite rightly, the Australian researchers took a keen interest in the musculotendinous stiffness (MTS) of the runners before and after training.

As it turns out, the link between MTS and performance has a very interesting history. About 12 years ago (1991), research revealed that the MTS of the legs determined the body's ability to store and utilize impact energy associated with running (2). Subsequent research found that seven weeks of plyometric training led to a significant increase in leg-tendon stiffness (3). Even more interestingly, other research determined that the actual energy cost of running was significantly related to the stiffness of the legs during propulsion - and that when such stiffness decreased, the energetic cost of running actually increased (4). In a similar vein, additional research suggested strongly that uneconomical runners possess a more compliant running style during ground contact, compared with energy-efficient harriers (5).

If this is a puzzler to you, bear in mind that a stiff muscle or tendon tends to resist being stretched out, but it also develops a comparatively high degree of tension as it is elongated, compared with a non-stiff muscle or tendon. Stretch a stiff muscle/tendon out three centimeters, for example, and it will snap back like an angry cobra when allowed to do so; stretch a non-stiff muscle/tendon out the same distance, and it will recoil rather limply.

Naturally, the key muscles and tendons of running, including the calf muscles, Achilles tendon, quadriceps muscles, patellar tendon, glutes, and hamstrings, all are stretched significantly when the foot makes impact with the ground. If these muscles and tendons are too non-stiff, the leg collapses to too great an extent; if the tissues are stiffened up, the leg is better able to produce optimal amounts of reactive, propulsive force. In effect, the impact energy of running is stored and released more effectively. This should improve economy, since very forceful, non-energy-requiring "snap-backs" of muscles and tendons are being used to furnish a significant amount of the energy needed to drive the body forward; there is a lesser reliance on energy-consuming muscle contractions.

So how did the plyometric runners fare with their stiffness? How about a nifty 11-% average upswing in stiffness for the right leg and a 15-% vault upward for the left limb? Meanwhile, the hapless control runners failed to augment leg stiffness at all. Remember that running economy also improved by 4 to 7% in the plyometric runners - and by 0% in the control competitors. It is logical to think that one of the key things plyometric training can do for runners is help them assess how much stiffness is required in their legs to produce the most highly propulsive and most highly energy-efficient muscle-tendon actions.

Rob Spurrs' excellent work echoes research carried out a few years ago by Heikki Rusko and co-workers in Finland. In Heikki's heroics, 10 runners spent 32% of their training time (that is, about three hours per week) carrying out explosive strength training (6). The explosive sessions lasted from 15 to 90 minutes and consisted of sprints (five to 10 reps of 20 to 100 meters) and various jumping exercises (bounding drills, bilateral-countermovement jumps, drop-and-hurdle jumps, and one-leg-five-jump tests). Sometimes, these jumps were carried out without additional weight; at other times a barbell was held on the shoulders. In addition, these "explosive" athletes completed leg-press, knee-extensor, and knee-flexor exercises with low resistance and close-to-maximal movement velocities (five to 20 reps per set, 30 to 200 total reps per session, with resistance always at less than 40% of the one-rep maximum). A control group spent only 3% of total training time performing such exercises but logged more weekly mileage than the explosive athletes (about 70 miles per week, versus 45).

After nine weeks, contact time (the amount of time spent on the ground by the feet during the stance phase of the gait cycle) decreased from 210 milliseconds to 195 milliseconds for the explosively trained runners, while the control people remained unchanged. Happily, stride length remained unaltered in the explosive group (naturally, there is a tendency for stride length to shorten as contact time is abridged), which meant that the explosive runners were faster (after all, isn't that what explosive runners are supposed to be?). Running economy improved by 8% in Heikki's explosive competitors (just above, but not necessarily significantly so, the 4- to 7-% gain achieved by Robb's runners). Heikki's control runners got an "F" for economy enhancement, despite their valiant, 70-mile per week efforts.

Rusko's explosive runners augmented 20-meter sprint times by 4% and - most importantly (since they were 5-K runners) - shaved 30 seconds off their 5-K race times, while control-runners' times were stagnant. Incredibly, Rusko's explosive individuals accomplished their 5-K feats even though they made no improvement at all in maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max). Meanwhile, control runners were upticking VO2max by 5% but failed to ameliorate 5-K time by even one second!

Rob Spurrs, the principal researcher in the Australian work, is an excellent runner in his own right, having clicked off 800 meters in 1:49.6 and - even more impressively - 400 meters in a sizzling 48.7. He is currently the rehabilitation conditioner for the Sydney Swans, an Australian-Rules Football Club, and is undertaking new research which will measure peak braking force, time to peak braking force, average braking force, peak propulsive force, time to peak propulsive force, average propulsive force, peak vertical force, vertical force, time to peak vertical force, average vertical force, and contact time in explosively trained and non-explosively trained runners. He will also be videotaping runners in both groups in order to monitor changes in kinematics, especially with regard to flight and contact times.

Interviewed by Running Research News for this article, Spurrs said, "Regarding the theory of increased muscle-tendon stiffness leading to improved economy - and I say this prior to our new testing taking place - I believe that with a stiffer system, the athlete will gain greater forward propulsion with each foot strike at an energy cost which is less than before. Thus, for a specific speed, increased stiffness will lead to greater economy."

And there you have it! The bottom line is that explosive strength training leads to improvements in performance which seem to be related to higher rates of force production and enhanced economy while running. Robb's study detected a 2.7-% upgrade in 3-K times, while Heikki's investigations noted a 2.7-% (!) enhancement of 5-K ability.

References

(1) "The Effect of Plyometric Training on Distance Running Performance," European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 89, pp. 1-7, 2003
(2) "Optimal Stiffness of Series Elastic Component in a Stretch-Shorten Cycle Activity," Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 70, pp. 825-833, 1991
(3) "Influence of Plyometric Training on the Mechanical Impedance of the Human Ankle Joint," European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 76, pp. 282-288, 1997
(4) "The Spring-Mass Model and the Energy Cost of Treadmill Running," European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 77, pp. 257-263, 1998
(5) "Leg Spring Characteristics and the Aerobic Demand of Running," Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, Vol. 30, pp. 750-754, 1998
(6) "Explosive Strength Training Improves 5-Km Running Time by Improving Running Economy and Muscle Power," Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 86(5), pp. 1527-1533, 1999

The 5 Physiological Functions Determining Successful Endurance Performance

According to Christope Hausswirth, Ph.D. and Yann Le Meur, Ph. D, successful endurance performance requires the simultaneous activation of 5 key physiological functions:

1. Neuromuscular function — involves the central nervous system and the skeletal muscles, linked by a system of nerves ensuring the passage of information between the two. Its role is to ensure that the skeletal muscles produce the strength necessary to induce movement and displacement based on the command from the brain.

2. Energetic function — during activities of prolonged duration, the neuromuscular system is linked to the body’s metabolic capacity to ensure energy resynthesis from its own endogenous stores of sugars, fats, and proteins.

3. Ventilatory function — the oxygen required to oxidize these energy substrates is drawn from the air and processed by the lungs.

4. Circulatory function — the oxygen is then transported to the active muscles by the cardiovascular system.

5. Thermogegularoty function — ensures that the core temperature is maintained within a temperature range which will conserve the vital functions during activity and plays a major role in high thermal stress conditions and very long prolonged exercise bouts.

This breakdown from Hausswirth and Le Meur is simple and clear. It reminds both coach and runner that the athlete is a complex system of systems with a lot of interdependencies at play.

The quick takeaway from this breakdown is optimal training incorporates appropriately challenging training activities to improve each of these systems both individually and collectively. Neglecting the development of any of these vital physiological systems in training will result in performance limitations.

Source: Chapter 1, Endurance Training Science and Practice, Inigo Mujika

Buy This Book: Tom Tellez’s The Science of Speed, The Art of the Sprint

I just finished reading Tom Tellez’s new book The Science of Speed, The Art of the Sprint.

It’s one of the better books on the biomechanics of running and spiriting published recently.

Distance runner coaches are wise to read this book and apply the lessons on biomechanics to their runners as improved mechanics will directly result in improved running economy and better performance.

What makes this book so valuable is everything Tellez offers is 100% correct, as he looks at running mechanics from a pure physics standpoint. He’s very specific and detailed. Other sources on proper running mechanics will cite cues like “good posture” or “run tall” without going into any detail about what the cues mean and how to objective coach them. Tellez’s book empowers the coach with specific language, drills, and positions to look for, record, measure, and coach.

Also, The Science of Speed, The Art of the Sprint is very easy to read, it is only 130 pages written in simple, direct language making is accessible to a very wide audience — you don’t need a PhD in physics to understand and apply the knowledge offered.

Finally, it is a book for coaches by a coach, meaning it is very practical. You can read it and immediately apply concepts or drills tomorrow in practice to help your athletes get better.

The Science of Speed, The Art of the Sprint

100% Recommended by Super Running Blog

Shop Now

Progressing Workouts to Run Faster for Longer

With simple things, sometimes we overthink them, making them more complex than it needs to be.

This can happen to runners and their training.

The SAID principle (an acronym which stands for Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demand), is one of the most important basic concepts in sport science.

It means that the body will try to get better at exactly what you practice.

Want to get faster? Frequently practice running fast.

Want to run longer? Frequently practice running long.

Want to run faster for longer? Frequently practice running faster for longer.

There doesn’t seem to be much confusion about how to train to run faster or longer, but when it comes to running faster for longer there is a lot of misguided approaches out there.

How to train to run faster for longer is actually very simple.

Here’s how you do it:

First, decide how fast you want to run for a given distance, like 15:00 for 5,000m.

Then take an honest look at how far away your current condition is from that goal. Let’s say last week you ran a 5,000m in 16:00.

That’s about a 6% difference (if the difference is larger than 10% and the goal is most likely unrealistic).

Decide how long you have to work towards your goal fitness, perhaps 3 months.

Make sure your time horizons for your progression are realistic, this is where a qualified and experienced coach can help.

Next, do some simple math.

Running a 5K in 15:00 is about sustaining 4:48/mile pace or 72”/400m for 15 minutes.

Key training sessions should be focused on running 4:48/mile pace or 72”/400m for a total of 15 - 20 minutes.

However, in their current condition, our 16:00 5K runner cannot accomplish this ask without mini-breaks, or recovery intervals sprinkled throughout a training session.

How frequent and long the recovery intervals are in a workout depend on the runner and the length & number of runs at 4:48/mile pace in a session.

For example, if you performed 16 x 400m @ 72” you might only need 60” - 90” recovery after each 400m rep to complete sixteen 400s on pace. If you run 8 x 800m @ 2:24 you might need 3’ - 4’ after each rep to run every step on pace.

More volume isn’t necessarily productive (goal race pace workouts don’t need to be longer than 1/3 of the target race distance) nor is a faster pace than targeted.

What is most important is teaching your body to run goal pace — and doing it with high frequency.

The two best ways to progress goal pace training workouts is to either 1) extend the duration the runner runs at goal pace without interruption or 2) increase the density of goal pace running by shortening the recovery intervals.

A progressive extension of repetition length on a 15:00/5k goal pace workout could look like:

16 x 400m @ 72” on 3’ recovery → 8 x 800m @ 72'“/400m on 3’ recovery → 6 x 1,000m @ 72”/400m on 3’ recovery → 4 x 1 Mile @ 72'“/400m on 3’ recovery → 3 x 2,000m @ 72”/400m on 3’ recovery → 2 x 3000m @ 72”/400m on 3’ recovery, etc.

Progressing the workout density of goal pace running by shortening the recovery intervals could look like:

16 x 400m @ 72” on 90” recovery → 16 x 400m @ 72” on 75” recovery → 16 x 400m @ 72” on 60” recovery → 6 x 400m @ 72” on 45” recovery → 6 x 400m @ 72” on 30” recovery → 6 x 400m @ 72” on 15” recovery.

My suggestion is to aim for running 2 - 3 goal pace workouts per week (that would total about 30 - 60 minutes weekly of practice at goal pace) and progressing a workout on the 3rd or 4th running of it.

In about 12 weeks, provided a runner doesn’t have any interruption and workouts are able to progress either in extension and density — or both, a runner should be well prepared to run stronger and run close or faster than their target time.

Good luck! | jm

Endurance Training Effects of Hi-Carb vs. Low-Carb Intake

Carbohydrate (CHO) intake and the effects it has on a body undergoing regular endurance training is a critical topic for runners and coaches to have an accurate working understanding about.

There are distinct benefits to working out in a CHO-rich environment as well as drawbacks — and the same goes for a CHO-depleted environment.

My simple heuristic is this:

• When the training objective is to increase POWER (speed, pace, force) a CHO-rich environment is best.

• When the training objective is to increase CAPACITY (duration, efficiency) a CHO-depleted environment is desired.

This 36-page study, Regulation of Muscle Glycogen Metabolism during Exercise: Implications for Endurance Performance and Training Adaptations, offers evidence about the different effects various CHO training situations have on endurance performance and training adaptations.

Here’s an expert from the study:

When the goals of the training session are to complete the highest workload possible over more prolonged durations, then adequate CHO should be provided in the 24 h period prior to and during the specific training session.

Careful day-to-day periodization in a meal-by-meal manner (as opposed to chronic periods of CHO restriction) is likely to maintain metabolic flexibility and still allow for the completion of high-intensity and prolonged duration workloads on heavy training days, e.g., interval type workouts undertaken above lactate threshold. Intuitively, train-low sessions may be best left to training sessions that are not CHO dependent and in which the intensity and duration of the session are not likely to be compromised by reduced CHO availability, e.g., steady-state type training sessions performed at intensities below the lactate threshold.

Clearly, more studies are required to investigate the optimal practical approach for which to integrate periods of train-low into an elite athlete’s training program.

Impact of Increasing Mileage on Running Economy

The following in an expert from Owen Andreson’s fantastic book Running Science, pp.326-327 on the Impact of Increasing Mileage on Running Economy:

One of the most popular strategies for enhancing running economy is actually quite a weak stimulus for upgrading economy especially when economy is measured at competitive speeds. Many runners believe that the strategy of increasing the weekly distance run, or volume, is a powerful way to become more economical, but scientific research fails to support this contention.

In classic work conducted by Finnish exercise scientists in 1999, one group of runners increased weekly running volume from 45 to 70 miles (72-113 km) while a second group remained at 45 miles (72 km) per week and added explosive training to their program. The group that added volume failed to enhance economy at all, while the explosive group improved economy significantly by approximately 3 percent.

Download a pdf of the Study: Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power

This Finnish research is quite revealing, giving researchers and runners a clear picture of a key mechanism by which running economy can be improved. In the study, the runners who added explosive training shortened foot-strike time as a result of the high-speed training; the change in foot-strike time was tightly correlated with the gain in economy. In effect, after explosive training, the runners’ feet needed to be on the ground for less time per step to maintain a specific velocity.

This reduction in contact time apparently reduces the oxygen cost per step and thus enhances economy. It is difficult to see why increasing the overall distance run would produce a similar effect. When distance is increased significantly, a large portion of the additional volume is conducted at submaximal intensities, the kinds of speeds that do not require a shortening of foot-strike time. Thus, the nervous system does not learn to regulate a quicker foot-strike; on the contrary, a pattern of slower running and more lethargic reaction of the feet with the ground may be locked in to the neuromuscular system, hurting economy at competitive velocities.

Source: Running Science, Anderson, pp. 326-327

Lactate Threshold vs. Lactate Tolerance Training

When training runners, it is important to understand the difference between Lactate Threshold and Lactate (acidosis) Tolerance.

Improving both a runner’s Threshold and Tolerance to lactate are important physiological variables that significantly influence running performance, albeit in different ways.

Lactate Threshold training is aimed at delaying acidosis.

Lactate Tolerance training is aimed at coping with acidosis.

Lactate Threshold training does not help with acidosis tolerance. And Lactate Tolerance training does not improve Lactate Threshold.

This is why it is important to understand the specific training designed to improve both of these lactate variables and the degree what runners will benefit most from each type of training.

As a general rule of thumb, the shorter the race distance the more important Lactate Tolerance becomes. As race distance increases the more important Lactate Threshold becomes.

Lactate Threshold training is important for all runners, especially for runners competing in 10,000m and longer races. In contests lasting 30 minutes or more, the import of using lactate as fuel is a key determinate to performance success. Therefore, a significant percentage of training should be focused on enhancing one’s Lactate Threshold so race speeds can be sustained without slow down due to the presence of acidosis in the bloodstream.

Classic high-quality aerobic running, such as high volumes of sustained periods of steady running, like tempo runs or cruise miles at Lactate Threshold, works best at upgrading Lactate Threshold.

For races 800m to 8,000m in distance the presence of acidosis is inescapable due to the fast speeds (forces) at which these races are contested. Therefore, it is important to compliment Lactate Threshold training with Lactate (Acidosis) Tolerance training to improve the muscles’ alkaline reserves, allowing the muscles’ ability to work in the presence of increased acidosis.

Training at, or slightly above, the intensity where acidosis occurs improves an athlete’s tolerance to the presence of acidosis allowing them to maintain a relatively higher force output despite the increasing presence of acidosis.

For example, for the 5,000m runner typically the last 1,000m of an honest pace race will be contested in an increased internally acidic environment. A workout such as repeat sets of 3-4 x 600m at 3K speed with 1:1/2 work:rest ratio will adequately train the body to continue running fast in the presence of increasing acidosis.

For the miler, a session such as sets of 3-5 x 300m at 800m speeds with a 1:1 work:rest ratio will teach this as well.

A word of caution: effective Lactate Tolerance sessions are very taxing and the recovery from these sessions can be slow, about 2 - 4 days in even highly trained runners. This makes Lactate Tolerance sessions less frequent training sessions, about once every 7 - 12 days.

On the other hand, Lactate Threshold training is easier on the body because the exposure to corrosive metabolic waste products is little to nonexistent, so recovery takes only about 1 - 2 day, or less for highly trained runners, making it a more frequent training session in a runner’s program, up to 2 - 3 times per week.

Why Running Economy Is Important to Running Success

Of all the key performance variables which influence running performance, perhaps running economy is the most important.

Running economy is the oxygen cost of running at a specific speed. Runners with good running economy use less oxygen to run at a specific velocity compared to runners with less optimal economy.

A runner with a greater economy will tend to work at a lower percentage of VO2 Max for various speeds than a runner who requires lots of oxygen and therefore has poor economy.

In a post on why 10 weeks of Lydiard’s 100 Mile weeks of Marathon Training makes a runner faster, I asserted the main benefit from this style of base training was that it substantially improved running economy.

But there are a handful of other types of training which have a significant influence on running economy as well.

These include:

• Tapering

• Hill Training

• Strength Training

• Explosive Training

• Pace Specific Training

• Improved Mechanics

Tapering improves running economy in the short term because reducing the quantity and quality of training reduces fatigue. This is why it is common practice to take a few light days of training before races in a season and 2 weeks of very light training before the target race of a season.

Hill Training can have a very strong effect on running economy. Regular hill training increases muscular strength, motor-unit activation, heart rate and oxygen consumption-rates due to the demanding nature of propelling one’s body mass up an incline.

Strength Training improves coordination while running, thus lowering the cost of movement because lower energy and oxygen expenditures are required to correct movements that are not optimal. Additionally, strength training improves force production when the feet interact with the ground.

Explosive Training, like plyometrics, converts runners’ legs into slight stiffer springs that provide more propulsive force with each step. By contrast, less-stiff springs tend to collapse too much during stance and lack adequate recoil power.

Pace Specific Training. Running economy is velocity specific. Runners who bias their training towards running long miles at moderate tempos tend to become economical at moderate speeds, while runners who train at very quick paces regularly tend to enhance their economy at faster speeds. Lydiard’s 100 mile weeks of Marathon Training as a base phase only proves advantageous if runners then progress to their training to heavily emphasize race pace specific training in the later stages of the training year.

Improved Mechanics reduce oxygen consumption costs at any running speed. A key characteristic of effective running mechanics is positioning the body’s torso, legs, and arms (posture) in such a way that increases the influence of the elastic (avascular) properties of the body to create and sustain locomotion. Since elastic reactions require no oxygen, increasing their influence through better posture creates a situation where the oxygen cost of sustain locomotion is instantly reduced thereby improving running economy.

Reference: Running Science, Anderson.

How 10 Weeks of Lydiard's 100 Mile Weeks Makes You Faster

In his original training book, Run to the Top, to start off a training year Lydiard advocates for an initial General, or Base, Conditioning phase of 10 weeks of 100 Mile/week of “Marathon Training” for all runners in event groups 800m and up.

I’ve often been critical of the far too common misinterpretation and incorrect application of Lydiard’s 100 mile/week Marathon Training base phase. Some have mistaken that critique as a criticism of Lydiard's approach to base conditioning — which is not the case.

Lydiard is a coaching genius because, either implicitly or explicitly, he understood and got correct the critical importance of developing a runner’s Running Economy as a key fundamental physiological variable that impacts distance running performance.

Where most go wrong applying Lydiard’s 100 mile/week Marathon Training is not the volume of running performed, but the paces run.

Few run these 100 miles fast enough.

Remember, Lydiard called these 100 mile weeks “Marathon Training.”

Why?

As well soon see, roughly 75-80 miles per week are run at Marathon Pace with the other 25-20 miles at half-marathon pace or faster.

In a Lydiard base phase, any running which happens at paces slower than a runner’s marathon pace does not count as training. It’s general exercise, not training — he’s very clear on that.

Here is Lydaird’s original daily training guide he offers for a fit, but fairly new competitive runner to total 100 Mile/week of Marathon Training in the base phase:

• Monday: 10 Miles @ 1/2 Effort — over hills

• Tuesday: 15 miles @ 1/4 Effort — on roads

• Wednesday: 12 miles fartlek

• Thursday: 18 miles @ 1/4 Effort

• Friday: 10 Miles @ 3/4 Effort — on flat roads

• Saturday: 20 - 30 Miles @ 1/4 Effort

• Sunday: 15 Miles @ 1/4 Effort

The key to understanding Lydiard’s base period of “Marathon Training” in understanding his effort prescriptions.

For the Marathon Training base period, all the efforts are based on the runner’s 10 Mile race pace — which is very close to 15K race pace, or most runner’s general Lactate Threshold.

Lydirard assumed that his example runner’s 10 Mile race pace was 6:00/mile. The corresponding paces and percentages of 10 mile race pace for the efforts would then be:

• 3/4 effort = 6:15/mile — 95% of 10 Mile Race Pace

• 1/2 effort = 6:30/mile — 90% of 10 Mile Race Pace (Half Maraton Pace)

• 1/4 effort = 7:00/mile — 85% of 10 Mile Race Pace (Marathon Pace)

In Run to the Top, Lydiard explicitly says his example runner’s marathon pace is 7:00/mile, which the reader can see is the pace for 1/4 Effort. We can also establish that 90% of 10 M.R.P. is Half-Marathon pace.

Now let’s reexamine Lydiard’s daily training guide of 100 Mile/week of Marathon Training as duration and race paces:

• Monday: 1 hr 6 mins @ Half Marathon Pace — over hills

• Tuesday: 1 hr 45 mins @ Marathon Pace — on roads

• Wednesday: ~1 hr 15 mins at varying paces

• Thursday: 2 hrs 6 mins @ Marathon Pace

• Friday: 1 hr 2.5 mins @ 95% of 10 Mile Pace — on flat roads

• Saturday: 2 hr 20 mins - 3 hr 30 mins @ Marathon Pace

• Sunday: 1 hr 45 mins @ Marathon Pace

Here’s a pie chart visually expressing the total time spent training at each pace each week:

And the breakdown of the Total Time and Percent of Total Time spent at each pace per week:

@ Marathon Pace (1/4 effort):

• 8 to 9 hours — 77%

@ Half Marathon Pace (1/2 effort):

• 1 hour — 10%

@ 95% of 10 Mile Race Pace or faster (3/4 effort & Fartlek):

• 1.5 hours — 13%

As you can see Lydiard was very specific about what pace mattered most in base training — Marathon Pace.

Marathon Pace running is a physiological sweet spot for runners which advances several key performance variables, but most significantly running economy.

And 75-80 miles per week of Marathon Pace running is a very strong stimulus. Over 10 weeks, 750-800 miles of Marathon Pace will result in significant structural and physiological changes that will catapult a runner’s economy to new levels.

And these types of gains are very stable.

Meaning, they will last for months provided there is a consistent, light training load applied regularly — like a 2 hour long run once per week.

By enhancing his runner’s economy in such a significant way, Lydiard’s runners could sustain and benefit from the subsequent periods of high-intensity training in the Hill and Sharpening Phases of Lydiard’s training year.

Enhanced running economy was the foundation of Lydiard’s training approach. Which 100% agrees with today’s science and understanding of how to best train runners to become faster.

But remember, running economy doesn’t improve by just running more miles, it improves by running more “quality” miles, which in Lydiard’s case meant Marathon Pace miles.

High-Intensity Training Improves in VO₂ Max More than High-Volume Training

The following in an expert from Owen Andreson’s fantastic book Running Science, pp.86-87, on Improving VO₂ Max:

Although VO₂ Max is a weak predictor of endurance performance unless runners of widely varying ability levels are compared, it is nonetheless true that individual endurance runners who increase their personal VO₂ Max will often improve their individual performances.

As a result, exercise scientists have attempted to identify training strategies that have the greatest possible positive impact on VO₂ Max.

Many runners believe that the best way to optimize VO₂ Max is to conduct high-mileage training. However, the scientific study that detected one of the largest improvements ever recorded in VO₂ Max in well-trained runners actually linked an upswing in intense training and a decrease in mileage with the big jump in VO₂ Max. (Study: Effects of 4-wk training using Vmax/Tmax on O2max and performance in athletes)

In this investigation, experienced runners were using a variety of different training techniques prior to the onset of the research, including long, slow distance work; speed sessions; tempo training; overspeed efforts; and weight training.

Over a 4-week period, the athletes conducted two high-intensity interval sessions per week. Each workout consisted of six intervals performed at the intense pace of vO2max, or the minimal running velocity that elicits VO₂ Max. These work intervals lasted from 3 to 4.5 minutes. The rest of the weekly training was composed of light recovery runs.

After just 4 weeks, the runners upgraded their 3K performance times by about 3 percent, and VO₂ Max jumped by 5 percent from 61 to 64 ml • kg-1 • min-1. This kind of aggressive increase in aerobic capacity is totally unexpected and almost unprecedented in highly trained distance runners, who often have a difficult time getting O2max to budge at all. As mentioned, this is one of the largest increases in aerobic capacity ever recorded in a published scientific study carried out with experienced runners.

Separate research also supports the idea that intense training has the strongest impact on VO₂ Max.

By definition, intense training means work carried out at a high percentage of VO₂ Max—that is, at high speed. It is far different from high-volume training, which means heavy mileage running carried out at moderate intensity.

In a study completed with relatively inexperienced athletes, 12 individuals exercised at an intensity of 100 percent of O2max over a 7-week period, while 12 other subjects worked at an intensity of 60 percent of O VO₂ Max. For a 20-minute 5K runner, 100 percent of VO₂ Max would be a pace of about 90 seconds per 400 meters (~6 minutes per mi), while 60 percent would correspond with 150 seconds per 400 meters (10 minutes per mi).

The latter group actually trained for longer periods of time so that the total amount of work per training session was equivalent between groups. After 7 weeks, the group working at 100 percent of VO₂ Max achieved a 38 percent greater increase in O2max compared with the lower-intensity, greater duration of training group, prompting the researchers to conclude that high-intensity exercise at around 100 percent of VO₂ Maxis the key factor for the promotion of optimal VO₂ Max improvements.

A follow-up review that looked at 78 published scientific studies exploring the relationship between intensity, training volume, workout duration, and VO₂ Max found that optimal gains in VO₂ Max could be achieved by training as often as possible at an intensity of 90 to 100 percent of VO₂ Max. Ninety percent of VO₂ Max roughly corresponds with 10K race speed, while 100 percent of VO₂ Max is often close to competitive speed for a mile.

Traditionally, high-volume training carried out at moderate intensities has been categorized as aerobic running, while low-volume training conducted at high intensities has been termed anaerobic running (and has been presumed to have a smaller impact on maximal aerobic capacity), but research indicates that these concepts are misleading.

In an inquiry carried out at the August Krogh Institute at the University of Copenhagen, one group of experienced endurance runners ran about 100 kilometers (62 mi) per week at an average intensity of 60 to 80 percent of VO₂ Max (so-called aerobic running), while a second group of experienced runners ran just 50 kilometers (31 mi) per week while emphasizing fast-paced interval sessions (so-called anaerobic running); work-interval length varied from 60 to 1,000 meters (.03-.6 mi). After 14 weeks, the lower-mileage, higher-intensity runners had improved the main marker of aerobic metabolism, VO₂ Max, by 7 percent, while the higher-mileage, lower-intensity runners had failed to upgrade VO₂ Max at all. The 1K performance times also improved for the lower-mileage, higher-intensity group (from 2:41 to 2:37) but failed to increase for the higher-mileage, lower-intensity runners.

VO₂ Max is a terrible predictor of performance among experienced runners with similar training backgrounds and has been linked with an inadequate theory of fatigue during running. However, individuals who improve their maximal aerobic capacities often enjoy significant gains in performance. A limitation on neural output seems to be the key factor which caps VO₂ Max. Overall, scientific research strongly supports the idea that high-intensity training, rather than high-volume work, produces the greatest improvement in VO₂ Max.

Source: Running Science, Anderson, pp. 86-87

It's Got to Be the Shoes : The Scientific Reason "Super Shoes" Make All Runners Faster

Runners of all levels are all running significantly faster race times today than 5 years ago.

The reason: running shoes with a high stack height of highly responsive running foam combined with a full-length plate.

As much as we’d like to think training methods have improved in the past 5 years, the quantum leap in performance all runners are enjoying clearly demonstrates “it’s got to be the shoes.”

What these “super shoes” do is substantiality increase running economy, which in turn allows runners to run faster speeds for longer durations.

Running economy is the oxygen cost of running at a specific speed. Runners with good running economy use less oxygen to run at a specific velocity compared with runners with less optional economy.

Training influences running economy, but so does surface.

Running on springy surfaces tends to improve running economy, but running on hard, stiff surfaces can increase oxygen costs and thus may have a negative impact on the economy. (1)

Runners with a better economy will work at lower percentages of VO2 Max for various speeds than a runner who requires lots of oxygen and therefore has poor economy.

The percentage of VO2 Max associated with a particular pace has a strong effect on how long the speed can be sustained. When fit runners cruise along at a pace that is approx. 82% of VO2 Max they can complete a marathon before slowing or stopping. At 94% of VO2 Max most highly trained runners cannot go further than 5K before slowing (2)

Therefore, being able to run in a quality way at a lower performance of VO2 Max prolongs a runner’s stamina at a specific pace, which shows good running economy is highly advantageous for runners and why the running economy improvement super shoes offer runners is so significant to enhancing performance.

Source:

• Running Science, Anderson, pp. 88-90

References:

• (1) Kerdok, A. et al. Energetics and mechanics of human running on surfaces of different stiffnesses, J Appl Physiol Vol 92, pp. 469–478, 2002.

• (2) C. T. M. Davies & M. W. Thompson, Aerobic performance of female marathon and male ultramarathon athletes, European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology Vol. 41, pp. 233–245,1979.

The Biological Law of Training

The basic tenant of training is that in order to increase the size, strength or endurance of muscles — or the functional capacity of other physiological systems — they must be repeatedly stressed (in both intensity and duration) at levels greater than those normally encountered.

When training is developmental increases in volume and intensity are designed to induce large structural and functional changes in the system.

Reducing training loads maintains the functions developed.

Training stress is also called a stimulus, which is the workload imposed on the athlete. The cell, organ or system immediately goes into a state of fatigue when exposed to a workload. Adaption, or response, to the training tress happens during the periods of recovery following workloads.

Training stress reduces the functional ability of the athlete. The period of subsequent recovery initiates mechanisms that result in super-compensatory adaptions which eventually lead to improved performance. The application of training stress and recovery is considered a single process — as stimulus (stress) and response (recovery) are two inseparable processes.

Efficient physical conditioning is a consequence of balanced nutrition, consistent sleep patterns combined with an exercise schedule of appropriate intensity, duration and type, carefully planned over a prolonged period which includes suitable restoration phases to regenerate energy stores, repair cells and promote regular super-compensatory adaptions.

The Biological Law of Training

The structure and performance capability of an organic system is determined by its genetic constitution and the quality and quantity of stressful workloads, and depth of recovery/adaptation from workloads.

Sources:

• Road to the Top, Vigil, p.11;

• Supertraining, Verkhoshansky, p.82