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

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

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

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.

Is the Nervous System what's limiting Aerobic Capacity in Runners?

This expert from the book Running Science explores the influence of the Nervous System on VO2 Max and Aerobic Capacity. In bold are my highlights.

it is possible that the cardiovascular system is not capping VO2max.

As T.D. Noakes and A. St. Clair Gibson have noted, overall muscular performance and thus the oxygen-consumption rate during running are determined by the nervous system’s recruitment of motor units (collections of muscle cells) inside the leg muscles.

If this seems confusing, remember that the muscles cannot act alone during running; they must wait for commands from the brain and spinal cord in order to engage themselves in the act of running. A sustained, high level of muscle engagement by the nervous system would inevitably lead to a high VO2max in an individual runner. In contrast, a more limited level of recruitment would produce a lower VO2max, even in a case in which a runner had ample reserves for oxygen shipment and use in the heart and leg muscles. As Noakes has observed, runners with higher values of VO2max appear to have nervous systems that not only recruit a greater number of muscle cells during intense running but also sustain this recruitment for greater than average time periods. This observation has important implications for training.

Basically, the research on neural output means that in order to maximize VO2max and performance, endurance runners must train their nervous systems in ways that optimize motor-unit recruitment. This can hardly be accomplished by high-volume, submaximal training, the traditional way to train for VO2max enhancement, since motor recruitment during such work is modest. Rather, it can only result from highly intense, Kenyan-style training that relentlessly provokes greater neural outputs and motor-unit activations. For an individual runner, the key to developing the highest-possible VO2max appears to involve optimizing motor-unit recruitment, with supporting roles played by expanded heart and leg

Source: Running Science, Anderson, p. 80