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

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

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

The Simple Way to Successfully Progress Running Workouts, Part 1

This progression template is for race pace specific workouts primarily for 10,000m to 800m runners.

For 10 Mile to the Marathon the race pace specific workout progression is a little different, and I’ll cover it in a part 2 post.

The point of running workouts is to provide a strong stimulus to spur the adaption of the runner in the desired direction.

Recovery between workouts is where the adaption takes place.

1. Early race pace specific workouts will focus on speed and duration with long recovery intervals.

Example: For the 5K runner who wants to run 15:25 for 5K, an early workout would be 15 x 400m @ 74”. The recovery interval between 400s will be a long as needed so the runner can hit 74” on every rep. This session would afford the runner 18:30 of practice time at the desired goal pace which is 20% more time than will be spent running this pace on race day. In training, I’ve found the +20% time “rule” works well for developing a runner’s stamina at goal race pace.

2. As fitness advances, extend the rep distance without concern of the recovery interval duration. Do not change the duration of time spent at goal race pace within the workout.

Example: 6 x 1,000m @ 74/400m with recovery interval length as needed so the runner can run every step of the 1Ks at 15:25 pace.

3. Further advances in fitness will be expressed by a shortening of the recovery intervals without a slowing of the pace on the repetitions.

Example: 6 x 1,000m @ 74/400m with 60” recovery

4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 until the runner can perform 80-85% of the race volume at pace without interruption.

Example: 3 x 2,000m @ 74/400m with recovery interval length as needed to hit pace then advancing to 3 x 2,000m @ 74/400m with 60” recovery which eventually can advance to 1 x 4,000m @ 74/400m + 1 x 2,000m @ 74/400m.

When Should Runners Lift Weights?

In endurance sports, high energy demands are met by increased oxygen consumption as well as augmented anaerobic metabolism. The cardiovascular and respiratory systems become highly active. Athlete performance is limited by the central systems of circulation, respiration, and heat dissipation rather than peripheral muscle function alone.

When heavy strength training is combined with high-intensity endurance training, strength gains are diminished. Therefore, care must be taken when combining endurance training with strength training.

When strength training and endurance training are done concurrently it is difficult for an organism to adapt simultaneously to the conflicting demands.

A same-day running session followed by a strength training session impedes strength gains.

Similarly, a same-day strength training session followed by a running session impedes endurance adaptations.

Knowing this, when should runners lift weights?

Answer: As the first training session/activity on days designated as running recovery days.

Here’s why: The desired training effect of running recovery days is recuperation from prior running-focused training stressors (stimuli). Running performed on recovery days is purposely non-demanding and aimed to provide a restitution load, not a training load. Strength training stimulates different biological systems than running training and produces different enzyme signaling. The fatigue accumulated from strength training is mostly central (neurological) fatigue not peripheral (metabolic) fatigue. Recovery from central fatigue happens much more rapidly, sometimes overnight, than recovery from peripheral fatigue.

Therefore, on a running recovery day, a runner is in a metabolic pre-fatigue state. Strength training results in heavy neurological stress and little, if any, metabolic stress. Performing a recovery run immediately after a strength training session will force the runner to run at a more appropriate (slower) pace due to pre-existing metabolic fatigue and the newly introduced neurological fatigue. The effect of this cumulative fatigue will result in a slow running pace which is desirable on recovery runs, as a common mistake by most runners is making their easy runs too stressful by running them too fast.

Reference: Science and Practice of Strength Training, Zatsiorsky, Kraemer, Fry, Chp. 11