One of the topics that has generated a large amount of response on this blog has been on the debate over singles versus doubles. I thought I'd share some of the current research that may explain why doubles provide a benefit.
Some researchers have suggested that training in a fatigued state may enhance subsequent adaptations. It has been found that training in a glycogen depleted state enhances gene transcription of several markers of training adaptation (Yeo et al. 2008, Hansen et al. 2005). Low muscle glycogen amplifies the activation of signalling proteins (in particular AMPK and MAPK for those who are interested). Both of these proteins help control gene transcription, which ultimately result in adaptations like increased mitochondria.
In two studies on training every day versus training twice every other day, increases in enzyme activity have been more significantly increased in the twice every other day group. In the study by Hansen et al., they used knee extensor exercises with one leg being trained every day and the other twice every other day (2005). The twice every other day leg should significant better time till exhaustion at the end of the training, along with the increased enzyme activity.
In the study by Yeo et al., they compared two different groups using cycling as the means of training (2008). The groups performed either easy or interval training, with the every day group alternating each day between hard and easy. The twice every other day group performed an easy ride early, then the interval session. In their study glycogen content, fat oxidation, and CS and HAD enzyme activity were higher in the twice every other day group, but performance was equally increased in both groups.
What these studies and their findings suggest is that occasional training in a depleted state may lead to increased adaptations. This shouldn't be surprising if you just understand the basics of training and adaptation. What you are doing when training is putting a certain amount of stress on the body. Then during recovery it responds to that stress by increasing its defenses against that stress. For example in weight training, you tear the muscle fibers slightly while training, and then repair them to even stronger levels during recovery so that it can better withstand that stress the next time.
So it should not be surprising that training in a glycogen depleted state produces more stress than normal. The body then adapts. The thing to remember is that the adaptation is specific to the stress and requires recovery. Without recovery, those adaptations aren't taking place. It's a balancing act.
In practical terms, this might help explain why doing doubles is just as beneficial as singles in certain circumstances. It might also explain why Kenyan runners have success with short periods of training 3x a day. By having a 6am run before their main 10am workout they might be enhancing adaptation to a degree. Similarly, the pre-fatigued idea could explain why Special or Specific blocks of training work in Canova's training.
Another practical application is for long runs. Some long runs may need to be done without fuel intake, especially if training for a marathon. Once again, it's a trade off. If you take fuel, your able to have a better quality workout, but you are not able to push into those levels of glycogen depletion to force fuel source adaptations.
On this note, it's important to remember what training adaptation you are looking for. Training with low glycogen for a long run for example may give adaptations that are good for a marathon runner, but perhaps not for some FT 800m runner. Remember, what you are trying to put in crisis to adapt. A good example of this is in the Yeo study mentioned above with cyclists. Performance change was the same in both groups. However, the twice every other day group increased glycogen content,fat oxidation and enzymes related to substrate use. WHy? Because the group was training in a lower glycogen state. Thus, several of the bodies adaptations were aimed at fixing this problem. Over a 1hr time trial, these adaptations didn't matter, thus the performance was the same between the two groups. It is possible, and perhaps likely, that training with low glycogen stores could result in negative consequences for shorter events.
Once again, athletes and coaches have generally figured out all of this stuff for themselves. Back in the 50's-60's Van Aaken was suggesting that his athletes do a hard day of training with minimal food intake, for example. It's just now that science comes along and explains the mechanisms to why it might work.
The bottom line with all this research is to remember it is simply a process of stress and adaptation. Just be aware of what stress you are putting on the body.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Research on Individual response to training, and I'm Finally Racing again
I’ve been pretty dang busy with School lately as I’m completing my Critical Literature Review for my Thesis. It’s basically a long (60+pgs so far) look at the physiology of distance running performance with my critical analysis of the research on the subject. It will be interesting to see how the critical analysis of the research goes over, because I come at it from a runner/coach standpoint, meaning, to put it bluntly, I think a lot of the research is crap, the conclusions drawn are suspect, and basically that we think we know a lot more than we do about how the human body functions.
So, that’s what I’ve been focused on. And to tie that in with the blog, I’m going to go over a little study I came across in my research.
And for those who ask, HS kids are starting the championship portion of the season. They had a nice regular season but now is when it gets fun. They started off great with a perfect score at district. Things get a bit tougher for regionals and onwards though, but it should be a blast.
My Running: I don't write about my running much, but things are going well. I'm 2 for 2 in road races this fall off of base training. The last one was particularly good because for once in my life I raced how I should, patiently and relaxed. I won a tough 8k against some good competiton, particulary an Ethiopian who has run 28:30 (10k) and 1:03:xx for a half marathon. Really, it just felt good to race and execute a plan without any problems. Race report and pics can be found here: Race Report
A big theme of my training/this blog is individuality. It’s central to training a successful runner. The problem is that it is hard to do. It takes work to actually individualize something. It’s much easier to give a cookie cutter approach. If you know anything about research and studies is that most of the time they ignore the individual and focus entirely on the group. If you read abstracts or if you read papers, all the conclusions concern the average improvement in performance or certain parameters. However, if you dig deeper, does everyone improve in the same way? Well if you are a coach, the answer is an easy no. But lets look at the research.
The study I’m going to go over is one by Vollard et al (2009) entitiled “Systematic analysis of adaptations in aerobic capacity and submaximal energy metabolism provides a unique insight into determinants of human aerobic performance.”
In this study they looked at the effects of 6 weeks of endurance cycling at 70% of the subjects VO2max in untrained subjects. They measured all sorts of data during a maximal test, a performance test, and submaximal test, in addition to certain aerobic enzyme activity. They then compared the before and after results on an individual basis. Here’s what they found:
Given the same “training stimulus” the adaptations were all over the place. You had a range of improved VO2max from -2 to +30%. This not only happened with VO2max but with almost everything. And the high responders (the ones that improved the most) in VO2max were not the high responders in other things, same thing with low responders. This means the ones who didn’t improve at all in VO2max had huge improvements in other parameters. The changes varied all over the place with enzyme concentration, submax HR, submax lactate, performance, resting glycogen, maximum work capacity, creatine phosphate, and a whole host of things. What does this all mean and what are the key findings?
-The change in VO2max was not related to the change in performance. That means how much the VO2max changed didn’t correspond to how much performance improved.
Let’s look at some of the author’s conclusions:
-“ VO2max is often presented as a critical determinant of aerobic performance, yet we demonstrate
that training-induced changes in V˙ O2max and aerobic performance are not related even in untrained subjects”
-“ we demonstrate that VO2max and aerobic performance associate with distinct and separate physiological and biochemical endpoints, suggesting that proposed models for the determinants of endurance performance may need to be revisited.”
- “Although the overall stimuli for improving aerobic capacity and aerobic performance are identical (i.e., aerobic training), we demonstrate that these adaptations do not occur in proportion to each other and do not appear to be determined by the same physiological or biochemical parameters.”
- “First, standardizing training intensity to a set percentage of VO2max in training studies aiming to study aerobic performance will result in large interindividual differences in the magnitude of the training stimulus (see Figs. 1 and 5). Second, the use of set percentages of V˙ O2max in studies investigating metabolic responses to exercise will also produce large interindividual variation. Finally, in studies determining changes in aerobic performance using time trials to exhaustion at a set percentage of V˙ O2max, the metabolic response to exercise of individual subjects may vary considerably, potentially affecting any changes in performance measured or the underlying nature of fatigue (49).”
-“the present study demonstrates that VO2max cannot be considered a universal parameter to standardize aerobic exercise training studies. Based on the present data we conclude that plasticity of V˙ O2max is a poor determinant of improvements in aerobic performance in healthy young untrained males.
So, what does it REALLY mean?
-The assumption that we often make that an improvement in VO2max=improved performance is wrong (This is backed up by other studies too). So, why do some focus training on improving a parameter that (a) doesn’t change in elites and (b) doesn’t mean an improvement in performance?
-The use of %VO2max to base training off of is garbage. The stimulus varies completely depending on the person, even in groups of very similar people. This begs the question why we try and do it. Take a look at USATF guidelines or Vigil or Daniels. In addition, all the research does it, which might explain why the research does not match up with real world experience!!
- We do NOT know as much as we think we do. We can’t explain fatigue and performance yet. Quick lesson, we base things off of what we can measure. As a consequence, the most important things become variables that are easily measurable. Why is VO2 used so much? Because we could measure it in the early 1900’s which led to a crap load of research on it. Thus it formed the basis of our knowledge. Another example, why is lactate considered evil even though it is not? Because we could measure it early on when we couldn’t detect what else was going on in the muscle. Thus it gets a horrible reputation…poor lactate.
-Aerobic capacity and aerobic performance are NOT the same thing.
-Individuals will respond differently to a similar stimulus based on their physiological and psychological makeup. It’s why fast twitch guys can improve threshold by doing short reps at 2mi-5k pace, while an endurance guy might need 30min total at half marathon kind of a pace. Or to tie it into a recent topic, its why some people need 10mi while others need 5 and 5.
-This really calls into question the efficacy of using %of VO2max or in other terms vDOT charts or whatever you want to use. Can we just stick to race paces and variations of individuals race pace?
Conclusions: Individualization. Think about the effect of a stimulus will have on the individual.
So, that’s what I’ve been focused on. And to tie that in with the blog, I’m going to go over a little study I came across in my research.
And for those who ask, HS kids are starting the championship portion of the season. They had a nice regular season but now is when it gets fun. They started off great with a perfect score at district. Things get a bit tougher for regionals and onwards though, but it should be a blast.
My Running: I don't write about my running much, but things are going well. I'm 2 for 2 in road races this fall off of base training. The last one was particularly good because for once in my life I raced how I should, patiently and relaxed. I won a tough 8k against some good competiton, particulary an Ethiopian who has run 28:30 (10k) and 1:03:xx for a half marathon. Really, it just felt good to race and execute a plan without any problems. Race report and pics can be found here: Race Report
A big theme of my training/this blog is individuality. It’s central to training a successful runner. The problem is that it is hard to do. It takes work to actually individualize something. It’s much easier to give a cookie cutter approach. If you know anything about research and studies is that most of the time they ignore the individual and focus entirely on the group. If you read abstracts or if you read papers, all the conclusions concern the average improvement in performance or certain parameters. However, if you dig deeper, does everyone improve in the same way? Well if you are a coach, the answer is an easy no. But lets look at the research.
The study I’m going to go over is one by Vollard et al (2009) entitiled “Systematic analysis of adaptations in aerobic capacity and submaximal energy metabolism provides a unique insight into determinants of human aerobic performance.”
In this study they looked at the effects of 6 weeks of endurance cycling at 70% of the subjects VO2max in untrained subjects. They measured all sorts of data during a maximal test, a performance test, and submaximal test, in addition to certain aerobic enzyme activity. They then compared the before and after results on an individual basis. Here’s what they found:
Given the same “training stimulus” the adaptations were all over the place. You had a range of improved VO2max from -2 to +30%. This not only happened with VO2max but with almost everything. And the high responders (the ones that improved the most) in VO2max were not the high responders in other things, same thing with low responders. This means the ones who didn’t improve at all in VO2max had huge improvements in other parameters. The changes varied all over the place with enzyme concentration, submax HR, submax lactate, performance, resting glycogen, maximum work capacity, creatine phosphate, and a whole host of things. What does this all mean and what are the key findings?
-The change in VO2max was not related to the change in performance. That means how much the VO2max changed didn’t correspond to how much performance improved.
Let’s look at some of the author’s conclusions:
-“ VO2max is often presented as a critical determinant of aerobic performance, yet we demonstrate
that training-induced changes in V˙ O2max and aerobic performance are not related even in untrained subjects”
-“ we demonstrate that VO2max and aerobic performance associate with distinct and separate physiological and biochemical endpoints, suggesting that proposed models for the determinants of endurance performance may need to be revisited.”
- “Although the overall stimuli for improving aerobic capacity and aerobic performance are identical (i.e., aerobic training), we demonstrate that these adaptations do not occur in proportion to each other and do not appear to be determined by the same physiological or biochemical parameters.”
- “First, standardizing training intensity to a set percentage of VO2max in training studies aiming to study aerobic performance will result in large interindividual differences in the magnitude of the training stimulus (see Figs. 1 and 5). Second, the use of set percentages of V˙ O2max in studies investigating metabolic responses to exercise will also produce large interindividual variation. Finally, in studies determining changes in aerobic performance using time trials to exhaustion at a set percentage of V˙ O2max, the metabolic response to exercise of individual subjects may vary considerably, potentially affecting any changes in performance measured or the underlying nature of fatigue (49).”
-“the present study demonstrates that VO2max cannot be considered a universal parameter to standardize aerobic exercise training studies. Based on the present data we conclude that plasticity of V˙ O2max is a poor determinant of improvements in aerobic performance in healthy young untrained males.
So, what does it REALLY mean?
-The assumption that we often make that an improvement in VO2max=improved performance is wrong (This is backed up by other studies too). So, why do some focus training on improving a parameter that (a) doesn’t change in elites and (b) doesn’t mean an improvement in performance?
-The use of %VO2max to base training off of is garbage. The stimulus varies completely depending on the person, even in groups of very similar people. This begs the question why we try and do it. Take a look at USATF guidelines or Vigil or Daniels. In addition, all the research does it, which might explain why the research does not match up with real world experience!!
- We do NOT know as much as we think we do. We can’t explain fatigue and performance yet. Quick lesson, we base things off of what we can measure. As a consequence, the most important things become variables that are easily measurable. Why is VO2 used so much? Because we could measure it in the early 1900’s which led to a crap load of research on it. Thus it formed the basis of our knowledge. Another example, why is lactate considered evil even though it is not? Because we could measure it early on when we couldn’t detect what else was going on in the muscle. Thus it gets a horrible reputation…poor lactate.
-Aerobic capacity and aerobic performance are NOT the same thing.
-Individuals will respond differently to a similar stimulus based on their physiological and psychological makeup. It’s why fast twitch guys can improve threshold by doing short reps at 2mi-5k pace, while an endurance guy might need 30min total at half marathon kind of a pace. Or to tie it into a recent topic, its why some people need 10mi while others need 5 and 5.
-This really calls into question the efficacy of using %of VO2max or in other terms vDOT charts or whatever you want to use. Can we just stick to race paces and variations of individuals race pace?
Conclusions: Individualization. Think about the effect of a stimulus will have on the individual.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Is 9mi once better than 4.5mi twice? Maybe not.
I've been dabbling around with this idea in my head for quiet some time. I've even mentioned it on this blog before. The question is how long should easy days be and can they be split into relatively short runs?
It's common sense to think that one 8mi run is better than two 4mi runs, and that definately holds true when building general endurance. During a period of time when the focus is on general aerobic base building, it makes sense that you want that longer stimulus.
However, when it comes time to start doing harder work and ultimately during racing season, is it better to do one 8-10mi or two 4-5mi during an easy day?
I really have no idea what the answer is. So feel free to write in with thoughts, comments, critiques. I'm going to do a little bit of thinking out loud to try and see if I can wrap my head around this issue.
The initial reason that I've kicked this idea around so much is my own training in HS. Due to circumstances at my HS, we trained twice a day and generally split our mileage right down the middle. Why did we do this? First off, we had CC first period, so running in the morning made sense. We also had afterschool practice, so once again it made sense to run again. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we were restricted to running on our campus. So, we had a 1.5mi loop that I ran way too many times. No one wanted to run 8mi straight doing loops, it was mind numbing to do that every day. Lastly, it's just how things had been done traditionally. Starting out, we weren't running that much mileage so a couple loops in the morning and afternoon was all that was done.
If I go back and look at my logs, in 2002 I mostly ran 4.5 and 4.5. In 2003, most of the time I was doing 5 and 5 or 6 and 6. It should be noted that in the summer, I, and my teammates, ran longer and didn't stick to the straight split doubles. That could be important.
Now, this wouldn't be a big deal, except it kind of defies the conventional wisdom. If it was just me doing this and having success, you could dismiss this for talent. However, for the past 10 years KO has had one of the more consistant and successful distance programs in Texas, sometimes with not the most talented of guys. For example, this years teams was just ranked #21 in the nation by Marc Bloom. So, it obviously is not taking anything away from the development of good runners.
Conventional wisdom would expect the aerobic system to be the one that took the hit if the mileage is split in half. However, this does not show up at all with the athletes. Through the years, numerous guys have run 5:30's for a staple yearly 10mi tempo run that is tradition. That means there high end aerobic abilities aren't taking a hit at all. Two more examples are that one guy who was only a 10min type 2miler at the time, ran a 1:13 half marathon off of the training, which one would not expect for a HS kid, since it takes years to get the aerobic system up to where it can be. Similarly, this year, a runner came through 5mi in mid 25's on a tough course on a 7.5mi threshold run. The point is, the aerobic system's, developed through a good deal of high end aerobic work, are not taking a hit because of the split mileage.
Which leads me to my next example. I was looking at some training done by former world class marathoner Kenny Moore. When I read it, I quickly noted that his easy days were filled with days of just 4-5mi runs or days of 3 and 3 or 5 and 3. Seeing this in an elite runner really made me reevaluate things. The key was that Kenny was hitting his workouts every couple days and had a good long run.
If splitting the mileage on easy days doesn't affect the runner's performance or aerobic abilities, then what does it do and can it be beneficial?
Here is my theory. Once general endurance is built during the base for that season, and especially in older athletes who have years and years of general aerobic work, you're not going to get much benefit from running 8mi at 6:30 pace. It's going to be the same stimulus that it's gotten for months. So, it's not going to force the body to go through some adaptation phase. It's basically going to be maintenance. But, we know that it is much easier to maintain than to build. So, it is not necessary to do a longer 8-10mi run during some easy days.
What happens when you split it with shorter doubles is that it might enhance recovery. The runs are shorter so that not much mechanical damage is going to happen, same with oxidative damage. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, splitting may aid in glycogen replenishment. It's much easier to restore glycogen stores after an easy 4-5mi run then after a 10mi run. Yes, you run twice, so you have to replenish glycogen twice, but I'd still argue that it is easier to replenish glycogen twice with several hours in between. Lastly, running twice may mean that you get some sort of hormonal release twice in the day, which could improve recovery.
If we look at growth hormone release during easy running, there's a swift rise intitially for the first 30-40min of a run, and then it levels off significantly to 60min. In one study, it showed an increase of about 550 percent from 0-40min, yet from 40-60min it only went up another 40-50percent.
The second part of my theory involves the rest of the training done. My hypothesis is that these shorter double days will only work if the athletes have a good deal of high end aerobic workouts, and there is a long run on the weekend. Kenny Moore mentions his 25-30milers some weekends as being key for him. Similarly in HS, the weekly long run of ~11-15mi seems to be enough to sustain general aerobic endurance during the season.
Lastly, it's likely that there is an individual component to this question. Some runners may adapt better with a split while others may need the single run. What runners need which is beyond me at this point. You could make all sorts of hypothesis at this point based on aerobic abiltities, fiber type, glycogen storage capacity, and a whole host of other things.
To sum things up. What do I truly think? I think the idea has a lot of merit. If I truly could find a reason for the HS kids to do 9mi all at once instead of doubling 4.5 and 4.5, then I would make them do that (even with the boredom factor of loops...). However, with the past 4 years of helping them, and with my own experience of 4 years in HS, I really can't find any physiological reason or, more importantly, practical performance difference to make the change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes we can't explain why things work, yet they still do.
What does this mean practically? Test it out if you want to. During the season replace one day with an easy double of 4 and 4 or something similar. Monitor how you feel and how you respond the next day. You might be surprised.
Hopefully all of that made sense. This is just a pet theory of mine and it admittedly has wholes, so feel free to tear those apart, but if you look at it without being trapped into the traditional idea of longer is always better, even on easy days, it kind of makes sense. Thoughts, comments, critiques, welcome.
It's common sense to think that one 8mi run is better than two 4mi runs, and that definately holds true when building general endurance. During a period of time when the focus is on general aerobic base building, it makes sense that you want that longer stimulus.
However, when it comes time to start doing harder work and ultimately during racing season, is it better to do one 8-10mi or two 4-5mi during an easy day?
I really have no idea what the answer is. So feel free to write in with thoughts, comments, critiques. I'm going to do a little bit of thinking out loud to try and see if I can wrap my head around this issue.
The initial reason that I've kicked this idea around so much is my own training in HS. Due to circumstances at my HS, we trained twice a day and generally split our mileage right down the middle. Why did we do this? First off, we had CC first period, so running in the morning made sense. We also had afterschool practice, so once again it made sense to run again. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we were restricted to running on our campus. So, we had a 1.5mi loop that I ran way too many times. No one wanted to run 8mi straight doing loops, it was mind numbing to do that every day. Lastly, it's just how things had been done traditionally. Starting out, we weren't running that much mileage so a couple loops in the morning and afternoon was all that was done.
If I go back and look at my logs, in 2002 I mostly ran 4.5 and 4.5. In 2003, most of the time I was doing 5 and 5 or 6 and 6. It should be noted that in the summer, I, and my teammates, ran longer and didn't stick to the straight split doubles. That could be important.
Now, this wouldn't be a big deal, except it kind of defies the conventional wisdom. If it was just me doing this and having success, you could dismiss this for talent. However, for the past 10 years KO has had one of the more consistant and successful distance programs in Texas, sometimes with not the most talented of guys. For example, this years teams was just ranked #21 in the nation by Marc Bloom. So, it obviously is not taking anything away from the development of good runners.
Conventional wisdom would expect the aerobic system to be the one that took the hit if the mileage is split in half. However, this does not show up at all with the athletes. Through the years, numerous guys have run 5:30's for a staple yearly 10mi tempo run that is tradition. That means there high end aerobic abilities aren't taking a hit at all. Two more examples are that one guy who was only a 10min type 2miler at the time, ran a 1:13 half marathon off of the training, which one would not expect for a HS kid, since it takes years to get the aerobic system up to where it can be. Similarly, this year, a runner came through 5mi in mid 25's on a tough course on a 7.5mi threshold run. The point is, the aerobic system's, developed through a good deal of high end aerobic work, are not taking a hit because of the split mileage.
Which leads me to my next example. I was looking at some training done by former world class marathoner Kenny Moore. When I read it, I quickly noted that his easy days were filled with days of just 4-5mi runs or days of 3 and 3 or 5 and 3. Seeing this in an elite runner really made me reevaluate things. The key was that Kenny was hitting his workouts every couple days and had a good long run.
If splitting the mileage on easy days doesn't affect the runner's performance or aerobic abilities, then what does it do and can it be beneficial?
Here is my theory. Once general endurance is built during the base for that season, and especially in older athletes who have years and years of general aerobic work, you're not going to get much benefit from running 8mi at 6:30 pace. It's going to be the same stimulus that it's gotten for months. So, it's not going to force the body to go through some adaptation phase. It's basically going to be maintenance. But, we know that it is much easier to maintain than to build. So, it is not necessary to do a longer 8-10mi run during some easy days.
What happens when you split it with shorter doubles is that it might enhance recovery. The runs are shorter so that not much mechanical damage is going to happen, same with oxidative damage. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, splitting may aid in glycogen replenishment. It's much easier to restore glycogen stores after an easy 4-5mi run then after a 10mi run. Yes, you run twice, so you have to replenish glycogen twice, but I'd still argue that it is easier to replenish glycogen twice with several hours in between. Lastly, running twice may mean that you get some sort of hormonal release twice in the day, which could improve recovery.
If we look at growth hormone release during easy running, there's a swift rise intitially for the first 30-40min of a run, and then it levels off significantly to 60min. In one study, it showed an increase of about 550 percent from 0-40min, yet from 40-60min it only went up another 40-50percent.
The second part of my theory involves the rest of the training done. My hypothesis is that these shorter double days will only work if the athletes have a good deal of high end aerobic workouts, and there is a long run on the weekend. Kenny Moore mentions his 25-30milers some weekends as being key for him. Similarly in HS, the weekly long run of ~11-15mi seems to be enough to sustain general aerobic endurance during the season.
Lastly, it's likely that there is an individual component to this question. Some runners may adapt better with a split while others may need the single run. What runners need which is beyond me at this point. You could make all sorts of hypothesis at this point based on aerobic abiltities, fiber type, glycogen storage capacity, and a whole host of other things.
To sum things up. What do I truly think? I think the idea has a lot of merit. If I truly could find a reason for the HS kids to do 9mi all at once instead of doubling 4.5 and 4.5, then I would make them do that (even with the boredom factor of loops...). However, with the past 4 years of helping them, and with my own experience of 4 years in HS, I really can't find any physiological reason or, more importantly, practical performance difference to make the change. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sometimes we can't explain why things work, yet they still do.
What does this mean practically? Test it out if you want to. During the season replace one day with an easy double of 4 and 4 or something similar. Monitor how you feel and how you respond the next day. You might be surprised.
Hopefully all of that made sense. This is just a pet theory of mine and it admittedly has wholes, so feel free to tear those apart, but if you look at it without being trapped into the traditional idea of longer is always better, even on easy days, it kind of makes sense. Thoughts, comments, critiques, welcome.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
Strength Endurance Circuit Video
I'm posting a strength endurance circuit of the HS guys that they did in the tail end of this past summer.
The idea behind this kind of circuit is strength endurance development obviously. What we are trying to do in basic terms is to force fiber recruitment and extend the endurance of those fibers. The exercises serve as a way to increase fiber recruitment, as does the fact that it's done uphill. The sprint at the end is for maximal recruitment of specific fibers. You'll notice that we go from bounding to sprints at the end.
In addition to neuromuscular adaptations, it also serves as an introduction or maintenance of some higher lactate work. If you took lactate readings (I've done it on myself), you'd see that following a circuit, lactate readings are relatively high. Normally when you do a lot of work with high lactate, you effect the lactate threshold because it manipulates the production/elimination ratio. Most of the time when you do high lactate work, it's pretty fast running, so you are essentially shifting to adapt to the higher lactate/high glycolyitic work being done. Your body's pretty smart in the sense that it adapts to what you give it. The fact that fast "anaerobic" work reduces LT is not a problem in some cases (it's all about balance) and at the right time of the season.
However, during a base phase, that's not the time you want to hurt the LT. Well, hill circuits like this allow for high lactate work to be done without it affecting LT. Why? Because it is non specific lactate work. You are using different muscle fibers than normal, and the one's you are forcing to be used are the harder to recruit FT fibers. So, they are used for high anaerobic activities. You are going to be producing most of this lactate from these fibers you normally don't recruit. In addition, the ST fibers are going to be trained to take up and use that lactate.
This is a general circuit, meaning the exercises and running are carried out at about 75-80%. It's important NOT to take this workout without knowing what surrounds it. The workout by itself probably won't do much, but in a larger paradigm it works well.
Before doing this type of work, you need sprints (either flat or hill) to increase the muscle fiber pool (the total fibers that can be recruited). Then you can use general circuits like this to help recruit these fibers during a longer activity.
You combine this work with regular strength endurance work that gets progressively more specific. A good way to work these hill circuits into something more specific is the use of mixed workouts. A workout like 1600,600,1200,500,1000,400 with 3-4min rest, with the paces being at 10k,3k,5k,1mi,5k,1mi takes the hill circuits and translates those adaptations into specifically helping your 5k (in this instance). The longer reps are for specific endurance, while the shorter intervals in between serve to force fiber recruitment and squirt some lactate into the system. Then you go back to the longer intervals to use those fibers, and train them to work under fatigued conditions (enhancing their endurance).
You can also manipulate the circuits to achieve different goals. Increase the speed of the running portion or increase the intensity of the circuits will both bring about different adaptations.
Lastly, for kick development, do a kick workout where you force fiber recruitment under very acidic conditions. A classic example is 300m at 800m pace, 100m bounding, 200m kick in. The 300m serves to build lactate, the 100m bound forces recruitment, the 200m kick in trains recruitment/use of these fibers under heavily fatigued conditions.
Finally, I've written on strength endurance and circuits before, so if you have any questions look there or leave a comment.
Enjoy the Video and thanks to the guys for letting me run along and film them. (NOTE: many of these guys have been doing a progression to this point over 3+years, or at least have a long period of solid mileage, I wouldn't give this to a freshman or a relatively undeveloped runner).
The idea behind this kind of circuit is strength endurance development obviously. What we are trying to do in basic terms is to force fiber recruitment and extend the endurance of those fibers. The exercises serve as a way to increase fiber recruitment, as does the fact that it's done uphill. The sprint at the end is for maximal recruitment of specific fibers. You'll notice that we go from bounding to sprints at the end.
In addition to neuromuscular adaptations, it also serves as an introduction or maintenance of some higher lactate work. If you took lactate readings (I've done it on myself), you'd see that following a circuit, lactate readings are relatively high. Normally when you do a lot of work with high lactate, you effect the lactate threshold because it manipulates the production/elimination ratio. Most of the time when you do high lactate work, it's pretty fast running, so you are essentially shifting to adapt to the higher lactate/high glycolyitic work being done. Your body's pretty smart in the sense that it adapts to what you give it. The fact that fast "anaerobic" work reduces LT is not a problem in some cases (it's all about balance) and at the right time of the season.
However, during a base phase, that's not the time you want to hurt the LT. Well, hill circuits like this allow for high lactate work to be done without it affecting LT. Why? Because it is non specific lactate work. You are using different muscle fibers than normal, and the one's you are forcing to be used are the harder to recruit FT fibers. So, they are used for high anaerobic activities. You are going to be producing most of this lactate from these fibers you normally don't recruit. In addition, the ST fibers are going to be trained to take up and use that lactate.
This is a general circuit, meaning the exercises and running are carried out at about 75-80%. It's important NOT to take this workout without knowing what surrounds it. The workout by itself probably won't do much, but in a larger paradigm it works well.
Before doing this type of work, you need sprints (either flat or hill) to increase the muscle fiber pool (the total fibers that can be recruited). Then you can use general circuits like this to help recruit these fibers during a longer activity.
You combine this work with regular strength endurance work that gets progressively more specific. A good way to work these hill circuits into something more specific is the use of mixed workouts. A workout like 1600,600,1200,500,1000,400 with 3-4min rest, with the paces being at 10k,3k,5k,1mi,5k,1mi takes the hill circuits and translates those adaptations into specifically helping your 5k (in this instance). The longer reps are for specific endurance, while the shorter intervals in between serve to force fiber recruitment and squirt some lactate into the system. Then you go back to the longer intervals to use those fibers, and train them to work under fatigued conditions (enhancing their endurance).
You can also manipulate the circuits to achieve different goals. Increase the speed of the running portion or increase the intensity of the circuits will both bring about different adaptations.
Lastly, for kick development, do a kick workout where you force fiber recruitment under very acidic conditions. A classic example is 300m at 800m pace, 100m bounding, 200m kick in. The 300m serves to build lactate, the 100m bound forces recruitment, the 200m kick in trains recruitment/use of these fibers under heavily fatigued conditions.
Finally, I've written on strength endurance and circuits before, so if you have any questions look there or leave a comment.
Enjoy the Video and thanks to the guys for letting me run along and film them. (NOTE: many of these guys have been doing a progression to this point over 3+years, or at least have a long period of solid mileage, I wouldn't give this to a freshman or a relatively undeveloped runner).
Strength Endurance Hill Circuit from Steve Magness on Vimeo.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Percy Cerutty, Running Form
I just got back from NYC, where I watched Mo and Tommy run the 5th ave mile and had a good time. A bit tired, but the runnings going well. I'm going to start doing some low key races pretty soon, so after watching 5th ave. i'm pumped up and ready to go.
In regards to training, I often say that it's all been done; there is nothing new. It just seems like everything is recycled and things come in and out of vogue.
Another favorite saying of mine is that, the best coaches/athletes always figure things out first, then science later confirms and explains what they intuitively did. The example I always give for this is Carl Lewis' lack of stretching.
The following video provides a good example of both of these ideas. It's an interview with famed coach Percy Cerutty, whose most notable protege was the undefeated miler Herb Elliott. In the video you'll notice a couple of different things. First, there's some core work and some pretty heavy weight lifting. Lastly, check out the running up and down the sand dunes. If that doesn't work on strength endurance, I don't know what does. Plus, it looks so natural (I wish there was video of his athletes carrying spears up the hill too...some ideas don't work/catch on).
http://www.ina.fr/sciences-et-techniques/medecine-sante/video/CPF04006926/le-sorcier-de-port-sea.fr.html
Lastly, here's a video of Said Aouita with some good slow motion video. Take a look at the video at about 55sec. You can clearly see Said landing in slow motion and it is right on. No heel striking, pretty much a midfoot strike with the heel coming down after, strikes right underneath him. Anyways, take a look at that, it's how you should run.
http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/VDD05006323/said-aouita.fr.html
In regards to training, I often say that it's all been done; there is nothing new. It just seems like everything is recycled and things come in and out of vogue.
Another favorite saying of mine is that, the best coaches/athletes always figure things out first, then science later confirms and explains what they intuitively did. The example I always give for this is Carl Lewis' lack of stretching.
The following video provides a good example of both of these ideas. It's an interview with famed coach Percy Cerutty, whose most notable protege was the undefeated miler Herb Elliott. In the video you'll notice a couple of different things. First, there's some core work and some pretty heavy weight lifting. Lastly, check out the running up and down the sand dunes. If that doesn't work on strength endurance, I don't know what does. Plus, it looks so natural (I wish there was video of his athletes carrying spears up the hill too...some ideas don't work/catch on).
http://www.ina.fr/sciences-et-techniques/medecine-sante/video/CPF04006926/le-sorcier-de-port-sea.fr.html
Lastly, here's a video of Said Aouita with some good slow motion video. Take a look at the video at about 55sec. You can clearly see Said landing in slow motion and it is right on. No heel striking, pretty much a midfoot strike with the heel coming down after, strikes right underneath him. Anyways, take a look at that, it's how you should run.
http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/VDD05006323/said-aouita.fr.html
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Complex to Simple, beware of guru's, and DOPING!!!
Brief Interruption of my spiel on Warming Up for some perspectives on a couple of things that grabbed my eye in the past couple days.
First, read this post by Vern Gambetta:
http://www.elitetrack.com/blogs/details/4804/
While I might not totally agree with how he applies it, the concept of taking complex things and making them simple is one that hits home.
Before I headed out to Virginia, I spent two days with the man I think is the best track and field coach of all time, Tom Tellez. We discussed all things track, training, mechanics, you name it. One of the main things that came up is making things more complex than they should be, which is the exact opposite of what you want in coaching. As an example, I’m convinced that the genius of Coach Tellez is that he takes very complex movement patterns in running, throwing, and jumping and makes it understandable for any athlete or coach. He takes all the stretch reflex mechanisms, stretch shortening cycle, elastic energy return of the tendons, etc. and simplifies it into easily understandable cues that athletes can actually use. In essence, he knows the complexity of the human body, but takes that complex concept and makes it into an easier digestible form. Complex to simple.
There seems to be a large portion of coaches, athletes, trainers, etc. who do the opposite. They take things that might already be complex and make them even more complex. The biggest tip off for guys like this are the ones who use big complex words, or even invents complex words, and talks in vague “guru” like talk. It’s tempting to fall into the trap of automatically thinking this guy knows the way. It’s actually the initial human reaction because if someone talks in complexities that are seemingly sound but above our head so that we don’t understand, we automatically assume that the person must know what they are talking about. I’m not naming names, but there are some prominent track coaches out there who have a decent following who do this. Just because you use big complex words does not mean you know how to apply what you are talking about or that it even translates to your sport. Most of the time, if you take time to digest and think about what these people say, you’ll see that it’s just a bunch of complex talk that is ambiguous and actually says nothing at all. The lesson is BE CAREFUL, think critically and don’t just accept things because they are over you head and are seemingly complex.
It should be said that I know the human body is incredibly complex. It’s good to talk about the complexities. Heck, I do it all the time on this blog. But the key is when applying those concepts you have to break it down into an easier paradigm. It has to be useable.
Doping:
On a seemingly unrelated topic, a visiting professor for one of my grad school classes is a world expert on Doping and performance enhancing drug use. Yesterday was our first class, so I’m sure I’ll be updating the blog with insights learned each week. In fact, in several weeks he is going to take us through the doping of past Tour de France champ Michael Rasmussen, as he is writing a book on the topic and has all the doping schedules and such of Rasmussen. Should be very entertaining! For now, here are some interesting things he brought up:
-When the Tour de France started, doping was acceptable. The mindset was that it was a superhuman type of ride, so cyclists required extra things to get them through. So it wasn’t unusual for riders to use cocaine, amphetamines, chloroform, strychnine, and many others.
-In the early and late 90’s in cycling, with most using EPO, you would see lights come on at random times in the middle of the night. The reason? EPO increases hematocrit. Hematocrit up to about 50 is safe, but once you get higher than that the blood is so thick that it’s essentially sludge like. It slows the heart rate down a lot and you can die from it (it happened with several cyclists). Well, it got so competitive that cyclists were pushing the envelope of how much epo they could take to raise their Hemoglobin and Hematocrit. At levels slightly above 50, cyclists would take aspirin to act as a blood thinner to hopefully keep things okay. But as the push for more and more EPO happened, cyclists had to wear heart rate monitors when sleeping so that if their Heart Rate got below 30 an alarm would go off to wake them. They’d then have to cycle for 30min. Thus why you’d see people up at random times at night for about 30min…
-There’s a new product out there that is better than EPO and has no test. What does the product do? It’s a drug that inhibits the bodies EPO regulator. So essentially it shuts down the bodies mechanism that stops or controls EPO production. Do that and the body keeps producing EPO. So, you basically increase your bodies own production of EPO. It’s also rumored that the discovery of this drug is what brought a certain American cyclists back to competition…Anyways, it’s scary to think that once this drug gets around in track, things could be bleak.
Lastly, this is something I found on my own while doing some research. Want to run better at altitude? Take Viagra… How’s it work? It causes vasodilation in the blood vessels in the lungs. This causes better oxygen saturation of the blood, which normally drops by a good deal at altitude.
First, read this post by Vern Gambetta:
http://www.elitetrack.com/blogs/details/4804/
While I might not totally agree with how he applies it, the concept of taking complex things and making them simple is one that hits home.
Before I headed out to Virginia, I spent two days with the man I think is the best track and field coach of all time, Tom Tellez. We discussed all things track, training, mechanics, you name it. One of the main things that came up is making things more complex than they should be, which is the exact opposite of what you want in coaching. As an example, I’m convinced that the genius of Coach Tellez is that he takes very complex movement patterns in running, throwing, and jumping and makes it understandable for any athlete or coach. He takes all the stretch reflex mechanisms, stretch shortening cycle, elastic energy return of the tendons, etc. and simplifies it into easily understandable cues that athletes can actually use. In essence, he knows the complexity of the human body, but takes that complex concept and makes it into an easier digestible form. Complex to simple.
There seems to be a large portion of coaches, athletes, trainers, etc. who do the opposite. They take things that might already be complex and make them even more complex. The biggest tip off for guys like this are the ones who use big complex words, or even invents complex words, and talks in vague “guru” like talk. It’s tempting to fall into the trap of automatically thinking this guy knows the way. It’s actually the initial human reaction because if someone talks in complexities that are seemingly sound but above our head so that we don’t understand, we automatically assume that the person must know what they are talking about. I’m not naming names, but there are some prominent track coaches out there who have a decent following who do this. Just because you use big complex words does not mean you know how to apply what you are talking about or that it even translates to your sport. Most of the time, if you take time to digest and think about what these people say, you’ll see that it’s just a bunch of complex talk that is ambiguous and actually says nothing at all. The lesson is BE CAREFUL, think critically and don’t just accept things because they are over you head and are seemingly complex.
It should be said that I know the human body is incredibly complex. It’s good to talk about the complexities. Heck, I do it all the time on this blog. But the key is when applying those concepts you have to break it down into an easier paradigm. It has to be useable.
Doping:
On a seemingly unrelated topic, a visiting professor for one of my grad school classes is a world expert on Doping and performance enhancing drug use. Yesterday was our first class, so I’m sure I’ll be updating the blog with insights learned each week. In fact, in several weeks he is going to take us through the doping of past Tour de France champ Michael Rasmussen, as he is writing a book on the topic and has all the doping schedules and such of Rasmussen. Should be very entertaining! For now, here are some interesting things he brought up:
-When the Tour de France started, doping was acceptable. The mindset was that it was a superhuman type of ride, so cyclists required extra things to get them through. So it wasn’t unusual for riders to use cocaine, amphetamines, chloroform, strychnine, and many others.
-In the early and late 90’s in cycling, with most using EPO, you would see lights come on at random times in the middle of the night. The reason? EPO increases hematocrit. Hematocrit up to about 50 is safe, but once you get higher than that the blood is so thick that it’s essentially sludge like. It slows the heart rate down a lot and you can die from it (it happened with several cyclists). Well, it got so competitive that cyclists were pushing the envelope of how much epo they could take to raise their Hemoglobin and Hematocrit. At levels slightly above 50, cyclists would take aspirin to act as a blood thinner to hopefully keep things okay. But as the push for more and more EPO happened, cyclists had to wear heart rate monitors when sleeping so that if their Heart Rate got below 30 an alarm would go off to wake them. They’d then have to cycle for 30min. Thus why you’d see people up at random times at night for about 30min…
-There’s a new product out there that is better than EPO and has no test. What does the product do? It’s a drug that inhibits the bodies EPO regulator. So essentially it shuts down the bodies mechanism that stops or controls EPO production. Do that and the body keeps producing EPO. So, you basically increase your bodies own production of EPO. It’s also rumored that the discovery of this drug is what brought a certain American cyclists back to competition…Anyways, it’s scary to think that once this drug gets around in track, things could be bleak.
Lastly, this is something I found on my own while doing some research. Want to run better at altitude? Take Viagra… How’s it work? It causes vasodilation in the blood vessels in the lungs. This causes better oxygen saturation of the blood, which normally drops by a good deal at altitude.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
The Warm-Up
It's been a very very busy past week or so, thus the lack of posts. I'm back up in the D.C. area and have started grad school classes again. This semester I have classes on Mon, Tue, and Wed. afternoon/night. Throw in the fact that I have to do a Literature Review that basically is going to turn into a like 60 page paper on the Physiology of Distance Running performance, for my thesis project this semester, and I'm really busy.
Not to mention that the HS CC season is getting under way! It seems early to me as I'm just getting back into it running wise, and a post collegiate guy I'm helping season isn't even done yet. But I can't explain how excited I am for this years CC season. It is going to be a very good and exciting one. It's been amazing to see this years class of HS runners come along and develop into national caliber runners over the past 4yrs. Just shows was steady progression in training can do.
The Warm-Up: What should you do?
Do you want the truth? I have no idea. No one really truly knows. That goes for just about anything unfortunately. There are no definitive answers; it’s not black and white. If anyone tells you that it is, be very wary.
Okay, so that doesn’t help anyone out too much. Let’s delve into the warm-up a little and see if we can make any sense of it at all.
The goal of the warm-up is simple in running, to prepare the body for the task at hand, running. That sounds simple enough, but the warm-up is all about balance because we have to do enough to prepare the body to get ready but we do not want to induce too much pre-fatigue. That last bit is important. If you look at the research studies done on warm-up, they are all over the place. About half say it helps, half say it doesn’t, and some say neither. Why is this? Because of that balance concept we have. Basically, a good warm-up to improve performance has to do three things:
Be intense enough to get physiological benefits (listed below)
NOT be too intense so that it induces pre-fatigue
Have an optimal recovery between the end of the warm-up and competition. (i.e. too long and benefits are lost, too short of a recovery and fatigue happens).
Let’s look at what a warm-up actually does.
1. Raises body temperature
In general, this is a good thing, unless your event is in a hot climate and is prolonged. But in other cases an increase in body temperature increases the rate of transmission of nerve impulses and changes the force-velocity relationship (Bishop 2003).
2. Raises baseline VO2
Depending on the warm-up and it’s spacing, it can raise baseline VO2. This can be a good thing, because then it means less time to reach VO2max or your race VO2. This in turn means that less energy created strictly anaerobically at the beginning of the race. The key is to get this baseline increase in VO2 while not pre-fatiguing yourself and allowing for enough recovery before the race of the immediate energy systems.
3. Increased Motor Unit activation
We need to activate those muscles. Get the CNS primed and ready to recruit everything it’s got. Research has shown that performance improvements following a warm-up have been partially due to an increase in muscle activation.
Individualizing the Warm-up
With just the simple guidelines of what a warm-up should do, it becomes clear that there is no perfect warm-up. In fact, even for the same individual, a warm-up should vary based on numerous factors. These factors include the following:
Race length:
The length of the race will determine the type and length of the warm-up. A marathon is partially dependent on glycogen stores, so does it make sense to use up a decent amount of your glycogen stores with a several mile warm-up before the race? Absolutely not. Similarly, with a sprint race, it is heavily dependent on the immediate energy systems, stored ATP and the phosphagen system. Given that we know it takes 3minutes or so to halfway restore Creatine Phosphate, and to fully recover it takes several more minutes, does it make sense to do a full lengthy acceleration to deplete this within 5-6min of the race? Nope! The lesson here is that your warm-up is dependent on the demands of your event.
Environment:
This one is easy so I’ll glaze over it, but some people don’t adjust there warm-up for hot or cold conditions. In hot conditions, we know that your body starts decreasing motor unit recruitment and thus performance as your core temperature increases to levels where the body starts turning on the safety mechanisms. So why should we voluntarily raise our core body temperature by several degrees in very hot conditions? It’s just going to lead to early fatigue. Research has shown that precooling works in hot conditions. So why would we voluntarily do the opposite?
Individual Physiology:
The individual makeup of an athlete is going to help decide how he or she needs to warm-up. If you have a slow twitch kid and a fast twitch kid, they are going to need different stimulus. A FT runner is going to have a different reaction to that 2mi jog then a ST kid. Is it a big difference? Not necessarily, but it could play a role.
In addition, the type of runner he is plays a role. This is related to predominant fiber type, but if the runner is one who relies on elastic energy, he’s going to need to get ready differently than a shuffler. An elastic kid is going to need something that gets him primed, ready, and feeling snap in his stride. It’s why you see some runners jump up and down before they race. Fast strides, jumps, hops, etc. all either prime the nervous system or alter the muscle tone and muscle tension. For a FT kid, you normally want this pretty high. So, these runners hopping up and down intuitively are doing this. The body is amazing if you get out of its way and let it work.
How they feel:
As mentioned before, muscle tone/tension is very important. If a runner feels flat before a race then the warm-up serves to get the nervous system firing and increase muscle tension. Therefore, hops, jumps, or fast short accelerations may be required. On the other hand, if you have someone whose way too bouncy for a longer event, he’s probably going to be using energy sources that need to be spared. A different warm-up is thus appropriate.
With all this being said, what the heck is a good warm-up?
For you, I don’t know. But here are some good guidelines.
Time between warm-up and competition.
-Muscle temperature generally takes 15min or so to drop significantly after a warm-up.
-Creatine Phosphate takes about 5min to almost fully restore.
-VO2 returns to baseline after 5-10min depending on the intensity.
Advice: It depends on the race. I’d suggest your last really fast strides/accels be about 7-10min out from the race. Then some light exercise, jogging, and light strides to keep VO2 slightly elevated MIGHT be a good idea.
Intensity:
-Need to activate MUSCLES!
-There's this nifty graph I was going to post but couldn't that showed increasing performance following a warm-up at various intensities of VO2max. Basically, max performance occured following a warm-up at about 70%VO2 and more intense than that fell off pretty quick. So there was a sweet spot at between about 65-75% VO2 where performance was generaly the best.
Advice: Intense enough to raise muscle temperature, but not so intense that it fatigues you. Do some fairly intense strides/accels for muscle activation.
In the future I’ll look at structuring the warm-up, including the role of stretching and what it’s basis might be, and the use of drills in the warm-up
David Bishop Performance Changes Following Active Warm Up and How
to Structure the Warm Up Sports Med 2003; 33 (7): 483-498
Not to mention that the HS CC season is getting under way! It seems early to me as I'm just getting back into it running wise, and a post collegiate guy I'm helping season isn't even done yet. But I can't explain how excited I am for this years CC season. It is going to be a very good and exciting one. It's been amazing to see this years class of HS runners come along and develop into national caliber runners over the past 4yrs. Just shows was steady progression in training can do.
The Warm-Up: What should you do?
Do you want the truth? I have no idea. No one really truly knows. That goes for just about anything unfortunately. There are no definitive answers; it’s not black and white. If anyone tells you that it is, be very wary.
Okay, so that doesn’t help anyone out too much. Let’s delve into the warm-up a little and see if we can make any sense of it at all.
The goal of the warm-up is simple in running, to prepare the body for the task at hand, running. That sounds simple enough, but the warm-up is all about balance because we have to do enough to prepare the body to get ready but we do not want to induce too much pre-fatigue. That last bit is important. If you look at the research studies done on warm-up, they are all over the place. About half say it helps, half say it doesn’t, and some say neither. Why is this? Because of that balance concept we have. Basically, a good warm-up to improve performance has to do three things:
Be intense enough to get physiological benefits (listed below)
NOT be too intense so that it induces pre-fatigue
Have an optimal recovery between the end of the warm-up and competition. (i.e. too long and benefits are lost, too short of a recovery and fatigue happens).
Let’s look at what a warm-up actually does.
1. Raises body temperature
In general, this is a good thing, unless your event is in a hot climate and is prolonged. But in other cases an increase in body temperature increases the rate of transmission of nerve impulses and changes the force-velocity relationship (Bishop 2003).
2. Raises baseline VO2
Depending on the warm-up and it’s spacing, it can raise baseline VO2. This can be a good thing, because then it means less time to reach VO2max or your race VO2. This in turn means that less energy created strictly anaerobically at the beginning of the race. The key is to get this baseline increase in VO2 while not pre-fatiguing yourself and allowing for enough recovery before the race of the immediate energy systems.
3. Increased Motor Unit activation
We need to activate those muscles. Get the CNS primed and ready to recruit everything it’s got. Research has shown that performance improvements following a warm-up have been partially due to an increase in muscle activation.
Individualizing the Warm-up
With just the simple guidelines of what a warm-up should do, it becomes clear that there is no perfect warm-up. In fact, even for the same individual, a warm-up should vary based on numerous factors. These factors include the following:
Race length:
The length of the race will determine the type and length of the warm-up. A marathon is partially dependent on glycogen stores, so does it make sense to use up a decent amount of your glycogen stores with a several mile warm-up before the race? Absolutely not. Similarly, with a sprint race, it is heavily dependent on the immediate energy systems, stored ATP and the phosphagen system. Given that we know it takes 3minutes or so to halfway restore Creatine Phosphate, and to fully recover it takes several more minutes, does it make sense to do a full lengthy acceleration to deplete this within 5-6min of the race? Nope! The lesson here is that your warm-up is dependent on the demands of your event.
Environment:
This one is easy so I’ll glaze over it, but some people don’t adjust there warm-up for hot or cold conditions. In hot conditions, we know that your body starts decreasing motor unit recruitment and thus performance as your core temperature increases to levels where the body starts turning on the safety mechanisms. So why should we voluntarily raise our core body temperature by several degrees in very hot conditions? It’s just going to lead to early fatigue. Research has shown that precooling works in hot conditions. So why would we voluntarily do the opposite?
Individual Physiology:
The individual makeup of an athlete is going to help decide how he or she needs to warm-up. If you have a slow twitch kid and a fast twitch kid, they are going to need different stimulus. A FT runner is going to have a different reaction to that 2mi jog then a ST kid. Is it a big difference? Not necessarily, but it could play a role.
In addition, the type of runner he is plays a role. This is related to predominant fiber type, but if the runner is one who relies on elastic energy, he’s going to need to get ready differently than a shuffler. An elastic kid is going to need something that gets him primed, ready, and feeling snap in his stride. It’s why you see some runners jump up and down before they race. Fast strides, jumps, hops, etc. all either prime the nervous system or alter the muscle tone and muscle tension. For a FT kid, you normally want this pretty high. So, these runners hopping up and down intuitively are doing this. The body is amazing if you get out of its way and let it work.
How they feel:
As mentioned before, muscle tone/tension is very important. If a runner feels flat before a race then the warm-up serves to get the nervous system firing and increase muscle tension. Therefore, hops, jumps, or fast short accelerations may be required. On the other hand, if you have someone whose way too bouncy for a longer event, he’s probably going to be using energy sources that need to be spared. A different warm-up is thus appropriate.
With all this being said, what the heck is a good warm-up?
For you, I don’t know. But here are some good guidelines.
Time between warm-up and competition.
-Muscle temperature generally takes 15min or so to drop significantly after a warm-up.
-Creatine Phosphate takes about 5min to almost fully restore.
-VO2 returns to baseline after 5-10min depending on the intensity.
Advice: It depends on the race. I’d suggest your last really fast strides/accels be about 7-10min out from the race. Then some light exercise, jogging, and light strides to keep VO2 slightly elevated MIGHT be a good idea.
Intensity:
-Need to activate MUSCLES!
-There's this nifty graph I was going to post but couldn't that showed increasing performance following a warm-up at various intensities of VO2max. Basically, max performance occured following a warm-up at about 70%VO2 and more intense than that fell off pretty quick. So there was a sweet spot at between about 65-75% VO2 where performance was generaly the best.
Advice: Intense enough to raise muscle temperature, but not so intense that it fatigues you. Do some fairly intense strides/accels for muscle activation.
In the future I’ll look at structuring the warm-up, including the role of stretching and what it’s basis might be, and the use of drills in the warm-up
David Bishop Performance Changes Following Active Warm Up and How
to Structure the Warm Up Sports Med 2003; 33 (7): 483-498
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
