Running News

The New York Times Phys-Ed section discusses a recent Harvard study on running form. The study examined injury rates among heel strikers vs forefoot strikers. The subjects were 52 runners on the Harvard cross-country team. Researchers looked at four years worth of data on injured runners. The pertinent finding is this:

“About two-thirds of the group wound up hurt seriously enough each year to miss two or more training days. But the heel strikers were much more prone to injury, with a twofold greater risk than the forefoot strikers. (Emphasis is mine.)”

Be careful though. This finding doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should immediately change their running form. The article quotes says:

“Does this mean that those of us who habitually heel-strike, as I do, should change our form? “If you’re not getting hurt,” Dr. Daniel Lieberman says, “then absolutely not. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

But, says researcher Adam I. Daoud, who was himself an oft-injured heel-striker during his cross-country racing days, “if you have experienced injury after injury and you’re a heel-striker, it might be worth considering a change.”

For further discussion and analysis on these findings, have a look at Runblogger’s post (and how these findings are being misused in advertising) and the post at Sweat Science. Both of these guys do a great job of telling us what the data does and does not show.

“Hopefully now you understand that damage and soreness are not necessarily bad things, but instead are essential triggers for the adaptations we all seek to improve performance.”
– Steve Magness, Running Times

The previous post on supplements got me thinking about various articles I’ve read recently on the possible negative effect that antioxidants may have on endurance training. Here is some information to consider.

Alex Hutchinson writes a blog called Sweat Science. He also writes a column called Jockolgy for the Toronto Globe and Mail and he’s written articles for the New York Times, Runner’s World and Popular Mechanics. Beyond that he’s your ordinary, every day physicist and elite-level distance runner. Seems like a smart guy to me. I listen to what he has to say.

He recently wrote a piece titled The case against antioxidant vitamin supplements. It’s of a similar theme as an earlier post called Does Vitamin C block gains from training? Both posts suggest the idea that supplementing with antioxidants may inhibit the training effects we want from strenuous workouts. This may seem counter to what many of us have been told.

Science tells us that antioxidants protect us from cellular damage done by free radicals. Free radicals are produced by strenuous exercise. So recent conventional wisdom says that we can protect our bodies by taking antioxidant supplements such as Vitamins C and E.

New research though is telling us that our supplementation may be interfering with the cycle of stress and adaptation that a workout provides. Hutchinson refers to research in the latest issue of Sports Medicine that supports this concept. He cites the following (The ROS mentioned are free radicals.):

“The traditional theory goes like this: strenuous exercise produces “reactive oxygen species” (ROS), which cause damage to cells and DNA in the body. Taking antioxidant supplements like vitamins C and E helps to neutralize the ROS, allowing the body to recover more quickly from workouts.”

“The new theory, in contrast, goes like this: strenuous exercise produces ROS, which signal to the body that it needs to adapt to this new training stress by becoming stronger and more efficient. Taking antioxidant supplements neutralizes the ROS, which means the body doesn’t receive the same signals telling it to adapt, so you make smaller gains in strength and endurance from your training.”

“The new paper comes down firmly on the side of the latter view:”

“The aim of this review is to present and discuss 23 studies that have shown that antioxidant supplementation interferes with exercise training-induced adaptations. The main findings of these studies are that, in certain situations, loading the cell with high doses of antioxidants leads to a blunting of the positive effects of exercise training and interferes with important [reactive oxygen species]-mediated physiological processes, such as vasodilation and insulin signalling.”

The researchers conclude with the following statement:

“We recommend that an adequate intake of vitamins and minerals through a varied and balanced diet remains the best approach to maintain the optimal antioxidant status in exercising individuals.”

All of these ideas and observations are similar to the views expressed by exercise scientist and running coach Steve Magness in his article When Damage is a Good Thing in Running Times. His article discusses not only antioxidant intake but also ice baths, anti-inflammatories, and carbohydrate drinks. If you’re an endurance athlete then you should definitely read the article. Magness sums up things well with the following statement:

“Hopefully now you understand that damage and soreness are not necessarily bad things, but instead are essential triggers for the adaptations we all seek to improve performance. The goal should not necessarily be to minimize them automatically, but instead to work with them–this means allowing for enough damage to take place to initiate adaptation and then allowing for the body to go through its natural recovery response before trying to aid recovery. The goal should be to work with the body, not against it. So keep in mind the goal of each training session and the goal of whatever recovery methods you use, and plan things accordingly so your recovery efforts help you to improve performance, not hinder it.”

Incidentally, all of this has caused me to rethink my recovery strategies.

Born and Evolved to Run

This article titled Born and Evolved to Run comes from the New York Times Science section–and you should read it. It’s a Q&A with Daniel Liberman, an evolutionary biologist from Harvard. He’s also a barefoot runner. He’s done a significant bit of research on barefoot running that any and all runners should look into. Beyond our feet, Liberman also discusses some unique characteristics of our necks and why most of our tooth and gum ailments are a result of the modern age. Here’s an exerpt:

Q. Your other specialty is the evolution of the foot. Why this emphasis on the farthest points of our bodies?

A. Actually, I’m interested in the entire body. However, I got into feet because of my interest in heads. Some years ago, I was doing an experiment where I put pigs on treadmills. The goal was to learn how running stressed the bones in the head. One day, a colleague, Dennis Bramble, walked into the lab, watched what was going on, and declared, “You know, that pig can’t hold its head still!”

This was my “eureka!” moment. I’d observed pigs on treadmills for hundreds of hours and had never thought about this. So Dennis and I started talking about how, when these pigs ran, their heads bobbed every which way and how running humans are really adept at stabilizing their heads. We realized that there were special features in the human neck that enable us to keep our heads still. That gives us an evolutionary advantage because it helps us avoid falls and injuries. And this seemed like evidence of natural selection in our ability to run, an important factor in how we became hunters rather than just foragers and got access to richer foods, which fueled the evolution of our big brains.

“Runners who continue running when they are exhausted unknowingly change their running form, which could be related to an increased risk for injury.”

Runners get injured. I’m a runner and I’ve been injured–a lot. If you’re a runner then you either have been, are or are going to be injured. According to one source, 60-65% of all runners are injured during an average year (by definition, an ‘injury’ is a physical problem severe enough to force a reduction in training).

If you’ve encountered a running injury then you probably know that it’s rarely a simple solution to fix what ails you. From shoe changes to barefoot running to stretching to foam rolling to foot strengthening exercises, to physical therapy to acupuncture to chiropractic to massage and on and on… This is a huge hassle and it would be wonderful to avoid this kind of aggravation! So with some particle of optimism, I present an article from Science Daily that may help us avoid injury: When to End a Run to Avoid Injury: Runners Change Form When Running Exhausted.

The article discusses a study from Indiana University published in the Journal of Biomechanics in November 2010. Researchers observed that subjects demonstrated biomechanical changes as they fatigued during a run. Runners tended to display excessive motion at the hips, knees and ankles.

The study had subjects run on treadmills until they either reached 85 percent of the subject’s heart rate maximum or a score of 17 (out of 20) on the rating of perceived exertion (RPE). By the end of their runs, all of the runners reported an RPE of at least 15 — studies have shown that RPEs between 13-15 indicate fatigue. Here’s what you need to pay attention to. The article states, “Runners’ RPEs could provide some answers, with RPEs of 15-17 indicating runners’ have reached a point where their mechanics have likely begun to change in an undesirable way.”

The RPE scale is shown below.

What does this mean to you the runner? Don’t run to the point of exhaustion. Stop when you’re feeling good and strong, not when you feel beaten to hunched-over death.

I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that we might take this advice for any type of exercise: lifting weights, cycling, martial arts–whatever. This isn’t to say we should avoid tough workouts but most of our workouts should be comfortably challenging, not torture. (I’ve mentioned this concept in previous posts; look here and here.)

Facial expressions can be very useful in gauging our exertion levels. When I’m working with clients I watch their faces. When a grimace starts to show we stop the set. The “scary face” is a transmission from one human to the other humans that something isn’t going all that well. (Next time you’re in the gym, have a look around and see how many people have a look on their face like they’re being stabbed. Don’t be that person.) It means we’re butting up against certain physiological limitations. If we spend enough time doing this we’ll likely end up in some type of pain. Heed your body’s warnings and you can stop injuries before they start.

The Minimal Shoe Debate Heats Up

If you’re an exercise geek like me then you may take interest in the latest goings-on over at Zero-Drop, a very fine minimalist running blog. Three posts are worth reading: “ASICS Have Really Dug In Their Heels,” “The ASICS ‘Minimalst’ Shoe Debate Continues…,” and “The Other Shoe Has Dropped: Dr. Craig Richards Challenges ASICS and Other Shoe Companies.”

It seems that shoe company ASICS is not jumping on the minimal shoe bandwagon like most of their competitors. ASICS shoe designer Simon Bartold is quoted in the article and he speaks fairly derisively of the movement toward flatter, thinner and more flexible shoes. He demands proof that minimal shoes are healthy and useful for runners. (Meanwhile, there’s certainly no proof that modern, “good” running shoes are healthy either.)

What’s most interesting however isn’t the article itself but rather the spirited exchange that follows in the comments section where Bertold and the blog author go back and forth over the scientific particulars of this issue. The discussion gets quite heated and the drama even spills over to another blog. “ASICS vs Zero Drop, Minimalist vs. Maximalist” comes from the great minimalist site, Runblogger. It’s a very thorough examination of the type of proof that Simon Bertold demands. The article in fact draws a comment from ASICS’ Bertold that that might be seen as a little bit of backpedaling.

The issue of science and scientific “proof” is a prominent feature of these discussions. It’s unlikely that any one study will prove 100% whether or not any type of shoe–or no shoe at all–will cause or prevent a given type of injury. There are many many variables that go into an injury or lack thereof. (Interestingly, several studies suggest that conventional “good” running shoes matched to foot type do nothing to prevent injuries.) Further, just because a rigorous study hasn’t been done doesn’t mean that a given cause-and-effect relationship doesn’t exist. Minimal shoe/barefoot running may or may not in fact be healthier for most people than running in a conventional running shoe but there may be no powerful study that exists that proves either condition.

There’s nothing wrong with examining the anecdotal evidence either. It’s often the anecdotal stuff that motivates someone to study something, and there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence out there supporting the idea that less shoe is better than more shoe. I can speak from my observations of clients in the gym (as well as my wife and my own condition) that many people move better and feel better in minimal shoes. I’m not the only one observing this. In fact the shoe companies making minimal shoes are responding to the requests of their customers.

Finally, if you find all of this interesting, then you should get over to a recent post at the Science of Sport. The barefoot running debate: Born to run, shoes & injury: the latest thinking is a remarkably in-depth discussion on the shoe issue. The Sports Scientists take their subjects very seriously and they always get deep into the science behind athletics. They discuss the important of running technique and the idea of how to transition from a conventional running shoe to the barefoot/minimal running style. Very informative stuff there.

Potomac 7.5 Mile Swim for the Environment & Team RWB

The Big Swim

Mike Piet of Arlington, VA is a former client and good friend of mine. He is a superb triathlete. He’s competed in several Ironman Triathlons (including the Cozumel Ironman) and countless other triathlons and endurance events. Most recently he competed in the Potomac 7.5 Mile Swim for the Environment, and he did quite well. He finished 3rd overall and he was the first non-wetsuited competitor to cross the finish line with a time of 3 hrs 52 min. Further, he raised $500 as part of the effort to clean up the Potomac River. This is a tremendous achievement and I applaud his efforts. Here’s a link to his Race Report.

Team Red, White & Blue

Further, Mike will also be racing as a part of Team RWB (Red, White & Blue). Team RWB is a non-profit organization that brings athletes together in support of wounded war veterans. Their mission is to enrich the lives of wounded veterans and their families. They work to re-introduce wounded vets back into society. RWB members raise funds and awareness through participating in a wide range of athletic events. To learn more about Team RWB including volunteer and donating opportunities, go to the Team RWB site.

If you know a vet then you may know that returning from combat and taking up a “normal” life can be excruciatingly difficult. Combat vets have gone through things that most of us can’t imagine. Upon returning stateside they’re often patted on the back and expected to take up life where they left off, but there is a lot of hard work involved in readjusting to civilian life. This is the perhaps the hardest part of war. So if you have funds or the time, please find a way to donate to Team RWB.

Shifting Gears from Strength to Endurance Work: Part II

In Part I of this series, we started to discuss the different physical capacities known as endurance, strength, and power. Evidence is mixed but there it appears possible that strength gains may be hindered if one engages in endurance work at the same time. The jury is still out. What about endurance and power?

Endurance Work Seems to Inhibit Max Power Production

The previously mentioned NSCA document Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training for Strength/Power Athletes discusses several studies in which endurance training hindered the production of maximal power. That is, short-duration, high intensity activities such as sprinting, jumping, shot put, discus, and Olympic weightlifting will be compromised if an athlete trains for endurance while also training for one of these events. Similar findings are found here, here, and here.

As for why this interference occurs, it’s more than I can go into here. If you want to get into it, you might look at this ACSM document by Nader titled Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training: from Molecules to Man or Stone’s Maximum Strength & Strength Training – Relationship to Endurance?

Strength & Power Work Enhances Endurance Performance

In contrast to the negative effects endurance work has for the strength and power athlete, strength and power work seem to benefit the endurance athlete. Heavy strength training has been shown to increase running economy in triathletes, cross-country skiers, and cyclists. Explosive (power) work has been shown to increase running economy (here, and here) when part of the runners’ endurance work was replaced with plyometric/jumping work. There are many more studies with similar findings. I’ve also posted a series Strength Training for Runners Part I and Part II that covers these issues.

Final Considerations

Please remember though that everyone is an experiment of one and that a program that works very well for one person may not work well at all for another. You may lie somewhere along a continuum. Perhaps you need more strength. Perhaps you’re strong enough. The only way to find out is experiment and observe your results. Joel Freel offers a valuable observation on his blog:

“Will weight lifting help every athlete become more economical and therefore faster? Nope. I’ve coached a few endurance athletes who came to their sport with a long history of body building or power lifting. These athletes had plenty of strength. They needed less. Athletes who are the peak of performance probably won’t benefit either. If I took a Kenyan runner who had just won the New York City Marathon and put him on a weight lifting program for several weeks it’s doubtful he would be a better runner. But if someone who was a complete novice–say to cycling–lifted weights doing cycling-related strength exercises for several weeks he or she would undoubtedly improve cycling performance without even turning the cranks once. Most of us fall between these extremes. And most of us will improve our endurance performances by lifting weights. My experience tells me this is so.”

In my experience, it’s vital to recognize that if you’re increasing stress in one direction, then you must decrease stress in another. For example, if you’re training for an endurance event then you must scale back your strength work. Otherwise you’re stressing the organism too much and something’s going to break.

A little bit of strength and/or power work seem to compliment endurance work pretty well. Err on the conservative side when deciding your loading parameters. Two workouts per week at most seem ideal. Select one or two exercises (squats and/or deadlifts for example for strength work; body weight jump exercises or barbell cleans for power work) and start with perhaps one set. Next week add two sets followed by three sets the third week. Don’t work to failure. These workouts shouldn’t be terribly taxing. See what happens.

My First Barefoot Excursion & What is Tightness?

1st Barefoot Run

Anyone who reads this blog knows I’m a fan of minimal footwear. I believe the best foot is a strong foot, not a foot that’s been made weak by modern “good shoes.” The foot has been a foot for a looooong time. Relative to the span of human existence, “good shoes” and orthotic-type devices are a very new trinkets. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Gengis Khan’s Golden Horde, Comanches, Apaches, Aztecs, Zulus… and the vast majority of our fellow humans who’ve ever marched across the earth have done so while wearing nearly nothing on their feet. It wasn’t until the 1970s that we got the modern running shoe from Nike. In terms of research & development, one has a huge head start over the other. All kinds of new research suggests that “good shoes” may not be all that good for us at all.

While minimal shoes have gained in popularity so has barefoot running and I’ve pondered playing around with the concept. So I was quite interested when our local running store the Runner’s Roost advertised a barefoot/minimal shoe seminar. My wife and I attended the seminar last night and it was really fascinating. It got me all excited to start experimenting in a shoeless direction. Today was my first day out.

Of the four speakers, Michael Sandler of RunBare.com was the most interesting informative. (Among other issues, he’s missing the anterior cruciate ligament on one leg–the result of a roller blade crash. So for people who say running is bad for the knees, you might think again. He was also an orthotic addict and orthotic designer.) He suggested that newly barefoot runners must listen to their feet. The moment you feel a little bit of irritation, the run is over. Put on your shoes and come back to run barefoot another day. He suggested a first barefoot run of 200 meters. Then take a day off. Next run is 300 meters. Day off. Next run is 400 meters and so on. It is a very slow starting process this barefoot running.

So today I went for a walk with our dog. It was great weather: sun and 70-ish degress. I walked out barefoot but I had my shoes in a backpack. I ran down the sidewalk to the end of our block. My steps were very quick and light and everything felt fine. First run done and done. I walked another couple of blocks barefoot then put on the shoes. No barefooting tomorrow but I plan to hit it again on Friday. As I sit here writing this, my heel and Achilles pain is non-existent. Seems like a good start.

What is Tightness?

In a somewhat different direction, one of my favorite exercise geek blogs is Begin to Dig. It’s written by a fellow Z-Health practitioner, a woman named MC. (I actually don’t know her full name.) The latest post discusses the whys and hows of tight muscles and how to address them. Among other things, she describes why using a foam roller is probably not the best idea. If you want to learn a bit about the underlying cause(s) of tightness (first and foremost it’s all about your survival) then you should check it out. Beyond that, there’s a lot more informative stuff on her blog about getting strong, lean, fast and pain-free.

Shifting Gears from Strength to Endurance Work: Part I

Springtime in Denver means it’s time to bicycle. So now I’ve shifted my focus from heavy strength and power work to endurance work. (I never did hit 500 lbs. on the deadlift. I did however pull 435 lbs. for two reps. I’m content with that.) Endurance activity and strength/power work lie at two opposite ends of the exercise/movement/exertion continuum. From what I’ve read and in my own personally experience, it’s very difficult if not impossible to develop a high-end level of strength while also training for an endurance event like the Sunrise Century (which I’ll be doing in June.) Simply put, trying to maximize one area of performance means the other will suffer. If you try to maximize all areas then you won’t reach your potential in any one.

Terminology: Endurance, Strength, Power

I’ll define some terms. Endurance work is something like long distance cycling, running, or cross-country skiing. These are long-duration activities executed well below the participants’ maximal abilities.

Maximal strength work is often a slow moving, short duration type of thing. If you attempt to lift a maximum weight you won’t be moving it very quickly. Heavy deadlifting, bench pressing and squatting typically move slowly. These activities can only be sustained for a very brief amount of time–several seconds at most–before the muscles fatigue significantly.

Power sports require a combination of strength and speed. Think of a shot putter, long jumper or an Olympic weight lifter. These athletes must move a fairly heavy object very quickly. Maximal power may be expressed in two seconds or less. Power sports and endurance sports occupy the furthest opposite ends of the exercise spectrum.

So what happens if we decide to mix endurance work, strength work and power work together?

Endurance Work May Inhibit Strength Abilities

The National Strength & Conditioning Association (NSCA) offers a document titled Concurrent Strength and Endurance Training for Strength/Power Athletes. Here we have evidence that suggests mixed results for combined strength and endurance work. Several studies suggest that endurance work impedes strength gains. Other studies show no interference.

Confusion and questions come up when we start to dissect the studies. The article states:

“Differences between these studies may have been due to differences in the length of the studies, experience level of the subjects, and the training protocols utilized. For example, studies differed with respect to the specific exercises performed, whether strength and endurance training were performed on the same or different days per week, the sequence of training modes (strength before endurance or endurance before strength).”

We don’t have a definite answer to this question.

In my personal experience I run into difficulty if I ride/run a lot while also lifting a lot. I become too sore and stiff from one activity to perform well at the other. So I have to reduce one type of stress as I increase the other. Further, I find that riding my bike up mountains quite sufficiently addresses my strength needs. (Now we’re starting to get into the SAID Principle or Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. Then we start to ask whether strength developed in the gym has any effect on strength expressed on a bike…)

In subsequent posts I’ll examine the effects of endurance work on power performance. Then we’ll drive the other way up this street and ask the question, “To what degree does strength and power work affect endurance performance?”

Avoid Cramping This Spring

The warm weather is trying to break through to us and we’re all itching to run and/or bike. You may be at particularly at risk for cramping at this time of year though. Why? First some background on salts, muscles and muscular contractions.

Salts (aka electrolytes) specifically potassium, sodium, and especially calcium are key components of muscular contractions. Without them we may either experience muscular weakness or uncontrolled muscular contractions–cramping. We get these salts through our food and drink. We tend to lose these salts through sweating. Prolonged exercise and/or exercise in the heat typically requires us to consume more salts than we would during short bouts of exercise or exercise in the cold. Now, on to the particulars of cold-to-warm weather issues.

As it turns from cold to warm weather, our bodies are also adjusting the degree to which we sweat out our salts. During the cold, our bodies will fork over the salt quite readily. We retain more salts during the warm weather. So let’s say we get a nice warm day and we decide to get in a long run or ride. We may be exercising like it’s warm but we may be sweating out salts like it’s cold. This is prime time for cramping.

Here are some ideas to avoid cramps:

Salt your food. You’re an exercising athlete and you need salt. Unless you have high blood pressure, you should be fine.
Keep a sports drink with you. Drink when thirsty and stop when you’re satiated.
Eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables. These contain electrolytes.
Don’t overhydrate. Too much water will dilute the salts in your body.
Consume dairy products. Calcium is important for bones but it’s also massively important for muscular contractions. It’s rarely found in sports drinks though.
Ease into warm weather activities. Your body will adjust to retain salts if given some time.

Denver Fitness Journal

All Things Health and Fitness by Kyle Norman, MS, CSCS, FMS, RRCA Running Coach

Endurance Training