Running Science

by Owen Anderson

  Scientific research has provided little support for such conceptions. In a study carried out at the University of Northern Iowa, for example, surplus miles and augmented workout frequencies had little positive effect on marathon performances.1 In this research, 18 college-age males and 33 college-age females took part in an 18-week marathon training program. All 51 subjects were active, healthy, and fairly fit at the beginning of the study, and almost all of the individuals were running fewer than 10 miles (16 km) per week when the research began.

  The Northern Iowa participants were divided into two groups. The longer-distance group increased training volume from 23 to 48 miles (37-77 km) per week over the course of the 18-week inquiry, averaging six workouts per week. The shorter-distance group hiked training volume from 18 to 39 miles (29-63 km) per week by the end of the study while training just 4 days per week.

  A typical schedule for the longer-distance runners near the end of the 18-week training program was as follows:

  Monday—45 minutes of running

  Tuesday—90 minutes

  Wednesday—45 minutes

  Thursday—90 minutes

  Friday—45 minutes

  Saturday—long run

  Sunday—complete rest

  The shorter-distance group simply omitted the Monday and Wednesday 45-minute efforts to arrive at their four times per week schedule. Actual exercise intensity during all workouts was the same for both groups: about 75 percent of maximal heart rate. Both groups tapered for two weeks prior to the actual marathon.

  The duration of the Saturday long run for both groups was 60 minutes at the beginning of the study but eventually advanced for both groups to 2.5 hours after 14 weeks of training. Each group completed three of these 2.5-hour runs over the course of the training program. Thus, even though the shorter-distance runners ran 20 percent fewer miles during the overall training period, both groups carried out the same long runs on Saturdays.

  At the end of the 18-week period, both groups had improved body composition and running capacity. Each group trimmed percent body fat by about 10 percent and increased muscle mass by 3 to 5 percent. In addition, the groups raised maximal aerobic capacity (O2max) by 3 to 12 percent, improved running economy by 10 percent, lowered lactate levels while running by 25 percent or more, and reduced the heart rates associated with submaximal paces by up to 15 percent. These improvements were absolutely equivalent between the groups even though the shorter-distance runners had logged 20 percent fewer miles.

  Marathon times were exactly the same, too, averaging about 4:17 for males in both groups (the range was from 3:36 to 4:53) and approximately 4:51 for females in both groups (the range was 3:51 to 6:32). In other words, the extra workouts and extra miles completed by the longer-distance athletes had not sheared even a tenth of a second from marathon performance times. Running 39 miles (63 km) per week, parceled into four workouts, was as effective a marathon preparation as covering 48 weekly miles (77 km) with six weekly workouts. As this book has noted in previous chapters, science suggests that the mere addition of distance to training schedules that already feature around 35 to 40 miles (56-64 km) of weekly running rarely upgrades performance times for most runners, and this appears to be true even in a long race like the marathon.

  A take-home message is that if a runner is covering about 35 to 40 miles (56-64 km) per week in training and wants to become a better marathoner, he or she should not simply add on more distance to the schedule in the belief that it will improve marathon prospects. The best predictor of marathon finishing time is average workout speed, not weekly distance run.2 This suggests that if an athlete is running about 35 to 40 miles per week, it is important to upgrade the intensity of training sessions before thinking about tacking on additional distance. This could be accomplished by progressively increasing the number of intervals in interval workouts and gradually adding length to other high-quality sessions before adding more moderate-speed workouts. Research suggests that small increases in intense work will do far more for marathon fitness than sizable upswings in the amount of distance run.

  Traditional Weekly Long Run Is Unnecessary

  During marathon preparations, it is important to avoid the common tendency to carry out a long run each weekend. There is little value in such repeated efforts, and in fact such incessant hammering at the door of prolonged running usually heightens injury risk and lowers the quality of the training carried out during the week between the long runs. The general belief is that such long running is needed to prepare for the rigors of the marathon, but the truth is that there is nothing about the marathon per se that requires a weekly leg-pounding run. Implicit in the philosophy of the long run is the suggestion that the human body will somehow forget how to go long, will not remember how to have enough endurance to run a marathon, unless a weekly battering is administered to the leg muscles. Nothing could be further from the truth!

  While it is important to gradually work up to a 20- to 22-mile (32-35 km) training run in preparation for a marathon, it is not necessary to conduct such a workout on a weekly basis. As is the case with all the distances studied so far in this book, increased fitness and not expanded training volume or a high frequency of long runs is the factor that will produce the best possible marathon performances. Fitness is improved more effectively by a scorching vO2max workout, a lactate-stacker session, 2,000-meter (1.24 mi) intervals at 10K pace, or a sizzling fartlek effort on wooded trails than by inching along for 13 to 20 miles (21-32 km) at medium paces.

  It is far better to reserve the long run for every other weekend, or even every third weekend, and to carry out high-quality efforts on days that were formerly designated for the long slogs. A runner who has completed a 20- to 22-mile training run as part of his or her marathon preparations, with a good chunk of this effort completed at goal pace, and who has also optimized vO2max, lactate-threshold speed, running economy, running-specific strength, and maximal running speed during the premarathon buildup, will be totally prepared for the big race.

  The Marathon Is a Power Race

  It is clear that the marathon should be treated as a power race by competitive runners, not merely as a test of endurance. Unfortunately, most marathon trainees don’t concentrate on bolstering their speed during their premarathon preparations, preferring instead—by focusing on long, slow runs—to teach their muscles to contract meekly for long periods of time. That can be a bigger mistake in the marathon than it is in a high-power event like the 5K. If a runner’s stride rate is 180 steps per minute, and it takes him or her about 3.5 hours to complete a marathon, the race requires a grand total of 37,800 steps. Greater leg-muscle power can do two basic things: (1) It allows a runner to spend less time on the ground with each foot strike since the leg muscles are contracting more explosively, or quickly, and (2) it increases stride length. More ground is covered between steps because muscle contractions are more forceful.

  If the improved power decreases the time spent on the ground per foot strike by just .02 seconds, an almost infinitesimal change and therefore one that most runners can easily make, the gain in performance time would be 37,800 steps × .02 seconds, or a 756-second improvement. The marathoner would upgrade finishing time from 3:30 down to a nifty 3:17:24! Similarly, a 3:10 runner would improve performance by 34,200 × .02 = 684 seconds, slipping neatly under the 3-hour mark and finishing in just 2:58:36.

  If the improved power also increases the distance between foot strikes by one-half inch (1.3 cm), again a change most runners can manage by making modest improvements in leg-muscle power, another positive change in performance would ensue: 37,800 steps × .5 inches equals almost 500 meters (1,640 ft). In other words, the runner would be able to beat every runner who currently finishes up to 500 meters ahead of him or her in the marathon. The runner would shave more than 2 additional minutes from total marathon time.

  It is clear that no marathon runner is too explosive or too powerful. Any marathon runner can profit from a decrease in foot-strike
time and appropriate expansion of stride length. To become more powerful, it is wise to first become stronger by relying on hill running and running-specific strengthening movements. After upgrading strength, a runner can then learn to apply that strength more quickly by running explosively up hills, carrying out plyometric drills (e.g., hops, bounds, one-leg hops in place), and practicing running fast using the quality workouts outlined in this book. By doing so, a runner will become faster, and as sports medicine expert Tim Noakes has pointed out, “The fastest runners at the shorter distances are the best marathon runners.”3

  Improving maximal speed has a positive impact on overall marathon performance.

  Imago/Icon SMI

  Marathon Workouts

  Many different types of workouts will boost marathon performances. Goal-pace training, circuit workouts, “Tegla sessions,” super-set routines, lactate-threshold-advancing efforts, and half-marathon competitions all provide significant benefits for the marathon runner.

  Training at Goal Pace

  Many marathon trainees believe that 18- to 20-mile (29-32 km) long runs prepare their bodies to handle the rigors of a full marathon, forgetting that such runs simply reinforce the ability to run a partial marathon at a pace slower than goal velocity. To make long training runs (i.e., the ones carried out every other week or every third week during training) relevant to the race, it is important to make such efforts race specific. This means including a significant chunk of miles at goal marathon pace within the overall run. Runners can be very progressive in this regard: If the current long run is 6 miles (9.66 km), for example, a runner can include 3 miles (4.83 km) at goal marathon tempo by warming up with 2 easy miles (3.22 km), pacing along for 3 miles at goal speed, and then cooling down with 1 light mile (1.61 km). Over time, a runner can increase the length of the long run by 1 or 2 miles per workout until 20 to 21 miles (32-34 km) are reached—with about 10 of those miles (16 km) at goal marathon speed.

  It makes sense, in fact, to complete one race simulator about 4 to 5 weeks before the actual marathon date. To complete the simulator, a runner can cover 9 miles (14.48 km) fairly easily at a pace about 45 seconds per mile slower than goal marathon tempo. Then, without stopping, the runner can click off 10 more miles at goal marathon speed before cooling down with 2 miles at 45 to 60 seconds off marathon pace. This great workout, which involves running close to half a marathon at goal race velocity while already tired, is a diagnostic one; it will reveal whether the chosen goal is either too lofty or too humble. It is also great preparation for the marathon itself since it forces a runner to reel off 10 goal-speed miles when the neuromuscular system is already in a fatigued state. Finally, the simulator improves confidence and running economy at hoped-for marathon intensity.

  Ample recovery will be required after the simulator with only light training during the following week and a steady and progressive tapering of training between the date of the simulator and the marathon. As mentioned, the simulator should be completed 4 to 5 weeks before the marathon. If the two runs—the simulator and marathon—are squeezed together with a shorter interim period, a runner will not be fully recovered on race day and thus will not be able to achieve his or her best possible performance.

  Circuit Training

  Since the marathon involves a prolonged fight against fatigue, challenging circuit sessions are also great marathon preparations. As the circuits are completed, a runner should move steadily from drill to drill without rushing and yet without resting. All of the running segments and exercises should be completed in a relaxed manner with good form. The following is an example of a marathon circuit workout. A runner should warm up with 1.5 to 2 miles (2.41 km-3.22 km) of light running. Descriptions of the exercises can be found in chapters 13 and 14.

  Run 800 meters at current 10K pace, or about 16 seconds per 800 faster than planned marathon tempo. If the runner is in a setting in which it is difficult to judge pace accurately, he or she should simply make sure that the chosen pace is significantly faster than marathon tempo without running at full-bore speed.

  Complete 20 squat thrusts with jumps (chapter 13).

  Perform 12 push-ups (chapter 13).

  Do 15 one-leg squats with each leg (chapter 14).

  Run 800 meters at planned marathon speed.

  Do 50 abdominal crunches (chapter 13).

  Complete 15 lunge squats (chapter 13) with each leg.

  Perform 50 low-back extensions (chapter 13).

  Run 800 meters at projected marathon velocity.

  Hit 12 feet-elevated push-ups (chapter 13).

  Do 20 bench dips (chapter 13).

  Complete 15 high-bench step-ups (chapter 14).

  Run 1,600 meters (.99 mi) at goal marathon pace.

  Repeat steps 2-13 for two circuits in all; then cool down by jogging 2 easy miles. This circuit provides 8.5 miles (13.7 km) of total running and 4.5 miles (7.24 km) at marathon speed along with a great deal of whole-body strengthening.

  A runner in an early stage of marathon training can cut back on the number of exercise reps and the lengths of the running intervals starting with 400s, for example; it is also okay to begin with just one circuit instead of two. Otherwise, when conducted every 10 to 14 days or so, the full-blown session just outlined is ideal for the last 2 to 3 months before a marathon. The circuits build a tremendous foundation of whole-body strength and resistance to fatigue, both critically important for marathon running. The circuits also improve economy while running at marathon intensity and help to raise lactate threshold (more on this later in this chapter). Finally, the marathon circuits enhance a runner’s ability to settle into goal marathon tempo even when he or she is feeling wiped out with fatigue. The marathon circuit workout is a tremendous confidence builder.

  Tegla Workout

  A Tegla workout produces a series of fantastic physiological effects while simultaneously advancing a runner’s optimism about his or her impending marathon performance. This workout is simple in conception but extremely challenging to complete. To carry it out, a runner simply finds a trail or road that slowly but steadily increases in elevation for about 12 kilometers (7.46 mi), warms up, and runs from the bottom to the top without stopping, using an intensity that feels tougher than goal marathon speed. The workout is named for Kenyan runner Tegla Loroupe, holder of four world records, who trained on such a route on the Menengei Crater near Nakuru, Kenya, in advance of all of her major long-distance races.

  Such running routes are easy to find in Kenya, but environmentally challenged runners may have to complete this workout on a treadmill, varying the incline from 2 to 5 percent during the overall effort. At first, a runner would use the slighter incline for most of the run and then progress to greater amounts of time at 4 to 5 percent. The session improves running-specific strength and upgrades the ability to sustain a submaximal yet very tough pace for a prolonged period of time (i.e., run a marathon).

  A runner who actually has a 10- to 12- kilometer (6.21-7.46 mi) hill available for training should not hesitate to take walking breaks the first few times the slope is attacked. Treadmill-bound runners should start with 30 minutes as a workout duration and gradually progress to 60 steady minutes of climbing. This workout can be made as challenging as necessary, too. Great Kenyan marathon runners such as Sammy Lelei have used mountain trails in their marathon preparations that require 85 minutes of absolutely relentless, steady climbing.4

  Superset Training

  Marathon super sets can also have a profound impact on marathon performance. As mentioned earlier in this book, super sets enhance the runner’s ability to run at goal speed in the face of overwhelming fatigue. Super sets are also certainly high enough in intensity to produce upswings in lactate-threshold speed and enhancements in running economy at race-type paces. To carry out marathon super sets, a runner warms up and then runs 3 × (400-400-2,400), completing the first 400 meters at 5K pace, the second 400 meters at current 10K pace, and the closing 2,400 meters (1.49 mi) at goal marathon sp
eed. No recovery should be taken between the two 400s within each super set or between the second 400 and the 2,400. Four minutes of recovery are permitted between super sets. This outstanding workout makes marathon pace feel easier, increases a runner’s confidence that marathon speed can be handled quite effectively, and improves lactate threshold and running economy at three race speeds: 5K, 10K, and marathon.

  Lactate-Threshold Speed Training

  Why is lactate threshold so important for marathon running? Lactate-threshold, which can vary tremendously between runners, is just the running intensity above which large amounts of lactate begin to accumulate in the blood. It can be expressed as a specific running speed—say 268 meters (.17 mi) per minute (6-minute mile pace)—or it can be represented as a fraction of O2max. For example, if a runner reached O2max (i.e., the maximal rate for using oxygen) at a running speed of 300 meters (.19 mi) per minute, his or her lactate threshold might occur at 80 percent of O2max pace, in this case, 240 meters (.15 mi) per minute.

  Scientific research reveals that lifting one’s lactate-threshold speed can have a big impact on marathon performance. In a benchmark study, Swedish researchers Bertil Sjödin and Jan Svedenhag found that lactate-threshold velocity did a very good job of predicting the pace that marathon runners would be able to sustain during the race.5