Charging up hills boosts leg-muscle strength and improves your running economy, but what about running down hills? If you carry out repeats on a neighborhood incline, you've got to jog back down the hill before you surge upward again. Does such downhill ambling do anything special for you - aside from giving your knees a good jarring?

Of course! As we have mentioned previously in the pages of Running Research News, downhill running can help prevent leg-muscle soreness, especially in the quadriceps muscles in the front of the thigh. Soreness often results when one's muscles are challenged by a greater-than-normal number of eccentric contractions, in which the muscles attempt to shorten while they are actually being elongated. The "quads" are notorious soreheads, mainly because gravity pulls the knee downward (e.g., produces knee flexion) with every footstrike during the act of running. This flexing stretches out the quads at the exact time they are contracting (attempting to shorten) to prevent excessive knee flexion. The resulting, repetitive strain (which occurs about 90 times per minute per leg) can produce significant quadriceps-muscle damage. If you simply complete your usual volume of training, your quads have already adapted to that amount of strain and ordinarily don't protest too much. However, if you run more miles than you are accustomed to, your quads tend to complain quite loudly. If you have ever boosted your mileage quickly or run a marathon, you know the feeling.

Downhill running actually magnifies this eccentric, "pulling-apart" stress on the quads, because the leg "falls" a little farther than normal with each stride. Thus the accelaration of the leg is greater at impact (footstrike), and the forces which produce knee flexion are consequently greater. The quads, of course, are still trying to carry out their yeoman-like work of resisting knee flexion, but the stress on them is much higher. Microscopic tears in the quads' muscle fibers and connective tissues can occur, and considerable soreness can result.

That doesn't mean that downhill running is bad for you, though: In the long run, it is actually good, because those old quads of yours adapt fairly readily. Once they've been exposed to some downhill running, they'll be sore, sure, but if you run downhill a few weeks later, the quads will be considerably "tougher" - and less apt to get sore. In addition, if - after your downhill exposure - you run longer than usual on the flat, your quads will also be less likely to get hurt. The soreness protection gained from downslope running does seem to carry over to regular efforts. Down Hill

                                                             The Six-Week Factor

In fact, for yet-to-be-explained reasons, the soreness insurance provided by a single bout of downhill running can often last for six weeks or more. Several years ago, scientists at the University of Massachusetts asked 109 individuals to perform two sets of 35 maximal, eccentric contractions of the biceps muscle in the upper part of one arm. Basically, these eccentric contractions consisted of lowering a very heavy weight, which forced the biceps muscles to elongate as the weight was lowered at the same time they were attempting to shorten to stabilize the weight's movement.

After this unusual workout, biceps soreness and tightness peaked about two to three days later, and maximal swelling occurred a few days after that. Biceps strength declined immediately after the rigorous session and stayed below-par for 10 days.

However, when the individuals tried the same biceps routine six weeks later (with no intervening biceps training), there was appreciably less soreness and little loss of muscle strength. The biceps muscles were somehow protected from problems as a result of that initial eccentric session.

Interestingly enough, the protection didn't last much longer than six weeks. When a second group of subjects waited 10 weeks after their initial eccentric workout to stress their biceps again, their biceps were thrown into uncontrollable agony and lost most of their strength. What was going on? Why could the bicep "remember" what happened six weeks before - but not 10 weeks before?

The Massachusetts researchers speculated that a strenuous bout of eccentric exercise "teaches" the nervous system how to better control and distribute the forces that are acting on particular muscles. In theory, this lessens the strain on individual muscle fibers when eccentric activity tries to "tear them apart" - and thereby reduces muscle damage and consequent pain. Just as the nervous system can learn to do this, it can also forget, and this forgetting seems to take place after six to 10 weeks. Six-Week Factor

                                           Australian Rats Reveal Sarcomere Secrets

Nice theory, but does it really work that way? To check it out, scientists at Monash University in Australia asked 16 laboratory rats to work out on treadmills over a five-day period. Eight of these rats participated only in "uphill" (inclined) running, while the other eight ran only "downhill" (declined running). Actual workouts consisted of five-minute work intervals with 1.5-minutes recoveries, starting with three work intervals on the fifth day. Running speed during the work intervals was a rather modest 16 meters per minute. After five days, the rats' quadriceps muscles  were tested for strength and then biopsied.

A key finding was that the quadriceps muscle cells of the decline-trained rats contained almost 10-percent more sarcomeres per cell, compared to the quads of the inclined rodents. To understand what sarcomeres are, bear in mind that a muscle cell is a barrel-shaped structure, and each "barrel" is filled with several hundred to several thousand cyclindrical, threadlike structures called myofibrils. To picture this, simply imagine a pipe-shaped structure (the muscle cell) stuffed with countless numbers of small cylindrical wires (the myofibrils). Incidentally, when we say that a muscle cell is shaped like a pipe, we are referring to a section of cylindrical water pipe, not to a pipe used for smoking purposes.

The myofibrils themselves are composed of microscopic, cylindrical compartments laid end to end (picture tiny cyclinders or spools glued together at their ends to make one long cylinder). These compartments are called the sarcomeres, and within the sarcomeres are the proteins (filaments) which actually allow muscles to both shorten and elongate. As special filaments slide inward (toward the middles of the sarcomeres), the myofibrils and overall muscle cell shorten, but when the filaments slide outward, the muscle gets longer.

As mentioned, downhill running induced the muscle cells to add more sarcomere to their myofibrils. Why is this increase in number of sarcomeres beneficial, and how can it prevent muscle damage and soreness? Since muscle-cell length itself didn't change significantly as a result of the downhill running, the fact that there were more sarcomeres per muscle cell was elongating, each sarcomere in a downhill-trained muscle would have to elongate less, and thus each sarcomere would be less likely to sustain internal damage. Sarcomere Secrets

To learn more about how WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR RUNNING GOES DOWNHILL (the full article can be read by purchasing Vol.14-6 of Running Research News) and many more running related topics, simply click-on the Back Issues link, and select the volume and issues number, from the drop-down menu. A subscription to Running Research News is another way to receive valuable information about running.

                                                                       CHAPTER I
                                                        AN OVERALL VIEW OF TRAINING

In preparing for events ranging in length from 800 to 100,000 meters, you should always emphasize the quality of your training over mere volume. That is, you should stress speed (and the development of a higher maximal running speed), instead of placing your primary
focus on the accumulation of mileage.

Why is this so? If you had 100 runners standing before you and you wanted to figure out which ones would finish near the front in a race (regardless of whether that race covered 800 meters, 10K, a marathon, or 100K), one of the simplest and most effective forecasting techniques would be to time each runner in a 20-meter dash!

Why is this so? If you had 100 runners standing before you and you wanted to figure out which ones would finish near the front in a race (regardless of whether that race covered 800 meters, 10K, a marathon, or 100K), one of the simplest and most effective forecasting techniques would be to time each runner in a 20-meter dash!

The runners with the fastest 20-meter times would also be the individuals with the quickest clicking’s for 5K – and for the marathon! On the other hand, if you ranked the runners according to weekly average mileage, you would no relationship at all between training distance per week and performance time!

While this linkage is surprising to runners and coaches, the majority of whom think that the 20-meter sprint is an “anaerobic” event and that running events like the 10K and marathon are purely “aerobic” endeavors, the simple 20-meter test is very accurate. It has been verified in research carried out by Heikki Rusko, Leena Paavolainen, and Ari Nummela of the KIHU Research Institute for Olympic Sports in Jyvaskyla, Finland with 17 male endurance runners (1). In this Finnish research, the connection between 20-meter and 5000-meter race velocities was extremely strong, even though the average 20-meter speed of 8.15 meters per second was roughly 76-percent faster than 5-K alacrity. As it turned out, 20-meter time was a better predictor of 5-K speed than that vaunted “aerobic” variable, VO2max, and 20-meter burning was almost as good as another big-name physiological characteristic – running economy. GREAT WORKOUTS

Could the 20-meter, 5-K connection detected by the Finns be purely a fluke? If you think so, consider the research carried out at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in which Aaron Sinnett, Kris Berg, and their colleagues determined that performance times for 10,000 meters can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy using two other attributes of speed and power – 300 meter sprint time and plyometric leaping distance (2). Sinnett, Berg, and co-workers also found significant correlations between 10-K performance and 50-meter sprint time, as well as vertical jumping ability.

Why are researchers finding that “anaerobic” physiological attributes are so important for success in almost purely “aerobic” events? To put it another way, why are exercise scientists discovering that measures of speed and explosiveness are great predictors of performance in races which seem to rely more on endurance than on power?

To understand this completely, let’s take a close look at the Nebraska-Omaha study carried out by Sinnett, Berg, et al. In this fascinating work, the researchers examined 36 experienced runners (20 men and 16 women) whose 10-K times varied from 32:36 to 56:24. The age of these runners ranged from 19 to 35 years, and 27 of the athletes were preparing for a marathon as the research was conducted. The 36 subjects were running about 30 miles per week and had trained five times weekly for at least six months before the study started. Nineteen of the 36 subjects engaged in some form of strength training, and 27 had completed a marathon at some point in their running careers.

They were not beginners! Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint. In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the “phosphagen system” within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other “fuels” for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place). GREAT WORKOUTS

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true “anaerobic” test. The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the “glycolytic energy system,” an oxygen independent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete’s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

For the jump with counter-movement, the athletes started in a standing position next to the Vertec device, quickly descended into a semi-crouched, flexed-knee position, and then – without the slightest hesitation – jumped straight up with maximum power and attempted to touch the highest-possible point on the Vertec instrument. For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up. In the counter-movement jumps, the “snap-back” of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost.

For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work “from a standing start.” As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i.e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties. GREAT WORKOUTS

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, and since the enhanced elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, “You run as though you have springs for legs.” Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner’s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

The final test of “anaerobic” prowess – the plyometric leap test – was initiated from a standing position, from which the athletes performed three consecutive forward leaps by springing from one foot to the other; for the third and last leap, the athletes landed on both feet. In effect, the plyometric leap test was just like the triple jump performed in track and field, except that the leap exam was carried out from a standing rather than a running start.
Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat. The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance.

Just by itself, plyometric leap distance explained a whopping 74 percent of the variation in 10-Krace times for the entire group of 36 runners. Together with 300-meter sprint performance, plyometric leap distance accounted for an incredible 78 percent of the variance! To summarize, one “anaerobic” attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. “Aerobic” variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in performance). Two “anaerobic” attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

If you are somewhat shocked about the ability of “anaerobic” factors such as plyometric leaping distance, counter-movement jump height, 300-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, and 20-meter clocking to predict distance running performances, you shouldn’t be. For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such
enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

Greater force will translate to longer strides, and quicker force production will mean faster strides; the combination taken together can lead to major improvements in running velocity – and the ability to run faster in your chosen competitive distance. There are other fundamental reasons for this linkage between “anaerobic” and “aerobic” factors, which I will explain in a moment, and several other research studies also connect such apparent “opposites.” For example, in Heikki Rusko’s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints. During Rusko’s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

This pattern (20 seconds of fast running alternating with 100 seconds of recovering) continued for as long as possible, with each successive 20-second jaunt taking place at a speed which was .35 meters per second faster than the previous work interval. The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were “in harness,” with their special, light-weight, leather “straightjackets” connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased
producing adequate power).

The average speed at the collapse point was 6.57 meters per second (4:05 per mile), so you can see that the Finnish harriers did quite well on the four-degree treadmill grade. Naturally, the speed attained wasn’t as great as during the 20-meter races (wherein 8.15 meters per second turned out to be the average velocity), since the 20-meter pacing occurred on flat ground with “fresh legs” and the VMART test took place in the face of considerable built-up fatigue (the 20-meter sprints were helped along, too, by their short duration of approximately 2.5 seconds, while VMART had to be sustained for 20 seconds).
As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race! GREAT WORKOUTS

The question you have to be asking right now (especially if you are a 5-K runner) is: How can I optimize my VMART? That is the right question to ask, especially since it is certain that the optimization of VMART will improve your performances significantly, even if you are an 800-meter runner – and even if you are a 100-K competitor. Rusko’s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now. Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

The findings of Rusko and Berg are supported by those of the great South-African researcher Tim Noakes, who may have gotten this whole “paradigm shift” rolling with an elegant study published in 1988 (3). In Noakes’ investigation, endurance performance was well predicted by the top speeds which athletes could attain on a treadmill; those runners with the highest peak running speeds also had the best endurance race times in their portfolios. As was the case with Rusko’s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy. As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in well trained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (“anaerobic”) running (5).

In yet another study, famed exercise physiologist Dave Costill and his associate Joe Houmard took a close look at the physiological qualifications of 10 runners who trained about 50 miles per week and averaged a not-too shabby 16:43 for the 5K (6). Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE). You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max). GREAT WORKOUTS

In Costill’s 5-K runners, anaerobic power was measured during short sprints and vertical jumps. TTE was calculated in this way: A stopwatch started as an athlete began running on a flat treadmill at an intensity of 85 percent of VO2max (which normally translates into around 90-92 percent of max heart rate). The treadmill grade was then increased by 3 percent every two minutes, and the clock stopped when the runner could no longer continue at the appropriate pace. TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner’s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly
anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

The fundamental mechanisms underlying the connection between outstanding anaerobic capacities and exceptional endurance performances are not really difficult to grasp. As we have already mentioned, the factors which promote very high sprint speeds (more force applied to the ground, force applied more quickly) will also foster considerably faster distance running. In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

To put it another way, if endurance-runner A has a peak running velocity of 8 meters per second, and endurance-runner B has a max of just 6.8 meters per second, runner A has a much better chance of running a 5K in 15 minutes flat (i. e., at 5.56 meters per second). For runner A, 15-flat pace would be just 70 percent of maximal speed; for B, it would be way up there at 82 percent of max. There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely “put in the bank:” The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

To put some more numbers on this kind of thinking, if you have a max speed of 8.15 meters per second, a 5-K alacrity of 4.63 meters per second (for an 18-minute 5-K finishing time) would be only 57 percent of your running-speed max, whereas if you’re a poor soul with a maximum of just 7 meters per second, you would have to settle in at 66 percent of your max during an 18-minute 5K, and the pace would feel (to your mind, muscles, and lungs) quite a bit tougher. Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Other so-called “anaerobic” attributes besides peak speed should also have a strong impact on your middle and long-distance performances. Think about Rusko’s VMART tests, for example: You’ll recall that the VMART exam consisted of 20-second work intervals and 100-second recoveries. GREAT WORKOUTS

The work intervals were carried out on a treadmill with a four-degree grade, and the speed of the work intervals progressed from 7:13 per mile to 6:36 per mile to 6:05, 5:38, 5:15, 4:55, 4:37, 4:21, 4:05, and – for some of the athletes – even to 3:55 and 3:43. This means that the top-dog VMART runners would have to be superb not only at running fast but also at minimizing leg-muscle fatigue during high-intensity effort. The fatigue minimization would be a function of good “buffering” within muscles (i. e., the ability to deal with increases in muscle acidity associated with very fast running) and an excellent lactate clearance capacity. These attributes would give athletes high anaerobic capacities and also great success during fast-paced middle- and long-distance competitions. Although it may be difficult for some athletes and coaches to accept, better buffering within muscles is not fostered by long running (since little buffering is required during prolonged efforts).

Similarly, an outstanding lactate clearance capacity is not developed through high-volume work (since there is little lactate to clear when training speeds are mainly sub-maximal). Ultimately, the optimization of VMART hinges on whether a program of high quality training is utilized.

Noakes himself did some theorizing on this important matter. Based on his laboratory investigations (in which he uncovered the great importance of peak running velocity in determining distance performance ability), Noakes believed that something called “muscle contractility” was very important for running success. To him, muscle contractility was a measure of the quickness and forcefulness of muscle contractions; it was not an indicator of muscular endurance, at least when monitored at medium to slow speeds. As he pointed out, individuals with excellent muscle contractility can achieve very high workloads during their training sessions. Such training can position an athlete to carry out more work at a high fraction of max running velocity, which of course would be one of the best ways to optimize that critical performance variable.

Note, too, that exceptional contractility would also expand plyometric leaping distance, the variable which Sinnett, Berg, et al. found to be so predictive of 10-K performance (2).
Taking a slightly different approach, Heikki Rusko argued that “neuromuscular characteristics” were a key component of racing success. By this, he meant that runners whose muscles were capable of explosive, coordinated contractions (as evidenced by high VMART speeds and excellent 20-meter times) would have a definite edge in competitions. Heikki supported these contentions by showing that running velocity was inversely related to foot-strike time, both in the 20-meter dash and the 5K itself. GREAT WORKOUTS

In both events, if you could “sort” a large group of runners by their foot-strike times, with the fastest foot strikers on one end and the slowest on the other, you would also have done a nice job of assembling the runners according to their race speeds (for both 20 and 5000 meters). The best 5-K runners were not the ones with the best maximal aerobic capacities and running economies; in fact, those variables had fairly weak predictive power.

The top-of-the-class runners were the ones with powerful neuromuscular characteristics, as evidenced by their explosive foot strikes. Let’s take a moment to put some numbers on this, too. A reduction in foot-strike time of just 1/300 of a second could reduce 5-K time by 10 seconds for a 16-minute 5-K runner (provided the abbreviation in foot-strike time did not lead to a loss of stride length). In addition, trimming contact time by only 1/100 of a second could lead to a 30-second 5-K improvement. Interestingly, the difference in average contact time between the fastest and slowest 5-K runners in Rusko’s study was about 27 milliseconds (2.7 hundredths of a second), and this difference was associated with a 54-second difference in 5-K finishing time.

Rusko was also able to show that stride rate was directly related to 5-K speed; the higher the stride rate, the quicker the 5-K finish time. Since stride lengths were comparable among the 5-K runners, it was the decrease in foot-strike time which increased stride rate. Since it occurred without a drop in stride length, the more-abridged (i. e., more-explosive) foot-strike pattern allowed runners to eat up more real estate during each minute of running. As a runner, you should be aware that the so-called “anaerobic” characteristics which have a strong impact on middle- and long-distance running performance – plyometric leap distance, 20-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, 300-meter sprint clocking, foot-strike time, stride rate, muscle contractility, neuromuscular characteristics, VMART, muscle buffering capacity, and max running speed – are all very trainable.

Just running miles won’t optimize these variables, however; to improve your power characteristics, you will need to utilize a training program which emphasizes high-intensity workouts like the ones described in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The conventional methods of training for middle and long-distance races are dead. Although many runners and coaches are blissfully unaware of the situation, the worlds of middle- and long-distance running are currently going through a major paradigm shift, in which the emphasis is changing from the pursuits of mileage, “strength,” and higher aerobic capacity to the quest for greater power and the ability to sustain high power outputs for lengthier periods of time. It’s no longer enough to run miles and to worry only about your aerobic development, with a little “speed frosting” added on top of the program shortly before a major competition. In fact, it never was enough; we simply did not have enough scientific information to demonstrate that it was wrong to think that high-power, “anaerobic” traits could not help and might even hurt distance-running performances. Once we began to learn that anaerobic characteristics are helpful to distance runners, we began to see that the paradox of anaerobic traits improving aerobic performances is not really a paradox at all. Power factors (such as plyometric leaping ability, 50-meter sprint time, muscle contractility, etc.) which make sprinters faster also make middle- and long-distance runners faster.

The really good news is that power factors can be improved by even the most plodding of runners. The great news is also that such improvement is not a risky business, even if you are a relatively inexperienced runner. If you train to improve your power in a progressive and reasonable way, the process is not injury-producing; it is actually injury preventing (because your muscles and connective tissues develop an improved capacity to withstand large forces). If you are training correctly, your power and endurance characteristics will come together to produce your best-possible race times, from 800 meters all the way up to an ultra-marathon. Your overall goal, in fact, is to optimize your power while simultaneously maximizing those key physiological factors mentioned in the Introduction (vVO2max, lactate threshold, and economy) – the physiological factors which will allow you to sustain high power out puts in your preferred races. This book is filled with workouts which will help you optimize both your power and stamina, as well as your ability to handle the specific demands of your preferred race distances. GREAT WORKOUTS

They were not beginners! Sinnett and Berg were smart to put all of the runners through a 50-meter sprint test. For one thing, Rusko and the Finns had found predictive success for the 5K with the even-more abbreviated 20-meter sprint. In addition, essentially none of the power created for 50-meter sprinting from a standing start is derived aerobically; the energy for 50-meter blast-offs comes from the “phosphagen system” within muscle cells, i. e., from existing ATP within muscle cells and from the high-energy phosphates which are donated by creatine phosphate to ADP inside muscles to make ATP (ATP is the energy currency for muscle fibers; its energy is used directly to produce muscle contractions; all other “fuels” for muscle contraction, including carbohydrate, fat, protein, and creatine phosphate, must first be converted to ATP before any muscular action can take place). GREAT WORKOUTS

Not even a single molecule of oxygen is required for the phosphagen system to work, and thus the 50-meter sprint is a true “anaerobic” test. The 300-meter test was another good choice for the Nebraska researchers. Running all-out for 300 meters from a standing start puts little energetic demand on the aerobic system; it instead depletes the phosphagen system in about 10 seconds or so and then relies almost exclusively on the “glycolytic energy system,” an oxygen independent, intracellular, energy-producing mechanism which relies on the breakdown of glucose to pyruvate and lactate for the creation of immediately usable energy (in the form of our friend, ATP).The 36 athletes also performed two vertical-jump tests, one with a dynamic counter-movement involved and the other from a static, flexed-knee beginning position.

For these tests, each athlete’s vertical reach was first assessed as he/she stood motionless next to a Vertec instrument. Every runner simply reached as high as possible with his/her dominant arm, without letting the heels raised off the floor. To determine actual jumping height, the loftiest reach in inches from this standing position was subtracted from the highest mark made on the Vertec instrument during the two jumps.

For the jump with counter-movement, the athletes started in a standing position next to the Vertec device, quickly descended into a semi-crouched, flexed-knee position, and then – without the slightest hesitation – jumped straight up with maximum power and attempted to touch the highest-possible point on the Vertec instrument. For the no-counter-movement vertical jump, the runners started from a static take-off position, with the knees locked at 90 degrees of flexion. Each athlete held this position for three seconds and then jumped as high as possible– straight up. In the counter-movement jumps, the “snap-back” of muscles which have been quickly stretched provides a significant amount of the force required for vertical leaping without incurring the penalty of direct energetic cost.

For the no-counter-movement jumps, the force is provided primarily by energy-costly, active contractions of propulsive muscles which are forced to work “from a standing start.” As you might guess, athletes whose muscles can generate much work by means of energetically cheap, elastic reactions tend to be able to run quite efficiently, i.e., at relatively low percentages of their maximal rates of energy usage. Such athletes tend to find specific speeds of movement to be easier to sustain, compared with those athletes whose muscles have less-enhanced elastic properties. GREAT WORKOUTS

These athletes would also be capable of generating greater power (attaining higher maximal speeds), compared with elastically deficient runners, and since the enhanced elastic forces would supplement the normal forces created by the costly breakdown of ATP. In other words, having ample elastic characteristics in the leg muscles is a good thing for a runner! Small wonder that one of the highest compliments an elite Kenyan runner can pay another competitor is to say, “You run as though you have springs for legs.” Note that muscle elasticity has nothing to do with a runner’s aerobic prowess. A runner with great elasticity might have a high VO2max or a low VO2max; there is simply no direct connection.

The final test of “anaerobic” prowess – the plyometric leap test – was initiated from a standing position, from which the athletes performed three consecutive forward leaps by springing from one foot to the other; for the third and last leap, the athletes landed on both feet. In effect, the plyometric leap test was just like the triple jump performed in track and field, except that the leap exam was carried out from a standing rather than a running start.
Actual plyometric-leap length was measured from the heel which was closer to the starting line after the third leap back to the starting line itself. Sinnett, Berg, and their fellow researchers found that there were significant correlations between 10-K time and (1) 50-meter sprint time, (2) counter-movement jump height, (3) non-counter-movement jump height, and (4) percent body fat. The two best predictors of 10-K success were plyometric leap distance and 300-meter sprint performance.

Just by itself, plyometric leap distance explained a whopping 74 percent of the variation in 10-Krace times for the entire group of 36 runners. Together with 300-meter sprint performance, plyometric leap distance accounted for an incredible 78 percent of the variance! To summarize, one “anaerobic” attribute – plyometric leap distance – was able to account for nearly three-fourths of the variation in performance times for this relatively large group of distance runners. “Aerobic” variables such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy have been known to do worse than this in various studies of endurance-running performance (i. e., they have accounted for substantially less of the variation in performance). Two “anaerobic” attributes – plyometric leap length plus 300-meter run time – accounted for about four-fifths of the 10-K variation.

Should you begin carrying out daily three-jump plyometric training in order to improve your racing performances? No, not at all (although such effort can be profitably included in your overall program): What this Nebraska study simply means is that the power and elastic characteristics of your leg muscles will play a large role in determining how well you will perform in your races. Thus, you need to carry out the kind of training which will optimize such characteristics – the kind of effort described in detail in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

If you are somewhat shocked about the ability of “anaerobic” factors such as plyometric leaping distance, counter-movement jump height, 300-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, and 20-meter clocking to predict distance running performances, you shouldn’t be. For one thing, it is readily apparent that the fundamental attributes which promote better sprint times, notably the ability to apply more force to the ground during foot strike and the ability to apply that greater force more quickly, can also be great for middle- and long-distance running, provided a runner can develop the ability to sustain such
enhanced power outputs for the necessary amount of time.

Greater force will translate to longer strides, and quicker force production will mean faster strides; the combination taken together can lead to major improvements in running velocity – and the ability to run faster in your chosen competitive distance. There are other fundamental reasons for this linkage between “anaerobic” and “aerobic” factors, which I will explain in a moment, and several other research studies also connect such apparent “opposites.” For example, in Heikki Rusko’s 5,000-meter research, 5-K fortune was well predicted by 20-meter time, but it was also forecast by another high-speed attribute which Rusko called VMART – the maximal speed a runner could attain during a series of progressively more difficult, increasingly anaerobic, short-duration sprints. During Rusko’s strenuous VMART tests, his runners initially jumped on a treadmill and cruised along for 20 seconds at a pace of 3.71 meters per second (7:14 per mile) with a treadmill grade of four degrees. 100 seconds of recovery followed, and then the runners burst along for 20 seconds at 4.06 meters per second (6:36 per mile).

This pattern (20 seconds of fast running alternating with 100 seconds of recovering) continued for as long as possible, with each successive 20-second jaunt taking place at a speed which was .35 meters per second faster than the previous work interval. The runners kept going until they collapsed or began to fall off the treadmill during one of the 20-second explosions (fortunately, all of the Finns were “in harness,” with their special, light-weight, leather “straightjackets” connected to both an automatic treadmill brake and an overhead support arm which held them Tinkerbelle-style whenever their leg muscles ceased
producing adequate power).

The average speed at the collapse point was 6.57 meters per second (4:05 per mile), so you can see that the Finnish harriers did quite well on the four-degree treadmill grade. Naturally, the speed attained wasn’t as great as during the 20-meter races (wherein 8.15 meters per second turned out to be the average velocity), since the 20-meter pacing occurred on flat ground with “fresh legs” and the VMART test took place in the face of considerable built-up fatigue (the 20-meter sprints were helped along, too, by their short duration of approximately 2.5 seconds, while VMART had to be sustained for 20 seconds).
As we have indicated, VMART was a terrific predictor of 5-K prowess. In fact, just like 20-meter sprint time, VMART was better than the venerable VO2max in predicting 5-K race time. In fact, VMART was even superior to running economy at foretelling what would happen in a 5-K race! GREAT WORKOUTS

The question you have to be asking right now (especially if you are a 5-K runner) is: How can I optimize my VMART? That is the right question to ask, especially since it is certain that the optimization of VMART will improve your performances significantly, even if you are an 800-meter runner – and even if you are a 100-K competitor. Rusko’s outstanding body of research reveals that hikes in mileage do not maximize VMART, nor should they be expected to do so. To have a great VMART and to reach your highest-possible VMART, you have to be able to run fast – faster than you do now. Running tons of miles at moderate paces will not get this done; in fact, there is a good chance it will reduce the power and explosiveness of your leg muscles (not to mention the spiked risk of injury which goes hand in hand with high-mileage training).

The route to an optimal VMART travels through regions of high intensity, high-quality, explosive training, not through phases of vast volumes of moderate-speed miles. Despite what any coach may tell you, you do not get faster by focusing on running lots of miles at slow and moderate velocities – and then hoping for the best. VMART moves upward optimally in response to high-quality, not high volume, running.

The findings of Rusko and Berg are supported by those of the great South-African researcher Tim Noakes, who may have gotten this whole “paradigm shift” rolling with an elegant study published in 1988 (3). In Noakes’ investigation, endurance performance was well predicted by the top speeds which athletes could attain on a treadmill; those runners with the highest peak running speeds also had the best endurance race times in their portfolios. As was the case with Rusko’s research, peak running velocity was a better predictor of performance than VO2max; it was also far superior to running economy. As if that were not enough, a completely separate investigation has also found that 50-meter sprint time was well correlated with 10-K performance (4). In addition, Ronald Bulbulian and his co-workers determined that 58 percent of the variation in five-mile run times in well trained college athletes was accounted for by the capacity to perform high-intensity (“anaerobic”) running (5).

In yet another study, famed exercise physiologist Dave Costill and his associate Joe Houmard took a close look at the physiological qualifications of 10 runners who trained about 50 miles per week and averaged a not-too shabby 16:43 for the 5K (6). Although oxygen-dependent chemical reactions provide about 93 percent of the energy needed to run a 5K, maximal aerobic capacity VO2max was again a poor predictor of performance. The two best prognosticators of 5-K finishing time were anaerobic power (the ability to sprint at high speed) and a variable called time to exhaustion (TTE). You heard it right: Even though anaerobic energy creation accounts for only 7 percent of the energy required for a feverish 5-K race, raw anaerobic power is a superior predictor of 5-K success, compared with aerobic capacity (VO2max). GREAT WORKOUTS

In Costill’s 5-K runners, anaerobic power was measured during short sprints and vertical jumps. TTE was calculated in this way: A stopwatch started as an athlete began running on a flat treadmill at an intensity of 85 percent of VO2max (which normally translates into around 90-92 percent of max heart rate). The treadmill grade was then increased by 3 percent every two minutes, and the clock stopped when the runner could no longer continue at the appropriate pace. TTE was simply the total time an athlete could hold out on the treadmill and represented a runner’s ability to sustain very high-intensity, significantly
anaerobic running. Thus, the Costill-Houmard study parallels the other investigations we have described: Attributes of power, often called anaerobic factors, outweigh aerobic factors such as VO2max and economy in determining overall race performance.

The fundamental mechanisms underlying the connection between outstanding anaerobic capacities and exceptional endurance performances are not really difficult to grasp. As we have already mentioned, the factors which promote very high sprint speeds (more force applied to the ground, force applied more quickly) will also foster considerably faster distance running. In addition, middle- and long-distance runners with very high maximal running speeds will always tend to out-compete harriers with more-modest maximal velocities, since any specific race pace will represent a higher percentage of maximal and will therefore be more difficult to sustain in the latter case.

To put it another way, if endurance-runner A has a peak running velocity of 8 meters per second, and endurance-runner B has a max of just 6.8 meters per second, runner A has a much better chance of running a 5K in 15 minutes flat (i. e., at 5.56 meters per second). For runner A, 15-flat pace would be just 70 percent of maximal speed; for B, it would be way up there at 82 percent of max. There is one simple fact about competitive running which you can definitely “put in the bank:” The closer you are to your maximum running speed, the shorter will be the time during which you can sustain your effort.

To put some more numbers on this kind of thinking, if you have a max speed of 8.15 meters per second, a 5-K alacrity of 4.63 meters per second (for an 18-minute 5-K finishing time) would be only 57 percent of your running-speed max, whereas if you’re a poor soul with a maximum of just 7 meters per second, you would have to settle in at 66 percent of your max during an 18-minute 5K, and the pace would feel (to your mind, muscles, and lungs) quite a bit tougher. Having a high max velocity makes it more likely that you will be able to handle the higher end of possible race speeds in all of your races. If you have a high max speed, you already have the ability to run fast, and your key additional task is to train in a manner which optimally extends the time over which you can run at your sizzling paces. Running long and slow does not help in this regard, because it simply does not prepare your body for high-velocity effort. Other so-called “anaerobic” attributes besides peak speed should also have a strong impact on your middle and long-distance performances. Think about Rusko’s VMART tests, for example: You’ll recall that the VMART exam consisted of 20-second work intervals and 100-second recoveries. GREAT WORKOUTS

The work intervals were carried out on a treadmill with a four-degree grade, and the speed of the work intervals progressed from 7:13 per mile to 6:36 per mile to 6:05, 5:38, 5:15, 4:55, 4:37, 4:21, 4:05, and – for some of the athletes – even to 3:55 and 3:43. This means that the top-dog VMART runners would have to be superb not only at running fast but also at minimizing leg-muscle fatigue during high-intensity effort. The fatigue minimization would be a function of good “buffering” within muscles (i. e., the ability to deal with increases in muscle acidity associated with very fast running) and an excellent lactate clearance capacity. These attributes would give athletes high anaerobic capacities and also great success during fast-paced middle- and long-distance competitions. Although it may be difficult for some athletes and coaches to accept, better buffering within muscles is not fostered by long running (since little buffering is required during prolonged efforts).

Similarly, an outstanding lactate clearance capacity is not developed through high-volume work (since there is little lactate to clear when training speeds are mainly sub-maximal). Ultimately, the optimization of VMART hinges on whether a program of high quality training is utilized.

Noakes himself did some theorizing on this important matter. Based on his laboratory investigations (in which he uncovered the great importance of peak running velocity in determining distance performance ability), Noakes believed that something called “muscle contractility” was very important for running success. To him, muscle contractility was a measure of the quickness and forcefulness of muscle contractions; it was not an indicator of muscular endurance, at least when monitored at medium to slow speeds. As he pointed out, individuals with excellent muscle contractility can achieve very high workloads during their training sessions. Such training can position an athlete to carry out more work at a high fraction of max running velocity, which of course would be one of the best ways to optimize that critical performance variable.

Note, too, that exceptional contractility would also expand plyometric leaping distance, the variable which Sinnett, Berg, et al. found to be so predictive of 10-K performance (2).
Taking a slightly different approach, Heikki Rusko argued that “neuromuscular characteristics” were a key component of racing success. By this, he meant that runners whose muscles were capable of explosive, coordinated contractions (as evidenced by high VMART speeds and excellent 20-meter times) would have a definite edge in competitions. Heikki supported these contentions by showing that running velocity was inversely related to foot-strike time, both in the 20-meter dash and the 5K itself. GREAT WORKOUTS

In both events, if you could “sort” a large group of runners by their foot-strike times, with the fastest foot strikers on one end and the slowest on the other, you would also have done a nice job of assembling the runners according to their race speeds (for both 20 and 5000 meters). The best 5-K runners were not the ones with the best maximal aerobic capacities and running economies; in fact, those variables had fairly weak predictive power.

The top-of-the-class runners were the ones with powerful neuromuscular characteristics, as evidenced by their explosive foot strikes. Let’s take a moment to put some numbers on this, too. A reduction in foot-strike time of just 1/300 of a second could reduce 5-K time by 10 seconds for a 16-minute 5-K runner (provided the abbreviation in foot-strike time did not lead to a loss of stride length). In addition, trimming contact time by only 1/100 of a second could lead to a 30-second 5-K improvement. Interestingly, the difference in average contact time between the fastest and slowest 5-K runners in Rusko’s study was about 27 milliseconds (2.7 hundredths of a second), and this difference was associated with a 54-second difference in 5-K finishing time.

Rusko was also able to show that stride rate was directly related to 5-K speed; the higher the stride rate, the quicker the 5-K finish time. Since stride lengths were comparable among the 5-K runners, it was the decrease in foot-strike time which increased stride rate. Since it occurred without a drop in stride length, the more-abridged (i. e., more-explosive) foot-strike pattern allowed runners to eat up more real estate during each minute of running. As a runner, you should be aware that the so-called “anaerobic” characteristics which have a strong impact on middle- and long-distance running performance – plyometric leap distance, 20-meter sprint time, 50-meter sprint performance, 300-meter sprint clocking, foot-strike time, stride rate, muscle contractility, neuromuscular characteristics, VMART, muscle buffering capacity, and max running speed – are all very trainable.

Just running miles won’t optimize these variables, however; to improve your power characteristics, you will need to utilize a training program which emphasizes high-intensity workouts like the ones described in this book. GREAT WORKOUTS

The conventional methods of training for middle and long-distance races are dead. Although many runners and coaches are blissfully unaware of the situation, the worlds of middle- and long-distance running are currently going through a major paradigm shift, in which the emphasis is changing from the pursuits of mileage, “strength,” and higher aerobic capacity to the quest for greater power and the ability to sustain high power outputs for lengthier periods of time. It’s no longer enough to run miles and to worry only about your aerobic development, with a little “speed frosting” added on top of the program shortly before a major competition. In fact, it never was enough; we simply did not have enough scientific information to demonstrate that it was wrong to think that high-power, “anaerobic” traits could not help and might even hurt distance-running performances. Once we began to learn that anaerobic characteristics are helpful to distance runners, we began to see that the paradox of anaerobic traits improving aerobic performances is not really a paradox at all. Power factors (such as plyometric leaping ability, 50-meter sprint time, muscle contractility, etc.) which make sprinters faster also make middle- and long-distance runners faster.

The really good news is that power factors can be improved by even the most plodding of runners. The great news is also that such improvement is not a risky business, even if you are a relatively inexperienced runner. If you train to improve your power in a progressive and reasonable way, the process is not injury-producing; it is actually injury preventing (because your muscles and connective tissues develop an improved capacity to withstand large forces). If you are training correctly, your power and endurance characteristics will come together to produce your best-possible race times, from 800 meters all the way up to an ultra-marathon. Your overall goal, in fact, is to optimize your power while simultaneously maximizing those key physiological factors mentioned in the Introduction (vVO2max, lactate threshold, and economy) – the physiological factors which will allow you to sustain high power out puts in your preferred races. This book is filled with workouts which will help you optimize both your power and stamina, as well as your ability to handle the specific demands of your preferred race distances. GREAT WORKOUTS