As another month passes without me having written anything of consequence, I thought that I would take this opportunity to double up in reviewing a recent article concerning running with producing something that is hopefully of value to the athletes we work with.
I am often passed articles and papers concerning running with requests to critique, comment on, or, as often as not, requests to validate the findings of the author or researchers. As I have stated before, it has never been my intent to openly criticise the work of others. I prefer instead to use their observations and arguments to challenge my own thoughts and opinions. If in so doing I learn something new, then I adapt my understanding accordingly. If the idea holds no additional value, then the exercise will still have been beneficial in challenging me to understand why we know the things that we do.
My attention has been turned to an article written by Tony Guttman entitled, ‘Running barefoot or with new technology shoes?’ The over-arching aim of the article was to highlight the benefits of the Nike4% racing shoe. Research has shown that running in racing shoes is comparable in terms of efficiency to running barefoot with the efficiency benefit of the shoe’s cushioning counteracted by a penalty due to the shoe’s weight. With the insertion of a full-length carbon plate, Nike’s latest offering further reduces the energy cost of running by between 1 and 4% and, according to numerous documented commentary, increases performance by up to 4%. Thus, it has been used by the Nike Breaking2 sub 2-hour marathon project.
The paper aims to compare running barefoot with running in shoes and, at first glance, appears to support many of the views we believe are important in understanding running and, more importantly, developing running form. Guttmann rightly states that there is a lot of contradictory information out there and wishes to “separate demonstrable facts from heresay [sic] or the experience of one person”. However, scratch the surface of this paper a little and some of the cracks begin to appear and therefore, I thought that I would take this opportunity to unpack some of his observations and, in so doing, highlight some of the dogma surrounding running form.
They may well argue that point, however I would argue that they are confusing natural with subconscious. Running is a learned skill and thus poor technique can be identified and rectified.
In winning the 1960 Rome Olympic marathon running barefoot and the Tokyo Olympic marathon 4 years later wearing shoes, both in world record times, Abebe Bikila is certainly worthy of the mantle great runner. However, defining a great runner as an athlete who can run with or without shoes is fraught with complexity. Bikila obviously spent a high proportion of his time running without shoes. Whilst moving from barefoot to wearing running shoes is not without its challenges, habitually shod runners are far more likely to encounter difficulties transitioning to barefoot running. Learning to run barefoot for habitually shod runners takes time and the evidence suggests that the time required to successfully transition is based upon a host of factors such as current form, history of injuries, mobility and flexibility, miles run etc. This is why academic studies which compare running with shoes and no shoes without allowing for the need for running form to adapt, produce, at best, misleading results.
Running barefoot is not necessarily conducive to good form. The running shoe can certainly hinder running form however foot strike is only one, albeit important, aspect of good form. It is not inconceivable that a runner who otherwise displays the six or seven other components of good running form will successfully run without injury whilst heel striking.
I am not sure what a ‘serious heel striker’ is, but certainly the impact transient that can be caused by heel striking is a potential contributor to injury. Impact forces will vary according to runner and overall running form but, without good form, the forefoot runner is at a similar risk of injury caused by ground reaction forces.
Indeed, heel striking does cause a braking force however, so does forefoot and midfoot striking. Reducing the horizontal deceleration of the athlete is a key factor in improving running form and ultimately running efficiency. Thus, many elite runners do heel strike when they, out of necessity, are exceeding their biomechanical ability. However, other aspects of their running form are generally very good, and their training enables them to support this action.
I have not read Hoogmaker’s et al. (2018) paper on marathon racing shoes, it is one for the future. However, I am assuming that the outcome of the comparison of shoes and no shoes results in shod runners experiencing less knee flexion in stance (which we know is more efficient) rather than less knee flexion at foot strike. The point is not clear.
The message therefore, from here at least, is that it is not just about the shoe and foot strike. However, sadly, the dogma which surrounds running form remains pretty consistent. Certainly, shoes can and do contribute to poor running form. However, good running form is a far greater and more complex subject than foot strike alone. Good running form is the amalgamation of a number of component parts, none of which appear to work very successfully in isolation, and each of which require learning as a skill.
The question I know I will be asked is whether there is benefit in finding the £200+ necessary for a pair of Nike4%. (Or the £240 required for the Next%, the latest, and apparently, fastest generation of Nike racing shoe.). As yet, I am unsure whether these shoes are effective for forefoot running and therefore I would see that as an unnecessary financial risk. Additionally, the differential may make these a cumbersome shoe for forefoot runners and lead to unwelcome changes in running form during use. That said, for the low to moderate angled heel-striker, who wouldn’t want an extra 4% in performance? They would be particularly welcome for race day.
We left you a little in the lurch when we last covered the concept of stretching. As with many of the topics that we cover, it is such a complex subject that condensing an opinion to 1,000
words, especially an accurately researched one, can never quite do it justice. (One reason why I never made much progress with the 140 characters required on Twitter!) Thus, the January
missive concerning acute stretching provided a lot of feedback, much of which simply added to the current debate. However, for once, I cannot describe this debate with the now common political
use of the term, polarized. Whether respondents were arguing for or against following an acute stretching regime prior to exercise, both sets of athletes fell into one camp. None of them
really did any, which, albeit by design or default, agreed with the findings from our brief review of the research.
To very briefly summarise our previous position; stretching before an endurance event reduces mechanical efficiency (Kyrolainen & Komi, 1994) primarily through the reduction in musculotendinous stiffness (Thacker et al., 2003), resulting in a decrease in force development and an increase in oxygen requirement within an hour following the stretching regime (Shrier, 2004). However, a post stretching 10-minute sub maximal warm-up run could reverse the reduction in active peak force and rate of force development and thus not impact running economy (Hayes and Walker, 2007). For many of us endurance athletes, this puts paid to that last minute, panic driven, quick stretch against the holding pen barriers as we impatiently await the race start. But we already knew that, didn’t we? It was perhaps more a guilt driven, reflex action in recognition of the lack of focus and attention we had paid to flexibility and mobility in our daily training regimes. As a generalisation, time crunched endurance athletes are far more likely to skip a stretching session over a conditioning session, any day. A quick tally of the red boxes on nearly every Training Peaks account is testament to this.
So, what of that long-term stretching regime and should endurance athletes feel guilty for prioritising the extra couple of miles out on the road or the pool above the daily session on the gym mat?
Certainly, studies have shown that following a long-term stretching strategy can significantly increase flexibility (Nelson et al, 2001), and long term strategies should not inhibit performance or decrease running economy (Godges, MacRae & Engelke, 1993; Nelson et al., 2001). However, coaches of elite runners have known for some time that inflexibility is highly associated with increased running economy and academic research is beginning to bear this out (Gleim et al., 1990; Posthumus et al., 2011; Sanders et al., 2004). Some academics go further in suggesting that there may be an optimum level of flexibility for endurance running economy. Although it isn’t clear where exactly this level of optimisation may lie, there must be a balance between muscle stiffness for maximisation of energy storage and return whilst also allowing for optimal stride length at high running velocities. This, then is an important point. Runners of any standard may not need lots of static muscle stretching, but probably do need to increase their ability to operate their key running muscles through a full range of movement; especially those who sit at a desk or in a vehicle for 8 hours of the day, or ride their bikes when not sat at their desks.
Another common theory in support of following a long-term stretching strategy, is in support of delaying or minimising the effects of post-exercise delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). DOMS is thought to be triggered by a series of biomechanical changes that occur as a result of muscle damage (Fridén, 2002). Repeated, high-force, eccentric contractions or even simply unaccustomed exercise such as interval training or running downhill with poor form, is determined to be the most likely cause of DOMS (Cheung, et al., 2003). The prescription of stretching to reduce the effect of DOMS was due to supposed muscle spasms reducing blood flow being the cause of muscle soreness (de Vries, 1966). Muscle stretching being seen as restoring the blood flow back into the fatigued muscle (Herbert et al., 2011).
However, study after study has shown that stretching regimes have little or no effect on reducing DOMS. There is no evidence to suggest that static or dynamic stretching either before or after exercise, as either an acute or long-term strategy, could reduce the severity or duration of DOMS (Dannecker et al., 2002; Herbert, et al., 2011). Herbert and Gabriel (2002) indicated that such changes as they were able to observe were too insignificant to justify athletes incorporating a stretching regime into their warm-up activity; and a survey of 2,000 athletes concluded that no variation of stretching had the ability to alter DOMS (Jamtvedt et al., 2002).
The academic research therefore appears to be sounding the death knell for stretching. As ever, however, in the same way that I like to investigate the bias of researchers when investigating studies on running form in particular, to be really conclusive, I would need to study each paper quoted above in far greater detail than I have to date. Unfortunately, this level of in-depth study will have to wait. We again find ourselves at the end of a month, with the clock changes behind us, and spring now definitely on the way.
For those coached athletes, and others awaiting reports or analysis, I thank you all again for your patience. What has stated out to be a very busy but exciting year has already taken some challenging twists and turns. I can however report that the surgery has been successful and, providing that I follow the prescribed recovery plan, then we will be firing on all cylinders again within a fortnight. Obviously, I have again lost several potential working days, however, I will not be taking on any additional work during this recuperation period which will allow me an opportunity to catch up with all outstanding actions.
Good luck to all those who are racing in the forthcoming weeks. This year has already seen some great athletic progress and success and I am looking forward to reporting more success as the season progresses.
A timely receipt of a research paper on the impact of stretching (Baxter et al, 2015) coincided with a coach-education question last week. Therefore, I thought that I would round up what has now become a recent trilogy on athlete recovery by adding my thoughts on stretching to that of the transition period (see August 2018) and rest & recovery (December 2018).
As those who regularly read my missives will know, I tend to support my arguments with terms such as ‘evidence based’ or, where no empirical evidence exists and arguments are supported by intuition or assumption, as ‘evidence inspired’. One of the more obvious examples of the latter is the argument for using stretching as a tool to aid performance or reduce the risk of injury in endurance athletes, and now we have a paper that sheds some further light on this subject.
Historically, pre-exercise stretching was the staple of endurance running groups, prescribed by coaches to prepare the limbs for exercise. Post-exercise stretching was also prescribed as part of a cool down programme to minimise the effects of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). For simplicity, stretching could then be described as being one of two kinds – acute stretching referring to discrete exercises conducted immediately prior to exercise (Wallmann, et al., 2012) or chronic stretching, conducted as part of a long-term strategy for increasing flexibility (Stone, et al., 2006). Due to the limited time available here, for now I will simply focus on acute stretching programmes and may return to chronic stretching at a later date.
Flexibility has long been recognised as a component of fitness (Bompa & Haff, 2009) and arguably stretching has been considered to be an appropriate if not important part of that strategy (Shrier, 2004; Wilson et la., 2010). However, evidence shows that elite endurance runners are anything but flexible, with studies suggesting that they tend to be less flexible than their amateur counterparts (Saunders et al., 2004). Whilst this statement appears to be at best counter-intuitive, research has shown that untrained people with the lowest levels of flexibility have the most economic running styles (Gleim et al., 1990). Although this study needs repeating across a broader range of athlete ability, it does support the findings of several other theories.
Increased mobility of the pelvis over the transverse and frontal planes during the stance phase of running requires an excessive energy cost to stabilise the pelvis. Certainly sprinters are renowned for extolling the benefits of having tense muscles and tendons to increase elastic storage and thus reduce oxygen demand. It has also been proposed that reduced flexibility could be accounted for by the hypertrophy of muscle resulting in a reduced range of joint motion. All good food for thought and certainly all worthy of additional study.
However, we do know that acute stretching prior to exercise as part of a warm up regime has been shown to decrease running economy (reflecting the energy demand of running at? a constant submaximal speed) (Saunders et al., 2004; Shrier, 2004; Thacker et al., 2003). The rationale for this theory is that stretching reduces the mechanical efficiency of the lower body through the reduction of musculotendinous stiffness (Thacker et al, 2003). In this instance, musculotendinous stiffness ‘specifically refers to the [muscle] unit’s ability to resist an applied change in length’ (Kuitunen et al., 2002).
Historically, muscular stiffness has been associated with increased risk of injury and an inhibitor of athletic movement particularly in the early stages of an event and yet, in endurance runners muscular stiffness is recognised as a desirable trait (Wilson & Flanagan, 2008). Inflexibility in the hip and calf regions are associated with improved running economy (Baxter et al., 2015). The ‘reduction of mechanical efficiency stems directly from the decrement of muscle stiffness that appears as a result of muscle stretching’ (Baxter et al., 2015). As we have postulated in our own research concerning running form, stiffer muscles around the ankle and knee cause an ‘increase in force potentiation when transitioning from the braking to the push off phase in running’ (Kyrolainen & Komi, 1994).
More effective elastic energy storage and return from a stiffer musculotendinous system is therefore favoured in endurance running (Gleim, et al., 1990). Without taking advantage of muscular stiffness, activation of increased numbers of motor units requires increased oxygen consumption and energy expenditure (Wilson et al, 2010). Additionally, acute stretching may strain muscles, causing a decrease in force development and an increase in oxygen requirement immediately following the stretching regime (Shrier, 2004).
All interesting stuff, but the research is not all negative. Some studies have identified that stretching isolated muscle groups prior to performance testing can increase the strength of that muscle group, (Akagi & Takahashi, 2014), however, as yet, there is no evidence to suggest that the same applies to endurance running (Worrell, et al., 1994).
Thus, according to the academic studies, not only is there no recognised benefit to acute stretching as part of a warm up activity prior to running, but there would appear to be disadvantages to doing so, not least to running economy through decreases in mechanical efficiency and increases in oxygen demand. However, whilst this evidence based theory makes academic sense, our own intuition on this topic which is associated with our experience of immobility, would suggest that some other strategy needs consideration. Also, this still leaves the question of whether there is an optimum level of flexibility required to maximise running efficiency. According to Saunders et al (2004), optimum flexibility is a balance between muscle stiffness to optimise elastic energy storage and return, whilst allowing for an optimal stride length (Saunders et al., 2004). I await with bated breath their definition of the optimum stride length because this is, of course, related to running form.
Whatever your current strategy, if it is working for you – minimising the risk of injury and maximising performance – then at this juncture I would advise that you continue to follow your plan but keep a watchful eye on future research. At some point in the near future, I will hope to follow this up with a brief look at chronic stretching strategies.
In the meantime, please go carefully in this weather and take no risks with your training. We have a full season of training and racing ahead, and so swapping the road bike for the turbo trainer or doing shorter running sessions at submaximal pace over the next few days, will minimise the risk whilst allowing you to stay active. A few days of power and heating outages at work have put us under great time pressure this month and we go into February with some outstanding work. Therefore, we have reduced the number of athlete bookings this month to allow for some consolidation and catch up. If you are awaiting reports or testing dates, please be patient and we hope to be back up to speed shortly.
One date that is confirmed is a further swim video analysis session at Tiddenfoot on Saturday 9th February at 12:00. More details on request.
A couple of months ago, timed to meet the seasonal athlete transition period, I wrote about the importance of scheduling active recovery to reduce the risk of physical and psychological
burnout. With judicious timing, I have just received a question from a British Triathlon Level 2 Diploma coach who is embarking on a period of one-to-one coaching. His chosen athlete is a
former elite squad member who was surprised to find not only a recovery day scheduled within the training, but also a recovery week. This was a unique concept to the athlete. I was
therefore asked to provide some guidance to support the coach in the athlete’s re-education, and the following text is mainly drawn, as ever, from
Bompa and Haff (2009).
To assist in maximising athlete performance in competition, the coach’s prime role is to understand the athlete’s very personal relationship between fitness and fatigue. Whether the athlete is an elite, undergoing multiple training sessions per day, or an age-grouper balancing the demands of training with the additional stressors of social activity and the day job, the coach must prescribe appropriate training to produce an effective balance between exercise and recovery.
The physiological markers of fatigue, such as changes in the intra and extracellular Ca2+ concentration, increases in inorganic phosphates and a breakdown in excitation-contraction coupling, are not readily measurable. Therefore, the coach must use feedback from the athlete in terms of training data, algorithms that accurately measure training load and resting heart rates, and the more subjective athlete markers such as mood state, quality of sleep and perceived recovery. Over time, the establishment of a close coach:athlete relationship will allow a developed understanding of such subjective feedback, and enable the coach to apply an appropriate recovery strategy based on reduced training volumes and intensity. During this time, the coach and athlete can also develop specific restoration techniques to assist in enhancing the recovery process. However, whilst developing that relationship, the coach must proactively control the training load through the systematic use of scientific training principles. Recovery strategies should therefore be structured within a regular training programme with a view to enable the athlete to tolerate a greater training load, or to maximise the training effects of a given load.
An athlete’s ability to recover is compounded by many factors, including the obvious – environmental, training load, sleep, nutrition and supplementation – as well as the less recognisable such as genetics, individualised physiology, psychology and the recovery interventions designed by the coach and athlete to overcome athlete fatigue. Fatigue can be classified as acute or chronic, with chronic being the accumulation of physiological and psychological stress from which the athlete’s ability to recover from training sessions is decreased. Ultimately, this decreases the athlete’s adaptations from training.
Acute fatigue, however, is specific to the task undertaken and the recovery is affected by the type of training and the muscle fibre type of the athlete. Every training session produces symptoms of fatigue from which the athlete will be able to recover and adapt relatively quickly. However, a training load of continued high volume or high intensity for a period of time can lead to overreaching, resulting in chronic fatigue through overtraining.
Overreaching is the short-term decrement in performance capacity from an accumulation of training and non-training stressors. However, overreaching is not accompanied by the signs and symptoms of overtraining, but the athlete will still require several days or weeks of recovery before performance levels will be restored. Functional overreaching will stimulate appropriate physiological adaptations which compensate for training related stress. After sufficient scheduled recovery allowing for supercompensation, the athlete will develop enhanced levels of performance. However, with insufficient scheduled recovery, overreaching eventually results in a state of overtraining.
Overtraining is defined as the long-term decrement in performance as a result of training and non-training stressors, and is associated with the physiological and psychological signs of maladaptation. Overtraining can be induced by the monotony of non-varying stimuli, resulting in a physical plateau or decline in performance. Alternatively, overtraining can be induced by chronic overwork when training volumes or intensity are sustained for too long. Chronic overtraining can result in sympathetic or parasympathetic overwork. Sympathetic overwork is a prolonged stress response whereas parasympathetic overwork is an advanced state of overtraining in which the neuroendocrine system is compromised.
Days - weeks
Weeks - months
Months - ?
Decrease or no change
Continuum of overtraining.
Adapted from Meeusen et al (2006) and Halson & Jeukendrup (2004).
Because of the multitude of contributory factors, there are no reliable markers from which to identify overtraining. Therefore, both athlete and coach need to be acutely aware of athlete stagnation and/or a significant decrease in training or competitive performance. Thus, the importance of creating training programmes according to scientific principles, whilst continually monitoring athlete data and feedback, are vital to long-term athlete well-being. Algorithms built into modern training evaluation software are useful tools for evaluating training load. Also, the long-term evaluation of training and resting heart rates can be a useful tool in monitoring an athlete’s response to training load. Nocturnal heart rates are considered the most suitable measure and recovery periods should be calculated accordingly.
Coach - Planning
Coach - Monitoring
Athlete - Educate
Athlete – Monitoring
Create a plan using the theory of periodisation
Fatigue and response to training and testing
Keep training logs to include volume and intensity
Include periods of overreaching/increased loading
Quality of recovery, including sleep
Minimise non-training stressors
Duration of training and estimate of load
Include periods of decreased training to induce recovery
Mood changes and irritability
Attain adequate sleep
Individualise according to athlete training status and needs
Heart rate and hormonal patterns where known
Monitor training and performance parameters
Ratings of well-being and quality of sleep
Monitor athlete performance including regular testing
Occurrences of illness or injury
Recognise early warning signs of overtraining
Recognition of early signs of illness and injury
Steps to prevent overtraining.
Adapted from Mackinnon& Hooper (2009).
Athlete recovery takes place in three distinct phases – interexercise, post-exercise and long-term recovery. Interexercise recovery takes place, as the name would suggest, whilst exercise is taking place, with phosphagens mainly replaced rapidly via aerobic metabolism. The primary function of post-exercise recovery is to initiate the removal of waste products, to repair muscle tissue and to replace energy stores. This process is supported by a prolonged period of elevated levels of post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC). The duration of EPOC is related to the duration and intensity of exercise and may last anything from several minutes to 38 hours and supports the resynthesis of ATP and PCr, muscle glycogen formation, and the regulation of core temperature.
Muscle glycogen restoration is directly related to the amount of post-exercise carbohydrate consumption. Adequate intake of CHO may restore muscle glycogen levels within 20 -24 hours, however recovery may be enhanced by consuming a post-exercise meal within 2 hours of exercise. Pre-exercise supplementation and supplementation during exercise are also recognised as important aids to recovery, depending on the specific needs of the event and athlete. Inadequate refuelling or excessive muscle damage may not only delay the recovery process, resulting in reduced performance, but may ultimately result in overtraining.
Long-term recovery is formed through the effective periodisation of training, formed to achieve supercompensation. Following a loading of training, a reduction in loading should be scheduled, based on the level of accumulated fatigue, to enable the athlete to perform at an elevated level.
Primary methods of recovery include passive and active recovery, and additional factors such as athlete biological age and training age, should also be taken into consideration when scheduling training. Ideally, each period of training should conclude with a cooling down activity to aid recovery utilising the movements of the exercise undertaken. There is a plethora of detailed academic study which supports the use of active recovery with evidence of both enhanced performance restoration and a reduction in the onset of muscle soreness. Recovery activity should be performed at 50% or less of VO2 max, although, as ever, I highlight the importance of retaining good form throughout all active movements.
Passive recovery should include sufficient quality sleep although, simply factoring in time for the athlete putting their feet up occasionally, particularly at this time of year, should also form an important part of the athlete’s recovery strategy. As those of you who follow our Facebook feed will recognise, we are establishing a close working relationship with our friends at ŌKHĀNE. Their vision of a worldwide community connected through and inspired by sport, health and wellbeing meets with Applied Triathlon Coaching’s strategy to further develop even greater awareness of the holistic needs of all the athletes we have the honour and pleasure to work with.
Enjoy your rest and recovery during this festive season and best wishes for your sporting endeavours in 2019.
Thank you very much for your patience whilst we dealt with matters closer to home this month. For the second time in a little over a year we have been reminded of the importance of our families and also the importance of leading a healthy lifestyle, with both our departed living well into their eighties. Health and fitness are obviously highly prominent in the message we are keen to promote to our athletes, but this has become a timely reminder that, in providing the services we offer, we don’t lose sight of our own well-being.
This is never more relevant than during the busiest month of the year, which for us is always November. As athletes begin to plan for next year, we invest a lot of time in screening potential athletes for their fit into our model of coaching. This process may sound slightly more stringent that at first glance would seem necessary. Although this is as much an opportunity for the athlete to screen us, as it is for us to determine the level of compatibility, our coaching philosophy is built purely around our coaching efficacy.
Much research has been conducted on self-efficacy in teaching which has been shown to be a vital ingredient in teacher effectiveness. Whilst coaches do not share all the characteristics of teachers, much of the function we perform includes elements of instruction, guidance in the development of skills and the provision of feedback, which is consistent with teaching practice. Further still, like a teacher, the coach also acts as a motivator, strategist, administrator and planner to the athlete, to enhance both the learning and the performance of the athlete. Coach education would go one further and suggest that it is the coach’s responsibility to elicit personal growth from the athlete. However, I have always baulked slightly at this because it predisposes that the coach operates in some superior plane to the athlete which, of course, may or may not be the case. I should add, however, that the development of athlete character in aspects associated with the sport is a function of coaching.
The principle study on coaching efficacy, conducted by Feltz et al. (1999), focussed on a programme of reductionism to produce an effective conceptual model of coaching efficacy. Evaluating previous studies on coaching confidence and the more widely known work of Bandura’s conceptualisation of self-efficacy (1977, 1986), they perhaps over-simplified the model. However, in so doing, they were able to identify the coaching specific sources of efficacy information and coaching efficacy dimensions, that combine in a multidimensional model to produce a set of outcomes.
As ever, I have added my own flavour to adapt this conceptual model into a practical model that operates in the real world of coaching. Thus, the sources of coaching efficacy information come in the form of coaching experience and preparation for working with any particular athlete for a specific outcome; the prior history of coach achievement, particularly in similar circumstances; the perceived skill level and performance of the athlete; and the support network the athlete has to achieve their goals.
Primed with the confidence that this information provides the coach, and thus the potential fit the athlete has for any programme of coaching, the coach is able to progress to the dynamics of coaching, or coaching dimensions. The dimension of coaching strategy is the confidence the coach has in preparing both a training and competition strategy that will draw the best out of the athlete. In the multi-event seasons demanded by many triathletes, this is where the skill in combining the science of periodisation with the experience of measuring training load and recovery is paramount.
Technique efficacy is the confidence the coach has in their directional, instructional and diagnostic skills. Again, experience is key here, particularly in utilising diagnostic skills to steer subsequent instruction and/or corrective action. This is why we put so much emphasis on our own development in understanding the key components of the three disciplines we coach, as well as making skill analysis and development sessions available for our athletes, where logistics and cost allow. However, it is a common observation of mine that coaches tend to intervene too quickly and there is a tendency to over-prescribe corrective action based on insufficient knowledge. An often-cited example of this, and one to which I may return in future, is the study of elite gymnast coaches in action and the range of unnecessary feedback they produced for one particular gymnast. Thus, knowing when to intervene is as important as the how.
Motivation efficacy is the confidence coaches have in their ability to positively affect the psychological state of the athlete. This may come in a multitude of forms but is not restricted to the measurable progress that athletes can see in either their performance or their skill level. Providing evidence for this when the athlete is in the midst of a demanding block of training can be a challenge in its own right. Therefore, regular conversations can be key to highlight aspects of data or skill development that may not be readily evident to the athlete.
The fourth dimension, no pun intended, is the controversial one – that of the building of athlete character. I don’t dismiss this as readily as my comment above may suggest, but, as a generalisation, an athlete will develop this if the correct approach to all other aspects of training and racing is taken.
Assuming all the above is in place, and it is a big assumption, then coaching efficacy will be displayed in many aspects of the coach’s behaviour. High efficacy coaches have been shown to display more effective coaching behaviours including positive reinforcement of desirable performance as well as mistake contingent encouragement combined with appropriate technical feedback. Together, these assist in the improvement of athlete performance and thus contribute to athlete satisfaction.
This, therefore, is why we spend a significant period of time in both the screening process and in creating a channel of free flowing communication early in the athlete:coach relationship. Ensuring that our coaching model will provide, or can be adapted to provide the perfect fit, reinforces coach efficacy and thus ultimately leads to athlete efficacy.
Driving from the pool back to The Depot one lunchtime last week, I was surprised to hear the dulcet tones of Dr. Vybarr Cregan-Reid on Radio 5 Live. As well as contributing an educated commentary supported by a vast literary repertoire, the prime reason for Dr. Reid’s presence as guest editor on Nihal Arthanayake’s Afternoon Edition was to promote his latest book, Primate Change: How the world we made is remaking us. As the School of English Reader in English and Environmental Studies at Kent University, I really shouldn’t have been surprised by either his 5 Live appearance or his publishing his third book in five years. In fact, I think that I should really come clean here and confess that my reaction was less surprise and more disappointment.
Two years ago, I had been invited by a former colleague from the University of Hertfordshire to attend a presentation by Vybarr to support the launch of his previous book; Footnotes: How running makes us human. Whilst very grateful for the invite, I sat amongst the small audience and nodded knowingly as he presented his thoughts with which I agreed, and unmoved for those with which I did not. At that time, my disappointment was not that I didn’t want to hear what he had to say, but that I really wanted to have the opportunity to discuss and debate the topics with which I didn’t necessarily agree.
Whilst his presentation was not the most polished I have heard (he came over better last week on the radio), enough of his content was consistent with that of my running workshops to reinforce my confidence that the underpinning theory of Natural Running Form was heading in the right direction. As I joined the short queue to purchase a copy of his book, I decided there and then that not only would I use his tome to further inform my workshops, but that I would use my additional knowledge and experience to write my own book on running. My disappointment last week was with myself in that I had only reached page 76 of this book during which time Vybarr has been published again!
There are, of course, plenty of mitigating circumstances for the slow progress on my part, and some of them are almost justified. However, the intent has always been there and, to compensate for the lack of scheduled time set aside for such research, I have diligently carried his book with me to each of the countries I have visited in the ensuing period. That’s some air miles for one book! In reality, however, the real reason for this tardiness is that unlocking the science behind running is proving to be a spectacularly time-consuming experience. Whilst not quite the vade mecum that I am intending to publish, every page of Vybarr’s work is so well informed that it leads me on to make additional research, either to understand the primary research that informs it or to find conflicting studies and thus make a better fist of the explanations. This practice is consistent with every other book and research paper I pick up; hence the ponderously slow progress.
This then is proving to be the problem. Much of the basic mechanics of running have been well known for hundreds of years and well documented since at least the 1960s. As a general guide, Geoffrey Dyson’s The Mechanics of Athletics provides an accurate enough model for running that should have informed running coaches since its first edition. What Dyson didn’t account for, however, was the second running revolution that led to jogging and with it, the birth of the modern running shoe.
Poor daily footwear choices were already a feature of modern culture and, combined with a changing and more sedentary lifestyle, this was a problem that was simply waiting for its time. Before this second running boom, in the main, runners were those who diligently toiled away on running tracks and, in so doing, further developed and reinforced the biomechanical movement patterns that they had established whilst they were young. This was a progressive process because whilst running is a natural behaviour, running form is a learnt skill.
In encouraging the population to go outside and take exercise, the jogging revolution came with good intent. However, all cultural revolutions have a tendency to become the victims of unexpected consequences and three things were to quickly overtake the positive ideals. The end quickly became more important than the means; a common result of the human nature of always being in a hurry to achieve. In the process, and unknowingly because we had yet to fully understand the risks involved, we sacrificed running form for speed. And, in so doing, we made the outcome, the performance, the only indicator of progress.
The net result of this attempt at a fast track process was, of course, the evolution of the modern running injury. The running shoe with its built-up heel and motion control support enables poor running technique – including heel striking – and contributes toward muscle atrophy whilst providing only limited sensory feedback (Cregan-Reid). Without the modern running shoe, jogging, which is an extension of walking, would have not been possible. This hybrid walk/run locomotive pattern is unnatural both in terms of posture and forces (Saxby) and, although not solely responsible, modern running shoes are a contributory factor to this phenomenon and reinforced the regular cycle of running injury. Such is the rate of injury, Christopher McDougall quipped that “the real mutants are the [runners] who don’t get injured”.
As we accelerate and progress from a walk to a run, the foot is meant to inform the brain of the changes to both impact and pace. Proprioception - our body’s sense of its own position, balance and movement - uses stretch receptors and pressure receptors situated in our muscles, joints and skin to inform our brain about our interaction with the physical environment (Saxby). Often called our sixth sense, I refer to proprioception in running as our forgotten sense.
A large percentage of these receptors are in our feet, the part of the body where we should be fully engaged with the physical environment. When our feet are masked by “inappropriately constructed and excessively cushioned footwear” (Saxby), our brain is deprived of the necessary feedback that would otherwise influence running form. Thus, by enabling the runner to exceed their developed biomechanical ability, the modern running shoe has led to a regression in running form which, more often than not, has led to injury. The process of heel striking is thus a cultural adaptation of learnt behaviour rather than a biological one which is only possible as a result of reduced proprioceptive feed back to the brain.
To consider something like running to be a skill, you have to believe that there is a right and a wrong way for it to be performed. If we are to find the solution to this problem, then we must believe this to be the case. In fact, the alternative, would now be to hold a position against all the evidence.
The further and deeper that I dig into the mechanics of running, the more I discover that the real work is not so much in understanding how we should run – Dr. Cregan-Reid and others got the easy job there – but in trying to deconstruct how we currently run. Understanding this will allow running coaches to identify and prescribe to runners the necessary changes to allow a safe, effective and permanent transition to Natural Running Form. This perhaps over simplifies what has become such an all consuming task for me. However, as yet, we still do not have the ultimate model of running which remains my work in progress.
Yet another month comes to a close with too much rapidity and things are already shaping up well ready for next year. The race calendar is filling quickly, and so is our weekly schedule of athlete testing, analysis, feedback and coaching along with multiple weekends of coach education. Whilst it is difficult not to already be drawn into preparations for 2019 (and in multisport this actually means qualifiers in preparation for 2020!) we still have much to do this year and much to be proud of too. Thus, I will close on Dr. Chris Taylor’s total domination of the Seriously Brutal Duathlon. Now that is going to be a tough act to follow next season!
One of the biggest challenges of trying to use a low resolution narrative when presenting a natural running form workshop, is that when it comes to the detailed discussions, only a high resolution narrative will suffice. The difficulty here, however, is that these sessions are nearly always time pressured in trying to condense what would ordinarily be several hours of theory into a short delivery window. And so it was when I attempted to do just this at the recent Duathlon Hub training weekend.
Every time I teach this particular part of the theory, the content changes and thus no two sessions are ever the same. Depending on the interests and prior knowledge of the participants or, more importantly, on the questions or feedback I receive, the delivery always meanders off the script in unique ways. In this most recent case, the question I received was not only worthy of a diversion during the session, it prompted me to go back to my notes to ensure that I had got my story straight.
In the high resolution narrative, there are multiple contributory biological factors in our ancestors’ ability to survive the transition from inhabiting the tropical forest to the savannah. In fact, there are probably somewhere between a half dozen to a dozen factors which are deemed critical to this success and thus, our survival as a species. In the low resolution narrative, I have a tendency to use one key example – that of our ability to sweat - to simplify the delivery and make a key point.
To support this example, as most people haven’t heard of a kudu (a kind of antelope inhabiting the savannah), I ask the audience to consider what happens when they take their pet dog or a horse out for a run on a hot day. The explanation is that their inability to sweat as a method of heat regulation offered us an advantage over other mammals. This provided our ancestors with a critical adaptation that enabled them to source food with the necessary high calorific content that ultimately fuelled (no pun intended) our rise from failed forest dweller to masters of all we survey.
However, as was rightly pointed out to me by workshop attendee Gill Fullen, horses certainly do sweat. Indeed, of course, horses sweat, as do dogs, and so the sound bite is factually incorrect. Gill’s comment therefore sent me scurrying back to my notes to work out why and how I had reduced the high resolution explanation to this simplified version.
It is not just our ability to sweat that is a key evolutionary advantage. It is our capacity to sweat more than other mammals that is significant here. We share apocrine sweat glands with our mammalian cousins, which form their prime effective sweating apparatus, however humans also have an abundance of eccrine sweat glands (between 5 and 10 million) that cover our body, particularly in the palms of the hands, the soles of the feet and the head, that provide the prime cooling system for humans.
As a result, we are able to secrete more than a litre of liquid an hour which evaporates from the surface of the skin cooling the blood beneath, and the body as a result. In contrast, not only does a horse lack the volume of sweat glands, it is also covered in a fur coat which, whilst reflecting solar radiation, stops the air from circulating and prevents the sweat from evaporating. To supplement the cooling system, in extreme conditions, animals such as horses pant to increase evaporative cooling. However, one of the additional evolutionary advantages that comes from bipedalism, is that we have an adaptive breathing system that allows us to breath independently of our walking or running cadence. Equally critical for our survival, is that our endurance running pace forced our prey to increase its pace from a sustainable trot, to an energetic gallop. At a gallop, quadrupeds such as antelope and wildebeest (and horses) are easily able to outrun us. However, they are only able to take one breath per leg cycle and thus, whilst galloping, are unable to pant, the process of taking short, sharp, shallow breaths.
This limitation comes from the movement of the internal organs against the diaphragm in accordance with the rhythmic timing of the animal’s gait. Thus, whilst galloping, the animal must synchronise the breath with each stride, an insufficient process to enable both breathing and cooling to effectively take place. To complete the story, all our ancestors had to do was to track the chosen (probably the largest) animal in the midday heat, ensuring that it never had sufficient time to cool, thus forcing its body temperature to a critical level when the animal would collapse.
For those who wish to learn more, the primary source for this theory is:
Bramble, D. M., Jenkins Jr. F. A. (1993). Mammalian locomotor-respiratory integration: Implications for diaphragmatic and pulmonary design. Science, 262: 235-40.
For the low resolution narrative, I would urge you all to read The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, health & disease by Daniel Lieberman. It’s a thoroughly absorbing book.
Slightly closer to home, we have had an excellent month with athlete successes at the Powerman Zofingen ITU World Long Distance Duathlon Championships, taking Applied Triathlon Coaching’s overall medal tally to 30 medals in multisport competition! Additionally, our regular marathon runner Deb Self successfully completed the slightly longer 112 mile challenge that is the Rat Race Coast to Coast. The photos from this event are simply stunning! Well done to all.
We are now heavily engaged in planning for next year and would like to welcome those athletes who have recently joined our ranks. This is always an exciting time for us as we get to know your objectives and ambitions and learn to work with you. Please note however that we are heading to the Lake District for our annual week-long retreat this weekend and therefore will be preparing training plans to see you through this period. Although we will have internet access, the connection can be slow so please do call if you need any assistance.
Happy training in these beautiful early autumn days.
Invoices are on the way.
All of a sudden the greater part of the summer is behind us and, bar a few hardy souls now tapering for Coast to Coast, Powerman Zofingen, the Brutal, the Multisport Festival in Ibiza, or those final club races, this is now the time for what was historically termed the transition period. I write historically, simply because the word has obviously taken on a whole new meaning with the advent of multisport. However, this minor confusion aside, the transition period remains an important aspect of any annual periodisation plan.
The transition period is essentially a recovery period that allows the athlete to recharge the batteries. This period can sometimes be a shortened break to allow a brief recovery phase in the midst of a double (or triple) periodised plan, between races, readying the athlete for the next preparatory phase of training. Or, more traditionally, the transition period is a 4 to 6 week full, but active, recovery linked to the next annual periodised plan.
I could try and write something from memory, or rather, from my own interpretation of transition in its practical coaching application. However, it is far easier to directly quote Tudor Bompa, who is regarded as the father of all things periodisation: “After long periods of preparation, hard work, stressful competitions, in which both physiological and psychological fatigue can accumulate, a transition period should be used to link annual training plans or [the] preparation for another major competition, as in the case of [multiple] periodised plans.”
The training during the transition period should be low key with a reduction in all loading factors – intensity and volume, technical and tactical – with allowances for general training only. The objective is to allow for the facilitation of psychological rest, relaxation and biological regeneration. Failure to allow for a full recovery before embarking on a further periodised plan is likely to impair performance in future training cycles whilst also increasing the risk of injury.
However, this phase of training requires a similar level of consideration to every other week within a training cycle. If nothing else, this is to ensure the avoidance of the most common mistake of the transition period – that of the athlete allowing the training to come to a complete standstill. Any abrupt interruption of training will lead to a significant detraining effect resulting in a “substantial loss in the physiological adaptations established in the previous months of training”.
For endurance athletes, short term detraining can result in a substantial reduction in both time to exhaustion and overall endurance performance. “Maximal aerobic capacity can be reduced by 4% in as little as four days of detraining, by 7% [within] three weeks and by 14% in as little as four weeks of inactivity.” Similar reductions in output occur with physiological markers of power and strength also. The initial phase of the next training will therefore be required to regain this lost ground before further progression of athlete performance can be sought.
Recovery from injury aside, active recovery is therefore preferable to ensure that athletes continue to engage the bioenergetic characteristics of the sport being trained for. Training should be low key with volumes and levels of intensity set to be approximately 40 – 50% of those achieved during the peak periods of the competitive phase. Additionally, with the ever increasing range of events that athletes need to prepare for and thus the need for athletes to be up to speed earlier and earlier every season, there is a serious call to start back onto full training without allowing for the full 4 – 6 week period. Thus, the transition phase, particularly for those with early season qualification races, is often reduced by at least two weeks. This allows for an early reintroduction in particular of form drills and skill redevelopment before embarking on the first phase of the next annual periodised plan. The progression should be carefully considered, however, with a carefully crafted, gradual rebuild in volume and intensity.
This is also the ideal time for athletes and coaches to review the progress made in the previous 12 months and begin to plan for the next. Additionally, the end of the transition period is the ideal time for the athlete to re assess current performance levels through physiological assessments to set the benchmarks for the forthcoming training. We are currently busy scheduling for this important task with both our long term athletes as well as those who are coming on board in preparation for the 2019 season.
With the increased numbers of athletes passing through the Depot requiring assessment and testing, particularly bike lactate testing and running video analysis, we are delighted to announce that we have moved! We are now to be found about 20 feet from our previous location, still in Building 86 at the Royal Ordnance Depot in Weedon but now in the main building on the left. The additional space will hopefully allow more opportunity for coaching, with additional services to come on board in the next few weeks and months. Please keep an eye on the website or Facebook for further details or email to make a booking.
I am heading off to the 2018 ITU Powerman Long Distance World Championships in the morning and then to the Duathlon Hub Peak District weekend to present both a Natural Running Form workshop and an introduction to Team GB Age-Group racing. Busy times before we head to the Lake District at the end of September for our own transition period.
Keep up the hard work please, unless your own transition period has already started, in which case, please enjoy a little active down time before we begin the training full on once more!
There is one month in each year that we await with bated breath and this year it was July. Despite having the European Sprint Triathlon Championships in Glasgow still to come in August and the World Long Distance Duathlon Championships in Zofingen in September, plus a multitude of other competitions, July saw the culmination of a year of hard work for many Applied Tri athletes.
A big challenge for many in July was Ironman Bolton. Whilst we have probably had the best weather for long distance training in recent memory (if you think long bike rides in the heat is bad, you should try them in the rain!), this brought unusual problems to the race venue. The fires on Rivington Moor were very sad to witness and the race organiser did well to re-route the bike course at short notice. Equally, the triathletes did well to take these last-minute course adjustments in their stride and to cope with the extreme weather conditions. Well done to not only the Applied Tri athletes taking part, several completing an Ironman for the first time, but to all.
July also saw a first visit for many to Estonia. I had the honour to be asked to team manage the Team GB AG Standard distance triathlon team at the European Championships in Tartu and what a fantastic event we had. Despite some logistical issues, the event location and administration was top drawer. The compact site allowed athletes to not only enjoy their own race, but to witness some excellent racing from the para athletes, juniors and the elites too. Once again, Applied Tri athletes acquitted themselves very well, representing two of the many nations who were racing.
Top of the bill in July, however, was the World Duathlon Championships in Fyn, Denmark. The Multisport festival over the course of a week was always going to be a real treat of racing with Applied Tri athletes competing in most of the events that took place. It has been several years since I took part in a race at such a high level of competition, and I really miss the adrenaline that such close fought championships serve up. Our best performance in Fyn, was a fabulous 5th place in the ladies 35 – 39 Sprint Duathlon by Helen Sahgal. Despite having the now 9 time world champion Kirsten Sass in her category, Helen beat her on the opening run and matched her on the second run, only sadly losing out on the bike. This great performance provides Helen with automatic qualification for the 2019 World Duathlon in Pontevedra, Spain and has inspired me to dust off my bike and get fit for the qualifier in Bedford in the autumn and return to the fray!
Thankfully, we are not going cold turkey after all these exciting performances and I am fortunate to be packing my bags in a couple of days to watch yet more Applied Tri athletes in action in Glasgow. As soon as this event is complete, we will begin to turn our attention to Powerman Zofingen and assisting athletes in the final preparations for the autumn races. We have much work still to do with marathons, the Brutal Tri and Brutal Du, autumn duathlon qualifiers, autumn duathlon weekend in the Peaks, Natural Running Form workshops, athlete testing and analysis, coach education and, just occasionally, some training of our own.
Please keep up the hard work and keep the great results coming!
In the same way that May Week is now in June, our recent monthly newsletters are making their appearance in what could technically be described as a month late, even though effectively they have just tripped the calendar by a day. And so, we therefore find ourselves in July with half the year now behind us and, for many athletes, crunch time is the weeks now ahead. The events are coming thick and fast with the world duathlon championships, the European standard triathlon championships and Ironman Bolton all taking place in July.
Whilst this is therefore no time for some athletes to be making substantial changes in their exercise regimes, we have received several questions of late concerning nutrition and, in particular, from athletes seeking guidance on how to set themselves up for the day. Therefore, Sarah has therefore given this some thought and presents her case for breakfast.
‘Breakfast cereal’ has become a modern paradox. There is now so much evidence for the benefits of eating a substantial and low GI meal at the start of the day and yet food manufacturers continue to market refined carbohydrate as the ideal breakfast. (GI = glycaemic index; a ranking of foods based on their immediate effect on blood sugar levels).
The idea of eating grains for breakfast dates back to the late 19th century when food reformers called for a cut back on excessive meat consumption, and explored vegetarian alternatives. Corn, oats and wheat were cheap to grow and methods were gradually found to make these grains palatable, with a certain amount of cooking involved.
With advances in food processing in the 20th century – hulling, rolling, puffing – breakfast cereals, which could now be eaten without cooking, became big business. The more sophisticated processing increased the shelf life of the cereal, but also robbed the grains of their nutritional value. The bran and germ were refined out – at the time, these were thought to interfere with digestion and nutrient absorption – but this process also removed important nutrients such as vitamin B and iron. To improve the flavour, sugar was added.
Nowadays, breakfast cereals are likely to be fortified with minerals and vitamins in an attempt to boost their nutrient value, but many are still the result of over-refined grains, and so don’t provide much in the way of fibre and tend to be relatively high GI.
Eating breakfast early in the morning kick-starts your metabolism, the energy production process, and starts fuelling for your muscles and brain. You should feel more alert following this first meal of the day and, by making it a substantial and low GI meal, you should feel more satiated for longer and avoid possible blood sugar and insulin spikes following your next meal.
Previous research has also shown that the thermic effect of food (calories burned due to digestion) is lower in the evening than in the morning, possibly due to slower emptying of the stomach. A review of this and related research has led to the creation of the Big Breakfast Study, funded by the Medical Research Council. Among other objectives, the study aims to assess the impact of meal times on the body’s energy expenditure processes. The outcomes will contribute to improved nutritional guidelines, based on optimising the timing of calorie consumption. The study will measure the effect of meal times on body weight, as well as blood pressure, blood glucose, insulin and cholesterol levels, and appetite.
I haven’t yet found out when this study is due to conclude but I’ll keep an eye on it and keep you posted.
In the meantime, I’d like to encourage you to do your own research. The cereal manufacturers have conditioned us into thinking that the first meal of the day must be based on refined grains, but why is this when, at other times of the day, we are more inclined to eat balanced meals containing a protein source such as meat or fish, vegetables and complex carbs. I want to challenge that thinking and ask you, would you eat casserole for breakfast? Or rice? Or salad? Put your social conditioning to one side for a while and consider what a substantial and low GI breakfast could look like. By front-loading your day (consuming most of your calories in the morning), you will also be less reliant on your evening meal for refuelling. Especially for those of you doing the bulk of your training in the evenings, this is surely worth a try.
As with any aspect of your training regime, please make sure you introduce changes gradually; radically changing your eating habits can risk gastric discomfort. But if you decide to give it a go, please let me know how you get on.
A final word on breakfast cereals – there is still a place for some of these in your food cupboard. Those made without added sugar such as Weetabix or Branflakes, when served with milk, make a nutritious snack or small pre-exercise meal when time is tight.
For more information on the Big Breakfast Study read https://www.insight.mrc.ac.uk/2018/06/19/do-meal-timings-matter/
Food for thought, as ever. It may also be speaking the obvious, however, please also give some thought to your hydration strategy at present. This is important, not only for racing but also before, during and after your training sessions. The more effective your hydration strategy, the more effective your training sessions will be and the sooner you will be able to recover and get out on your next session.
As the numbers of coached and tested athletes at Applied Triathlon has increased, the range of experience of athlete has broadened. Therefore, we increasingly find ourselves trying to ascertain the most effective way of both establishing the most appropriate training for this widening range of individuals as well as redefining our justifications and explanations for delivering that training. Where running form is concerned, however, we keep going full circle. No matter how much we explore the current academic literature and coach education guidance, we become more concerned by the inconsistencies we find. Of course, we continue to make revisions to our coaching model as we discover more about this complex subject, and continuous learning certainly takes place. However, the more we read and observe, the more confident we become that our approach to Natural Running Form is heading in the right direction.
Running is often considered to be simple activity – what Olympian Ron Clarke once described as putting one foot in front of the other and repeat. It is generally understood that those with the best running genes who train the hardest are most likely to win. However, running can almost certainly be described as a skill and this means that there must be a right or most effective way to do it. Running is however a skill that is rarely effectively taught.
All runners have stylistic differences - coach education confirms this - but it is the similarities which are important. On closer inspection the best runners pretty much all do the same thing – foot contact, stance, toe off - with less able runners completing the same process but less efficiency and less effectively. Good runners are graceful; their running looks effortless and they (nearly) always look like good runners. Ancient Greek paintings of runners display a similarity of running form whether depicting fast or slow running which is very similar to how Mo Farah runs. There is an accepted link between consistency of training and performance but is there a link between consistency of form and consistency of training?
Conversely, less efficient runners look like poor runners and their running form often differs according to their running pace. Despite the development of modern running shoes, improvements in coach education (both in content and methodology) and increased scientific understanding, injury rates remain consistent across the endurance running community. Some of these injuries can be associated with differing form and therefore, is there a link with inconsistent form and increased risk of injury?
There are contradictory view points on what constitutes good running form, with opinion varying from “running style [being] ordained at birth” through to “stature and development” and thus currently there is no accepted (academic or coach) model of running that depicts good form. This lack of a model has resulted in the force production concept of running remaining in vogue in coach education for the development of endurance athletes. In simple terms, force is applied beneath and behind the runner to create propulsion. This application of force comes at the price of greater ground reaction forces however, and therefore modern running shoes are provided with appropriate cushioning to reduce the effect this has on the runner. This good intention of the added protection in the cushioned running shoe has however produced unintended consequences. It has restricted sensory feedback, increased muscular atrophy of the key running muscles and enabled maladapted people to allow running with a heel striking action. The increased impact transient as a result of heel striking is known to be a contributory factor in running injuries. Combined with the modern lifestyle, the modern running shoe has allowed us to exceed our biomechanical capabilities in the search of running increased distances and intensities.
The recent barefoot running trend (better described as the re emergence of the minimalist running shoe) was borne out of identifying the need to reduce the risk of injury for endurance runners. However, the trend is now pretty much gone, without establishing a legacy worthy of the initial noise it briefly made within the running community. Efforts by authors of such work as Running Form (Danny Abshire), Chi Running (Danny Dreyer) and The Pose Method (Dr. Nicholas Romanov), with additional research by evolutionary biologist Professor Daniel Lieberman, established a plausible case but this was perhaps undermined by academic researchers not finding sufficient supporting evidence for the barefoot concept within the laboratory.
It could be more strongly argued however that the failing of this movement was more in the inability of coaches and athletes to translate the drills and movements successfully into their everyday running without compromising their current level of performance. Or indeed risking injury, which was counter-productive to the initial objective of runners changing running form, especially by those who forced the pace of transition. Such impact as remains has probably been to encourage athletes and coaches to focus a little more on running form in training as opposed to outright performance, but it has been unclear which of the drills are appropriate for whom and how these drills are to be integrated into the actual process of running.
Lieberman states that it is becoming increasingly more certain that western society is suffering from two modern afflictions: a surfeit of highly calorific, readily available foodstuff and [leading] an increasingly sedentary lifestyle. For long-term well being, this is proving to be a deadly combination. Running remains the most easily accessible and potentially effective antidote to both. However, the misunderstanding of appropriate drills leading to the misguided coaching of running is not only unlikely to effectively support those who currently run, but is also unlikely to encourage those who really need to participate in this most natural of activities.
Therefore, we shall continue to try to understand which drills work and why and to offer an easy to follow, safe and appropriate model of running for our athletes and non athletes to follow. In time, with further understanding, there is no reason why running cannot be considered comparable to other skills. Runners could be taught to effectively tune into the process and learn to consciously control running until the new form becomes a part of the subconscious.
Here endeth the sermon for today! In other news, Applied Triathlon is now a Triathlon England registered triathlon club and all coached athletes can consider themselves to be club members. To take full advantage of this, please join Triathlon England as an individual member and annotate Applied Triathlon as your club.
We have events a plenty on the horizon, lots more athlete testing and analysis to complete and our Monday swim slot at Woodgreen Leisure open air 50m pool to look forward to! Please keep up the good training guys!
Well, what a month this has been. Sadly, in most cases, we have not been able to put all the hard work in training into practice this month due to the weather which has resulted in multiple race postponements. In duathlon in particular, we are used to the weather interfering with races, but I do not recall an occasion when so many events have been cancelled or postponed. Not only does this cause problems for scheduling the re arranged events, we lose out on the opportunity of proving the effectiveness of the winter training. All is not lost however, as you have all worked very hard to ensure that you have maintained your training wherever possible. Training indoors may not always be as effective as getting outside but I am confident that many of your fellow competitors have simply been striking through their training with another missed session and so I am very pleased that you have all continued to stick with it despite the conditions.
That said, we have seen some strong racing performances this month both before the weather deteriorated and yesterday at the National Duathlon Championships. Progress has been made across the board and, the training data has supported the potential for improved performance where athletes haven’t been able to race. Therefore, we must push on and realign the training for the next set of objectives and rely on the training data assuming that this would have translated into improved performances in every case.
What then still awaits us this year? Next up are the early season marathons with athletes running at both London and Manchester – good luck guys! Then the focus switches to the European Middle Distance Duathlon championships followed a few weeks later by the World Standard and Sprint Distance races, both events being held in Denmark. During this period, I will continue to run bike lactate testing from the clinic at Weedon and will be leading bike recces over the UK Ironman course at Bolton for those who are targeting this as their main event this year. For those aiming to race in the triathlons at Tartu and Glasgow in July and August (or Bolton) or trying to qualify for next year’s triathlons, I have now confirmed the booking at the 50m heated, open air pool in Banbury on Monday evenings. This session is available to all levels of swimmers with an emphasis on stroke improvement initially, followed by conditioning later in the season. There may be the opportunity for video analysis, but this is still being negotiated at present. For those awaiting a swim video analysis session at Tiddenfoot, this has been penciled in for Saturday 14th April. Any takers for either sessions should contact me soonest, please.
For the Long Distance Duathlon team, the first round of qualification has now been completed - congratulations to all. Please note that the next cut off for discounted race entry is in a few days’ time. Please don’t miss out! I will soon be trying to get confirmation of the second run course from the race organiser for this year so that we can prepare the appropriate training. The last-minute changes last year certainly affected performances across the board! More news on this will therefore follow.
A much less controversial newsletter this month and I will have to postpone the answer to the question received a couple of weeks ago as to why we test for lactate threshold and turn points rather than VO2. There is a short answer to this question, however, I would rather explain it in more length in my response. What spare time we currently have has been taken up with both coaching and reviewing my work on Natural Running Form. We continue to operate a programme of continuous improvement on all the work we undertake and I have recently returned to the topic of running form to both improve the quality of our analysis as well as improve the clarity of the reporting. The ultimate objective is to not only report on what we discover on each individual athlete within our analysis, but also to produce a visual model of what we perceive good running form to be. This is no small task and is certainly proving to be one of the most challenging and yet exciting tasks we have undertaken. It will certainly save me from having to do some of my own training for a while and so I will have to continue to train vicariously through all your efforts!
Please keep up the hard work.
Coaching News February
I had intended to write about other matters this month, however, I received a lot of feedback including some questions on last month’s musings (https://naturalrunningform.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/coaching-news-january/), and therefore I have decided to respond to this first.
I am reliably informed that the rats chosen for the experiments were young and male and the main question raised last month was whether the outcome would be the same had the rats been female. Sadly, I simply do not know. As yet, I haven’t had the wherewithal to track down any specific research (of which there is an awful lot with whole journals assigned to the subject) and in truth, I am not a fan of laboratory-based research on mammals. Rodents they may well be, but rodents form over half of the world’s mammal types, and over 100 million mammals are used in laboratory testing every year. This fact always leaves me feeling just slightly queasy.
My guess is that the result would be different with female rats. Exactly what form this difference would take, I do not know, but I do know that this answer exposes me to the risk of being accused of applying stereotypical beliefs to these complex biological and social interactions. In today’s politically correct climate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discuss differences between the sexes.
More here: https://naturalrunningform.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/coaching-news-february/
Coaching News – January 2018
My Facebook feed has been momentarily lit up by a podcast of an interview with a retired coach of elite athletes in the still small community of triathlon. The principal topic, according to the title, is developing running speed but, as yet, I haven’t found the time to listen to what this coach has to say. It’s not that I don't think that I can learn from his experience – although I note that despite his success, athletes in his charge have succumbed to more than their fair share of injuries – but I am disappointed that he waited until retirement before allowing others to share in his coaching methodology.
More to be found here:https://naturalrunningform.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/coaching-news-january/
We have confirmed the availability of our preferred chateaux at St Michel de Vax and can therefore provide a reduced price for early bird bookings for triathletes and duathletes seeking the edge in performance for next year. Based on either 4 males or 4 females securing a booking with a £300 deposit each, £995 per person provides 6 nights accommodation (double room each), 7 x self service breakfast all food supplied with fixings for packed lunch, 5 x evening meals with wine (the schedule allows for a self-funded meal out), airport transfers, transport to venues and pools, fully coached training sessions including swim video analysis, bike lactate testing and running form analysis. Not included = flights, 1 supper at restaurant 9transport provided), personal insurance, money for coffee stops and lunches. Dates flexible, please contact us for more details.
A new 'ladies only' triathlon training camp opportunity is available at our location in the Midi-Pyrenees from 22-29 October. All inclusive from touchdown to take off (including vegan option) with swim video analysis, bike lactate testing and run video analysis. Just pitch up and play to make the most of this outstanding training area. Designed for mixed ability. More details http://www.appliedtri.co.uk/training-camps/ or please drop me a PM. NB. Two dates including 4 day and 7 days training camps are currently being scheduled for 30 March - 13th April. Please register your interest with us.
Applied Triathlon Coaching athlete Ian Hanson started his 20:20 challenge today - that's 20 Standard Distance triathlons (1,500m swim, 40km bike, 10km run) in 20 days to celebrate 20 years since his successful remission from cancer and to raise funds for Stoke mandeville Hospital. you can donate to this excellent cause here: https://make-a-donation.org/fundraisers/ian-hanson
Despite some early sesaon setbacks with her running, Vikki's super smooth swim and super strong bike was enough to claim 3rd place at Eton Dorney Sprint triathlon resulting in qualification for the World Sprint Triathlon Champs in Rotterdam in September. Next up... the european Champs in kitzbuhel in June.
We are delighted to be joining forces with Britta Sorensen MPhil for our 2017 Triathlon training camps in Midi-Pyrenees. I met Britta at Loughborough University and we quickly developed a good working relationship and identfied our shared love of triathlon and all things endurance. Britta is currently mapping out bike routes and testing the swim facilities in france and sneaking in some extra training before our arrival next week!
A belated link to the February edition of Coaching News
Possibly the most comprehensive triathlon training camp is now available to you in March. Have your swimming analysed through video technology, complete a lactate test on the bike to establish appropriate training zones and learn the benefits of Natural Running Form to help set you p for your best season yet. Please contact us soonest for details.
Despite the challenging conditions, it was great to see Jo again and to assess how much her running has improved since she attended an LBTri Natural Running Form Group workshop. in between reading her book, the rather excellent Water Under the Bridge, I am now working on her analysis report and revised feedback with exercises and drills.
Vikki Voysey spent two half days with us specifically to work on her cycling and to assess her progress developing her running form. After a 20km test ride over the Big-Cow cycle route, she then rode 5 repetitions of Chicheley Hill working on varying cadences to help optimise her hill climbing cadence. Despite very difficult conditions - cold, wind and rain - we have some excellent early season data to progress her training for this season. Some quick video analysis confirmed that her running form has indeed improved and this was qualified further after a visit to Hannah Watkinson at Frontline Podiatry. Vikki closed a tough few hours of training with two climbs of Bison Hill.
We have just announced our inaugural training camp to be held in March 2017 in France.
Find out more about training camps.