Alter-G Treadmills...the best way to cross train?

So I'm sure many of you have seen them.  It looks like a normal treadmill, but with a bubble around it and costs upwards of $75,000 (for the top-end model).  The Alter-G is becoming a topic of conversation in the distance running world and for good reason.  The high impact nature of long distance running can put athletes at risk for overuse injuries.  With the Alter-G you can train at lower percentages of your body weight thus taking some stress off your legs.  Initially it seemed this device would be best suited for injury recovery and allow athletes to begin "running" sooner during rehabilitation.  Obviously the detraining effects associated with not-running during injury can be detrimental to athletes.  Allowing runners to return to running (albeit at a lower body weight) sooner could augment some of these detraining effects.  More recently coaches have begun experimenting with using the Alter-G to "supplement mileage".  The thinking here being, "If runner X can run 100 miles per week normally without risking injury he may be able to run upwards of 120 miles per week if we do some of that mileage at a lower % body weight on the Alter-G".  You can see the potential here...More Aerobic Training!

Supplementing running with other modes of aerobic cross training has become popular for long distance runners with the same reasoning as using the Alter-G.  Bigger Aerobic Base = Greater Running Potential.  When comparing swimming, cycling, eliptical(ing?) and pool running I think the consensus would be that pool running offers the best benefit for runners since the movement patterns are the most similar to the sport in which the athlete's training to compete.  There has been some research done in recent years examining pool running that have yielded some intriguing findings.  When in water we're dealing with resistance throughout the entire movement which results in different motor recruitment patterns when compared to on-land running.  Also, in order to mimic muscle activity to on-land running the perceived effort in the pool must be considerably higher (i.e. they have to work harder for the same benefit).  I had often wondered about this same concept on the Alter-G.  Are the motor patterns/muscle activity the same as on-land running?  What makes running at a lower % body weight feel so much easier?

Just last month in the Journal of Sport Sciences researchers from UNLV's Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition Sciences published the first peer-reviewed paper to my knowledge examining this topic.  Here's the abstract and if you're at a University I'm sure you can track down the full text version as well.  They compared muscle activity with EMG while running at 100%, 115% and 125% of preferred running speed on the Alter-G at 100%, 90%, 80%, 70% and 60% body weight.  The findings...Running at a lower % body weight resulted in less muscle activity (makes sense!).  However the decrease in % body weight did not result in an equal decrease in muscle activity (the two followed a similar, but not equal descending trend).  I think these finding are promising and may provide empirical support for coaches thoughts on supplementing mileage with the Alter-G.  It seems that muscle activity patterns are diminished when running at a lower % body weight, but the % contribution from different muscles is similar to on-land running.  This is one of the knocks on pool running...Since you're dealing with resistance throughout the entire movement different muscles are asked to do more/less of the total work.  This data suggests that running on the Alter-G doesn't create an issue with over/under use of certain muscles and replicates on-land running more closely than pool running.

With only 1 published study we can't jump to conclusions just yet.  These findings are very intriguing and this topic necessitates further investigation for sure.  I'm still curious about what's really happening with the % body weight issue.  For instance if someone runs 80 miles per week on a treadmill at 100% body weight and then runs another week of 80 miles at say 80% body weight.  Are we burning more/less calories?  What about total work completed?  In races we're carrying 100% body weight, so does this have a deleterious effect on subsequent performances?  Obviously there's still some questions to answer here, BUT if you have an extra $75,000 laying around the Alter-G seems to be a good tool for both injury recovery AND as a cross-training modality... 

Lightning in a Bottle

Track and Field is a sport that's individualistic by nature.  Yes there are team scores and championships, but each race/event goes on in complete isolation from one another.  Even within each event the individual athlete controls his/her fate.  It's not like a wide receiver needing a quarterback to throw him a pass or a power foward needing a point guard to get the ball into the post....track and field is different...or is it?

This weekend a number of our distance runners from Appalachian State competed in an indoor track meet at the University of Akron.  They've got a beautiful facility and the oversized (300m) track gives the runners wonderful opportunities to chase personal bests.  It's very rare in track and field to come back from a meet where everyone competing met or exceeded prior expectations.  I haven't been coaching for very long but I've got a feeling these special weekends don't come around all that often.

On Friday night, the first day of competition, we had 3 men and 1 woman competing in the 5,000m run.  The men ran first, followed by the ladies.  In the men's race all three of our athletes ran huge personal bests (17 seconds, 20 seconds, 7 seconds) and two broke our school's indoor record in the 5,000m run (which had stood for 20 years).  This race definitely set the tone for the remainder of the weekend (which has to be the best series of distance performances at any meet in our program's history).  In the women's 5K our girl ran a 38 second personal best (6th fastest all time)...

Today we had two men and one woman compete in the 1 mile run.  Both men ran personal bests (by 5 and 4 seconds...good for 3rd and 5th all-time).  In the women's race our girl ran a 5 second personal best as well.  The final distance race of the day was the men's 3,000m run where we had one athlete competing.  This race has to go down as the performance of the meet for our runners.  A new school record (by 16 seconds), a 33 second personal best, and a top 30 time for the distance in the country.  It was certainly a special weekend...

While reflecting on these performances I had to wonder what would have happened if the first race didn't go as well as it had.  It seemed like there was a certain energy at the meet with each athlete feeding off of one another's success.  Maybe there's something to be said for believing in each other and watching your teammates excel that leads one to think, "Hey, Why Can't I Do That?".  Obviously each of our runners at this meet was physically able to run the performance that they had; otherwise it wouldn't have happened.  By observing others exceeding expectations, each athlete in the subsequent races believed they could do it to.

Being physically prepared to run a certain performance, and actually achieving that goal aren't always as close as some people may believe.  As coaches it's our goal not only to prepare our athletics physically for the demands of competition, but also mentally to achieve optimum performances.  Never discount the impact teammates can have on one another in competitive settings, because when a group of people all start believing amazing things can happen.

Response to: What Makes a Coach a "Good" Coach?

Two weeks ago I posted a blog about the role coaches play in college sport.  I've received a few emails (thanks for the comments!) about this entry so I decided to address them here...

1)  I'm in no way taking the tee-ball approach of "don't keep score" and "everybody's a winner".  I most certainly enjoy winning and I believe it's a part of a successful program.  However I don't think it should be the central focus.  Instead it should be a byproduct of the process.  Getting your athletes to "buy in" and believe in this process will set them up for success both during and long after their time competing.  Establishing an environment of excellence where athletes are expected to excel on and off the field creates more winners than losers.

2)  I think it's important to differentiate between a good "coach" and a good "recruiter".  Good recruiting can make a mediocre coach look great.  Similarly, poor recruiting can make good coaches go unnoticed.  In college coaching recruiting is just as important as developing talent (I'm not denying that).  Everyone has a different genetic ceiling, and it's much easier to win when you're playing with a stacked deck. 

What's More Impressive? The 4:05 High School Miler who becomes a 4:02 College Miler or the 4:30 High School Miler who becomes a 4:07 College Miler?

Coaches who are able to develop athletes and help them to reach their full potential are sometimes more impressive than coaches who have athletes on the podium at National Championships.  In track and field it's easy to think of some programs as being better than others based on Wins and Losses, but there are other factors contributing to their success (or lack thereof).  In cross country this question always comes up...How many scholarships have you invested in your distance runners?  Do you support a full track and field program (sprints/jumps/throws)?  Again, some teams have a clear competitive advantage...

I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that judging a coach purely on their competitive record can be a bit misleading.  There are good and bad coaches everywhere.  Just because a person is coaching a Division I program doesn't mean they're better at developing talent than a Division III Coach.  Teams that have had success based on how many games or titles they have won aren't necessarily coached by the best "coaches".  They could just be playing the game with a competitive advantage (better recruiting, more scholarship allocation, etc).

Oh "Title IX" you've done it again...

Just yesterday the University of Delaware announced that they'll be dropping Men's Cross Country and Outdoor Track due to Title IX incompliance.  It was bad enough when they discontinued indoor track a few years ago, but now the whole program is done.  Having lived through a situation just like this during my freshman year at James Madison it sickens me to hear that another mens track and field program has been lost...

Everyone knows administrators use Title IX as a scape goat for saving money (although in this case Delaware's entire T&F budget was only $20,000!  Less than the cost of one full scholarship for an out of state football player).  No where in the law is it even suggested that mens teams should be eliminated to become compliant.  Unfortunately this is the reality of the situation and it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon.  How do we resolve this problem?  that's a pretty good question...To be "compliant" with Title IX the number of participants in mens and womens sports should be representative of the student population on campus (percentage-wise).  With football teams usually carrying over 100 players it's very difficult to to balance out those numbers. 

THERE IS NO FEMALE EQUIVALENT TO FOOTBALL

Because of this, male athletes in other sports are suffering the harsh consequences of gender inequity.  If it's all about "equal opportunity", then why do teams that carry both men and women (i.e. track, swimming, soccer) always have larger roster space for females?  That doesn't sound like an equal opportunity to me...There are also big-time athletic programs who recruit girls on campus to join varsity teams (crew is a popular one) just to balance out the numbers.  It really baffles me when girls are recruited on campus to be "Division 1 Athletes" when they've never participated in the sport in their lives...

I'm all for giving everyone a chance, and definitely realize the positive effect that Title IX has had on women's sport in the United States.  I do however question its current application.  Title IX was written to GIVE OPPORTUNITIES, not take them away...I really wish all the women (and men) who developed and defended this law would stand up now and make it right.  Up until the passage of Title IX women's sport in this country was underrepresented and in need of a change.  It seems now that the baton is being passed onto mens Olympic sports...

Sub 2:20 Marathons From 1980-2007 (United States, Japan, Kenya)

I alluded to this a few posts ago when I mentioned the demise of American Distance Running during the 1990s.  Dr. Joe Vigil presented these tables at the Charlotte Distance Summit two weekends ago.  I think we'd all agree that our knowledge of training theory, nutrition, and equipment (shoes, breathable shorts/tops, etc) moved forward quite a bit from 1980-2007.  However for some strange reason our success at the marathon distance dropped off drastically...

First and foremost I think these graphs are a byproduct of our sedentary society.  Kids in the United States spend much of their free time indoors on the computer or watching television.  How many kids do you see walking to school on a daily basis?  Children who are physically active are healthier than children who are not, we all know that.  Children who are physically active also stand a better chance of developing into elite distance runners (and will lead healthier lives as well).  Many people don't think of walking to and from school each day as "training", but in a strange way it is.  I don't think kids should be involved with structured training and sport specialization at a young age; however simple play and physical activity is good for one's health and for developing future athletes.

Nowhere is this concept more prevalent than in Kenya.  It's much more common to see children walking (or running) to and from school each day and leading very active lifestyles.  By the time they get to their teenage years and can think about actually training for a sport they're THOUSANDS OF MILES ahead of where our young people are physically.  I can't stand coaches who claim that Africans have a genetic advantage or that living at altitude has helped make them superior athletes.  We've got a population that's over 7 times as large, and we've got kids growing up at altitude here in the United States....BUT we also have too many kids sitting on their asses playing video games.

These charts definitely depict the need for more aerobic training in this country.  Not only for overall health and wellness, but also for the early development of champion distance runners.  The 1990s were a time where many distance runners got away from training at high volumes.  They decreased their mileage and increased the number and intensity of interval workouts.  I think it's pretty clear that this strategy wasn't very successful and now coaches and athletes are again taking the mileage approach.  It may not have been the only factor, but I do think the emphasis on high mileage (and better physically prepared children) were at least partially responsible for the United States' success in the Marathon during the early 1980s.

 In 1983 there were 267 Sub-2:20 Marathon Performances in the United States.  20 years later in 2003 there were 32.  2010 Population ~307,006,550                             

The Japanese have remained fairly consistent with their number of sub 2:20 marathon performances over the past 20+ years.   2010 Population ~127,560,000

580 Sub-2:20 Performances in 2007.  Constant rise since the early 1990s.  2010 Population ~ 39,802,015

What Makes a Coach a "Good" Coach?

I’ve had this discussion with a number of people over the years and I think it’s largely dependent upon the level at which the coach is coaching.  For the purposes of this post I’m going to focus on intercollegiate coaches because I think there are a number of unique factors that come into play when evaluating success at this level. 

As a child growing up I was inspired by great coaches from movies and television shows.  Mick convincing  Rocky that he could beat Apollo Creed, the David vs. Goliath story of Coach Norman Dale leading Jimmy Chitwood and the Hickory Huskers to the State Championship, and Herb Brooks inspiring a group of young men and a nation in Miracle are just a few of my favorites.  In most of these films the coach was an incredible motivator.  I think at the root of any successful program, regardless of sport, there is a coach who has an innate ability to inspire their athletes and get them to “buy in” to his/her program.

Sometimes in college coaching this essential trait is overlooked.  Hires are made based on one’s ability to “recruit” (which sometimes involves stretching the rules), a person’s past athletic glory, as well as their connection to the program.  I realize there are fiscal incentives to put a winner on the field, and completely understand why athletic directors and other administrators often go this route when making hires.  That being said, it still bothers me when a successful athlete (but unqualified coach) is selected for a job.  There have been plenty of ex-players who have gone on to become great coaches, so I don’t want to paint everyone with the same brush here; however I don’t think one’s potential as a coach can be judged solely by their talents as an athlete.

It’s easy to judge a program based on wins and losses, but I don’t think this tells the whole story.  As a college coach is it your duty to win at all costs?  Or is it to help mold young men and women into productive members of our society? 

Nowhere in college sport is this issue more prevalent than in Men’s Basketball.  During its early years players were required to complete their four years of eligibility before being drafted in the NBA.  During the 1970s this changed and players began to forgo college and jump straight into the professional ranks.  The first of these players was former Philadelphia 76er Moses Malone who was initially drafted in the ABA.  We all remember players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, and LeBron James who decided they’d go pro after high school and have become successful in the NBA.  Everyone forgets about (or hasn't heard of) the countless other players who elected to go that route and went undrafted (and were unable to go back to college).  Since 2005 the NBA requires first year players to be at least 19 years of age and at least 1 year removed from high school.  I really don’t think this rule helped the situation any.  Now we have high level athletes going to college for 1 year on a full scholarship, then dropping out of school and entering the draft.  This is definitely the “win at all costs” mentality, and it puts people in the seats, so does it really matter what happens to these kids afterwards?  If you only have these players for a year or two how much “coaching” are you actually doing?  I guess it all depends on how we define the word…

I’ve always thought that a good coach is someone who can get the most out of their athletes.  One who provides the training and motivation for consistent improvement and also helps prepare their athletes for life after the sport.  It’s definitely more than just x’s and o’s.  Your job requires more than just writing training programs and giving motivational speeches before games and meets.  There’s definitely a “role-model” component that has become lost in contemporary sport (thanks Charles Barkley) that I think coaches should aspire to.  This doesn’t mean your athletes must follow in your footsteps, it just means that you help provide them with the tools to make their own.

Wisdom or Nonsense from LetsRun.com?

For those of you who don't know, LetsRun.com is a website devoted to anything and everything running.  It's best known for it's (world famous) message boards...Today's quote definitely has relevance to what I've been talking about over the last few posts.  Feel free to comment liberally...

Quote Of The Day

"Last year he (Galen Rupp) only averaged 80 miles a week ... That's not enough. This year we're doing 110 now and he's already feeling a lot stronger. Someday he'll be at 120 or 130. Not next year. We'll do it gradually.

- Alberto Salazar on his pupil Galen Rupp.