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.

Conflicts of Interest...

During the last two months I've had the opportunity to attend 3 conferences all involving sport science and/or coaching.  The first was USA Track and Field's Podium Education Project in Virginia Beach, Virginia.  Next I attended East Tennessee State University's 5th Annual Sport Science and Coaches College.   And this past weekend I went down to Charlotte for the National Distance Summit at Queen's University...Each of these meetings were unique, informative, and definitely worth the trip; however amongst these different groups of people I found myself on different sides of the same argument.

The attendees at the Podium Education Project and the National Distance Summit were mostly track and field coaches.  Coaches from all event groups (distance, sprints/hurdles, jumps, throws) were in Virginia Beach for the Podium Education Project, while the large majority of those in attendance for the National Distance Summit were distance coaches (go figure).  The 5th Annual Sport Science and Coaches College was well attended by coaches and scientists from Strength and Conditioning backgrounds.  At all of these symposia questions were raised about the place for resistance training in a distance runners training program.

Slowly more distance coaches are moving toward using heavy barbell training and plyometrics with their athletes.  Coach Bill Aris, from Fayetteville Manlius High School in New York, spoke about the importance of heavy barbell training for his athletes.  He's cited many of the works I've included in prior posts that speak of enhancing stretch shortening cycle function and neuromuscular recruitment.  Maintenance of bone mineral density and improving overall athleticism are pretty nice side effects as well.  While he was speaking I noticed some coaches in the room rolling their eyes when he claimed that 3 sets of 5 squats with heavy weight will not put on muscle mass and that sets of 10-15 may actually be detrimental.  This goes against the old school approach of lifting for muscle endurance with distance runners.  I would definitely say Coach Aris is on the right track with his advice and his team's results speak for themselves...In most cases I do think endurance sport coaches could benefit from incorporating more (or better designed) resistance training programs into the overall training plan for their athletes.

During the Sport Science and Coaches College a prominent Sport Scientist in this country suggested that endurance athletes should replace 1/3 of their overall training with resistance training.  This conference wasn't just a bunch of ex-football strength coaches talking about getting big.  These speakers are all very well-respected internationally for their contributions to the fields of Strength and Conditioning as well as Sport Science.  Definitely a group of intelligent people who each of us (no matter what sport we coach) could learn a lot from.  Now I must admit I'm all for resistance training with endurance athletes, but removing 1/3 of their endurance training seems crazy to me.  At the very least we're neglecting specificity.  Anyone who is familiar with distance running in this country knows that we were at an all time low during the 90s.  During this time period we moved away from the high mileage training that was prevalent during the 70s and early 80s (see successes [medals] of Bill Rodgers, Frank Shorter, etc).  Even with training and technology advances during the 90s we saw substantially fewer athletes qualify for our U.S. Trials in the Marathon when compared to the 70s and 80s.  I've spoken with a number of U.S. National and Elite coaches who would agree that our neglect for high mileage led to this demise.  During the latter part of the 90s and into the present our elite coaches have transitioned back to a more aerobic based training program and records are starting to fall again...

I know, I know it's just anecdotal evidence, BUT there seems to be a trend...

I know, I know the literature supports resistance training for endurance athletes, BUT how many of these studies have employed practical methodologies that are applicable to coaches?

I'm definitely not saying endurance athletes should never lift a weight.  I also don't think removing 1/3 of a runner's total aerobic training and replacing it with resistance training is the way to go either.  As is always the case we need to make decisions on an individual basis.  Each athlete has unique needs that probably fall somewhere on a continuum between the eye rolling anti-lifting high school coach and the over-zealous weight training sport scientist...

The Stretch Shortening Cycle (SSC) and Distance Running

A muscle can contract more rapidly when the shortening (concentric phase) is preceded by the muscle lengthening (eccentric phase).  An easy way to visualize this concept is during a vertical jump.  When jumping for maximal height athletes will use a countermovement prior to jumping.  This utilizes the SSC and increases jump height.  Try it yourself (or watch the NFL Combine)….Jumping with a countermovement allows for increased jump height when compared to a static jump (which doesn’t utilize the SSC).  Rarely in sport (or life for that matter) do we ever have purely eccentric or concentric muscle contractions.  Typically movement is characterized by a SSC which allows for increases in concentric performance through 1) The Return of Stored Elastic [Strain] Energy, 2) Utilization of the Stretch Reflex, and 3) Cross Bridge Potentiation.  This model is very applicable to long distance running with each stride utilizing a small SSC.  Plyometric Training (which exaggerates the SSC) is a great way to improve distance running performance.

The spring-mass model has been used to explain variations in Running Economy (RE) and Mechanical Efficiency (ME), and describes each running stride being counteracted by a spring behavior in the support leg.  During the eccentric phase of ground contact, mechanical energy is stored in the muscles, tendons, and ligaments of the support leg.  Stiffness of the muscle-tendon unit (MTU) can help to ensure that a maximal amount of that energy is returned into the ground during the subsequent stride.  It is possible that this stored energy can reduce muscle activation and spare energy while running (allowing us to run farther/faster).  Gajdosik and Riggin [19] found that trained distance runners had greater passive resistance of their calf MTU when compared to untrained subjects.  This lack of flexibility, they hypothesize, contributes to positive gains in running economy through a more efficient transfer of energy.  Other studies have found that during the eccentric phase of the SSC the calf MTU stores active stiffness which increases concentric torque during plantar flexion [20, 21].  Kryolainen et al. [22] also determined that increased stiffness of the calf MTU contributed to improvements in RE and ME.  Resistance training has been found to improve stiffness of the MTU and may lead to performance improvements in distance runners [6].

          
During SSC exercise the muscle preactivates and shortens prior to ground contact in order to prepare for footstrike [23].  The muscle is at its shortest length during the eccentric phase of the movement and gradually lengthens as it moves through the amortization and concentric phases.  In contrast, the tendon lengthens as it moves through the eccentric phase and begins to shorten as the concentric phase begins [24]  Stored elastic energy that is utilized in SSC movements is stored mostly in tendons during the eccentric phase and returned during the concentric phase [23-26]  This characteristic of the SSC allows for preservation of ATP through usage of stored elastic energy (which allows for faster sustained running)…

         
Designing training programs that enhance the SSC should be of interest to coaches, scientists, and athletes.  If a runner can conserve metabolic energy by utilizing mechanical energy through the SSC he/she should be able to run faster (which is the ultimate goal, isn’t it?)…. I think sometimes as distance running coaches we overemphasize capacity and undervalue efficiency.  Simple jumping drills as a part of a dynamic warm-up are an easy way to address this need...

6.         Paavolainen, L., et al., Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol, 1999. 86(5): p. 1527-1533.

19.       Gajdosik, R.L. and T.J. Riggin, Passive elastic properties of the calf muscle-tendon unit of distance runners. Isokinetics & Exercise Science, 2005. 13(3): p. 207-216.

20.       Kurokawa, S., et al., Interaction between fascicles and tendinous structures during counter movement jumping investigated in vivo. J Appl Physiol, 2003. 95(6): p. 2306-2314.

21.       Svantesson, U., et al., Use of a Kin-Com dynamometer to study the stretch-shortening cycle during plantar flexion. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol, 1991. 62(6): p. 415-9.

22.       Kyrolainen, H., et al., Interrelationships between Muscle Structure, Muscle Strength, and Running Economy. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 2003. 35(1): p. 45-49.

23.       Kubo, K., Y. Kawakami, and T. Fukunaga, Influence of elastic properties of tendon structures on jump performance in humans. J Appl Physiol, 1999. 87(6): p. 2090-6.

24.       Kubo, K., et al., Measurement of viscoelastic properties of tendon structures in vivo. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 2002. 12(1): p. 3-8.

25.       Ito, M., et al., Nonisometric behavior of fascicles during isometric contractions of a human muscle. J Appl Physiol, 1998. 85(4): p. 1230-5.

26.       Muraoka, T., et al., Muscle fiber and tendon length changes in the human vastus lateralis during slow pedaling. J Appl Physiol, 2001. 91(5): p. 2035-40.

Running Biomechanics: Rationalization for Incorporation of a Traditional Resistance Training Program for Distance Runners?

This is an excerpt from the introduction of a literature review that I’m working on for my thesis.  I’ll try to address many of these concepts in further detail in subsequent posts.  Feel free to post questions or suggestions…

Improvements in distance running performance have traditionally been attributed to the development of the aerobic system, hence coaches focus their athlete’s training on enhancing cardiovascular and muscular endurance.  In a recent review, maximal oxygen uptake (VO₂Max), Lactate Threshold (LT), and Running Economy (RE) were identified as the three main determinants of long distance running performance [1].  Developing training programs that address these physiological traits are of interest to coaches, athletes, and scientists alike.  Resistance training, defined as any intervention designed to enhance muscular strength, power, endurance, and/or promote neural adaptations, appears to positively impact VO₂Max, LT, and RE in untrained subjects [2].  However, in trained distance runners, the aerobic demand of resistance training may not be sufficient enough to elicit positive gains in VO₂Max or LT [3-6].  Resistance training has been found to improve RE in trained distance runners [6-9], but the underlying mechanisms supporting this change remain unclear.

Running Economy (RE) refers to the energy demand per unit of body weight for a given velocity of sub-maximal running intensity, and is calculated by measuring the steady-state consumption of oxygen (VO₂) and the respiratory exchange ratio.  Research suggests that RE may be a more reliable indicator of distance running ability and performance in elite and sub-elite runners with similar VO₂Max values [10, 11].  Mechanical efficiency (ME) is defined as the ratio between mechanical work and energy expenditure and may also contribute to improved distance running performance [12].  Both of these factors are believed to be improved through resistance training [2].  Although competitive long distance running requires a high aerobic capacity, other physiological and biomechanical factors such as RE and ME may contribute to performance differences separating recreational and elite athletes [13].

Distance running involves the distribution of muscular forces through intricate movement patterns in the body.  In elite athletes this interplay of factors occurs with precise synchronization to ensure efficient locomotion.  Aerobic capacity alone is not a sufficient criterion in separating good and elite distance runners [14].  One’s ability to conserve energy and utilize oxygen efficiently may explain this variance.  Factors affecting running mechanics include the stretch shortening cycle (SSC), running kinetics and kinematics, neuromuscular characteristics, as well as anthropometry.  Improving running mechanics to create a more efficient athlete clearly has performance enhancing implications and should be of interest to coaches, athletes, and scientists.   RE and ME, which can be enhanced through resistance training, may be an indicator of these running capabilities and thus necessitates further investigation for its incorporation into elite runners training programs.

1.         Midgley, A.W., L.R. McNaughton, and A.M. Jones, Training to Enhance the Physiological Determinants of Long-Distance Running Performance. Sports Medicine, 2007. 37(10): p. 857-880.

2.         Jung, A.P., The impact of resistance training on distance running performance. Sports Med, 2003. 33(7): p. 539-52.

3.         Hickson, R.C., et al., Potential for strength and endurance training to amplify endurance performance (Pouvoir de l' entrainement de force et d' endurance d' ameliorer la performance d' endurance ). Journal of Applied Physiology, 1988. 65(5): p. 2285-2290.

4.         Hickson, R.C., M.A. Rosenkoetter, and M.M. Brown, Strength training effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance. / Les effets de la musculation sur la puissance aerobie et l' endurance a court terme. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1980. 12(5): p. 336-339.

5.         Johnston, R.E., et al., Strength training female distance runners: impact on running economy. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 1997. 11(4): p. 224-229.

6.         Paavolainen, L., et al., Explosive-strength training improves 5-km running time by improving running economy and muscle power. J Appl Physiol, 1999. 86(5): p. 1527-1533.

7.         Millet, G.P., et al., Effects of concurrent endurance and strength training on running economy and .VO(2) kinetics. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2002. 34(8): p. 1351-9.

8.         Spurrs, R.W., A.J. Murphy, and M.L. Watsford, The effect of plyometric training on distance running performance. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2003. 89(1): p. 1-7.

9.         Turner, A.M., M. Owings, and J.A. Schwane, Improvement in running economy after 6 weeks of plyometric training. J Strength Cond Res, 2003. 17(1): p. 60-7.

10.       Costill, D.L., H. Thomason, and E. Roberts, Fractional utilization of the aerobic capacity during distance running. Medicine & Science in Sports, 1973. 5(4): p. 248-252.

11.       Morgan, D.W., P.E. Martin, and G.S. Krahenbuhl, Factors affecting running economy. Sports Medicine, 1989. 7(5): p. 310-330.

12.       Kyrolainen, H. and P.V. Komi, Differences in mechanical efficiency between power- and endurance-trained athletes while jumping. European Journal of Applied Physiology & Occupational Physiology, 1995. 70(1): p. 36-44.

13.       Conley, D.L. and G.S. Krahenbuhl, Running economy and distance running performance of highly trained athletes. / Economie de course et performance en course de fond d ' athletes tres bien entraines. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 1980. 12(5): p. 357-360.

14.       Foster, C. and A. Lucia, Running Economy. Sports Medicine, 2007. 37(4/5): p. 316-319.