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).