This new research suggests that sometimes the most important thing is what you DON'T do
Scientific research which evaluates the merits of different types of training for distance runners comes along about as often as sub-2:08 marathons, so when a high-quality, practical new training study is published in a scientific journal, we at PP grab it, read it, read it again, digest it and rush out an interpretative summary.
Such is the case with a new study carried out by Drs. Will Hopkins and D. J. Hewson from the Department of Physiology and School of Physical Education at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. Hopkins and Hewson are accomplished, experienced researchers with a keen interest in how certain types of training change performances, not just physiological variables. In their new investigation, they've taken a look at the link between specificity of training and the performance of distance runners.
Hopkins and Hewson began their study by contacting every distance-running coach in New Zealand. The coaches received six-month retrospective questionnaires about training, which they forwarded to their runners. Completed questionnaires were returned by 119 female and 234 male runners who specialised in events ranging from 800 metres up to the marathon.
The runners were a fairly diverse but accomplished lot. About 43 per cent of them were junior runners, 38 per cent were open athletes, and 19 per cent were veterans (masters). The runners had been competing for an average of 7.5 years, and their best performances averaged about 82 per cent of world-record pace.
Over the course of the six-month season, the runners recorded their average weekly training distance and paces for four phases of training - build-up, pre-competition or peaking, competition, and post-competition. For each phase, the athletes were required to write down running velocities and distances during their four basic training activities - intervals, strength work (which included bouncing, steps, dunes, springing, towing, and weights), hard-continuous running (tempo efforts, time trials, and races), and moderate and easy running (all other training).
A percentage of 3000m PBs
An extremely important aspect of the study was that absolute training paces for each runner (say, 250 metres per minute) were converted to relative training paces by expressing them as a percentage of the runner's personal best pace in 3000-metre races.
For example, if an athlete could run 3000 metres in 9 minutes (333 metres per minute), then a training run at 250 metres per minute was not tallied at that absolute pace but at 250/333 = 75 per cent of personal-best pace. Similarly, intervals carried out at 400 metres per minute were expressed as 400/333 = 120 per cent of best 3-K speed.
While those computations may seem a bit esoteric, they represent a clever way to get around one of the key problems associated with descriptive training research. That is, lots of training studies have shown that total mileage doesn't have much impact on race performances. In other words, athletes who run 50 miles per week don't run faster races than individuals who average 40 weekly miles, or some other number. What these same studies usually show is that faster training paces, not higher mileages, lead to faster race results.
Many people look at such studies and say, 'Aha! This proves that higher training intensity is the key to great racing'. The problem, of course, is that better runners tend to train faster than mediocre runners, and the higher average training paces may simply reflect differences in basic running ability, rather than an overwhelming influence on race performances.
To look at it another way, one runner may run at six minutes per mile during training while another moves along at seven minutes per mile, yet each may be at 80 per cent of aerobic capacity. It would be wrong to say that the first runner's faster 10-K time was due to higher-quality training, since each trained at 80% VO2max.
Hopkins' and Hewson's neat strategy of recording training paces as a percentage of 3-K velocity allowed them to determine how hard each runner was working, relative to his/her own ability. Thus, they could accurately rank runners by intensity of training.
The findings
Some of the New Zealanders' results were not too surprising. For example, Hopkins and Hewson found that runners specialising in longer distances did more moderate running than shorter-distance people. That's nothing earth-shaking, since most long-distance harriers attempt to build up their endurance by completing lengthy runs at speeds that are often pretty moderate.
However, there were also some really valuable results. A key finding was that athletes performing at shorter distances did better than runners racing at longer distances such as the half-marathon and marathon ('doing better' was defined as running a race at a higher percentage of sex- and age-group world-record pace). The intriguing thing was that athletes specialising in shorter distances completed their moderate workouts at a slower relative pace, compared to runners competing at longer distances.
Huh? Shouldn't the faster, shorter-distance runners be able to complete their workouts at higher velocities, compared to the slow marathon types? And doesn't this defy the specificity-of-training principle, which says that to get faster you must train fast?
With regard to the latter question, the answer is a definite 'no'. The shorter-distance (3000-, 5000-, and 10,000-metre) runners were still carrying out their quality workouts at higher tempos than the real-long-distance athletes. It's just that they slowed way down during their easy workouts, while the long-distance runners tried to sustain a more hectic pace. And, as mentioned, the short-distance runners fared much better than the marathoners during competitions.
Resolving the anomaly
You see, there's something called recovery which is a crucial part of training. You have to balance hard work and recovery to reach your potential as an athlete. It's hard to recover well between hard workouts if your 'easy' training sessions are also pretty hard.
The bottom line in the New Zealand research is that the marathoners made their easy workouts fairly hard and the short-distance people made their easy workouts easy, and the short-distance ones ended up in better shape on competition day. Or, as Hopkins puts it, 'Volume of moderate running isn't so important for medium-distance runners, compared to marathoners, but doing moderate workouts slowly is very important.'
So what's the bottom line for you? If you want to run your best possible races, you must learn to match the physiological demands of your training with the physiological demands of your race in some of your weekly workouts. The actual quantity of this matching is something you'll have to work out with your own body; the more you can do without overtraining, overfatiguing, over-glycogen-depleting, or injuring yourself, the better off you'll be. During your other sessions, though, you should forget about specificity for the most part and focus on workouts which allow you to recover properly and get ready for your subsequent tough stuff.
Jim Bledsoe