You know the feeling you get when you think a cold is nearly over and exercise would kick it finally into the grave? I do too. But sometimes you don't get it right, like me last Thursday. Day 8 of a bad chest cold with lots of phlegm and wheezing and coughing and not much running. A 55 mile race on the horizon and no running. So I ran, thinking the cold would be kicked into submission. Not the case. My head was like an aftershock hangover on Friday and I ended up taking my asthma inhaler 15 odd times on Saturday my breathing was so bad.
Day 13 (this Tuesday) of same cold and I try again. The next day no ill effects, and in fact I feel better so I go out for a much craved for 18 miler in the rain at night. The next day (Thursday) no ill effects. Ha ha take that cold. I'll do a 35 miler this weekend by running to the train statin, getting the train to Northampton and running back to my house in Bletchley. This should get me somewhere back on track training wise after a frustrating 2 weeks off.
Oh well, time to listen to calm music (Kings of Convenience) ...
Friday, 26 February 2010
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Peak week training
Well I am peaking nicely in my periodised 4 weekly training plan. Unfortunately I am peaking in terms of the number of dry days in a week, dry days being ones without alcoholic refreshment. I haven't had a drink since last Tuesday. Over a week. I can't remember the last time that happened.
I should have been peaking mileage wise last week but caught a real beast of a chest cold off our little daughter. It has taken the whole family down. Eilidh for 10 days now, Kirstin for 8 days and me for 6 days. No running. Just a lot of phlegm, coughing and not much sleeping.
I am going to go for a 5 mile splutter filled run this evening I think to try to get my body moving again. Funny thing is, I am not even thinking of drinking. Almost JK-like in abstinence (ssh listen and you will hear the angelic chorus surrounding my very being). :-)
I should have been peaking mileage wise last week but caught a real beast of a chest cold off our little daughter. It has taken the whole family down. Eilidh for 10 days now, Kirstin for 8 days and me for 6 days. No running. Just a lot of phlegm, coughing and not much sleeping.
I am going to go for a 5 mile splutter filled run this evening I think to try to get my body moving again. Funny thing is, I am not even thinking of drinking. Almost JK-like in abstinence (ssh listen and you will hear the angelic chorus surrounding my very being). :-)
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
Huarache hokum
I am naturally fairly sceptical, and so I have followed form with regards to the claims about barefoot running, or the rise of Huarache hokum as I'll label it here in a good humoured manner. I've been particularly sceptical about:
(1) claims about how bad trainers are for you, with some book authors seeming to claim that about 80% of the running population are at any one time injured as a direct consequence of wearing trainers. Eh? Where on earth does that figure come from? This sounds very suspicious and anecdotal. What is being counted as an injury? How was the data gathered?
There appear to be 2 key review papers in the scientific literature about incidence of running injuries - Richards et al 2009 and van Mechelen (1992) (not available online - too old I guess). Note however none have found evidence of the cause of running injuries as being the use of trainers, and none have done so experimentally.
So, the evidence is not anywhere near being robust at the present time. What is clear is that the forces experienced by runners differ in where they are exerted and their magnitude, depending on footstrike (heel based as with trainers, or mid- or fore-foot based as with barefoot) - see Lieberman et al 2010. So there is the potential for there to be differences in both type of injury, and injury incidence rates between barefoot and trainer wearing running, but the difference or cause of difference is not yet established.
(2) taking the stance that it is reasonable to compare incidence of injuries between lifelong barefoot running and largely sedentary western populations
Huarache Indians I assume run from a very early age, have a lifestyle which is not dominated by sedentary activities and are therefore well adapted physically to not wearing trainers. Most westerners who run probably take up running relatively late in life (i.e. post 18) and live largely sedentary lives. They have not grown up with the motion of running and consequently have not physically adapted to the same extent.
To then think about comparing the levels of running induced injuries between the two populations just seems crazy. It wouldn't be surprising if Huarache Indians were injured less from running, but not because of running barefoot, simply because they've been doing it for most of their lives.
A more valid, and interesting comparison, would be to compare injury rates between Huarache Indians (or other lifelong barefoot runners like some Kenyans), and any population of trainer wearing runners who had been running for the same length of time (so you control for extent of physical adaptation). I suspect you'd also need to control for biomechanic characteristics to ensure that the two groups were equivalent in terms of propensities to pronate etc.
So what is my position?
It is certainly worthwhile trying to establish whether there is a link between the use of trainers and incidence, type and severity of injury in running. No argument there.
If one found that there was a link, what would be the advice? Everyone to go barefoot? I suspect this would lead to injury too, partly as folk adapt to the new style and different stresses and strains are placed on the body. I do wonder whether even after adaptation to the new style that injury rates, types and severities would be reduced if everyone now with trainers went barefoot? I have a suspicion that the distribution of biomechanical characteristics might play an important mediating role. Are all Huaraches biomechanically neutral or is the incidence of pronation the same in western and lifelong barefoot running populations? Characterising this would be important before issuing general guidance on the appropriateness of running - whether barefoot or with trainers. Having said that, review evidence would suggest that the use of long distance, pronation control trainers has no effect on injury prevention (Richards et al 2009).
As ever however I am open to good quality evidence so my intention with this post is to encourage responses which might alert me to evidence I am missing. Comment away you barefoot runners, I remain to be convinced! :-)))
(1) claims about how bad trainers are for you, with some book authors seeming to claim that about 80% of the running population are at any one time injured as a direct consequence of wearing trainers. Eh? Where on earth does that figure come from? This sounds very suspicious and anecdotal. What is being counted as an injury? How was the data gathered?
There appear to be 2 key review papers in the scientific literature about incidence of running injuries - Richards et al 2009 and van Mechelen (1992) (not available online - too old I guess). Note however none have found evidence of the cause of running injuries as being the use of trainers, and none have done so experimentally.
So, the evidence is not anywhere near being robust at the present time. What is clear is that the forces experienced by runners differ in where they are exerted and their magnitude, depending on footstrike (heel based as with trainers, or mid- or fore-foot based as with barefoot) - see Lieberman et al 2010. So there is the potential for there to be differences in both type of injury, and injury incidence rates between barefoot and trainer wearing running, but the difference or cause of difference is not yet established.
(2) taking the stance that it is reasonable to compare incidence of injuries between lifelong barefoot running and largely sedentary western populations
Huarache Indians I assume run from a very early age, have a lifestyle which is not dominated by sedentary activities and are therefore well adapted physically to not wearing trainers. Most westerners who run probably take up running relatively late in life (i.e. post 18) and live largely sedentary lives. They have not grown up with the motion of running and consequently have not physically adapted to the same extent.
To then think about comparing the levels of running induced injuries between the two populations just seems crazy. It wouldn't be surprising if Huarache Indians were injured less from running, but not because of running barefoot, simply because they've been doing it for most of their lives.
A more valid, and interesting comparison, would be to compare injury rates between Huarache Indians (or other lifelong barefoot runners like some Kenyans), and any population of trainer wearing runners who had been running for the same length of time (so you control for extent of physical adaptation). I suspect you'd also need to control for biomechanic characteristics to ensure that the two groups were equivalent in terms of propensities to pronate etc.
So what is my position?
It is certainly worthwhile trying to establish whether there is a link between the use of trainers and incidence, type and severity of injury in running. No argument there.
If one found that there was a link, what would be the advice? Everyone to go barefoot? I suspect this would lead to injury too, partly as folk adapt to the new style and different stresses and strains are placed on the body. I do wonder whether even after adaptation to the new style that injury rates, types and severities would be reduced if everyone now with trainers went barefoot? I have a suspicion that the distribution of biomechanical characteristics might play an important mediating role. Are all Huaraches biomechanically neutral or is the incidence of pronation the same in western and lifelong barefoot running populations? Characterising this would be important before issuing general guidance on the appropriateness of running - whether barefoot or with trainers. Having said that, review evidence would suggest that the use of long distance, pronation control trainers has no effect on injury prevention (Richards et al 2009).
As ever however I am open to good quality evidence so my intention with this post is to encourage responses which might alert me to evidence I am missing. Comment away you barefoot runners, I remain to be convinced! :-)))
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Funniest blog in the world er ever
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Training plans
This year is a world of difference from last year. I am actually mostly awake and cold free instead of being knackered, demotivated and sniffling. Aaah, little Eilidh is sleeping through the nights now and has a reasonably robust immune system. Hoorah. Also, like Ian Beattie, I am moving towards a booze-free mid-week with pretty good success (zero alcohol beer is a wonder - Becks Blue and Cobra Zero are the best I've tried). No booze, means fresh as a daisy in the morning. Well, almost.
Last year I didn't formulate a nice training spreadsheet, instead preferring to follow a roughly similar week on week but increasing intensity training plan from memory. It didn't work. It was too easy to drop sessions because I was knackered. This year I have a multi-coloured spreadsheet (yes geeky I know) and am following it to make sure I keep up the mileage and am progressing. My mileage isn't as long as others like JKs but I can't do anything about that due to work and family committments. I'll just have to make the quality and diversity of sessions count.
My basic weekly plan, periodised for increasing intensity and with every 4th week as an easy week, is:
Monday - speed intervals
Tuesday - hill reps or gym strength training (alternating weeks)
Wednesday - long slow run (18-20 miles)
Thursday - rest
Friday - medium trail run
Saturday - tempo run (sub 6:50 pace for 6 miles)
Sunday - rest or medium trail /road run
I am tying together my peak weeks with an ultra race to increase the distance so that I am ready for the 145 mile GUCR by the end of May. It'll be a killer mentally as the terrain will be very homogenous and essentially flat, so I need to read some material on psychological preparation. Andy Cole has posted on this subject lately but I'd appreciate any books that anyone can recommend. Thanks.
Last year I didn't formulate a nice training spreadsheet, instead preferring to follow a roughly similar week on week but increasing intensity training plan from memory. It didn't work. It was too easy to drop sessions because I was knackered. This year I have a multi-coloured spreadsheet (yes geeky I know) and am following it to make sure I keep up the mileage and am progressing. My mileage isn't as long as others like JKs but I can't do anything about that due to work and family committments. I'll just have to make the quality and diversity of sessions count.
My basic weekly plan, periodised for increasing intensity and with every 4th week as an easy week, is:
Monday - speed intervals
Tuesday - hill reps or gym strength training (alternating weeks)
Wednesday - long slow run (18-20 miles)
Thursday - rest
Friday - medium trail run
Saturday - tempo run (sub 6:50 pace for 6 miles)
Sunday - rest or medium trail /road run
I am tying together my peak weeks with an ultra race to increase the distance so that I am ready for the 145 mile GUCR by the end of May. It'll be a killer mentally as the terrain will be very homogenous and essentially flat, so I need to read some material on psychological preparation. Andy Cole has posted on this subject lately but I'd appreciate any books that anyone can recommend. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
