*** Relay For Life ***

Last year the first annual Fairport Relay for Life had over
600 participants who raised over $80,000.00 for the American Cancer Society’s life saving mission!
The event was recognized as the top new event in the Eastern Division !!! GO FAIRPORT!!!

This year we are hoping to make it even bigger and better!!
The 2010 Relay for Life committee has set a goal of:
100 Teams
100 Survivors
and…
$100,000.00!!!!!!

WWW.RELAYFORLIFE.ORG/FAIRPORTNY

Wednesday, March 3^rd is the official

KICKOFF to RELAY FOR LIFE 2010 at the Green Lantern Inn in Fairport.

Drop in between 6:00-9:00 pm to find out what Relay For Life  is all about,
Register your team, Join a team or just get more information about the event even if you are already registered.

A great time to decorate your LUMINARIA to honor a loved one or make a donation if you can’t participate.

REFRESHMENTS will be provided by the Green Lantern and there will be musical entertainment.
Come to see the newly renovated Parlor Rooms at the Green Lantern.

Running Economy – Running Style

CURRENT RESEARCH SHOWS…THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO IMPROVE RUNNING PERFORMANCE

The first, running efficiency, looks at the structure of the body and things like biomechanical efficiency of running technique, stride length and frequency [SR], and breathing rate, among others.  Running efficiency is about improving running technique to gain higher mechanical force and power output for the same unit of energy.  Running efficiency was covered in part I (December issue, 24-10) of this two part series on running with style.

The second major way to improve running performance is running economy. Running economy is the energy required to run at a given velocity.  It’s measured as the amount of oxygen consumed per unit time or per unit distance.  A well-designed study by Morgan and Craib (1992) found a clear relationship between elite runners and faster times due to superior economy.  Other studies confirmed that oxygen consumption at a given running speed is less for world-class middle distance runners than for less successful middle distance runners (Margaria et al. 1963, Dill 1965, Kollias et al. 1967, Daniels and Oldridge 1971).

A runner with good running economy uses less oxygen to run at the same given pace as a less economical runner, enabling him to run longer and faster.  He can race at a faster pace (i.e. exerting greater force) while processing the same amount of oxygen than a less economical runner, which will ultimately win him the race.  As Dr. Jack Daniels puts it in his book, Daniel’s Running Formula, “Improved economy is a highly desirable result of training because the runner can now race at a faster speed than before without using more energy to do so”. Running economy and efficiency are closely intertwined.  Biomechanical efficiency contributes a major part to running economy because efficient movement consumes less oxygen at a given running speed.

The Contribution of VO2 Max to Running Economy

If we look at the effect of VO2 max on running efficiency and economy and vice versa, we get a better idea of their interrelationship.  A runner with a low VO2 max and good running efficiency will probably perform as well as one with a high VO2 max and poor running efficiency, all other things being equal.  Thus high VO2 max plays a key role in running economy.  For example, Dr. David Costill, in his book Inside Running: Basics of Sports Physiology, describes two runners, with VO2 max values of 60 ml/kg/min (Runner A) and 70 ml/kg/min (Runner B), who are asked to run at a six minute mile pace.  Both runners would consume about 50 mls of oxygen per minute for each kilogram of body weight.  But because of the difference in their aerobic capacities (60 vs. 70 ml/kg/min) the demands placed on their cardiovascular systems would be markedly different.  Runner A would be working at 83% of his VO2 max, whereas runner B would only operate at 71% of his aerobic capacity.  Runner B could sustain that pace for a longer period and feel less distress than runner A.  This fractional use of aerobic capacity is an important indicator of running economy.

Ultimately, high VO2 max levels enable runners to use lower percentages of those levels to meet the aerobic energy demands of distance competition and avoid heavily taxing their oxygen transport systems.  Thus a high VO2 max is of critical importance.  Sadly, VO2 max levels are heavily (80%) genetically determined, so the less-gifted runner in this department has to look elsewhere to improve running performance—running efficiency.

What Does Research tell us about Running Economy?

The question that must be asked here is, how can we improve our running economy? Let’s look at what the scientific literature tells us about this topic.

More Training Miles = Better Running Economy

There is a trend among runners who train and race over longer distances towards a higher level of running economy, according to some research. Various studies (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) of trained middle distance and marathon runners show that marathoners are more efficient than the middle distance runners by 5% to 10% at a given pace, for example.

This has even been found with sub-elite runners (11, 12, 13). In general, runners who’ve been training for long periods of time (such as marathoners) are shown to have higher economy of running. This is due partly to reductions in pulmonary ventilation during sub-maximal exercise.

Muscle Fiber Typing and Running Economy

Muscle structure and composition clearly play a major role in running economy. Specifically, the higher the percentage of slow twitch muscle fibers a runner possesses, the more economical his running (14). Scientists’ eyebrows were raised from this study when marathon training was found to increase absolute power output by 50%, something that is not supposed to happen to slow twitch muscle. Clearly then, training significantly changes the muscle’s ability to contract and produce power.

The idea that endurance athletes who have trained longer become more efficient and more economical over time is illustrated by data (15) on Lance Armstrong, 6 times Tour de France champion. His muscular efficiency (and thus power production) improved 8% between ages 21 and 28. It’s believed his 3-6 hours of intense daily training stimulated changes in his muscle myosin type, perhaps from Type IIb muscle fibers to IIa. However, it should also be noted that Armstrong dropped 15lbs between 1992 and his first Tour de France victory, resulting in decreased resistance while riding and a 10% increase in power output, a result that almost surely catapulted him from an average rider to the best of the best.

Cycling studies (16) also give an interesting insight into how important muscle fiber type is to the economy of endurance athletes. It was discovered that the most economical cyclists have a high percentage of slow twitch (type I) muscle fibers in their vastus lateralis muscle. We would certainly expect this to be the same with runners because of the similarity of motion and endurance nature of both sports.

Respiration Muscles and Running Economy

Training is largely concerned with decreasing the energy and oxygen costs of the breathing muscles; the diaphragm, intercostals and abdominals. These muscles can account for 11% of total oxygen consumed during heavy exercise and up to 15% of cardiac output. Training also increases the glycogen stores in the respiratory muscles, providing energy for longer running efforts.

What other training factors might contribute to improved running economy? Apart from an efficient running technique, improved pulmonary ventilation, an abundance of type I muscle fibers, and running for many years, there appear to be three other promising factors: interval training, strength training and stretching—and their effects are surprising.

Interval Training and Running Economy

The effect of high-intensity interval training on running economy has been examined (17) with promising results. Various studies of interval training at intensities ranging from 93% to 106% of VO2 max are linked to improvement in running economy. Likewise, a French study (18) found that four weeks of interval training at 100% of VO2 max increased running economy 6%.

The Effects of Strength Training on Running Economy

Exercise scientists have long suspected that strength training improves running economy by improving core body stability during the running action. Thus less energy would be required to correct inappropriate movements such as erratic side-to-side trunk sway. Strength training also enables runners to sustain a given pace with lower energy cost.

A study (19) at the University of Illinois took nine men, non-runners, through a 10-week leg-strengthening program of squats, knee flexion, knee extension, leg press, calf raises, and dead lifts. There was no running or cycling in the training program. As one would expect leg strength increased dramatically by 38% to 50% depending on the leg exercise.

The participants’ oxygen consumption changed only slightly (4% for cycling, 0% for running) yet their cycling times to exhaustion increased from 278 seconds to 407 seconds (47% improvement) and running from 291 seconds to 325 (12% improvement).

Since lactate tolerance was not improved in the subjects, the only factor remaining to account for these dramatic improvements was economy. Since the leg muscles were much stronger, fewer leg muscle cells were required to pedal at the submax VO2 intensity, saving energy and enhancing economy.

A follow-up study (20) by Hickson, this time using runners and cyclist, found similar results. Cycling time increased from 71 to 85 minutes (20%) and 10K times improved from 42:27 to 41:43 (2% improvement). Although the running improvement was not statistically significant, the researchers were still able to conclude that strength training can boost performances of runners, notably running economy.

A Finnish study (21) found that a 9-week combined explosive-strength and endurance training resulted in lower 5K times by 3% and improved running economy by a staggering 8.1%. The researchers of this study attributed the improvements to improved neuromuscular benefits.

A nicely designed study (22) on female distance runners had them perform weight training for 10 weeks in addition to their standard running programs.

Their pulse rate dropped from 187 beats/minute to 183 beats/minute while running at 6:30 mile pace. This translates into being able to run at a 6:17 mile pace at the same effort as the previous 6:30 pace. Thus can be extrapolated to an improvement of 80 seconds over a 10K. And in fact, all the weight-training women who raced after this study reported improvements in race times from the 5K to the half marathon.

To help hone in on what type of strength training is most effective to improve running economy, researchers in Brazil (23) had two groups of well-trained runners do heavy weight training or explosive training for 4 weeks. The heavy weight-training group improved running economy but not the explosive training group.

Plyometrics and Running Economy

Even plyometrics have been shown to improve running economy, according to an Australian study (24) by Spurrs et al. A six-week program of explosive drills (with a total of 15 workouts) improved running economy from 4% to 7% and reduced 3K running times by almost 3%.

Hill Training and Running Economy

A Swedish study (25) involved 11 marathon runners who added a different kind of strength training, hill workouts, to their training for 12 weeks. They improved their running economy by 3%, equating to a significant decrease in racing times from the 5K up. The uphill running enabled the leg musculature to contract with greater force, thus improving efficiency and economy.

Tapering and Running Economy

And lest we forget the importance of the tapering period before major races, one study (26) stands as a great reminder.When training was reduced over 7 days, but included a with a high-intensity interval workout of 400meters, 5K times dropped by 3% and running economy by 6% in a group of well-trained endurance runners.

How Does Strength Training Improve Running Economy?

The evidence in favor of strength and explosive training improving running economy is overwhelming. How then, could strength training improve running economy?  Here are four plausible theories.

1. Improved Core Stability

It’s feasible that the strength trained runner’s more stable body causes a decrease in unnecessary motion while running, thus requiring less oxygen.

2. Increased Tensile Strength of Muscle Tissue

The increased tensile strength of muscle tissue in runners’ leg muscles enables fewer muscle fibers to be activated during running, lowering the oxygen demand of the legs.

3. Increased Storage and Release of Elastic Energy

Closely related to (2) is the idea that increased strength of muscle and tendon tissue enables it to store more elastic energy, producing a faster rebound (or energy recoil) off the ground with every foot strike, in turn causing faster running.

4. Improved Neuromuscular Coordination

An equally plausible theory is that strength training improves muscular coordination via the nervous system, allowing more efficient forward movement for each energy unit expended.

The Effects of Flexibility on Running Economy

Several recent studies show that increased flexibility is correlated with decreased running economy. That’s right—the less flexible a runner, the better his running economy! The studies suggest that runners with tight and limited flexibility in the trunk have the best running economy at every test speed.

A study (27) at Nebraska Wesleyan University found exactly this: less flexible runners tend to be more economical, while identical results were found in another study (28) at the University of North Carolina—runners with less flexibility in hips and trunk demonstrated more economy.

Yet another study (29) by Jones at Manchester Metropolitan University, England, found identical results. Likewise another study (30) at the University of Lethbridge, England, found that a group of stretching runners failed to improve their running economy.

Other studies (30) conclude that inflexibility of the Achilles tendon and calf muscle complex results in a greater relative stretch of tight muscles and tendons, storing more elastic energy for the recoil phase. This reduces the work of the muscles. Physiology studies show that the elastic recoil of muscle and tendons contributes 25% to 40% of the energy necessary for movement in maximally stretched muscle, so the “elastic energy recoil” theory would seem to have some merit.

The perturbing results of the anti-stretching papers all fly in the face of what stretching evangelists have been preaching since the beginning of the running boom. Do your stretching, they’ve said, or you’ll get injured and won’t run as fast. But perhaps tight muscles reduce energy expenditure by enhancing the elastic energy storage and return in muscles and tendons. More than a few researchers now believe that tight leg, hips, and trunk musculature may increase the storage and return of muscle energy, providing greater and faster bounce off the running surface while minimizing the need for muscle stabilizing activity of the core.

How Do we Improve Running Economy?

All this information leaves us questioning the necessity of stretching and the opposite with heavy or explosive strength training. The inclusion of stretching and exclusion of resistance training have been sacred beliefs in the temple of running since the beginning of running time. To preach the opposite would still be considered heresy in some circles.

Where do I stand on these issues? Perhaps it’s time we cut back on the stretching and boosted the strength training a bit more. Fortunately, other training icons of the running world such as interval training, tapering and the superior efficiency of marathoners still stand fast against the onslaught of research by the bright young minds in universities around the world.

But don’t be surprised when more of what we hold to be solid and true in running lore is challenged and left in the dust.

Very best regards,

Teressa

Stuck in a (running) rut? Change!

Dear Dr. Donahue:

I need help. I’ve been training hard for more than a year. At first, I made big gains quickly. For the past three months, I’ve been stuck in one place. I am not improving. I think I might even been losing some ground. What’s gone wrong, and how can I get out of this rut?

Answer:
Every exerciser [and runner] reaches a plateau where it seems all progress stops.

Don’t feel that you are stuck there forever.

In the early stages of training, progress is rapid. That’s because muscles and brain are working together. The brain recruits muscle fibers that were previously unused. Bringing those fibers into action speeds progress. You’re not actually building muscle size. That takes time. Furthermore, the body learns how to do things more efficiently, another spur to progress. Don’t compare the early days of exercise with the later days. In the later days, you are actually building muscle strength and size.

• If you are regressing, take a break.
• Regression indicates that you’re overdoing and you need a rest.
• If you’re not losing ground but not gaining ground, then you make some changes in your program.
• You’re spending too much time doing the same exercises in the same way.
• You have to challenge your body with a new routine.
• If you don’t know how to go about this, visit your local library.
• You’ll find many books on exercise techniques that will help you develop a whole new program.
• Change the sequence of your exercises.
• If you’ve been exercising your lower body first, put those exercises toward the end of your sessions.
• Change the speed of your exercises.
• Change the number of repetitions.
• Change the amount of weight you lift.
• Change the rest time between exercises.

By “change,” I mean either increase or decrease what you’re doing.

Comment:
This article appeared in the newspaper recently, and what caught my attention was the similarity that exists between one type of exercise and another—running in this case—no difference really when you actually think about the physiological processes involved with adaptation, improvement and reassessment.

I believe if an athlete keeps a daily running log, the assessment can be methodically evaluated, and a plan or approach can be efficiently put in place. In any event, if the athlete is training for a consistent period of time, say for five to six weeks, a fairly rapid rise in the training effect, fitness, can be had. Depending on the stress load–how much running, what kind of intervals, Repeats, Tempo, rest intervals, illness, work or school deadlines, or even races–the athlete is under, that improvement often times is incremental or at least a plateau-effect might be taking place. Also, you may be impatient, expecting too much too soon.

If any of those stress loads can be altered, the progress can be upward again. Ergo, it is important to have a tool [running log] to evaluate what you are doing and how you are doing it so your progress or lack thereof, can be scientifically examined.

A couple of devices are usually in place to evaluate progress—and they may be hit or miss at best. Often times, athletes will judge how “easy” a workout is and say, “I am improving because I did this workout earlier, and now it seems easier than before.” The problem with this kind of “evaluation” is that other factors can and often are interfering with the results. For instance, the weather– humidity, heat, cold, wind, even elevation–or training partners can make all the difference. What now seems easier, or harder, could really be the difference in circumstance. One time in cross country, our runners felt they really improved significantly in one week’s time because their 5K times on the same course were so much better from one week to the next. On the whole the team improved 12 seconds, but in reality, the only difference was that the grass was much shorter the 2nd time on the course!

The other “evaluation technique” used is race-time improvement, but that too is misleading. It might be the circumstances are different, maybe more competition, the track itself, the weather, what was done in the days preceding the “race,” illness, or injury. All kinds of circumstances may interfere with a precise evaluation of progress. In the end, it comes back to the log, and for this reason, keeping a daily log is an athletes’ best friend. Remember that the next time you are wondering why you are not improving, or in the circumstance you ran the race of your life, you immediately begin thinking, “how can I repeat this effort?” Your log will give you all the answers, and that only depends on what you wrote, how detailed you were, and whether you go back and read it again.

Running barefoot

~ reprint from CNN.com
Terry Chiplin didn’t need a Harvard study to tell him what he’s known for years.

“Barefoot running, for me, is a lot less painful than wearing running shoes,” said the 55-year-old Brit, who competed in high school in thin-soled leather shoes and would run shoeless whenever he could.

After taking a break in early adulthood from the sport, Chiplin returned to it by buying a fancy pair of running shoes.
“I’d come home with blisters, my feet killing me,” he said. “So one day, I just said to myself, ‘Who cares what anybody thinks? I’m putting sole to earth.’ ”

Chiplin now teaches running and outdoor fitness in Estes Park, Colorado, and does it shoeless as often as possible. He’s among many runners on blogs and list-servs who’ve been debating new studies about the most efficient running form. Should you go barefoot ? Land heel-first or on the balls of your feet? Are those fancy shoes hurting more than helping you?

The study stirring the most buzz was led by Harvard evolutionary biologist Dr. Daniel Lieberman. It’s the first to compare how much impact the body takes when a runner is wearing shoes or is barefoot. Using high-speed video, the study revealed barefoot runners strike with their forefoot and suffer less jarring to their bodies. When you’re barefoot, you’re going to land with the portion of your foot that is most springy. And think of the barefoot run as a game of hot potato — if you know you have rocks and glass on that surface, you’re going to move more carefully and pick your feet up quicker.

Shoe wearers strike with their heel and deliver a shock to their overall body that is two to three times their body weight. Lieberman’s test subjects were Kenyan runners who had spent their lives running barefoot and the Harvard track team, which runs in shoes.

“Runners are responding because they are always interested in the latest science of their sport, and they have a personal reaction to being told that they’re shoes are going to be taken away,” said D. Leif Rustvold, a Portland, Oregon, runner with a masters in anthropological biology who works for a health care provider. Though he switched to barefooting a few years ago and saw an improvement in his efficiency, he predicts barefooting will remain a practice of a minority.

“Runners are concerned first about injuries, and barefoot running can seem, at first, like it’s going to lead to injury,” he said. “Besides, we’ve been wearing shoes for years. No one is going to roll that back.” The other study, focusing on walking form, comes from University of Utah biology professor David Carrier. Carrier is well-known among distance runners for trying to run down a herd of antelope a few years ago to prove that humans were built to run great distances, their survival dependent on their ability to persistence hunt. He found that while humans have evolved to run great distances, we’ve also evolved to become more efficient walkers than our ape ancestors by doing the very thing Lieberman’s study warns again — landing heel first. His test subjects were volunteers who were triathletes, runners and soccer players.

Most mammals — dogs, cats, raccoons — walk and run around on the balls of their feet, the study says, Few species land on their heel: bears, humans and great apes — chimps, gorillas, orangutans. ”Our study shows that the heel-down posture increases the economy of walking but not the economy of running,” says Carrier. “You consume more energy when you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes than when you walk heels first.”

So, run on your forefeet and walk on your heels? ”It can be complicated, but I don’t think what Lieberman concluded and what our study found conflicts at all with each other,” Carrier told CNN. “If anything it shows how complex our feet are, and how much we’re learning about the mechanics of movement.” Lieberman said his study is not meant to be an argument for barefoot running.
“I’m afraid people have misunderstood me,” he said. “I’m not in the business of telling people what to do, what shoes to wear or whether to wear shoes at all.”

Amanda Musacchio, 35, of Wheaton, Illinois, is a member of one of the biggest running list-servs in the country. She and many other runners have interpreted the story as a round-about way to cheer barefoot running. Musacchio wore thin-soled shoes when she was a sprinter in high school without injury. But when she started running longer distances in adulthood, she thought wearing a heavy-cushioned shoe would help. Instead, she racked up injuries. So she went bare again. ”I started barefoot running five minutes at a time,” she said. “I feel almost as good now as when I did 20 years ago when I was a sprinter. My feet seem to remember how to land properly, on my forefoot, and that improved form has changed my running tremendously.”

Among the skeptics is self-described “proud shoe wearer” runner Spurgeon Hendrick, who regularly hits the trails outside Atlanta, Georgia, for long runs. He points out that Lieberman’s study was partly sponsored by Vibram USA, information that is clearly disclosed on every page. The company makes Vibram 5 Fingers, a thin latex shoe with individual toes that mimics barefoot running. The shoe has sold like hot cakes this past year after they and Lieberman’s work were featured in the 2009 best-selling book “Born to Run.” ”I couldn’t run barefooted, or in Vibrams, even if I wanted to,” Hendrick said. “I stub my toes on roots and rocks too much, and at my age, I don’t have time to wait on a broken toe to heal.” Lieberman is adamant that Vibram sponsorship had nothing to do with the outcome of the study, which was also funded by the American School of Prehistoric Research, the Goelet Fund and Harvard University. But many runners are saying that apart from the nitpicking about whether the studies are on the money is one basic lesson: Be more aware of your unique movement. ”I think it’s very hard, if not impossible, to change body mechanics,” said Dr. Perry Julien, a podiatrist who has treated Olympic runners and serves as the co-medical director of the world’s biggest 10K, the Atlanta’s Peachtree Road Race. “And people who try, or try too quickly and without care, are going to wind up in my office.”

If you’re a walker, being more conscious of how your feet hit the ground may make you more efficient. If you’re a 200-pound guy who hits the treadmill a couple times a week, barefoot running might not be worth the work necessary to build up the calf and Achilles strength to prevent injury, he said. Stress fractures, tendonitis or plantar fasciitis, a hard-to-heel tissue inflammation that feels like needles driven into your foot, are likely to result for runners who dash out the gate barefoot without gradually working up to it. The podiatrist pointed out that there are many examples of people who heel strike without problems, most famously Joan Benoit. Benoit won the first women’s Olympics in 1984, the same era of record breaking sprinter South African Zola Budd, who ran barefoot.