Thank the running heavens for the blessings of sports science and technology to enable the best distance runners to truly max out their great ability. Otherwise, we’d be stuck back in the dark ploddy days of the 1980s when the best that a British male – or pretty much anyone else, from anywhere at sea level – could muster over 5000m metres was 13.00.41 (1982 – imagine that, 13 flat for 5000 being seen as a great benchmark!), 27.23 at 10,000 (1988) or a clanky 2.07.13 marathon (1985).

Hey; hold on a minute; aren’t those times pretty tasty, around 35 years later? Where does this fit with all the reams of academic papers, books and now digital information on what we usually call ‘cutting edge’ or ‘state of the art’ advances?

Cast your eye down the IAAF All Time lists, and look away from the many altitude reared athletes who have sensibly and lucratively turned their tremendous natural and environmental advantages to long distance running. You’ll notice that the numbers of sea level runners, from the whole planet, over 4 decades, who have surpassed these landmark performances (Dave Moorcroft, Eamonn Martin, and Steve Jones, for the uninitiated) is truly tiny, as are the margins by which they have improved what were all pre-Mo UK records.

Strip out those runners who in all likelihood had the benefits of some clandestine ‘Mediterranean red wine’ and the pool of progression is even tinier. (If you wish to play Aerobic Sherlock, EPO tests came into play from 2000/01)

So barely 1% of progress, by my maths. Which is interesting given how many different one per centers we must have been offered over the years. This brings to mind one of the many gems in Alex Hutchinson’s tremendous book Endure, where he quotes leading Canadian coach Dr Trent Stellingwerff’s reference to “ 1% + 1% + 1% +1% = 1%”.

That is, put facetiously by yours truly, with all these one per centers popping up yearly, we should surely be down to about 25 minutes for 10,000m or 1 hour 55 for the marathon. And that’s for the U20 women…. .

Mike Gratton victorious in London in ’83 – he spoke Shaun on a recent Let’s Get Running Podcast

Eamonn Martin and Jon Brown, the two UK 10,000m record holders before Mo Farah, have both gone on record stating bemusement and disappointment in the GB context but the relative stasis applies to 99% of the world’s nations – the world that isn’t the Rift Valley.

Makes you wonder – are there really 200-plus nations where youngsters have been subjected to too much TV or screen time, too many fry ups and takeaways, or local councils selling off playing fields for a mock Tudor housing estate?

Put it another way; set aside the sports medicine advances which thankfully keep runners’ careers going for longer than was often the case 35 years ago; and the more meticulous use of altitude training, and look just at what running the very best current runners do. Go through the detail of volume/intensity/pace/recovery/periodization. Then go and look at what their counterparts did more than a generation ago, and then flag up what you see as the relevant advances.

Even if we treat the marathon as a special case for training advances over the decades (in 1985 sub 2.10 was still a benchmark of world class in a way that it really isn’t anymore), the Steve Jones legend (interestingly achieved with a half way split of 61.50) has moved on barely 1% by barely a dozen athletes.

What has changed significantly from the 1980s is that the sport (coaches, managers, sponsors primarily) has become much more adept at identifying, nurturing and retaining the best endurance running talent in the species and incentivising and rewarding performance.

Any coaching points? Perhaps, twofold. Firstly, ‘wood for the trees’ – don’t get blindsided by tiny marginal aspects before fully embracing the fundamentals. Well you can, but if you are training 25 mpw and angsting over the concentration of your beetroot juice maybe step back for a moment.

Secondly, just because it happened 35 years ago and in many ways the world has moved on hugely, that doesn’t mean it may not still be best practice, at least for the specific individual concerned. So, Dave Moorcroft’s West Midlands canal networks or Jacob Ingebritsen’s Sandnes small town idyll; Steve Jones’s RAF St Athan flexi day job or Sondre Moen splitting his peak training between Sestriere and Kenya?

David Chalfen  supports beetroot juice, designer mattresses and Nike Next%; and also just heading out the effing door with your kit on, frequently.

The post Baby and Bathwater from the ’80s appeared first on Fast Running.

I was an old-fashioned runner for years and years. While everyone around me was investing in GPS watches and other wearable technology, I was still using a wristwatch and guessing my weekly mileage! And if I’m perfectly honest, it didn’t do me any harm. But I finally succumbed when I received a GPS watch for my birthday at the start of 2015 and from there I never looked back.

I still reserve that the best way to improve in running is to get out there and run, but I must admit that there are some benefits to such devices, for both the elite and recreational runners.

Let’s start with the basics: a GPS watch uses satellites to triangulate your position, and with that enables your distance and speed to be recorded.

That alone provides a more accurate determination of your weekly mileage and is a useful method for recording runs and sessions. Many athletes keep a running diary but for me it’s an unnecessary task since all the information is there, in one convenient place. All you need to do is remember to do is put your watch on charge now and then, and put it on in the morning!

Further advanvements

GPS watches can do so much more than that now though. Many come with heart rate monitoring as standard, which adds a new dimension to the analytics of running.

If (and this is a big if!) the information is accurate and used correctly it can optimise your training and even racing program. But caution should be exercised (no pun intended!), because not only can the data prove inaccurate (especially the use of a heart rate strap which can incorrectly ascertain HR), but also relies on specific HR analysis, conducted in a VO2/lactate test.

These can prove costly and may be seen as an unnecessary expense to many athletes, especially as it only takes a “snapshot” of what fitness you are currently operating at. Fitness changes throughout the year and with that so will your HR zones. There are tests that can be conducted without specialist equipment, which can provide good estimates and “up to the minute” indicators of fitness, and I would recommend these for athletes interested in training using this method.

Once you have your HR zones, an athlete simply stays within these boundaries for their sessions and easy runs, according to what energy system one is trying to optimise. The advantage of HR training is that it takes into account external factors such as stress, fatigue and illness. So if you are not fully fit on a particular day, you may be operating within the desired HR zone but running slower than you normally would.

RELATED: Common heart rate training pitfalls

Psychologically that is beneficial; I can vouch that it is frustrating to not meet time targets for training! I am soon to have a VO2/lactate test and look forward to seeing the results, but whether I use it to its full capacity or not remains to be seen. The theory behind it is hugely promising but there is a significant margin for error and requires an investment of time to fully exploit, which is a premium when it comes to having a full-time job!

Furthermore, the use of this technology is limited when it comes to middle-distance running; the real benefits of it lie in marathon and ultra running. Rates of calorie consumption can be accurately calculated in association with the fitness tests, and the information from that can be used to develop effective nutrition plans for racing and everyday life.

Other technology

There is more technology to consider for runners. Many will be familiar with the Nike “Breaking2” event, where Eliud Kipchoge, Lelisa Desisa and Zersenay Tadese attempted to break the 2-hour barrier for the Marathon, using specific lightweight clothing, runners acting as pacemakers and the Nike Zoom Vaporfly 4% “super shoe”.

The 4% refers to Nike’s claim that the shoes will make runners 4% more efficient compared to Nike’s previous fastest marathon shoe. The debate will lie with the evidence to that claim.

This point introduces another interesting point that is gait analysis. Used correctly it can improve running efficiency and in the long-term reduce injury risk.

However, speaking from experience it can cause more problems than it solves. Attempting to correct one’s gait can apply more load to different muscles and so great care is required to not overload. The process takes time, which is a problem because athletes are inherently impatient and are hesitant to reduce their training, even if it’s of benefit long-term.

Moving forward or backwards?

So has the technology I’ve highlighted meant that running and athletics have taken a step back in progression? I certainly believe that some of the equipment is useful, but whether I’d invest my own money into it is a different story. In the case of the Nike Vaporfly trainers that’s off the table anyway, but if they were I still wouldn’t.

I believe an athlete can become over-dependent on these sorts of technologies, believing that they hold the key to progression and success. And whilst that might be partly true in a sport of fractional gains but it’s important to never take one’s eye of the real performance enhancer that is the running itself! If technology can ultimately make you train more effectively, then it’s worth it.

The post Has technology in running gone too far? appeared first on Fast Running.