Saturday, August 27, 2016

Physiological Capacity: Run Fitness - Part 2.

 In Part 1 we looked briefly at how your body's systems need to be able to work together to allow you to to get out to run, get to the start-line of a race and the, if it's your goal, to get to the finish-line as easily and fast as possible.

The Key…Optimal Fitness…

Optimal means ‘enough to get the job done’. No more, no less.
It doesn’t mean maximal, nor flat-out.
 


At rest, optimal means maintaining basal or minimal levels to survive.
During training, optimal relates to elevated or raised levels of performance to complete and achieve the goal(s) of the session, or a series of sessions (in a day, week, cycle, block and/or phase).  
In a race, optimal equates to maximal maintainable speed, and minimal managed fatigue.

Your fitness - bottom-line - is how well you are prepared to complete a given task.
Whether for podium, performance, participation, prestige or pride: completing your first 5 minute jog, a 5km Park Run, a cross-country or trail race, or marathon all require similar capacities, yet each requires different fine-tuning – that is, different (run-relative) fitness.

Being a “good” runner is relative. For example, breaking the 30, 25 & 20 minute barriers is “good” for many, and is a measure of progress for others. Running 5km in 15 minutes isn’t close to good at higher (age-dependent) levels, and won’t qualify you for state, national or international championships.

Of course, if your initial fitness is low (and you can’t run 5km to begin with), improving it will likely help you with the physical and mental capacity to attempt or complete longer (run) distances.

In this sense, optimal fitness is relative – to individuals, to event, and to age.

Your body lets you build fitness – or prepare you to complete (run) tasks - in two ways:

 
(1) responses: sudden, temporary changes in function caused by exercise. These functional changes diminish after exercise. Responses relate to acute, single bouts of exercise – a run, a training session, or a race

(2) adaptations: more-or-less permanent changes in structure and function following training – repeated or chronic bouts of exercise. They allow your body to respond more easily during and after future sessions. Adaptations bring about structural and functional changes that have effects at rest, and during sub-maximal and maximal efforts. Adaptations make your initial loads or sessions easier, and build your maximal aerobic power and capacity – or ability to go faster and/or longer.

Ultimately, to improve performance you need to challenge your mind, body and skills – challenge it’s plasticity, or ability to change or adapt.

You run. You run regularly. You train. Your body’s physiological systems will alter their function (respond) in anticipation of, during and after each session. Over time, through repeated sessions their structure alters (thanks to nifty mechanical, chemical and genetic signaling systems) and, unless loaded inappropriately, function improves. Stop training and, at different rates, the improvements return towards their initial levels – you detrain.

Regular running optimises your body’s function in relation to (future) running, and maybe a few other tasks. Specific training optimises it for specific events and performance levels.

Depending upon your starting point, time-frames and goals optimizing your running (and training) can be see as optimising your energy and work.


These are the focus of part 3.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Physiological Capacity and Run Fitness - part 1

Ever wondered what goes on when you run? When you race?
Or how your body responds (to each repetition, set or session) and adapts (to multiple sessions - called training) to get better?

This is the first of a multi-part series on general physiological aspects of endurance run performance.

The next series will investigate specific physiological aspects of endurance (run) performance and how to improve them.

Getting to a run-race start-line is one thing. Negotiating getting to the finish-line as fast or as easy as possible is another.

An official entry, effective training, sound health and the right gear will get you to the start-line. Getting to the finish-line tests your health, training, good fortune, drive and fortitude.

How fast you get there will test your physical (and mental) capacity, and fitness. So too the course demands (duration. hills, surface, turns) and environment (heat, humidity, wind, smog/pollution, sun), your experience, and smart choices about pacing and managing fatigue.     

Your racing capacity is ultimately determined by your endurance training background, racing history, and genetic make-up – your unique physiological, mechanical and mental passport. And, to the extent you’ve developed the supporting bodily systems.

All Systems Go…

To get you to the line, red-lining, over the line, and lining up again requires a large - chiefly under-appreciated - complex and coordinated effort by all your bodily systems ...


System*
Main players
Important tasks
respiratory
·      lungs & airways
·      breathing muscles
o   diaphragm
o   intercostals
·      moving air in and out of the body
·      exchanging gases (mainly oxygen, carbon-dioxide) and water vapor with environment
·      speech
circulatory
(& lymphatic)
·      heart
·      blood vessels
·      blood – cells, plasma

·      transport of nutrients, gases, chemical messengers (hormones), waste products, and protective bodies around the body
·      body temperature management
·      maintaining acid-base balance
integumentary
·      skin
·      hair, nails
·      (sweat) glands
·      receptors
·      barrier to foreign substances
·      prevent loss of excessive fluid from cells
·      temperature regulation
·      sensory information – pressure, hot, cold, pain
·      communication – touch, emotion
nervous
(and senses)
·      brain
·      nerves
·      specialised organs
·      chemical transmitters
·      relationship with outside environment
·      regulation of other systems
·      abstract thought, learning & memory, reason, emotion
·      integration – judgments made from lots of information
·      movement – with muscular
Endocrine
(hormonal)
·      hormones
·      special glands such as: adrenal, reproductive, pancreas,
·      works very closely with other systems, particularly nervous, digestive, reproductive
·      transport of chemical messengers – hormones
·      regulate growth, nutrient use & storage, adjustment of water & electrolyte balance
·      metabolic rate
digestive
(& urinary)
·      stomach
·      intestine(s)
·      liver
·      pancreas
·      kidneys
·      bladder
·      breakdown of large food particles
·      absorption of macro- and micro-nutrients
·      absorption of water
·      formation of blood proteins
·      storage site for vitamins & minerals
·      carbohydrate storage & metabolism
·      detoxification
·      maintain blood sugar levels
·      maintain normal composition of body fluids
·      removal of waste
skeletal
·      axial
o   skull &vertebrae
o   sternum & ribs
·      appendicular
o   shoulder girdle & arms
o   pelvic girdle & legs
·      joints
·      support: tissues, organs & muscle attachments
·      movement: joints, muscles
·      protection of vital organs
·      blood cell formation
·      storage of minerals
muscular
·      muscles
·      tendons
·      specialised receptors
·      posture, mobility and stability: static, dynamic
·      movement
·      heat regulation
·      assist blood flow
* the direct system(s) involved with reproduction, development, and genetic control & inheritance aren’t included


To run, function or perform at your best, you and all bodily systems must function optimally. 
The systems have different yet complex interactions within and amongst themselves:
(a) to keep you up and about – alive
(b) for growth & development, repair & recovery
(c) to cope successfully with the daily stress and stressors of your environment, lifestyle and training (d) to protect against invaders and failing systems, and
(e) pass on your genetic passport

Part 2 will explore Optimal Fitness for running.



Tuesday, April 26, 2016

The Broader The Base The Higher The Peak? Improvement Currency...


"The broader the base, the higher the peak" was the mantra of the late 90s which had us [triathletes] doing mega miles in the pursuit of victory. What is the current evidence suggesting in regard to improving endurance performance?

I had the good fortune of being asked this question recently. It's a good one. Challenging, yet good!

My initial response was that any question premised with a statement [of proposed fact] is one of perspective. For example, one's perspective on "current evidence" is necessarily biassed by the perceptions of, attributions to, and experience/s with the "broader...higher" paradigm and, of course, what you consider "current" and "evidence" to mean.

In other words, it's a question of individual context: history, habits, and hope (goals).
It's multi-layered too.

The First Layer: Victory... 

People start triathlons (anything, really) for different reasons. And, the reasons they continue (or comeback to) the sport are rarely the same. People do triathlons for any (combination) of: podium (first-third), performance (getting better, improving), prestige, participation, and pride.


In this sense, you have racers - those who risk coming 1st at the expense of coming 12th; competitors - those who seek to improve or get better, the PB or PR seekers; the participants - those involved for the social aspect; and, bucket-listers - the one-offers, the tick-that-box-ers. 

Of course, interdependent, the racers aim to get to the finish-line first; the competitors aim to get to the finish-line fast; the participants aim to get to the finish-line among friends and family; bucket-listers aim to simply get to the finish-line (before cut-off). In each instance, you need to get to the start-line. I'll get back to this.

In this light, victory means different things to different people. Etymology wise, "victory" comes from the Latin 'victoria' meaning supremacy in battle or a physical contest. Interestingly, Nike - the Greek goddess of victory (yes, what the shoe & apparel company are named after) - comes from 'neikos' or 'neiken' meaning "to quarrel with".

Each race or physical contest is a quarrel, a battle - whether against, with, or beside others; the elements,;a given course; a time or cut-off; and, yourself.  Getting to the finish-line, then, is a victory of sorts!

Now, getting to the start-line. This is where there is much opinion and, at times, decent debate. And ego!


The Second Layer: Getting to the Start Line...

And, the essence of the original question.

In a general sense there is activity-for-wellness, exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness, and training-for-performance. There are different guidelines and recommendations for each. Over the last 8-10 years the boundaries among (not between, as movement is the essence of each) have become blurred.

25-30 years ago, 80% of people who begun triathlons were (ex-)runners. That is, they had a running and endurance background. 80% of those who begin triathlons today are likely to have no background in either.

This partly explains why tri-run times haven't really improved relative to swim and bike times.
It also explains why many injuries are usually overall-load and run (load) related.

More importantly, and this gets to one of the key ingredients about the "broader base - bigger peak" paradigm question...

If you have no endurance (or general athletic or run-based) background when you start-out, no matter - or, in some cases, in spite of - what you do you will get better for your first year or two. You can even improve from race-to-race without getting 'fitter'...you learn things!  You learn that effort is okay and won't kill you, you learn to pace (so-to-speak), you learn to change gears, you learn not to sprint out of T2 etc.

You also learn habits: some positive, some not so, and some become barriers to your future development. I like people and athletes who are serious about getting better - improving, or becoming victorious - about habits-of-movement (skill, economy & efficiency), general-training-habits (culture of the sport) and habits-of-training (their individual habits), and habits-of-mind (how and what they think about moving, training, recovery, lifestyle, performance, and improvement). A strength can easily become a weakness!


If you start from a place of not-much-really, no matter what you do (as mentioned), you'll essentially get better or improve regardless of how you measure, assess and evaluate it. It becomes easy to think "if-some-is-good-more-is/must-be-better!" In other words, you establish a habit-of-mind, "if I do more and/or faster, I'll get better".

This is a true, to a point. And, a large part of that point is - you guessed it - who you are, what your background is, where you are now, and what your goal(s) and time-frame(s) are.  This individual athletic journey is discussion for another time & place.

How does this relate to "getting to the starting line"?

Those guidelines for exercise-for-health, working-out-for-fitness and training-for fitness are blurred here. True training-for-performance approaches wouldn't allow the "if-some-is-good-more-is-better" dogma to rear its ugly head. It encourages a quantity rather than quality approach. Working-out-for-fitness, underlies too much of what many do. 

General fitness has become synonymous with performance; a plan synonymous with a program; a program synonymous with a prescription. People who instruct or train others like this aren't necessarily coaches.

Layer Three: The broader the base, the higher the peak...

This layer is deeper than it's appearance.
Firstly, "the broader" part. When this paradigm is mentioned it's usually stated and intended as "the bigger the base, the higher the peak". From this, many interpret that the more "base" you do the better your performance will be(come).

The term "base" is misunderstood and often poorly used. The term/word, in relation to preparation for athletic/sporting performance likely developed through the translation of Russian terminology (eg. Matveyev c1977 p.255) that, in English, was printed as "base", from "average". Matveyev's descriptions and applications to "base [average] training" are not what has been popularised, promoted and marketed, and consumed as "base training/phase" since the 1980s. Here's a good example of popular-culture stemming from capitalism and consumerism.

**Matveyey refers to "base" mesocycles (sometimes 2, usually 3-6 week blocks) of smaller microcycles with a particular emphasis. The "base" or "average" mesocycle may be repeated many times (albeit it with different microcycle structures) throughout the year/annual plan*.
Matveyev refers to "basic" training (p.289) in the multi-year process of athletes development as the first 4-6 years. Harre 1982 pp.84-85  used the term "basic mesocycles"**

"Base training", "base phase", and "base endurance", and their associated interpretations and application (I should probably say 'dumbing down' and 'sales strategies') are unfortunate lexicon for the masses. For the most part, they've been and continue to be reinforced as easy, low intensity, high volume training as the sole focus. The approaches of classic coaches - Lydiard, Cerutty and others - have been debated in this light. Many aspects of the debates are pointless as 'the sole emphasis' has been misinterpreted from 'a priority or focus' for a period of time/over time for different individuals.

This was neither Matveyev's original intention, nor application. (Matveyev c1977 p.265-288). It was simply due to translation, and popularism.

In addition, much that went on during 70s research (eg. VO2max) and
the popularisation of running (early 80s boom) that lead a - pardon the pun - foundation or basis for this. Triathlon, as a mass-participation sport, and one that affords many individuals success (or victory) at different levels in still steeped in much of this culture: history, beliefs, values and behaviours .

Broader. The "broader the base the higher peak" was originally applied (and adopted) in two senses. The first, in relation to the number of people that got involved at the entry level of the sport. The concept was, the more we can get involved the more likely the cream will rise to the top. This is still evident in sports today ... in how different sports compete to:
* get kids involved (attention and participation strategies)
* keep adolescents engaged (retention strategies)
* develop juniors to seniors (development strategies)
* (performance strategies for) international success.
Young-age sports such as swimming and gymnastics vary, yet are similar in principle.

All that said, of course, there is (varied and debated) 'evidence' that (a) it takes at least 6-8 years (or 10,000 hours) of training  practise to develop high level performance; (b) for high-level performance there is positive correlation between (accumulated) training volume and success, particularly in endurance sports; (c) as mentioned, as a beginner/novice, some is oft better than none, and more is better to a point. Obviously, various genetic and environmental constraints aren't ignored here.

The second, and closer to classic applications of Matveyev and others, refers to athletic development principles associated with Long Term Athletic Development: the broader your skill, aptitude, capacity (speed, strength, mobility, general) and body awareness the more likely you will be successful over time - with the appropriate development, support and performance strategies and networks. In this light, 'the better the base, the higher the (likely) peak". 

Better referring to better  movement, better skill, better speed, better strength, better awareness, better capacity, better habits, and better tactics - many of which are often best augmented at early ages, or early in an "athlete's" development.

  Yet, prevailing triathlon mass-participation highlights "more is better". The Ironman attraction has reinforced this.

Much in today's world of (youth) sports preparation is counter to this, possibly summarised best through:
(i) early sports specialisation,
(ii) early intensification (absolute, and volume of)
(iii) eroded quality school gymnastic, aquatic and PE programs,
(iv) reduced daily activity and exercise types and levels,
(v) heavier, fatter, less resilient, less fit kids,
(vi) far more sitting,
(vii) poor dietary strategies, and
(viii) sales (quick fix, guru) rather than strategic approaches

In effect: better is better, not more is better. 
Broader isn't the same as more or greater
And, base (endurance training) isn't the same as ' basic' training.



Layer Four: Current Evidence...

Evidence comes in various shapes and forms, and the importance you, or I give it, will depend upon your background, bias, understanding, and in one sense, desire to grab and use something tangible. Evidence can come from research (Evidence-Based Research, EBR), trial-and-error, experience as experiential knowledge, bias, myth, habit, popularity and popularism and heresay to mention a few. Regardless, understanding and applying evidence in context - coaching, athletic development and improvement -  are most important.

EBR is designed to improve Evidence-Based Practise ([EBP] here as coaching, and training) by specifying or directing coaches/athletes to make decisions through identifying research according to how scientifically sound (valid, objective and reliable) it is. By being informed by the systematic collection of data from observation (testing & measurement) and experimentation through the formulation of questions and testing hypotheses, particularly randomised controlled trials with properly designed evaluations, it has been assumed that this will be best form of treatment for tri-athletes.

 Through the 2000s, with the momentum of growth of EBP from EPR, EBR has become the dominant source of information for practice (principles behind practise) and practise/training in terms of athlete training, recovery and preparation; ‘functional’ strength, power and endurance capacity development; and muscle strain and tendon injury rehabilitation to mention a few.

An ecological EBP approach is often shown to be more effective in practice where experiential and situational (contextual) knowledge of the practitioner/coach/athlete (and support team) is used with the empirical knowledge of EPR. This integrates the best possible available evidence with coach & practitioner expertise, other resources, and with the characteristics, needs, values and preferences of tri-athletes. It helps ensure that tri-athlete development and intervention(s) are individualised as circumstances are ever-changing, and involves uncertainties and probabilities over the course (time: weeks/months/years) of a development program.  In essence you are aiming to match the best-possible practice to the tri-athlete, rather than simply prescribe an athlete to a program or treatment.
This, then, improves sustainability and, as a result the likelihood of ongoing performance improvement.


In essence,  use what is most relevant to an athlete in terms of effectiveness (the outcome of training/development performed under ordinary, expectable conditions (ie. real life)) rather than efficacy (the outcome of treatment/intervention performed under sterile, controlled trial conditions).

That said:
* research recommendations (evidence) often stems from the sterilisation, observation, measurement and evaluation of practise. Practise (doing) is first & foremost
Rubin & Parrish (2007) highlighted…70% of evidenced-based research studies were found to have conclusions unjustified by their research findings
* poor quality research design, intervention strategies, and interpretation of data, contradictory research results, incomplete trials are published
* controlled intervention research is rarely performed on elite athletes, or good athletes for significant periods of time (beyond, say 6-8 weeks) due to its interruptive nature
* the most important stat is N=1; what works fro one athlete will most likely no work for another in the same, to the same, extent, for the same period/s of time
* the outliers or outriders - those discounted by stats  - are often the individuals we work with


 
Currency is a time and timing construct. Research-based evidence can easily be 2-4 years old before it is published. Is there then a point or relevance to it? Yes,  there can be. Practitioners and coaches work in the here-and-now. Does that justify doing what you like, think, or have always done? No! Yet, that experiential day-to-day (very recent) and accumulated (experience) knowledge is important. Finding a balance between recency, currency and experience is key.


Layer Five: Endurance Performance Development...

In my opinion, (re-emerging) current evidence as a basis for EPD include:
  1) deep individualisation, N=1 - using the following:
  2) back to emphasis on better basics: better movement/skill, speed, and strength as foundation for longer term endurance performance development
  3) development of economical and efficient movers in endurance sports (better skill)
  4) periodisation as a process: not a plan, program or prescription
  5) greater auto-regulation at a day-to-day and week-to-week level
  6) continuing use and development of hardware and software to plan, monitor and evaluate
  7) intelligent and disciplined intensity of training load (volume of 'specific/relative' intense training, not absolute intensity itself)
   8) improved training dynamics: understanding and application of acute 'load' changes in relation to accumulated chronic load in relation to performance development, ill-health and injury risk
   9) greater popularity and access to the principles of polarised training (eg. Seiller, Fitzgerald)
   10) ecological and sustainability principles applied to person as athlete in longer term development

 As a whole, a move away from deconstructionist physiology (VO2, HR etc) toward a more holistic approach to performance enhancement (egs. central governor elements, genetics, and musculoskeletal and tendon integrity, pyscho-social environment).

In summary...

What was or may have been standard practise for some in the 90s wouldn't have been for others, yet still remains for some today. The bigger the base, the higher the peak has a number of angles. Ultimately, the better your base, the higher your peak. Base and basic training terminology, understanding and application has been bastardised - partly from ignorance, partly due to popularism, consumerism and habit-formation.

Current evidence, practise and trends use information, expertise and experience from a number of areas. Ultimately, an ecological and sustainable approach based upon sound principles and informed by (some) relevant science will be the key to improved endurance performance development for individual athletes - whether to race, compete, participate.