A more sophisticated approach involves identifying the key variables associated with endurance-running performance and then figuring out a way to simultaneously optimize these variables over the course of a training period, which is usually the amount of time available to prepare for a specific competition. To perform at their highest levels, endurance runners should optimize the seven key characteristics provided previously.
It is impossible to optimize all these variables at once with a fixed, unchanging mode of training; progression is needed. For example, it is clearly suboptimal to engage in power training without first building a broad platform of running-specific strength. The upgraded strength protects against injury during high-quality, power-promoting workouts. Science also suggests that maximal gains in power can’t be achieved unless muscles first develop the ability to generate greater force. The lesson is that improvements must be accomplished in a step-by-step, progressive manner during training.
A complicating factor is that gradual development of proficiency in one aspect of endurance running may change the way the body adapts to training. For example, research has shown that novice shot-putters make major advances in performance primarily by improving the strength of their arm muscles, while experienced shot-putters increase the lengths of their throws mainly by increasing the strength and power of their legs.1 Investigations also reveal that pole vaulters initially make large increases in performance by improving the strength of their abdominal muscles but can only continue to progress by achieving major improvements in shoulder and arm strength.2
A similar phenomenon happens with running. Beginning runners or runners coming back from layoffs can make rather large gains in performance simply by boosting the distance they run, while highly experienced runners must tweak the intensity of their training and perform special strength- and power-building drills in order to continue to make further progress.3 Endurance runners must optimize O2max and running economy before they can maximize vO2max, and lactate-threshold velocity must ordinarily be lifted to its highest level before resistance to fatigue can be heightened maximally. For all these reasons, the periodization of training is critically important.
Progressing Through Periodization
Complicated definitions of periodization exist, but the term simply means the division of an overall training program into periods that accomplish specific goals. Since everything cannot be accomplished at once, training must be periodized into discretely different units of time.
More than 2,500 years ago, the ancient Greeks were the first to use the principles of progression and periodization in their training. Milos, a Greek wrestler who won wrestling events at five different Olympic Games, according to legend progressed his training by carrying around a calf each day; as the calf grew in size and mass, Milos’ training became more challenging.4 This is the first recorded example of what is often called progressive-overload training, which is advancing the training load over time by using increasingly heavy weights. For runners, an example of this would be a gradual increase in workout length and thus total weekly distance run.
After the Greeks, periodization theory entered a 2,000-year lull, only to be revived early in the twentieth century during the Russian Revolution.5 Over the following 70 years, the Russians led the world in the development of periodization theory. Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, the Russians also enjoyed one key advantage over other countries: They were able to test different periodization schemes with large numbers of their international athletes and accumulated an extensive amount of practical information about periodizing training properly.
The first periodization schemes developed by the Russians in the 1920s and 1930s were basic; their exercise scientists theorized that training programs should be divided into what they called general, preparatory, and specific phases. The general stage of training, often lasting for about 2 months, was supposed to develop the heart and lungs. The preparatory training, also lasting about 2 months, sought to boost muscle strength and endurance; the specific period of about 8 months prepared an athlete for a specific event by emphasizing extensive practice of the precise movements and speeds required for success.
Finnish and English scientists gradually entered the periodization arena, but the majority of their work provided lots of theories about periodization with a smattering of real results. One difficulty has been that meaningful research concerning periodization needs to cover rather broad time frames. When the training differences between successful and nonsuccessful athletes are examined, it is important to study how the runners train over several years, not just over a few months. Proper periodization means coordinating training correctly over extended periods of time—long enough to make large gains in fitness and prepare optimally for major competitions.
That makes the understanding of periodization very challenging for exercise scientists, many of whom need to limit investigations to 8 to 12 weeks in duration as part of the publish-or-perish nature of academia. There are also major difficulties associated with getting a group of athletes to adhere to a specific training program for a year or more at a time: Many athletes will drop out, others will not follow the prescribed training very closely, and some will become injured. For an exercise researcher, embarking on a long-term periodization project is a somewhat risky thing to do.
As a result, periodization theorists—rather than experimenters—have held sway, and they have achieved major success in one area: They have given runners a large amount of training-related jargon.
Periodization Cycles
The jargon of periodization includes the terms macrocycles, mesocycles, and microcycles. While these words may seem foreign at first to endurance runners, their meanings are actually quite simple. A microcycle is simply a number of training sessions that form a recurrent unit of training. If a training program consists of a hard day, an easy day, and then a rest day, followed by the same pattern again, the 3-day pattern represents the basic training unit, or microcycle. If a typical training week consists of a hill workout, an interval session on the track, a long run, three easy runs, and a rest day, this repetitive weekly pattern is the microcycle.
A mesocycle is a block, or discrete period, of training consisting of a number of microcycles A mesocycle is focused on the attainment of a particular goal. A macrocycle is a long stretch of training intended to accomplish an important overall goal such as the preparation for and completion of a key marathon or 10K. A macrocycle is made up of a number of different mesocycles and usually covers a period of many months.
Typically, a microcycle lasts 5 to 10 days—for many runners, a microcycle is simply one week of training in a predictable way—a mesocycle usually covers 3 to 8 weeks, and a macrocycle lasts for 6 to 12 months. Many runners who periodize their training do not alter their macrocycles very much; one year is structured very much like the next, and thus the year is the largest unit of periodization. Some athletes like to plan in more extended terms and may use what are called large macrocycles consisting of two to four regular macrocycles and lasting for up to 4 years or more. These subunit macrocycles may be considerably different from each other.
Knowledge of these different cycles does not ensure proper periodization, and it is important to note that there is probably not one best periodization plan for endurance runners: What works for one athlete may actually be counterproductive for another. One reason for this is the inherent variability in genetic makeup between runners. Another is that individual athletes can have dramatically different strengths and weaknesses and thus unique training needs.
A runner with relatively poor muscular strength might need to spend several mesocycles of training within a year focusing on developing general and running-specific strength by carrying out a variety of progressively more difficult resistance routines in addition to running training. Such a runner would also need to devote a large amount of time to hill training, which increases the force-development capacities of the leg muscles. In contrast, a strong
runner could spend considerably less time on such activities and might more profitably mark off large periods of time to work on upgrading another weakness—perhaps a low lactate threshold or vO2max.
Types of Periodization
It is clear that each runner needs his or her own unique periodization plan. Periodizing an individual’s program requires skill in figuring out what the runner really needs—and knowledge of the various periodization possibilities. The existing overall programs include wave-like periodization, step periodization, skill-strength periodization, emphasis periodization, and the Lydiard system of periodization, all discussed in the following sections. Choosing which type of periodization is not easy because there are many models and considerable debate about which scheme works most effectively.
Wave-Like Periodization
Many runners use the most basic of all periodization strategies: the wave-like periodization pattern. With this scheme, runners first build up their training volume, or mileage, to a rather lofty level (creating a big wave of miles) while intensity, or speed, remains modest. This initial period of training is supposed to establish strength and endurance. The wave of increased mileage is then gradually deemphasized, replaced by a comparatively short but steadily increasing wave of intensity: Mileage is reduced, but the average running speed rises as the quality of workouts increases. According to convention and tradition, the runner is ready for major competitions once the intensity wave has peaked. After the competitive season is over or the major competition has been completed, the athlete rests for a defined period of time before catching another big wave of mileage at the beginning of the next season or macrocycle.
This basic wave-like pattern of periodization is used, year after year, by millions of runners all over the world. It has a certain appealing logic because it seems to gradually build muscular and connective-tissue strength before subjecting a runner’s body to the harsh reality of high-intensity training; it is important to remember, however, that most running injuries are overuse injuries that occur during high-mileage training, that is, at or near the top of the volume wave.
The fundamental wave-like pattern also parallels the classic dyad of aerobic and anaerobic training that countless numbers of coaches and runners still use to plan training programs. The idea is to build up aerobic endurance gradually by logging lots of moderately paced runs during the mileage wave and then to sharpen runners with intense anaerobic conditioning, which is supposed to improve speed and heighten surging and kicking abilities in races. When viewed from a muscle-fiber paradigm, the notion is to work on slow-twitch muscle fibers first and then shift attention to the fast-twitch fibers in time for competition.
Such views of training are misguided and far too simple. For one thing, the strength gained in the volume wave is strength that is specific to slow running and not to the higher speeds required for competition. Improvements in strength are always tied to the speed with which strengthening movements are conducted; advances in strength at slower running speeds do not foretell upgraded strength at the higher speeds included within the subsequent intensity wave. In this sense, a volume wave is not optimal preparation for the intensity wave.
It is also highly misleading to categorize an endurance runner’s high-quality training as anaerobic since the high-speed training carried out by endurance runners is usually conducted at vO2max and above, speeds that elicit O2max, the highest rate of oxygen consumption. For example, when Haile Gebrselassie burned 55-second 400s during workouts, most of the energy created to run those fast 400s was produced aerobically, not anaerobically. The truth is that the two systems—aerobic and anaerobic—work together closely, even during the most intense mesocycle of training. This is true no matter how fast workouts become, unless they consist solely of 100-meter sprints, separated by long recoveries.
Finally, wave-like periodization fails to address the key task faced by runners who are serious about fitness and performance: the optimization of the performance-related physiological variables. The two waves fail to maximize vO2max, enhance running economy to its greatest extent, lift lactate-threshold speed, increase running-specific strength, or optimize resistance to fatigue. The waves lack the specific mechanisms required to do so. For these reasons, coaches and runners can safely avoid or abandon wave-like periodization, despite its popularity.
Step Periodization
As an alternative to the wave-like periodization pattern, Russian exercise scientist A.N. Vorobyev proposed what is now known as step periodization, in which training loads and intensities are changed abruptly rather than smoothly and progressively from workout to workout or in weekly and monthly cycles.6 In this bumpy periodization plan, series of light to moderate workouts are alternated with intense efforts with little break between the difficult sessions. Different studies have shown this approach to be a fairly effective way to develop muscular strength.6 For runners, step periodization involves several successive days of high-quality training, down periods of easy work, and then step-ups to another series of challenging exertions carried out consecutively over several days. For example, a runner using step periodization might carry out an intense interval session on Monday, conduct hill training on Tuesday, complete a long run with an inner core of difficult continuous running on Wednesday, and then run lightly from Thursday through Sunday. The following week would then include a similar format, except with a progressive toughening of the workouts on Monday through Wednesday, and so on.
While step periodization is intriguing, a key weakness is the lack of recovery between high-quality running sessions, which can lead to injury. An additional problem, common to many periodization plans, is the lack of attention paid to the improvement of specific physiological variables. A runner using step periodization follows the plan and simply hopes that the tough workouts will magically produce optimal gains in fitness.
Skill-Strength Periodization
An advancement over step periodization, skill-strength periodization was used repeatedly by highly successful track and field teams from the former Soviet Union to prepare for Olympic competitions. Skill-strength represents an advance in periodization because one cycle of training logically follows the previous cycle, building on the preparatory strengths already gained. With skill-strength periodization, athletes spend an extensive amount of time perfecting their technical skills during the preparatory phase of training prior to developing strength and endurance. For runners, this would mean spending a considerable amount of time on learning appropriate form before advancing to other kinds of training. This is highly recommended for distance runners, yet very few endurance runners perfect their form prior to embarking on the main phases of their training. As a result, endurance runners often end up with bad form habits (e.g., heel striking, slow cadence, grossly positive shank ankle at contact with the ground, erect posture) that prevent them from optimizing key performance variables during their overall training. (Optimal running form is discussed in chapter 5.)
The basic idea underlying skill-strength periodization is that once athletes are skilled (e.g., once they are technically proficient jumpers or economical runners with optimal form), they can then carry out the most productive training possible because their training uses the most effective patterns of motion. Skill-strength periodization is in one sense the opposite of many traditional schemes that build strength at slow speeds first and worry about technique later. In an important way, it is the reverse of the classic, wave-like periodization pattern, which emphasizes a large initial wave of strength building at slow to moderate speeds, followed by the gaining of technical proficiency (e.g., running economy, coordination) while running fast. No carefully controlled research has ever contrasted skill-strength periodization with basic wave-like periodization, but the Russians reported excellent results with the former, and their teams did exceedingly well in Olympic competitions.
Emphasis Periodization
Another plan for organizing training is called emphasis periodization (EP), or concent
ration of loading, in which training is divided into 4- to 10-week blocks, with each block having a special concentration. Each emphasis period is supposed to act as a foundation for the following one; for runners, this would mean the development of running-specific strength before the creation of running power, or attaining enhanced economy in advance of optimizing vO2max. A runner would not be considered to be fully prepared for competition until all the emphasis periods have been completed. This kind of periodization goes far beyond mere fiddling with volume and intensity of training and actually addresses a runner’s specific goals: the physiological targets that must be reached before maximal fitness can be attained.
The Lydiard System
Developed by New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard, this system gained world-wide popularity partly because of the successes of athletes coached by Lydiard, including Peter Snell, Barry Magee, and Murray Halberg. The Lydiard system is still used by a large number of competitive runners today.
The Lydiard system begins with an extensive period of base training, during which running volume steadily expands, followed by a strengthening phase consisting of an ample amount of hill climbing and drills carried out on hills. The subsequent training constitutes Lydiard’s misnamed anaerobic phase with its emphasis on intense sessions and the development of speed; this phase is deliberately kept short—no more than 4 to 6 weeks—because of Lydiard’s mistaken belief that the high lactate levels associated with intense training can harm muscle cells. The final phase within the Lydiard system is a tapering phase, during which volume and intensity of training are reduced and preparatory, fine-tuning races are conducted.7
Running Science Page 31
