Lactate threshold, of course, can respond rather dramatically to training. For instance, an untrained individual might reach lactate threshold at a paltry intensity of only 55 percent of O2max, while the elite runner who has trained diligently to elevate lactate threshold might not experience large upswings in blood lactate until he or she is running at a pace corresponding to almost 90 percent of O2max. Such improvements would have a big impact on marathon time because marathoners tend to run the marathon at a speed just under lactate-threshold pace. If lactate threshold rests at 65 percent of O2max, a runner would have to complete the marathon at just 60 percent of O2max or so. If lactate threshold is lifted to 90 percent of O2max, the runner could cruise along at least 33 percent faster in the big race at about 85 to 86 percent of O2max.
Scientific studies show that elite marathoners commonly run the marathon at an intensity of 85 to 86 percent of O2max while runners who complete the marathon in the 2:46 to 3:12 range are usually running at about 75 to 76 percent of O2max.6 The superior runners are faster than the good marathoners (2:46 to 3:12) in part because they have higher lactate thresholds and can run comfortably at a higher percentage of O2max.
This means that the circuit workout outlined earlier would be particularly good for marathon preparations (recall from chapter 13 that circuit training upgrades lactate threshold). It also means that the workouts prescribed earlier in this book for lactate-threshold improvement, including the scorching lactate-stacker session that alternates 1 minute at almost all-out intensity with 2 minutes of recovery jogging, would be great for marathon runners. Marathon competitors, of course, can’t live on lactate stackers alone; they will still have to carry out their marathon-specific runs every other or every third week and blend a variety of other sessions into their overall training, including the necessary vO2max sessions.
The lactate-stacker routine, as a big lactate-threshold booster, will have a sizably positive effect on marathon time. It is a great workout to do on Sunday instead of the usual humdrum, leg-numbing long run; a runner could alternate back and forth between lactate stackers and longish runs on consecutive weekends. An important point to note is that most marathon runners love lactate stackers partly because they are such a contrast with long, slow running. It is great to be able to go out and simply open up the jets instead of plodding along for two hours.
Importantly, too, lactate stackers can be quite diagnostic: Runners whose hamstrings become quite sore after lactate stackers are the ones who often end up with hamstring cramps toward the end of the marathon. These runners should systematically incorporate strength training for their hamstrings as part of their overall training by using routines such as high-bench step-ups and bicycle leg swings (see chapter 14).
Evaluating Half-Marathon Racing as Training for Marathons
In previous chapters, 800-meter races have been recommended as great preparatory workouts for 1,500-meter runners, 1,500-meter competitions as super sessions for 5K runners, 5K races as terrific warm-ups for 10K athletes, and 10K races as fine preparations for half-marathoners. That being true, is a competitive half-marathon a great set-up for a marathon personal record?
In one sense, a strong half-marathon race would indeed be a good marathon workout. Half-marathon pace is ordinarily about 16 seconds per 1,600 meters (.99 mi) faster than marathon tempo, and thus the completion of a half-marathon at full effort would improve tolerance of marathon velocity and make marathon tempo feel comparatively easier to sustain. In addition, 13 miles (20.92 km) of running at half-marathon pace might help improve running economy at marathon speed because strength and coordination gained at specific speeds should be transferable to slower speeds.
However, half-marathon pace is slower than lactate-threshold speed, so it would be hard to argue that it is actually a great lactate-threshold lifter. In addition, after a runner has done his or her best in a half marathon, that runner will usually need at least a 2-week recovery period before systematic, high-quality training can resume again. This means that it may be tough to fit both the half-marathon race and a marathon simulator into an overall program; recall that a simulator involves about 9 miles (14.48 km) at an easy pace, followed by 10 miles (16 km) at planned marathon speed and a 2-mile (3.22 km) cool-down. For many runners, it would be imprudent to run a half-marathon at maximal effort and then a simulator 2 to 3 weeks later. Anecdotal evidence indicates that such a pairing combines too much long, race-relevant running in too short a period of time.
If a runner had to choose between the two races, the simulator would appear to be far better for marathon preparation since its length—21 miles (34.80 km)—more nearly matches the marathon duration. In addition, running 10 miles on fatigued legs at marathon pace during the simulator more closely matches what happens on marathon race day than does streaking 13.1 miles of the half marathon after a fresh start and at a tempo that is faster than that of the marathon.
Why not just run a half-marathon at goal marathon speed? This is possible, but there are two problems: (1) As mentioned, the simulator does a better job of mimicking what will occur on marathon race day. Race-specific preparations are almost always better than less-specific prepping. True, a runner could warm up with 7 miles (11.27 km) of easy running before the start of the half marathon and then cruise through the race at goal marathon tempo, taking advantage of a well-measured course and the regular provisioning of sport drinks. While that sounds appropriate, it leads to the second problem. (2) Anecdotal evidence suggests that running 13 miles at marathon pace within the context of a 20- to 22-mile (32-35 km) workout is simply too much for most marathon trainees; 10 miles seems to be the upper limit. When runners complete 13 miles at marathon goal speed within a 22-mile (35.41 km) session, they really tend to struggle during the ensuing weeks; it becomes difficult to carry out the additional needed quality training and to show up on race day completely recovered and ready to perform in an optimal manner.
Conclusion
Although the marathon is the longest of popular race distances, there is no reason for a runner to abandon the principles of endurance training and embark on a program of prolonged submaximal running. As is the case with shorter competitions, marathon success hinges on optimizing vO2max, lactate-threshold velocity, running economy, running-specific strength, resistance to fatigue, and maximal running velocity. For the marathon, training designed to optimize these variables needs to be combined with long runs that progressively approach 20 to 21 miles (32-34 km) in length and incorporate sizable sections at goal marathon velocity.
Chapter 38
Training for Ultramarathons
Science favors a high-quality approach to training for running events like the 100K rather than a high-volume approach. There are a variety of reasons for this. One key is simply that high-quality training is the best way to optimize fitness, and fitness is the best performance predictor for any racing distance. Compared with weekly poundings of 150 kilometers (93 mi) or more, quality work also produces less damage to muscles, tendons, ligaments, and bones.
Another factor to consider is that increasing maximal running speed and ability to run fast in shorter races like 5Ks and 10Ks will increase average pace in a race like the 100K because it will make better speeds easier to carry out. As is the case for any of the other races, doing one’s best in an ultramarathon competition depends on optimizing power, vO2max, lactate threshold, running economy, running-specific strength, and resistance to fatigue.
Greater Distances Are Not Better
Both anecdotal and scientific support exist for the contention that piling on more distance does not equal success. First, analyses of great ultramarathon runners such as Jackie Mekler—five-time winner of the Comrades Marathon, an 88K (55 mi) ultra, not a standard marathon—reveal that the highest-volume training years are not associated with the best ultramarathon performances.1 Similarly, nine-time Comrades winner Bruce Fordyce began to succeed in his ultramarathons when he “resolved not to follow the usual pattern exhibited
by most runners who, tasting success for the first time at a marathon or ultramarathon, conclude that they would do even better next time by training with much higher mileage.”1 In the five months leading up to his nine successful Comrades races, Fordyce averaged about 134 kilometers (83 mi) of training per week, comparatively light by ultramarathon standards. In 1982, one of his Comrades-winning years, the South African runner averaged just 42 miles (68 km) per week of running during February, a key buildup period for the ultra. His training for Comrades revolved around high-quality hill sessions and speed workouts on the track rather than the accumulation of distance.
When Fordyce completed the Comrades and London-to-Brighton ultramarathons within 14 weeks of each other in 1983, he also discovered that a high frequency of long runs is not essential for successful ultramarathon running.1 Fordyce recovered for 6 weeks from Comrades and devoted 2 weeks to tapering for the London-to-Brighton event, leaving him just 6 weeks for actual training. During that 6-week period, he finished just two long runs of 50K or greater compared with the popular practice of completing a long run almost every weekend, yet he ran one of the world’s fastest times for 50 miles (81 km) in the London-to-Brighton competition.
The lesson here is the same lesson referred to in chapter 37 on marathon training: Once the human body has developed the ability to run for a long distance, it does not lose that capability by the following weekend; therefore, it does not require a repeat of the prolonged run after a mere 7 days to maintain the appropriate amount of endurance.
Even more important, repeating the long run on a weekly basis is unlikely to produce sizable upswings in the key physiological variables of performance (i.e., vO2max, tlimvO2max, lactate-threshold velocity, running economy, running-specific strength, race-relevant resistance to fatigue, and maximal running speed, or power), whereas using a much-shorter, high-intensity workout would be very likely to boost physiological fitness. Finally, the weekly long run is certain to heighten the risk of overuse injuries. It is interesting to note that Bruce Fordyce never bothered to finish his club’s prerace 70K (44 mi) training run, believing it to be too long!
Ultramarathon Workouts
The workouts that are optimal for the marathon (see chapter 37) are also highly productive for ultramarathon runners. These include prolonged, race-specific runs, “Teglas,” circuit training, and all forms of lactate-threshold advancing work (as lactate-threshold velocity advances, ultramarathon pace will also increase). In addition, the quality sessions, including vO2max workouts, hill running, fartlek efforts, and interval sessions at 5K and 10K paces, will be extremely beneficial for ultramarathon runners. Furthermore, running-specific strength training with proper progressions will enhance running economy and fatigue resistance among ultramarathon runners and will also help to protect against injury.
Speed Work
As part of his base period for ultra racing, Fordyce would carry out a weekly speed session on the track; during the 2-month buildup to each Comrades race, he conducted two high-quality sessions each week, choosing from an 8K (5 mi) time trial, intervals on the track (usually 800s, 1,200s, and 1,600s), and hills, along with a third intense effort: a cross country race on Saturday.1 During the summer off-season after the Comrades in May, Fordyce would focus on 1,500-meter and 10K competitions. As Fordyce expressed it, such fast training and racing upgraded his peak cruising speed for the ultramarathons. He felt that if he could average 3 minutes per kilometer (.62 mi) in a 10K race, cruising at a pace of 3:30 per kilometer in an ultramarathon would feel easy for him. As pointed out previously, improving maximal speed pulls all race speeds up with it.
Another great quality workout for ultramarathon preparations involves continuous super-set running, where 1,600-meter intervals at 10K pace are alternated with 4,800 meters at goal ultramarathon pace until five or six intervals have been completed.
Long Runs and Training Volume
Fordyce did occasionally move beyond 80 miles (129 km) per week of training, but one of his rules was that such volume should never be sustained for more than 8 weeks. There is scientific support for the idea that high-volume training should be limited in its scope. Some research has detected a dramatic decline in performances and maximal aerobic capacity after 6 weeks of high-volume work in experienced, competitive runners.
True, long runs need to be included in 100K training as specific preparation for the challenges of the race. The longest run necessary would be approximately 60 to 70K (37-43 mi) completed just one time; in addition, an ultramarathoner could also complete several 45K (28 mi) efforts along with a number of 30K to 36K (19-22 mi) workouts. These long runs should be separated by periods of at least 2 weeks; 3 weeks may be even better from recovery and quality training standpoints. Long runs should be blended with the high-quality workouts described for the marathon and 10K, along with consistent vO2max sessions, in order to produce the highest possible fitness for the race.
About 6 to 8 weeks before the ultramarathon competition, the long run should consist of 15K of warm-up, 30 to 40K at goal ultramarathon pace, and then 10 to 15K of easy jogging.
Evaluating the Practice of Fueling With Fat
An interesting aspect of 100K training and racing is that intakes of fat are often recommended during such running. The reasoning behind such recommendations does not at first glance appear to be farfetched. In a 100K race, for example, a runner can be expected to burn well over 6,000 calories. To supply that amount of energy from carbohydrate, a runner would have to eat at a rather prodigious rate during the race. It would require more than 60 bananas to supply all those calories, or around 1 banana every 8 minutes during an 8-hour race. Since fatty foods are more calorie dense, they would give an ultramarathoner’s jaws and digestive system a bit of a breather.
Many ultra runners don’t have difficulties with the theory of fat feasting and are willing to ingest cakes, cookies, and chocolate bars as they cruise along. Unfortunately, there are a couple of problems with the fat-favoring hypothesis: One is that to burn fat a runner does not really need to eat fat during the ultra or prolonged workout; a runner can actually energize his or her efforts simply by relying on the tallow parked in the tummy and thighs even if the body fat in those areas appears to be minimal. Fat is so energy rich that a 120-pound runner with 8 percent body fat could theoretically race for over 150 miles (240 km) using just half of his or her own fat stores for fuel.
Another problem is that when a runner focuses primarily on fat consumption, he or she may not take in enough carbohydrate to keep the leg muscles functioning at a high level. Leg muscles require more oxygen and are less able to support fast running when glycogen levels are low even if there is an abundance of available fat. If the leg muscles become too low in carbohydrate, race pace automatically slows even when rich lodes of fat are moving toward the muscles via the bloodstream.
Many ultra runners like to ingest a 6 to 8 percent carbohydrate, 4 percent medium-chain triglyceride sport drink throughout an ultramarathon, taking in five to six regular swallows every 15 minutes or so. Medium-chain triglycerides are absorbed more quickly and metabolized more efficiently than normal fats, and some research has suggested that their use can improve endurance during races lasting longer than 3.5 hours; unfortunately, studies have indicated that ingesting medium-chain triglycerides during an ultramarathon is also associated with a heightened risk of gastrointestinal problems.2
During the race itself, it is also important to ingest some solid foods that are easy to digest and contain rich lodes of carbohydrate: Jelly sandwiches and fruit are good examples. Ultra runners should experiment with various kinds of food before the race to make sure the chosen foods are easily tolerated by the digestive system.
Conclusion
Training for an ultramarathon is much like preparing for a 42-kilometer marathon. The exception is that long-run duration is expanded from about 13 to 20 miles (21-32 km) to 20 to 40 miles (32-64 km); such long running should be carried out every 2 to 3 weeks, not every w
eek. As is the case with shorter distances, optimal fitness should be the goal of training, and thus every effort should be made to maximize the major performance variables. The intense workouts required are blended with long running to produce full readiness for ultramarathon competition. This approach—blending quality training with a long run about every 20 days—will produce superior ultramarathon running capacity and will feature a lower risk of overuse injury than the common pattern of grinding out high volumes of training week after week.
Part IX
Sports Medicine for Runners
Chapter 39
Running Injuries and Health Risks
Endurance runners are injured at an alarming rate. Scientific studies reveal that about 60 to 65 percent of all endurance runners become injured during an average year. By definition, an injury is a running-related physical problem that is severe enough to force a reduction in training.1 Research suggests that the injury rate may be even higher—about 90 percent—in runners who are training for a marathon.2
Runners miss more workouts because of injury than other types of endurance athletes. Scientific investigations disclose that endurance runners are forced to cancel about 5 to 10 percent of their training sessions due to injury.3 Injuries are an important cause of training disruption and thus an obstacle to the attainment of optimal running fitness.
Common Types of Injury
Injury to the core—the abdominal area and lower back—is relatively rare in endurance running; most problems occur in the leg or foot, both of which must deal with 85 to 95 repetitive-impact stresses per minute during running. Research suggests that functionally weak parts of the foot and leg can be damaged by the impacts associated with a training session; the damage can accumulate over time as training continues unless adequate recovery is provided. Recovery is defined as the rebuilding of damaged structures between workouts and the replenishment of energy stores within muscles.4 It is clear that muscular weakness or, more specifically, muscular weakness during the movement patterns associated with running and lack of recovery are risk factors for injury. Most running injuries are thus overuse problems in which a weak area of the leg or foot is subjected to an amount of training that exceeds recovery capacity and thus incurs injury.
Running Science Page 53
