So last week, we discussed the topic of overtraining, concluding that the human body--while considerably adaptable to stress--is fragile on the whole, and appears to pays a heavy price for years and decades of continuous heavy training.
With that said, training appears essential for bringing out any distance runner's fullest potential in the sport. The contemporary example of Galen Rupp under Alberto Salazar is but one example of how a sound training approach can yield improvements over the course of several years. Just because some genetically-gifted runners have performed incredible feats on little training does not mean their potential in the sport was ever reached. The question then seems to be, how shall one maximize one's racing potential while avoiding the chronic issues associated with overtraining? The method I'd like to discuss in this post is peaking.
In a 2005 article for Running Times magazine, Dr. Peter Pfitzinger suggests that, "Peaking implies a sharp improvement in performance followed by a 'slide down the other side '" (Link). The effect of a peak is therefore temporary. Many people accept this fact if it brings them a desired result (a race victory, pr, Olympic gold, etc.). The point is, while hard work appears essential in fulfilling one's running potential, an intelligent application of one's ability to peak seems essential in fulfilling one's racing potential. As the discussion on overtraining highlighted, runners who trained heavily all the time sometimes produced fantastic races, but flopped badly in others; they had great talent and a considerable body of training, but they couldn't consistently bring out their best abilities on race day, especially as they trained even harder to make up for the poor result. So in order to perform well (which includes racing), one needs to understand how to utilize their training to achieve the maximum performance potential on the date of the performance. This maximum performance potential is what I imply by the term "peak."
So how does one peak in distance running? According to Dr. Tim Noakes, the earliest discussions of peaking appear in works by Franz Stampfl (Roger Bannister's coach), swimming coach Forbes Carlile, and running coach Arthur Lydiard. While differing in their details, the essential goal is the same; how to bring the athlete to the desired peak on the day of the competition. Both Carlile and Lydiard divide the year into training phases, emphasizing different types of work in each phase. For Lydiard, these phases include marathon training, hill work, speed work, and finally sharpening. Each phase builds upon its predecessor, making the athlete first very physically fit, and then very racing fit (See more here). The peak is therefore achieved not by incessant heavy training, but by the application of progressively more race-specific training as the competition approaches, culminating in a brief-but-intense period of sharpening in the weeks leading up to the big race.
Dividing a season into phases is known as periodization, and continues to be utilized today. The physiologist Jack Daniels suggests that an ideal season lasts approximately 24 weeks, involving 4, 6-week phases. Like Lydiard's system, each phase in the Daniels' season emphasizes a different aspect of training, leading ultimately to a peak racing season. In this way--much like Lydiard--Daniels' program attempts first to build a person's general fitness, and then to hone their racing fitness. Clearly then, while similar, general fitness and racing fitness appear to be two distinct things.
This is made clearer by Daniels' discussion of seasons which deviate from the ideal (here). For example, if one has only 6-weeks with which to prepare for a big race, Daniels suggests 3-weeks of Phase I training (foundation/injury-prevention) followed by 3-weeks of Phase IV training (final quality). By skipping the Phases II and III, the athlete naturally neglects a fuller development of their overall fitness before preparing the body to race. Yet this appears to be the trade-off that such an athlete would have to face if given only 6-weeks to prepare for a big competition. Simply put, when given so little time within the context, the need to get race fit supersedes the need to get generally fit.
By now, however, you might be wondering how it's possible to differentiate between race fitness and general fitness. After all, doesn't a person need to be exceedingly fit to race well?
The evidence suggests that where peaking for a race is concerned, there is a difference between race fitness and general fitness. In a sub-section describing the science of sharpening, Dr. Tim Noakes cites several studies showing the marked improvement made by athletes who underwent a period of sharpening training. For example, Noakes cites a study which:
"...showed that replacing 15% (about 50km) of a group of cyclists' usual 300-km-per-week training with six twice-weekly sessions of 6 to 8 five-minute rides at 80% V02max or 90% of their maximum heart rates improved their times in a 40-km cycling time-trial in the laboratory by 2 minutes (3.6%). Doubling the total number of training sessions by lengthening the high-intensity training program from three to six weeks did not produce additional benefit (Westgarth-Taylor et al. 1997)" (Noakes, Lore of Running, 305).
A similar study in runners produced a 2.6% improvement in a 3000m time-trial.
As Noakes describes, it is unclear upon what physiological basis these improvements can be laid. The short duration in which these changes occur seem to preclude the possibility that oxygen is suddenly more able to reach the muscles, "thereby rendering them less anaerobic." To put it simply, the athlete's general fitness does not appear to be greatly altered by the sharpening training, yet their racing ability improved a few percentage points in a matter of weeks. How?
Noakes believes the changes occur "in the nervous system, so that sharpening training increases the mass of skeletal muscle that can be recruited during exercise before the central governor is maximally activated, terminating exercise. According to this theory, sharpening training reprograms the subconscious brain to accept a higher exercise intensity as safe than the governor was prepared to allow before sharpening training took place" (Noakes, 306). In this way, one's ability in races can improve without any marked improvement in general fitness. My own experience supports this idea, having found that recent workouts and races allowed me to push a harder pace in subsequent races. Interestingly, sharpening can only be reasonably performed for 8-12 weeks, as the greater intensity appears to make the body more susceptible to infection and injury. One might think of it as riding a knife's edge.
There is another side to the concept of peaking, and it is commonly known as tapering. There are all manner of tapers in the vogue these days, but they all tend to share an element of reducing overall work in the lead-up to competition. The question for our purposes then, is what is the ideal taper?
Dr. Noakes cites a number of studies which offer clues. A study by Shepley (1992) found a taper program of 5x500m on day 1, 4x500m day 2, 3x500m day 3, 2x500m day 4, and 1x500m on day 5 "produced significantly better performances during a maximal run lasting 6 minutes than did either complete rest or low-intensity training entailing a total of 30km of 50%-60% V02max over the same five-day period" (Noakes, 320).
A study by D.T. Martin (1994) found an increase in muscle power in cyclists engaged in a 2-week taper. A study by Hourman and Colleagues (1994) noted a 2.8% improvement in 5k times (9-30 seconds) in sub-elites who reduced mileage and took up interval training at 5k pace. Interestingly, this improvement could not be accounted for by changes in V02max or blood lactate concentrations (Noakes, 320).
Finally, a more recent study (abstract here, summary here) by Scott Trappe (2010) of Ball State found that a reduction in mileage (73% of maximal milage week 1, 73% of maximal mileage week 2, and 50% maximal mileage week 3) led to significantly improved 8km times for the cross-country team involved in the study (average time dropped from 27:42 to 26:12 in those three weeks). Furthermore, it was found that the thigh and calf muscles of the athletes involved increased in size, and became stronger, specifically, the Type-2a muscle ("fast oxidative" or "fatigue-resistant A") fibers. The improvements in performance appear to come primarily from the increased strength of these muscles, since other physiological indicators (V02max, running economy, etc.) remained constant.
Importantly, these results were achieved by reducing "moderate" miles in the athlete's program, not the easy runs or the interval sessions. Tempo runs and fast distance runs were eliminated in the three-week period, giving way to recovery runs and sharpening intervals.
So what can we draw from all this? Namely, that peak performance in racing is a function not only of general fitness but also of race fitness, which appears to be combination of muscle strength and neural allowances by the central governor in the brain. Accordingly, it is entirely possible to be in the best shape of your life and still race poorly (and conversely, to be in sub-par shape and still race decently). In order to maximize one's racing ability, one has to not only become quite fit generally, but also effectively utilize peaking and tapering to bring the body's race fitness to it's highest level on the important day.
At present, the studies cited above suggest that an ideal peaking/tapering method involves three things: a sufficient background of base training, a reduction in "moderate" paced mileage leading up to the competition, and a short-but-intense period of sharpening in close proximity to the big race. These methods do not appear to improve V02max or other physiological indicators of general fitness, but rather affect the structure of the muscles, the allowances of the sub-conscious brain, and the interface between them. The sum of all this would appear to be marked (and short-term) improvements in racing fitness.
It's important to remember that people are unique, and have subtly different requirements where training is concerned. For some people, a peak is relatively easy to reach a number of times a year, while for others, peaking requires more time, but once achieved, lasts longer. A thorough investigation of one's self or of one's charges in this regard would appear essential. A deep appreciation of an individual athlete's particular needs, lifestyle, fears, and ability should be taken into account when considering the development of a training program in general, and a peaking program in particular.
Further research may help to hone our understanding of how to maximize both general fitness and racing fitness. I encourage you to read the literature yourself, and devise experiments to test those assumptions that science has made, and which you might make in your own analysis. Much luck to you in this endeavor, and of course,
Happy Thursday, friends :)
No comments:
Post a Comment