The number one recommended read on the Track And Field News Web Site today is a blog post written by NNHS alum Noah Jampol arguing the case for why Oscar Pistorius should not be able to compete at the 2011 World Championships in Daegu.
Noah, a contributor to the Bleacher Report web site, is always worth reading, but this piece is one of the best I've seen on the question of whether "Blade Runner" should be competing against the best in the world at the World Championships and Olympics. Noah isn't overly distracted by the minutiae of the scientific evidence that Pistorius' prosthetics provide a biomechanical advantage over able-bodied runner, but explores why we have competitions in the first place.
I have been contemplating writing (and may yet write) an article arguing the exact opposite, but Noah's argument for banning Pistorius is compassionate without flinching from the conclusion that allowing prosthetics to compete against legs is a fundamental shift in how we think of track and field.
July 19, 2011
The Seduction of Soft
Like you, I love to run on trails.
Well, actually, I love to run on trails that aren't too rocky. (I still have memories -- and scars -- from hard, injurious falls on otherwise very nice trails). I love to run on trails, unless, that is, they are so narrow that a group has to go single-file for miles on end, and even a solitary runner is constantly ducking low branches. I enjoy the ups and downs of trails, except the steep embankments where one needs to use all fours to ascend and a parachute or rope ladder to descend.
I like dirt trails, but if a trail has too much mud, I might choose to run on the roads instead. And of course, for many months of the year when trails are covered with snow, or worse, ice, I don't even consider them an option. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that I do roughly 80% of my annual running mileage on roads, 10% on a track and 10% on trails or grass.
I ponder these things after reading an article in the NY Times this morning questioning the common wisdom that running on trails is better than running on other surfaces. The folks at LetsRun.com dismiss the article outright, calling it "Bad Training Advice." You can read the article yourself, at the following link.
For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body
I don't think the article is especially insightful, but it does raise an interesting question: what is the benefit of running on trails compared to a harder, more even surface? Have we all just accepted as gospel that running on soft trails is superior to road or track?
Coincidentally, a few days ago I received an email one of my Concord Academy runners. This runner is convinced that she will get injured if she runs on roads, and wants to run as much as possible on grass or trails. I find this to be a surprisingly common feeling among high school runners. In my response, I agreed that trails were very nice, but I also said that I didn't consider running on soft surfaces to be a fail-safe strategy for avoiding injuries. Specifically, I didn't think that the SOFTNESS of the surface was the most important factor. Instead, I mentioned the need for gradual adaptation to mileage, the need to strengthen the muscles of the foot and lower leg to be able to stabilize the body effectively at impact, the role of proprioception, and so on...
And I suggested that it was the UNEVEN nature of trails (not necessarily whether they were harder or softer) that made them different than roads. I thought that the uneven surface would give more variety to one's footstrike, hence, a better workout for the feet and less risk of overuse in the muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the knee and hip. (And by this same logic, runners will sometimes consider a rolling course to be slightly less stressful than a pancake flat course... but I digress.)
Of course, I couldn't prove any of this.
The other reasons to run on trails might be even more compelling. To enjoy the outdoors in a more agreeable environment, to avoid cars and exhaust, to take in the scenery, to introduce variety into one's running. These are perfectly good reasons to run on trails, even if the training effect is elusive.
And then there's the specificity of training. If one is preparing to race on soft surfaces for cross-country, it only makes sense to practice running on those surfaces. But for road runners, perhaps trails are not so necessary.
It's interesting how, when we think about running, we think that "soft" is automatically better than "hard." I remember a time when running shoes were being touted as "pillows for your feet." The impact forces of running are pretty severe; shouldn't your shoes be soft to cushion the blow? Nowadays, the trend is toward less shoe and letting the natural mechanics of the unshod foot handle the stress of landing, but it wasn't always that way.
In the end, isn't the whole question a little fatuous? We run where we like because that's where we like to run. Sometimes it's easier on the mind and body to run on trails (like now, in the summer) and sometimes it's a bear (like one winter trail run where I nearly ended my running career by spraining an already tender ankle). It's great to be able to do long runs off-road and I really enjoy the variety, but in January I get by on a restricted diet of runs on Comm Ave, I don't fall apart. There are no magic shoes to solve all our running problems or make hard training easy, and, sadly, you can still get hurt even if you run all your miles down a garden path strewn with rose petals.
Well, actually, I love to run on trails that aren't too rocky. (I still have memories -- and scars -- from hard, injurious falls on otherwise very nice trails). I love to run on trails, unless, that is, they are so narrow that a group has to go single-file for miles on end, and even a solitary runner is constantly ducking low branches. I enjoy the ups and downs of trails, except the steep embankments where one needs to use all fours to ascend and a parachute or rope ladder to descend.
I like dirt trails, but if a trail has too much mud, I might choose to run on the roads instead. And of course, for many months of the year when trails are covered with snow, or worse, ice, I don't even consider them an option. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that I do roughly 80% of my annual running mileage on roads, 10% on a track and 10% on trails or grass.
I ponder these things after reading an article in the NY Times this morning questioning the common wisdom that running on trails is better than running on other surfaces. The folks at LetsRun.com dismiss the article outright, calling it "Bad Training Advice." You can read the article yourself, at the following link.
For Runners, Soft Ground Can Be Hard on the Body
I don't think the article is especially insightful, but it does raise an interesting question: what is the benefit of running on trails compared to a harder, more even surface? Have we all just accepted as gospel that running on soft trails is superior to road or track?
Coincidentally, a few days ago I received an email one of my Concord Academy runners. This runner is convinced that she will get injured if she runs on roads, and wants to run as much as possible on grass or trails. I find this to be a surprisingly common feeling among high school runners. In my response, I agreed that trails were very nice, but I also said that I didn't consider running on soft surfaces to be a fail-safe strategy for avoiding injuries. Specifically, I didn't think that the SOFTNESS of the surface was the most important factor. Instead, I mentioned the need for gradual adaptation to mileage, the need to strengthen the muscles of the foot and lower leg to be able to stabilize the body effectively at impact, the role of proprioception, and so on...
And I suggested that it was the UNEVEN nature of trails (not necessarily whether they were harder or softer) that made them different than roads. I thought that the uneven surface would give more variety to one's footstrike, hence, a better workout for the feet and less risk of overuse in the muscles, ligaments, and tendons of the knee and hip. (And by this same logic, runners will sometimes consider a rolling course to be slightly less stressful than a pancake flat course... but I digress.)
Of course, I couldn't prove any of this.
The other reasons to run on trails might be even more compelling. To enjoy the outdoors in a more agreeable environment, to avoid cars and exhaust, to take in the scenery, to introduce variety into one's running. These are perfectly good reasons to run on trails, even if the training effect is elusive.
And then there's the specificity of training. If one is preparing to race on soft surfaces for cross-country, it only makes sense to practice running on those surfaces. But for road runners, perhaps trails are not so necessary.
It's interesting how, when we think about running, we think that "soft" is automatically better than "hard." I remember a time when running shoes were being touted as "pillows for your feet." The impact forces of running are pretty severe; shouldn't your shoes be soft to cushion the blow? Nowadays, the trend is toward less shoe and letting the natural mechanics of the unshod foot handle the stress of landing, but it wasn't always that way.
In the end, isn't the whole question a little fatuous? We run where we like because that's where we like to run. Sometimes it's easier on the mind and body to run on trails (like now, in the summer) and sometimes it's a bear (like one winter trail run where I nearly ended my running career by spraining an already tender ankle). It's great to be able to do long runs off-road and I really enjoy the variety, but in January I get by on a restricted diet of runs on Comm Ave, I don't fall apart. There are no magic shoes to solve all our running problems or make hard training easy, and, sadly, you can still get hurt even if you run all your miles down a garden path strewn with rose petals.
July 06, 2011
Training to Train
Many years ago, at a time when I had just started running for a coach who was a proponent of lots of hard interval workouts, I had a brief exchange with him that has stuck in my mind ever since.
My training partners and I had done a couple of workouts with him already. My recollection is that they weren't too tough, but they WERE structured differently than what I was used to. The volume was light, but they were quite fast. After the second such workout, I asked him about the purpose of this kind of training, and his response was: "You're doing this workout to train for the workouts to come."
Now, I don't think the details of those workouts matter that much, and I can't remember them anyway. But the concept of training to prepare for training made a lot of sense to me. I think I had always operated as if there was a direct and immediate connection between training and racing -- that this week's workout would benefit next week's race. The idea that you did such-and-such workouts to prepare for other workouts was new to me. My coach's response neatly encapsulated the idea that one could focus on one aspect of training or one physiological system as a foundation for work on other aspects and other systems. It would later resonate with my subjective experience when I was involved in periods of training when racing was the last thing on my mind and I was completely focused on surviving the crucible of a series of tough workouts.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because like many, I'm deep into my own summer training now, and I'm focusing on building a foundation to support harder training to come. I've been really enjoying this process, without worrying about racing at all. There's something very satisfying about being able to handle harder sessions on the track or longer tempo runs and beginning to notice yourself recovering well and eager for the next round of workouts.
I think a lot of people -- a lot of athletes, a lot of coaches -- assume that summer is nothing but base mileage, and that ANY fast running is out of place. I'm not convinced this is right. While it might be of secondary importance, I think fast running has a place in base training.
Looking at the calendar, I see that there are only 19 weeks until my cross country team lines up on a cold day in November for their final meet of the season. Preparing for that final test means preparing to prepare. Do I want them running long, hard intervals in the early weeks of October? Then I need a plan for how to get them ready to handle those hard sessions. Shouldn't that plan include a gradual introduction to fast running?
I don't mean to suggest that summer speed is the most important element of such preparation. When I prioritize summer training goals for my runners, I generally stress adapting to daily running and impact stress, developing a significant aerobic base, working on core strength, and establishing habits of good nutrition and adequate sleep. I'm confident these are the most helpful for building a foundation for hard training to come.
But for my experienced runners I don't discourage fartlek runs, tempo runs, low-key races, strides, and other forms of faster running. I wouldn't even rule out some work on the track, if I were able to supervise it, which I'm not.
We tend to forget that fast running is fun and motivating. Feeling faster makes you feel more engaged and committed so that you start looking forward to more training. I think the key is doing enough to increase comfort with faster running, while holding back from any heavy servings of speed that would be more suitable later in season.
I'm fortunate that among my readers are coaches with much more experience than me. I'm curious as to whether you encourage your athletes to incorporate faster running into summer plans, or whether you steer them away from that.
My training partners and I had done a couple of workouts with him already. My recollection is that they weren't too tough, but they WERE structured differently than what I was used to. The volume was light, but they were quite fast. After the second such workout, I asked him about the purpose of this kind of training, and his response was: "You're doing this workout to train for the workouts to come."
Now, I don't think the details of those workouts matter that much, and I can't remember them anyway. But the concept of training to prepare for training made a lot of sense to me. I think I had always operated as if there was a direct and immediate connection between training and racing -- that this week's workout would benefit next week's race. The idea that you did such-and-such workouts to prepare for other workouts was new to me. My coach's response neatly encapsulated the idea that one could focus on one aspect of training or one physiological system as a foundation for work on other aspects and other systems. It would later resonate with my subjective experience when I was involved in periods of training when racing was the last thing on my mind and I was completely focused on surviving the crucible of a series of tough workouts.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because like many, I'm deep into my own summer training now, and I'm focusing on building a foundation to support harder training to come. I've been really enjoying this process, without worrying about racing at all. There's something very satisfying about being able to handle harder sessions on the track or longer tempo runs and beginning to notice yourself recovering well and eager for the next round of workouts.
I think a lot of people -- a lot of athletes, a lot of coaches -- assume that summer is nothing but base mileage, and that ANY fast running is out of place. I'm not convinced this is right. While it might be of secondary importance, I think fast running has a place in base training.
Looking at the calendar, I see that there are only 19 weeks until my cross country team lines up on a cold day in November for their final meet of the season. Preparing for that final test means preparing to prepare. Do I want them running long, hard intervals in the early weeks of October? Then I need a plan for how to get them ready to handle those hard sessions. Shouldn't that plan include a gradual introduction to fast running?
I don't mean to suggest that summer speed is the most important element of such preparation. When I prioritize summer training goals for my runners, I generally stress adapting to daily running and impact stress, developing a significant aerobic base, working on core strength, and establishing habits of good nutrition and adequate sleep. I'm confident these are the most helpful for building a foundation for hard training to come.
But for my experienced runners I don't discourage fartlek runs, tempo runs, low-key races, strides, and other forms of faster running. I wouldn't even rule out some work on the track, if I were able to supervise it, which I'm not.
We tend to forget that fast running is fun and motivating. Feeling faster makes you feel more engaged and committed so that you start looking forward to more training. I think the key is doing enough to increase comfort with faster running, while holding back from any heavy servings of speed that would be more suitable later in season.
I'm fortunate that among my readers are coaches with much more experience than me. I'm curious as to whether you encourage your athletes to incorporate faster running into summer plans, or whether you steer them away from that.
July 04, 2011
With Gravity on His Side, Lowell's Brian Gagnon Runs 3:44 Mile
Former Lowell H.S. and UConn standout Brian Gagnon won the inaugural HASLAW Manchester Road Mile in Manchester NH Sunday, running an attention-getting time of 3:44, more than two seconds faster than Alan Webb's American Record.
Too bad it won't count. The course, which begins at Derryfield Park (site of the Manchester XC Invitational) and ends at Pulaski Park, has a net elevation drop of 188 feet. The race is organized by Millenium Running, the same outfit that directs the New Year's Day Millenium Mile, another downhill dash.
Here's the elevation profile for the Manchester Mile:
I wonder what the splits were for that first half mile... maybe Gags had his eyes on Johnny's Gray's AR in the 800, too.
According to the story posted in the Manchester Union Leader, Gagnon was one of eight men to go under 4:00. The women's winner, Julie Cully of Clinton NJ, ran 4:14, which is under Mary Slaney's American record.
Too bad it won't count. The course, which begins at Derryfield Park (site of the Manchester XC Invitational) and ends at Pulaski Park, has a net elevation drop of 188 feet. The race is organized by Millenium Running, the same outfit that directs the New Year's Day Millenium Mile, another downhill dash.
Here's the elevation profile for the Manchester Mile:
I wonder what the splits were for that first half mile... maybe Gags had his eyes on Johnny's Gray's AR in the 800, too.
According to the story posted in the Manchester Union Leader, Gagnon was one of eight men to go under 4:00. The women's winner, Julie Cully of Clinton NJ, ran 4:14, which is under Mary Slaney's American record.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
