Paula Radcliffe and Running Efficiency

In recent weeks, I have been focusing on developing a program which will allow me to run a good marathon in 2012. Although I would not wish to rely too heavily on the training of elite athletes to guide me, I have nonetheless been quite strongly influenced by the training program that turned Paul Radcliffe from a promising junior distance runner who won the World Junior Cross Country championship in 1992 into one of the most amazing marathon runners the world has ever seen.

VO2max or efficiency?

According to Andrew Jones, the physiologist who has supervised the measurement of Paula’s aerobic capacity and running efficiency over a period of more than 15 years, the major factor in her improvement was a 15 percent increase in her running efficiency between 1991, a year before she won the World Junior Cross Country championship, and 2003 when she set a world woman’s marathon record of 2hr 15 min 25 sec in London. (International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching Vo1 • pp101-116 • 2006).

If we ignore the minor ups and downs in the measurements, her maximum aerobic capacity (VO2max ) remained approximately constant at 70 ml/min/Kg from age 17 in 1991, to age 29 in 2003. However her oxygen consumption at a pace of 16 Km/hr (6 min/mile) decreased from 205 ml/Kg/Km in 1992 to 175 ml/Kg/Km in 2003, which represents a 15% increase in efficiency (i.e. 15% reduction in the amount of oxygen consumption per Km at a standard pace).

 Andrew Jones acknowledges that he does not know which physiological variable has made the greatest contribution to this improvement in efficiency. Among the various measurements he performed were blood lactate at various paces; heart rate at various paces; vertical jump height and the sit-and-reach test of lower body flexibility. All of these measurements changed significantly over the relevant time period.

The lactate turn point

Most striking was the right shift of the turn-point in the graph of blood lactate against pace. In 1992, there was an appreciable upturn of lactate (from 1.2 to 1.45 mM/litre) between 13 and 14 Km/hour. By 2003, her blood lactate level remained almost constant in the range 1.2 – 1.4 mM/litre up to 18.5 Km/hr and then turned upwards sharply.

At first sight, this might indicate a substantial increase in ability to deliver oxygen to the tissues (perhaps via increased diameter or density of capillaries) and/ or increase in number of mitochondria in muscle fibres so that fuel is burned aerobically rather than anaerobically. However, one might expect that if such changes were generalized to all aerobic muscle fibres, these changes would also produce an increase in VO2 max. In view of the fact that VO2 max did not increase substantially, it suggests that the changes are predominantly changes in blood supply and mitochondria in slow twitch fibres.

Andrew Jones reports that during the relevant years she increased her ability to cope with a relatively large training volume, so that by 2003 she was running up to 160 miles per week. Jones reports that a large proportion of Paula’s training was steady paced running typically running at a pace of 3:30 to 3:40 min/Km. For most people, these paces would be well above the lactate turn point, though by 2003, at 3:20 min/km Paula’s blood lactate level was only about 1.4mM/litre. A large volume of training at this pace would be expected to develop the capillaries and mitochondria of slow twitch fibres. It is noteworthy that 3:20 min/Km corresponds to a marathon time of 2 hrs 20 min and thus is not far below her race pace. Thus I am inclined to speculate that it is likely that the most significant development that allowed her to run a marathon in 2:15:25 was the development of capillaries and mitochondria of slow twitch fibres.

However, it should also be noted that even at paces corresponding to VO2max, her blood lactate level was only around 5mM/litre, which is around half the expected value for a typical athlete. This suggests that she also had a highly developed capacity to metabolize lactate. This would have made her use of fuel at marathon pace more efficient.

Muscle power

In addition, other factors almost certainly contributed. As an old timer with noticeably reduced muscle power, my attention was caught by the observation that her vertical jump performance increased from 29cm in 1996 to 38cm in 2003. Perhaps the most important contribution to developing her muscle power arose from the efforts of physiotherapist Gerard Hartmann to identify the problem that had left Paula struggling in the wake of three faster runners in the final lap of the 10,000m in the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

In an article published in Running Times in 2004, athletics journalist, Frank Greally, reported an interview with Hartmann, in which Hartmann described how, after the 2000 Olympics, he had asked Paula to do 20 hops up and down from a 16 inch high box as fast as she could. Whereas Kelly Holmes had achieved 20 hops on and off the same box in 12.5 seconds, Paula took 27 seconds on her first attempt. This led Hartmann to devise a program of plyometric exercises and heavy weight sessions. In 2002, Paula won her first senior world title (long cross country in Ostend, Belgum) and also her debut marathon in London, where she achieved the second fastest time ever for woman (eight seconds slower than Catherine Ndereba’s record of 2:18:47).

Head nodding

Another problem that Hartmann had addressed following the disappointing 4th place in the 10000m in the Sydney Olympics was Paula’s characteristic head-nodding style. Hartmann demonstrated that this arose from weak neck and shoulder muscles and devised a program of strengthening exercises which has largely cured her head nodding.

Is flexibility good?

An intriguing but probably a less important factor was the deterioration in Paula’s lower body flexibility over the period from 1991 to 2003. Andrew Jones reports that in 1991, in the sit-and-reach test she reached 8cm beyond her toes in 1996, but only 4cm beyond her toes in 2003. This observation demonstrates that a high degree of flexibility is not essential for world class performance, and raises the possibility that too much flexibility might actually be associated with diminished efficiency.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence suggests two major developments contributed to Paula’s increased efficiency and dramatically improved performances. The first was a strong rightward shift of the lactate turn point, possibly due largely to development of capillaries and mitochondria in slow twitch fibres and to increased ability to metabolize lactate. Secondly, a program of plyometrics and weight training led to a major increase in her leg muscle power, reflected in vertical jump capacity, and in her neck and shoulder muscles, alleviating her previous inefficient head nodding style. It is likely that the increased power of her leg muscles allowed her to spend a shorter time on stance and to lengthen her stride, in the manner described by Weyand in the study which I described in my blog post on 22nd November.

 2003 – 2012

Since 2003, Paula has continued to record great achievements in the marathon, with three victories in New York (2004, 2007 and 2008); first place in London in 2005; and a gold medal at the world championships in Helsinki in 2005. Sadly, an Olympic medal still eludes her. She now has her sights on the London Olympics 2012. By then she will be 38. I understand that Catherine Ndereba, who had preceded Paula as the woman’s marathon world record holder in 2002; won gold at the world championships in 2003 and 2007; and silver at the Olympics in Athens in 2004 and Beijing in 2008, is also planning to race in London. Catherine will be 40 in 2012. It would be wonderful if both are in great form for that race. It would be hard for anyone with a sense of sportsmanship to begrudge Paula a medal.

Whether or not Paula is able to produce medal winning form in 2012, her story illustrates that a systematic approach to training, focusing on aerobic development, leg strength and running technique has turned a promising junior into one of the most wonderful athletes ever.

Weyand v. Pose: it’s the push that counts

A few weeks ago, I presented an overview of my plan to get fit enough to run a ‘good’ marathon again in 3 years time. Each 3-4 month period will have a specific goal in addition to the continuing basic objective of improving my aerobic capacity. The specific goal for the first 4 month period is recovering some of my lost muscle strength, largely by resistance exercises and drills, together with a small amount of sprinting and uphill running.

Although I have now completed the first three weeks of the program, I have not fully settled the question of what leg strength exercises and drills are likely to be most beneficial. At present the exercises that I am doing are mainly body-weight exercises performed standing on one leg (such as one leg squats , hip swings, calf raises etc) since the major muscle actions of running are executed while standing on one leg. I am also doing a very small amount of plyometric exercise to increase my capacity to deal with eccentric contractions but in view of the risk of long term damage, I am being quite sparing with these exercises. I plan to test for gains in leg muscle strength (assessed by a hopping test, and by measuring my sprinting speed) after 6 weeks and if there has not evidence of substantial gain, I will modify the types of exercises and drills in my program.

In preparation for this, I have been once again reviewing the question of running technique in order to identify what exercises and drills are likely to be most beneficial. Two apparently coincidental happenings in the past two weeks have also served to re-focus my attention on running style.

 Gravitational torque

One has been a series of comments by Simbil on a post entitled ‘if gravitational torque is a red herring, how to do we run fast?, which I had posted in February. Simbil is a runner and thinker based in Sheffield, who contributes thought-provoking comments to the Efficient Running thread on the Fetch website. He is an advocate for Pose technique, though he is prepared to re-examine the tenets of Pose in a thoughtful manner. Gravitational torque plays a crucial role in the theory of Pose. Simbil has been challenging my assertion that the gravitational torque that generates head-forwards and downwards angular momentum in the second half of the stance phase is balanced by an oppositely directed torque acting in the first half of stance. We have been lobbing arguments back and forth for some time. We have not yet reached any definitive conclusion, though we are in agreement that the gravitational torque must be counteracted by an oppositely directed torque acting a some point in the gait cycle, and furthermore, that whatever the mechanism, the forces involved in generating gravitational torque and compensating for it are far less important that the forces required to get airborne. I will return to this issue a little later.

Pose Tech

The other coincidental happening came to my attention when I noted a little upwards blip in the number of hits on this site a little over a week ago. At present this site gets about 2000 hits per month (far below the league of the Huffington Post or Belle de Jour, or, I suspect, Younger Legs for Older Runners, but nonetheless, satisfying). Most of the hits come from Google searches seeking information about various aspects of running technique and training, though the flurry of increased activity in the few days after each posting indicates that there are also some faithful followers. It always gives me a little thrill to see these flurries of activity and I hope that those of you who read the posts find them interesting. In addition there are occasional flurries of increased activity at other times indicating that some other website has drawn attention to something on my site. One such flurry occurred last week, and inspection of the stats provided by WordPress revealed that the hits were referred from one of the forums on the Pose Tech website. Those forums are protected by password, but as runner interested in Pose, I have been registered with the site for several years. So I was tempted to have a look.

When I logged on I was intrigued to find that there was a quite active thread discussing my blog. Those of you familiar with the Pose Tech site will probably be aware that many of the people who post on the forums are strong believers in Pose. Therefore, I was more amused than surprised to see comments such as ‘burn the heretic’. However a gratifyingly number of the postings were in agreement with my views, especially my view that landing on the ball of the foot, in combination with a short time on stance places large forces on the foot, and is associated with risk of injury to metatarsals and connective tissues of the foot and ankle.

I was a little saddened by a passionate posting from Lana, the wife of Nicholas Romanov [correction: Lana is his daughter, see comments below], lamenting the fact that I and others did not give due credit to the amount of work and expertise that her husband has devoted to the Pose technique. However, while I am happy to acknowledge the work and expertise of Dr Romanov, I think there is a serious issue arising from the fact that the 2002 edition of Pose Method of Running reproduces the diagrams and photos from the first edition showing the heel held high off the ground at mid stance. In the early years, it was quite common for Pose novices to report Achilles or calf muscle problems, which I think are largely due to holding the heel off the ground. The importance of these problems was reinforced by the findings of the Capetown study (Arendse et al, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: Vol 36 pp 272-277, 2004) demonstrating that Pose is associated with increased stress around the ankle, together with the reports by Ross Tucker (who assisted Dr Romanov in coaching the Pose technique in that study) that the runners in the Pose group suffered a high rate of injuries to connective tissue around the ankle (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/09/running-technique-part-ii-scientific.html).

When I expressed disappointment that these figures had been reproduced without anything in either text or illustrations (as far as I have been able to ascertain) describing how the risk of these injuries might be minimized by relaxing the ankle to allow the heel to touch the ground, Lana suggested that ‘you need to “zoom out” a bit – because you are not doing yourself any favours by using a magnifying glass all the time’. In an email, a good friend has suggested that it is unlikely that I will be on Lana’s Christmas card list this year.

Despite this little storm in a tea-cup on Pose Tech, I have a fairly positive view of how Pose works in practice, based not only on looking at the evidence through a magnifying glass; but also by talking to runners who have applied it; and by experimenting with it myself. I am less impressed with the theory underlying Pose, but the evidence that the technique can be beneficial makes me want to understand more clearly why it works

A subjective overview of Pose

Many of the principles of Pose such as high cadence, short time of stance; avoiding reaching out with the leading foot, and keeping the pelvis forward, make mechanical sense. I discuss these features in my own account of technique (‘Running: a dance with the devil’ – listed on the side panel). Many elite athletes exhibit these features despite never having been trained in Pose, though I think Nicholas Romanov deserves credit for publicizing these principles among amateur runners.

Other features such as landing on the ball of the foot (BOF) also make sense, but are attended by risk. As I had mentioned in my comments on Pose Tech that provoked the anguished response from Lana, BOF landing places substantial stress on the bones and connective tissue of the foot and lower leg, and creates a risk of repetitive strain injury to metatarsal, planate fascia, Achilles tendon and peroneal tendons. At least when running long distances, I consider it is best to relax the ankle so that the heel brushes the ground in mid-stance

I also consider that Dr Romanov’s claim that gravitational torque provides the motive force for running is misleading. According to the law of conservation of energy, it is impossible for gravity to provide net energy when running on a level surface. I accept that the unbalancing due to gravitational torque during the second half of stance does help promote the muscular actions necessary to swing the leg forwards in time to support the body at subsequent footfall. However I am not convinced that this is plays a major role, and I therefore consider that gravitational torque is probably a red herring. Nonetheless, I am quite happy to continue debating this issue with Simbil.

However in my opinion the most interesting issue for debate is the concept of pulling from stance rather than pushing. The Pose mantra is ‘Pose, Fall, Pull’ implying that the crucial actions are:

1) adopting the classic pose with the point of support (BOF), hips, and shoulders aligned, in mid-stance;

2) falling under the influence of gravitational torque as the centre of mass moves in front of the point of support;

3) pulling the leg from stance by means of a contraction of the hamstrings.

In practice, I think that getting airborne is impossible without a push. Pulling from stance would amount to lifting oneself by one’s own boot straps. Of course pulling the leg forwards by hip flexor contraction once airborne is essential, but is largely automatic. While I think that pulling from stance is largely an illusion, I think it might be a useful illusion to cultivate because it encourages a short time of stance, high cadence and relatively short strides – possibly not the best style for record breaking performances, but nonetheless fairly safe. For most of us, avoiding injury is more important than maximizing mechanical efficiency.

So, while I think that the Pose concept of pull is not mechanically correct, I think that it is a useful mental image to cultivate, in the same way that some of the principles of Alexander technique are based on creating helpful illusions. Therefore, Pose drills such as Change of Stance that encourage the illusion of pulling are probably useful. But if one want to increase one’s speed of running, are Pose drills more important that developing the muscles responsible for the push?

Weyand: it’s the push that counts

Perhaps the most important evidence about the muscular action required for running fast comes from a study by Peter Weyand and colleagues from Harvard (J Appl Physiol Vol 89: pp 1991–1999, 2000). In a study of runners with various different maximum running speeds, using a force plate to assess ground reaction forces during treadmill running, they demonstrated that ‘human runners reach faster top speeds not by repositioning their limbs more rapidly in the air, but by applying greater support forces to the ground.’ The force plate data showed clearly that a larger vertical ground reaction force achieved by the foot pushing against the ground was the main factor distinguishing fast runners from slower runners.

The extensor paradox

However, Weyand’s findings present a problem: the extensor paradox. Studies employing electromyography to measure the electrical activity in muscles demonstrate the major muscle groups that would be expected to execute a push off the ground, especially the quadriceps which are responsible for knee extension, are almost silent in late stance (Elliot et al. Medicine & Science in Sports vol 11, pp 322-327, 1979). So where does the push come from? Much of it almost certainly comes from elastic recoil of quadriceps, acting in conjunction with the hamstrings, and soleus, all of which have been stretched on impact at foot fall. Thus the crucial strength that is required for running fast is the ability to sustain a strong eccentric contraction of the quads, hams and calf muscles.

Conclusions

In a program to rebuild the strength necessary to run fast, it is crucial to recover the capacity for strong eccentric contraction of quads, hams and calf muscles. Of course other muscles also play a role – especially the gluteals which help hold the pelvis in a horizontal position during swing, and the hip flexors, which drive the swinging leg forwards – but Weyand’s study indicates that it is the ability to push strongly that distinguishes fast runners from slow runners. Clearly any strengthening program should involve a reasonable balance between all relevant muscle groups as muscles do not work in isolation, but nonetheless, much of the focus should be on eccentric strengthening of quads, hams and calf muscles.

However there is a problem: as I have discussed several times previously on this blog, eccentric contraction damages muscle, possibly permanently, especially in older runners. So a program of plyometrics designed to increase the ability to withstand eccentric contraction must be undertaken cautiously. I am inclined to think that the first priority is to recover strength of the major muscle groups, especially quads and hams with a program of resistance training with free weights, including a gradual build up of eccentric loading, before moving on to a modest amount of plyometrics. Meanwhile, I will also continue with regular uphill running, as this invokes the required muscular actions in a way that is ‘natural’ for a runner.

As for drills, any drill that promotes a short time on stance is likely to be beneficial. I am still exploring the options, but despite my opinion that the pull is less important than the push in getting airborne, I think that the Pose ‘Change of Stance’ drill is beneficial, even if it is largely cultivating a beneficial illusion of pulling from stance.

Train a lot but train smart

In proposing the toast at a dinner celebrating Espen Tǿnnessen’s successful defence of his PhD thesis, in Oslo in June 2009, Dag Kaas, coach of world champion cross-country skiers and orienteers remarked, ”My experience as a coach tells me that to become world champion in endurance disciplines, you have to train SMART, AND you have to train a LOT. One without the other is insufficient.”

This anecdote is recounted in an excellent review by Stephen Seiler and Espen Tǿnnessen entitled ‘ Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training’ published this month in Sportscience (Vol 13, 32-53, 2009). Simon Wegeriff had provided a link to this in his comment on my post on 8th November describing the study by Esteve-Lanao. Esteve-Lanoa and colleagues provided a fairly convincing demonstration that a polarized training program in which about 80% of the work is done at low intensity, is more effective that a program including a higher proportion of work in the mid-zone, near to lactate threshold.

In their review, Seiler and Tǿnnessen present a contrast between the mixed bag of evidence from scientific studies of benefits of high intensity v low intensity training, with the observations from the training of selected elite endurance athletes. To obtain a full appreciation of the evidence it is best to read the full review. Here I will focus on a few issues that caught my attention.

Who are the authors?

Perhaps the first issue when reading a selective review article is appreciating the background of the authors. There is no reason to doubt that Seiler and Tǿnnessen are rigorous scientists with a commitment to establishing the truth. However, a scientist’s background inevitably influences the way in which evidence is selected and evaluated. The senior author, Stephen Seiler, is a strong advocate for polarized training: a large amount of low intensity training, together with a small amount of high intensity training, and a minimal amount on the intervening grey zone. He was one of the co-authors of the report on the Esteve-Lanao study, and had also previously led a study of autonomic recovery following low, medium and high intensity sessions, in which the low intensity sessions were associated with the most rapid recovery. Espen Tǿnnessen’s doctoral dissertation included detailed analyses of the training of selected world champion female endurance athletes. He examined training diary logs of over 15,000 training sessions from three World and/or Olympic champions: Bente Skari (cross-country skier), Hanne Staff (orienteer) and Ingrid Kristiansen (marathon runner). The feature common to the selected champions from the three disciplines was that about 85 % of their training sessions were performed as continuous efforts at low to moderate intensity (with blood lactate less than 2 mM).

Thus, Seiler and Tǿnnessen had good reason to approach this review with a bias towards polarized training. The bias shows through in the use of phrases such as ‘In view of the recent hype and the explosion in the number of studies investigating interval training…’ While their selection of data includes studies favoring high intensity training in addition to studies favoring low intensity training, to my eye, there is a degree of bias in the selection.

Evidence regarding African training

For example, in discussing the training programs of Africans they start with the challenging statement: ‘Kenyan runners are often mythologized for the high intensity of their training’ and go on to refer to their own re-analysis of the data collected by Veronque Billat which led them to conclude that elite Kenyan 5- and 10-km runners ran ~85 % of their weekly training kilometers below lactate-threshold speed. However, they make no mention of the study in which Tim Noakes and colleagues compared elite black African runners with elite white Africans and found that the black runners did 36% of their running at above 80% of VO2max, while the white runners did only 14% of their running above this level (Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 75, pp.1822-1827, 1993).

Training logs of elite athletes

Seiler and Tǿnnessen present compelling evidence for major improvements in both performance and in physiological variables such as VO2max, after a change to a training program with a higher proportion of low intensity training, in the case of two Norwegian athletes: Øystein Sylta, and Knut Anders Fostervold. Sylta was a military pentathlete, who was European champion in 2003, and subsequently became an elite distance runner. Fostervold was a professional soccer player who switched to cycling after a knee injury ended his football career at age 30. He subsequently represented Norway in the world championship time trials in 2006 and 2007.

However, they make no mention of Norway’s greatest female marathon runner, Grete Waitz , who won the New York marathon 9 times, a silver medal in the 1984 Olympics in LosAngeles, and gold at the 1983 World Championships. As far as I have been able to determine, Waitz did a lot of training at mid and high intensity. For example, in an article by elite Norwegian distance runner Marius Bakken, based on Waitz’ training diary; and on talks between magazine writer, Lief Tjelta and Waitz herself; and also on talks between Bakken and one of Waitz’ mentors, Johan Kagestad, Bakken claims: ‘The most mileage for one week came in 1976 with 180 km/week. Her mileage at this time was never long and slow. She often ran it with the boys at a steady 3.30-3.45/km pace, which is quick for a female athlete (according to Kagestad). This indicates a sub AT type training to build endurance.’ http://www.mariusbakken.com/index.php?parent=11&groupid=22   Marius Bakken has a reputation for racing with tiger-like ferocity and tends to advocate a substantial amount of moderate and high intensity training. It might be possible to offer alternative interpretations of Grete Waitz’ training diary. The point I wish to make is that in the much debated question of the merits of high intensity v low intensity (high volume) training, one needs to take account of possible biases in the way in which the data is selected and presented. Notwithstanding this important caveat, I think Seiler and Tǿnnessen present a large amount of very valuable information in their review.

Differing physiological benefits at different intensities

Among the things that struck me was their discussion of the possible differences in the physiological benefits of high intensity and of low intensity, high volume training. They conclude that both forms of training are likely to lead to increased activation of fast twitch muscle fibres producing a beneficial increase in metabolic activity in these fast fibres. High intensity training will recruit these fibres early. In the case of low intensity, high volume training they propose that the fast fibres will be recruited after exhaustion of slow fibres. It might be expected that this benefit would greatest after long runs –suggesting that one long run might be better for this purpose than two shorter runs. They also indicate that high intensity training will produce increased filling of the heart and increased end-diastolic volume, thereby producing a beneficial increase in maximum stroke volume and maximum cardiac output. In addition they propose that high intensity training might lead to increased vascular supply to muscle fibres as a result of local mechanical and metabolic signals. In addtion, they  list several other possible physiological benefits of each type of training. The overall conclusion appears to be that high intensity training is likely to be more efficient for certain types of beneficial physiological development, especially in the cardiovascular system, but low intensity training also has its advantages. Thus, ‘smart’ training should include an appropriate proportion of high intensity training in addition to low intensity training. It is crucial to note that Seiler and Tǿnnessen do not argue against the inclusion of high intensity training; they are mainly arguing for polarized training with a relatively small proportion of high intensity training and avoidance of the ‘grey’ mid-zone. They argue that tiredness from mid-zone training impedes the ability to perform the high intensity sessions well.

Differences between individuals

Another important point raised by Seiler and Tǿnnessen is that individuals differ. They describe a 2 year study of cross-country skiers by Gaskill and colleagues, in which all the athletes trained similarly with about 16% of training at lactate threshold or higher, in the first year. By the end of the first year, half of the athletes had shown substantial improvement in race performance and in physiological measurements. In the second year, those who had shown improvement continued on their established training program, while those who had not improved in the first year, undertook a program with more high intensity training. In the second year, the previously poor responders improved significantly on the higher intensity program, while the previously good responders continued to improve on the established program with only 16% at or above lactate threshold. I think the lesson is that whatever program one adopts, one must monitor progress and change if the expected improvement is not occurring.

Training smart

Overall, I consider that Seiler and Tǿnnessen present a strong case for polarized training with a high proportion of low intensity sessions. However, I also think that Dag Kaas is right: it is necessary to be smart in addition to training a lot. Each individual needs to work out a program that addresses his or her specific needs; invest faith in that program for an adequate length of time while monitoring progress, and if progress is not occurring, make appropriate adjustment. In my next two posts I intend to deal with what adjustments in a training program are required to deal with some of the limitations of the older runner, and I will also describe the testing procedures that I am incorporating in my own program.

The grey zone

In recent posts I have discussed the evidence regarding the relative merits of high intensity training and high volume training.  The evidence demonstrates that both approaches are effective for increasing aerobic capacity.  Both will develop capillaries and mitochondria in heart and skeletal muscles.  High intensity training allows a more efficient use of time, which might be the decisive feature for an amateur athlete with family and work commitments, though in general, high intensity work-outs are tougher and require greater determination. 

Potential benefits of mixing high and low intensity

Furthermore the two approaches are each attended by risk of injury or over-training.  However it is probable that the risk of injury and over-training associated with the two intensities of training arise from somewhat different stresses on the body.  High intensity training produces greater forces on the musculo-skeletal system, but also produces greater increases in anabolic hormones, whereas high volume training produces greater increases in catabolic steroids such as cortisol, which can promote destruction of muscle if excessive.  On the other hand, there is relatively little evidence suggesting that a high intensity session undoes the benefits of a preceding low intensity session or vice versa.  Therefore, my provisional conclusion is that the best approach is a program that includes a mixture of high intensity and low intensity (high volume) sessions, on the grounds that such an approach is likely to achieve a good balance between stimulation of catabolic and anabolic hormones. This remains unproven but is at least plausible.

What about the mid-zone?

However, this leaves unanswered the question of whether or not training sessions that fall in the mid-zone between high intensity and low intensity (but high volume) are of much value.  Surveys have shown that elite athletes tend to avoid the ‘grey’ zone between high intensity and low intensity,  For example, the study by Seiler and Kieland found that elite skiers do about 75% of their training at low intensity and 15-20% at high intensity with only around 5-10% in the mid intensity range  (Scand J Med Sci Sports. 16(1):49-56, 2006).  Previously the French exercise physiologist, Veronique Billat, had reported similar proportions of time in the different training zones in marathon runners (Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 33:2089–2097. 2001)

The Esteve-Lanao study

It was therefore with great interest that I read a report on a study by Jonathan Esteve-Lanao and colleagues (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 21(3), 943–949, 2007), which had been pointed out to me by Simon in a comment on my post comparing high and low intensity training on October 25^th.   Esteve-Lanoa is a coach in Madrid who had previously published findings demonstrating that the proportion of training time spent in the low intensity zone was a strong predictor of race performance (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 37(3):496-504, 2005.) 

In the more recent study published in 2007, he allocated a group of well-trained sub-elite athletes to one of two programs for a period of 5 months: one program included more low intensity training than usual for this group of athletes; the other involved less low intensity training and more mid-intensity training.  Both groups performed the same amount of high intensity training.  Intensity was assessed according to proportion of training time with heart rate within low, mid and high intensity zones defined relative to the ventilatory threshold (VT) and respiratory compensation threshold (RCT). 

Defining the zones:  VT is the first appreciable step in respiratory effort as work load increases, and corresponds to the threshold described as VT1 by some authors (eg Dekerle and colleagues) or aerobic threshold by others.  It is the highest work rate that can be fueled virtually entirely via aerobic metabolism. At higher work rates, appreciable anaerobic metabolism occurs, and lactate level rise appreciably above resting values.  The increased acidity in the blood causes the noticeable rise in respiratory effort necessary to remove more carbon dioxide, thereby compensating for the lactic acid by reducing the acidity due to dissolved carbon dioxide.   Lactate is removed by organs such as liver and heart which can use lactate to generate energy.   As work rate rises further, a stage is reached beyond which the body cannot remove the lactate as fast as it is produced.  At this stage lactate level and acidity rises rapidly.  There is a major drive to increase respiratory effort in an attempt to compensate for the acidity.  This is the respiratory compensation threshold (RCT), which is also known as VT2 or anaerobic threshold.   Thus, in the study by Esteve-Lanao, low intensity training at a heart rate below that corresponding to VT is virtually entirely aerobic.  In the mid-intensity zone between VT and RCT, training involves some anaerobic metabolism but the body can cope with the rate of lactate production and lactate level remains only a little above resting value.  In the high intensity zone above RCT, a large proportion of the energy is generated by anaerobic metabolism and the level of lactate rises to high levels, compelling the athlete to make a very strong respiratory effort in an attempt to deal with the rising acidity. 

The results:  In the group assigned to an increased amount of low intensity training, the amounts of times in heart rate zones corresponding to low, mid and high intensity training were in the ratio 80:12:8 (i.e. 80% low intensity).  For the group assigned to decreased low zone training, the ratio was 67:25:8  (i.e. 13% less in the low zone, replaced by 13% more in the mid-zone).  In both groups VT occurred at approximately 67-68% of VO2max, while RCT occurred at approximately 87-88% of VO2max.  The outcome of training was assessed by comparing time recorded in a 10.4Km cross country race before and after the 5 month period of training.  The group who had HR in the low zone for 80% of the time improved by 7.5% while the group who had HR in the low zone for only 67% of training time, improved by 5%.  The difference between groups in amount of improvement was statistically significant.  It should be noted that the individuals with HR in the low zone for 80% of the time spent more hours training (average 100 hours over 18 weeks compared with average 75 hours in the group with HR in the low zone for 67% of the time), but the total load (volume x intensity) was similar in the two groups. The authors conclude: ‘These results provide experimental evidence supporting the value of a relatively large percentage of low-intensity training over a long period, provided that the contribution of high-intensity training remains sufficient.’

It is crucial to note that even the group with 80% low intensity training performed a substantial amount of demanding work. They did 2 intense sessions per week in many of the weeks, in addition to regular weight training, and also running 5 cross country races (2 x 5Km and 3 x 10Km) not including the final assessment. Nonetheless, I think the practical conclusion is that training in the mid-zone produces less benefit that a similar work load (volume x intensity) in the low zone provided the program includes sufficient high intensity work.

It should also be noted that the amount of time spent with heart rate corresponding to the mid-zone intensity does not correspond exactly to the amount of time spent working in this zone.  Typically in an interval session, it takes from 1 to 2 minutes for HR to reach the high intensity zone (due to buffering by myoglobin) during high intensity epochs, and it takes 1 to 2 minutes before HR falls back to low zone level during the recovery.  When I do 1 Km intervals, my heart rate is in the mid-zone for more than half of the session despite the fact that I do not spend any time running at a mid-zone pace.   To achieve 8% of training time in the high intensity zone typically would require about 15% of sessions to be high intensity sessions.   

On the whole this appears to be a sensibly designed and well executed study.  The main concern I would raise is the fact that Esteve-Lanao’s previous study published in 2005, in which he found that the amount of low intensity training predicted race performance, might have inclined him to have greater faith in low intensity training.  He coached all the athletes in the study reported in 2007.  There is evidence that having faith in a particular training program influences the physiological benefits from that program.  It is therefore possible that coach’s confidence in the low intensity program influenced the outcome.   It is because of unconscious influences of this sort that double-blindness is regarded as so important in trials of medical treatments.  Nonetheless, despite this potential short-coming, I consider that this study provides moderately strong support for the proposal that mid-aerobic ‘grey zone training’ is a limited value.

The beginning of a 3 year program

As described in my post on 25^th October, the events of the past summer indicate that I need to plan a long term campaign if I am ever to recover a level of fitness equivalent to that of my younger days, after allowing for the anticipated rate of decline with age illustrated by the WAVA charts.   My goal is to run a ‘good’ marathon in 2012, perhaps aiming for a target time in the range 3:15 to 3:30, and to continue to enjoy running for many years after.

What needs to be developed, and how can the required development be achieved? 

1)    Aerobic capacity of leg muscles: the ability to generate energy for muscle contraction by aerobic metabolism is crucial. The aspects of aerobic metabolism that can be improved by training are:

a.  Delivery of oxygen to the muscles – the number and size of capillaries increases when there is demand for increased delivery of oxygen to muscles;  development is likely to continue over many years provided the there is continuing demand for increased oxygen delivery.   Both low intensity and high intensity training are effective.  The study by Ingjer (J. Physiol. Vol  294, pp. 419-432, 1979) reported an increase of 28.8% in the number of capillaries per muscle fibre after 24 weeks of a high intensity program that included two interval sessions per week in addition to 3 sessions of continuous running for 45 minutes at a work rate ranging from 50 to 90% of VO2max.

 b. The number of mitochondria in type 1 (slow twitch) and type 2A (aerobic fast twitch) fibres. The mitochondria are the sub-cellular organelles containing cytochrome oxidase, the key enzyme in aerobic metabolism.  Dudley’s studies of rats (J Appl. Physiology, vol. 53, pp. 844-850, 1982), discussed in my post on 25^th October, demonstrate that increase in cytochrome C is achieved most efficiently for both type 1 and type 2A fibres at high intensity running at above lactate threshold.  Similarly, in the case of humans, the study by Gibala and colleagues (J Physiol Vol 575, pp 901-911, 2006) suggests that high intensity training is the most efficient for producing increases in muscle oxidative capacity.

Although the evidence suggests that the most efficient way to increase capillary density and number of mitochondria in skeletal muscle in the short term is via fairly high intensity running (above lactate threshold) there is no clear evidence that the benefit of such high intensity training continue to accumulate over a period of several years.  I am not aware of any systematic scientific studies that have compared groups of athletes undergoing different training regimes extending over several years. 

There are very few elite athletes who are reported to have shown continuous improvement over many years of predominantly high intensity training.  Individuals such as Gordon Pirie, who did a large number of high intensity interval sessions, had a relatively brief period at the top.  In 1956 he broke the world 3000m record twice, and won a silver medal in the 5000m at the Melbourne Olympics, but he never reached such heights again.  Emil Zatopek was a dominant force for somewhat longer winning a gold medal in the 10,000m London in 1948 and three gold medals in Helsinki in 1952, but it is probable that his famous high intensity sessions (e.g. 50×400m) were run at a relatively modest pace – perhaps around 10K pace – as reported in a comment on my blog by Ewen on 31^st March 2009 . 

In the absence of observational evidence, it is necessary to rely on our understanding of physiological mechanisms.  Potentially the most important issue is oxidative damage due to free radical production.  Both aerobic and anaerobic exercise result in the production of free radicals that have the potential to damage tissue, but provided the amount of exercise is not excessive, the body’s natural defenses can cope.  However both excessive intensity and excessive volume can result in the natural defenses being overwhelmed (Fisher-Wellman and Bloomer, Dynamic Medicine, vol 8, 2009, doi:10.1186/1476-5918-8-1)  In light of this evidence I think that the best strategy to produce continued improvement in aerobic capacity over a period of several years, is likely to be a compromise.  I plan to do an a moderate amount of interval training near to lactate threshold or a little above, but will balance this with an approximately equal amount of low to mid –aerobic running; and some non-demanding exercise focused on improving flexibility and proprioception.  

2) Increased capacity of the heart to pump blood.  Cardiac output is the product of stroke volume and heart rate. Unfortunately the decrease in maximum heart rate with age is one of the major contributors to deterioration in maximum rate of oxygen utilization with age, and there appears to be little that can be done to prevent this.  Stroke volume is determined by the difference between the volume of the left ventricle at the beginning and end of ventricular contraction (systole).  Similarly to the situation with training to increase aerobic capacity of muscles, the evidence indicates that high intensity interval training is the most efficient way to increase stroke volume.   The study by Helgerud and colleagues from Trondheim in Norway (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 39(4):665-71; 2007), which I described in some detail in my post of 23^rd June 2009 demonstrated that 4x 4 min of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 3 min of active resting at 70%HRmax, 3 times per week for 8 weeks produces a greater increase stroke volume and also increase in VO2 max than the same number of sessions of either long slow distance running at 70%of maximum heart rate, or tempo running at around lactate threshold. 

However, as in the case of aerobic development of skeletal muscle, the goal of producing continuous development over a period of years must take account of the risk of free radical damage, and I think the same compromise program that balances intensity and volume, non-demanding exercise, and rest is likely to be optimal. 

3) Leg muscle strength and power:  Although I have never formally tested my leg muscle strength, I know from my reduced ability to step upwards onto a chair while carrying a heavy object  that my muscle strength has decreased with age.  My reduced stride length when sprinting confirms this loss of strength and power.  My current time for 100m is 18 sec. I never recorded a 100m time as a youngster, but could certainly run a 400m in much less than 60 sec, so I have clearly slowed down when sprinting and this is almost certainly due to loss of muscle power.  Running entails eccentric contraction of quads, hams and calf muscles.  However, developing eccentric muscle strength presents problems, because eccentric forces tear muscle fibres.  The most efficient way to increase strength of eccentric contraction is plyometric exercise, but the sharply applied stretching of muscles during plyometrics causes extensive damage, which is also likely to produce production of free radicals and a risk of long-term damage (Bloomer RJ & Goldfarb AH. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology, 29(3): 245–263, 2004.)   Therefore, I will engage in weekly strength training, employing exercises that entail moderate eccentric stress, and very sparing amounts of plyometric exercise.

4) Neuromuscular coordination:  In recent years I have worked on developing a style of running that I believe is efficient and fairly safe – described in the pages ‘Running – a dance with the devil’ in the side bar of my blog.  This style is closely related to Pose, but I have tried to avoid what I perceive as the problems with Pose.  I have not yet focussed on applying this style to faster running.  In the near future, I will spend a session per week practicing this style of running at ‘near sprinting’ pace, but over short distances and with adequate recovery to minimize exhaustion. 

 

Other metabolic and musculo-skeletal developments

There are many other metabolic developments, such as increased ability to store glucose; to burn fats; to metabolize lactate, and musculo-skeletal developments such as resilience of connective tissues that I anticipate are best developed within the context of a comprehensive program focusing on the four key elements described above   

 

The program

I plan a periodized program comprising periods of several months duration within which I will spend several sessions a week focusing on the development of specific aspect of fitness, while maintaining a continuous background of aerobic development.  In addition I will spend one or two sessions per week on core strength, balance and proprioception.

Taking account the above considerations, here is my proposed program for the next 4 months:

 

Specific goal: increasing leg muscle strength and neuromuscular coordination.  The program will include the following sessions:

1) body-weight exercises that entail moderate eccentric load on the major leg muscles: hams, quads, gastrocnemius, soleus, peroneals, gluteals and tensor fascia lata (1/2 hour per week);

2) short hills (approx 90 seconds, 4-8 reps at  ¾ pace effort) on alternate weeks.

3) running style sessions:  mainly drills and short stride-outs focusing on a relaxed style.

 

Aerobic and cardiac development:

1)      Two interval sessions per week on the elliptical cross trainer.

2)      One long(ish) run: approximately 15Km at whatever pace appeals to me on the day.  I anticipate that these runs will mainly be progressive runs starting in the low aerobic zone and increasing to mid aerobic or upper aerobic zone for the final few Km, though on some occasions I will include 5-10 Km of fartlek within the 15 Km run.

 

Core strength, balance and proprioception

1)      body-weight exercises designed to improve core strength (1/2 hr per week)

2)      exploration of Yoga postures suitable for development of balance, flexibility and mental focus (1/2 hour per week)

This program entails 7 or 8 sessions of quite diverse content, per week, requiring a total duration of 4 ½ to 5 hours.  The amount of running in this 4 month period is intended to be modest, including one weekly 15Km run; a weekly running style session; and a short hill session on alternate weeks, while I focus on leg strength and neuromuscular coordination.  I anticipate that the most demanding sessions will be the elliptical interval sessions.   These will provide a substantial work-out for the cardiovascular system but due to the fact that the elliptical action involves no impact and relatively little eccentric contraction of leg muscles, the stress on the legs is relatively mild.

I will aim to do at least 80% of the scheduled sessions, but will occasionally substitute other activities such as hill walking, swimming, cycling or kayaking, as the opportunities present themselves

My provisional plan beyond this 4 month period is to devote 2 months to specific preparation for a 10K race in spring.  The major change will be the replacement of some of the elliptical sessions and strength sessions by interval and tempo running sessions.  Then during the summer of 2010, I will prepare for a half marathon in autumn.

High volume v high intensity, and long term plans

As the daylight hours shorten and we enter the final few weeks of autumn, I am thinking about goals for the coming months.  Looking back, it has been a frustrating summer.  A debilitating illness in June and July torpedoed my preparation for the Robin Hood half marathon in September. My eagerness to determine whether or not I could recover sufficient fitness by September led to a series of problems, the most serious of which was intense over-activity of my parasympathetic nervous system that clamped my maximum heart rate at around 142 bpm in mid-August.  On September 13^th, I lined up for the race in a seriously under-prepared state.  My aerobic fitness was not too bad, but I had not prepared my muscles for the rigors of a half marathon race.  Perhaps it was unsurprising that I tore a hip adductor while making a sharp turn across an uneven patch of roadway at about 6 miles.  I did manage to complete the 13.1 miles with a markedly shortened stride and virtually no airborne phase, in a time a little over 103 minutes.  I was pleased that I had managed to get to the finish, and I learned a few things along the way, but overall it was a very frustrating summer. 

Among the things the summer has emphasized is that acquiring aerobic fitness is only a small part of what is required.  If I am going to recover the ability to race at paces in any way comparable to the paces I used to run in my youth, after allowing for the effects of 4 decades of aging since that time, I need a long term plan.  I would like to run a good marathon again, but because I currently work about 50-60 hours per week, there is no possibility that I could do enough training to do justice to a marathon in the near future. 

I plan to reduce my working hours substantially in 2011.  So my goal is a ‘good’ marathon in 2012, but what could be described as a ‘good’ marathon?  Using the WAVA adjustment for age, my races of 40 years ago indicate that, all being well, I might be capable of a marathon time around 3 hours in my late 60’s.  However, several minor ailments which I have had since childhood and which caused minimal problems in young adulthood, have been much more troublesome since my fifties, so a 3 hour marathon is clearly out the question for 2012. For the time being I will set a provisional target in the range 3:15 to 3:30, and refine this target more precisely in light of what appears plausible as 2012 approaches. 

How should I prepare myself?  The major debate in endurance training is the debate between focus on high intensity and high volume training.

 

High intensity

The father of high intensity training was the German coach and cardiologist, Woldemar Gerschler, who developed the concept of interval training: bursts of anaerobic activity separated by brief recovery epochs.   This approach led in a fairly direct path via coaches such as  Franz Stamfl, to Roger Bannister’s demolition of the 4 minute barrier for the mile in 1954.   The parallel development of a similar approach led Emil Zatopek to gold medals in the 5000m. 10,000m and marathon in Helsinki in 1952, though it might be argued that Zatopek combined high intensity with high volume. 

More recently, the Furman Institute have developed a program based on only three running sessions per week entailing high intensity with modest volume.  The Furman program is supported by scientific evidence about the most efficient way to enhance aerobic metabolism, and the studies performed by the Furman Institute provide clear evidence that the program works in practice.  In an article in Runners World in Feb 2006, Amby Burfoot, reported that 15 of a group of 25 amateur runners who undertook the Furman program in preparation for the Kiawah Island Marathon while maintaining their usual commitments to jobs and family, set personal best times.

The paces specified for the three weekly runs in the Furman program: an interval session; a tempo session; and a long run, are all very demanding.  My own judgment is that the program places a little too much emphasis on aerobic development and not quite enough on development of endurance, but I have no doubt that for a runner with the determination to adhere to the program, it offers a good prospect of achieving the target time.  At first sight, the demanding paces might appear to carry a substantial risk of injury.  However, the fact that there are only three running sessions per week provides a fairly generous amount of time for recovery between sessions, thereby minimizing the cumulative fatigue that predisposes to injury.  In the Runners World article, Amby Burfoot reported that there was only a modest injury rate among the group of 25 runners in the Furman marathon study in 2004.   Injury forced one to withdraw from the program, and minor injury led three to drop from the marathon program to the half marathon program.

Because I think the Furman program does not place enough emphasis on endurance, I consider that it is only a useful program in the final four months of preparing for a target race once a sound base has been established.  I do not consider it is suitable  as the mainstay of a three year campaign, though I will reconsider it as I prepare for a few targeted half-marathons along the way.  I might consider a modified version of the program in the final phase of the campaign in 2012  but perhaps I should not make too many assumptions this far in advance 

 

High volume

The father of the high volume approach was Arthur Lydiard.  He promoted periodization of training with the major emphasis on the base building period, in which most the important feature was running about 100 miles per week at ‘a good aerobic pace’.  The spectacular tally of Olympic gold medals by Lydiard’s protégés, Peter Snell (800m, Rome 1960; 800m and 1500m, Tokyo 1964); Murray Halberg (5000m, Tokyo 1964), Lasse Viren (5000m. and 10000m, Munich 1972); and Pekka Vasala (1500m, Munich 1972) leaves little doubt that Lydiard’s approach can be extremely effective.  

More recently, coaches such as Hadd have reformulated Lydiard’s approach for an era in which heart rate monitors have facilitated a scientific approach to high volume training.  While Hadd’s approach is based on the sound practical foundation developed by Lydiard, and incorporates some sensible suggestions about using the HRM to monitor progress, ironically, his science appears to be based on a mis-reading of the scientific literature.  He appears to have mis-interpreted Dudley’s studies of rats (’Influence of Exercise Intensity and Duration on Biochemical Adaptations in Skeletal Muscle,’ Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 53, pp. 844-850, 1982).  Dudley subjected laboratory rats to 8 weeks of training involving running on a treadmill 5 times per week at various intensities and for various durations.  He measured the increase in cytochrome oxidase, a group of enzymes located in mitochondria, that catalyze the final steps of oxidative metabolism.  The amount of cytochrome oxidase provides a good measure of aerobic metabolic capacity. Examination of Dudley’s data clearly demonstrates that the gains in aerobic capacity increased with increasing intensity of training up to VO2max, not only in muscles dominated by fast twitch fibres, such as white vastus, but also in muscles with predominant slow twitch fibres, such as soleus.  It is only at supra-maximal intensity levels above VO2max that there is any evidence of a lesser rate of improvement in aerobic capacity with increasing intensity.  Furthermore, at these supramaximal levels the total duration of training was less, and the lesser improvement in aerobic capacity might reasonably be attributed to decreased duration of running rather than inhibition of aerobic development.

It is not only evidence from studies of rats, but also the majority of evidence from studies of humans demonstrates that training intensities in the range between the anaerobic threshold (at which lactate accumulation accelerates) and VO2max (beyond which heart rate does not increase despite increasing power output) are effective for improving aerobic capacity.  In the study by Gibala and colleagues comparing 6 sessions of high intensity sprint cycling consisting of 4 to 6 30second sprints with 6 session of endurance training consisting of 90-120 minutes of cycling at 65% of VO2max, over a two week period, similar improvements in performance; muscle oxidative capacity; muscle buffering capacity; and muscle glycogen content were produced even though the total training time commitment was only 2.5 hours for the sprint training compared with 10.5 hours for the endurance training (J Physiol Vol 575, pp 901-911, 2006). Unfortunately, Hadd’s interpretation of Dudley’s data appears to have contributed to a fear among his disciples that exceeding lactate threshold during training will damage the development of aerobic capacity.   I believe this fear is unfounded.

It is also important to note that both Lydiard and Hadd advocate that a substantial proportion of training should be near the upper end of the aerobic zone.  Lydiard refers to running at a ‘good aerobic level’ and recommends the use of three different intensities that span the aerobic range, with several runs a week at the highest of these levels – a pace he designates as  ¾ pace.  As discussed in my post on 9^th April 2009, Lydiard’s ¾ pace corresponds approximately to lactate threshold pace.  Similarly, except in weeks in which the weekly mileage is increasing substantially, Hadd typically recommends two runs per week at heart rate that is about 10 bpm below the lactate threshold value.  While I think that Hadd’s science is questionable, I think that in practice, many of his recommendations for training have great merit.

 

How do African runners train?

The current dominance of African runners, including Kenesa Bekele, world record holder for the 5000m and 10,000m, and Haile Gerbselassie, world record holder for the marathon, suggests that they must be training effectively.  It is probably simplistic to assume that all African distance runners train similarly, but nonetheless, the bulk of the evidence suggest that many do a large amount of their training at a pace near to lactate threshold.  In a study comparing black South African runners with whites, Tim Noakes and colleagues found that the black and white runners had similar average weekly running volume (60 miles per week) but the black runners did 36% of their running at  above 80% of VO2max, while the white runners did only 14% of their running above this level (Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 75, pp.1822-1827, 1993).  However it was not simply a matter of the black runners trying harder.  The black runners produced lower levels of lactate when running at a specified intensity.  Most notably they exhibited 32% lower blood lactate concentration when exercising at VO2max.  Furthermore, they were able to sustain an isotonic contraction at 70% of maximal force for about twice as long as the white runners, despite having a similar proportion of high endurance type 1 (slow twitch) muscle fibres.  This suggests that they had a much greater degree of development of the aerobic capacity of their type 2A fibres.   In my mind, the most plausible explanation is that many years of running at paces in the upper aerobic zone had produced great development of aerobic capacity, especially of type 2A fibres, allowing them to maintain training paces at or above 80% of VO2max without undue stress.

Thus, it appears that African runners dominance is due at least in part to doing a higher proportion of their training  at fairly high intensity (eg 80% of VO2max), but there is an important caveat: the African runners produce a lower level of lactate when training at high intensity.  This is consistent with anecdotal reports that elite African runners train hard but avoid remorselessly punishing their bodies.  Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests many have been running since childhood and it is likely that this has provided a crucial foundation.  It might be dangerous to assume that a runner with only a few years of regular training could safely do large volumes of training near to lactate threshold.

 

So which is better: high intensity or high volume?

It is clear that both high intensity and high volume approaches can produce improved aerobic capacity. In a runner with moderate baseline fitness but under-developed aerobic capacity, either approach will lead to improved performance.  Perhaps the most important issue is avoiding injury.  The high power output required for high intensity running places great acute stresses on muscles, but cumulative fatigue associated with high volume training can result in failure to mount a well integrated reaction to an unexpected jolt, and lead to tearing of an already exhausted muscle.  Looking back over the years, I can attribute approximately the same number of muscle injuries to inadequate preparation for increase in volume as to inadequate preparation for increase in intensity.    

At elite level, the distinction between the programs lessens, as the choice is between high volume with fairly high intensity (eg a substantial proportion at tempo runs at 80% of VO2max) on the one hand, and fairly high volume including a substantial number of high intensity interval sessions, on the other.  Either of these options is probably only feasible for individuals with a very well established base level of fitness.  The evidence from laboratory studies suggest that aerobic fitness can be increased most efficiently by training at high intensity, and therefore a program with a substantial number of anaerobic interval a sessions is probably the most efficient way to increase aerobic fitness.   However, while aerobic fitness is crucial for distance running, it is not the only thing that matters.  The current dominance of African distance runners suggests that high volume at fairly high intensity (eg mainly near lactate threshold) might be preferable, though my own opinion is that years of running, starting in childhood, is the major factor accounting for the success of African runners.

 

My own younger days

I was never an elite athlete, although I suppose I could have reasonably described myself as a sub-elite marathon runner, with my best times in the range 2 hours 20 min to 2 ½ hours.  Perhaps surprisingly I have no precise record of my best races, maybe because I did not consider myself a serious athlete.  During my running ‘heyday’ I was actually more interested in mountaineering.  Insofar as I trained systematically at all, I aimed to run moderately large volumes (occasionally up to 100 miles per week) at a ‘good aerobic pace’.  I used to consider that there was little point in running any slower than 6 minute mile pace.  I preferred to spend my time walking in the hills or climbing mountain rather than running slowly.   So perhaps my training could be classified as Lydiard style though I rarely did the high volumes recommended by Lydiard.  On the other hand, I did some tigerish hill walking and mountaineering.  The other point to note is that like some of the Africans, I ran to and from school as a youngster, and during my teens, I simply regarded running as a normal form of locomotion.  I also played a lot of football and basketball.  But that was a long time ago.

 

The risks of too much training

Not only does training present a risk of acute injury but also a risk of overtraining.  There are two forms of overtraining : the sympathetic and the parasympathetic.  These are characterized by impaired performance accompanied by psychological a features such as fatigue and low motivation; together with a complex array of abnormalities of the autonomic nervous system and hormonal function.  As discussed in my post of 29^th June, one of the most thought provoking aspects of over-training is the possibility that it is associated free radical damage arising from the failure to re-cycle ADP.  

The high energy molecule, ATP (adenosine triphosphate), is the immediate source of the energy that drives muscle contraction.  It is a molecule consisting of a purine (adenine) and a ribose sugar molecule  linked via high energy chemical bonds to three phosphate groups.  When ATP is harnessed to drive muscle contraction, it is split to produce ADP (adenosine diphosphate) and a phosphate ion.  Most of the ADP is re-cycled in the process of regenerating ATP in the final stage of either aerobic or anaerobic metabolism.  However, a proportion of the ADP is not recycled, but instead is degraded to uric acid.  The process of degradation of ADP generates free radicals – very reactive molecules that can damage muscle tissue by oxidation.  Such damage would be expected to have long-lasting effects, and perhaps even be irreversible, especially in the older runner.

The facts regarding free radical damage remain uncertain.  There is ambiguous evidence regarding the benefits of anti-oxidant supplements.  However, after weighing-up the various strands of evidence, I am inclined to believe that for the runner who wants to continue to enjoy running into old age, one of his or her maxims should be to train as little as is necessary to achieve his or her goals.

 

The challenge

Thus, I am on the horns of a dilemma.  I believe that the successes of contemporary African distance runners, and perhaps even my own modest successes as a marathon runner four decades ago, were based on the cumulative benefits of many years of vigorous exercise.  Yet, there is also a body of evidence suggesting that excessive training might ultimately result in long term damage.   I am therefore going to have to make some shrewd judgments in the design of my campaign to yet again run a creditable marathon and to continue to enjoy running for many years after.

In the past few weeks I have been doing a lot of thinking about this challenge, and I have almost completed crafting my plan – a plan that will no doubt require adjustment as the years go by.  It is a plan that entails periodization.  Every period will include ‘foundation’ activities designed to promote continuous development of blood vessels supplying heart and leg muscles, and the development of the aerobic capacity of type 2A muscle fibres, as I believe that both of these adaptations are an essential foundation for engaging in moderately high intensity training without subjecting the body to remorseless stress.  Each period will also have a specific focus.  The specific focus of the first period will be improving the strength of my leg muscles. 

In my next posting I will provide an outline of the overall plan for the campaign to run a good marathon in 2012, together with a more detailed account of the plan for phase 1.

Recovery from fatigue

I appear to have recovered from the fatigue that had hamstrung me in mid August. In recent weeks I have described the way in which my return to training following the episode of illness in June and July was thwarted by a peculiar inability to raise my heart rate during exercise.  I found it very difficult to maintain a pace faster than around 6 min/Km. The most dramatic illustration of the problem occurred in the final stages of a staircase session on the elliptical cross –trainer, when I found it crushingly difficult to maintain an output of 240 watts for 4 minutes.  When I subsequently examined the record of my heart rate, I discovered that it had reached 143 bpm at the 200 watt step on the staircase, and had not risen at all when I increased the power output to 240 watts, resulting in the need to generate the additional power via anaerobic metabolism.  The Poincare plot of R-R intervals between successive heart beats demonstrated extensive spread of the points across the 45 degree line, confirming excessive parasympathetic output.  My parasympathetic nervous system was clamping my output in an apparently over-vigilant attempt to protect my heart from doing too much work 

The morning orthostatic tests corroborated the evidence of parasympathetic excess.  The rise in heart rate from resting to standing was typically only 2 or 3 beats per minute, compared with my more usual heart rate rise of around 9-10 BPM.  On one occasion, on the day following a very sluggish 16 KM run, my hear rate was actually lower while standing than when lying down, providing an additional illustration of an excessive parasympathetic response. 

 Today

Today, the pattern was much different. Here is a chart showing my heart rate during the orthostatic test, and also the Poincare plots representing R-R intervals in the 3 minutes before standing and during a 3 minute interval starting 30 seconds after standing (once the immediate heart rate variations associated with the work done in elevating by body had settled). 

 

Orthostatic test on 12th September 2009. The upper figure is the trace of heart rate while resting for 3.5 minutes and after standing for a similar period. The lower figures are Poincare plots of heart beat R-R intervals during the final three minutes of rest (left) and during a three minute period starting 30 sec after standing (right).

 

The features of note are:

1)      The orthostatic increase in heart rate is 14 bpm – a little greater than my normal increase of 9-10 bpm and much greater than the -1 to 3 bpm characteristic of the period when I was fatigued.

2)      There is much greater variability of heart rate while resting than while standing.

3)      While both resting and standing, the heart rate shows prominent fluctuation in time with my breathing.  I tend to breath naturally at a rate of around 6 to 7 breaths per minute when relaxing, a rate that corresponds to the 6 to 7 peaks per minute (0.1 – 0.12 Hz) in the heart rate trace.

4)      While resting, the breath by breath fluctuations exhibit a steady rise followed by a sharp descent.  I was aware of breathing out immediately prior to standing, a period in which the heart rate trace shows a sharp descent, confirming that the sharp descents arise as a result of the increase in parasympathetic output during expiration. These sharp descents are much less pronounced during standing.

5)      Comparison of the Poincare plots reveals not only a much greater variation in R-R intervals during rest (note the different scales marked on the axes) but also a different shape.  During the resting period, there is a cluster of points located far above the 45 degree line to the left side of the chart.  These points represent long intervals (ie slow heart beats) immediately following shorter intervals (faster beats), and reflect the sharp descents during expiration seen in the heart rate trace.   In contrast, the Poincare plot during standing is shaped like a comet with a flared tail.  It shows limited spread across the 45 degree line and relatively greater spread along the 45 degree line (though the actual extent is substantially less in both directions compared to the resting period).

 

Overall, today’s orthostatic test confirms that my parasympathetic nervous system is no longer over-active.  If anything, the balance has tipped further towards sympathetic activity compared with my usual state, though this degree of sympathetic output is well within the normal range.

 What led to recovery?

I am inclined to attribute my recovery over a period of 2-3 weeks to my program of low-volume, moderate intensity running.  I have done 3-5 runs per week, over distances of 3-6Km, either at an easy pace interspersed with a few moderate intensity stride-outs for a distance of 200-300 metres, or moderate intensity tempo runs. In addition I have done 1 or 2 staircase sessions on the elliptical cross trainer spanning the aerobic range (though on the one occasion noted previously, following an ill-advised attempt at a longer run the previous day, I found myself in the anaerobic zone at the top of the staircase, due to my parasympathetic system clamping my cardiac output).

 A decision about the Robin Hood half marathon

I am now ready to resume normal training.  This presents me with the need for a decision.  Tomorrow is the day of the Robin Hood half-marathon, which I had set as a target race four months ago.  The fact that I have not been able to train normally for the past twelve weeks has torpedoed any prospect of a fast time, and in any case, I would be unwise to push myself really hard on the first day back into normal training.

I am uncertain about what pace to set.  The greatest uncertainty is about how well my legs will cope with 21.1 Km, due to the marked truncation of training volume.  Here is a chart of my training volume in the period May to September this year, compared with the same period last year, when I ran the half-marathon in 101:50. 

 

Training volme (Km per week, averaged over 5 week intervals), May to September 2008 and 2009.

My training volume was greater last year, but most of that running was at low intensity.  This year, a higher proportion of the training sessions have included at least some moderate intensity running, and as a consequence, I think my aerobic capacity is probably not much less than last year despite my illness and its aftermath.   In several of my runs in the past two weeks, my heart rate has been around 650 beats per Km – over distances of 2-4 Km.  Last year, I rarely achieved lower rates than 650 beats/Km, though my endurance was much greater.

Although it is usually not sensible to set race pace according the heart rate on account of the risk of being misled by the higher sympathetic output associated with racing, in my present circumstances it is crucial that I avoid stressing my heart too much, to avoid precipitating another parasympathetic clampdown or perhaps an even more serious rhythm disturbance.  Hence, I think that the best strategy is to aim for a heart rate in the range 134-137 (upper part of the mid-aerobic zone) for the first 14 Km, and then adjust my pace according to how well I am coping at that stage.

Cautious optimism

The goal and the strategy

The evidence suggests that my strategy to overcome my recent acute fatigue syndrome with short sessions that include some moderate intensity running might be working.  The goal is to re-train my brain to accept that my body can safely cope with producing at least a moderate power output.  In my post last Monday (31^st Aug), I compared the Poincare plot of heart inter-beat intervals recorded during an elliptical staircase session during a mild setback on my path to recovery, with a plot from a similar session in mid-July before the onset of fatigue.  The feature of interest was the extensive spread of points across the 45 degree line on 31^st August, indicating excessive input from the parasympathetic nervous system.  This was apparently responsible for the fact that my heart rate could not rise above 143 bpm (averaged over 5 sec intervals), when I increased my power output from 200 to 240 watts.  I had to rely on anaerobic metabolism to generate the increase in power.  This was extremely demanding and in retrospect it was not surprising I found it very difficult to maintain 240 watts for more than a few minutes.  Clearly if I want to be able to produce a moderate power output, it was necessary to teach my non-conscious brain that it could relax the tight control at least a little.

Executing the strategy

During the past week I have done three elliptical sessions and two runs, each relatively short but each including a small amount of moderate intensity activity.  The increase in my heart rate from resting to standing during the orthostatic tests in the mornings has stabilized around 5 bpm – still a rather small increase, but probably within my normal range.  Encouraged by the signs of recovery, I repeated an elliptical staircase session on Friday.  To avoid the risk of stressing my heart too much, I spent only 2 minutes at each level of power output in contrast to 4 minutes at each level on previous occasions.  When I increased my power-out to 240 watts, my pulse rose to 147 bpm.  Although producing this power output required some effort, it was not so crushingly difficult as it had been when my maximum heart rate had been clamped at 143 bpm by my tyrannical parasympathetic nervous system, on 31^st August. 

Here are the Poincare plots for the three elliptical staircase sessions: mid-July, 31^st  August and Friday (4^th September).  The plot for Friday’s session is not fully comparable with the other two, because it was recorded after only 27 minutes of exercise, compared with 52 minutes in the other two sessions, and furthermore, the plot is based on a sample of heart beats over 1 minute rather than 2 minutes (because the plots can be misleading during a period of increasing heart rate immediately after an increase in power output).  Nonetheless, the three plots are as comparable as can be achieved in the circumstances.  The crucial point of interest is that the spread of points at right angles to the 45 degree line, which represents parasympathetic activity, is back to a level similar to that in mid-July.  This amount of spread is represented by the quantity, SD1, which was 4 ms  in mid-July; 13.4 ms on 31st August and 3.1 ms on 4^th September.   This provides further confirmation that the over-zealous parasympathetic nervous system that had clamped my cardiac output on 31^st Aug, forcing me to employ anaerobic metabolism to produce even a moderate power output, had learned by yesterday that it could safely allow the rise in heart rate necessary to generate 240 watts aerobically.         

Poincare plots of interbeat intervals in the upper aerobic zone during elliptical sessions before the onset of fatigue (July); during fatigue (August); and during recovery (September)

It is of course ironic that I am celebrating being able to push my heart rate to 147 in order to achieve a power output of 240 watts.  In June, I was pleased when I managed to produce 240 watts at a heart rate of 141.  However, in June my heart rate increased steadily as power output increased.  As I increased output from 200 to 240 watts, heart rate rose from 132 bpm to 141 bpm – in other words, in June, my relatively low heart rate was not due to clamping by the parasympathetic nervous system, but simply the result of being fitter.  ( It is not surprising that my aerobic fitness has decreased somewhat since early June, due to my illness and the fatigue that developed in its aftermath.  The increase in heart rate at 240 watts from 141 bpm in June to 147 bpm yesterday appears to reflect a decrease of around 4% in my aerobic capacity.  That is not too bad in light of the severity of my illness in June/July.)

A short tempo run

Encouraged by the apparent success of my strategy of short, moderately intense training sessions, yesterday (Saturday) I decided to do a 4Km tempo run.  In my only previous running session this week, I had done an easy 5Km including 4 stride-outs of 200-300m at a pace of around 4:45 /Km.  At the time, it would have required great effort to have increased to a pace any faster than this.  Nonetheless, because of my growing confidence, yesterday I decided to aim for a pace of 4:40 /Km for the 4Km run.

After warming up, I set off running comfortably with a gentle breeze behind me and reached the half-way point in 9:18 (4:39 min/Km) with an average heart rate of 138 bpm.  I anticipated that when I turned into the wind, it would no longer feel like a gentle breeze.  As expected, I had to increase the effort and my heart rate rose rapidly to 145, but I felt fine.  I covered the return journey in 9:20 despite the head-wind, giving a total of 18:38 (4:39.5 /Km).   I arrived home very pleased with my progress.

 The next day

However, the crucial question is whether or not today’s orthostatic test would show any evidence of a parasympathetic clampdown indicating over-exertion yesterday.  In fact, this morning the orthostatic difference was 5.4 bpm which is virtually identical to the average value of 5.3 bpm for the entire week. 

Thus, at this stage it appears that I am recovering from the excessive parasympathetic activity that had apparently produced the feelings of severe fatigue I had suffered two weeks ago.  Overall the evidence of the past few weeks is consistent with my previous suspicion that my parasympathetic nervous system tends to be over-active.  Furthermore, the evidence of the past week supports the hypothesis that the non-conscious part of the brain that regulates the parasympathetic system can be trained to relax the tightness of its  grip on the control of heart rate.  The question of whether or not I could have achieved the same outcome simply by resting remains unanswered, though the evidence from clinical studies that graded exercise can promote recovery from fatigue inclines me to think that the low volume, moderate intensity program was the right thing to do.

Caution

I remain aware that the parasympathetic nervous system serves a crucial protective role and therefore, I must be cautious in trying to modify it.  It is likely that the parasympathetic clampdown and the associated fatigue arose because I had been a little too vigorous in the attempts in early August to regain fitness after my illness in June and July.  Therefore, I will continue carefully, but I am cautiously optimistic.

Fatigue

After a few weeks of debilitating illness in June and July I wasn’t sure whether or not to stick to my plan of running the Robin Hood half-marathon in September.  When I started running again in late July I began with easy or moderate paced runs of around 5-6Km,  it became clear that I had lost a lot of fitness, but I was enjoying running.   Then at the beginning of August I decided to put matters to the test and ran 15Km, starting slowly but increasing the pace gradually.  I was pleased to find that I felt comfortable at a pace around 5 min/Km in the second half of the run.  That settled the question. I would run the half-marathon.  I was uncertain about the target time to set myself, but provisionally set a target time of 100 min – only one minute slower than the target I had set several months earlier.

As for training strategy, my first objective was to try to re-establish a reasonable level of endurance; so I planned to build up the distance with fairly easy paced running, up to around 60 Km per week. By mid-August, things were going according to plan.   I had three runs of 16-20Km behind me, and several ‘tempo’ runs – though at that stage, tempo pace was not much faster than 5 min/km.  I planned do two easy-paced longish runs in the third week of August followed by a few upper aerobic runs to confirm my choice of target race pace. Then something peculiar happened.

 

Malign alien force or guardian angel?

On the third Monday of the month, I set out on the first of the two planned easy-paced longish runs.  For about 5Km, things went well.  I felt very relaxed running at a pace of 5:45 min/Km with a heart rate in the lower aerobic zone (around 122).  And then quite unexpectedly, all the energy drained away from me.  I struggled to maintain a pace of 6:30 min per Km.  My heart rate dropped to around 115 and my legs felt very heavy.  It appeared that I was battling some alien force.  For the next few Km I made efforts to push the pace but then realized that it was a pointless struggle.  It was clear that I was losing the battle against the alien influence.  However, apart from the lethargy and heavy legs I was not experiencing any physical symptoms.  My pulse was regular and strong, though reluctant to increase much above 115 bpm.  So I kept on plodding along wondering what it all meant.   In the end I covered 16 Km, but at times my pace dropped to 8 min/Km.

The next day I did a short easy jog and felt OK, so on the Wednesday I again attempted the planned long easy paced run, though on this occasion, aiming only for a pace around 6 min/Km.  I felt sluggish though at least I was able to get my heart rate above 120.   Again I managed to do16 Km, but it appeared that I was in no shape to race a half-marathon within a few weeks.  I took it easy, doing only short easy runs for the rest of the week, and on the following Monday made yet another attempt at a longish run.  Yet a third time, the alien force was holding me back.  I eventually settled in for a slow plod at a pace in the range 6:30 to 6:45 min per Km and heart rate around 110.

What was going on?  I had been experimenting with various fitness measures using my new Polar RS80CX heart rate monitor, and after some experimenting, I have decided that the orthostatic test appears to be the most practical and useful test for monitoring my response to training.  What is clear is that during that third week of August I was experiencing an excessive parasympathetic drive that was keeping my heart rate down.   Maybe I am not struggling against an alien force; more likely it is a tyrannical guardian angel that is trying to protect me from myself.

 

The orthostatic test

In the orthostatic test, heart rate is recorded lying down for three minutes and then standing for a similar period.  Heart rate increases after standing, to elevate blood pressure sufficiently to combat pooling of blood in the lower extremities and thereby ensuring adequate perfusion of the brain.  This increase in heart rate is achieved by a shift in the balance between the activity of sympathetic nervous system  (the adrenaline-based fight or flight system) and the parasympathetic nervous system (which generally promotes relaxation and recovery).   On standing, sympathetic activity increases and in a fit person, an increase in heart rate of around 10 bpm can be expected (McGee and Abernethy, Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;281:1022–1029.).  In an unfit or stressed person, the increase is usually greater.  

However, sometimes there is a paradoxical surge of parasympathetic activity – blood pressure falls and the person collapses in a faint.  Recovery usually follows quickly provided the person remains lying down.  This paradoxical surge of parasympathetic activity – a so-called vasovagal attack- appears to reflect an over-active compensation mechanism that exists to prevent us from over exerting ourselves.

While a faint is transient and harmless, it is interesting to speculate on the similarities between a transient vasovagal event and two enigmatic conditions that are very relevant to athletes: fatigue and over-training.   But first it is relevant to examine the results of a study of orthostatic test responses in marathon runners

 

Orthostatic responses after a marathon

Gratze and colleagues carried out an orthostatic test on 51 healthy amateur marathon runners the day before the Graz (Austria) marathon in 2007 and 2 hours after completion of the event (European Heart Journal vol 29, pp 1531–1541, 2008).  None of the runners exhibited a vaso-vagal attack on the day before the race, but 14 did so on testing after the event.  These runners were classified as orthostatic intolerant.  As expected, all runners exhibited evidence of increased sympathetic activity (indicative of stress) after the event, but the 14 who were orthostatic intolerant were unable to generate the required increase in sympathetic activity to compensate for pooling of blood in the lower extremities during the test.  Instead they demonstrated a paroxysmal increase  in parasympathetic activity, and developed signs of incipient collapse.

The only significant predictor of risk of orthostatic intolerance identified by Gratze and colleagues was having serum potassium levels in the lower part of the normal range before the race.  However there was also a trend towards a higher training volume in the preceding 4 weeks in the orthostatic intolerant group. (The probability that the difference between groups would have been as large as that observed purely by chance was 6.9%.  Thus the possibility of chance cannot be ignored, but weighing up all the evidence makes me think that the difference is unlikely to be due to chance).  The orthostatic intolerant group also had a higher training volume in their lightest week in the preceding month – in other words, they had not tapered to the same extent as those who did not develop orthostatic intolerance.  This invites the speculation that the runners who developed orthostatic intolerance were on the verge of over-training.

      

Over-training

Improving fitness necessarily demands over-reaching – the transient deterioration in performance following hard training that stimulates the development of increased fitness during the subsequent recovery phase.  If the athlete does not allow time for recovery following a hard training session, over-reaching develops into the early ‘sympathetic’ phase of the over-training syndrome, characterized by over-activity of the sympathetic nervous system – the adrenaline-related component of the autonomic nervous system that generates the fight or flight response.   Provided this sympathetic phase of the over-training syndrome is recognized in time, reduction in training volume or intensity for a few days is usually enough to promote recovery. 

However, if it is not recognized, non-conscious neural mechanisms intervene to protect us from our own fool-hardiness.   Perhaps this guardian angel within our non-conscious mind might be described as the central governor – though this is not quite the context which led Tim Noakes to develop the central governor hypothesis.  Whatever the true nature of our guardian, he/she is scarcely an angel and the consequences of his/her intervention are not quite what we might wish – the parasympathetic nervous system which normally promotes healthy relaxation and recovery becomes a tyrant. 

The balance between parasympathetic and sympathetic activity tilts strongly towards parasympathetic excess.  We no longer have any drive for fight or flight .   We become listless, apathetic and find that getting the heart rate up into the upper aerobic zone demands a major effort. The body is unable to mount an adequate defence against either injury or illness, and eventually either injury or illness forces a cessation of training.  This is the parasympathetic phase of the overtraining syndrome, and can last for weeks, months or even years.  If the 14 individuals from the sample of 51 marathon runners studied by Gratze were indeed on the verge of the parasympathetic phase of the over-training syndrome, then the risk of this problem is not uncommon.

 

Wrestling with an over-protective nanny

One of the reasons I have become especially interested in the over-training syndrome in recent times is the fact that despite life-long mild asthma which had caused me no problems since infancy, I have been increasingly hampered by broncho-constriction, the defining characteristic of asthma, in the past two years.  I have also been aware of having a rather low heart rate suggesting a tendency towards parasympathetic dominance.  Broncho-constriction can be precipitated by parasympathetic over-activity.   The sympathetic ‘fight or flight’ response opens the airways, while the parasympathetic ‘rest and recovery’ system has the opposite effect.

When I read Hadd’s well known account of his client Joe, who was training for a 2:20 marathon, I was intrigued to note for the first few levels of the Hadd test (a series of 2.4 Km runs at incrementally increasing heart rate) that I could run faster than Joe at a specified heart rate – though of course Joe could push his heart rate far higher than I could, and therefore he would have left me far behind in a race.  Perhaps I was a more efficient runner than Joe at slow paces, but efficiency is less important than VO2 max for all events other than ultra-marathons. 

I started to wonder whether or not the increased severity of my asthma and my low heart rate were evidence that some non-conscious part of my brain was taking action to prevent me over-exerting myself.  On balance, this apparently hypothetical tyrannical guardian angel appears to be acting in my best interests, and in particular, is protecting my heart, but the tyranny felt as irksome as an over-protective nanny.  It seemed worthwhile to get a heart rate monitor and try to wrestle some of the control back from this over-protective nanny.

 

Fatigue and the parasympathetic system

I hoped to use the monitor to maximse the efficiency of my training.  However, I had not anticipated the effects of my recent illness – a protracted bout of chicken pox accompanied by various complications.   In the aftermath of a viral illness there is risk of the enigmatic condition known variously as post-viral fatigue, myalgic encephalopathy (ME), or chronic fatigue.  The name used depends on the individual’s personal investment in the problem.  Many sufferers are adamant that it has a physical cause and tend to prefer terms like post-viral fatigue or ME; while skeptics tend to say it is all in the mind and prefer the term chronic fatigue. 

I suspect that multiple causes contribute: there are predisposing factors, precipitating factors and maintaining factors.  There is little doubt that viral illness can be a precipitating factor.  Possibly a tendency towards low parasympathetic activity is a predisposing factor, although paradoxically, excessive anxiety and sympathetic activity might also be a precursor.  There is a fairly large but inconsistent body of evidence indicating that the parasympathetic nervous system can be deranged in chronic fatigue – a confusing situation encapsulated in the title of a review article by Freeman ‘ The chronic fatigue syndrome is a disease of the autonomic nervous system: Sometimes.’ (Clinical Autonomic Research vol 12, pp. 231–233, 2002).  Typically, cases of chronic fatigue show evidence of an incipient vaso-vagal attack during orthostatic testing.

Although the literature on chronic fatigue is largely to be found in journals of cardiovascular medicine, immunology or psychiatry, while the literature on over-training is confined to sports medicine journals, it is probable that the two conditions have much in common. 

I also think there is little doubt that what I suffered in mid-August was the beginnings of a bout of post-viral fatigue.  Although I had attempted to return to training fairly cautiously after my illness, my decision to persist with my plan to run a half-marathon probably led me to push myself a little too hard.  I would not describe my present problem as an over-training syndrome yet, but I think I am on the edge.

Here is the record of my heart rate during the orthostatic test when my condition reached a nadir on 18^th August, together with a more typical recording performed on 2^nd  August.

 

On 18^th August, during the initial 3 minutes lying-down, my mean heart rate is 51 and there are high frequency fluctuations on a time scale of around 15 peaks /minute.  During the 30 seconds following standing my pulse rises to 71 bpm but then, while remain standing, an excessive parasympathetic surge produces a fall to a mean value slightly lower than the value when lying down, at times falling below 40 bpm.  It is noteworthy that the frequency of fluctuations decreases while standing relative to lying down, indicating greater sympathetic input, though the frequency while standing on 18^th Aug is still higher than on 2^nd  August.  The increase of 9 bpm from resting to standing on 2 August is typical

 

How is it best to manage the situation?

The management of chronic fatigue is a hot potato.  Many sufferers maintain that exercise is harmful (see for example: http://www.empowher.com/news/herarticle/2009/08/12/top-ten-list-recovery-chronic-fatigue-syndrome.  

In contrast, the evidence from clinical trials indicates that carefully graded exercise can be beneficial (Larun and colleagues, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 3)   The debate is heated because of the implication that if it can be cured by graded exercise, perhaps it was all in the mind after all.  However, I think that view underestimates the amazing nature of the mind, and the brain that under-pins it.  

The mind is no less real than the immune system or the cardiovascular system.  Almost certainly non-conscious mechanisms in the mind (and its brain) act to protect us from ourselves.  It is likely that the excess of parasympathetic activity that can occur in chronic fatigue is one such a mechanism.  However, despite being clever, the non-conscious mind is not always wise, because it is dependent on the information we feed to it.  If our conscious mind reinforces the need to be protective, it is possible to create a vicious circle in which conscious and non-conscious mechanisms get cemented into an over-defensive reaction.   By judicious conscious efforts to test the limits, we might be able to train the non-conscious mind to adjust the tightness of the leash in an optimal manner.    

If so, perhaps the most effective way of preventing incipient post-viral fatigue from becoming protracted debilitating chronic fatigue is to undertake carefully graded exercise so that the non-conscious mind/brain can adjust the tightness of the leash rather than consolidate the current status and create an intractable chronic problem.

Here is a graph showing the day-by-day variation in the difference between lying and standing heart rate during the orthostatic test. 

 

Orthostatic increase in heart rate showing nadir on 18th August. red arrows indicate long-run days; blue arrows indicate rest days

After the nadir in mid-August, there was a fairly steady improvement.  The red arrows mark days (both before and after the nadir) when I had increased training volume up to 15Km or more (albeit at a very easy pace).  On each occasion, there was a deterioration on the following day.  The blue arrows indicate days of complete rest.  These are followed by improvement, but perhaps even more importantly, during the period including runs of gradually increasing intensity over short distances, from 25-29^th August, the trend was strongly upwards.  Over this period, the Poincare plot ( a two dimensional scatter-plot that illustrates variation in inter-beat intervals, and in particlar allows as estimate of the rapid beat-by-beat changes in interbeat interval produced by activity of the parasympathetic nervous system) revealed that increasing orthostatic rise in heart rate was accompanied by decreasing parasympathetic drive during the standing phase.

 

Many a slip between cup and lip.

On Saturday (29^th August) I was sufficiently encouraged by my progress that I was tempted to increase training volume.  I ran 15 Km, starting slowly and gradually increasing up to a pace around 5 min/Km, achieving an overall average pace of 5:24.  This was a mistake.  On Sunday morning, the orthostatic difference was back down to 1 bpm.  This morning (Monday) it was 2 bpm.  It was clear that I still need to take things cautiously.

I decided that instead of running today I would repeat a session on the elliptical cross-trainer which I had done in mid July, at a time when I was gradually building up the training-load after my illness.   During the session, I increased the work-rate very gradually at 4 minute intervals, starting at 35 watts and increasing to 240 watts.  When I had done this session in mid-July, I had exceeded the ventilatory threshold (where breathing become very deep and rapid) during the final two levels.  My average heart rate in the final few minutes was 157 bpm (about 98% of maximum), but it had been an exhilarating rather than demanding session.  I anticipated that despite my recent fatigue, the training I had done since early July would be enough to allow me to achieve a 240 watt output while barely exceeding the ventilatory threshold. 

I felt reasonably relaxed during the early phases, though occasional glances at the heart rate monitor indicated that my pulse was rising at a similar rate to mid-July.  And then at 200 watts, I hit a very solid wall.   Suddenly I was gasping for breath.  I could scarcely believe how difficult it was.  However, it seemed that little harm could come from a few more minutes of exertion so I pushed on for the full 4 minutes of the 240 watt level.   When I examined the heart rate recording I was stunned to see that my heart rate had stopped rising after reaching 143 bpm at the 200 watt level.  The subsequent 240 watt level had felt so difficult because there had been no appreciable increase in cardiac output despite an increase in work-rate.  In the final few minutes I must have been utilizing almost purely anaerobic metabolism. No wonder it felt difficult.

The Poincare plot confirmed that it was the parasympathetic system that had blocked further rise in cardiac output beyond the level reached at 200watts.  A comparison of the Poincare plots in mid-July and today demonstrate that the variation along the 45 degree axis of the ellipse (largely due to sympathetic activity) was very similar on the two occasions: 6.9 ms in July compared with 5.6 ms today, but the variation across the 45 degree axis had increased more than threefold from 4.0 ms  to 13.4 ms, indicative of a relatively large amount of parasympathetic activity.  The consequence of this parasympathetic drive was a false ceiling on VO2max, and the sensation of hitting a solid wall.  I wonder does this mechanism play a part in creating the wall dreaded by ill-prepared marathoners?

Poincare plots of R-R intervals over a 2 minute period during the 200 watt level in the elliptical session on 18th July and 31st August

The future

I must now steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis, the mythical monsters that guarded the Straits of Messina.   If I push myself too hard the excessive stress will evoke an even more restrictive parasympathetic defense and I am likely to end up with protracted fatigue.  However, the evidence from studies of chronic fatigue indicates that the dangers of molly-coddling myself are almost as great.  Acute post viral fatigue can become very entrenched if the non-conscious mind/brain learns that the only safe path is low intensity activity.  

Previously in such circumstances I would have been inclined to opt for slowly re-building of aerobic base with a Maffetone-style program.  However, that would not be entirely logical as I think my aerobic base is still fairly robust.  The observations of the past 10 days suggest that short, moderate intensity sessions might be more effective for promoting recovery, whereas longer runs are likely to lead to further deterioration.

As for my half-marathon plans, I will simply have to see what unfolds in the next 10 days.  The Gratze study suggests that the two most crucial things to do in preparation are tapering, and ensuring that serum potassium level is not low.   Unfortunately, one of the side effects of my asthma inhaler is a decrease in serum potassium, so there are other less fearsome but nonetheless potentially troublesome monsters circling not far below the surface as I attempt to cajole my over-protective nanny through the gap between Scylla and Charybdis.  At this stage negotiating that gap is more important than the half-marathon, but provided my orthostatic test results show a moderate degree of normalization, I am inclined to at least present myself at the starting line.

Snakes and ladders again

The good news is that I have recovered from the peculiar illness that has troubled me for almost four weeks.  During the past three days my symptoms have been diminishing rapidly with each passing day.  Two days ago, I did a gentle Pilates session and yesterday I went for a short, easy cycle ride, without adverse effects.  By this evening the only remaining traces of the illness were mild constriction of my upper airways (peak flow 270 litres/min compared with my usual 520-550 litres/min) and very mild diffuse musculo-skeletal aches.  I decided it was time to return to running.  Before I set out I tested my heart rate versus power on the elliptical cross trainer.  To avoid stressing myself, I did not go beyond 200 watts.  As you can see from the chart, there has been a fairly dramatic deterioration in my fitness.  Heart rate today about 11 beats higher at each level of power output, compared with 6^th June.

 

I then went for an easy 3 Km run in the woods.  After a warm up at gradually increasing pace, I timed myself over the middle Km, which I ran at a comfortable pace in the mid-aerobic zone.  I was pleased to find that this comfortable pace was 5:05 per Km and average heart rate was 133.  I then slackened the pace to a jog for the final Km.  Although I felt tired at the end, it was great to be out running in the woods again. 

The chart of heart rate v power provides graphic evidence of how rapidly fitness is lost, but in view of the severity of my illness, I was expecting at least this much deterioration, so I was neither surprised nor disappointed.  The interesting question is how quickly can I recover to my level of fitness in early June.  It took 4 weeks to lose this much fitness.  I hope I can recover to my pre-illness level by the end of summer, but  it would probably be counter-productive to push myself too hard.  I anticipate that I am going to need a few weeks of convalescence.