Two studies published last month offered interesting takes on strength training for runners. One, from researchers in Chile and Spain, looked at plyometrics (abstract here; RW Newswire story by Scott Douglas here); the other, from researchers in Italy, compared low-weight, high-rep strength training with high-weight, low-rep routines (abstract here; RW Newswire story by Scott Douglas here). I wrote about these two studies, and what they tell us about "traditional" approaches to strength training for runners, in my Globe and Mail column this week:
The training secret that propels top distance runners like Cam Levins of Campbell River, B.C., is very simple: They run a lot. Levins, for example, earned a spot at last summer’s Olympics (and cult-hero status among running fans) by running three times a day, up to 300 kilometres a week, during his collegiate career at Southern Utah University. With an extreme regimen like that, other forms of supplementary training tend to take a back seat. [...] The traditional approach to strength training for endurance athletes has been to focus on a high number of repetitions with relatively light weights – three sets of 10 to 15 reps for each exercise, for example. The idea is to build strength without packing on too much muscle, a “problem” that is purely hypothetical for the vast majority of people. Instead, it turns out that the exact opposite approach may produce better results. Training with heavy weights or explosive motions, such as leaping, seems to have less in common with the demands of running, but these techniques are extremely effective at improving the communication between your brain and your muscles. Such “neuromuscular” adaptations allow you to recruit more muscle fibres with each contraction, and ultimately translate into more efficient running... [READ ON]More From Runner's World
Anyway, I figured I'd use this blog entry to share in a little more detail some of the answers I got from the lead authors of these studies.
Why Trust Us. The program they used was very simple: runners did two sessions a week, immediately before running. They started with a warm-up (5 minutes of running, then 20 submaximal vertical jumps and 10 submaximal forward jumps). Then the actual plyometric exercise was a "bounce drop jump": you step off a ledge and then as soon as you land, jump as a high as possible while minimizing the amount of time your feet spend on the ground (i.e. you don't do a big knee bend before jumping). The routine consisted of six sets of 10 of these drop jumps: 2 sets from a 20-cm box, 2 from a 40-cm box, and 2 from a 60-cm box. And that's it.
Dr. Mikel Izquierdo plyometrics is the potential for injury, so they're usually recommended only for advanced athletes. This routine, on the other hand, seems fairly low-key. Here's what the lead author, Dr. Mikel Izquierdo of the Public University of Navarra, said about less experienced runners using plyometrics:
We would expect an improved endurance performance in non-elite runners submitted to plyometric training. In fact, as the “window” of adaptability is higher in non-elite runners, it may be that in these particular group of endurance athletes the benefits of plyometric training would be higher.
More From Runners World:
When adequate controlled plyometric training intervention had been applied, no injuries had been reported, and sixty drop jumps is a relatively low load, especially for endurance athletes, who, due to their reduced proportion of fast twitch muscle fibers and reduced muscle stiffness may experience reduced muscle damage during plyometric training. In fact, in our investigation with runners, we recruit athletes with no previous experience in plyometric training, and they reported little subjective muscle pain after training. Moreover, plyometric training had been advocated as a preventive injury strategy and even as a rehabilitation tool.
Trail Running Gear. The program in this case was a six-week weight-training routine for masters runners, twice a week, doing a variety of lower and upper body strength exercises under the guidance of a trained coach. The high-reps group did three sets of 10 reps of each exercise, at about 70% of one-rep max, with 2-3 minutes of rest between sets. The low-reps group did four sets of 3-4 reps at 85-90% of one-rep max, with 3-4 minutes of rest between sets. Only the low-reps group saw significant gains in strength and running economy, presumably due to neuromuscular adaptations rather than the addition of muscle.
Some key points highlighted by column this week of the University of Rome:
of the University of Rome:
We are talking about master amateur runners, individuals who try to train at least 4-5 times a week, including intervals, tempo runs, races and long endurance runs, squeezing all these trainings in very tight schedules (family, work etc..). Therefore, adding 2 strength trainings a week could expose these individuals to the risk of non functional overreaching or to overuse injuries. Something we did not specify in the article (not specifically tested) is that instead of adding these training sessions on top of their normal training it could also be an option to decrease or substitute some slow (recovery) runs with strength training sessions.
Minimalist Running Shoes:
[I]t is important to point out that if athletes want to add a strength training program to their running schedule they need the supervision of a strength coach, that needs to be informed on the races and performance objectives.
On whether upper-body strength training matters for runners:
A proper arm swing helps maintain a rhythmic motion during running. So indirectly, a proper arm movement (an “active” arm movement) will help regulate stride rate and frequency. Therefore including strength exercises also for the upper body (and core), will help the runner maintain a correct posture, avoiding unnecessary and energy wasting movements.
On inserting short six-week blocks of strength training into a marathon build-up, rather than trying to find time to include strength training throughout the year:
In this case, their specific marathon training is based on a 12 week program and the strength training was included in the first 6 weeks of these 12 weeks, specifically when the athletes are training for their maximal aerobic power. Strength in fact needs to be maximized by coordination and neural adaptations with minimal muscle hypertrophy (MST program) and less interference with the aerobic training is evident when athletes train concurrently max aerobic power. 6 weeks were chosen because it is the right timing to increase strength minimizing hypertrophy. Longer protocols may not be useful in adding any increase in RE exposing the runners to the risk of non functional overreaching.
So the big conclusion is... well, the "right" approach still depends very much of your goals and current situation. For most people, I do think the biggest bang for your training buck comes from running more -- but of course, that's not helpful if you get injured by running more. To me, the main message is about the type of strength training that's useful for endurance athletes. For most of my career, the strength training I did looked a lot like the "high-reps" group in the Italian study: three sets, 10-15 reps. These days, I hear a lot more about athletes using much heavier weights and focusing more on power and max strength than on muscular endurance -- and these studies support that idea.
***
Read the Sweat Science book, and follow the latest posts via Twitter, Facebook, or RSS. Also, I'll be speaking as part of the Evolution of the Athlete webinar series (along with Tim Noakes, Dave Martin, and many others) in October; details here.
