Physi-KULT running

Juniors Redux and More Belated POMs

2011-12-04T00:02:00.004-05:00

A very busy fall season of coaching and travel has kept me away from the blog for far too long. Redress is now in the offing!

For the third time in five posts, it is the junior/high school program that has drawn my attention. Three posts ago, I took stock of the junior program at its four year mark (equaling one complete high school cycle), detailing both its rapid success and the challenges it still faces. Two posts later, I discussed what is perhaps the main challenge faced by the program (securing the understanding and support of public high school x-c and track programs during the high school championship seasons). This month, I want simply to celebrate the ground-breaking season that our club athletes enjoyed "over the country" this fall. And what a season it was! When the last mud-caked shoe was removed last week, the number of all-time OFSAA top-10 finishes by group members had more than doubled, going from 3 to 7; we had recorded our first CIS (Canadian University Championship) top 10 result; we had crowned our second OFSAA individual champion (to go with Nicole Armstrong's win at 800m in the spring); and, we had our first national team X-C qualifier and our first national junior top 10 finish. But, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Many athletes, including some first year members, showed remarkable rates of personal improvement-- rates that, if sustained, will have many wondering "where did that kid come from?" over the next 2-3 years! Below, in alphabetical order, are the P-K Juniors who raised eyebrows (mine, at least) the highest:

Chris Adams: Chris came quietly into our group late last spring, looking for a way to improve on his results from his first season of high school track (which failed to move him beyond the first round of OFSAA qualifying in the 800 or 1500m). After working hard in the girl's group all summer, Chris would come into his own on the X-C course, beginning with an eye-opening 10th place finish in the junior boys division of the prestigious Trinity Harrier Meet in Port Hope. He would go on to post a couple of top 3 finishes in smaller meets before narrowly missing the final individual OFSAA qualifying position, with his 6th place finish at the EOSSA meet. Thus,in a few short months (albeit filled with many challenging workouts and much long, easy running) would Chris establish himself as a young athlete to watch, both on the track this spring and in his senior years as an X-C runner. He follows in the spike marks of recent Sydenham High grads and P-K members Jeff Archer, Dylan O'Sullivan, and Rob Asselstine, all of whom arose from the same relative obscurity to become Junior standouts, not only locally, but nationally.

Jeff Archer: In his final year as a Junior, Jeff finally tasted some of the success promised by his late and rapid rise through the high school ranks. After finishing 10th at OFSAA X-C in his final year, Jeff would struggle mightily (albeit not always quietly!) over three seasons to recover his upward trajectory, recording a number of results that he, his coach, and his team mates in P-K and at Queen's would prefer to forget (and which, for that reason, are best left unmentioned!). Finally, after undergoing systematic treatment for exercised-induced asthma, Jeff would streak to the front ranks of Canadian Intercollegiate X-C running with a surprise 10th place finish at the annual championships, a result 6 places better than his arguably career-best effort from only two weeks before (his 16th place at the Ontario University Championships). In only his second year as a university athlete, Jeff looks set to contend for top individual honours-- and, in the process, to lead the Gaels to team glory-- in years to come.

Nicole Armstrong: The extent of Nicole's potential as a middle distance runner seems to grow with every season. Her 4th place finish in the OFSAA Junior race (age 15) and, perhaps more strikingly, her 6th place result in the Youth (age 16-17) division at the club provincial (Athletics Ontario)championship, clearly show that she has all the makings of an international class mid-range runner. Breaking through to the top levels of the sport will take both luck and years of very hard work; but, who is more likely to see the top of the mountain than a 15 year old who can both medal provincially at 400m and run with the best teenage long distance athletes over 4kms? Thirty-odd years of watching age-class runners develop (and fail to develop) tells me that Nicole is as real a deal as we're ever likely to see in these parts-- a once in a generation or two athletic specimen, to be sure.

Hannah Ascough: Starting at the back of the girls group in grade 9, Hannah has been the most rapidly improving junior female athlete in the group over the past couple of years (helped, no doubt, by the discovery and treatment of her iron deficient anemia last spring). This season, running in her difficult first senior high school season (senior in the Ontario high school system encompassing both grade 11 and 12), Hannah made yet another of the performance leaps for which she is becoming known in the group. She finished 26th in her OFSAA qualifier, setting the stage for a run at top 10 in her final year. At this rate, Hannah can look forward to a solid career as a Varsity X-C runner (and rumour has it that Queen's will be her number one choice when decision time comes! Right, Hannah?).

Cleo Boyd: The August POM honoree was at it again this fall, but this time against all odds and expectations (except for mine, truth be told!). Suffering a calf strain just before her massive 3k P.B. in late August-- a problem that would be driven deeper by the race itself-- Cleo was almost exclusively confined to the elliptical trainer in September and October. However, logging 90+ minutes per day on the machine, including numerous mind-numbing and body-wracking high intensity sessions, and running just enough to both heal and maintain her local muscular conditioning, she was able to literally hit the ground running in November. Her two-race X-C season (Provincials in Hamilton and Nationals in Vancouver) would prove to be spectacularly successful, all things considered. Running tentatively, she would finish a strong second at Provincials, giving her the confidence to make an aggressive, and eventually successful, attempt at making the Junior National team for the North American/Central American/Caribbean X-C Championships to be held in Trinidad next March. Her 9th place finish-- the first National Junior X-C top 10 by a club member-- would put her 3rd among first year junior athletes and well into the national team selection pool of 8. With a little more time running rather than spinning, there is no telling what she might do next time out!

Heather Jaros: A primary school superstar, big things were expected of Heather, and she would not disappoint in her first season as a high school athlete. Her season would peak with a spectacular win in her OFSAA qualifier over arch nemesis Brockville runner Emily Carmichael, one of only two in their many meetings. A naturally strong middle distance runner, Heather will no doubt deploy her X-C fitness with devastating effect on the track this spring.

Mitchell Kirby: Like Chris Adams, Mitch joined the group in the spring with little fanfare. A good primary school runner and all-around athlete, he was nevertheless several notches down the ranks within what longtime observers would recognize as the most naturally talented cohort of grade 8 boys ever to emerge from the Kingston area system. A few months of steady work, however, and the gap would be all but closed. Mitchell's performances in the early season high school meets, including an 8th place finish among grade 9s in the aforementioned Trinity Harrier Meet, forced the heretofore more successful Kingston boys to learn his name. He would finish the season without a single weak result, and would, with his outstanding 21st place OFSAA finish, help his school team to an historic silver medal performance (behind, of all schools, Holy Cross of Kingston, with whom Mitch's Frontenac Falcons would trade team honours all season-- like I said, an unprecedentedly strong cohort of grade 8 graduates!).

Kieran L'Abbe: A year ago this fall, Kieran was struggling to hold his own against the best of the aforementioned grade 8 cohort, finishing a well-beaten fourth in the city public school X-C championships (and likely a little further back still, had this race included the separate school boys). His entry into the P-K group in the spring of the year, however, would launch a run of improvement such as I have rarely seen in the sport at any level. With no serious sports background to speak of, Kieran was an athletic tabula rasa. By June, we would have beaten all of the boys who bested him 7 months before, setting several local track records in the process. Fours months later, he would be looking back on an undefeated record in his first season of high school X-C, including an OFSAA championship. It's safe to wager that no OFSAA midget X-C champion has ever had such a scant background in the sport, or in sport in general. He will enter his first high school track season almost as great an enigma as he did this X-C season; as such, knowledgeable observers (myself included), are likely to be just as surprised 7 months from now as they were in November. There is literally no telling what he might do next.

Clara Langely: Clara's 2011 X-C season marked something of a comeback, although she hadn't gone far, or for all that long. A period of injury and low iron that began shortly after her stellar, province-leading 10:04 for 3000m in the final race of her grade 10 track season would finally end late this summer, with her encouraging 17:55 track 5k best. Two weeks later at the Trinity Harrier Meet, she would signal her return to full strength with a decisive, course record-setting romp over perhaps the strongest field in the meet's history. The remainder of her races leading up to OFSAA, including the pre-OFSAA meet itself, would be solo affairs. Suffering a little from the effects of a slight virus in late October (as well as, perhaps, from the lack of competition in the lead-up), Clara would be relegated to 5th (albeit close) at OFSAA-- an outstanding result on its own merits, but a couple of spots below reasonable expectations. Three weeks later, she would round out the strongest and most consistence X-C season of her high school career with an solid 18th place finish at the muddy National Junior Championships in Vancouver (minus the mud, I've no doubt she would have been further up the field). Like the others, Clara looks forward to converting her superb X-C conditioning into a season of personal bests on the track.

Danae Morris: Quiet and determined, Danae went about her business in the thick of the very strong P-K girls group, knowing she was improving, but never quite sure how far her fitness would take her. She and everyone else would find out in late October, when she executed a tactically perfect 3rd place finish in her OFSAA qualifier, outkicking a former OFSAA top 10 finisher and punching her ticket to the season finale in the process. Lack of experience would get the better of her in the championship itself and she would finish well down the list; but, more of the bread-and-butter consistency that got her this far, this quickly will make her a good bet become an OFSAA track qualifier, and eventual top 20 X-C performer.

September, October and November POMS

September's POM owner appears for the first time in these annals. His September POM was the first of two monster efforts that saw him lop a total of 5 minutes(!) from his 10k and HM bests. Congrats to Joe Dunford of St. John's NL on an amply deserved POM-- his 1:14:57 HM, which utterly embarrassed his old best of 1:19:20. So strong was Joe's September that his 10k best of 33:47-- a race in which his poor early pacing probably prevented him from going even faster-- is a worthy runner-up performance!

October POM deliberations ended with a rare tie. The first performance belongs to a frequent flyer in this space-- masters ace Rick Minichiello, whose long run of steady improvement shows few signs of abating. The victim this time was his one year old HM best of 1:12:21. Rick's fall training indicated big gains in his running economy (the final element in his transformation from elite cyclist to elite runner), setting him up for an assault on one of the big benchmarks of elite masters running-- the 70mins 21.1k. However, like all entrants in this year's Scotiabank/Waterfront races, Rick would have to overcome some 7kms of strong headwind to reach his goal. Tucked carefully in a mixed pack of marathoners and half marathoners, Rick would make it well beyond the 10k mark before losing his grip on the required 3:20/km pace. He would ultimately limit his losses to a mere 30 seconds, however, crossing the mat just less than two minutes below his old best, easily taking the masters' win in the process. With this result, Rick solidifies his reputation as the best masters runner in Canada for the second straight year!

The second performance belongs to resurgent P-K master's star Agathe Nicholson, who capped a remarkable year with her best performance yet-- a 4 minute revision of her now 3 year old marathon best. As it turned out, Agathe's time of 3:01:18 narrowly missed (16 secs) the Canadian 50-55 best, held by Quebec's Louise Voghel. A concerted attempt on this mark-- this time in calmer conditions, one hopes-- is Agathe's next goal. Don't bet against her!

In the event that these marks enter consideration for POY, I will have to break out my age-grading tables!

With the number of strong X-C performances turned in by P-K members, November was perhaps the most difficult month so far this year for picking a POM. Among the contenders were: Kieran L'Abbe's improbable OFSSA victory; masters athlete Christy Barber's outstanding win in the AO X-C Championship (in the blazing time of 18:50, which would have been more than respectable in the junior girls division); Jeff Archer's redemptive 10th place finish at the CIS championships in Quebec City; and, fellow junior Cleo Boyd's national team qualifying run at the Junior championships in Vancouver. Because national team qualification of any kind is perhaps the most difficult feat to achieve in our sport (short of winning a national championship or setting a Canadian record), the nod goes to Cleo's run, which was made all the more remarkable by the route she took to accomplish it (over two months of 90min to 120mins per day on the elliptical trainer, much of it at high intensity). Of the many remarkable success stories in the lore of x-training, this is one of the most astonishing I have yet seen or heard of.

"Teaching" Running; P-K POMs (belated!)

2011-10-06T15:13:00.004-04:00

What is the difference between being a running "coach" and a running "teacher"? An article last month in the Life section of the Globe and Mail* on the proliferation of organizations and individuals offering expert services for recreational runners-- from old-fashioned coaching, in which an experienced hand designs and oversees a regime of running at different paces, all with the goal of achieving better racing performances, to instruction in "how to run", focusing on the simple act of putting one foot in front of the other as quickly as possible-- set me to thinking about this distinction.

To begin, there is clearly a teaching element to all coaching, and running is no exception. As I suggested at length in an earlier post, effective coaching engages an athlete's creative, intellectual, and emotional capacities, and, over time, equips him/her to become an more active participant in the training process. On the most basic level, good coaches encourage athletes to make a study of their own body's response to different training stimuli, while providing a framework of experience (both their own, if they are runners or former runners, and that of others they have known or coached) within which to situate this growing knowledge. The best coaches are also well versed in the lore of the sport, and are able to inspire and instruct athletes with stories about the success and failure of those who have gone before them. As a result, runners frequently recall their favourite coaches as not simply "programmers", but as teachers and mentors. There are some strict limits, however, to what a running coach can actually "teach" his/her athletes.

I have always been very skeptical, for instance, of the notion that coaching extends to the level of teaching athletes literally "how to run", and nothing in the new spate of commercial offerings to this effect has altered my reaction. Today's running "teachers" are often sincere and well meaning, but what they offer is based on an entirely faulty premise, and they survive by exploiting for commercial purposes the ignorance of new runners concerning the basic elements of successful running performance. In particular, they exploit the widely held misconception among non- and beginning runners that fast runners are fast, and often look different ("better") than slower runners, because they "learned" how to properly move themselves across the ground, and that this "knowledge" can be made available to the uninitiated through detailed instruction. Often the first question I'm asked by neophyte runners, or the parents of young runners, is whether I might be able to "fix" their running form, or tell them how to run "properly". There is, indeed, money to be made in plying this particular area of the trade, but only at the cost of indulging the consumer in the basic misconception that good runners are good because at some point they learned to "self-monitor" their way to more fluid, aesthetically pleasing, and therefore more efficient, running mechanics.

It is a misconception, and, I think, a form of coaching malpractice, to suggest either that physiologically "efficient" running mechanics can be seen by the naked eye, or that, to the extent that efficient runners do move in some broadly similar ways, this way of moving can be simply imitated by anyone, regardless of their particular configuration of body parts, angles, tensions, and muscular strength. The question of our ability to "see" physiological efficiency or inefficiency (i.e. the relative energy costs of running) through an athlete's pattern of movement was definitively answered when veteran coach and exercise physiologist Jack Daniels asked a selection of experienced coaches to identify the most physiologically efficient runners within a sample simply by watching them run. The result was that there was no correlation between the coaches perception of "efficient" form and actual physiological efficiency as measured through the use of oxygen at sub-maximal speeds on treadmill. As it happened, the least classical looking-- or, if you will, the most awkward looking-- runners in the sample were often the most physiologically efficient-- and physiological efficiency in the only kind that really counts when the object is cover long distances as quickly as possible. The question of whether, to the extent that faster runners do tend to move in similar ways in comparison to slower runners, and beginning runners in particular, is a more difficult one to settle. Packs of fast-moving elite runners really do look broadly similar to one another, and different from groups of recreational joggers. The lessons we can take from this fact, however, are not nearly as straightforward as today's running "teachers" would have their clientele believe.

To begin with, faster runners have generally been "selected" based on optimal running mechanics. Those with gross skeletal asymmetries or malformations, muscle imbalances, etc., are generally weeded out of the top ranks of the sport, as harsh as that may sound. Furthermore, the front ranks of any race are made up of runners who have trained longer and harder than beginning runners, in spite of being generally younger than the average recreational and beginning runner. In other words, elites, by definition, are rare specimens in almost every respect, and their running form, no less than their physiology, is a product of this uniqueness-- a uniqueness that is not the product of conscious learning, but of simply being and doing. No amount of analysis and conscious imitation of the way fast runners move is going to enable a runner with a physiognomy that is not optimally suited for running, a runner without many miles of running to help refine his/her neuro-pathways, or an older runner, move with the same power and economy as a younger runner who has reached the top of his/her game, and who has done so in large part by running prodigious numbers of kilometers. The best distance runners in the world did not themselves "learn" to run the way they do through conscious self-monitoring or instruction; they either moved more or less that that way from an early age, and thus tended to excel at the sport, or else developed as refined a pattern of movement as they could for their particular bodily configuration through simple repetition, in precisely the way that all physical movements become more automatic and economical the more they are repeated (think, for instance, about typing, or tying a shoelace). This is why, in spite of the general similarities among elite runners, there remains a subtle range of different postures and ways of moving that constitute the biomechanical “signature” of each athlete.

But whether beginning runners can be "taught" to run "properly", or like faster runners (which I'm completely convinced that they cannot) is not the point. Every runner, whether fast or slow, young or old, must adapt a way of moving that is in accord with his/her particular body. Since running is as innate and basic a form of human movement as walking, the most immediate way to find the line of least resistance in doing it is simply to do it very often. This is precisely how young runners go from gangly foot-stompers to compact and light-striding speedsters over a matter of a few years, without a single minute of "technical" instruction. And, if nature or the civilized life has left one's body in a poor state for beginning to run, or too much of one kind of running has created weak points and asymmetries, then some care must be taken in starting a running program, and in addressing basic muscle weaknesses and imbalances through targeted strength training (something that must remain a standard feature of any athlete's training regime as its demands grow). The goal of every runner must be to adapt the most efficient way of moving for his/her unique body. Distance runners can certainly benefit from general “postural/form cues”, such as “run tall”, or “drop the shoulders”; but, they should look askance at any claim that there is one optimal running form for everyone, and that it can be acquired through technical instruction. (Matters are quite different for sprinters, who are concerned not with physiological efficiency, but with sudden, maximum power output. Here, technique is crucial, and is subject to conscious adjustment in racing and training).

*The Globe’s Life section has done an excellent job lately of covering our sport. We’d preferred to be covered as a sport, of course, but we’ll take whatever can get at this stage!

P-K POM honourees (July, August):

The summer months are generally the time for junior athletes to do their thing, and 2011 was no exception. The owner of the July POM joined the junior group at the beginning of grade 11, with the goal of one day running in the NCAA. After showing great early promise, Dylan O’Sullivan struggled through 2 years of injury and illness before gaining some traction in the spring of his final year of high school. Already having run well enough to gain admission to the Ivy League’s Dartmouth College in Hanover NH (a school with a strong, Division one cross country and distance track program), he lined up for what would be his one and only National Junior Track Championship appearance on July 14, in Winnipeg MB.. Running aggressively from the front whenever the pace showed signs of lagging, Dylan broke through with an outstanding bronze medal winning performance, chopping 6 seconds from his personal best and breaking the club junior record in the process. His performance was the stuff of which young dreams are made, and he is a very worthy first time POM winner.

The August POM winner also showed great promise throughout her high school and junior careers, but suffered from enough minor setbacks to prevent her from showing the full extent of her ability; that is, until her track final race of this summer. Coming off a solid 6th place performance at the national junior meet in July, Cleo Boyd embarked on some of the best track training in her young life, with the goal of assaulting the 10:00 barrier of 3,000m in August. She would reach her goal in spectacular fashion in the inaugural P-K Distance All-Comers meet, held on the track at M.A. Sills park in Belleville on August 30th. Running on a warm and windy evening, she would string together kilometres of 3:19, 3:20, and 3:19 to slice a whopping 16 seconds from her personal best in one mighty cleave, and break the one year old junior club record. Congrats, Cleo, on an outstanding performance!

High Schools, Clubs and the Differentia Specifica of Running

2011-07-10T18:19:00.006-04:00

Since my reference in the last post to the seemingly perennial "schools versus clubs" problem in junior distance running attracted attention in some unlikely quarters, I thought I'd take the time to say a few things about what I think drives it and how it can be resolved (i.e. both for the record, in the event that these parties are still looking in!). For some, the simple solution to this issue is for school coaches, backed by administrators, to insist that all athletes train with their school teams during the school season, or else quit them in favour of the club system. I'll argue that such an a approach is no real solution at all for distance running-- that is, if one is at all concerned with building the sport, including school programs, or behaving reasonably towards serious student athletes in publicly funded schools.

But first, I should say this this really isn't a problem in most instances, even in Ontario, where it has long and notorious history. Most high school runners who train year-round in clubs, including members of P-K, continue to enjoy excellent relations with their school coaches and administrators. In most schools, coaches and administrators either don't see an issue at all, and are content to allow athletes to satisfy team and federation participation rules in ways that do not interfere with their year-round training plans, or they welcome and encourage club-based athletes because of the example of serious commitment, drive, and, yes, competitive success, that they bring to school programs. It is the tiny majority of conflict situations that are responsible for the impression that there is some kind of intractable incompatibility at play when it comes to club-based athletes competing for their schools.

Why has there been such a problem in running (X-C and distance track) in the first place? (And I have heard accounts suggesting that conflicts between club athletes and their schools date back as far back as the 1950s in Ontario!)? As I see it, there are really two possible broad explanations:

1. Club-based coaches are, and always have been, uniquely and determinedly meddlesome, and club athletes particularly oppositional in disposition, such that each is determined to go looking for trouble, in spite of the availability of perfectly reasonable alternatives that involve no sacrifices on their part.

or,

2. There is something inherent in, and specific to, the sport of running that continually recreates the potential for this kind of conflict, while athletes in other sports manage to move more or less freely between their club and school teams, or simply choose to do one or the other exclusively.

My own experience as an athlete and coach (including within a school-based program-- Queen's) attract me to the second hypothesis. It's implausible to suggest that that any one group of people can be so irrationally and unreasonably demanding over such a long period of time; furthermore, what I know about club-based coaches and athletes in other sports-- sports where simultaneous school and club participation are more or less the norm, and rarely the subject of conflict-- has led me to believe that runners and their coaches are at least as reasonable, and probably by nature more averse to conflict, than their counterparts in these sports.

And it really is true that athletes in other sports, particularly team sports, manage to participate fully, and often simultaneously, in school and club programs, just as young actors, musicians, and singers tend to move freely between their non-school and school-based programs, usually with full support on all sides. In the vast majority of cases, the volunteer coaches and instructors who operate school sports and arts programs recognize and support the year-round involvement of more serious participants (as part of the mandate of schools to promote excellence across the curriculum and extra-curriculum), and are happy to accommodate students' movement between school and outside programs during the school season, when these students express a desire to participate in the school-based program. They do so both out of concern to accommodate the goals of individual students, and because these more serious students often add considerable value to their school programs, in spite of their sometimes more limited weekly involvement. But there is a more specific reason why there tends to be less club-school friction when it comes to school activities other than distance running: In most school activities, and sports in particular, students can easily accommodate the extra practice demands associated with participating on both a club and school teams, because practice time tends to much more skills and strategy-focused than conditioning-focused (of which more below). Moreover, full participation in other school sports actually requires more or less full time practice attendance, because the vast majority of school sports (or plays/musicals, and other arts-based activities) are genuinely team-based activities that actually, functionally require active cooperation on the field of play. We could also add that most other school sports are more popular than distance running, meaning that the competition for scarce team positions enables school coaches to simply force students to choose between school and club programs when there is deemed to be incompatibility (interestingly, however, they rarely do, as club-based athletes in team sports are almost always among the most skilled, and team-sport coaches, understandably, like to win!).

I would thus submit that there are certain fundamental differences between running (and distance running in particular) and the vast majority of school sports and other activities that uniquely generate pressures, year-in and year-out, leading to conflict over simultaneous club-school participation. (A fact that is actually born out by the existence of "minimum practice requirements" at the Ontario federation level in X-C and track-- something that does not exist for team sports). Among these differences are the following:

1. That training for it is grossly physiological in focus (i.e. aerobic). If there is any "skills" component to running it is very small (witness the number of athletes who have become world class without any formal coaching at all). This means both that athletes serious about doing their best must do at least some running year-round, and that the vast majority of the training runners do can be, and often is, done without any "team" cooperation (although runners will often train in groups, of which more below). It also means that there are strict limits on the amount of really intense training a distance runner can do in typical cycle (e.g. one week). As a result, there really are not 7 training days in the weekly cycle of a distance runner; there are 2 to 3, surrounded by several days of easier "recovery" efforts.

2. Distance running is not a team sport in any meaningful sense. As a result, it is entirely possible for athletes and "teams" (which, in running, are really aggregations of individual performances, or placings) to reach the highest level without engaging in any group or "team" practice whatsoever. For instance, in cross country, members of national "teams" rarely, if ever, train together, and may not even have formally met until convening at a championship event! The simple fact that it is possible to train for running alone (and very effectively so) means that distance runners, including very young ones, will often want to do it this way, creating the potential to run afoul of school coaches and administrators who insist on treating running as a team sport like any other.

3. While not a team sport in any meaningful sense, running is nevertheless an activity that athletes of similar levels of experience, ability, and commitment choose to do in small groups. Such groups usually evolve in a club rather than a school setting for a variety of reasons, including that volunteer school coaches cannot be expected to run the kinds of year-round programs that serious athletes must have in order to realize their potential (see point 1. above), and because school programs are often much smaller in size, and tend to be comprised of athletes with very widely varying levels of ability. Year-round running clubs are the vehicle of choice for athletes choosing to train in a group setting because within them it is possible to train directly alongside athletes of similar levels of ability and interest (and of the same gender, which often makes clubs more socially attractive for serious female athletes). The attachment of runners to their club group training environment thus tends to be very strong, making it inevitable that these athletes will seek to maintain them during the school season. Add all this to the fact that school teams don't functionally require a "team" approach (i.e. unlike a basketball team, which can't function at all without a team approach), and that serious athletes often lack suitable (or any) training partners within their schools, and it is inevitable that club athletes will seek the kind of dispensation that can lead to conflict with a certain kind of school coach.

4. Underlying much of the above is the simple fact that distance running is a uniquely challenging form of sport activity-- one that increasingly goes against the cultural grain for young people, for whom the most strenuous form of physical activity is likely to be their daily gym class. As a result, distance running is likely to remain a fringe sport in the vast majority of high schools, in spite of the best efforts of volunteer high school coaches to build numbers. And, when a school coach is moderately successful at attracting more than a handful of athletes, the disparity in their levels of ability and interest in the sport are bound to be huge, making effective group training all but impossible (something that is simply not true of team sports, in which participants come from a much narrower range of ability and interest). The inevitable result is that the tiny minority of serious athletes (very often only one or two athletes, in fact) in any one school is likely to prefer training alone (particularly when this is what they invariably end up doing at school "team" practices anyway), or will tend seek out training partners of similar levels of ability at other schools. The result is that, if year-round clubs/training groups for serious runners did not already exist, chances are the athletes themselves would create them-- either that, or the sport would collapse completely in many communities.

5. Because serious distance running (i.e. not the weight-loss activity we see at the average road race) is increasingly a fringe activity, the level of coaching expertise in the sport varies much more widely than in the more popular team sports, where literally thousands of ex-participants with moderate to high level experience are available to work with young athletes in and outside of school programs. The result is often that there is a considerable difference in the quality of guidance on offer from club versus school coaches in running versus team sports. Serious young runners are able to recognize this difference immediately, and will be inclined to want to continue accessing the best available coaching guidance available, even when the difference is not all that great (because success in sport is, after all, often a matter of very small differences multiplied repeatedly). If, all other things being equal, athletes perceive that the quality of coaching is superior in a club versus their school program (and, because there are no measures of coaching prowess beyond the actual preferences of serious athletes themselves, perception is all that matters here), they will want to continue receiving principle guidance from their club coach on a year-round basis, even if this brings them into conflict with a school coach or administrator. This is, after all, only human nature, and would be equally true of serious school-age musicians and scholars, many of whom retain outside teachers and tutors during the school year. And any policy that seeks to force a person who is serious about developing his/her full potential in a particular area of expertise to compromise his/her efforts will tend to encounter resistance. Imagine, for instance, if students in an enriched science or math class were asked to give up their special instruction "for the benefit of the 'team'".

6. School competitive programs are very attractive to school-age athletes, and students at publicly-funded schools, who were assigned to them by administrative fiat (unavoidable in a publicly funded system, but still a fact), feel as though they have a right to access such programs on terms that are compatible with both the nature of the sport and the needs of others. Even where club competitive opportunities exist, student athletes, runners included, enjoy participating in school-based programs, and feel they have a right to do so if their abilities qualify them. In Ontario in particular, the high school competition program is top-notch and highly elite-focused, with athletes participating in qualifying competitions than winnow fields down to a highly select few at the championship (OFSAA) level. But, as it happens, there is also space on 99% of school teams for every interested student athlete to participate (i.e. running is a "no-cut" sport in almost all schools). What this means is that there is a great demand for participation in school-based cross country and track programs by club-based athletes (indeed, the vast majority of the top athletes in the system are club-based), a widespread feeling among club-based athletes that they have a right to participate in these programs, and an understanding that simultaneous participation in club and school programs is very easy to facilitate (much easier,in fact, than in team sports). Once again, the result is the potential for conflict between club-based runners and school coaches who insist that X-C and track teams are no different than teams-proper, and make no exceptions.

Recognition of the above, combined with a desire to accommodate the legitimate aspirations of serious student athletes to participate in publicly funded sports programs at the schools to which they have been assigned, without compromising that seriousness, is the secret to ending conflict between club-based athletes and their school coaches/administrators. Indeed, it is precisely this kind of recognition that happens in the hundreds of schools where this conflict has never been allowed to develop. Club-based athletes can also help avoid contributing to this conflict by actively suggesting way that they can participate in their school programs without compromising their year-round training plans. For instance, in the vast majority of cases, performing easier, recovery sessions with the school team (if there is an active team), or pacing younger, slower members through their harder sessions on recovery days is considered more than sufficient to satisfy school coaches and administrators. This way, it is often possible for club athletes to spend even more time training with their school team than the average school-based athlete!

But none of this matters in those rare instances where a high school coach or administrator is determined to treat the school cross country and distance track teams, and distance running in general, as though they were no different than any other team or sport in the school, and to set about enforcing participation rules that they have have been informed (and should reasonably know in any case) will interfere with the desire of more serious athletes to maintain continuity in their year-round programs. Such a course of action will ultimately serve no one but the coach or administrator bent on having his/her way*. School distance running programs are not likely to be more successful, either in terms of competitive results or participation numbers, using such an approach. The subjection of serious athletes to rules that neither serve their interests (as they, as young adults, understand them) nor do anything to promote broader participation in school programs are doomed to fail everyone concerned. Serious club-based athletes will either abandon school teams entirely, or will be forced to make compromises for which they will see no legitimate justification, and that have no real parallel is an education system that is meant to encourage both independent goal-setting and initiative, and the pursuit of excellence in all areas of the curriculum and extra-curriculum.

*Looming over this entire discussion is the curious power that has been bestowed upon volunteer school sports coaches to exclude student athletes from school programs for reasons other than ability or poor behaviour. Imagine the fate, at the hands of parents and administrators, of the school teacher who insisted on failing students for poor attendance, regardless of performance on assigned work! Yet, I have seen and heard of highly qualified young runners being threatened with expulsion from their school X-C and track teams for failure, not just to attend team workouts, but to perform at designated effort levels as specified by volunteer school coaches-- and this, with the full backing of school administrators! Thankfully, these examples remain in the extreme minority; but, one wonders-- given, among other things, the great power within the system of the disgruntled parent-- how they are ever allowed to stand at all. Perhaps the martial tradition in sport, according to which the coach is the unquestioned commander and the athletes his/her troops, is at work here (misapplied though it would be in distance running, where collective cohesion on the field of play/battlefield is not among the relevant variables).

Thanks, Ramblers of Reddendale!

2011-06-22T13:12:00.002-04:00

Sleepy, bucolic Reddendale-- a post-war, lakeside suburb in Kingston's west end, and the neighbourhood where I live-- received a modest livening up last Saturday when P-K (with the help of co-hosts, the St. Andrew's By-The-Lake United Church)decided to turn its winter training loops into a race course, and invited runners from across the city and province to join us. Edition one of the Reddendale Ramble 5k was a modest success in terms of numbers but, we think, a great success in terms of concept and execution. The Kingston road race scene, while well established and vibrant, has been lacking a summertime, evening fixture. We think the Ramble's 6pm start time, and Summer Solstice scheduling (to say nothing of its beautiful location), is sure to make it a big hit among Kingston racers in years to come. And we aim to support this basic appeal by ensuring that it is the best executed and most affordable event on the local calendar-- which, thanks in principal to race director extraordinaire, Clive Morgan (with support from Neal Scott, yours truly, and an ample crew of volunteers supplied by both St. Andrew's and P-K), it is well on its way to becoming. The course, which hugs the lakeshore until just past the 4k mark, was accurate (including the individual kms), well marked, and extensively marshaled (including lead and rear cyclists) right up to the highly visible finish line on Redden St., immediately adjacent to the awards area on the lawn of the church. And, for the modest fee of 22.50 (including online registration fee)for the Ramble, and a mere $5 for the kid's Metric Mile, a runner could not have asked for more in terms of awards and draw prizes (thanks to our main sponsors, Mizuno Canada and Gears and Grinds Cycle Shop). We can't speak for them, of course, be we think our runners, young and old, had a great first experience with the race, and will be back-- along with friends, family, and training partners-- in 2012. A core of satisfied first-time customers, along with a full year to eliminate our weaknesses and build on our strengths, is sure to make the second edition of the Ramble bigger and better. Among our goals for next year and beyond is to become part of the Kingston Roadrunners Association annual series, and to secure a prize money sponsor. Stay tuned!

Among the 2011 Ramble Highlights were:

-that we managed to raise around $300 to support the costs of running the no-fee Junior P-K group (with another $300 going to St. Andrew's).

-the fact that very close to half of the finishers ran under 20mins, despite a very rare (for this time of year) southeast wind on the predominantly eastward course.

-the near perfect weather (the K-town airport, which is less than 1 mile from the start line, was the cool spot in southern Ontario that day, as it always tends to be at this time of year).

-the great battle for the men's win between P-Kers Mike Gill and Richard Minichiello (a masters runner, no less), with Mike securing the inaugural title over the final 250m.

-the strong, negative-split win on the women's side by junior Clara Langely, who showed a welcome return to form following a year of injury and iron deficiency.

-and outstanding battle for the masters women's win between 50 year old P-Ker and local ace Heather Ostic (won over the final km by Heather).

-the turn-out for the kid's race, and the extremely strong performances by the winners and runner's up-- Kieran L'Abbe and Ben Workman on the boys side, and Christina Papadakis and Branna McDougall for the girls.

Full results are at runnningbydesign.ca

See you all in 2012!

P-K Juniors: Reflections on Cycle One

2011-06-10T14:54:00.000-04:00

OFSAA track 2011-- at which P-K junior athletes had good success, including two medals by grade 9 phenom Nicole Armstrong-- marked the end of the first 4 year cycle since the inauguration of the junior division, which has remained steady at between 12 and 17 members. (Before September of 2007, P-K had been comprised mainly of masters athletes and a few senior elites.) Now would thus seem to be a good time to take stock of the successes of the younger members of the group, as well as to record some of the lessons learned by this foray into what I called, in an earlier post, "the funhouse of coaching", where things are rarely as they appear, and nothing can be taken for granted.

I'll start with the competitive successes:

-one national team medal (the 2009 Junior Boys X-C team).

-two OFSAA team medals (won by the KCVI and Sydenham senior boys teams, both of which were comprised of athletes who trained exclusively with the club group.)

-3 Athletics Ontario team medals (the youth and midget boys in 2008, and the midget girls in 2010)

-one individual top 15 national X-C finish (Rob Asselstine).

-one top 5 national junior track finish (Rob Asselstine).

-two OFSAA track medals, one gold and one bronze* (both by Nicole Armstrong).

-three individual top 10 OFSAA X-C finishes (Jeff Archer, Cleo Boyd, and Nicole Armstrong).

-sixteen OFSAA track final appearances or top 10 finishes by 12 athletes (Kyle McKellar, Cleo Boyd, Alex Hinton, Charly Allan, Jeff Archer, Rob Asselstine, Clara Langely, Brianna Bradley, Rebecca Jaros, Dylan O'Sullivan, and Nicole Armstrong.

-two successful NCAA D-1 recruits (Dylan O'Sullivan and Rob Asselstine).

-one successful CIS scholarship recipient (Blair Morgan).

*Three if one counts Clara Langely's second place finish in 2010, for which she was (I'm convinced) wrongly DQ'd.

Since I have not made a point of keeping precise track, I've no doubt overlooked some noteworthy performances. And, this list does not take account of the record of individual improvement of group members; there has not been a single member who has spent more than a few weeks in the group who has not enjoyed improvement, and most have done so significantly, many dramatically. Nor does such a list say anything about the closeness of the social bonds that have been forged within the group. As is almost universally the case in the best training groups, many lifelong friendships were begun at the P-K training sessions and social gatherings over the past four years, I'm certain. I would thus considered the P-K junior division to have been a great success on every level, making it source of pride and satisfaction to assistant coach Pat McDermott and me. With the new track facility nearing completion, and a new crop of very keen eighth-graders ready to embark on their first season of high school X-C, we look to the next four years with great enthusiasm.

And what of the lessons learned?

Against the great record of success of the group, it must be said that we have also seen a handful of potentially very successful athletes abandon the group prematurely (in our view). While it's true that most have remained active in team sports, we count it as something of a failure that we did not manage to make the case to these athletes to stick with running. As I discussed in the aforementioned earlier post on coaching kids in running, there is often a frustrating mismatch in this sport between talent and potential on one hand and motivation to train for it on the other. Thus, while we take responsibility to failing to retain these athletes, we have also begun to recognize that the emotional and physical demands of training properly for this sport tend to elevate non-physical attributes-- such as emotional resilience, patience, a tolerance for loneliness, and an ability to defer gratification-- to nearly the same level of importance as natural speed and stamina when it comes to determining long term success. Simply put, running, though a simple sport, is not an easy one on any level, and requires a unique (and I would say stronger) kind of character in order to succeed.

And perhaps the greatest test of character in training to race is injury. While the injury rate for the junior group is below average for the sport as a whole, it is always distressing to see young athletes sidelined by injury, even if only for a few weeks. (Dealing with injury is developing athletes is also the most nettlesome of all coaching problems.) Over past four years, we've learned a lot about the kinds of injuries and other health problems that tend to beset developing runners. Most of these are the same things that afflict more mature athletes-- e.g. anemia, asthma, minor tendonitis and muscle strains of various sorts-- but younger athletes, and girls in particular, seem far more prone to problems in the lower leg and hips, especially during and immediately following periods of rapid growth. We've learned that there is always potential danger when an increase in a young athlete's training load is accompanied by a significant growth spurt. In fact, this observation has led me to adjust my understanding of the proper age for younger athletes to begin significantly increasing their training loads. Age 15-16 for girls and 17-18 for boys remains an excellent rough guide, but these numbers need to be revised upward by a year or so in the case of physically later-blooming athletes, or athletes who have recently gone through very dramatic growth spurts. We have also come to a renewed appreciation of the importance of strength work-- particularly of the core and lower legs/feet-- in preventing and treating injury in young athletes. But, as anxious as we have been to avoid them altogether, we have also learned the continued improvement is possible in spite of injuries. In the P-K junior group, a small group of athletes account for almost all of the injuries the group has suffered; however, among this small core are some of the most successful, both in terms of rate of personal improvement and of absolute success. With timely and aggressive cross-training, and with effective rehab, the injuries typically suffered by young athletes need not be a barrier to success, nor to long term enjoyment of the sport. Besides, running injuries are very rarely serious or permanent in nature, unlike those routinely suffered by team sports athletes (e.g. concussions and serious trauma to the knee), and are an unavoidable risk for all serious runners at any age. The only alternative to courting the risk of injury in this sport is not trying at all. P-K juniors, like all serious athletes, have not shied away from this risk, even as they have done their best (for the most part, anyway; they are kids, after all!) to avoid injury and to deal effectively with its consequences.

And, perhaps most unfortunately, work still needs to be done ensure that junior group members retain the free and fair access to the publicly funded high school X-C and track programs to which they are duly entitled. The little they have asked for in terms of maintaining continuity in their year round training programs-- i.e. that they be allowed to carry out their two hardest workouts of the week with their regular club training partners, in return for completing easy runs with their school teams-- has not yet been granted by all schools in the system, in spite of concerted efforts on the part of some of their parents. And P-K kids in some schools have been subjected to a blatant double-standard when it comes to school participation rules, in which less serious athletes, or those playing on other school teams during the track and X-C season, are allowed to miss school practices without consequence, while they are threatened with expulsion from their teams for refusing to perform key sessions in the presence of school coaches. Their would appear to be no easy long term solution to this problem that does not involve completely useless sacrifices on the part of P-K athletes themselves-- who, ironically, remain the only kids in the city serious about pursuing this most demanding of sports.

Finally, my experience of working with young athletes over the past four years has done nothing to change my sense of the often maddening unpredictability of the entire enterprise. We are regularly confounded by apparent randomness of the pattern of our young athletes' performances, and by degree to which these performances can fail to match what we see in practice. While the general trend for the group has always been a positive one, we are continually surprised, pleasantly and otherwise, by the distribution of good and bad performances among its individual members on a given day or week. We are thus resigned to a faith that, if we continue to learn, and to apply our knowledge and experience as effectively as we can, the latent potential of every member will eventually surface, if not always at the appointed time and place!

May P-K POM:

Apropos of the theme of this post, the May POM goes to a junior member (indeed, most of the racing action by P-K athletes this month involved the high school athletes). For junior members, spring track is dominated by the quest for a ticket to the Ontario Federation of Schools Athletic Association (OFSAA) championships, which is earned by negotiating a series of three increasingly competitive qualifying meets. In the final round--the regional qualifying meets-- athletes must place in the top four of their event to be entered in the championships. This month's POM winner-- Adrienne Morgan-- chopped 20 seconds from her personal best over 3000m, leapfrogging several higher seeded athletes in the process, to punch her ticket to OFSAA by a mere .2 secs. Add to this the fact that she ran the most tactically disciplined race of her young career-- sticking to her pacing schedule while watching the other would-be qualifiers mixing it up some 50m up the track in front of her, before launching a powerful finishing drive over the final 200m to claim the final qualifying spot-- and you have the makings of a slam-dunk choice for POM. Congrats, Adrienne!

Hard Snell: Peter the Great on The Fundamentals

2011-05-24T13:27:00.010-04:00

It would seem that some lessons, though ultimately quite simple, must be relearned ad nauseam. This is often because, as in the case of the revolutionary mid-20th Century Kiwi coach Arthur Lydiard, and what he taught the running world would through the exploits of his champion athletes, their implications can be hard to face. In a recent interview , Lydiard's greatest exemplar, three time Olympic champion Peter Snell, who would later embark on a career as a exercise physiologist, offers us a refreshingly straightforward reminder of that which is fundamental to success in running, from 800m to the marathon-- aerobic conditioning.
http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Snell.aspx

For those how have never heard of them, New Zealanders Lydiard and Snell (along with Murray Halberg) took the distance running world by storm in the 1960s by returning a total of 4 Olympic gold medals (Snell's 3 at 800 and 1500 in 1960 and '64, and Halberg's in the 5000 in '60) to the island nation, population 2.5 million. Snell remains a candidate for best middle distance runner of all time. And the revolution wrought by the Lydiard group would continue into the 1970s and 80s, with the Finns adopting his methods with great international success, and a new crop of New Zealanders, led by the likes of John Walker, Dick Quax, and Rod Dixon, claiming world records and Olympic hardware.

At the core of Lydiard's revolutionary approach to distance training was the counterintuitive insight that high volumes of sub-maximal running volume could improve performances at maximal running efforts in the middle and long distances (with the difference in the two speeds being more than 2mins per mile!). This insight was conveyed to a young Snell, then only a national level performer at 800m, in a conversation with Lydiard about how the former might go about reaching the international level. Like many young athletes, Snell instinctively believed that the solution to matching strides with the best in the world would be to improve his maximum speed, creating a "speed reserve" that would make his current race pace feel more manageable, and his finishing drive more potent (Snell's instincts were in part the product of being repeatedly told that he lacked the "top end" speed to win beyond the national level-- a message driven home practically by the experience of being regularly and soundly out-sprinted in the final 200m of races). Instead of attempting to increase his maximum sprint speed through regular drilling at maximal efforts, Lydiard advised Snell to add more long, easier "aerobic" running to his regimen in the months leading up to his competitive season. As Snell relates it, Lydiard explained to him that his inability to run under 1 min 50 in the 800m (the then threshold for international success in the event) had nothing to do with his inability to reach the requisite speed (55 secs per 400, which Snell could do with relative ease), but with his inability to hold that speed beyond 600m. The latter, insisted Lydiard, was function of aerobic endurance and not the difference between Snell's full-out sprint speed and the desired pace-- his so-called "speed reserve". The catch, of course, was that Snell would have to commit himself to a program of daily running of up to 15 miles per day during the non-competitive months-- a difficult sell, when the standard approach for middle distance runners was a staple of shorter track sessions at race speeds or faster. Snell decision to trust Lydiard's then unconventional approach, and to begin to train like almost like a marathon runner for large stretches of the year, would prove history-making. His newfound endurance would very rapidly propel him to the front ranks of his event nationally, then to an upset victory at the Rome Olympics, with a time more than four seconds faster than his pre-Lydiard best. He would go on to defend his Rome title at 800m four years later in Japan, and add a gold at 1500m for good measure. In between, he would claim the world record in track's then glamour event, the mile. In top form, Snell would prove all but unbeatable in the latter event.

Years later, as exercise physiologist Dr. Peter Snell, the legendary Kiwi would offer a theoretical explanation for the revolutionary success of the Lydiard approach, variations of which would go on to become standard practice within the most successful distance running nations, with the metaphor of "aerobic base" (months of easy aerobic running) and anaerobic superstructure (weeks of race-pace interval training) becoming common currency among coaches the world over. Dr. Snell believed that Lydiard's keen intuition (born of his own experiences as a club-level athlete) had led him to discover that so-called "fast twitch" muscle fibers-- those responsible for producing the more explosive contractions that produce top-end speed-- can be coaxed into responding to a low intensity training stimulus once the "slow twitch" fibres that are first recruited at easier training paces had become depleted and exhausted. In other words, what appeared counterintuitive about the Lydiard approach could be explained in terms of the two-for-one training benefit that easy aerobic running could produce, provided the athlete was willing to run far longer than conventional wisdom would suggest. The athlete would still have to spend a period of time practicing race paces on the track; but, with the benefit of the endurance gained from the "aerobic base" training, he/she would be able to attain and hold these speeds for longer periods, and even be able to attain higher speeds when required at the end of races, as a result of fast twitch fibres that had been conditioned to perform better when fatigued.

Whatever its precise physiologic basis, the practical success of the Lydiard paradigm over the past 50 years remains undeniable. (Although confusion is sometimes generated by a failure to distinguish between the Lydiard paradigm and Lydiard's own sometimes idiosyncratic programming-- a distinction that would become one of Snell's own life lessons. See Snell's blunt words of advice on how to adapt the Lydiard method in the linked interview). From East Africa, to Japan, and now to the USA, where a distance running renaissance has saved America athletes from the ignominy now being suffered by the once great British and Europeans, high volume programs of the Lydiard type are the foundation of global success from 1500m to the marathon. Yet, in some quarters, the lesson that to run fast one must first run far remains a difficult sell. Indeed, in the USA itself, where the prevalence of high mileage training in universities and post-collegiate enclaves put American runners in the front pack internationally from the 1960s to the 1980s, this wisdom was temporarily set aside in favour of an approach emphasizing basic speed over endurance (the prevailing wisdom at the nadir of the sport in the USA was that "long, slow distance" makes for "long, slow runners"). The truth that, in distance running, more is indeed more can be difficult for some to accept, both because it is counterintuitive, and because to sustain a higher volume training program is a hard and tricky enterprise.

It continues to seem obvious to the casual observer that, because most races are won with superior finishing speed, the secret to winning is to increase one's sprint speed, rather than trying to become aerobically stronger. Thus, many high school and club coaches will continue to drill their distance runners, season-in and season-out, on "leg speed", "turnover", and running form, while cautioning them against the dangers of trying to run too far. The result is that often that young athletes, by the time they reach their university years, have become intimidated by the prospect of running more than 30 or 40 minutes per day; or, they worry if they become too tired to attain personal-best middle distance speeds on demand, 12 months per year. And, in truth, even when approached correctly (i.e. at genuinely easy paces, on soft surfaces, and in the company of partners where possible), completing the kinds of daily aerobic volumes required to promote steady improvement is psychologically difficult for younger athletes (and age 15-16 is probably the minimum age for following a serious training program in distance running), particularly in places where the daily routine of children requires nothing more strenuous than walking back and forth from the car, or playing a ball sport. To engage in this form of activity simply goes against the cultural grain in many ways in contemporary society: it requires a degree of tolerance to discomfort; great patience; inner quiet; and the courage to take short term risks (however minor) in pursuit of greater long term rewards. In the end, it can take years to acquire a taste for the pleasures of long, easy running for its own sake-- a pleasure that mature runners universally enjoy, and that gets them out the door every day, often well past the end of their competitive careers. The general bias towards hard interval work over easy aerobic running today for younger runners (i.e. between the formative ages of 15 and 18) would thus seem to be the result both of the basic misconception about finishing speed that Lydiard sought to dispel, and a concession to the cultural reality that contemporary young people are generally averse to running for up to an hour a day at gentle paces (which I'm convinced they are inclined to see as an activity for older people trying to "stay in shape"!) The line of least resistance in building a youth club or high school team is thus to offer a program modeled after the team sports with which young people are most familiar-- i.e one that meets frequently in large groups for relatively short and intense "practices". Unfortunately, the result of this approach is that, while rates of participation may climb, and while age class success may abound in the bigger clubs and schools (because hard, intense training actually can produce very dramatic short term results), young athletes receive a miseducation in the sport, both in terms of what's required to reach the highest levels, and in terms of their own longer term potential. By the time they reach their university years, many young athletes have become wary of or averse to running even moderate amounts of easy volume, let alone the amounts required to reach their full potential, and often stuck in a event range that does not suit their basic physiological makeup (hence, in Canada, the relatively large volume of 18-24 year old middle distance runners and the almost complete absence of serious long distance runners, and marathoners in particular).

How can we cut against this general tendency and ensure that Lydiard's basic innovation becomes and remains the centre of our sport practice here in Canada? We can make a start by challenging the persistent myths and misconceptions that threaten to undermine an aerobically based approach to training for distance running, chief among which are:

1. That lots of easy running volume leads to "burnout" and injury. If, by "burnout", we mean lack of enthusiasm to train and improve, then I would submit that the opposite is true. Lots of high intensity running, which leads to rapid improvement followed by flattened or declining performance, requiring several periods of complete rest during a year, and producing little year-over-year improvement, is more likely to dampen a young athlete's enthusiasm to train over the long haul. (It is no coincidence, BTW, that such an approach is the norm within seasonal high school programs, whose goal is to whip untrained athletes into shape in the shortest possible time.) Those who know anything about the history of the sport will know that this high intensity approach was standard practice in the pre-Lydiard days, when the conventional wisdom was that athletes would reach their lifetime peak performances within about five years of commencing serious training. Since the advent of the Lydiard paradigm, it is not uncommon for athletes to continue to improve as much as ten years into their mature careers, and at a range of different distances. Furthermore, as even the average recreational runner knows, long easy running is a psychological tonic rather than source of stress; it is the kind of training that still attracts us long after we have ceased to improve. As for the question of injury, there is no doubt that running longer creates a greater risk of injury; but, I would argue this risk is no greater than that associated with high intensity training, and probably less than that associated with hard or long training of any kind performed intermittently. Greater injury risk is an aspect of all serious training in any sport. In running, however, the injuries incurred are very rarely serious or debilitating in the long term, and the risk can be mitigated very easily through good daily management, including the timely use of cross-training. In any case, for athletes committed to realizing their full athletic potential, there is really no choice but to court a degree of risk. Is it better, after all, to have played it safe and avoided injury than to have strived for more and suffered the occasional setback?

2. That too much easy running will make you slow. As Snell suggests, and as the experience of the world's best runners clearly indicates, lots of easy running is more inclined to make you faster, including in a finishing kick. The greater endurance it promotes enables athletes to draw on more of the basic speed they possess at the end of races-- and most good distance runners have more than enough basic speed to produce fast finishes, provided they still have the legs to do it when the time comes. Even at the highest levels of the sport, most distance races are won with top speeds that even a very good primary school athlete could muster when fresh, and athletes with less top-end finishing speed frequently out-sprint athletes who are faster-- that is, when the former are not already safely ahead, due to the faster pace they can sustain over the vast majority of the race!

In the end, we have to be persistent in pointing out to doubters and the uninformed that high aerobic volume running is the global norm at the top levels of the sport. And, we have to introduce young athletes to this reality from the beginning, even as we scale their programs to their age and level of experience. The actual amount of easy running that young athletes do is secondary to the general message that simply getting out the door every day to run at an easy pace is the basis of training for this sport. It's what distance runners do the vast majority of the time, and it's what young runners need to become accustomed to if they want to reach their full potential, whatever that may be. We need to teach young runners (and their parents) that it is this, and not so much what happens twice a week at "track practice", that is the principle basis of training to be a runner. The vast majority of young runners will not go on to become serious runners, of course, but this is no excuse for not giving every runner the best chance of maximizing her inherent potential, should she so choose. After all, while we may know that, statistically, most runners who try the sport will not pursue it beyond school age, we do not know who among them just might! There is thus no excuse for foreclosing the options of young runners by taking the line of least resistance in the development of their training programs.

P-K POMs for March and April:

P-K athletes-- local, online, and junior-- began lining up in force as the spring road and track season launched in early March. There isn't time to review all the nominees, so I will get straight to it. The March POM goes to on-line athlete Peter McGregor, for his outstanding run at the legendary Around the Bay 30k (now in its 1000th year, or something). This year's addition saw stiff winds and below zero temperatures, neither of which seemed to deter Peter, who, at 50-something, passed the HM mark not far off his recent personal best of 1:27 on the way to a 6+ min course personal best. Peter is back at it this weekend in Ottawa, where he hopes to drill the aforementioned HM best into the dust! And the POM for April goes to another online athlete-- one who has been mentioned in this space many times before. After another winter of slogging it out in his beloved NL, Tely 10 champ Colin Fewer overcame a prolonged bout of nagging glute and achilles problems to chop 14 seconds from the 10 best he set in Victoria last year. In his first trip to the Vancouver Sun Run, Colin finished a hard-fought 8th in 30:27. He too will be back on the line in Ottawa in a few days, hoping to trim a little more from this mark.

The Paradoxes of Canadian Women's Distance Running

2011-03-23T14:11:00.003-04:00

In my last post I talked about an apparent renaissance in Canadian marathoning-- Canadian men's marathoning. Sadly-- and, as I will explain, paradoxically-- the past couple of decades have witnessed a decline in the quality and depth of Canadian women's distance running-- from 5000m to the Marathon, and on the track, roads, and turf-- that has been much steeper and more absolute than in the case of our men. And this is largely because, for a while there, our top women were among the best in the world, and the depth of their ranks was cavernous. Here is but one of many possible data points from what might be considered the peak of Canadian distance running-- the late 1980s-- that conveys the extent of this erasure: Sue Lee, two time Olympian (and finalist in 1988, finishing 8th), and Canadian record holder in the 10,000m (a mark that lasted almost 20 years), never won a single national championship in her illustrious career, losing to not one but half a dozen different athletes over a period of 7 years! Today, a runner of Sue's calibre and consistency (31:52 for 10,000m, and World Road Best holder for 4 miles), would rarely, if ever, lose a single national championship race on the roads, track, or turf, let alone to multiple athletes over period of years.

What happened, and why is it paradoxical?

As with Canadian men, the efflorescence of Canadian women's distance running was a largely demographic phenomenon. All other things being equal, having a larger percentage of one's citizenry in prime sporting-age bracket-- 19 to 35-- means a larger pool of potential participants and, if that participation can be successfully encouraged, more intense competition, leading to better average performance levels. And, in North America in the 1970s and 80s, all other things were not equal. The women's movement, which removed much of the remaining social stigma surrounding elite women's sport, and led to the famous constitutional guarantee of equal funding for women's intercollegiate sports participation (Title IX) in the U.S., combined with simple demography to dramatically increase the ranks of serious female athletes in all sports across the continent. And, in Canada in particular, a few of the same factors that help explain the greater relative performance of Canada's male distance athletes contributed to the per capita spike in women's success, including: the Montreal Olympics, which led directly to increased funding for elite "amateur" sport; the appearance of few successful Canadian role models, such as outspoken middle distance star and pioneering sport activist, Abbie Hoffman and marathoner Jackie Gareau (with her home province of Quebec being a significant source of female talent in the 1980s); and, of course, the promotion of opportunities through provincial and national funding for a few knowledgeable coaches to spend more time developing their knowledge and experience-- opportunities that led directly to the creation of very powerful training groups in places like Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, and Montreal.

As with the men, however, by the early 1990s, the effect of changing demographics would slowly begin to register, with many of our best from the 70s and 80s retiring and the pool from which their successors might appear becoming a little shallower each year. The simultaneous loss of one or more top athletes from some of our key training groups would also begin to undermine the depth and strength some of the these enclaves (e.g. the loss of both Sue Lee and Lynn Williams from Vancouver's Kajaks group within a couple of years). And, with the loss of top athletes and the slow erosion of the depth of their training groups would come a slow decline of the "demonstration effect", in terms of both training and high level racing, that a concentration of elite-level athletes tends to have on younger runners and their less experienced coaches within a given system. In short, just as with Canadian men, there was a subtle and gradual "forgetting" of the collective knowledge concerning precisely how an athlete manages to claw herself from the age class to the senior elite ranks, and a reduction in the number of active role models for this process. (And it is one thing to talk about great athletes from the past; quite another to actually watch one doing her thing on the track or roads, at least as far as the effect on aspiring elites.) In spite of this gradual decline, Canadian women distance runners would (and do) continue to produce outstanding individual performances; and, as a group, they would go on to enjoy a spectacular day in the international sun, when Canada claimed a bronze medal in the now defunct short-course IAAF XC championships in 2003. But this has been increasingly against a general trend of declining overall numbers and quality at national championships and major road races, with the 10000m and marathon suffering the greatest hollowing-out in recent years. The nadir of this decline was reached this past summer when the women's 10000m at our national track and field championships had to be cancelled due to lack of competitors-- a moment that long time observers could see coming, as the size of the senior women's fields at the bigger provincial X-C championships as well as the national championships began to dwindle almost to vanishing in some years, and this in spite of the enormous and ever deeper fields of girls in age-class events across the country.

The continuing high participation numbers and level of performance in girls age-class events, and the continued, if somewhat more sporadic, success of Canadian women distance runners at events below 10,000m/10k constitutes the aforementioned paradox, the heart of which is that the Canadian system (if it can even be called that) continues to produce as many or more top-notch female age-class athletes, many at very young ages indeed. Our success in the NCAA system, the worlds most competitive "league" for espoir athletes, continues to be remarkable (and currently greater than that of our men), perhaps even unprecedented in our history; and yet, the ranks of our peak-age senior elite athletes continue their steady yearly thinning. The story of the decline of Canadian women's distance running is therefore a story of failed promise, of the inability of our current system to convert our abundant age class talent into greater senior elite success. The disappearance of our once great regional training enclaves and the paucity of successful role models explains only part of this problem. The rest of the explanation is more broadly sociological cum sport-sociological.

Broadly speaking, the story of girls and young women in North American over the past 30 years has been one of steady inroads into higher education in general, and the professions in particular, relative to boys and men. In fact, the remarkable educational success of girls and young women relative to boys in the past few decades has led some commentators to speak (baselessly, I think) of a "crisis of masculinity". Regardless of what boys have or have not been up to, girls and young women have without question, and in great numbers, seized the opportunities that years of feminist activism succeeded in prying open for them (or, at least, girls of women of the middle classes have). Paradoxically, this has lead to increased levels of athletic performance among young girls, particularly in those sports that require the kind of discipline and focus that also correlates with high academic success, and a simultaneous decline in the number of young post-collegiate women willing to make the sacrifices necessary for success as at the senior elite level. Post-collegiate women distance runners, it would seem, have become increasingly reluctant to risk sacrificing career and other personal aspirations for a shot at success at the highest levels of this most demanding of sports-- a sport that requires another tens years at least of serious training beyond the collegiate ranks to be sure the full realization of personal potential. And to this we can add a possible and related sport-sociological variable specific to distance running: Today's post-collegiate women, having often started very intensive, high performance-oriented training at very young ages, and in pursuit of external rewards such as athletic scholarships, may lack the drive to continue the sport at the senior elite level with or without the career sacrifices entailed. This hypothesis would require further study to substantiate, but my own personal experience as both a teacher and coach of high school and collegiate women would seem to support it. Early 21st Century Canadian life is generally more utilitarian and work-dominated than ever before, and girls/women seem to be succumbing to this new cultural imperative more completely than boys and young men, for better and worse.

With the weight of such seemingly intractable variables standing against the possibility of a return to 1980s and 90s levels of participation and performance in women's distance running at the national level, what is a sport enthusiast and coach to do?

First, wherever possible, we need to tone down the seriousness of age-class competition for girls (and boys too, of course). Training at adult intensities in order to win age class accolades, or to perform far ahead of the curve for one's age, is a recipe for disaster at the senior elite levels, notwithstanding the gains made by a tiny minority in terms of lucrative scholarships (which the most talented can likely win with more modest training and racing in any case). Today's intensely achievement-oriented girls are far too easy to convince to make extreme early sacrifices in the pursuit of immediate success. Coaches interested in the long term success of female athlete should therefore go consciously against the prevailing cultural grain when it comes working with young girls. It is, after all, no less fun to train and race in a way that promotes more gradual improvement rates, and that thereby allows some room for post-collegiate success, than it is to go for everything all at once.

Second, coaches need to commit to working with post-collegiate women, and to making the case that longer term success is both possible and worth pursuing. Years ago, in an era when they were expected to enter gainful, lifetime employment immediately following high school, college, or university, many of our best ever male performers managed to reach the highest levels of the sport without making debilitating economic sacrifices. The case must now to made to our many talented and career-minded post-collegiate women that vocational success and elite level athletic success are not mutually exclusive; that what might appear at first to be sacrifices are, in fact, life enhancing in the long term. Over the past 10 years, I have worked with many late-blooming female athletes who, upon experiencing rapid rates of improvement in their late 30s and 40s, have belatedly realized that they probably could have pursued the sport with great success at the senior elite level in their 20s and early 30s, if they had had both the opportunity and the courage to break rank and give it a try. Our talented post-collegians will ultimately make up their own minds about this; but, we sports veterans, coaches, and enthusiasts need to be there to make the case for the vast intangible rewards of taking risks in pursuit of higher glory on the field of play. Every spring, literally dozens of very experienced and highly talented female distance runners pour out the collegiate ranks, never to lace up a pair of flats or spikes again. Surely more can be done to convince a few more each year of the many rewards of sticking with it.

P-K January and February Performances of the Month:

The demands of my first season of varsity indoor track at Queen's are responsible for this long delay in announcing the last two P-K monthly performance winners. A usually quiet time on the competitive scene for club athletes, the nominees for the winter months are few but of very high quality.

The two nominees for January come from opposite ends of the age spectrum, but for performances in the same event, the indoor 3000m. Junior Blair Morgan, who has been on a tear this winter, chopped 13 seconds from his personal best in going 8:52 at the Dome Louis Riel in Orleans. Finishing with his usual flair over the final 200m, knowledgeable observers could clearly discern that there would be more where this came from. Meanwhile, masters athlete Steve Boyd (with whose competitive record I am somewhat familiar) broke a 16 year old age group national record with his 8:49.17 on the University of Toronto oval-- and this in his (my!) first indoor track race, and second outing at 3000m, since 1995. Since a national record, even a lowly age-group mark, is always a very difficult achievement, the nod for January POM must go to the old guy.

February would feature two more outstanding indoor track performances. Remarkably, Blair Morgan would strip another 6 seconds from his 3000m best with his 8:46 at the Winternational Meet early in the month. This revision would bring his total improvement since late November to 23 seconds! And late one evening two weeks later, road specialist and multiple 2010 POM nominee Christian Mercier of Quebec City, would reduce his 5000m best by some 22 seconds, in the process putting on a display of metronomic pacing the like of which I, in my 3 decades in the sport, have never seen. Aiming for a time under 15mins, we joked before the start that all he would need to do was run 24 thirty-six second laps (15:00 pace per 200m), followed and a single 35 second lap, and the job would be done. When the clock was stopped 14mins and 57 seconds later, he would in fact have run 23 consecutive 36 second laps, one 37 second lap, with a final turn in 32 secs, spurred to a frenzied kick by being told that, for the first time, he had slipped above goal pace! Anyone who has ever attempted a 5k on a 200m track will appreciate the feat of sheer psychological hardness and old-fashioned attention-paying under pressure that such a performance represents. Nevertheless, for sheer scale of personal improvement that it represents, the monthly win must go to Blair's 8:46. Congrats to Blair on his first ever POM!

Whither Withered Canadian Marathoning in 2011? And P-K POY!

2011-01-14T14:20:00.012-05:00

The year 2010 marked the first year that Canadian marathoning, at least on the men's side*, ceased looking like the withered vestige it had become since the immediate post-Drayton, halcyon years of the 1980s and early 90s. After many years in succession in which a time in the mid-to-high 2-teens would invariably get one ranked among the top 3 nationally-- and win a national title, if it were run in Ottawa-- we suddenly have 3 men with brand new personal bests under 2:13, and the promise of at least two more in the same neighbourhood over the next few months. In what follows, I consider what all this might mean for the short and medium-term future of the event. I then announce the much anticipated (at least by me!) P-K POY winner for 2010.

But first, what exactly happened to the quality of Canadian marathoning circa 1995? What caused it to begin to shrivel and die almost at the moment of it's greatest vitality?

The longevity of career provincial bureaucrat Jerome Drayton's national marathon record (now going on 36 years)has been one of the few serious running-related stories that has managed to attract attention in the conventional media lo these many years, and commentators have sometimes attempted to account for it in one way or another. And, the fact is, this record suffered its greatest period of vulnerability by far in the first 10-15 years of its existence. Since the early 90s, it has rested serenely on the page, watching all of its brothers and sisters consigned, one after another, to oblivion. The strange tale of Drayton's Zombie Marathon Record has occasionally made its way into the mainstream media in large part because it seems to support a broader narrative about declining national fitness levels, childhood obesity/inactivity, and our alleged general loss of physical robustness. And, while this story-line provides some of the answer, the truth, in my view, is much more sport-specific than all of this, important though it is in an general sense. Aside from simple demographics (and it is rarely mentioned that Drayton and those who would challenge his record in the '80s were baby-boomers, whose numbers swelled the ranks of all elite sport at this time), the solution to the apparent puzzle of Drayton's record lies in much more proximate factors-- variables related to the marathon itself. Our alleged Great Loss of Physical and Moral Fibre has, after all, not saved any of the other Canadian long distance records from being significantly revised. All records from 800m to the Half Marathon were broken during the period of greatest security for Drayton's hoary mark.

Chief among the factors explaining the stickiness of this mark is its sheer precocity. When Draton ran 2:10:08 back in 1975, the world record was only 2 minutes faster (and legend has it that Drayton himself would have run under 2:10 if the sole of his shoe had not begun to tear away in the final few miles of the race-- and take that, detractors of the contemporary running shoe, which would never, even on its worst day, fail in this manner!). In other words, Drayton was just spectacularly good in his era. If some Canadian where to run anywhere near the equivalent performance today (something like 2:06-7), we could expect that record to last a very long time too. But still, others with similar or greater ability over the shorter long distances followed Drayton into the event shortly after-- athletes like Peter Butler and Paul Williams, with only Butler coming close (albeit on the aided CIM course). What these and others seemed to lack was Drayton's early, sustained, and exclusive focus on the marathon itself--- a focus that saw him stick with the event through the six injury-plagued and under-performing years between his breakout 2:11 and his eventual record run. Most of Drayton's would-be successors (and here we could add men like Art Boileau, Dave Edge, Peter Maher, Carey Nelson, and Peter Fonseca) either lacked his ability over 10k to HM, or else were late-career converts from the shorter distances who lacked the time or the inclination to stick with the event long enough to work their times down.

A new set of variables would begin to appear by the late 1980s, cutting off progress and clearly delineating the immediate post-Drayton decade as a Golden Age for the event in this country-- something of which contemporaries, myself included, had little inkling. It would take several more years before we would begin to realize that Drayton's record wasn't going anywhere soon. In addition to the aforementioned demographics, subtle changes in the dominant paradigm of training for distance running would gradually all but dry up the pool of potential marathoners in this country (as in other jurisdictions where such changes took root, such as the U.S. and U.K.) In short, the new orthodoxy in distance training, particularly for junior and university-aged athletes, was that less (volume) was more-- that becoming faster at intermediate distances would somehow make it easier to sustain higher speeds over longer distances, through a kind of knock-on, or "reserve speed" effect. Discredited in spite of its massive success was Drayton's own approach to distance running, and marathoning in particular-- that of simply finding out how many miles the best runners in the world were doing and attempting to do as much, or a little more (an approach that also made Drayton one of the nation's best ever at 10k, 15k, and HM it should be noted). Now, young runners with the potential to become good road racers, and, eventually, marathoners, were warned against "burn-out" and/or encouraged to develop all of their hypothetical middle distance potential before attempting to move up in racing distance. Most either "burned-out" anyway from too much high intensity work (which many had forgotten from the days before the invention of high mileage training was probably the real culprit behind premature abandonment of the sport), or else never learned how to train properly for the longer events when the time came. The most visible effect of this change, for those with the perspective to discern it, was a rapid decline in the number junior or university-age athletes with the ability to run fast over 5 and 10k (e.g. suddenly all but gone was the junior 30-min 10k runner). Thus, while the middle distances thrived uninterruptedly throughout the 1990s and early part of the last decade, their ranks continually replenished from year to year, the decline of distance running proper, and of long road racing in particular, would plunge the marathon into a steep decline from which it is only now showing signs of recovering (a few years behind the U.S., as it happens, which reached its nadir in the early years of the last decade).

Accompanying the rise of this new aversion to running long distance in training was the failure of sufficient numbers of ex-athletes from the high-water days to re-enter the sport as coaches or adminstrators-- a failure that cannot be placed entirely at the feet of these former athletes themselves. Canada is somewhat unique among sport cultures-- at least in our sport-- for not valuing the experiences of former athletes when it comes to the recruitment of professional coaches and administrators, and for the sheer paucity of professional coaching opportunities, period. Here, the coaching certificate or the Sports Admin degree is, all other things being equal,favoured over a lifetime of success on the field of play. The result has been a sudden and catastrophic loss in the ground-level knowledge base, both technical and cultural, in the distance events. Resurgence in this event range now requires the equivalent of the reinvention of the wheel. This resurrection of knowledge from the old days, augmented by the inevitable new refinements, has been greatly aided by the advent of the internet; but, much more remains to be done to uproot newly ingrained misconceptions about the negative effects of high volume training and to restore the once commonsense acceptance of the centrality of long distance training to long distance racing. At the high school level in particular, work must be done to teach coaches that athletes ages 16 and up are probably safer, and far more likely to succeed in the long term, when their programs are based on relatively large volumes of easy running, as opposed to intense year-round interval training and frequent racing. There was much less fear of youth and junior age runners "burning out" or becoming injured from higher volume training and long distance racing during the post-Drayton era than there is today. One suspects that the misguided culture of over-protecting adolescent children-- which is really a culture of extending childhood beyond its natural boundaries-- is at work here. While it is certainly true that younger children need to be introduced to long distance training very gradually and carefully, higher volume training poses no special psychological or physical threat to post-pubescent athletes who have made a serious commitment to the sport.

Returning to the present, what has changed to suddenly put three Canadian men within striking distance of the oldest record in Canadian athletics, and what are the prospects for this resurgence becoming a sustained movement? The answer to the first question is quite simple: The small core of runners now in a position to expunge the Drayton record all emanate from within training programs grounded in the kind of high volume running that Drayton himself would have done. Reid Coolsaet and Eric Gillis are part of the Speed River group, which has been the first in many years to successfully recreate the high volume training enclave characteristic of the post-Drayton years, during which several such groups combined to produce the couple of dozen male and female marathoners who dominate our all-time national rankings. Before taking their shots at the marathon, Coolsaet and Gillis, along with the rest of their large and ambitious group, dined on a steady diet of high kilometer weeks, routinely running 140-160kms as they developed from provincial to international level 10k runners. Moving to the marathon was therefore not so much a jump as a natural progression, precisely the way it happened for distance runners in the 70s and 80s, for whom the marathon was, in a way, just another road race. Meanwhile, Dylan Wykes and Simon Bairu (who has yet to actually record a marathon time, but whose talent makes him a threat to the record even on a mediocre day) are products of highly successful NCAA distance programs-- programs that never forgot the secret of success in the sport. And, after university, both fell immediately into club programs that did things the old way, Dylan with Physi-Kult (and, just recently, with 80s veteran Richard Lee's group in Vancouver B.C.) and Simon with the Nike Oregon Project under his old college coach, and alongside the training group of 80s marathon star Alberto Salazar. At the moment, the only Canadian athletes with a chance to compete with this small group at the marathon distance (or, indeed, at any distance over 5000) are other athletes training in the same way; in other words, their own team mates!

Which brings us to the answer to the second question: At the moment, this resurgence in the men's marathon, centered around the promise of these four athletes (with perhaps a 5th in the form of Speed River steeplechaser Rob Watson, who will debut at the end of this month in Houston), does not appear to be sustainable beyond the end of their careers, and all are in their late 20s or early 30s. Unless the current crop of Canadian collegiate athletes adopts their example, and finds the coaching support necessary to do so safely-- and this has certainly not been the trend among the last few cohorts of Canadian post-collegians-- it is entirely possible that Drayton's record will survive almost indefinitely, should it make it through the next 5-7 years. The overwhelming trend among Canadian post-collegians for the past 20 years has been to abandon the sport entirely, or to continue for perhaps a year or two in the same event range as in high school and university-- the middle distances-- with few if any taking up the longer distances, and road racing in particular. At our national championships, for instance, the 800 and 1500m remain by far the most crowded fields. Many of these athletes are, of course, no more natural middle distance runners than were Coolsaet, Gillis, Wykes, and Bairu, who were all low or sub-4 minute milers in their early 20s; but, they persist in the middle distance events out of an kind of inertia that is rooted in lack of initiative-- a lack of initiative that is itself a result of the aforementioned loss of collective knowledge about how to train for long distance events. Our post-collegians have, in general, shown little interest in becoming long distance runners, road racers, and marathoners in particular, because they don't believe they're capable of it; and they don't believe they are capable of it in part because so little in their training background has prepared them physically and psychologically for what it might take to make this transition. There is hope that the example Coolsaet and Co. will help change all that, and certainly the channels for transmitting that example in all its detail exist today in a way that they did not in Drayton's day (all of these athletes, for instance, post blogs describing their training and racing on a regular basis). But, the immediate prospects for turning the current resurgence into a movement lasting a decade are more are still not promising. At the very least, such a sustained renewal will require the development of one or two more post-collegiate groups on the model of Guelph/Speed River, and there is no obvious candidate in the wings, at least not in Canada itself. Creating another such group will require the fusion of capable coach and a critical mass of young athletes willing to take risks, just the way it all began at the U of Guelph more than a decade ago.

*On the women's side, there is as yet no resurgence in the marathon, or in long distance running in general, in spite of the fact that our age-class ranks continue to burst with talent. In fact, a once proud tradition of international excellence in Canadian women's distance running has all collapsed in the past 20 years, leaving virtually no trace. This will be the subject of the next installment of the blog.

P-K POY:

And now the moment that followers of the P-K POM drama have been waiting for all year: The announcement of the second annual POY!

Before I do so, a nod to the top nominees:

In a year of outstanding performances (documented in greater detail in the POM posts), a few stand out for their sheer off-the-curve audacity. Among those I'd like recognize one more time, and from which I have selected the 2010 POY, are: Rejean Chiasson's spectacular HM personal best, set on a slow course, while finishing as the second Canadian at our national championships ; rookie master Rick Minichiello's improbable 15:07 5,000m run in August; Chris Mercier's massive marathon P.B. in Berlin in September (and if there were a P-K performer of the year award, Chris, with his multiple POM nominees and winners, would certainly be in the running); Mike Gill's 30-odd second road 5k best of 15:03; Mike Gill's 25th place Nationals X-C finish (Mike was last year's POY winner, and would be the other clear candidate for performer of the year); and finally, Dylan Wykes electrifying 2:12:39 marathon win in California, his last performance as a full-fledged P-K member.

As I explained last year, Performance of the Month/Year honours go not simply to the highest finishes or the fastest times, but to those results that represent either massive, one-time improvements, or exceptional execution under challenging circumstances, whether personal, competitive, or climatic-- and most honorees contain some or all of these ingredients. The criteria for POM/POY performances therefore mean that athletes of all ability levels have a chance of being recognized for a personally outstanding performance. As it happens, however, this year's winner-- Dylan Wykes, for his marathon win-- is an elite performer with now very real Olympic aspirations. Dylan performance counts as both a huge personal breakthrough-- something that becomes more difficult to achieve the more experienced the athlete-- and a fantastic piece of competitive running in the sport's most complex and risky event. Winning a race is never easy at any level; winning a marathon at the elite level is one of the more difficult things to achieve in all of sports. All competitors come to the line maximally prepared, and all are intimately familiar with what it takes to win races; yet, only one can prevail in the lonely hour of the final instance, and Dylan was that competitor in Sacramento, California last December. And then there is the manner in which he won: taking the lead in the first mile and never relinquishing it for even a step. This is always a dangerous approach in the marathon, but it has also been the road to glory for many of the sport's best. Trusting his preparation and going by instinct, Dylan plowed his own "brave and lonely furrow" to victory, a massive new personal best, and P-K POY honours for 2010. Congrats, Dylan!

Wykes-- 2:12:39!! How? What now?

2010-12-20T13:41:00.004-05:00

If you're a fan of serious running, you'd have to have been living under a rock not to have heard about P-K athlete* Dylan Wykes' breakthrough victory in the California International Marathon a couple of weeks ago. (And, for those of you just crawling out from under a rock to read this: Dylan Wykes ran 2:12:39 to win the CIM, one of the top 15 times ever run by a Canadian marathoner; and, living under a rock is not good for your running!). While not quite fast enough to put Dylan on the 2012 team straight away (and a small net course drop, plus its point-to-point layout, would have disqualified this time for consideration in any case), this performance places him very much in the mix, along with Reid Coolsaet (already made the COA standard with his 2:11:23 in Toronto this fall), Eric Gillis (right behind Reid with a 2:12:06), and Simon Bairu (yet to complete a marathon, but by far the fastest of the bunch in terms of road and track bests); in the mix in terms of performance, to be sure, but also in terms of his belief that he is fully capable of avoiding being the odd-man-out within this talented group come final selection time (only 3 athletes will go to London, even if all four achieve the COA standard of 2:11:29).

Dylan has spoken at length about his outstanding performance in his blog http://www.time-to-run.com/dylanwykes/ and in a lengthy interview with Flotrack http://www.flotrack.org/articles/view/4192-dylan-wykes, but I thought I'd offer some of my own perspective on how he got there and what it all means, having had a unique and very close perspective on his development lo these past 5 years.

Dylan's run seem to have caught many observers off-guard. Indeed, Dylan's own delighted but somewhat surprised finish line reaction shows that he himself had perhaps been wondering if he had something like this in him-- or, if he did, if it would ever come out at the right time and place. And marathoning is indeed a tricky business, making every performance in which outright disaster is avoided both a joy and an enormous relief, with a truly great performance inducing something approaching pure, god-glimpsing ecstasy. And, indeed, this run of Dylan's should have been a surprise to people; but, not because he had not shown the ability to run this fast. His debut 2:15, on what was, by contemporary standards, a fairly modest build-up, clearly showed that he had the potential to one day run 2:12 or faster. The surprise, then, should not have been that he did it at all, but that he did it so soon.

What many failed to understand is that realizing one's potential in the marathon is a long term process, and Dylan had only just begun his journey down this path. In an era of endemic attention deficit disorder, it may have seemed ages since Dylan's excellent 2:15 debut in Rotterdam; and, after two consecutive runs in the 2:16-18 range, those without an understanding of the event, or a knowledge of the details (including atmospheric conditions and performance relative to his competitors) of his post-Rotterdam marathon attempts may have begun to conclude that he had "plateaued" at his debut level. The truth is, however, that the total time between Dylan's debut and his run at the CIM was 32 months! To drop from a debut of 2:15 down into the 2:12 range between the ages of 25 and 27 is certainly not unprecedented, but it is remarkable, particularly for an athlete with relatively little road racing experience, and who has only barely broken 29mins (once) and 1:04 for HM (twice). Examples abound, but consider by contrast the fact that it took Canadian record holder Jerome Drayton 6 years and several performances as slow as 2:16 to finally lower his then Canadian record of 2:11 down to where it sits today (2:10:09). Dylan's CIM performance only confirms what his debut race back in 08 clearly suggested: That he is an athlete with the ability to run a marathon in the 2:10-11 range, given sufficient time to develop. In fact, he has a special aptitude for the event and a developmental momentum that could well carry him past his currently faster and more experienced (i.e. in terms of high level racing) compatriots-- Mssrs Coolsaet, Gillis and Bairu (with all due respect)!

The question, then, is how did he managed to go from 2:15:12 to 2:12:29 so quickly, and in spite of not having lowered any of his personal bests for 5k to HM during this period? The short answer is that he remained relentless in his determination to improve in this event, and left no stone unturned in pursuit of an edge. Even at rest between his marathons, Dylan was seeking out new means of doing things a little better next time. As his coach for 5 years, I can attest that he never let me or anyone else do all of this thinking for him. Instead, he read and studied, and took advantage of the wide circle of experience and expertise in which he found himself. The result was that he (with the help of first me and later his B.C. coach Rich Lee) attempted to make adjustments and improvements in each of his successive marathon build-ups, and to add slightly more total volume to his regimen, from 95-100 miles per week in mostly single sessions during his first build-up to over 120mpw in double sessions in his latest one. The main stimulus remained the same-- very long sessions with significant portions at or slightly faster than marathon pace/effort-- but the details altered in subtle ways each time. Among these was the greater use of conventional track intervals during the latest build-up (something that, with the lack of suitable training partners and usable track, it would have been impossible to do properly here in Kingston). The ability to run high speed track sessions in the middle of a marathon build-up, Dylan has said, gave him confidence that he was becoming not just a better prepared marathoner, but a faster distance runner overall.

Other factors accounting for this sudden drop were simply that he had spent the past two and a half years dedicated to improving in the marathon, and that this was his fourth attempt during that period; and, that he was, for the first time in his life, a truly full-time athlete this fall. Adding together all of his build-ups since he began training for the marathon in January of 2008, Dylan has spent roughly half of the past 3 years training for or recovering from a marathon, thus accumulating tremendous physiological and psychological benefits in a relatively short period of time. When the opportunity finally presented itself to focus all of his energies on training and recovering, the result was predictable-- or as predictable as marathoning ever gets!

In terms of the basic supports of his training-- those elements not specifically related to run-programming itself-- Dylan has also made continual improvements over the past couple of years: from quitting his full-time job and going to grad school; to establishing a long term personal relationship (not to say he was ever lonely or desperate in this regard before!); to nearing completion of his M.A. here at Queen's; to availing himself of a great, year-round training climate and regular partners out in B.C. Among all of my local athletes, school-based and otherwise, Dylan was the only one without regular training partners. And, he was the only one training specifically for the marathon on a regular basis. Relocating to B.C. over the past few months has supplied the final ingredients necessary to reach his goal of representing Canada in 2012, and there is most likely where he will spend the next couple of years, at least.

*With his now likely permanent relocation to B.C. and membership in Rich Lee's group, Dylan will not remain a formal member of P-K beyond the end of 2010. I'm sure, however, that he will always consider himself a "member at large", due to his long-standing connection to the group here in Kingston. And the group will continue to root strongly for him as he progresses towards 2012. Being close friends with Rich, and very like-minded in all things running related, I will remain a part of Dylan's inner advisory circle for as long as we both think my input adds value. Having always encouraged him to do what he feels in necessary to reach the next level (and actually fully agreeing that the move to B.C. and into Rich's group is necessary towards that end), I'm happy to see him move on in this way. As I have said on many occasions, Dylan is a model athlete and a pleasure to work with. It has always been clear to both of us, however, that his progress as an athlete, and not any personal enjoyment we may have gained from working together, was the bottom line in our relationship.

P-K X-C Round-Up and November POM

2010-12-14T14:50:00.000-05:00

Now that the snow seems firmly in place and the temperature outside is an austere -9, X-C season, which ended a couple of weeks ago, already seems like a distance memory. It's not too late, however, for a quick re-cap of the action, including performances by club members at the much anticipated final running of the national meet on the Guelph course.

The highlights where P-K member are concerned were as follows:

Juniors:

Cleo Boyd and Nicole Armstrong's top 10 finishes at OFSAA head the list among the high schoolers, followed closely by the team silver medal won by the midget girls team (U15) at the AO championship. The latter, incidentally, establishes the girls training group as potentially one of the best in the province for the foreseeable future. With only Cleo, Leah McGraw, Taylor Sills (injured for the past season), and Lauren Taylor graduating next year, and with Bantam star Heather Jaros about to enter the group on a full-time basis, the junior girls is stacked with talent and drive. Clara Langely will be its sole leader with the departure of Cleo, but athletes like Nicole Armstrong, Brianna Bradley, Adrienne Morgan, Hannah Coates (should she choose to join permanently) and Heather will, as they continue to mature, soon be closing the gap, helping to create a "critical mass" that is bound to drive the whole group to new levels. In a few years, this team will be in a position to do what the P-K junior boys have managed to do, which is rival the top teams in the country for X-C supremacy, including winning a silver medal at Nationals last year.

Among the university and "not-quite-university" juniors, the highlight of the fall campaign must be Rob Asselstine's scrappy 14th place finish in the always intensely fought junior boys nationals race (and Rob will be a junior again next year). And those who have been following along will know that Rob's performance was also a clutch one, as he had failed to that point to meet the standard he had set for himself on the track last summer in his X-C races. Armed with more effective inhaler for his asthma, Rob was able to fight his way back into form in November, running a personal best for 3k in the Dome just one week before the big day. In Guelph, starting as far back as the low 30s, Rob put on a clinic in how to maximize one's finish position in a crowded and anxious field, stepping deftly through the wreckage until he reached his terminal position-- 14th, and within his seasonal goal range.

Other highlights from within this group would be the junior boys close 4th place finish in the team standings (a little short of expectations, but then credit must go the teams that finished ahead of them-- they were far deeper and stronger than in 2009). In terms of other individual results, UWO sophomore Evan Adrin's 32nd place at the CIS meet bears mentioning, as does Charly Allan's breakthrough 25th place effort at nationals juniors, which went a considerable way in supporting the team's cause.

Seniors: With D. Wykes out in California, whiling away the final hours before what would end up being the race of his young life (of which more in the next installment), Mike Gill became the leading P-K athlete in the senior men's race. And he did not disappoint. As expected (by me, anyway!), Mike defied expectations, continuing the improbable run of improvement that saw him go from overweight (225lbs) ex-college runner to 16mins 5k runner in a matter of months last season. This year, Mike improved from 15:34 to 15:03 between April and October, then finished the season with a 25th place performance in Guelph (falling from a high of 19th in the final 2kms of the race), provoking the question: where will it all end!?

With Emily Tallen recovering from plantar fasciitis and Mary Davies not yet back to form following a series of health setback in the spring and summer, P-K had no representation in the senior women's race this year.

Masters

Here, the day belonged to Rick Minichiello, who entered the men's race as favourite and delivered the goods with a gun to tape victory over yours truly and the strongest contingent of B.C. athletes since the late 90s. With the win here and victory in the Canada Running Series, Rick becomes the top male master in Canada for 2011 (although I'm proud to say I managed to beat him head-to-head in our two other meetings this season!).

In the masters team division, the last minute withdrawal of Roddy Loeppky left the men's 40-49 team one scorer short of a full compliment, and kept us from certain victory (too bad, as we have ample strength in this category among the group of athletes who chose not to run the race). In the 50-59 division controversy still swirls. The P-K side of Bob McGraw, Rich Raflaub, Clive Morgan,Wayne Chee, and Rick Royce would appear to have had the fastest actual time. But, our failure to "declare" the team (even though there were only 5 P-K athletes running in the division) lead to it not being included in the scoring-- a fate that also befell the other favourites, the London Pacers and Newmarket Huskies. As I write, however, these other teams have been reinstated in the revised results, but not us! Whatever the outcome, one fact remains clear from our performance on the actual course: P-K is the strongest masters men's club in Canada!

Among the masters women, performance of the day honours go to online athlete Christine Ross, who, in her first X-C race in many years, finished 3rd in a very tough 45-49 division.

November POM:

Really no surprises here: Mike Gill's performance at Nats X-C takes the honour, making Mike the first double POM winner of 2010, and a strong candidate for his second consecutive POY title.

P-K 2010 Nats X-C Preview; and Thanks for the Memories, Guelph.

2010-11-23T23:23:00.001-05:00

A stylistic break from the customary fare in this blog for the last many posts, but long-time readers will be familiar with my fondness for X-C-- running's antidote for November; and, I have been caught up in the spirit of this year's event in particular, which will be the last in what is sure to be the most memorable run of championships in the history of the sport in Canada. (They should simply give this event over in perpetuity to the Guelph boys, of which more below). So, a little preview of the club contingent, including its goals and prospects, as well as a fond farewell to Guelph and the now storied Arboretum course.

With three time individual medallist D. Wykes off in Vancouver, preparing for the Cal International Marathon on Dec 4, and senior elites Emily Tallen and Mary Davies sitting this one out to rebuild from fall injuries (foot and hip respectively), the focus in the open events shifts to 30-something Nats senior rookies Mike Gill and Chris Mercier.

Mike is, of course, the winner of last year's P-K performance of the year award for a freakish run of improvement that culminated in his 2nd place finish in the 2009 masters' event. A year later and considerably faster, Mike is now set to take his spot alongside the big (or at least young and fast) boys in the Senior Men's event. His preparations reinforced by two successful X-C 10ks, including a 7th place finish at the provincial championships two weeks ago, Mike is looking once again like potential POY nominee. His training has been consistently faster than anything he has ever done, and the longer distance suits his preferred style of attack. A patient and observant racer, and one who never backs down when the opportunity to move through a field presents itself, Mike looks positioned to raise eyebrows and provoke the query "who is that guy?" again this year, except on a bigger stage. There is no question that the order is much taller this year, but Mike looks ready for a crack at the top 25, and perhaps a little higher, if enough of his younger and more impetuous competitors play into his hands

Christian Mercier, meanwhile, is merely looking to cap off a spectacular season of racing-- one that saw him run huge P.B.s at 5k, 15k, HM and Mar-- with a first ever appearance in our national dirt-dash. Chris has spend the weeks since his September POM-winning run in the Berlin-- a 5min personal best of 2:24-- recovering and trying to master the art of balancing and pacing on grass and trail. Although the return of winter to Quebec City this week has relegated him to the pavement for his final couple of workouts, his preparations-- including one winning X-C race effort 10 days ago-- have been sufficient for him to enter the competitive mix on Saturday. I expect he and Mike will be seeing a lot of one another between 2:14 and 2:47 p.m. on Saturday afternoon!

Shifting to the junior races, the club is team-less in the girls event, with injuries keeping potential players Clara Langley and Taylor Sills on the sidelines. Nevertheless, Cleo Boyd, Leah McGraw, and Lauren Taylor will take their place alongside 250 other brave souls, with Cleo hoping to finish her best ever season of X-C running with a top 20 performance, and Leah and Lauren aiming to run for X-C personal bests on the fast and accurate Guelph course.

Meanwhile, in the boys race, the team competition is a big focus of the action for the P-K group. Coming off their 2nd place finish last year, the team is deeper and faster still this time around, and has its sights on a major upset of the almost overwhelmingly strong defending champs, the Windsor Legion squad. But first, the boys will have to outscore a formidable side from Durham, last year's very close 3rd place team. So evenly matched is the P-K team that attempting to predict an exact order of finish is futile. Among the likely front men are:

1.Rob Asselstine, owner of the fastest 5k personal best with his close 5th place finish at the National Junior Track Championship. After coming into the season in brilliant training form, Rob struggled in training and in races till just this week, when he notched a personal best over 3k in the Dome. A naturally stronger distance runner, an on-form Rob is a definite top 10 threat.

2.Alex Hinton, last year's top man, who is returning to form following a break from a spectacular 2010 Tri season, which featured a 16th place finish at the World Junior Championships.

3.Evan Andrin, who has ass-busted his way to a breakout season with the Western Mustangs, and hopes bring the same form that produced his recent 33rd place finish at the CIS championships to bear against this field of younger, less experienced athletes.

4.Charly Allan, who, in between minor injuries, also managed to put in volume sufficient to raise his X-C game to new levels this season. Charly struggled at the recent CIS championships, but finished one spot behind Evan at the OUs-- which were, ominously, also held on the Arboretum course. Expect Charly, ever the proud competitor, to concede nothing to his teammates when it comes to finishing order.

5.Jeff Archer, who, as his teammates well know, could easily lead this team, were he to find the form that saw him finish 10th at OFSAA and 5th at the AO youth championships last fall. While he made his Queen's U championship side, Jeff has struggled to realize his full potential this season. Were the 2009 Jeff to suddenly reveal himself on Saturday, this team could well realize its dream of unseating Windsor.

5.Dylan O'Sullivan, who has struggled on-and-off with an diabolical series of minor injury setbacks, but who, like Jeff, could easily find himself running alongside the others on Saturday, were he to hit a groove. Dylan's shape has been improving by leaps and bounds since his modest return to racing barely a month ago (with his recent 11th place at the AOs junior race marking a significant leap forward). A feisty racer with a knack for moving rapidly through exhausted fields of faster-starting pretenders, look for Dylan to make the most of whatever shape he possesses on the day.

After these five members of last year's silver medal team come four younger athletes with the potential to keep the P-K boys in the hunt for national honours for a few more years to come. Leading this group is Blair Morgan, who looks to complete an outstanding 2010 X-C season that saw him qualify for OFSAA as an individual. After somewhat sub-par performances at OFSAA and AOs, Blair returned to form last Saturday with a personal best over 3000m. After Blair is the renascent Kyle McKellar, who is coming off a hard-fought 26th place finish in a very deep and fast AOs youth boys' event. Rounding out the group are Cam Levac, who has been very strong in training this season, in spite of coming off nearly a year of injury, and Hunter Andrin, who, like his older brother before him, continues to earn his longer distance chops (Hunter, who will attend Queen's next fall, will be a valuable member of that team, should he follow in Evan's footsteps as a later-blooming X-C runner.)

The P-K masters men's contingent will also be in search of team victories, although the upsets will come if they (we) fail to win (at least in the 40-49 division, where we are two time defending champions, and are fielding perhaps our strongest side ever). The 50-59 team also stands a good chance of winning, but faces a stern challenge from a surprisingly improved Newmarket Huskies group.

The 40-49 team includes: yours truly, a two time individual champ, who is very fit, if perhaps somewhat short of tune-up races (like, none at all, and no results worth mentioning since late May); Rich Minichiello, who is coming off a spectacular season that saw him vault to the fore of Canadian masters distance running; Roddy Loeppky, who has also had a banner year, winning provincial masters indoor titles at 1500 and 3000m, and a national title at 5000m (to go along with a road 5k best of 16:11); and rapidly improving local group member Rob Miller, who will be running his first ever National X-C championship. Meanwhile, the race for the individual honours will be the most interesting in many years, with a four-strong contingent of crack B.C. athletes (Paddy McCluskey, Craig Odermatt, Kevin O'Connor, and Colin Dignum) lining up against Minichiello and Boyd from P-K and defending champ Bruce Raymer from Ontario. Favourite status must go to the younger Minichiello and Raymer (with the nod to Minichiello, on account of his finishing speed), but the B.C. boys are up to their ears in championship X-C experience, and I hope to show at least a little of the form that earned me runaway titles in 06 and 08 (and did I mention that getting older sucks!?).

The men's 50-59 team is hoping to complete the old-guy team sweep by beating a vastly improved New Market Huskies group, who bested them at OAs two weeks ago. To turn the tables, Bob McGraw will have to be his usual steady self, Clive Morgan will have to be able to get his shoes off, and thus knock 20-30 seconds from his time, Rich Raflaub will have to regain some of the form he lost during his nearly two years of injury down time (chronic plantar fasciitis), and senior team member Wayne Chee will have to produce a fitting finale to his strong season of road racing. None of these things is at all unreasonable, so hopes are running high within this group.

Finally, and disappointingly, the P-K masters women will be without at team for this final Ontario edition of the Nats master X-C championship. One minor thing has led to another, keeping this team from coming together to form what would surely be a winning side (we have horses to spare in this category). Left to face the field alone are on-line athletes Christine Ross and Marie Elliot-- both formidable competitors, who will be hard to keep out of the top 3 in their respective categories.

And a very fond adieu to Guelph, the Speed River organizing committee, and the Arboretum course (whose distinctive features-- DST Junction, the Hill, the Orchard-- will form the details of 10,000 stories rehashed between old friends and competitors for decades to come). The end of the superb "Guelph Series" of championships comes at a watershed moment for the sport globally and nationally. After this year, the IAAF will move its 100+ year old championship to a biannual format, rendering our own championships less meaningful in non-national team selection years. Add to this AC's obvious lack of interest in this entire branch of the sport (what, really, is in it for them and their bottom line?)and the future looks decidedly less bright for this event. While there are arguments from a national sport development point of view for moving this championship around the country on an annual or bi-annual basis, there are yet stronger ones for making Guelph and the Arboretum course a permanent venue for the X-C nationals. While not a national training centre, Guelph/Speed River is now the undisputed heart of Canadian distance running; Chris Moulton and crew now manage the whole hosting thing as effortlessly as the Speed River boys pile up championships; the course is permanent, and as close to perfect as we can get in this country; and, steps could easily be taken to share the wealth and ease the financial burden of yearly travel for non-Ontario racers. (The relative health of the economy of Ontario will surely reduce the numbers of Ontario athletes willing and able to make the trip to B.C. next year, which will hurt the quality of the championship much more than would keeping it in Guelph.) The moment to seriously consider giving the event to Guelph in perpetuity has likely now come and gone (knowing Moults and DST, they were probably making the case two years ago!); but, it is still possible to make it the permanent Ontario site. As much as I'd love to see Canada's best take to the Fort Henry course here in old K-Town on some November afternoon, I think the sport would be best served by not attempting to fix that which is emphatically not broken. Credit must be given where it is due. Back to Guelph in 2013!

The Knowledgeable Bystander: What do good coaches actually do?; October POM (He's baack!)

2010-11-03T22:57:00.002-04:00

In what is a essentially a coaching blog, I have thus far, and to my own amazement, never spoken at any length about what I think actually constitutes effective coaching and what attributes coaches need in order to be able to provide it. (In my second post ever, I addressed the question "who needs a coach?", in the course of which I discussed the apparent contradiction inherent in the idea of a formerly successful self-coached athlete offering his services as a coach; but, I have never said much about what I think makes for a good coach, and what he/she should actually endeavour to do in his/her role.)

So then, what makes a good coach, and what is the essence of effective coaching in this sport?

To begin with, a basic distinction: There are two broadly different kinds of coaching relationships in running-- that between an athlete and his/her freely chosen/contracted coach, and that between an individual athlete, or "team" of athletes, and what I would refer to as an "institutionally appointed" coach (in Canada, usually a school or national team coach.) In North America, most serious runners will have been party to both of these basic types of relationship over the course of their careers, with the more common one being the latter. Although there are significant areas of overlap, the criteria of effective coaching in each of these kinds of relationships differs somewhat, as I will explain. The principle driver of this difference is the broader context within which the coach-athlete relationship unfolds, which has implications for the basic freedom of action of both parties. In spite of the differences between the basic challenge in each of these types of coaching relationship, there is, I think, a master principle that equally forms the basis for effective coaching in both contexts, even if it may be perhaps a little more difficult to apply in one than the other.

What Makes for a Good Coach?:

1. Knowledge of and the ability to impart the science and lore of running:

Unsurprisingly, the most successful coaches tend to know a great deal about the sport, including not just the science behind the training stimulus (which, subject to the odd new basic discovery, is not all that difficult to learn), but also its history and lore. A coach who is not him/herself also an enthusiast, whether or not he/she has ever been an actual participant, is a curious phenomenon. It's something of a cliche that good coaches are passionate about what they do, and are able to impart this passion to their athletes. I'm not sure how coaches who have no knowledge of the history of the sport, including its legendary figures, or who are not well versed in the competitive scene today, can begin to nurture in their athletes (particularly their youngest ones) the necessary passion to train and compete. Any of the top coaches I have had the priviledge of meeting and/or seeing at work have been great teachers and storytellers, able to explain in their own often very distinctive ways both the principles of effective training and the sheer excitment of being a participant in this most difficult and venerable of sports. The best coaches are invariably familiar with the ideas of other coaches, past and present; chances are great that they will also know the personal bests and competitive accomplishments of the top athletes at the local, national, and international levels, past and present; they will very often have their own experience as competitors on which to draw (of which more below); and, they will quite often have engaging stories to tell about all of these things. In other words, the best coaches will tend to be knowledgeable and passionate teachers. This is a variable that is somewhat dependent upon whether we're referring to a personal versus an institutional coach-- with the latter sometimes being able achieve success due to factors beyond his/her personal coaching style and acumen, such as the reputation of their school, their skill at self-promotion within a national sport bureaucracy, or accidents of geography. But, whether the coach operates inside or outside of a formal institutional structure, his/her long term success will tend strongly to be a reflection of his/her level of sport-specific knowledge, passion, and skill as a teacher.

2. Having Direct Experience:

A frequent topic of sport-related discussion in general is the question of whether the best athletes necessarily make the best coaches, or whether the less athletically accomplished tend to do a better job of stewarding athletes. This question is largely an empirical one, and much depends on what one means by the "best" or "star" athletes (there are, by definition, relatively few of the truly "top" athletes active in coaching, because there are so few of them relative to the number of available coaching opporunities). And the answer will depend to some extent on what sport one is referring to. In running, quite a few of the top coaches were themselves what could be called, at the very least, accomplished athletes, and the vast majority of them, whether independent or institutional, have some personal experience with run training, with many continuing to run, and even compete, themselves. A not insignificant number, however, have no experience with running at all,including an even smaller number with absolutely no personal experience with aerobic sport of any kind. (I have no hard data to support this, but I strongly suspect this phenomenon may be exclusive to running. I have never met a soccer, hockey, football, basketball, tennis, or gymnastic coach-- although I have met one somewhat successful swimming coach-- with no personal competitive experience in their sport.) While a handful of highly successful running coaches fall into the category of having no personal competitive experience, successful coaching strongly tends to require a "feel" for the sensations associated with different training intensities and mid-race states of physical and mental being. Without at least some personal experience with how it feels to be aerobically stressed, coaches will tend to operate based on visual appearances only (and things are very often not as they appear in running). A few coaches-- those with exceptional intuition and considerable accumulated experience in talking with athletes about their experiences in training and racing-- have managed to operate quite successfully based purely on what they see and hear, and without any internal referencing. For the most part, however, coaches who can only operate on the level of outward appearances make up the ranks of the least effective coaches in the sport. (A purely appearance-based approach to coaching can lead to such gems of coaching misguidance as the following: "Always try to get out there near the front at the start, because race winners almost always come from the lead pack"; or, "In the end, winning a race comes down to sprint speed, because races are so often won with sprint finishes." A word of advice: If you see nothing wrong with the logic of these statements, please stay out of coaching!)

3. Empathy and Intuition:

Among the indispensable qualities that direct experience in the sport reinforces are those of intuition and empathy (both "motor-empathy", or the ability to physically feel things by watching them, and the everyday ability to put oneself in the position of another-- in this case, that of other runners). All other things being equal, coaches who have been or are runners themselves will have a better chance of being able to "read" the physical states of their athletes, both at rest and while training or racing. Coaches who have been runners will also have a better chance of truly understanding athletes when they talk about their hopes, fears, and other concerns related to training, racing, and simply living the life of a serious runner. Along with giving coaches greater credibility with athletes, and thereby instilling a certain amount of confidence and trust in them, these abilities form the basis for a proper understanding of the training process as a day-to-day undertaking. Coaches without much direct experience in the sport can sometimes make up for this lack by combining second-hand knowledge with keen intuition regarding the inner states of their athletes. (And I have met or heard about a few highly successful coaches from non-running backgrounds who appear to possess this level of intuition-- a quality that has always seem somewhat magical to me, a primarily experience-based coach). When empathy born of direct experience is combined with superior intuition, however, we are usually in the presence of a truly great coach-- a coach of Bowerman or Daniels-like dimensions.

4. Humility and Respect for Athletes:

Even the most knowledgeable and sensitive coach, however, can ultimately fail if he insists on making himself the centre of the training process, or placing too much store on her contribution to the success of the athlete on the field of play. Yet another valuable byproduct of having tried this sport in a serious way is the opportunity to experience it from both sides of the coach-athlete relationship. My own experience has taught me how much more difficult it is to be the athlete than the coach, and how much more a talented and determined athlete brings to the coach-athlete relationship than does his/her coach. In an non-skills-based, individual sport like running, it is often possible for athletes to maximize their competitive potential with little or no direct, hands-on coaching of any kind, or with the support of a merely competent coach. In the end, the qualities required for success in the sport are found much more rarely in athletes than in coaches; for every potentially good, or great, runner there are, in my experience, literally dozens of coaches with the basic requirements for the job-- which, in the presence of a highly talented and driven athlete, often amounts to simply not messing up! There are, without question, a few bona fide geniuses and visionaries in the coaching ranks; but, the majority of their brilliance is, in my view, surplus to the task at hand, and secondary to what athletes of even average ability and determination bring to the process. It is simply much more difficult to actually do the training and racing oneself than it is simply to plan it and watch it. Coaches who overestimate the value of their contribution to the success of their athletes (an extreme case being a coach I knew who liked to refer to his athletes as "my little sculptures"!) are bound to be less effective than they might otherwise be, and are quite likely to alienate athletes in the process. They are also likely to over-subscribe to their personal "systems" and, ironically, to blame athletes for failures that often stem from their own mistakes (while always taking credit for their athletes' successes). Unless they have strong institutional protections of one kind or another, such coaches are likely to become lonely figures within the sport.

The Master Principle: Athlete-Centeredness

Whether working independently or within an institutional setting, truly effective coaches tend to be athlete-centred in their practice. For the best coaches, in other words, the process begins and ends with individual athlete and his/her specific needs. Various bureaucratic strictures-- in particular, those that aim to turn this most solitary of sports, for good or ill, into a team-based undertaking-- make it more difficult for coaches to attend to the needs of individual athletes. The best institutional coaches, however, still manage to do just this at all times. Athlete-centred coaching can run the gamut from tweaking a particular workout to the needs of an individual athlete, to respecting the desire of an athlete to work entirely outside of a group environment, and according to his/her own perceived needs (for, such is the difficulty of the sport, no athlete can perform optimally without first, and at all times, believing that he/she is preparing in the optimal way). For independent coaches, athlete-centeredness will entail always attempting to tailor a training program to full range of an athlete's needs, both inside and outside the sport. And, again, it may entail accepting, without malice or acrimony, that an athlete needs to go his/her own way, in spite of the coach's belief in the soundness of his/her approach. The opposite of the athlete-centred coach is the coach who tends to place service to broad abstractions-- "the team", the "federation", the "rules" (except for those that actually define the sport, of course), or even "the sport"-- over the needs of individual athletes; or, the coach who considers his own personal ambitions and ego before the needs of his athletes. Again, professional coaching in an institutional setting can sometimes make this a very difficult balancing act; but, those coaches who struggle most to address the needs of individual athletes-- occasionally by risking conflict with the larger structures within which they operate-- are almost always, in the end, the most successful where it ultimately matters: in helping individual athletes realize their full competitive potential (and, in this sport, "team" success really is a direct, non-synergetic, function of individual success). Finally, athlete-centred coaching does not mean athlete-directed coaching. No one should assume the role of coach in anything but an emergency situation unless he/she is clearly more experienced and knowledgeable than his/her most experienced and knowledgeable athlete. Unless merely acting as an advisor or sounding-board for a highly experienced and knowledgeable athlete, a coach is not a coach unless he/she assumes an authoritative (not to say authoritarian) role vis a vis the athlete. An athlete-centred coach still assumes the role of initiator/mentor within the relationship, but always in a flexible, respectful, and empathetic dialogue with his/her athletes.

To sum up, good coaches know their sport and can teach about it with a flair that inspires; they draw on their own experiences and intuition in order to "feel" their athlete's states of mind and body using their eyes and ears; and, they place their athletes at the centre of coaching process, relegating themselves to the role of knowledgeable and supportive bystander.

August POM:

The two very worthy nominees for this months POM honours-- Bob McGraw and Mike Gill-- are first-timers in 2010, although both were nominees in 2009, with Mike carrying away POY honours for an outstanding run of improvement that culminated in his improbable runner-up finish in the National Masters X-C championship race nearly one year ago. Bob earns a nod for his very impressive HM personal best in Niagara Falls. Two years ago, Bob executed his race plan perfectly in converting a perfect season of training into a very fine 1:19:30 to win his age catetory (50-55) in the Honeymoon Capital. To top this performance two years later-- and, of course, two years older-- would be a tall order. But, top it he did, with a flawlessly paced 1:18:44! As a testament to the depth of masters running these days, however, Bob actually missed winning his age group, albeit by a scant 26 seconds. Meanwhile, Mike Gill, after a quiet summer spent grappling with a small but tenacious case of patellar tendinitis, was up to his old tricks. Still not able to run more than 6 days a week (5 on most weeks), Mike nevertheless managed to dramatically readjust his 5k p.b. while winning the Guelph Thanksgiving Day by the preposterous margin of 1:44. Using his trademark perfect pacing, Mike got over the line in 15:03, 30-odd seconds faster than he ever had before on any surface. Once again, Mike managed to astound even me, his most ardent supporter. To put it bluntly, I just did not think he could do this, at least not at this time! And now, I shall refuse to be surprised by anything he does over the remainder of the season-- because, as I say, he has yet to be able to train at full capacity (although Mike has been exuding a quiet confidence in the weeks since this performance, and his training has gone exceptionally smoothly, perhaps foretelling more earthquakes to come!). With all due respect to Bob's fine run, October POM honours go to Mike Gill.

"Half of this Sport is 90% Mental"; August and September Ps OM

2010-10-13T13:53:00.008-04:00

When Yogi Berra infamously quipped that "half of (baseball) is 90% mental", he wasn't looking for a roundabout way of saying that the success in the sport was 45% dependent on the mind; he was trying, in his unique way, to say the that the mind was a really important in baseball! And, if he was right about baseball-- a sport requiring merely freakish hand-eye coordination and very flexible shoulder ligaments-- imagine the importance of the mind in a sport such as distance running, in which athletes compete head-to-head, under the influence of mild hypoxia, with heart rates pushing 200bpm. It could be that up to 90% of running success is 90% mental!

I tried to address the mental side of racing and training in a much earlier post (on so-called "mental toughness"), in which I suggested that the most important kind of psychological wherewithal in this sport is simply that which is required to get one's sometimes reluctant ass out the door on a daily basis! With another racing season now upon us, however, I thought I'd offer a few specific ideas on how to ensure that the mind stays out of the body's way, so to speak, during the heat of competitive battle.

For the most part, the mental side of racing really is a matter of simply keeping our various cognitions-- usually a mix of mental wanderings ("Gee, that's a funny looking dog over there"), frets about insignificant details ("I should have tucked my shirt in. I always tuck my shirt in!) and much deeper insecurities ("Who do I think I am trying to run this fast and beat these other runners? I really suck, have always sucked, and will always suck.")-- from interfering with what we have trained our bodies to do. Distance running being among the purest of all physiological tests, the body will tend to perform very close to its potential on a given day once the simple signal "run!" has been sent from the brain. All other things being equal, therefore, the difference between a decent performance and an outstanding performance resides in our ability, in the early going, to keep our anxiety low and our focus very diffuse, and, in the later going, to calmly resist our perfectly understandable desire to "make it all stop!" If an athlete can also retain his competitive drive, and keep in mind his goals going into the race-- instead of, for instance, dissolving in self-pity-- then so much the better.

Reflecting on/Trusting Our Training:

A good mental approach therefore starts with reminding ourselves that our bodies can and will do, more or less, what we are about to ask of them (provided we are realistic to begin with in formulating our racing goals-- a whole other subject). I call this stage of mental preparation that of "reviewing/trusting our training". If you care to ask, you will find that most successful racers think most about their training, including specific moments in key workouts, in the final days and hours before they toe the line. This is, in fact, how good racers determine when they will race and what they're racing goals will be on a particular day. The specific content of these reflections is usually how they felt running a particular pace in training, or how they may have surprised themselves with their strength at the end of a particularly challenging session. These kinds of thoughts produce the kind of instant calm and focus that good racers display as they approach the line, and in the early stages of races. The situation is, of course, completely different if an athlete knows he/she is not properly prepared, but has chosen to race anyway. These instances call for a whole different and exceptional set of mental strategies that I don't intend to discuss here.

Clearing the Mind:

Very early on in my racing career, I recognized that there was inevitably a moment-- usually only seconds before I was called to my mark-- when my mind would go blank and I would become completely and calmly resigned to what I was about to put myself through on the race course. This was the moment when all of the fussing, speculation, and doubt would suddenly cease and I would begin direct my attention strictly to the moment at hand. For me, this was a spontaneous occurrence, and my ability to make it happen without trying probably explains much of my early racing success. As I matured, however, I gradually learned to induce this moment of resignation hours rather than seconds before the starting gun. Learning to clear my mind of it nervous fretting and fussing was never easy, nor could I always achieve it, but attempting to do so would become an indispensable part of my pre-race routine. Even today, when I am far less nervous than I was as an open athlete, running for prize money or national titles, I still practice the drill of mind-clearing in the hours before competition. In practical terms, the start of the process can be as simple as recognizing that I am fretting and fussing about details that are very unlikely to affect the outcome of my race (Is my number pinned on the way I like it? Does one of my racing socks have a hole in it? Did I remember to bring my hat?), and cutting myself off. The trick here is to remind myself that I am prepared to race in all of the most important ways-- that I have trained effectively-- and that I will be able to handle the difficult moments of the race when they come. I will also often force myself to recall times when all of the details about which I'm fussing went awry, or when I felt physically terrible warming up for a race (or even during the race itself) and still managed to run well.

Messing with Routines:

Many athletes see their strict, and sometimes even ritualized, pre-race routines--routines that dictate everything from what they eat for breakfast to exactly how many leg swings they perform in their warm-up-- as essential to "getting into the zone" for racing. More often than not, however, such strict routines, because they inevitably prove impossible to follow in every circumstance, become a source of unnecessary pre-race stress rather than a way of coping with it. Most runners eventually learn from experience that their pre-race routines hold no special power when it comes to racing success-- most often when circumstances conspire to forcibly interrupt these observances (who has not heard of an athlete accidentally getting to the race site 20mins before start time, yet going on to run his/her best race of the season?) My advice to those runners who like to steel their mental armour by following very precise pre-race routines is to experiment with deliberately interrupting these routines and learning to cope without the comfort they provide. Watching my junior runners fret endlessly about insignificant pre-race details has made me consider deliberately messing with their routines at less important events by, for instance: telling them an incorrect starting time for their event (forcing them to run to the line without a proper warm-up--something that occasionally happens anyway!); or, deliberately arriving at the race site later than planned, so that they learn to cope with the stress of both knowing they will be late and having to improvise a warm-up routine on short notice. I have never done this (at least not on purpose!) and will never do it; but, I have sometimes welcomed situations in which athletes have been forced to cope with a sudden change in their normal pre-race routine, and have often encouraged them not become attached to a particular set of pre-race rituals that they may have learned to associate with a good performance. We always, of course, hope to have control our final pre-race preparations; but, we need to understand that there are many equally effective ways to approach those last few hours or minutes before a race. We also need to be reminded that our race day performance, whether good or bad, is almost always affected far more by the big variables-- things such as the day-to-day quality of our training, and our adherence to good support routines in the weeks and months before a race-- than it is by the details of our last minute preparation. Not keeping this fact in mind can lead to loss of mid-race focus and the collapse of our resolve at the moment of greatest difficulty, as our fevered brains, searching for an escape route from the discomfort and anxiety about possibly failing to reach our goals, recalls all of the little lapses in our pre-race routine, meaningless though they almost always are, and turns them into excuses to give up. Even where these lapses are more significant-- such as when, for instance, we time our pre-racing feeding inaccurately-- it does little good to fret about them beforehand, because little worries will tend to become magnified a hundred-fold in the moments of great distress and self-doubt that beset us in the latter half of races.

Searching out the Familiar:

When we seek the comfort of a special, personal pre-race set of rituals, what we are attempting to do is recreate the familiar as a means of coping with uncertainty-- and what could be more uncertain than the challenge of racing, and the question of how we will ultimately face up to it? There are, however, more and less constructive ways of connecting with the familiar as we prepare to confront the unknown of a race yet to be run. A strict, ritualized routine may turn out to be a prison-house that ultimately prevents us from achieving an optimal performance. Recalling that we have trained long, hard and effectively in preparation to race, however, is a way of conjuring up the familiar ("it's just running, and I know how to run") that can be both comforting and liberating. During the race itself, things like recalling the feel of our training on specific days, sharing pacing with a training partner, keying off a runner with whom we have battled before, or simply remembering from what it feels like to have to work hard for x-number of minutes (and reminding ourselves that we do it all the time), can evoke the familiar in ways that reinforce our emotional control and mental focus. Our ability to draw on the familiar begins, as much of the above suggests, with the success of our training in actually reproducing the mental and physical demands of racing (without, that is, the full weight or racing's stress). A well designed training plan (and, just as importantly, a well designed planned that is properly adhered to in all its detail) thus prepares both body and mind together for the rigours of racing. In short, the more successfully our training places us in race-like situations-- by, i.e. accurately reproducing the physical sensations of a properly run race-- the more familiar, and thereby stress-free, racing becomes, and the less we need to rely on superhuman feats of mental focus and emotional control in order to achieve our racing goals. When I hear athletes at all levels describe successful racing experiences, the theme is invariably that of familiarity and relative emotional calm. Typical comments are: "It felt just like my last long tempo session"; "I knew when I had 2k to go that I'd be fine, because I felt exactly like I did in x training session."; "I was a little fast a 1k, but I knew based on x workout that I'd be fine, so I just relaxed and kept it rolling." What emerges quite clearly from these reports is that athletes draw in very important ways on familiar images and sensations from their training (and also from other successful races) in order to get their minds and emotions out of the way of their bodies in race situations.

As I tried to explain in my early post on "mental toughness", good mental preparation and execution is far more a matter of good, long term physical preparation-- or rather, perhaps, that the physical and the mental are a totality in the training process-- when it comes to preparing to race. I've tried to suggest a few specific strategies for coping with the mental and emotional demands of racing; but, in order to reduce the premium on having special mental or emotional attributes when it comes to racing (and only a few runners have these naturally, I have found), or to avoid the need to resort to mental tricks, runners need to ensure that their training is sound, and they need to reflect on the bigger, longer term determinants of racing success as they prepare to toe the line. It is no surprise, after all, that the most successful racers also appear to be the "toughest" (i.e. they appear less stressed when racing, are able to come back strongly in the latter stages of races, etc.). The truth of the matter is, the most successful racers have often succeeded in reducing the mental and emotional dimension of racing to a minimum, thereby enabling their bodies to do what they have been trained to do, and to so as routinely as possible.

P-K Ps OM for August and Sept:

The demands of taking over coaching duties at Queen's have prevented me from getting to the important matter of recognizing top performances by P-K members for the past two months, so here goes.

The contenders for August honours are: Rick Minichiello, for his outstanding track 5k P.B. of 15:07, set while soundly, and in very un-masterly fashion, out-kicking junior P-K standout Rob Asselstine; Emily Tallen, for her hard-closing and close runner-up finish to NYC-based Ethiopian Alemtsehay Misganaw in the Edmonton Half Marathon; and, junior Clara Langely, who battled her way back to form late in the summer to record a 5 second personal best over 3k, becoming in the process the fastest grade 10 performer over the distance in the province. And POM honours for August go to Rick Minichiello, who continues a remarkable season that has seen him cut massive chunks from his personal bests (from a minute or so over 5k to several minutes over HM), becoming the top masters distance runner in the province this season in the process. Stay tuned for what I hope will be a battle royale between Rick and me at this year's national masters X-C championships (if I can manage to uphold my end of the bargain, that is!)

The choice for September honouree is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, in spite of the usual run of solid performances by group members during the month, there is really no need to consider other nominees. The winning performance can be none other than Chris Mercier's 6 minute marathon personal best in Berlin on the 26th. Chris prepared brilliantly through the hottest months of one of the hottest summers in many years, negotiated the tran-continental jet lag, paced his first half brilliantly, and overcame some acute gut problems in the 2nd half to run 2:24:54. With this performance, Chris has now revised his P.B.s for every distance from 5k to marathon since April-- and this at 37 years of age! If I were holding a contest for P-K performer of the year, and not just for individual performance, it would be very hard to ignore what Chris has done this season-- and he is not through yet. Pending a successful recovery, Chris will take aim at his 10k best, and consider lining up for Nats X-C in late November. Big congrats, Chris!

Rocking the Tely: Adventures in the Republic of Warmth and Grace

2010-08-25T15:57:00.001-04:00

Time, once again, flies! To my astonishment, it has now been a month since my visit to St. John's and my running of the famous Tely 10, and I'm only now getting around to telling the tale.

Last month, I finally made good on a longstanding intention to visit Newfoundland when I accepted an invitation to give a training talk for on-line athlete Colin Fewer's St. John's based club, Athletics North-East-- an invite that included an opportunity to run the famous "Tely 10" road race, whose lore I have long been familiar with through my friendship with Paul McCloy, the province's greatest athlete, one of Canada's best ever distance runners, and, unsurprisingly, the holder of the Tely course record-- an outrageous 47:06. The trip fulfilled all my expectations, and became, unquestionably, the highlight of my summer.

To begin with, I felt an immediate and intense level of comfort-- a strange familiarity, if fact-- with cultural feel of the place. Like my own Irish-Canadian extended family-- Catholic on one side, Protestant on the other-- the Newfoundlanders I met (and perhaps I was just lucky) were easy and fluent talkers, quick with joke or a good story, and able to make guests feel instantly welcome and at home. Our St. John's hosts--Colin Fewer, his wife Becky, and Colin's family from Harbour Grace-- were effortless in their charm and hospitality, from the minute we arrived to the hung-over day of our departure. No sooner were we off the plane than we had been given a quick, drive-around tour of the city, followed by a little run around the ponds near Paradise, Colin's home and training base, and starting point for the Tely. Over the next couple of days, we were treated to a trip up to Cape Spear (which was, despite the initial promise of clear skies, fog-bound that afternoon), a lovely home-cooked dinner of fish cakes, cod au gratin, fried scallops, tea and dessert (in the warmth of Colin's family home, following a run in his old stomping grounds near Harbour Grace), a drive up Signal Hill (on a day when the sky was almost clear enough to look across to Galway Bay), and a spectacular post-race party, including a "Screeching-In" ceremony (our own, I'm happy to say!) and a late evening of music and dancing (not to mention a high-level running history/trivia smack-down with resident running guru and masters ace Arthur Meany) in the pubs on George St.

In return for all of this, I was asked to give a talk on running a couple of days prior to the Tely. To my amazement and delight, 150 people packed a lecture theatre at Memorial University to hear what I-- someone most of them would only just have heard of-- had to say on the topics of serious training and youth development. The NL running community, I was to conclude, was small but serious and determined, in spite of the obstacles it must face in the form of isolation from the larger continental racing scene and an inhospitable winter climate (which I feel I know, both from listening to Paul's stories all these years and from reading Colin's training updates last fall and winter!). (I would, by the way, contrast my experience here with what I encountered this spring while participating in a full-day workshop for coaches and athletes sponsored by Queen's University on the eve of its hosting of the World University X-C Championships, a well advertised event that featured a handful of the most experienced and high-level presenters in Canadian distance running today, including Guelph U. coach Dave Scott-Thomas, Canadian elites Reid Coolsaet and Dylan Wykes, and two-time Olympian Thelma Wright. In spite of its very modest admission price, this event attracted, at most, 50 participants (8-10 of whom were actually Physi-Kult Junior athletes!). In other words, 150 St. John's area runners were willing to show up on relatively short notice, on a Thursday evening, to listen to a single speaker of whom most had likely never heard, while only 50 Ontarians (including NO local high school coaches) were interested in attending a well publicized, high-level, yet affordable, event on a springtime Saturday the day before one of a handful of international running competitions ever held on on Canadian soil. I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.)

The talk itself was lively and enjoyable, and included a couple of good-natured but pointed exchanges provoked by, among other things, my airing of the view that serious marathoning was generally not advisable (generally but not universally) for runners over 45 who would like to maximize their potential at shorter distances and, more importantly, continue to enjoy their running into old age. Less controversial but still provocative were my views on the importance of high volume and the use of orthotics (that the former is indispensable for serious runners at all levels, and the latter are generally over-prescribed). The whole event amounted to one of the most enjoyable experiences I've every had talking running with a group of recreational athletes, and I left the hall with the strong sense that my message-- that recreational runners can improve faster and enjoy the sport more thoroughly by taking a serious and systematic approach to their training and racing-- had been understood and taken to heart by many of the assembled.

From the minute the lights went off in the hall and we headed downtown for quick pint before retiring, my thoughts turned to the Tely, and how I was going to negotiate the rolling 10 miles of asphalt between Paradise and St. John's, a route I had only seen through the windshield of Colin's car as he drove over it on our way to town, pointing out the mile markers and other important points of reference, including the underpass at two miles that, Colin explained, used to be a line of class and social division in the community as well as a piece of infrastructure. I made a point of remembering, in particular, a stiff hill in the 7th mile of race, the hill on which Colin had broken visiting distance ace Ryan Mackenzie for the win the year before, and a climb that, I was pretty certain, was going to mark the difference between a good race and exercise in mere survival.

As it turned out, my first Tely landed midway between these two extremes, and not because of my own failed execution. Full credit for making me work far harder than I had intended to in the early stages must go to Quebec City-based Newfoundlander Grant Handrigan, who chose the 2010 Tely to have one of the strongest races of his young career. Getting right after it on the long uphill in the first mile, Grant and visiting runner Graydon Snider, drawn along by leader Colin Fewer, who was bent on becoming only the 3rd athlete to break 50 mins for the Tely, dragged me through 2 miles in just over 10mins-- about 10 seconds faster than I had planned to run in my quest to break 52mins. Watching the young Snider begin to falter just before 3 miles, and wondering if Grant would be for real this day, I relaxed, gathered myself, and closed the 3-4 second gap that had opened up over the previous mile. As soon as my little charge caught his attention, and before I could make myself comfortable on his heels, Grant dropped the hammer once again,reestablishing his demoralizing little gap. That was the closest I would get to him. When we finally hit the aforementioned hill at 7 miles, Grant's gap of 10-odd seconds had quickly become 20, and would grow to 30 by the time we both crossed the finish line-- me stiffly and he still full of running-- on Bannerman Rd., to the cheers of several hundred enthusiastic spectators. I would better my goal of 52mins, but just barely (51:55). In the back of my mind had been Paul McCloy's master's record of 51:28, which I knew would take the kind of performance my recent training had not indicated I was likely to produce. (And a vignette illustrating the depth of local knowledge of the Tely 10: As I passed the 9 mile marker, I overheard a spectator say, in a full Irish brogue, "He's not going to get McCloy's record today." This happened to be at the very same instant I was consulting my watch-- which read 46:42-- and coming to exactly the same conclusion. I was astounded that someone had taken the time to figure out what I, a visiting runner taking on the course for the first time, would need to pass the 9 mile marker in order to beat, not the open record or the 50min barrier, but the record for over-40 runners!

Meanwhile, up front, Colin was making good on his widely publicized goal of breaking 50mins. He overcame his lack of serious competition, local pressure at revealing his intentions, and the rapidly rising humidity to take the tape in 49:48. And not far behind Grant and me, women's winner Kate Vaughan was turning in an outstanding near-course record performance of 56:36 to win that race by 2:30. Trust me, it won't be long before Kate has made a name of herself on the national road and X-C scene, should she manage to sustain her current rate of improvement.

With the hard work of the race out of the way, we were able to get back to what, it seems, Newfoundlanders, runners included, know how to do better than we mainlanders-- which is enjoy one another's company and the fruits of their labour! A fine brunch at the Yellow Belly, a magnificent, five-storied brewery pub on Water St. was followed up by a brief repose, a couple of toasts to our performances in the Tely, and a huge house party hosted by members of Athletics North-East. At said party, I learned the following: that every guy in the province can play the guitar and sing (as well as remember the words to multiple songs, new and old); that there are many more verses to "I's the Bye" than I ever learned in grade 2, and that most of them are much, much dirtier; and, that kissing the lips of a dead codfish is not at all bad (it's quite salty, unsurprisingly). Eventually, house party gave way to pub party as we all decamped for George St. and yet more fantastic live musical entertainment (the aforementioned running history/trivia smack-down between Mr. Meany and me ended, by the way, in a gentlemanly draw). The evening ended with a long cab ride back to Paradise, during which we were unsuccessful in convincing the driver (who, by his own admission, was seriously addled by 12 hours of non-stop driving) that he, in fact, had the winner of the Tely riding in his car. (He claimed to have heard that it had been won by "a Chinese guy". Such is the stature of the Tely in St. John's, however, that a 300lb cab driver at 3 a.m. knew exactly what it was and what it meant.)

I cannot adequately express my gratitude to my Newfoundland hosts, and will do my utmost to return for the 2011 version of the Tely, if they will have me (actually, now that I'm an honorary Newfoundlander, I don't think they have any choice!). I'm even considering organizing a Tely tour group for mainlanders. If you have never been to St. John's, or have but have not run the Tely, I urge you to consider including both in your summer vacation plans for next year.

July POM:

There are two very worth nominees for July POM:

Dylan Wykes' fine win in the 5k at the national track and field championships (he was actually 2nd place in the race, but to resident non-Canadian, Kip Kangogo). After struggling somewhat on the track throughout the spring, Dylan turned things around in superb fashion, with a massively negative split 14:03, suggesting that, in a deeper and faster race, he would almost certainly rewritten his personal best of 13:59, and likely by a good measure.

And, Colin Fewer's solo, sub-50min Tely 10 victory. Although Colin's performance did not surprise me, it impressed me; for, only a few months ago, Colin was taking his first running steps following a soul-destroying 12 weeks on the elliptical trainer, healing a hip problem that came on in the early weeks of the winter. His Tely performance was actually the third of three remarkable post-injury efforts, the first two coming in April in Victoria and Vancouver over 10k (personal best of 30:42) and HM (near P.B. of 1:07:52). Although Colin had had a reasonable run of training since these initial outings, the Tely represented a special challenge for him. Being by far the most well known race in Newfoundland, and subject to wide shifts in wind and temperature, the Tely held certain risks for Colin-- or rather, predicting that we would win the race and be the third athlete to run the course in under 50mins posed risks. He knew that failure to do either of these things, even if through no fault of his own, would undermine his stature in the eyes of a broader community of friends, family, and acquaintances that knows only the Tely. His poise and determination in going out and doing exactly what he predicted he would, in the face of community pressure, a lack of real competition, and an increasingly ominous humidity level, earns Colin POM honours for July.

Q and A on Canadian Distance Running

2010-07-15T16:18:00.008-04:00

After a long drought, I offer an unprecedented second post in 3 days! This one is a Q and A with former TOC club mate who is, I think, preparing a piece on what ails Canadian distance running today. (I will post a link if and when an article appears). What I intended to be a very brief reply turned into something a little more lengthy, so I thought I'd share it with readers of the blog (take that, Luke Steer, for dissing me on Facebook over my recent lack of attention to this space!!).

1.What do you think of the Brooks Marathon Project? (a Brook's Canada sponsored training group operating out of west end Toronto--SB)

I'm a supporter of the BMP idea, although I think it should be focused a little more on road racing in general. Many of the younger guys that have gone through the program have not had enough race experience at shorter road distances to become good marathoners. The marathon is, after all, just a very long road race. If I were running the BMP, I would not make it a requirement that athletes run a marathon in their first couple of years in the program, unless they were coming in with tons of road race experience, similar to what some of our best from the 70s and 80s had when they ran their first marathons.

2. American distance running, with the likes of Chris Solinsky, Ryan Hall, Kara Goucher, seems to be in the process of re-birth. Do you think this is a possibility for Canadian distance running? What would have to change? What would we need to do differently in this country?

It is certainly possible to rebuild Canadian distance running on the model of the U.S., with its many post-collegiate training enclaves. Speed River in Guelph is proof of how little is required in terms of resources to do this. What is required is a good coach with enough time, energy, and passion for the sport to convince more post-collegians to give serious distance running a chance. DST in Guelph has been that coach for a while now, but others must step forward (and I am trying to do just that in my new role as Head Coach of Cross Country and Distance track at Queen's). And I would emphasize that this is as much a matter of passion as of expertise. Before we can deploy whatever experience and expertise we might possess, we must be able to convince post-collegians that spending a few years trying to become the best runner you can be is a great life-choice, and something you will never regret, regardless of the level of performance you manage to attain.

3. Do think that Athletics Canada provides adequate support and funding for distance athletes? Why, for instance, does Athletics Canada make the Canadian Olympic Marathon standard much faster than the International Standard (with the consequence of supporting athletes who are already there as opposed to helping develop future contenders)? AC also seems to be putting an emphasis on some events over others, like sprinting and hurdles.

Through making it much more difficult for Canadians to qualify to represent Canada internationally, AC is certainly not helping when it comes to rebuilding this event group. In essentially "killing the dream" of major international competition for athletes who can meet the standards set by the championships themselves (although the COA plays a special role here too), but not Canada's special standards. However, it is important that we understand precisely why this occurs; and, when we do, we will probably learn to stop expecting AC to act as a leader in building or re-building anything to do with this sport. The fact is, AC is structurally bound through its funding relationship to Sport Canada to take the line of least resistance when it comes to event development. AC's level of funding, which determines, among other things, the number of people it can employ, is determined by the rate of top 8 and top 16 finishes in major international competitions, regardless of event group. This means that, if there happen to be a few more good hurdlers or throwers in this country at a given time, AC will, for it's own financial good, support these individual athletes by supporting their coaches and event groups. If, by chance, a few jumpers come to the fore as the throwers and hurdlers are retiring, the organization will switch focus in towards the jumps. The problem for Canadian distance runners is that their event group is dominated by athletes from the "poor majority" world, rather than from the "rich minority" world, since success in distance running, if a country has enough people determined to make it, requires relatively rudimentary coaching and few material resources, yet offers a relatively large potential pay-off for poor athletes. Canada, being itself a rich country, and therefore one that can afford good facilities and at least entry-level coaching, will always do better in these more technical event groups, even without a real development model (and at the moment, the NCAA is Canada's de facto elite development system for track and field, to the extent that it has one at all). AC, whose funding is tied to top 8 and 15 major championship finishes by its athletes, will continue its strategy of pouring resources into already largely developed, potential top 8/16 athletes, leaving development-- or re-development, in the case of distance running-- to others. Although it could do a few small but important things to mitigate this reality, it is structurally incapable of performing a serious developmental role. I actually think Canadian distance runners are pretty lucky to have access to carding; but, beyond that, they can't look for leadership to AC or Sport Canada, which are operate strictly on an "elite sport as propaganda" model.

4.Today more Canadians are running than ever before. However, despite the popularity of the sport, collectively our times have gotten slower. What do you think needs to change? Do you think anything needs to change?

Canadian's times have gotten slower for two reasons, one demographic (we're older, on average), and the other sport-specific (Canadians, beyond the age of about 18, no longer actually train for running). We can't do much about the former, but we can do something about the latter, and the solution starts with better elite development programs at the age class level (much as Canadian soccer, which faces a similar problem, is now attempting to do). We need greater cooperation from high schools-- which is where the vast majority of young athletes get their first real exposure to the sport-- in supporting the development of year-round training groups for serious and talented young athletes. At the moment, the high school system (e.g., here in Ontario, which is the nation's hotbed for the sport), jealously guards its control of top athletes through participation rules that inhibit serious athletes from following their training and competition plans year round. As a result, most young athletes begin the sport without any concept of a long term development plan, because the vast majority of school coaches lack the will or expertise to develop one. Most school programs, if they have any success at all, do so with only the most abundantly gifted, or early-maturing, athletes, and rarely prepare their athletes for the longer term. But, of course, most programs have little real success at all, even as they require their most serious kids to spend 4-5 months of the year working in well-meaning but amateurish school programs. The net result, as you have observed, is that serious running becomes, like soccer, a sport for kids and a few fitness-minded adults; the elite level all but dissappears, as potentially successful young athletes drift out of the sport during or after high school. If more Canadians had exposure to real training programs when they were school-age, the average times in Canadian road races would be faster than they are, even with the changes in demographics. This was the case years ago in Britain, when thousands of young people got experience training in clubs, and went on to be fairly decent adult runners, even if they were not elite. Through working with my local and on-line adult groups, I see everyday how much faster Canadian runners can be with exposure to serious training programs. The level of general knowledge of running as a sport in Canada is pretty abysmal, in spite of the fact that the activity is now wildly popular.

5. Most runners today are both older and younger today. How do we inspire kids to run past elementary school?

As I've been saying for years to anyone who will listen, I actually think the way to inspire kids to continue beyond elementary school is to actually restrict elementary school competition to the older grades. In my board, where kids start competing in grade 3, the challenge is to retain them beyond grade 6! If you expose kids to distance running too early, many are instantly turned off and/or convinced that they have no ability if they are not winning right away. If we can restrict their involvement to say, grades 7 and 8, we will have many more kids this age coming out, and a few more interested in continuing in high school. Adults often think it's "cute" to see 8 year olds huffing and puffing around a cross country course. I can assure them, however, that, cute or not, the cost of this early involvement is the early and permanent exit from the sport of many, many future running talents. I refer to the example of my own son, who wanted to try a cross country race in grade 3. He finished 63rd out of 100 or so in his first race, which was a bit of a shock to him, considering how hard he felt he had worked. It took some convincing over the next couple of years to get him to believe that he might eventually be able to do much better, and even one day finish near the front, if he allowed himself time to grow, mature, and try a little bit of training. He's now showing real talent; but, he's only still interested because he's bullshit-lucky enough to have a dad who understands how early development typically works in this sport. Whenever I see him run (and he is now in grade 7), I wonder how many kids with his basic talent walked away in grade 3, never to return, as he no doubt would have without my knowledgeable encouragement. Of course, a similar thing occurs in grade 9 when kids try the sport for the first time (i.e. if they don't succeed right away, many decide they have better things to do); but, it is far easier to explain to a 15 year old about variable development rates than it is to an 8 or 9 year old who's just experienced the shock of extreme exhaustion, coupled with a the feeling of having failed competitively! We need to remember that distance running, when done seriously, is not really a kid's sport. There is little or no play element, it can take a lot of work before you get to see how much ability you really have, and getting there can be very frustrating indeed. Kids need to be fully ready for this reality before being introduced to the sport. If they were, we would retain more of them post-elementary school and beyond.

Determining Your Optimal Performance "Bang"/Training "Buck" Ratio and June POM

2010-07-13T23:46:00.000-04:00

Now that I've successfully (I think) navigated my way through the Perfect Storm of coaching demands that formed when my acceptance of the coaching position at Queen's met the demands of high school season (to say nothing of the onset of summer yard work!), I've finally found a moment to update the blog. I do so with a post I've been planning for a while. With the personal training/fitness business exploding, and producing a shower of new ideas and modalities for improving our basic strength and endurance, I ponder the question: How are runners to determine the best use of their available training time? I also name the P-K POM for June.

The question of how to determine the best allotment of one's training time and energy is a perennial one, born of the fact that no one, not even the rich professional athlete, has unlimited time and energy. But the continual advent of new types of potentially beneficial and accessible forms of training, some through slick marketing and others through natural cross-fertilization between sports disciplines, or, occasionally, through the modification of injury rehab modalities, make this problem ever more potentially tricky. And for the recreational athlete in general, and time and energy-challenged older athlete in particular, the problem of optimizing the training mix is that much more vexing.

I begin with the following disclaimer: Ultimately, the optimum allotment of training time and energy between the available options is highly specific to the individual athlete, and requires consideration of a vast range of personal variables. It is thus something to be determined between coach and athlete, and negotiated over time through trial and error. What I offer here are therefore only general guidelines based on what I understand to be the best approach to producing performance improvements in runners falling into range of very broad categories, including: younger developing runners (i.e. ages 13 to 22); experienced "peak-age" runners; older beginning runners; and experienced older runners. The forms of training I consider can be placed in similarly broad categories, including: strength-based (i.e. various kinds of mostly low-speed resistance training, most typically involving weights); aerobic power-based (i.e. running at speeds and for durations requiring maximum possible oxygen uptake); endurance-based (i.e. sustained running at speeds that are known to over time produce gross anatomical and physiological adaptations, such as increased cardiac output and blood volume, and improved oxygen and energy usage through cellular development within the relevant muscle fibres, typically associated with high performance in long distance disciplines); and finally, new and older forms of alactic/ballistic/plyometric (ABP) training heretofore more typically used by sprinters rather than distance runners (i.e. jumping, bounding, very short sprinting, and even barefoot running). (Note: I exclude the category of flexibility training because I have already discussed this in a previous post. At best, I think this form of training belongs in the strictly optional, or "bet-hedging", category for all but the most leisured distance runners.)

For younger developing runners-- and, in particular, those who have come to the sport at what I consider to be the proper age, and with a background that includes plenty of formal and informal play-based physical activity-- the vast majority of the training stimulus should come from aerobic power and endurance-based training; and between these types, 80-90 percent of training time should be allotted to the latter. For those without an extensive background in play-based activities, some form of APB-based training may be beneficial (but, this can often be achieved by young athletes "playing" at a range of other track and field disciplines in the context of an all-events track club). Where younger developing runners are concerned, however, the main consideration when it comes to their involvement in the sport of distance running must always be psychological/sociological rather than physical. To ensure the best chance at both short term enjoyment and long term performance maximization, training of any kind should be very moderate before ages 15-17 (i.e. from 2 to 5 hours per week only). Training for distance running, because it is overwhelmingly based on the very long term and intensive promotion of gross bodily adaptations, is acutely work-like. And play and self-discovery, not work, should be the foundation of childhood as far as possible, especially in light of the fact that children already "work" 6 or more hours per day at their educational development. As younger runners reach the typical age of psycho-social maturity (typically ages 15-17), their volumes of training can increase fairly significantly, with the emphasis, as I say, on developing the kinds of capacities most central to success in the sport, and most susceptible to improvement through training-- aerobic power and endurance. At this stage, however, the role of a coach becomes more important than at any stage of athletic development, and crucial for the young athlete's longer term development. Younger athletes, even while they may be physically and psychologically ready to train very hard, still lack much feel for which forms and quantities of training that work optimally for them at their particular stage of development. And most runners before the age of 21 or 22 remain somewhat lacking in the patience required for long term development. They are also easily discouraged by the occasional and inevitable poor performance.

For peak-age athletes (those in their senior post-secondary years to about age 35), the vast bulk of the training stimulus should continue to come from the two staples-- aerobic power and endurance-based training; but, there is an increasing premium on strength and ABP-type training in these years. Luckily, athletes in this age range will typically have more disposable time and greater energy to train than at any stage of their lives, making it relatively easy to accommodate these new training demands. The greater necessity for these other forms of training arises as training capacity in the two main forms begins to peak, and as acute specialization begins to erode the basic support structures (like core-strength, balance, and power)that were formed in childhood through play-based activities. On the most basic level, high-level distance training is somewhat catabolic and well as neurologically narrow in demands, meaning that it tends to reduce overall muscle mass and retard basic athleticism.Some of this is the inevitable and beneficial result of intense specialization, but the line between functional specialization and over-specialization can be fine one. This tendency towards over-specialization can be countered to some extent through strength and ABP-type training. I say this, however, with the following caution: New types of ABP training, especially plyometrics and alactic running, are currently in great vogue among runners with the time to fit them in, and many are quite alluring in their novelty and apparent sophistication, creating the strong impression that they must be useful and effective (and certain specific forms may yet prove to have little or no real benefit for distance runners). Such is the attractiveness-- and even fun-- of these forms of training that athletes may be tempted to substitute them for additional running (i.e. in cases where athletes have still have room beneath their capacity for more running volume). And I have a more specific fear that the vogue of strength and power work may feed into the stubborn misconception that, because distance races are frequently won with fast finishes, training that improves speed and power is of equal importance to aerobic power and endurance work. (While understandable, this is misconceived: first, because, in distance races, speed is only really effective once maximal aerobic and endurance capacities are reached; and, second, because the finishing speeds required to win even the highest level distances races are attainable by even the average high school sprinter, and by most good high school distance runners. Finishing speed-- i.e. for finishing long distance races-- is thus much more a function of aerobic power and endurance (to say nothing of emotional drive) than it is of the kind of speed and power that ABP-type training promotes. The proper place of this kind of training is, therefore, as one of the supports of a high-volume running program, whose benefit is mainly prophylaxis against injury rather than direct performance improvement. But even here, however, runners-- even strong, peak-age athletes-- must be aware of the injury risks as well as the benefits of ABP-type training.

And it is with risk/reward ratios of various training modalities that discussion of the next category or runners-- that of the older developing runner-- must begin. The middle-aged beginner athlete (and here I mean not someone who has never run at all, but someone who has never trained seriously for running) will typically lack the the accumulated benefits of any kind of training-- either the gross physiological adaptations associated with years of serious aerobic and endurance training, or the strength, power, speed and balance associated with resistance and ABP-type training. This category of athlete, in other words, will be able to make significant gains (subject, eventually, to some age-graded loss, of course) in all of these basic areas; yet, because he/she is older, and therefore at somewhat greater risk of injury, due to his/her inevitably slower recovery rates and, quite likely, reduced leisure/recovery time. For this category of athlete the question therefore becomes one of where to place the bulk of the training emphasis across a range of almost equally beneficial options. In my view, the older developing athlete must have greater balance in his/her program between strength, aerobic power, and endurance-based forms of training, using ABP training only very sparingly, if at all. As with younger developing athletes, the older beginner must focus the bulk of his/her training on improving endurance and aerobic power. The older athlete, however, will typically be lacking in muscular strength, and in the cores areas in particular (i.e. the stabilizing muscles of the low/deep abdomen, and of the low back, glutes and hips). Older beginners will also typically have weaker feet and lower legs. All of this atrophy is the product both of age and the reduced daily, dynamic physical activity associated with modern adulthood. A program of strength training that focuses on typically weak areas is therefore not only beneficial, but frequently crucial for the success of the older newcomer to the sport. The combination of a soft core, thin,inflexible feet, and weak calves is an injury time-bomb, and doubly so when the slower rates of recovery and repair associated with the aging process are factored in. As for ABP training, one might assume that it would come highly recommended for the older athlete. These kinds of training, after all, are designed to produce highly movement-specific forms of strength and power. The trouble with this form of training when it comes to the older athlete, however, is that it produces these gains in dynamic strength, power, and balance through the sometimes extreme and repetitive eccentric loading of the muscle (i.e. the rapid simultaneous stretching and loading of the muscle fibres). Older muscles, being usually a little shorter, less elastic, and slower to recover from micro-trauma, are much more susceptible to injury when worked in this way. There is no question that ABP training can be highly effective for older runners; the question is whether the performance gain is equal to the injury risk, especially considering the fact that the greatest net gains for the older runner, as for the younger athlete, are likely to come from simply running more and running a little faster a couple of times per week. As a coach of older beginners, I never rule any kind of training completely out for all runners; my general caution to new runners over 35, however, is that they spend their scarce training hours and energy running more, and doing non-eccentric forms of strength training, focusing mostly on the core and often on the lower legs, leaving the fancy ballistic/plyometric drills to the school-age and professional runners.

The final category of athlete is that of the older, experienced runner. (In other words, people like me!). The older more experienced athlete, and the ex-elite runner in particular, will typically have reaped all, or nearly all, of the basic gains they are every going to get from the staple forms of training-- aerobic power and endurance-based forms. This category of runner will typically have run tens of thousands of easy miles, and have completed hundreds of intense, max V02-building sessions on the track, road, and trail, to say nothing of hundreds of races over a variety of distances. As a result of all this training and racing, the older, experienced athlete, if he or she has followed a sound training plan all those years, has nothing to look forward to in terms of increased performance; after about age 35, it is a slow but steady downhill slide (although the speed of the decline will typically vary greatly from person to person, and can be greatly mitigated by continued long and hard training). My advice to the older, experienced athlete who still retains a taste for training and racing is to concern his/herself more with remaining injury-free, which means following a reduced and balanced program in which the training focus is varied regularly throughout the year. The older, experienced athlete, because he/she has trained throughout adulthood, will have retained a great deal of the basic athleticism required to effectively use the full range of training modalities, including ABP-type exercises. The older experienced athlete will gain less from an additional mile logged or hard workout completed than will the older beginner, and can thus afford spend a few weeks each year making, say, strength or plyometric power, rather than aerobic and endurance training, the focus of his/her training. As a general rule, however, this category of athlete-- the rarest of them all, for obvious reasons-- is advised to recall that he/she cannot safely manage the same total training volumes as during peak years. Older experienced athletes who cannot adjust to this reality are eventually frustrated, and find themselves relegated to the sidelines, physio table, and cross training regime.

I conclude with a reminder to runners of all ages that the basis for success in this sports remains running itself, and longer, aerobic running in particular. The runner who has not explored the limits of his/her capacity for daily aerobic running is a runner who has not yet entered the real world of the sport. It is frequently said that the beauty of running is its absolutely simplicity; that the challenge for the Olympian--to push his/her body to the limit in search of the greatest possible level of adaptation to the basic demands of the sport-- is no different than for the average age-classer. The difference between the best and the merely average resides in part in the sheer capacity of the former to survive the grind of training required to reached the most extreme levels of adaptation; but, the struggle of all athletes to realize their maximum personal potential is a very much a struggle to run as much as possible without breaking down. Other forms of training may help shore up the embattled body of the serious runner, but they are never a substitute for the activity itself. Many have chosen, for one reason or another, to believe otherwise-- to believe that additional speed and power, for instance, can produce greater performance gains in long distance runners than more long distance running itself; but, when one observes the training of the sport's best at every level, the verdict is in, and has been in for decades: To run fast over a long distance, one has first to run slowly over a much longer distance, and many times over. It is only on this foundation that the other forms of training discussed can have a meaningful impact on racing performance.

June POM:

With the spring road racing season winding down and the summer events just getting underway, the focus for June POM honours was bound to be the high school scene. The high school season in Ontario ended, as it has for some 50 years, with much hyped-- many would say, and not without reason, over-hyped-- Ontario Federation of Schools Athletic Association (OFSAA) championships, which pit the top athletes in the province against one another in 3 age groups: Midget (grade 9); Junior (grade 10) and Senior (grades 11, 12 and additional year). The P-K juniors were well represented at the meet, with two-- this month's POM nominees-- overcoming substantial obstacles to secure their spots, and going on to perform above expectations in the championships themselves. By the time the qualifying meet rolled around in late May, Rob Asselstine's place on the OFSAA starting line looked secured, and his odds of finishing top 10, or even top six, very good. Looking back only a year, however, and the picture was far different. Rob did not even contest high school track in his grade 11 year, and did not appear to have the ability to become a bona fide contender in as short a time as one year, if indeed at all. Nevertheless, one year later, and only three weeks after his first ever race win (the City Championships), Rob would finish 10th in the 3000m at the OFSAA Championship in a time of 8:41, a mark more than a minute better than his personal best before the year began. (And look for Rob as a nominee for July POM honours, following his recent 5th place finish in the junior nationals 5000m in Moncton, NB last weekend). The other nominee-- Cleo Boyd, whose name should sound familiar!-- had been a frequent visitor to the OFSAA finals in track, even making the final in the 800m in grade 9. Since grade 9, however, her progress had been plagued by recurrent calf strains, which had lately relegated her to the elliptical trainer for a little less than half of the 8 months leading up to the start of the season, and causing her to miss all of the 2009 cross country season. Thus it was that Cleo entered the track season simply hoping to remain on her feet till the end. Thanks to heart-rending diligence and determination-- to say nothing of maturity and self-control beyond her years-- she was able to do this and more. Running in her first year as a senior, she not only qualified for OFSAA in her chosen events, the 1500m and 3000m, but ran a substantial personal bests to make the final in one (the 1500m, which she chose not to contest in order to better prepare for the 3000m) and
finish 7th in another personal best in the other. Her 3000m time was good enough to qualify her to run at the national junior championships, which she did, equaling her OFSAA time in less favourable conditions. If Cleo (and I) can manage to solve the riddle of her recurrent calf problems (and she/we have already explored many avenues), or if she simply grows out of the problem, she has the potential to run near the very front in her final year of school. For her OFSSA 3000m performance, Cleo earns POM honours for June, and enters the running for POY honours come January 2011.

P-K at the Ottawa Race Weekend and May POM

2010-06-01T15:53:00.002-04:00

I've traveled to races and track meets with many different groups over the years-- from school and club teams to national and provincial teams-- and have observed that the rate of success of individuals (meaning the rate at which group members meet or exceed training expectations) is usually not much above about 60%, and is frequently around 50% (and often much lower in the marathon), such is the difficulty of matching up racing with training performance in our sport. This is why I was so pleasantly surprised-- and impressed-- with the performance of P-K athletes at last weekend's big Ottawa Race Weekend-- always an important focus of our spring campaign. Our rate of success on Saturday was actually very close to 100%. And this is no definitional trick; no one, not one of us, had what could reasonably be described as a "bad" race, let alone disastrous one, and about half of us posted efforts ranging from quite good to great.

Among the notable performances on Saturday were (all official times/place are available from Sportstats):

-An open women's win by Emily Tallen in 35:19 (all 10k times were slower this year than in the past couple of years, due to warm conditions and the return of the pesky northwest wind that so often slows the 10k route up there.)

-A master's men's win by yours truly in 32:03, a runner-up in the same division by Rick Minichiello (or Ricardo Miniello, as the awards announcer called him-- a new nickname?), and a 4th place by Troy Cox.

-An age 50-55 win by Bob McGraw (who was looking for low 35mins but had to settle for 36:28 in the wind). Bob won his division by over 2mins.

-An age 50-55 win by Myra Levac in her first ever 10k (42:38).

-Dylan Wykes' righting-of-the-ship effort in the open men's 10k. Dylan has struggled with minor setbacks all spring, but appears to have begun turning things around with this solid run-- a 6th place over-all and runner-up placing among Canadian men (to 2008 Olympian Eric Gillis).

-Matt Setlack's spectacular 40 second P.B. and runner-up finish in the men's 5k. Battling for the win all the way, Matt shrunk his P.B. down from 15:53 to 15:13-- a huge revision by a guy who is no stranger to serious training (before relocating to Alberta, Matt was a fairly serious runner and duathlon competitor around these parts since first coming to RMC 5 years ago.)

Add to these a handful of other goal-reaching performances and the result is a highly improbable degree of one-day success for a group of more than 15 athletes. I'd like to take credit for this, but I can't. As I say, this rate of success is rare and largely inexplicable; I've been to many events with groups of P-K athletes and have rarely, if ever, seen this rate of satisfaction among my athletes. I'm therefore content to simply enjoy it while it lasts; because, before too long, I'll no doubt be blogging about the opposite, and far less happy, scenario!

Note: The only real disappointed for the group occurred on Sunday, when rookie marathoner Lisa Balerna struggled mightily but missed her goal (which was amply supported by her excellent training build-up) by a wide margin. As I say, success is a little harder to come by when it comes to marathoning.

May POM:

With the group-- from juniors to masters-- in full competitive swing, there are more than a few worthy nominees for May POM. Emily Tallen's P.B.-setting 3rd place finish in the Vancouver Sun Run, her second strong performance in a month (following a somewhat lean 18 months, in which she sometimes wondered if all the effort was worth it), certainly bears mentioning. Her time of 34:11 represents a more than 50 second personal best-- long overdue, but no less welcome because of it. Meanwhile, among the juniors, Clara Langely's provincial age-group-leading and club record-setting 10:09 for 3000m, set in winning her East Region OFSAA qualifier (and establishing her as the overwhelming top seed for OFSAA)is the kind of run that would win POM honours most months. Then there is Rob Asselstine's remarkable run of qualifying races in the 1500 and 3000m-- his double wins in the opening two rounds representing the first victories of his high school career (he is in grade 12). Rob serves as a reminder that we are all, regardless of age, very often better than we think we are, and that it just takes some of us a little longer, and a little more work, to finally realize it. But this month's POM goes to Matt Setlack, for his huge, one-time improvement in the 5k last Saturday evening in Ottawa. A Canadian Forces member, Matt is currently posted in Northern Alberta, where he was forced by the extreme winter weather to do most of his quality training indoors (to say nothing of all alone). After a predictably slow start to the spring season, Matt surprised me (and himself, I would guess!) with this seasonal goal-level performance in only his 3rd race this year. One suspects he will be a frequent nominee in the remaining months of the year. Congrats, Matt! Along with the other monthly winners, Matt's performance will be considered for 2010 POY honours, come January.

Queen's No Longer Quiesent; its Quest for Quality No Longer Quixotic?

2010-05-25T22:15:00.001-04:00

Those with the patience to read my long opening post in this blog-- the one in which I detail my own athletic genesis, and much else besides-- will know that I am a graduate of Queen's University here in Kingston. And some of you will have read, or will perhaps have already known, that the Queen's men managed to win 3 national team titles in 5 years during and just before my era-- a time in which there was probably greater quality and depth of performance than today, and in which the competition was far more balanced between schools. And whether or not you have ever seen this blog before, you will likely know that Queen's has not really come close to a national title on the men's or women's side in the decades since, in spite of having had a few very notable individual performances over the years. With my recent assumption of head coaching duties for men's and women's cross country and distance track (effective just last week), I plan to take my shot at remedying this situation, as challenging at it will be to make any headway against the juggernaut that is the U of Guelph/Speed River-- a program that has become its own very effective athlete recruitment campaign.

Without speculating on the underlying reasons, it is a fact that, in the decades since a Queen's team last bestrode a national podium, it has fairly consistently failed in two areas that most determine success in university distance running: Athlete recruitment, and performance delivery in championship meets. Teams that are able to recruit more top high-schoolers can often win in spite of sub-par championship race execution; and teams that cannot, for whatever reason, attract top recruits can sometimes still surprise on race day, if they are particularly well prepared; but, teams that can for one reason or another neither recruit their share of top talent nor consistently execute to the best of their ability on race day are doomed to ignominy.

As the best university sports programs repeatedly demonstrate, championship success tends to be self-replicating. Without a draft system to balance the distribution of talent from year to year, teams that experience a brief period of success, and who have recruiters who can convince serious young athletes that this success has been the result not simply of luck but of good programming (and often it is initially a matter of both) can begin to build dynasties. In the U.S., money for scholarships can be a significant driver of success; but, even here, there are many examples of winning programs that started with relatively few resources. In Canada, where tuition is generally much lower, and where scholarship amounts are regulated, and hedged by fairly stringent academic requirements, up-front money of this kind is not as nearly as significant a driver of program success. When it comes to fixed resources, things like good athletic facilities, including congenial environs for easy running, can also make a difference. But here, the minimum threshold is not difficult to reach, and universities with the best facilities and training venues by no means consistently best those with merely adequate training and competition amenities. Another important variable is the minimum academic admission standard at a given university. In the NCAA, it is a general rule that the higher the admission standard the less successful the athletic programs. This is attributable to the simple fact that, all other things being equal, a higher academic standard effectively limits the pool of potential top athletic recruits. It is a fact, however, that high academic standards are a greater barrier to recruitment in some sports than in others-- and distance running is one sport in which, for a whole host of sociological (and perhaps psychological) reasons, athletic and academic success are more often associated. (As I often point out to people, the winning teams during my era at Queen's were made up of some of the school's top academic performers-- and this at a university that, then as now, boasts the highest admission standards in the nation. And to this we can add the examples of the women's cross country and track programs at Ivy League's Princeton and Columbia Universities, or Stanford's men's and women's programs, which have routinely produced top 10 teams in Division I championships over the years).

What, then, is the secret of long term post-secondary sports success when the above variables are correctly weighted?

In distance running, which is not a skills-driven discipline, but rather sport in which the development of gross physiological capacities over a period of months and years is the secret of success, the ability of coaches and other recruiters to identify athletes with the right basic attributes, to persuade such athletes to invest some of their prime developmental years in a particular training environment, and to follow through by creating a year-round training program that encourages that development, are the keys to long term success. And, of these variables, the one that is indispensable for long term success is the final one. A training program that is grounded in sound principles, and which has had time to prove itself in practice, will tend to make talent identification and recruitment somewhat redundant, as the best talent will tend to choose the program without much inducement. There are, of course, a few other significant intangibles-- such as the personal agreeableness of the coaching staff, which can affect the willingness of the average athlete to invest in a given training program; but, even here, the soundness of the program will tend to win out in the end, even when athletes are not inclined to befriend the coach (although basic fairness and reasonableness are, of course, great values in themselves).

As the person now directly in charge of both athlete recruitment and program development at Queen's, my aim is to trade rather shamelessly on my own long term success in the sport (going back, in fact, to my membership on two of Queen's three olden times championship teams) as a means of convincing academically serious, Canada-bound high school distance stars to come to the university. Many, but not all, of the most successful NCAA programs are headed by former star athletes, and often alumni. Such coaches are often favoured because they have knowledge not only of the requirements of success in the system as a whole, but of the attributes of the school in question, along with an established profile within the system and among alumni (who, as the mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles and neighbours of potential recruits, can be very important players within the system.) If these former stars-turned-coach also happen to have the wherewithal to create sound training programs, the result is almost always competitive success. And, of course, I am convinced that my years of almost total, full time immersion in the sport have given me the requisites to develop a successful training program. In any case, I very excited about putting my knowledge and experience to the test within the unique constraints of the Canadian Inter-university System. Since I have the full support of the Queen's Athletics admin in my quest, the immediate challenge will be to introduce myself to eligible recruits, their coaches and families, make them aware of my record in the sport, and to convince them that they might have a great athletic future at a Canadian university other than Guelph! The program at the U of G under Head Coach Dave Scott-Thomas (once, briefly, the coach at Queen's)-- fusing as it has the university team with a senior elite club with a proven record of putting athletes at the top of the Canadian rankings and onto World Championship and Olympic teams-- currently resides on a level of its own in Canada, both because of its great quality, and because of the declining calibre of most other programs in the system. Successfully challenging the U of G-- if, indeed, a successful challenge is even possible within the foreseeable future-- will require both the faith of few talented high school athletes and a training program that hits the ground running, if you'll pardon the pun. Making a reality of this will be, for me, a difficult but not a daunting task; for, as lifelong lover of running and of those who, like me, have a passion to do it seriously, I can think of no more pleasurable challenge!

If you are a supporter of P-K and know of an athlete who may be interested in becoming part of what I hope will the beginning of an exciting new era for Queen's X-C and distance track over the next 4-5 years, do not hesitate to contact me at either steve@physi-kultrunning.com or qxc@queensu.ca Thanks to the excellent work of the outgoing coaching staff last season, I'm lucky to have a good core of runners, to which I have already managed to add a couple of very strong candidates from the junior P-K group, making it possible to begin moving up the ranks as early as this season. And, in the next 3-4 season, who knows!

Race Week Workouts and P-K April POM

2010-05-06T21:41:00.004-04:00

Race Week Workouts: Striking the Correct Balance

At this time of year, every week is a "race week" for one or more of the athletes in my group, whether it's an elite like Dylan or Emily prepping for a road race, or a group of high- schoolers getting ready to hit the track for an early season double, or even triple, race weekend. As with the question of warm-ups, and all other immediate pre-race concerns, from diet to bathroom stops, runners are inclined to fret about their race-week workouts. And they have reason to fret; much is at stake in getting these final harder efforts right, and there are some distinctly different approaches to the problem circulating in the running world.

The long-standing, conventional approach to race-week workouts is to make them shorter and faster as compared to regular sessions. High school runners, for instance, are typically instructed to run repetitions of 400m or less at faster than their expected race pace-- often much faster (and, whether high school athletes are instructed to go faster or not, they will tend to do so during race week sessions if presented with the opportunity, simply because of nervous energy, and desire to reassure themselves that they are ready to go). With this approach, it is not unusual to have athletes training at high speeds as close a 48 hours from race time, based on the notion that faster running immediately preceding a race with "sharpen" the athlete for the impending race effort.

A similar approach is to simply scale down the training week in general, including the final workouts, but maintain the same basic workout content and pace. Following this approach, an athlete who typically runs, say, 6x1k @MV02 pace, would do 4x 1k during race week.

A third approach, and the one I favour, involves running the final pre-race workouts at a pace slower than expected race pace for distances below Half Marathon (and approximately equal to HM race pace). As with so many things, I have adjusted my practice on this question in response to the work of emeritus coach Jack Daniels, who recommends threshold pace running, or "cruise intervals" (bouts of threshold pace running with very short recoveries) as final pre-race sessions.

As a younger athlete, I followed the standard practice of running shorter and faster workouts during race weeks, and for the usual reasons-- as a way to, I hoped, make my race paces feel relatively easy, and in order to convince myself that I was ready to run at top speed in the upcoming race ("pulling the carrots up to see if they are ripe", as friend, long time rival, and 2 time Olympian Bruce Deacon once put it to me). Using this approach as a self-coached athlete, I eventually began to notice that I often felt much better in my workouts both immediately before and immediately following my races than I did in the races themselves. It was as though I'd been peaking for my pre-race workouts, which were low stress, and short enough to really hammer through, "resting" in the races themselves, because of being a little to tired to reproduce my pre-race workout efforts, and then recovering in the day or so that followed, leaving me feeling good again for the next session. This pattern didn't always occur, but it happened enough, both to me and to the others athletes I knew, that I began to wonder if there was perhaps another way to approach race-week workouts-- a way to train immediately before racing in such a way as to produce a positive stimulus without risking stealing from my race-day performance.

My first innovation was to lengthen the work-bouts and shorten the recoveries during pre-race sessions, so that I would simply not be able to run much, if at all, below race pace. Second, I began to allow much more time between the final workout and the race, although without changing the volume of easy running much in the final days of before the race. The most I would allow myself by way of faster running during, say, the final 3 days before a race effort was a few strides at approximately 1500 race pace. Finally, upon discovering Daniels, I opted for the approach of doing only threshold pace running-- bouts of 4 to 25mins of running at approximately half-marathon race pace-- in the 3-5 days preceding a race.

Daniels approach to pre-race workouts grows directly out of his approach to training in general, in which the faster and more intense phases of training are largely completed before the competition phase begins. Daniels' approach is rooted in the discovery that the benefits of faster and more intense training are longer lasting than we often imagine, and can be maintained during the competition phase using relatively little faster, intense running, apart from races themselves. Following Daniels, I reasoned that, since there was probably little to be gained by doing harder, faster sessions during race week, and much to be potentially lost from doing so, it was much better to ease up on the speed, yet still train in a zone and at a level of volume known to produce physiological benefits, and that allowed athletes to feel they had worked hard and had not lost fitness as they reduced training volume and intensity in preparation to race. Practical experimentation was to bear out my reasoning, and I was very soon a much more consistent racer at all distances (consistent, that is, in the sense of racing up to the level of my current fitness, whatever that may have been at any given time). And a word about the theory of "sharpening" behind the practice of running very fast in anticipation of racing: In most middle and long distance races, the top speeds attained, even in the midst of a furious last ditch sprint, are usually well below an athlete's top speed while fresh. The world record for 1500m, for instance, breaks down to 56 secs per 400m-- a speed that top middle distance runners can manage very comfortably for distances under about 700m. And a very fast finishing sprint in a 1500m might be 24-25 seconds for the final 200m-- again, a speed that most top middle distance runners can hit with relative ease. What is required to run a 1500m well is therefore not "sharpness" but the aerobic power and efficiency to run at very fast but still sub-maximal running speeds for periods of 3 to 8 minutes. Managing this requires having done a great deal of the necessary hard aerobic training well in advance of the competition phase, and being relatively free of the local muscle fatigue associated with this kind of running. In any case, very fast running in the days preceding a middle distance race is likely to produce little direct physiological benefit during the race, and at least some risk of unwanted local muscle fatigue, should anything occur that might impair the recovery process (e.g. a poor night's sleep or two, or some unanticipated emotional stress). Avoiding faster running, and allowing the trained muscles to recover the explosive power than is lost through high volume aerobic training is more likely to improve race speed-- at least the kind of speed entailed in middle distance racing-- than running short distances at or below race race. In general, athletes need to be confident that the main work has been done once the race week arrives; and, athletes just beginning what they hope will be a long season of racing need to realize that most of their so-called "sharpening" will come from their early races themselves-- racing being, of course, a highly specific form of training.

These days, a very typical pre-race session I like to perform, and have my athletes perform, as a final pre-race session is: 4x4mins @ tempo pace with a 60second easy jog recovery. I also favour a straight 20mins of tempo running, with the standard 15-20mins warm-up/down. And, lately, I've become quite fond of the shorter interval-pace (3k-5k race pace) fartlek as a pre-race session. A workout such as 10-12x 40 seconds @ interval pace with 40 secs recovery @ easy run or marathon pace produces an overall pace that is very close to tempo pace, while including a small amount of faster running (but never too fast, because the recoveries are short and active enough to prevent this). These kinds of sessions are easy to complete, highly effective as a means of preserving gains made during the heavy building phases, and testing enough, albeit in a safe way, to reassure the athlete that he/she is still in good shape.

P-K POM for April:

P-Kers made this month a very difficult one from which to select a top performance, and because of a surfeit rather than a dearth of good candidates. The leading nominees come from the National HM championships in Montreal nearly 4 weeks ago-- those of Emily Tallen, Rejean Chiasson, and Christian Mercier-- but a couple of additional POM-worthy results were produced in the wind-swept Kingston Race Weekend 5k, held on the final Sunday of the month. Notable was Ben Burr's 40 second personal best (17:23)on a day when others were routinely running 30+ seconds slower than normal, and 51 year old Myra Levac's 20:36 result-- a time that would no doubt have put her close to the 20 minute barrier she's been threatening to crack for a while now. (Someone of Myra's diminutive stature would certainly have had a harder time bucking those 50kph winds along the lake shore that day!) Finally, Colin Fewer of St. John's NFLD stunned me with a new personal best (by seven seconds, to 30:42) over 10k at the Times-Colonist race in Victoria. This may seem less than stunning until one considers that Colin was forced to spend all but 4 weeks of the winter x-training on the elliptical machine! He then followed up the next weekend with a near personal best of 1:07:54 in the Vancouver HM. (Moral of the story: Trust your elliptical training!).

After much deliberation, however, I'm giving POM honours for April to Christian Mercier for his outstanding new HM personal best of 1:08:30, his third great run in as many tries since joining the group. And those of you who read the last installment of the blog will recall that he ran this time after falling hard in the final 50m of the race. While new to P-K, Chris is not a rookie racer, and has trained relatively hard for a number of years. To have done the requisite work during a typical Quebec City winter, and to have had the confidence to set a pace that would end up carving some 80 seconds from his personal best, and on a challenging day, is a tough act to beat. That I have chosen this performance over Emily's first national senior championship-- one that followed a very difficult patch of racing for her-- should indicate what I think of it.

May POM-worth results are already showing up, lead by Rick Minichiello's massive 2 mins 18 second personal best masters win over 10k at the Sporting Life race in Toronto (a downhill course, but on a day that did not produce any torrid times among the elites up front, suggesting that the weather may have negated the usual 30-40 second downhill dividend at least a little). Other great results are likely to follow as P-Kers take to the streets in Vancouver (this weekend at the Sun Run), Ottawa (last weekend in May), and various other locales across the country.

Sweating the Details, Redux: Warming up and Cooling Down; and, P-K at the National HM Championships

2010-04-21T12:46:00.003-04:00

By this stage of my racing career, my immediate pre and post-race routine has become so entrenched that I'm rarely inclined to give it much critical reflection; yet, it is one of the details over which my athletes fuss, and about which they pose questions, more than perhaps any other (although the warm-up much more than the cool down*). My own pre-race and workout warm-up/down routine has actually changed very little over the years, although the changes I have introduced have been important ones. These adjustments have been in response to both hard science and experience.

Beginning with the warm-up, the first consideration ought to be the race distance one is about to tackle, followed closely by the weather conditions to be faced.

As a general rule, the longer the distance to be raced, the shorter and more passive the warm-up; and, the warmer the air temperature, the shorter and less vigorous the warm-up. In normal or cooler temperatures, sprinters will frequently spend up to 90 minutes going through an elaborate, multi-phased routine consisting of light jogging, stretching, bouncing, and practice starting, in which clothing and footwear are changed. Marathoners, in contrast, might do as little as 10-15mins of very light jogging, or even just walking, before pulling the race trigger. This is due to the simple fact that, the shorter duration of the race, the more quickly following the starter's gun the athlete will have to launch into full-out, competitive mode. The longer the race, on the other hand, the more it is possible to use the early stages themselves as part of the warm-up. (This, BTW, is what makes shorter races so nerve-wracking; while longer races are simply daunting, due to the anticipation of prolonged physical discomfort and attendant psychological stress.)

Since this is a blog about distance running, I will begin by skipping ahead to the 1500m, which sits at the short end the "distance" event spectrum, and proceed across the event range all the way to the half and full marathon.

As with all running events, the warm-up commences with light jogging, which serves to gently increase the heart rate, coaxing circulation into the deeper fibres of the muscle. Middle distance runners need only do 15mins of jogging (30-60 secs/km slower than typical easy run pace), and generally need not concern themselves with increasing the pace of jogging over the course of the warm-up. The nitty-gritty of the 1500m runner's typical warm-up is the race-pace running he/she must do following jogging and the light, dynamic flexibility exercises, that today's distance runners typically use to carefully introduce full range of running motion (for an great discussion, with references, on why dynamic "range of motion" style warm-up exercises are to be preferred to old-fashioned static stretching, see, once again, Alex Hutchinson's great first resort for all of your running-science queries, Sweatscience.) Following the light flexibility phase, middle distance runners are best to spend 20mins or so performing a series of what serious runners refer to as "strides" (shortened at some hazy point in the past from "stride-outs" or "striders"), which are simply faster bouts of running of 100-150m with very flexible, but generally quite leisurely, recovery times. The first few of these is best done in flats, in order to carefully prepare the calves for faster running, and the final few done in racing shoes (usually spikes), in order to adjust to the lighter weight and feel of them. The warm-up for 1500m racing should be complete with about 10 minutes to go till gun time, leaving time for a final trip to the washroom, and for the heart rate to settle.

The warm-up for races longer than the 1500m but shorter than the Half Marathon should begin with the same 15-20mins of easy jogging; but, the total duration and intensity of the warm-up for longer distance races will depend on the air temperature at race time. A too vigorous warm-up in hot conditions can impair performance (in fact, studies have shown that it may be advantageous to cool core body temperature before competing in hot weather-- e.g. through the use of "ice vest" technology). Under average conditions, however, the warm-up for a long distance racing should commence about 45mins from start time (50mins for those with nervous bladders!). Another difference between the warm-up for long distance running and for middle distance running is that it may be advantageous for longer distance racers to increase the pace of their warm-up jog in the final 5mins, until it reaches the effort (if not the pace) of a typical tempo run. I'm aware of no research that confirms this, but there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that some faster, sustained running during the warm-up prepares athletes to race longer distances better than, say, the conventional approach of combining very slow jogging and strides at faster than race pace (think, for instance, of how we often feel much better in the middle or at the end of our workouts than at the beginning). In fact, doing very slow jogging followed by very fast strides may actually encourage athletes to start too quickly, by making actual race pace feel initially much easier than it will very shortly become. In general, however, it is best to include a few strides in the warm-up for longer distance races, albeit at a slower pace than for 1500 racing. For longer races, the benefit of strides is more for gentle yet dynamic and movement-specific pre-race flexibility work (although some of the same dynamic flexibility moves referred to above are recommended, although are perhaps a little less important, for longer distance racers.) As with 1500m racing, the warm-up for longer distance races should also be complete around 10 minutes prior to gun time.

Finally, for the half-marathon and marathon, the warm-up need consist of only 10mins of very easy jogging (just enough to promote a little circulation to the working muscles, and to work out any stiffness), commencing perhaps 30mins from race time-- just enough to allow for that last washroom break, and a switch to into racing gear. As mentioned, the early stages of these very long races can be safely used to complete the warm-up process. In my best longer races, I have often experienced the feeling of "coming alive" after 15-20mins of racing, after which the pace becomes noticeably more comfortable. I generally prefer this in longer races to the feeling of already being fully warmed-up and running very easily in the early kms, only to find the pace suddenly harder once the initial rush fades.

And, speaking of rushes, a word about caffeine as part of the pre-race prep for distance running: Caffeine, in both drug form and the more familiar coffee form, is a proven (and legal) performance enhancer for long distance running. There is, however, a wide range of individual tolerance to caffeine stimulation, as well as gut-tolerance for coffee, among runners. Some more highly-strung runners, as well as those who use bronchodilators for asthma, may find caffeine to be a little too stimulating, causing heart palpitations and feelings of acute anxiety before or during a race. As with any new addition to your pre-race routine, caffeine supplementation should be experimented with in training situations before being used pre-race.

As for the post-race or workout cool-down, it is far simpler than the warm-up, and far more pleasant, regardless of the outcome of the race itself (nothing beats the release of all that pre-race anxiety!). The precise physiological benefits of the cool-down are not known (its function has typically been understood in terms of "flushing" or "lactate removal", but no such process has ever been isolated scientifically). That cooling down thoroughly (15-25mins at pace 15-30 seconds slower than typical easy day pace) makes running the day after hard efforts feel better has, however, widespread anecdotal support. And there are proven physiological benefits from the long cool-down, or post race easy run, for the runner preparing to race a half or full marathon. Races of 5 to 15k create a degree of rapid depletion of the glycogen stores, leaving the body in a state similar to that of the latter stages of a longer easy run. A cool down of 25mins or more can thus coax the body to operate more efficiently in a depleted state, provoking the kind of beneficial longer term adaptations that marathoners and half- marathoners seek.

*Veteran or on-line members may notice that I often refer to warm-ups and warm-downs, rather than warm-ups and cool-downs. This is a habit that became reinforced through trying to save a few keystrokes when writing programs. Saying "warm-down" rather than "cool-down" enabled me to write things like "15mins warm-up/down"; thus, the phrase "warm-down" became my chosen variant at all times (except for in this posting!)

P-K at The National HM Championships:

The National HM championships in Montreal last Sunday produced some very strong candidates for the April POM. Leading the list is Emily Tallen, who rose from the ashes of two consecutive marathon disappointments to win her first Senior National title in a negative-split personal best of 1:15:42 on the typically sluggish Montreal course. Emily drilled the field (the Canadian part, anyway-- the race was won my New Zealand international Mary Davies, now of Ottawa)with a near personal best 10k performance over the final half of the race (and with an approximately 17:30 final 5kms, in particular). With the victory, Emily is now selected to represent Canada at the World HM championships in China this October (pending proof of fitness closer to the actual race date). Her next outing will be at the Vancouver Sun Run in two weeks, where she will be joined by me, Dylan W., and our next nominee, Rejean Chiasson.

Coming into the race feeling less than fully confident in his physical readiness (he suffered a drop in his iron stores in late February and had been uncharacteristically tired in his training since then, despite supplementation), Rejean nevertheless produced a second consecutive personal best performance over this distance, knocking another 20 seconds from his performance on the much faster Niagara Falls course last fall, in finishing as 3rd Canadian and 5th place overall. One wonders what kind of performance lurks within if he was able run this well feeling less than his normal, robust self. Perhaps we shall see when he lines it up in Vancouver next month.

Finally, 37 year old P-K rookie, but veteran road-man, Christian Mercier of Trois Rivieres QC, produced a third personal best at a third different distance in as many starts with his superbly paced 1:08:33, an 80 second revision of his old mark. Chris started his 2010 acing season off with a 90 second best over 15k, which he then followed up with a more modest 10 second amending of his 5k best, running 47:59 and 15:17 respectively. His new HM best was made all the more impressive by the fact that he collided with another competitor and fell hard in the final 50m of the race (perhaps less impressive in another respect, however, as the collision was probably his own fault; but, that is another story!).The fall probably cost Chris the final prize money spot in the Canadian division, but it certainly cost him some time, his wrist watch (smashed), and his pride (momentarily shattered). Chris will take to the streets next in Ottawa for the Nordion 10k, held as part of the International Race Weekend there on May 27th. Weather permitting, a fourth consecutive P.B. seems all but assured.

P-K POM for March; Endurance Summit

2010-04-07T22:41:00.003-04:00

The relatively dry winter and early spring seems to have set P-K athletes off to a quick start as they hit the roads for the 2010 racing season (with fast track times to follow in April and May, we hope).

Kicking things off was top P-K man Dylan Wykes, with two solid results in two outings: A brave, front-running 2nd place to Alberta- based Kenyan ace Willy Komsop at Harry's 8k in Stanley Park, the same athlete who turned Dylan away in the final few minutes of last year's Vancouver Sun Run (expect a west coast rematch in a month); and another hard fought runner-up effort at the end of the month, this time versus Canadian 1500m Olympian Taylor Milne of Guelph Speed River at the Around the Bay 5k, to close out the month. Running a close 3rd was national team member Rob Watson (steeplechase), also of the Speed River/Guelph group. These were reassuringly strong results for Dylan, who struggled for part of the winter with an achilles tendon strain. Next up for him is a trip out to California, where he will attempt to substantially revise the 10k personal best he set on the track out there one year ago.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, new member (but seasoned road racer)Christian Mercier was carving up personal bests over 15k and 5k respectively with new marks of 47:56 (old P.B. 49:20) and 15:17 (old mark 15:23). Chris will be trying to make it three-for-three when he hits the streets of Montreal in 10 days to contest the National Half Marathon Championships.

In the same race in which Chris re-wrote his 5k best, master (but rookie runner) and new member Rick Minichiello scorched a 15:27, to become the fastest over-40 runner in Canada so far this year (a mark that will surely stand up as one of the top few marks at the close of 2010-- unless he himself manages to better it a few times, which, odds are, he will). (I don't plan to make it easy for him, but I predict that Rick will be the first of the masters athletes I have coached to beat me head-to-head. And note to any men's 40-49 teams who have designs on beating P-K at the X-C nationals in the fall: Forget it!)

Finally, last year's P-K POY winner Mike Gill opened his season with a new personal best over 5k-- a hard-fought 15:45--, running a full 8 minutes (yes, minutes) better than the 220lb version of himself recorded on the same course exactly one year ago*. It's been a remarkable ride for Mike, but it's only getting started, as he had been slowed by a string of minor problems in the few weeks preceding the race. Expect him to flirt with low 15s over the course of the season, and perhaps sub-15 on the track in June or July.

*The race was actually April 1; but, it having been April fool's day, I'm counting it in March.

This is a fine clutch of performances to start the racing season, but Performance of the Month honours for March have to go to Rick Minichiello for a time so good that his old personal best is not even worth mentioning (actually, since he only started running in 2008, after a career as an elite cyclist, he didn't even have one!). Congrats, Rick. You are now in the running for P-K Performance of the Year for 2010, which is selected at the end of the season from all the POM winners. Its owner receives a small (but very nice) Mizuno prize package, courtesy of Mizuno Canada and Physi-Kultrunning.com

Finally for the this installment, I'd like to remind everyone that it is not too late to register for the Endurance Summit, a one day conference on running and racing to be held in conjunction with the Queen's University's 100 year alumni and World University Cross Country Championship festivities taking place in Kingston this weekend (April 10). For registration details follow this link: Endurance Summit

I will be participating on a panel along with national team athletes Dylan Wykes and Reid Coolsaet, and 1976 Olympian Thelma Wright. The topic will be "Making the transition from age-group athlete to senior elite".

Hope to see many of you there, or at the X-C race itself, which promises to be thrilling!

Injuries, Part II: Don't Be So Stressed

2010-03-09T13:59:00.004-05:00

Last week, I wrote about a set of common running pains that, while perhaps innocent-seeming at first, can quite quickly turn into nightmare injury scenarios for the unwitting runner. This week, I'd like to review some pains that, while sometimes worrisome because of the suddenness of their onset and acuteness of their intensity, are quite often relatively benign-- pains that represent the other side of the injury coin, if you will.

I begin with the same disclaimer as last week: I am not a trained sports-medical professional. Everything I have learned has been from my own long experience grappling with injuries, and with helping others suss out and cope with theirs. Nothing I say is a foolproof substitute for advice from a trained and experienced sports-med pro; but, my general advice may just save you some time and money, as well as alleviate some of your stress.

The first common but usually benign "pain condition" on my list would be severe "delayed onset muscle soreness" (DOMS). DOMS is what happens when an athlete-- usually, but certainly not always, a rank beginner-- plunges headlong into an exercise program and ends up all but crippled with muscle pain and stiffness 24-48 hours later (the pain and stiffness often peaks at 48 hours). This condition can feel like a serious problem, and very occasionally it will leave behind a longer term problem, such as a micro-tear; but, it is rarely more than a nuisance, and can often be trained through, albeit very slowly and gingerly. In fact, many people report a reduction in the pain and stiffness of DOMS if they're able to at least get up and move around a bit during the acute phase. I'm certainly not recommending that anyone over-do a new fitness activity, or dramatically increase their volume of training in an activity they're generally accustomed to; my point is that, if you do happen to overdo it once in a while, and your DOMS makes you feel as though you've done something really serious to yourself, you probably shouldn't worry about it, and you might not even have to take a day off. A good guide to assessing whether you just have really bad DOMS, or you have "blown" something, is if your pain in pretty generalized and bi-lateral (e.g. equally bad in both calves). And note: massage is generally pretty useless in helping recovery from DOMS, which will run it's course in 2-5 days no matter what you do. Your instinct may tell you to go for a massage, but don't waste your money. Icing and anti-inflammatories, on the other hand, might provide some relief, and maybe even speed of the process of recovery.

Next on the list is pain in the tendons that run along the top of the foot, known as extensor tendonitis or tendinopathy. When I was getting started in the sport back in the 1980s-- when running shoes didn't always fit as well, and/or when our parents couldn't, or didn't want to, shell out for new ones every 3 months-- this kind of pain (usually along the tendon of the big toe) was so common that my training partner and I referred to it as "the toe thing". What would happen is that, as our shoes began to wear out and fit less snugly, we would have to tie the laces tighter and tighter across the top of our feet in order to get the foot-bed of the shoe to maintain proper contact with our soles. The result would be that the laces would restrict the normal action of our extensor tendons, causing bruising, pain, and swelling. The pain was often pretty acute, but it rarely "went anywhere" in terms of more serious injury, and it was usually solved completely by wearing a slightly thicker sock, or simply replacing our shoes. Occasionally, I get reports of this kind of pain from my athletes, who worry that continued running will lead to bigger, longer term problems. I almost always advise them to keep training, or perhaps take one day off, but to address the root cause of the pain, which is usually quite simply done. The main danger of failing to properly address this problem is rarely the problem itself; the danger is in the risk of causing an injury to some other more central area of the support structure through excessive compensation, due to limping or otherwise adjusting foot-strike.

Another unsettling but usually benign condition is pain and tightness in the mid/high-arch of the foot. Justifiably wary of the dreaded PF, athletes often worry about any pain or tightness in this area of the body. However, while tightness in this part of the foot can set the stage for PF,it is not in itself cause for immediate concern, or reason to take a precautionary rest, particularly in younger runners, and runners with no history of PF. Many things can cause temporary tightness and soreness in the arch, chief of which are: running around the tight corners of an indoor track (left foot); switching too quickly into spikes, running on sand; and, running in shoes with too high arches (or, sometimes, breaking in orthotics with stiff arch supports). In the vast majority of instances, this pain will be temporary, and can be trained through. As I suggested last week, the real danger is with pain under, or just to the medial side of, the heel, and which is worst on getting out of bed or starting to run.

Finally, I would mention another kind of tendon pain: that which sometimes flares up in the tissues that join the groin and hamstring muscles to the end of the femur or top of the tibia (biggest bone of the lower leg). Like extensor tendonitis, but unlike the potentially catastrophic ITBFS, this problem is usually nothing more than a very painful nuisance; and, in addition to the pain, it can sometimes mess significantly with normal running form and posture. However, it rarely requires more than a couple of days of down-time, and perhaps a week or 10 days of rest from faster running, and can very often be trained through without serious complications. Runners who are repeatedly stricken by this condition, however, should definitely seek out professional advice in order to isolate the cause or causes of the groin and/or hamstring tightness that are usually at its root (e.g. a significant leg-length discrepancy). However, often a little rest and some Active Release Therapy (ART) are enough to put this problem right. (I have found that this pain is often set off by trying to run fast on very loose surfaces, such as snow or dirt, or by running fast downhill. It is therefore probably a good idea to refrain from these activities in particular. However, this condition usually temporarily precludes any kind of faster running; so, this is likely a moot point.)

P-K Racing Update: Wykes in Vancouver

Dylan Wykes finished a close and strong runner-up to Alberta-based Kenyan runner Willy Komsop, who is fast becoming Dylan's west coast road racing nemesis, having also bested him in the latter stages of last year's Sun Run. Results, pics and story are here available runnershoice.com

Coming off a late winter of hard but slightly patchy training, this was a very encouraging season opener for Dylan, who will be spending the next two weeks in the Vancouver area, getting some group support from Richard Lee's people, including Steve "OZ" Osaduik and Richard Moseley. (Rich was my university training partner, and coached of one of Canada's all-time best female athletes-- two-time Olympian, former road 4 mile world record holder, and long time Canadian 10k record-holder, Sue Lee-- who also happens to be his wife. And he was an elite-- and hardcore training machine-- in his own right, with P.B.s of 3:45/1500m, 13:59/5,000m and 29:35/10k). Dylan will race next in a low-key 5k in Stanley Park in 10 days.

Don't be So Lame: Uncool Injuries and How to Shun Them

2010-03-03T23:08:00.003-05:00

If you run regularly, even a little bit, you are bound to get injured. Whether more serious runners are injured more often than casual ones is a matter for debate* (and perhaps scientific research-- paging Dr. Hutchinson!); but, regular running will eventually lead to injury--usually only minor, but sometimes more serious. The question for all runners is, then, what to do about it. The answer can be divided into three looping parts: 1. Prevention, or how to increase one's chances of not getting hurt in the first place; 2. Diagnosis, or how to determine the severity of an injury-- a crucial determinant of the immediate response to given pain; and 3. How to rehab an injury, following an immediate treatment phase-- which closes the loop by becoming part of the ongoing injury (or re-injury) prevention plan. I have no intention of discussing all three of these aspects in relation to every possible running injury. What I'd like to do is focus on a few of the most common and troublesome of the injuries runners get. These are the ones that have cost me the most downtime as an athlete, and the ones that I know to be the most dangerous to the progress of the runners I coach (and about a quarter of all my communications with athletes at any give time concern possible injury states and how to deal with them).

I begin with the usual disclaimer: I am not a certified sports medical professional. Everything I have to say about injuries and how to deal with them is based on my long experience with having them myself and helping others through theirs. I will say, however, that since an injury represents an acute crisis in the life of a runner (and for the caring coach of that runner), the lessons that injuries can teach (and have taught me) are almost always indelibly etched. My recall for all things running-related has always been clear and detailed, but never more so than in the case of the serious injuries I've had, or had to help my athletes work through. I therefore would not hesitate to stack my knowledge of common running injuries- including prevention and rehab-- against all but the most experienced sports medical professionals (not least because I have learned much of what I know through interactions with some very good practitioners in the field.)

In my painful experience as athlete and coach, the most meddlesome injuries, and those not to be treated cavalierly in the early stages, are, in order of frequency, trickiness and potential down-time**: Plantar fascitis (PF)(particularly at or under the heel); Ilio-tibial band friction syndrome (ITBFS); achilles tendonitis (particularly at the heel, often accompanied by bursitis); and micro-tears/strains of the calf (especially of the upper-medial soleus, which is the smaller of the two main muscle groups that make up the posterior lower leg).

If ignored in the early stages, PF-- a chronic inflammation of the thick, tendinous band running along the bottom of the foot-- has the potential to become a career-ending condition for the serious runner. About the only good thing about this problem is the ease with which it is identified in the early stages(which makes ignoring it inexcusable). PF always manifests in the form of pain and tightness in bottom of the foot upon weight-bearing, usually at the start of a run or when getting out of bed in the morning. Since this is such a potentially troublesome problem, I recommend that all runners switch to cross training (anything that does not cause pain in the foot) at the first sign of pain, and that they seek professional advice concerning the potential cause of the problem-- which might include patho-mechanics of the foot stemming from structural problems and/or muscle weakness, and improper or excessively worn footwear, including casual shoes and boots. Before seeking professional advice, runners should commence icing the pain site 2-3 times per day (stretching is not a good idea in the acute stage). Longer term rehab and prevention solutions for P.F. always include strengthening the feet, and sometimes include: changes in footwear; stretching of the calves and feet; use of a "night-splint", in order to reduce trauma associated with the stretching of the shortened fascia upon getting out of bed in the morning; cortisone injection at the site; and, the introduction of orthotics (NOT to be tried until the exhaustion of all other options or without the advice of a very experienced provider). The bottom line is the P.F. is not one of those injury conditions that runners should attempt to "train through". Pain in this area is NEVER trivial, particularly in older runners, who may never have had the condition, but whose feet may be in the process of changing in ways that put them at greater risk for this problem.

ITBFS is just as easy to identify in the early stages as PF. It typically manifests as a sharp pain across the lateral aspect of the knee or, less often, the hip joint (the head of the femur, or thigh bone). The function of the ITB in running is to stabilize the hip and knee joints during the main weight bearing, or stance, phase of the stride. Running from just above the hip bone to just below the knee along the lateral aspect of the quadriceps, or main muscles of the upper leg, and already strung very tightly across the bony surfaces of the hip and knee-- which are accordingly protected by a cushiony little sac called bursa, which can itself become inflamed by excess friction-- the ITB can begin to suffer damage and become inflamed when the muscles that support the alignment of the hip and knee-- the gluteals and vastus medialis, muscles in the butt and medial knee respectively, and/or the foot-- are unable to do their job in response to the demands of running. IBTFS can strike any runner, from beginner to elite, when the demands of running suddenly overwhelm these basic support structures. For beginners, this can mean simply starting to run in the first place; and, for more experienced runners, it most often means a sudden increase in running volume, running on more hilly terrain than usual, or placing asymetrical demands on the legs, such as when running around a track, or for a long time on a cambered road. ITBS can also strike runners with significant leg length discrepancies, due to the increased load placed on the longer leg. About the only thing good about ITBFS is that it is so painful that it is difficult, if not impossible, to train through, even in the early stages. The nasty thing about it, on the other hand, is its intractability once established, particularly if rehab measures are not undertaken immediately. ITBFS can often be addressed immediately and effectively simply by stopping running. All sufferers, however, should assume that their condition was caused at least in part by weak underlying structures, and should rehab accordingly. Following the acute stage, effective and permanent rehab for ITBFS includes the wholesale strengthening of the glutes, quads and hips (google "Ilio-tibial band syndrome" for a plethora of effective exercises to target these areas). Some sufferers will also have to investigate possible foot deficiencies which may be causing excessive inward rotation of the knee joint (more common in women). In cases where ITBFS has clear structural roots, failure to rehab aggressively, and to maintain a routine for addressing underlying weaknesses, can result is years-- yes, years-- of frustration. While certainly less dangerous than PF, ITBFS can also be a career-ender for some runners.

Achilles tendinitis, like PF-- its close cousin in many respects, considering the shared role in plantar flexion of these two connective tissues-- can be devastating if ignored in the early stages. Figuring out the severity of achilles tendinitis (inflammation of the large tendon that runs between the soleus and heel on the back of the lower leg) however, is much trickier than for PF. Some milder soreness on the surface of the tendon can be effectively addressed through icing, the limited use of anti-inflammatories, a reduction in speed and duration of running, massage, and/or even a simple change of footwear. Sharper and more insistent pain in the achilles, however, is ignored at one's running peril, as is very chronic pain directly on the heel, which usually results from the inflammation of the bursa (again, the little sac between the tendon and the bone). Very sharp pain a the achilles, accompanied by complete loss of weight-bearing capacity, is usually the result of a complete rupture of the tendon. As you can imagine, this is never less than a complete catastrophe where future running is concerned. Sharp pain with associated swelling and thickening is also bad news, and should never be masked by medication and/or "trained through". Once achilles pain has reached this stage, the affected runner is looking at weeks of careful rehab, including icing and other basic physiotherapeutic modalities, such as eccentric strengthening, designed to reduce scarring and prevent proper healing. Victims of this kind of acute achilles tendinitis who forgo proper rehab are courting a re-occurrence of the problem, and quite probably a lifetime of struggle to run pain-free. Beyond the obvious culprit-- bad feet and/or improper footwear-- identifying the causes leading to achilles tendonitis (or chronic, longer term achilles pain, now referred to as tendinopathy or tendinosis) is not easy; in my experience, achilles pain can strikes just about any kind of runner at almost any time. Designing a plan to avoid the problem, therefore, is tricky. The usual cautions against making any sudden changes in the training regime related to the lower leg-- such as introducing a lot of hill running in a short space of time, or switching to lower-heeled footwear (racing flats and spikes) too quickly-- are probably the best we can do. My main emphasis, therefore, is on taking the problem seriously and dealing with it quickly and effectively when it strikes.

Of the four injuries under examination, the "calf-strain" or "micro-tear" in the soleus or gastroc, is by far the most difficult to anticipate and the fastest to strike. It can start on an easy run or at the peak of a hard workout, usually beginning with what feels like a mild cramp in the area. This cramping sensation can persist for as long as two or three days, or as little as 60 seconds, before turning into a sharp and completely debilitating pain that can remain for several weeks. The first such injury I had came on so suddenly and painfully that I was forced to walk the final four miles of my run, and I was unable to run as much as a step for the next three weeks, with a total recovery and rehab cost of seven weeks-- one of the worst injuries I had ever had. Dealing with the calf strain should therefore center on early recognition of the problem. Cramping and tightness in the upper-medial soleus should never be completely ignored or trained through, and those afflicted should commence icing and anti-inflammatories immediately. I typically recommend that athletes with cramping and localized pain in the danger zone immediately commence x-training and continue until the sensation disappears completely. This would rightly be considered an over-cautious approach if the only consideration were the initial degree of pain and discomfort, which can be quite mild, tempting the athlete to take chances; but, this condition, if present, can take sudden and nasty turn, leading to weeks of tedious rehab and x-training. As an aside, I often refer to this injury as "old man's calf", since it seems to strike master-age men disproportionately; so, older guys, don't take chances with your tight or crampy calves! Both prevention and rehab of calf strains involve "eccentric" strengthening of the calf muscles (i.e. performing contractions of the calf muscles while they are loaded and in a stretched position, such as when standing on a stair edge with the heel hanging over.) As rehab, however, this kind of work should obviously not be commenced until the acute phase of the injury is over (2-3 weeks after onset). Other preventative measures include: taking care when switching to lower-heeled shoes; not exposing working calves to cold weather (compression socks are probably a good preventative here); the gradual introduction of faster or uphill running; and finally, being careful about electrolyte balance. Those prone to cramping should seriously consider supplementing with chelated magnesium, and should hydrate with a properly formulated sports drink rather than water.

A final word on the subject of running injuries in general: Since they are inevitable, serious runners should have a well established cross training routine, involving the use of familiar and effective modalities, such as elliptical training, water running, swimming, or cycling. This will make them less hesitant to pull back on their running when possible injury situations crop up. And top athletes, as depressed as they might be about the setback, typically attack their cross training with the same sense of purpose that they bring to their running. Since x-training is typically less familiar to our bodies, and does not perfectly target the parts of our system that make us faster runners, it must be performed with greater intensity than our running in order to have even close to the same conditioning effect.

*My own theory, based on experience, is that causal runners suffer much higher rates of injury-- that is, injuries per kilometers run-- than serious runners, and elite runner in particular, and that they miss more time due to injury than serious runners; in fact, many casual runners don't think they have it in them to become serious runners precisely because of the frequency with which they become injured. Serious runners are injured less often than casual runners, I think, because they have, through their training, developed adaptations that enable them run more without being injured. At the extremes, genetics are also undoubtedly a factor in determining injury rates between elite and non-elite runners; the very things that make elite runners much faster than casual runners also make them less prone to injury. However, the vast majority of casual runners can, through building their training volumes carefully, and through utilizing the kinds of rehab, strength and x-training supports mentioned above, safely make the transition from casual fitness runner to serious racer.

**Stress-fracture victims will likely object to my exclusion of this fairly common and usually catastrophic condition. I exclude it, however, because, in all but those who have had them at least once before, stress fractures are virtually impossible to distinguish from more common and usually benign kinds of pain. They cannot therefore be prevented in their early stages because, by the time they show symptoms, they are usually already well entrenched; and, because runners can't interrupt training for every small pain in the area of the shin, foot, femur or sacrum (all common stress fracture sites) in order to prevent a condition which is relatively rare for most runners, and which, if it turns out to be the problem, will already be established anyway. I exclude the stress fracture, in other words, because, while a persistent problem for a specific category of runners, they are pretty rare in general, and because so little can be done to prevent or identify them in time in those who are prone.

January POM and P-K at the Kingston Twosome

2010-02-17T12:02:00.003-05:00

Since I generally council against serious racing in the weeks between the end of the long Canadian racing season in early December and its beginning in late March, there's rarely much meaningful club racing action on which to report for the weeks before X-mas until the clocks "spring forward". There was, however, one performance in January which would be a worthy Performance of the Month nominee in any month-- Dylan O'Sullivan's 23 second personal best over 3k in Thunder Bay-- and it is the POM for January.

Following almost 8 months off for various health-related problems beginning in January 2009, Dylan returned to action very tentatively in the late summer of the year. In his first few harder sessions, a pace of only 3:45/km was sufficient to put his heart rate into threshold-pace range. But, in a little more than 3 months, he had become a scoring member of both his school's OFSAA silver medalist team-- finishing a flat-on-the-back 23rd place-- and the P-K junior boys medal-winning team at the National X-C championships in Guelph, where he finished 33rd. After a short break, followed by 5 weeks of hill and fartlek training alongside yours truly and his high school team mates*, Dylan decided to enter an indoor 3000m race-- his first track race in almost 2 years-- while on a recruiting trip to Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. He would proceed to win the event with the aforementioned 23 second personal best-- a negative-splitting 8:52 (4:30 and 4:22)-- completing his year long rise from the ashes.

*In related news, the "Sydenham Boys" (Jeff Archer, Dylan O., and Rob Asselstine) finished 2,3,4 (behind P-Ker Rejean Chaisson)in a 3k race at the Dome Louis Riel (an indoor 400m complex near Orleans in East Ottawa) in 8:41-43 respectively. These results represent a remarkable improvement for all three. Even since late fall, these boys have made tremendous gains in both fitness and confidence. From the unique perspective of coach and regular training partner, I can assure all of their competitors in the upcoming school and summer club seasons that they will be forces to be reckoned with. Forget their fall 09 incarnations; the Sydenham boys will be all but unrecognizable when they hit the outdoor track in 2010, and may even make a little OFSAA history-- for very rarely, if ever, have three distance runners from one small high school performed simultaneously at the the level they are fast approaching. (And big congrats go to Rejean, who ran a solo personal best of 8:33. Look for R.C. to pick-up where he left off in Niagara Falls last year, where he finished runner-up in a 3min. personal best of 1:06:33. Next stop: Sub- 1:06 and sub 30/10k!).

(For those interested in the details, the Sydenham boys' 3000m times were achieved without any focused max V02 work at all. Their training since December has been confined strictly to: one fartlek session of 16 to 26mins total, with speeds ranging from 1500 to 10k race effort separated by "recoveries" of 40-90 secs run at 3:20-40/km; and, one session of hill or track reps @1500 race effort, with recoveries of 75secs to 6mins [e.g. 6x600m in 1:33-36 with 3-4mins recovery]. Throughout, they have maintained weekly volumes of 90-100km/week. Further and perhaps even more rapid improvements are expected over the next 6-8 weeks, as the focus of their training shifts to tempo and interval sessions, and as their weekly volume increases to 110-115km/week. They will race only once more indoors this year-- at the NCIS meet in New York City on March 12th.)

In other P-K racing news, the local group competed at the Kingston Twosome event-- a Valentine's weekend tradition here in town-- with notable performances by the following athletes:

-New members Aimee Young and Colleen Coderre, who ran 40-50 second personal bests with their times of 21:10 and 21:28 respectively.

-New masters member Kevin Armstrong, who came close to a personal best with his 18:46.

-Dylan Wykes, who won the event over-all in 15:20 (following a 3min break from doing the course beforehand in 15:30!). Dylan looks to be fully rehabbed following a slight injury to his achilles in early January. Dylan will race next in Vancouver's Spring Run-off 8k on March 7.

-Emily Tallen, who won the women's division and finished 4th over-all in 16:53. If all goes according to plan, Emily will race next at the Around the Bay race at the end of March.

I'm still awaiting that guest-post from Performance of the Year winner Mike Gill, which I now expect to be a major milestone sports-literary blogging!!

P-K Spring Performance Preview

2010-02-04T10:09:00.011-05:00

As I await the final version of Performance of the Year winner Michael Gill's guest posting (expected imminently), I thought I'd satisfy a recent non-member's request for a little insight into the progress of P-K Athletes as they prepare for the upcoming competitive season. While it's impossible to make any meaningful predictions concerning who will do what over the course of the entire season, there are a few members whose consistently strong workout performances over the fall and winter have my spider senses tingling when it comes to their early season potential. But note: what follows is in no way intended to slight the work of athletes who go unmentioned. In fact, running being running, I fully expect that I will entirely miss at least one standout performer and administer the "kiss of death" to another by singling him/her out for early season greatness, only to have him/her encounter problems and fail to launch in the spring. The truth is, P-K athletes have in general been remarkably consistent in their training in what has been a challenging winter in just about all regions of the country.

P-K Juniors:

Foretelling the performances of kids in all but the shortest possible term makes trying to predict the weather look like the most exact of sciences. As I complained about in a much earlier post, kids rarely follow any predictable patterns or obey any known rules when it comes to either psychology or physiology. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, the age-class runner is a puzzle inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma (also a description of Wendy's latest seasonal treat, but that's another story!). Nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the following athletes will not move up a level starting this spring, such has been the extent of their recent progress in training:

-The trio collectively referred to as "The Sydenham Boys" (by me, anyway)-- Dylan O'Sullivan, Rob Asselstine and Jeff Archer. Since I have had the priviledge of working out alongside them since the end of the 09 X-C season, I've been able to feel their growing strength over the past few weeks in particular, and not just chart it on a stopwatch. And it has been considerable. All three have been consistently hitting close to 100km/week in training, and have been nailing their Tuesday (progressively longer fartlek) and Friday (hills and reps) sessions with remarkable power and precision. I am in my best winter shape since 2005, and it has been all I can do to keep up with them (and, in the fastest sessions, I have not even bothered trying!). Dylan provided a clue to the progress of all three when he recorded a race-winning, negative-splitting (4:31/4:22) 3,000m personal best last month in Thunder Bay (coming at the end of what had been perhaps his worst week of training all winter.) And the fitness of all three has continued to grow since then. They (along with and yours truly) will line up for an end-of-phase test of fitness next week over 3k in the Winternational meet at Ottawa's indoor "Dome" complex.

(Also included in this group is newly minted senior athlete Nick McGraw, who has now regained the form he had before his travel hiatus in 2008-09. Nick will hit the roads in the spring, aiming for a big 10k P.B. in Vancouver in May.)

-Grade 9 athlete Adrienne Morgan, who finished her first high school X-C season with a strong run at the provincial championships, and has been quietly making huge fitness gains of late. If she can translate her workout form into race results, Adrienne will create some pleasant surprises on the track this spring.

-Grade 10 athlete Adrian Noble. Despite a plague of minor illnesses, Adrian has continued to loom larger and larger within his training group, in spite of being its youngest member. With a healthier next few weeks, Adrian will continue the breakthrough he started last fall with his strong finishes at the high school and club X-C provincials.

Local Group Members:

Being composed of mainly masters-age athlete, the performaces of this category of athletes is as easy to predict as kids' is difficult.

-The new cluster of athlete's referred to in my notes as "Sub-Group One"-- Amy Young, Colleen Coderre; Will Baird, Bonnie L'Abbe, and Kitty Kerr. All newcomers to the group last fall, with recent 5k bests of between 22 and 25mins, and all having taken to harder, more structured training with aplomb, I expect members of this group to be among the contenders for the 2010 group performance of the year. All appear to be in shape to run between 20:30 and 23mins before the season even begins. Amy is currently preparing for Boston, and some of the others will test the waters in our local Valentines Twosome race on the 14th.

Fifty-plus ace Bob McGraw. Coming off his outstanding 4th place finish in a stacked 50-55 field at the National X-C championship last fall, Bob has continued to train at a consistently high level, and is poised to record some of his highest volume totals ever as he prepares for an assault on the 35min mark at this spring's Vancouver Sun Run. To do it, he will have to surpass the conditioning that enabled him to run 17:00 for 5k last fall, but all signs suggest that he may be already there, or very close to it.

P-K veteran Agathe Nicholson. Since she has an airway that is reactive to cold, dry air, Agathe is normally fairly quiet on the training front until the first intimations of spring. This season-- her first non-marathon focused one in a while-- however, Agathe is already looking strong. She recorded one of her best 5k times ever this fall (18:52, and on a slowish course) while in the later stages of marathon prep), and so is well positioned to challenge her P.B. this spring (18:37)-- and at the age of 49!

On-Line Athletes:

With this group-- a much larger and more varied one than either of the others-- my main concern is that I will leave someone out (for which I apologize in advance)! However, obvious candidates for strong spring performances include:

Up-and-coming senior elite road competitor Rejean Chiasson. Building on the fitness that enabled him to chop a mere 3mins(!) from his HM personal best (1:09:33 to 1:06:30), Rejean has been racking up big volume totals (routinely 140-160kms/week) while also working on the high-speed end of his racing range. Now almost finished the current training phase, Rejean will shortly embark on period of yet higher volume, following which he will attempt to revise his 10k and HM yet further, when he lines up at National HM Championships in Quebec City in April and the Vancouver Sun Run in May.

Fellow twenty-something racer Matt Pieterson. Matt is coming off a breakthrough summer, which saw him shed 30-odd seconds from his 5k P.B., and an X-C season in which he qualified to represent Canada at the World Student X-C Championships (to be held in, of all places, Kingston, Ontario in mid-April). Since the fall, Matt has also recorded some prodigious weekly volume numbers (albeit on the soft terrain of Victoria, B.C., where he is pursuing his LLB.) At present, he is preparing to represent the U of Vic in a series of indoor track races which, his recent track work suggests, will see his current P.B.s shortly consigned to the trash bin (or recycling box, since we're talking about B.C. here!). Looking to the spring and summer, Matt is as good a candidate as any to claw his way onto the lower ledge of first-tier Canadian distance running.

P-K Performance of the year owner, Mike Gill. Mike's 2009 run of improvement was so rapid that it can't possibly be finished yet. Expect him to raise eyebrows and provoke puzzlement (as in: "Who's that guy?") near the front end of races this spring and summer.

New-ish masters member Ray Moorehead of Nova Scotia. Ray has kept his racing to a minimum since joining, but has trained as consistently and well as anyone I've ever seen. Currently embarking on an ammbitious plan for success at the Boston Marathon, Ray looks set to make his mark as the spring and summer racing campaigns unfold. I fully expect his name to come up on the Performance of the Month nomination lists throughout the year.

Fellow master Troy Cox of frigid, snow-bound Huntsville, Ontario. Although not against the occasional retreat to the safety and comfort of his t-mill, Troy is support for the old theory that running in harsh conditions makes northern runners strong. Coming off a fall which saw him set an outstanding masters HM P.B. of 1:12:40 and perform strongly on P-K's provincial and national champion men's 40-49 X-C teams, Troy has managed to hold his training together nicely in the face of the elements this winter. Like Agathe, this spring will be his first non-marathon dominated racing season in a while; likewise, I expect to see very strong numbers beside his name as soon as the spring racing season gets underway.

Again, apologies those names I undoubtedly overlooked in this and the above categories. As I said, P-Kers in general have maintained an exemplary level of training this winter; thus, with winter consistency being the key to spring and summer success in this country, I expect all members to perform at very high personal levels this spring and beyond into summer and fall.

Un-Blinding Us With Science?

2010-01-27T14:21:00.017-05:00

I have been known to aver that running is a very simple sport. And I remain convinced that, notwithstanding the odd optional gadget, it is. In my post from a couple of weeks ago, I argued that running's relative simplicity had left it more or less untouched by technological change, at least when compared with other sports. But this raised a broader question concerning the role of science-based knowledge in the sport of running: What has science actually taught us about running; what, in other words do we know about running based on sound scientific research, as opposed, say, to less formalized modes of knowledge production? One early researcher in the then emerging field of exercise physiology was known to have offered that object of his investigations would be, to paraphrase: To discover the scientific basis of what the best coaches already knew based on trial and error; in other words, to verify a body of knowledge that had been accumulated and transmitted by means of actual practice rather than through the formal application of scientific method. This may have been a bit of false modesty on the part of the researcher-- surely he also believed he would discover new principles that would perhaps contradict, but at the very least improve on, what the best coaches knew, or thought they knew. The statement did, however, represent a clear acknowledgment of the centrality of experiential knowledge in the sport of running-- and on the part of a professional scientist, no less. Now more than 40 years on, we might wonder about the actual fruits of this still very fledgling but fast-growing field of research: Has exercise science only confirmed truths known by the best coaches?; Or, has it perhaps corrected misunderstandings and misconceptions embedded in everyday coaching practice, and even uncovered wholly new principles and the means for exploiting them in pursuit of better performance?

But first, a qualification: I have no formal scientific training myself (natural scientific training, that is; I have an unfortunate surplus of social scientific training!) I have, however, tried to make a point of keeping abreast of the science of racing and training as best I can. If you'd like to read about the science of running and exercise from an actual scientist-- and one with a high-level running background to boot-- check out journalist Alex Hutchinson's informative and highly readable blog Sweat Science

To begin, we might consider the state of knowledge about racing and training in the days before the advent of what would become today's "exercise science". What, exactly, was the content of the informal knowledge that the above mentioned researcher aimed to substantiate?

The first, most basic, and ultimately most consequential practical discovery in sports like running-- i.e. sports based on the testing of basic physiological limits-- was simply that of the "overcompensation" principle. Now utterly commonsensical, the idea that a basic physiological system-- e.g. a pattern of muscular contraction, short term and explosive or long term and continuous-- could be induced by means of systematic repetition, sometimes to exhaustion, to become more rather than less adequate to the original challenge (i.e. stronger rather than tired out and weaker), had first to be discovered through actual practice. This discovery would become the very basis of what we now refer to as "training" in simple strength and endurance sports (i.e. sports with a relatively small technical skill dimension). Before the discovery that exposing the organism to systematic stress could actually make it more rather than less capable, coaches and athletes operated according to the theory of energy conservation; or, the idea that the body possessed finite amount of vital energy that must be carefully preserved and marshaled in order to be powerfully released on the field of play. (For a brief and illuminating discussion of the discovery of "training", see Beamish and Ritchie Fastest, Highest, Strongest [2006]).

"Training" based on the overcompensation principle supplanted the older practice of "energy conservation" when athletes who exposed their bodies to controlled stress and recovery regimes began to seriously out-compete those who didn't (I leave it to Beamish and Ritchie to explain the social and political forces driving the new interest in winning that led to the discovery of this paradigm-shifting physiological principle.) But, in running in particular, coaches would very shortly thereafter begin a process of refinement of the basic principle of systematic "training" that would last up until the advent of exercise science in the late post-WWII period.

From the 1920s until the early post-WWII period, most runners trained by directly replicating the demands of their racing distances-- i.e. by running repeated bouts at or faster than their goal race pace, sometimes up to 5 times a week. (Today's runners might try imagining what it would feel like to run 10-20x400m at mile/1500m race pace five days in a row!) Far more effective than simply conserving energy for its cathartic release on race day, this kind of training nevertheless had it limits. As one can imagine, it was very psychologically stressful. For this reason, and because it probably over-stressed certain basic adaptive processes (but who really knew in scientific terms?), athletes often failed to improve after a couple of years on this kind of regime.

As a result, this kind of intense, daily, race-specific training would eventually give way to the practice of "periodization", in which runners trained at different speeds and over different terrains, depending on the time of year (which, as with the invention of "fartlek" and hill training, was also a concession to the vagaries of climate, geography and scarce resourses-- namely, the absence of groomed running tracks). The older method would survive in a limited way in contexts where facilities existed, and, more specifically, where rapid, short term gains were sought-- for instance, the U.S. college system and, to some extent the North American high school system which fed it. But, by the 1970s, most runners trained according to the principle of periodization. The most celebrated developer and proponent of this variegated approach would become the now legendary New Zealand coach Arthur Lydiard, famed for his uncanny success rate in turning athletes found ready-to-hand, some in his own neighborhood(!), into Olympic medalists and world record holders.

The periodization approach would lead to the development of the basic distinction between so-called "aerobic" and "anaerobic" running (really, just longer, slower running versus shorter, faster running). Out of this basic distinction would arise the techniques of the meduim length, intermediate paced run (the "tempo" or "aerobic threshold" run) and the Farlek session (see my November 17th post). And Lydiard himself would also place special importance on uphill running and "bounding" (a product of the particular environment of New Zealand, no doubt). Over time, coaches from every continent would create their own variations on the "periodized" training system, but it would remain the same in its essence up until the advent of "exercise physiology"-- and, many would argue, beyond to the present. And, while there had been rudimentary scientific investigations into the physiological mainsprings of the system (many in the context of USA-USSR Cold War military/scientific rivalry) "periodized" training remained the rather pristine product of simple trial and error on the part of coaches and athletes in the field. In the 40 or 50 years since the advent of systematic training, athletes had repeatedly opened up vast new frontiers of performance strictly on the basis of intuition, casual experimentation, and the informal dissemination of best practice within a remarkably open community of enthusiasts and competitors (hostile political establishments notwithstanding). (For an interesting glimpse into this world, see Bob Phillips short biography of Czechoslovakian distance running legend Emile Zatopek entitled Za-to-pek!).

It was precisely this "best practice" that the above-mentioned early exercise physiologist set out to investigate by means of the scientific method and modern diagnostic technology. To proceed directly to the question at hand, what can we say have been fruits of his and others' investigations over the past 30-40 years? What has been confirmed, what falsified, and what, perhaps, newly discovered? The record, I would suggests, is mixed, and the precise value of exercise physiology-- or more broadly now, "exercise science"-- for the practice of run-training remains questionable.

Of the contributions that science has made to our understanding of how to improve distance running performance, I would include the following five in the category of "unquestionable":

1. The simple confirmation that distance running proficiency is rooted in "aerobic capacity". Lab analysis confirming that distance runners typically have higher maximum volume of oxygen per kilogram uptake capacities (MV02) than non-runners, and that the best runners tend to have greater capacities still, clearly established the physiological basis of the sport, and pointed the way towards future improvements. And the discovery through longitudinal studies that MV02 could be improved through run-training only confirmed what the best athletes and coaches already new. Today, there are debates about the role of so-called "running economy" (the speed of a runner relative to his/her MVO2, which is an aspect of an athletes overall "aerobic power") and how to improve it, but the broader role of MV02, or aerobic capacity, in explaining distance running success is now beyond question.

2. The discovery of the role of the spectrum of muscle fibre composition (so-called slow and fast-twitch fibers) in determining relative success in running events of different distances. "Muscle fiber" theory revealed that there were probably immutable physiological determinants of running success at the different extremes of the running distance spectrum; that, notwithstanding some cross-trainability of these different fibres, distance runners and sprinters were likely born into their respective event groups. Scientific confirmation of this basic reality, while it has been more useful at the extremes than at the margins of the spectrum, has helped to inform the event choice, and even the specific training, of thousands of athletes.

3. Clarification of the physiological effects of training at the cellular level. Basic research in exercise physiology has gone a long way in specifying what happens to our muscle and blood cells when we train for running at different intensities. The simple discovery that our muscles, including our heart, become stronger and better able to store and make use of different energy sources, and that our blood volumes increase over time in response to our muscles' training-induced demand for more oxygen to ignite energy metabolism, has been a powerful support for the idea that training improves performance, and that it can likely do so over many years. Now, athletes have a scientific basis for continuing to pursue their sport competitively for years beyond what would have been considered "peak age" 50 or 60 years ago. One result is that we have now seen runners in their mid and late 30s win Olympic medals in running events where precisely these kinds of long term training adaptations would seem to be most relevant-- the 10,000m and Marathon.

4.The theory of "lactic acid". The discovery that exercising muscles produce this substance the nearer the point of failure they reach-- even though the reasons why they produce it, and even its role in muscle physiology, have recently been shown to be unclear-- represents a breakthrough that has enabled many coaches to more carefully regulate the intensity of training on a day-to-day basis. For whatever the reason, and to whatever longer term effect, the presence of high levels of lactate in an athlete's body is a clear marker of training stress. And while the measurement of blood lactate levels is still a somewhat expensive and invasive procedure, it is now within the grasp of at least the club-level athlete, if not the recreational age-group athlete.

5. The discovery of the role of dietary carbohydrates in the physiology of distance running. While knowledge about the optimal ratios of carbohydrates to fats and protein in the diets of runners continues to be revised, all runners are now aware of the primacy of carbohydrates in fueling performance in endurance events, putting paid to the "steak and eggs breakfast" theory of yesteryear!

Beyond these five very broad contributions-- which vary in terms of the extent to which they add to, supplant, or only confirm elements of already existing practical knowledge in the field-- we find a welter of narrower discoveries and claims (many of which are ably documented and vetted in Alex Hutchinson's blog referenced above).

Among these are studies that confirm the performance enhancing properties of various drugs not intended for such use, and form the basis for their banning. In these instances, the contribution of science to the sport is unquestionable. Other recent studies have examined things like the effectiveness of long established conventional training modalities such as static stretching and post-workout massage (both found to ineffective in reducing injury, and perhaps even counter-productive), and the benefits of barefoot versus shod running (still very inconclusive). With more funding for this kind of targeted research, we can no doubt expect to see conventional coaching wisdom turned on its head. We can also no doubt expect to see more scientific validation for emerging and established training practices, such as various kinds of strength and flexibility training.

Notwithstanding the light that science has been able to shine on the accumulated practical knowledge of run-training-- and, I would predict, in spite of future scientific discoveries-- running looks set to remain the very technically simple (if practically VERY difficult!) sport it has always been. If it manages to retain what's left of its sporting integrity in the face of the inevitable spate of new doping technologies (with "gene-doping" being by far the most threatening), running is likely to remain the very simple challenge of athlete vs. himself and the elements that it has always been, even at the highest levels. Our sport is, after all, the only one besides soccer in which athletes from some of the poorest nations on earth compete on more than even terms with athletes from the richest nations. If science and technology had ever played more than a secondary role in running, this could never have happened. Moreover, runners should take great heart in the simplicity of their sport. Its homely charm is what preserves it as a respite in a world increasingly dominated by technological inter-mediation. We can likely rest assured that machines and chemicals will never fully colonize it. It is likely to persist in its more or less pure form (buffet belts notwithstanding!) as long as we're able to preserve congenial, natural spaces in which to do it; which is the greater challenge of technology faced by all the world.

Feeling Groupy and P-K Performance of the Year

2010-01-20T21:36:00.016-05:00

Approximately half of the 60-odd athletes-- ages 14 to 50ish-- under my tutelage carry out all, or very nearly all, of their training alone, while the other half trains mostly in sub-groups made up of runners of similar speed (albeit frequently of different ages). I, personally, have spend virtually my entire career training completely alone, easy runs included. Which kind of athlete, you might ask, is better off when it comes reaping the full benefits of their training efforts-- the grouper or the loner?

And the answer is...wait for it...: It depends. That's right, "it depends", which is no less true an answer for being boringly hedged. It depends on the athlete and it depends on the dynamics of the group in question. And, it depends on the kind of training being undertaken.

When it comes to athletes, you might be tempted to think that those who prefer to train in groups do better if they're able to do so. The truth, however, is that those who strongly prefer group training are often those most dependent on it to get their workouts done, and at the right pace. The athlete who has come to rely on a group to train properly, or at all, is probably best advised to spend some time learning the discipline of training alone. This is a problem that many younger and exclusively school-based athletes must confront; if they want to continue their careers into adulthood, they must often learn the discipline of working out alone. For some this comes more easily than for others. But all athletes who choose to train exclusively in groups should learn to do some training alone; first, because they may occasionally find that a group is not available to them; and second, because learning to train alone can actually help improve their racing skills. Learning to pace without the aid of a group, and developing the ability to push hard without the familiarity of regular training partners to act as cues, can make one a more well-rounded athlete, able to thrive in a wider range of racing situations. I'm also convinced that a stint of training alone can make an athlete mentally stronger. Learning to train alone when we've never done it before, and are perhaps afraid to try, can reveal heretofore unknown depths of resolve and inner strength from which to draw in difficult race situations.

Likewise, athletes who prefer to train alone exclusively can benefit from going against their personal grain once in a while. Since racing is almost always a group activity-- albeit one in which the members are not necessarily inclined to act supportively(!)-- it is necessary for all athletes, and particularly those inclined to be loners and/or control freaks when it comes to their workouts, to learn to run with others around, and to do it in spite of-- indeed partly because of-- the chaos that sometimes ensues when five or more fired-up runners all attempt to negotiate a given training pace. As a lifetime loner (albeit less by choice than by the simple necessity of very rarely having more than a couple of athletes of similar speed ready to hand), I always felt a little awkward and generally more tired at a given pace when training in a group than when going it alone-- that is, unless I was leading the repeat. I couldn't help but think that I might have been a more effective racer had I been able to do more group training.

As a general principle, and for the vast majority of athletes, group training is a very powerful tool. The vast majority of the world's top runners, and an even greater percentage of the best runners at lower levels, are the products of group training. In practice, however, the effectiveness of group training will vary according to the "culture" and performance profile of the group in question. Simply put, when the members of a training group are cooperative and mutually supportive, when they understand that a workout is a means to becoming fitter for racing and not itself a competition, and when the range of abilities within a group is very narrow, group training is at its most effective. This is why the best coaches will tend to avoid the "one big group" approach to workouts-- i.e. in which the entire group, regardless of ability, storms off into the session at the same time, sorting themselves as they go along, and usually after most of them have already undermined the purpose of the session by starting too fast. Effective use of group training starts with a clear understanding that the best way for athletes to improve is NOT by trying to go as fast as possible in every session, or by futilely chasing a faster athlete week in and out. With this principle clearly understood, the knowledgeable coach will separate his/her larger group into sub-groups based on both ability and personal compatibility, disregarding both age and gender if necessary.

Finally, the effectiveness of group training varies with the kind of work being done. I find that group training works most effectively at either end of the intensity spectrum.

For longer, easy runs, a group dynamic can be very useful, even when a group is not all that evenly matched in terms of speed. On easy days, faster runners can often run with slower runners if faster runners are willing to go at the slower end of their easy pace range, and vice-versa; or, if their pace ranges don't overlap, the faster runner is prepared to run some extra time to make up for the slower pace. Given that the most important thing about easy days is simply getting them done consistently, the ability of a group to provide company and a little welcome distraction once in a while makes it a very useful support for this kind of training.

For the fastest kinds of training we do-- i.e. intervals at 1500/mile or 800m race pace-- the group dynamic can be highly effective not for its capacity to facilitate disassociation and enable us to simply "get through the session"; but rather, for the way it encourages us to focus and relax. When trying to run at middle distance race speeds, the premium is on the ability to relax and "float", so as to forestall the inevitable moment of muscular failure. In my experience, there is something about having others around going at similar speeds that facilitates this kind of relaxation; in particular, having another body in front, and thus not having the responsibility for establishing the correct pace for the work-bout, seems to make running at close to tops speeds for prolonged periods of time just a little bit easier. Then, of course, for those who actually plan to race middle distance events, some familiarity with what to do when there are other bodies in very close proximity-- all vying for space along the shortest line around the track-- and changing speeds as they either falter or forge ahead, is essential for top performance. And, the greater ratio between stress and recovery times involved in faster training makes it easy to regroup before each repetition without compromising the session for the slightly faster members of the group.

It is when attempting to train at intermediate paces that working in a group can become sub-optimal in the longer term for individual members. At these intermediate speeds-- in particular, max V02 paces and tempo run paces, which make up the vast bulk of the faster running that most runners do, and which involve the very careful combining of volume and pace-- group dynamics can sometimes undermine the training of individual members, even when the group is fairly evenly matched. In this kind of running, where the difference between controlled running-- training-proper, if you will-- and time-trialling is a very fine, and where sessions are typically frequent and very demanding, the group-driven competitive inducement to run even a little bit faster than is optimal can slowly degrade an athlete's performance over time, even when the additional intensity stimulates some rapid short term gains. This risk is particularly acute for the slowest member of any group, who must sometimes run a little faster than might be optimal in a given session in order to remain in touch with the group. The reverse might be said for the faster members of a group-- that they must sometimes run slower than might be optimal for them in a given session in order to remain in the group. This is certainly true, but the effects of running workouts perhaps a little too slowly on a regular basis are far less destructive than the effects of trying to run even a little too fast every week.

With these qualifications duly registered, my advice to all runners is to avail themselves of the group training option where possible, and assuming all other factors are equal. The trouble, of course, is that all relevant factors-- such as the convenient availability of a good group, combined with adequate coaching expertise-- are rarely equal. The majority of the "solo" athletes with whom I work train this way by necessity-- either because their work and family demands compel them to train at irregular times, or because the available group options do not come with sufficiently expert coaching guidance. These athletes have contacted me in order to make the best of their training options, subject to the constraints of their daily routines. In situations where the group option, combined with good coaching, is available, however, athletes hoping to maximize their performance are well advised to take it. And even athletes who can't make the group option work for them are advised to find a cooperative and equally endowed training partner or two at least once in a while, in order to experience, if only in a small way, some of the benefits of the group experience. Until now, I have said nothing about the social benefits of group training. The question of performance aside, running with a regular partner or group can be the basis for deep and abiding personal bonds. (My local group has become a group of lifelong friends, who socialize together on a regular basis). And when these social benefits are combined with those of performance, the result is a powerful synergy that can propel individual athletes to levels that they would not have imagined possible. Happy athletes training alongside athletically compatible partners are a potent force for success at any level.

In the best training groups, success feeds on itself until it becomes almost routine and to be expected. Witness, for example, the exploits of Guelph's Speed River Track Club, which combines senior elite with university and junior level athletes. Individual members of this group have tended to perform far above the levels they achieved as individuals, or as members of other groups. Now that this group has achieved "critical mass" in terms of its size, cohesion, quality of coaching, and professionalism of administrative support, the process of achieving national carding, winning national championships, or qualifing for national teams, has become utterly demystified for its individual members, who only have to look at the person beside them to know what success at this level looks like and precisely how it is attained.

The P-K Performance of the Year

After much deliberation-- including going back over the record of the group for the months of Jan to September-- I have decided on the winner of the 2009 P-K Performance of the Year, who will receive that promised Mizuno prize package!

But first, the nominees and winners for the months of January to September (and apologies to anyone with a worthy performance that I may have overlooked-- I didn't get much, if any, input from the membership on this, and I don't think I missed any of the potential winning ones):

January: Emily Tallen's fine 1:16:40 HM run in Naples, FLA at the end of the month. This was a P.B. for Emily, and was good for 5th place in a strong field.

February: Then rookie and 49 year old Myra McDonald's 20:29 5k, set in the customary bone-chilling cold of Kingston Road Runner's Association's annual "twosome" race. Myra also went on to be nominated for her performance at the provincial X-C championships in November.

March: Then new member Troy Cox's very fine 2nd place finish in the master's division of the Around the Bay Road race,in difficult conditions, and while in the the early stages of preparing for the Ottawa Marathon... in mid winter...in Northern Ontario. Troy would also go on to be nominated for his outstanding 1:12HM masters win in Toronto last fall.

April: Rejean Chiasson's P.B. and prize money-winning performance in the Vancouver Sun Run-- his first big out of province road race, and one of the first big races, period, for this very fast improving athlete. Rejean would also recieve a second nomination for his breakout 2nd place P.B. performance (by 3mins!) in Niagara Falls in October.

May: In the spirit of relentless objectivity, my own winning and Canadian age group record-setting performance on the slowish Nordion 10k course in Ottawa. Battling a chronic hip injury, and coming off a near lifetime personal worst time a month earlier in Victoria, this would rank as one of the better performances of my master's career.

June: High school senior Charly Allan's 1500m in the heats at the provincial high school championships. Making the final in a near personal best, Charly completed his remarkable run from grade 9 back-of-the-packer to one of the best in the province. As a consequence of this result, and his peerless record of academic achievement and community service, Charly went on to receive the Brian Maxwell Scholarship, worth $5,000 and awarded yearly to Canadian university-bound provincial distance runner who best combines athletic achievement with high-level scholarship and conscientious citizenship.

July: Dylan Wykes very strong runner-up 48:31 performance in the Nissan 10 Miler in Toronto, while in full preparation for the Berlin Marathon in August.

August: Dylan's 33rd place finish in the marathon in the 2009 World Championships. The difficulty of competing in the marathon at this level, overseas, and in complex weather conditions, can never been underestimated, even in the case of an athlete of Dylan's calibre. Dylan did not run a personal best (almost no one in the race did); but, he wasn't far off, and he held it together brilliantly after a bold move at the halfway point in this, his first major championship marathon.

September: New high school junior member Clara Langely's dominating win in the Trinity High School Cross Country Invitational. Having been out of the country and away from training the entire summer, Clara rounded into shape with remarkable speed, and won this event going away. Clara's run was all the more notable considering she had won a cross country race only once in her high school career. She followed up her Trinity performance with a a similarly impressive run in Brockville later in the month, this time easily dispatching the senior girl's field.

For the monthly winners for October to December, see previous postings in the blog.

And without further ado, the winner of the 2009 P-K Performance of the Year is on-line member Michael Gill, for a mind-boggling run of improvement that culminated in his 2nd place performance in the master's race at the national X-C championships. Mike's performance received the nod narrowly over Dylan's Berlin performance, with deciding factor being the sheer scale and rapidity of improvement involved in putting Mike into position to achieve the performance he did in November. Mike had been a decent university level athlete, but had left the sport years ago, and had accumulated significant excess weight on his 6', 3" frame in the meantime-- which, all the more remarkably, he was still in the process of trying to shed when he began training with me in May of the year! Simply put, I have never seen such a rate of improvement in any athlete at any age. This probably means that Mike will have a hard time topping his achievement in 2010, but one never knows!

Watch this space throughout the year for the names of the monthly P-K performance winners for 2010. The early front runner for January 2010 is junior member Dylan O'Sullivan, who won an indoor 3000m race in a personal best of 8:53, a lifetime improvement of 23 seconds-- and this after having missed most of 2009 with health problems.

10 Changes that Shook the Runner's World

2010-01-12T13:21:00.010-05:00

Recent reflections on the first decade of the new millennium have been filled, as these kinds of reflections almost always are, with references to technology-- how fast it has been moving, and how, once again, it has Changed Everything. The truth is, sometimes technology creates fundamental change of one kind or another; but, more often, it doesn't change much that's fundamental about the way we all go about our business. Most technological change amounts to variations on an established theme-- quantity rather than quality, if you will. But what if we break things down a bit and consider the effects of technology at the micro-level. Surely, in some small areas of life-- those of our various leisure pursuits for example-- technological change has had transformative impacts. Or has it? What, for instance, has been the impact of technology on the sport of running in the past few decades? This week, I propose to consider this question in terms of my own experience with the running-related technological innovations that have appeared over the course of my own 30 year career. In what follows, I present my ranking of the 10 most consequential running technologies to appear since I laced up my first pair of trainers, along with a few words on the total impact of these innovations. I also offer a couple of dishonorable mentions in the technology department-- so called innovations that are nothing of the sort.

Here, in reverse order of consequentiality, are my choices:

10. Changes in footwear. Ironically, given the amount of general hoopla surrounding running shoes since the advent of the first running boom, innovations in this area seem to have had very little impact on the activity itself-- at least where the proverbial rubber hits the road. In my own experience, some models of shoes from the early 1980s were actually superior to most of the models on offer today, in terms of basic performance and injury prevention. And, there was definitely a period in the last 3 decades when shoes seemed to be getting worse-- over-engineered and too encumbered with new technologies. Recent innovations in the paring down and simplifying running shoes are welcome, but they don't really represent a net gain when the whole era of running shoe innovation is considered. In my view, we need only only concern ourselves with running shoes from the point of view of avoiding those that are bad for us. The best shoes today, as always, are those ones that simply stay our of our way; that enable us to run as long and fast as our own bodies will allow us. That said, the shoes of the past 30 years really do represent a net gain on what came before. The are, by and large, much lighter, more flexible, and more responsive than anything worn in the late 1970s. Its still worth while taking some time to examine the claims, and the performance, of different brands or running shoes. Just don't expect them to do more than their basic job.

9. Satellite-based measurement modalities. Things like Google Mapping, MapMyRun, or the portable wrist-worn GPS certainly represent innovations; but again, their high profile is probably out of proportion to their net value-added. A technological innovation is important only in relation to what it is attempting to improve on or replace. In the case of these technologies, what is being replaced is our own ability to estimate distance for the purposes of assessing our training paces, and we can learn to do this quite accurately with no more technology than a wrist watch. In my case, these modalities have done little more than confirm the accuracy of my own estimations from as long ago as 25 years. I wouldn't go as far as to agree with those curmudgeons who argue that these tools are more trouble than they're worth, however. But I do think their suddenly high profile is way out of proportion to their net benefit. They certainly have their uses, particularly for beginning runners, and those who do a lot of running in strange areas. However, if they don't already own a good set of winter running clothes, a treadmill, or an elliptical trainer (see below), most runners would be better off spending their money on these items first.

8. Heart rate monitors. Much of the above also goes for HRMs. These devices provide another good measure of training intensity, to go along with the established ones-- the wrist watch and our own brains-- but their value-added is not on the level with their pervasiveness, or, I think, with the claims made on their behalf. I completely disagree, for instance, with the premise of a whole training system built around heart rate levels. I simply don't think HR alone is a fine-grained enough measure of training effort to support this kind of burden. I have always taken flack from HR aficionados for this stance, but it's a flack I'm more than willing to take.

7. Flexibility training. This one may have ranked slightly higher, except for the fact that there is as yet no clear evidence that flexibility training really increases performance or reduces injury in runners! Then why count it as an innovation at all, you might ask. In spite of the ongoing lack of supporting research, millions of runners remain sold on an intuitive level on the benefits of stretching, and on new types of stretching, including A.I. (Active Isolated), Yoga, and various kinds of dynamic flexibility exercises that aim to increase functional range of motion. Although I hedge my bets by the not making a religion of stretching, I count myself among those millions who are convinced on the pure level of "feel" that flexibility work enables them to run further and faster, and cope with injuries better. And I think one day science will discover the secret of what many runners "know" deep in their fibers. Anything that has lasted as long as stretching has among runners must be working on some level. Runners, after all, tend to be busy people, and busy people will tend over time to give up doing things that they feel are not of direct benefit to them.

6. Clothing. While advances in running shoe technology have not amounted to all that much in 30 years, innovation in the area of basic running apparel-- from the hi-tech "wicking" t-shirt, to the spandex tight, to and the vast array of super-lightweight winter garments-- has been nothing short of breathtaking. In fact, advancements in running clothing would rank even higher in my mind if we were only considering running in Canada. In most of the rest of the world, one's choice of running apparel is not all that significant one way or another. But for those who have to face four months or more of winter running, and who are old enough to remember the cotton sweatshirts and baggy, heavy, crotch-dragging gym pants that used to pass for cold weather gear 30 years ago, the advent of wafer-thin, breathable and genuinely warm winter running fabrics has been nothing short of miraculous. I would even go so far as to say that the invention of decent winter running clothing has single-handedly increased the total number of year-round active runners in places like Canada.

5. "Active Release" therapy. As with stretching, the jury is still largely out regarding the proven benefits of this form of injury treatment. But again, millions of injured runners desperate to return to the fray will swear by the bang-for-buck value of this therapy, which combines the use of pressure points with the active bending and stretching of the affected limb. My own experience with the technique-- which I first encountered in my mid to late 30s, when my body was beginning to lose the last of its youthful resilience in the face of hard training -- was that I could reduce my injury down time by 50% or more over simply resting and cross training through timely application of ART. Such was the effectiveness of this technique that what might have been stubborn problems, costing me days or even weeks of training in bygone days, could be eliminated in as little as two treatments at the hands of a skilled practitioner. I owe a good deal of my success as a master runner to ART, combined with innovation #4 below.

4. Pilates-based "core" strength training for runners. Originally developed as a therapy for injured dancers, core training was gradually adapted for runners looking for ways to address the underlying causes of so-called "overuse" injuries, and perhaps get a little faster in the process. Elites runners have probably always had decent natural strength in the areas covered by core strength training-- the lower and deep abdominals, the low-back, and the glutes-- good natural core strength being no doubt a part of the secret of their elite-ness in the first place. The real value of core strengthening has therefore been in enabling later-starting, previously inactive, and older runners to reduce pain and injury associated with weakness and lack of stability in these nexus regions of the body. A relatively late-breaking innovation, core strength will no doubt continue to have an impact in keeping more aging runners in the game longer, as well as help late-comers get started without succumbing quickly to common overuse injuries.

3. Expertly made custom orthotics. This one is bound to provoke some sharp disagreement, but not because the custom shoe insert is not a major running innovation; rather, because orthotics tend to be over-prescribed, and are too often poorly made, at least for the purposes of serious running. For the millions-- including many of the sports top performers-- who have relied on them to make the difference between repeated, chronic injury and success, they are almost as vital as oxygen itself. The minimalist fervour notwithstanding, the fact is that not everyone's feet are suited for the mile upon mile of running on pavement and track that success in running requires, and we will never live in a world where more than a few of us can get away with running barefoot. Properly prescribed, expertly made, and carefully readjusted by the hand of a craftsman or woman who knows the biomechanics of running, the contemporary orthotic insert, made of state of the art materials, has become as important a basic running innovation as the running shoe itself.

2. Tie: The lightweight and affordable home/club treadmill and the elliptical trainer. Ubiquitous because they have now become so relatively cheap, the home/club treadmill has quietly revolutionized running by making it far more accessible to inhabitants of environments unfriendly to outdoor, winter, or after dark outings. Male runners; runners who live in temperate, runner-friendly communities; runners who can run in daylight whenever they choose; and runners who are not and have never been the parents of small children may scoff at the suggestion that the affordable treadmill represents an important innovation. But, runners for whom getting outside poses special challenges will know that easy access to the 'mill can make the difference between being a serious runner and not bothering at all. As for the elliptical trainer, it is almost everything the treadmill is, with the added benefit that it can also be used as a cross-training modality while rehabbing injuries. For most runners, in fact, the purchase of a home elliptical trainer is probably better value for money than a home treadmill. And perhaps better value than either for most runners is the purchase of a gym membership, which provides cheap access to both types of machine, plus a great place to do some core strength exercises!

1. The internet. The internet? Indeed. Before you dismiss this as an easy catch-all (what activities, after all, has the internet NOT at least indirectly transformed?), consider the following: In the past 30 years running has gone from being a sport regularly covered in the national media to an fringe sport with no more mainstream media profile than-- to take one of many possible examples-- "mixed martial arts", a sport that remains illegal in many jurisdictions! Thus, as a sport, running now been forced to take up residence almost exclusively on the internet. More than this, however, it currently thrives on-line. Running now seems to depend on the new technology more heavily than most other sports, and seems to be growing in spite of this, or perhaps because of it. Runners seem to be a uniquely computer friendly lot. They have adjusted readily, even happily, to the reality of having to watch even the biggest events on their sporting calendar exclusively via live-stream webcasts. (In fact, many of us now prefer it this way, considering how fragmentary and ill-informed mainstream coverage has become, when the conventional media do deign to cover our sport.) Add to this the rapid growth of running related websites, message boards, blogs, and on-line coaching outfits, and it is clear that the internet has significantly enabled the remaking of running as competitive sport, along with its continued expansion as a mass fitness pastime. The internet now contains a vast and easily accessible storehouse of all things running, as well as a global community of enthusiasts, fans, and experts. Outside of local training groups and races themselves, the net is now almost exclusively where we as a sport community come together to share our knowledge and experience, and as well as recognize one another's achievements-- from world records to age-class wins and personal bests. Some-- myself included-- have even credited the internet with being instrumental the recent resurgence of American elite distance running. No doubt, websites like the famous-- some would say infamous-- LetsRun.com have become important vehicles for the promotion of "best practice" in coaching and training, as well as all-important arenas for the attainment of stardom in the sport-- that is, in a world where only aficionados seem any longer to care.

But what do these various innovations really amount to when compared with the impact of technological change in other areas of life? Compared simply with other sports, I would argue: relatively little. Think, for instance, of the impact of changes in equipment on the way hockey is played. Here, changes in stick and skate technology alone have increased the tempo of the game considerably in 30 years; whereas, in running, the best runners of 30 years ago would not look out of place at all in today's elite fields, and the same could easily be said for recreational runners. Or take golf, where equipment changes, new training regimes, and the introduction of cheap digital video have actually forced the redesign of courses themselves. Running never has been, and likely never will be, transformed by technologies to this extent. To quote one of my favourite runners-- all-time top three Canadian marathoner and sage, Arthur Boileau-- "running is a simple sport". Art was referring to our ability to understand and rate our performance in running when he said this, but it remains true in a general sense. Most of what is meaningful in running occurs under the skin of athletes themselves. Technological innovation notwithstanding, our ability to do well in this sport still depends, as it always has, on our capacity to run long and fast as often as possible for as many years as possible. The above innovations no doubt help to support this basic endeavour, but they do relatively little to change its essence. It may be, in fact, that running has already undergone all the meaningful technological innovation it can absorb. Further "breakthroughs" may have even less real impact than the ones mentioned.

Finally, what about technological innovations that have taken running a step backwards, or that have been generally more trouble than they're worth? In this category of "dishonourable mention", I would include two things, which run the gamut from the sinister to the ridiculous: The "blood-boosting" agent EPO, a banned substance intended for use by cancer patients; and, the infamous "buffet belt", that now ubiquitous strap-on, personal feeding, hydration and entertainment centre.

It might seem counter-intuitive to list EPO has a step backward for running, since it has no doubt contributed to the assault on the record books that took place immediately following its introduction in the early/mid 1990s. In a strictly technical sense, couldn't we list EPO as the greatest of all running-related technological innovations? If running were akin to rocket science, or other kinds of engineering, the answer would be "yes". But running is fundamentally not like rocket science: it is a sport, and sports are games. And games are-- in contrast with activities where the best possible technical means for achieving an objective are sought-- fundamentally based on the establishment and negotiation of gratuitous obstacles. The fastest means to get from point A to point B is, after all, not running at all! What makes running a game is that is has rules which shape the behaviour of participants in ways that encourage them to display characteristics that we humanly value-- courage, determination, honour, etc. The introduction of a means of, in effect, "beating the game", such as EPO represents, threatens to destroys the game itself. The invention of EPO certainly represents a kind of achievement, and the skill that went into its development is something that we value in a general sense. But, its introduction into endurance sport undermines our ability to appreciate the human qualities that endurance sport, as a game, was invented in order to encourage and showcase. The introduction of EPO and other performance enhancing drugs threatens to turn endurance sport into a contest between pharmaceutical researchers and not athletes, strictly speaking (and, EPOs effect on sport aside, pharmaceutical researchers ought to have better things to do!). EPO and other performance enhancing drugs may represent an innovation in terms of finding ways to enable the human body to go further, faster. But the sport of running is not about finding ways to go faster by any technical means necessary, but rather, within a clearly established and mutually agreed upon set of rules. As such, the introduction of EPO into distance running represents a clear step backward for the sport.

More hilariously, the "buffet belt" is a technological step backward for the sport in that it represents an innovation in response to a fictitious and manufactured need. And, because it actually makes you slower! Runners who use these contraptions spends hours training their bodies to run faster-- including reducing the actual weight of said bodies-- only to strap on several ounces, or even pounds, of extra weight, simply in order to have water and other sustenance more ready to hand. The trouble is, most runners don't go far enough, or run in such remote areas, that the necessary water and food are not readily available by other means. (I, for instance, plan my summer runs around access to municipal water supplies, or run 20min loops, so that I can return to my stashed water bottle every 3 miles or so.) And the use of buffet belt in races is doubly counterproductive and mystifying. Why carry all that extra weight when most races supply water and other fluids for free, and at 3-5k intervals, and when a gel or two can easily be stowed in the pocket of one's shorts!? The buffet belt is certainly innovative, but in the field of retail marketing, not running science.

Next week, I review and P-K Performance of the Year nominees for January to September last year, and pick Performance of the Year for 2009, the owner of which will receive a small Mizuno prize package.

Waging the Winter Campaign: Some Retreat, No Surrender!

2010-01-06T11:53:00.006-05:00

Reading the many front-line reports from my athletes in the trenches of this still very young winter training campaign, I would conclude that, for the moment, winter has the upper hand. Conditions have varied across the country-- from the bitter cold and snows of Northern Ontario and Alberta, to the unseasonably mild conditions of Quebec City and, to my astonishment, St. John's NFLD-- but no region has been completely spared by winter's assault (except Victoria B.C., but that hardly counts). Despite the promise of a milder El Nino winter north of the 49th, it's been weather business as usual-- perhaps even a little worse than usual in some places-- for Canadian runners. And the casualties are already beginning to mount.

Attempting to train through the Canadian winter is not really a war, of course (we have REAL wars ongoing to remind us of that!); but, attempting to do the sport we love in this climate does present some real challenges in terms of strategy and tactics, and it requires establishing a very clear set of objectives. In other words, it requires and understanding of the special nature of the problem, good planning, and a degree of flexibility on the ground. After more than 30 consecutive years of battling it, the vast majority of them without access to today's arsenal of technologies-- your lightweight, wicking fabrics, your treadmills and your elliptical trainers-- I have determined that, for the most part, winter cannot be beaten; it can only be neutralized via an intelligent strategy and a series of well timed tactical retreats. If we want to exit the winter season no worse off than when we entered it-- and that is really the only realistic goal-- then we have to accept that it will challenge us, and be prepared to retreat from its worst advances when necessary.

Here are my hard-won training tips for battling even the worst winter to a standstill:

1. Always assume the worst. Forget environment Canada's long term forecasts and accept the fact that winter will attack, and that it will require you to respond in the form of adapting your training. If it turns out that we all get lucky, great; but, being psychologically prepared costs us nothing, and enables us to respond quickly when the all but inevitable comes to pass.

2. Accept that you will quite probably lose some overall fitness over the winter, and that you will likely be in no position to challenge any P.B.s in March and April. But, at the same time, don't panic. It's quite possible to regain lost shape, and then some, very quickly once the better weather returns-- provided you're not already injured when that time comes. Again, winter is usually for surviving, not conquering.

3. Don't attempt to run your highest mileage totals of the year during the winter months. In the old days, it was commonplace for runners to attempt to do their "base" training during the non-competitive winter months. This did not apply well to the Canadian context then and it still doesn't, climate change notwithstanding. Runners in more northerly climes are better advised to do their highest mileage in March and April, and again in August, September and October, leaving the worst winter months for their speed and power work. Faster running, hill running, and plyometrics are actually easier to do in winter, with the help of treadmills and indoor tracks. And, there is good reason to believe that doing this kind of work as immediate preparation for longer, harder training is the best way to proceed in any case (see, e.g. Daniels' Running Formula, Ch. 4). Fast hill repeats with longer recoveries and intervals at mile race pace improve balance, strength and overall biomechanical efficiency, thus reducing our risk of injury when it comes time to do do our longest and hardest training of the year. In any case, those who attempt to hit high mileage targets during the winter will likely become frustrated, risk-prone and, in all probability, injured before it's all over. (Been there, done that, as they say.)

4. Don't be a hero! Real runners should be interested in building their aerobic capacity and not their character through their training. There are no awards for eschewing the indoor track, elliptical, or treadmill and running outside in all conditions as a matter of principle, or for wearing shorts in sub-zero temperatures-- no awards worth winning, at least. No one will care how "tough" you were in facing down winter in these ways if you end up running slower than you should in the spring and summer, due to an injury sustained in attempting to make your dubious stand.

5.In choosing when to retreat to the treadmill, elliptical, or indoor track, consider the footing outside rather than the temperature. With some simple precautions, it is possible to train safely outside in very cold temperatures. (And no, you will not "freeze your lungs" if you run in the cold. If this were possible, x-country skiers would be in big trouble!). Generally, only the extremities (and in the coldest temperatures, exposed facial skin) are in any danger in the deep cold. Running on slippery surfaces, however, is a different matter. Without proper traction, we run the risk of de-optimizing the relationship between the benefits and risks of training, and this negative relationship intensifies as our attempted speed increases. When we train, ordinarily injury risk increases with the length and intensity of our sessions; but, so does potential benefit, creating a trade-off. On loose or slippery surfaces, the risk of injury to the hips, groin, hamstrings, achilles, and plantar fascia (not to mention trauma from falling down) increases and is not matched by the potential benefits of the training, since our speeds will be slower relative to the effort applied. Simply put, when we attempt to run on poor surfaces, we increase our risk of injury while reducing the potential benefits of our training relative to other training options.

6. Learn to use the various modalities of indoor training effectively. Making the best use of your indoor training options entails, first, understanding which of them is best match for runners. There is some debate about this, but, in my experience, the available options ranks as follows in terms of their suitability for replacing outdoor running:

-Running on a treadmill (a no-brainer, really). In spite of some minor differences in our running strides on and off the mill, treadmill running is as close to a one-to-one with outdoor running as you can get, and is useful for replacing the full range of running workouts, from long runs to hill reps. But, remember, treadmill speedometers are not always a reliable guide to actual pace. And, even when calibrated, treadmill speeds feel about 10 secs/km easier than their outdoor equivalents, due to the absence of atmospheric resistance. Always add 1% of elevation or .2 MPH to equal your outdoor running paces. Finally, be aware that treadmill running forces a faster stride rate than outdoor running; so, when assessing effort, tune in to respiration rate and muscle fatigue rather than to how fast your legs seem to be moving.

-Running on the indoor track. Circling the indoor track is perhaps better than t-mill running, but for the greater risk of injury from repeated cornering.

-Tie: elliptical training and traditional-style x-country skiing. Both are great modalities for replacing running's aerobic stimulus, but their significantly different limb actions and resistance to gravity make them secondary options (i.e. unlike running, both involve mainly milder concentric muscle contractions rather than sharp, ballistic, eccentric ones). Runners who replace running with these activities will find that their lower legs and feet are somewhat de-conditioned when it comes time to hit the road, trail and track again full-time.

-Deep water running. Here, the limb action is very similar to running, but the buoyancy factor reduces the aerobic demands below that of the other options. It's possible to recoup this loss through higher intensity sessions, but most runners without a lot of experience can't manage the kind of intensity required (think: hard interval sessions once or twice a day just to maintain basic conditioning!). The other drawback of deep water running is that the initiation period required to do it effectively (about 2 weeks of everyday sessions) reduces its usefulness as an emergency substitute for running for all but those with prior experience doing it.

-Swimming. Great for the few who really know how to do it, and who have the extra time involved, but too technically tricky and time-consuming (about 2 hours of swimming is required to replace 1 hour or running) for the average runner. And, of course, the limb action is significantly different from running.

-Stationary cycling. Good for multi-sport athletes who have worked out proper bike set up, and who have developed the leg power to reach the aerobic intensity necessary to replace running, but risky to the low back and probably next to useless for the average weak-legged runner.

Next week, look for an update on the P-K Performance of the Year nominations (I'm still reviewing January to October for suitable performances), as well as some reflections on the advance of running-related technologies and innovations over the past 30 years, when I consider my picks for the top ten such advances over the course of my career.

Finally, I'm happy to report that Dylan Wykes has retained his national team status and funding for 2010. There was initially some question that he would make the cut, when he was put on provisional status, subject to appeals from excluded athletes. After a failed appeal by an excluded athlete in late December, Dylan was officially added to the list. Being nationally "carded" carries significant benefits for an athlete in Dylan's position, including a tax-free stipend. Congrats Dylan!

So, You Think You're Tough?

2009-12-09T19:57:00.011-05:00

If you're a runner, you're very likely to answer this question with something like: "Maybe, but not enough, and not all the time"; or, "No". When our race performances fall below expectations, we runners are more likely to blame our lack of mental focus, resolve, or what we like to call our "toughness". Loathe to make excuses for a poor performance, most runners prefer to blame what they see as their own psychological weakness rather than other factors, such as their conditioning, or choice of race tactics. Why do runners so often think that they fail themselves in difficult race situations, what exactly is "mental toughness", and how important is it, anyway?

Runners often feel like they're mentally weaker than they want to be, or should be, for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that, because runners tend to conceal their mental states from one another, and yet are intimately familiar their own own doubts and frailties around racing, they are inclined to assume that their friends and competitors must have it together mentally better than they themselves do. As a coach of many runners-- and thus privy to the inner lives of more runners than most-- I know that all runners, even those who appear most in control, are inclined to feel that they are being held back by their own inability to "go deep enough" in difficult race situations. In fact, I am myself a runner with a reputation for being able to get the most out of himself in training and competition; yet, I know that I'm not as "tough" as I might appear in the heat of battle (I am actually a runner who can consistently deliver according to expectation in races, but I also know that so-called "toughness' is not as important in racing well as runners often think it is, of which more below). The second reason that runners often feel they lack it "upstairs" in race situations is that we are so quick to forget how physically difficult racing actually is; in fact, our ability to recall the distress of racing is so poor that we often forget it within minutes of finishing! (How many times have you heard a runner fresh from the finish chute, and still out of breath, say something like: "If I'd only made the decision to go with so-and-so, or push harder at such-and-such point in the race, I would have been 10 seconds faster". Granted, sometimes this is true; but, far more often the runner has simply forgotten how tired he/she actually was at the "key moment" in question. In my role as coach, I've made a point of paying very close attention to the signs of physical fatigue that individual runners are apt to show when the going is becoming very difficult in a workout or race situation; and, as such, I'm often able to tell people that, regardless of what they might think they remember, they were more likely far too physically spent to react meaningfully at the alleged "key moment" than too weak mentally-- that, if there was any failure involved, it was of a purely physical nature.

What we typically think of as mental toughness is, furthermore, somewhat overrated when it comes to it contribution to successful race performance. In my view, the ability to ignore discomfort and increase effort in the final stages of a race, when compared simply with being very fit, properly tapered, and properly paced, is marginal in its importance. I think so-called mental toughness can make a difference in our ability to "go to the whip" (to use a great analogy, courtesy of one of Canada's best ever marathoners, Art Boileau) in the very late stages of a race-- and so can often make the difference between winning and losing, for those at that level. However, the other above mentioned factors are far more important in their contribution to performance, and can make the difference between a great race and a disastrous race, rather than just between a good race and a very good race, as is most often the case with so-called toughness. Ultimately, of course, we all want to be tough, fit, and properly paced all at the same time; but, on days when we're not feeling as tough as others, we can always rely on being physically prepared and smart in order to avoid a complete flame-out. In fact, for those racers unprepared in these vital respects, being tough can actually be something of a liability, in that it can induce us to attempt things we have no business attempting on race day.

But, taking a step back, what is this quality called "mental toughness" and, more to the point, how is it acquired? Here, it think it is necessary to consider the problems of mental toughness and physical preparation as a unity.

Mental toughness, I would argue, is the ability to cope effectively with the anxiety naturally associated with the feeling of hypoxia, compounded by the stress of athletic competition. As with the quality we call courage-- which does not entail the absence of fear, but the ability to cope and perform in the face of fear-- mental toughness does not mean the absence of feelings of anxiety or stress in race situations; it's best thought of as referring to the ability to get the most out of our bodies in spite of the inevitable anxiety and stress that we feel when we race. (As a matter of fact, some of the "toughest" runners I know manifest a great deal of anxiety and stress both before and during competition, and yet race very consistently, and rarely fail themselves in the later going.)

And how does one come to possess such an ability to cope thus in the cauldron of a long distance race? In a word: familiarity-- familiarity, that is, with the actual stresses, physical and psychological, associated with racing. Very few people, I would argue, are born with the ability to push their bodies to full capacity in an extreme test of physical limits, such as a distance race represents. The vast majority of us must learn it, and learn to become better and better at it, through exposure to racing itself, and through training to race. Mental toughness is, as I sometimes like to put it, more a habit than a personal attribute. We develop it through workouts that are structured to reproduce the stresses of racing without being races themselves, and through the drill of simply getting out the door every day. (Speaking of the latter, in a conversation the other day with my daughter, who was having a hard time getting out the door to train in the damp gloom of a late November afternoon, I reminded her that moments like this should be greeted as opportunities, not obstacles-- opportunities to demonstrate our resolve to ourselves and to steel our mental armour for the races ahead. I told her that many times I have thought, mid-race: "I didn't run all those miles, in all that lousy weather, just to give up when it counts most"!). Any athlete who has prepared to the best of his or her physical ability is, by definition, a "tough" person. Racing, by comparison, ought to be thought of as the easy part-- and it is, if all the routine, but vital, physical work has been done. To quote another great marathon champion-- Juma Ikanga of Tanzania-- "the will to race is nothing without the will to prepare". If a runner has already demonstrated the "will to prepare", she will have already developed most of what she needs, psychologically as well as physically, to compete well-- and all the more so if she is able to recognize this fact and resist dwelling on her own feelings of "mental weakness". In the end, therefore, our concern with our "mental toughness" ought better to be directed at our will to get ourselves out the door to train day-in and day-out, than at our ability simply to endure stress in a race situation; for, without the first kind of toughness, the latter type is meaningless.

P-K at Nats X-C and November Performance of the Month

2009-12-02T12:57:00.006-05:00

This post finds us at the end of the 2009 X-C season and, indeed, the end of the Canadian running season itself. There are, of course, a few brave little winter races out there (not including on the far Left Coast, where there the racing goes on all season); but, the season that began in the cold winds of late March and continued through the heat of summer and into the crispness of fall has now ended, as it always does, in the muddy gloom of late November-- a gloom that is brightened only by the brief flash of colour that is the Canadian cross country championship season, culminating in the national championships themselves.

This year's edition of the event was brilliantly hosted by the Speed River Track Club/University of Guelph, as it had been for the previous two years, and will be again for one last go-around next year. The U of G, under the leadership of Head Coach Dave Scott Thomas (DST), has now become the undisputed center of elite Canadian distance running; so, it is symbolically appropriate that it should have been granted an unprecedented double term as host of the national X-C championships, which is really the championships of distance running itself in this country, being the only time all of the main contenders, junior and senior respectively, are assembled in a single race. But the Guelph boys have not been content with mere symbolism. DST, with the able assistance of race director Chris Moulton and a host of young athletes and running enthusiasts, has created a set of championships that will be recalled for decades to come for their top-to-bottom quality and attention to detail-- from a superb, runner and spectator friendly course, to expert announcing and on-line media coverage, to the sport's best all-ages after-party, all within walking distance of race hotels! The Guelph boys have delivered a string of championships for the ages, and have set the standard for all future editions of this event. (The only respect in which they can be considered bad hosts is that they never allow any other club near the senior mens' team title!)

As for the P-K group, we had what could be called a good day-- good, but not great.

In the team category, leading the way were the men's 40-49 group, which defended its title in this division, albeit by a scant 37 seconds, following a correction in the results, which originally showed the Toronto Olympic Club in 5th place, some 7mins behind. The win was nice, but the margin of victory was unacceptably small, considering the quality of male over-40 athletes in the group. It is hoped that this will be remedied next year, and made amends for by victories in the men's 50-59 and women's 40-49 categories. The challenge is on!

Next came the junior boys team, which finished 2nd in a very deep field of 20 teams-- a performance intrinsically superior to that of the masters men. As it happened, none of the boys had his best day individually, with no one managing to crack the top 15. As a group, however, they were deep and strong, with none giving up under pressure. All team members are Kingston-based, marking the first time a team from the city has medaled in a national X-C championship. And, with most of the team returning next year, and several younger reinforcements in the wings, they look well positioned to repeat, or perhaps even improve upon, their performance next year.

Among individuals, Mike Gill continued his remarkable run of improvement with a win in the 30-35 division of the masters event, and a very strong 2nd place overall in the race. Running a tactically brilliant race, Mike managed to destroy all of the runners who beat him two weeks ago at the Provincial Championships. With a year's more training, he will move up to the Open Men's race, where I hope he will be a scorer for a medal-winning P-K senior men's team! Mike's run, meanwhile, earns him his a second nomination for November Performance of the Month.

Meanwhile, Dylan Wykes ran perhaps his gutsiest national X-C ever, with a 6th place in the Senior Men's race. The worst finish by Dylan in the past 3 championships, this result nevertheless represented a significant triumph over some recent adversity. Before he was able to make up the conditioning he lost during his recovery from the World Championship Marathon in Berlin, he was felled by the flu, which put him out completely for 7 days. Then, before he could recover his shape from the flu, he was off to Japan for the Chiba International Ekiden, where he ran poorly, by his standards. He raced nationals X-C less than a week after returning from Japan. This performance earns Dylan a nomination for November performance of the month. It would have been very easy for Dylan to have settled for a much worse finish position, or to have pulled out of this race entirely; instead, he ran as he always does in this event-- as though he might win it. And he will be a stronger athlete in the future for his efforts.

November P-K Performance of the Month:

With Dylan and Mike's results added to the mix, the list of impressive November performances is now a long one (see the November 17 post for the other nominees).
And the winner for November Performance of the Month is... Michael Gill's National X-C run. As I mentioned, Mike has had a run of improvement such as I've rarely seen, and this result was by far his best. And what readers will not know is that, a year ago, Mike weighed some 50 pounds more than he does right now, and, that he is still training at far from capacity as he negotiates some chronic lower leg problems. More than this, however, is the poise and concentration he has shown in executing his races. He competes as though he has been doing it for years without interruption, which is far from the reality. (For a close look at his race execution on Saturday, have a look at the Flotrack broadcast of the masters race.)

Mike's run is now added to the list of nominees for P-K Performance of the year, the owner of which will receive a small Mizuno prize package, courtesy of Physi-Kult Running and Mizuno Canada. The performance of the year will be announced as soon as I have compiled a list of monthly winners for January through September. And here, I will need the assistance of group members, so that no worthy result is overlooked. Please send your suggestions to me, with the month in which they were done, at steve@physi-kultrunning.com. And don't be shy about nominating one of your own performances if you think it deserving. (I'll be nominating my own Canadian 45-49 record run from Ottawa for the month of May, just to show that ALL P-K performances are eligible!).

Preparing Young Athletes for the Long Run

2009-11-24T12:44:00.017-05:00

On no other topic are my coachly musings as likely to provoke reaction as on that of kid's running and youth development in general. While my ideas do sometimes provoke arguments on other subjects, in most instances people are ultimately willing to defer to the accumulated knowledge and experience of my 30-plus years of intense involvement in the sport (they shouldn't always, but they often do).On the subject of kids' running, and long term athlete development, on the other hand, many more people tend to have their own sometimes strong views, and they tend to hold them regardless of how little knowledge and experience they might have-- and especially if they have a personal stake in the argument, as the parents and/or coaches of young runners do. In this week's installment, I offer some explanation for why this might be so, along with a quick summary of my views on the topic.

In the years since I started running, the sport has grown from a fringe activity pursued by mainly by students (older ones-- high school and university),"health nuts", and other (mainly male) "oddballs", to a mass-based, multi-billion dollar health and leisure phenomenon. The simultaneous mass growth of the sport among mainstream adults, male and female, and younger school children has meant that running has become an increasingly family-oriented activity. Kids frequently now grow up accompanying their parents to road races (and sometimes even X-C and track meets), and parents now flock to watch their children compete in school races. Signs of this transformation are everywhere. The finish areas of large road races are now frequently full of children waiting to greet exhausted mothers or fathers, and the parking lots of school races now over-flow with parents taking time from their work days to watch children as young as 6 compete in school X-C and track events. This is in stark contrast to only 20 years ago, when fewer adults with small children ran, and perhaps even fewer took time off work to watch their kids compete. (In fact, when I chat with veteran runners as young as their mid-30s, we frequently remark on how few times our parents had ever watched us compete when we were younger. And I don't think I knew anyone whose parents themselves ran competitively. My own father watched me race perhaps twice in my life, and my mother, who actually became a runner herself in middle age, perhaps five times, even though I was considered a "star" performer from about the age of 15. They were supportive, of course; but they just didn't think this entailed attending all of my races.)

The advent of running as a "family" pursuit, while generally to be welcomed, has had a few important implications where kid's running and long term athlete development are concerned. Increased parental participation in running has tended to mean that kids are now becoming involved in more serious competition and training at younger ages, with their parents often acting training partners and coaches (or, at the very least, as keenly interested bystanders). When combined with an explosion of on-line, magazine, and book-based information on all aspects of running, the result has been a vast multiplication of people with both an emotional stake in the sport via their children's involvement, and a certain amount of casual expertise. (When looking for some sports-based precedent for this phenomenon, we might consider hockey in Canada or baseball, football and basketball in the U.S., in which the figure of semi-expert "parent-coach" or "sports parent" is now a stock-- and somewhat humourously stereotypical-- one.) And, just as in other sports where the parent-coach/aficionado has become a central figure, the parents of successful age class runners in particular are often the most heavily involved, sometimes claiming an expertise and authority disproportionate to their actual level of knowledge or experience-- such as an American runner-dad who launched a website to promote his home-grown coaching theories, using his precocious daughter as the basis of his authority!

When I encounter resistance to my ideas about kids running, it is most often from the parents and/or coaches of younger and more successful kids-- those who tend to be intensely involved in the sport outside of a school program. I regularly receive inquiries about coaching from the parents of children under 13(I restrict participation in my club group to kids 13 and over), and most understand, or at least offer no resistance, when I explain to them the basis of my views on kids and running. I have, however, had some pointed disagreements on this subject, and I know that my views are not always shared by other youth coaches and parents in the sport. In my experience, the parents and coaches of heavily involved young runners almost always mean well, and believe they are acting in their young athlete's best interest. They tend to believe that, if they are only facilitating and not compelling their child or athlete's involvement, they are doing no harm as far as his or her long term development and relationship with the sport are concerned. What they often unaware of-- and sometimes willfully, because of the deep pride and sheer enjoyment they experience in watching their young charges succeed-- is that intense early involvement in the sport, and the competitive success that tends to go with it, very often leads to early difficulties and premature abandonment of the sport. And, while its it true that not all young athletes take up the sport with view to reaching its highest competitive levels, and that a few do indeed manage to reach these levels following a childhood of intense early involvement, it is, or should be, the responsibility of adults to give young athletes the best chance of reaching their full potential in the sport, just as they would in any other life-endeavour, whether athletic, academic, or cultural.

Giving young runners the best chance of reaching their full potential involves, first, understanding the specificities of the sport itself, and being open to learning as much about its science and lore as possible. I have arrived at my own views about kid's running, and long term athlete development in general, through my own experience, of course, but also through familiarizing myself with whatever formal research exists on the subject (of which there is, unfortunately, not nearly enough). For what they're worth, I would summarize the results of my observations and analysis as follow:

1. Young running prodigies, defined as kids who run far ahead of the next best in their age cohort, very rarely convert their age-group success into adult, or even senior high school, success. A casual perusal of the early age-class results for North American over a 20 or 30 year period record is sufficient to bear this out. And, in fact, former prodigies seem to drop out of the sport at about the same rate and at the same ages as non-prodigies-- which is somewhat surprising, given the apparently much greater incentive for early age group stars and record holders to continue in the sport. The precise reasons for this are subject to debate, but I suspect a number of factors are at play. My own view is that the almost inevitable evaporation of prodigies' early advantage over their peers, which may have been in the first place the result of natural physical precociousness or, more often, the early introduction of systematic training, and the age at which that loss of advantage occurs, combine to create pressures on young athletes to which quitting the sport may seem, at the time, like a reasonable response. Prodigies who are no longer winning races easily, and who have often been training hard for years (either in running or in some other aerobic sport, such as swimming), must often feel as though they are falling behind when their peers begin to match them, even while they remain among the very best in their cohort. Breaking records and winning races, often against much older competitors, must, after all, be a tough act to follow in a young life, and being reduced to simply one of the best can probably seem like failure.

2. The vast majority of today's top runners, while often very good as young runners, were not what anyone would call prodigies, and quite a few were far from it. When I began thinking systematically about this problem years ago, I made a habit of collecting stories of athletes who were very ordinary age class performers, or very late-starters in the sport, yet who managed to reach its highest levels as adults. In this file can be found everything from world record holders and Olympic champions (such as Sebastian Coe, John Walker, and Robert Cheruiyot) to some of Canada's current top athletes (such as Reid Coolsaet, who has now won more National Senior Championships than he ever won age-class medals!). This pattern, perhaps more than anything else, marks distance running off as different from most other sports, and certainly from those other sports with which most North American parents would be familiar-- e.g. hockey, gymnastics, and swimming--, where intense early involvement and age group success would seem to be a stronger predictor of long term success.

3. Complete maximization of personal potential in running takes a very long time, and those who lose their enthusiasm for the training process at an early age never become as good as they might have. It is not unusual for runners to perform lifetime bests and win Olympic and World Championships medals at ages 32-plus. The oldest Olympic champions in the marathon, for instance, were 37 for men and 38 for women, and the current men's world record holder set the mark at the age of 35. This late maturation is possible because success in the sport is a function of some very basic physiological adaptations-- adaptations that can proceed for decades with the right program, and under the right circumstances. Being a very good runner also requires a certain amount of wisdom, patience, and emotional resilience-- characteristics that are developed through life experience, and are therefore found more often in adults than in children or adolescents. Very few people who have not experienced the process, or witnessed it up close, can fully understand the extent of the difficulty of progressing from a very good age class runner to a national or world class athlete, and so it is easy for them to believe that the fastest 12 year olds are the most likely to become the most successful adult runners. In reality, a successful career in running is actually made up of two or three different careers, with the success of each dependent on the careful negotiation of the last. And the challenges in each phase are all, in their own ways, equally acute. Such is the difficulty of making it "all the way" that it is a small wonder than anyone ever does it!

The lesson that can be taken from all of this, and the one I try to impart when called upon to give advice on kid's running and long term athlete development, is that the optimal plan to ensure that young runners both enjoy the sport and retain the best chance of reaching its highest levels, is one that involves relatively late-starting (age 13 or older), infrequent and mainly local competition, and non-specialization till the age of at least 15 for girls and 16 for boys. There is no evidence to support a theory that those who start systematic, year-round training at early ages gain any long term advantage on their peers, and plenty of anecdotal evidence that such early involvement may actually be counterproductive for the average kid. And, perhaps more importantly, I see no evidence that kids who start sooner and more seriously have any more fun with the sport than those who don't!

My long term observations have thoroughly convinced me that the development model prevalent in other kids' sports is wholly inappropriate for a sport like running; which, because it is based primarily on the simple development of gross physiological capacities, is primarily dril or work-based, and lacking in a significant play element. To put it another way, competitive running is not, when it pursued seriously, truly a children's sport. And, unlike the other sports that kids typically play, it is entirely possible to reach the highest levels in running without ever having pursued it seriously as a child; in fact, later starting is probably optimal for long term success. Granted, there will always be outliers who will defy the odds and build successful adult careers on the basis of intense prepubescent involvement; but, addressing the problem of development entails consideration of what is optimal in light of the fact that the long term response to training of any individual athlete cannot be known in advance. Modeling development on what we know about the average or typical path to success of top runners is the responsibility of everyone who works with young runners, particularly when it this does not involve any sacrifice of enjoyment for these athletes. The pursuit of an experimental or counter-intuitive path to development represents a risky form of self-indulgence on the part of youth coaches and the parents who support them. Defiance of the developmental odds may pay off in individual cases, but the costs of losing this gamble can be great for the young athlete. Pursuit of a more grounded and proven path, at the very least, eliminates the basis for regrets and second-guessing if and when a young athlete decides to abandon the sport before his/her full potential has been realized.

Fartlek: The Workout That Dare Not Speak Its Name

2009-11-17T12:34:00.005-05:00

This week, I want to say a few words of praise and clarification about the Swedish workout with the flatulent name-- fartlek. But first, some P-K Performance of the Month Nominees.

This being November, all of the nominees made their mark in X-C events, and at the recent school and club provincial championships in particular. Here are my picks, in order of the age of the nominees, oldest to youngest:

Myra McDonald, who won the women's 50-59 age division at the provincial masters championships in her first ever race "over the country". In fact, Myra is a rookie racer in all disciplines, having only joined the group and started training seriously a year ago! Adding to her accomplishment, she ran only 50 seconds or so over her road 5k personal best over the very hilly course in Newmarket. (Times are always a tricky measure of X-C performance, but, judging by the recent performances of her competitors on certified road courses, Myra's run would certainly have been a significant P.B.)

Michael Gill (now a repeat nominee), who finished the same hilly 5k course that Myra ran in a time only 15 secs off of his already huge breakthrough road performance from last month. A very conservative estimate would put this time in the low 16min range on a standard road course, meaning that Mike has chopped at least another 30 seconds from his time in only a month, bringing his total improvement since starting in the group up to a whopping 2:30! Honestly, I have never seen anything quite like this. (And, as only I would know, he may be just getting started. There is still much more he could-- and will-- be doing in training over the next year or so.)

Nick McGraw, who dominated the junior boys race at the club provincial championships in Newmarket. For those familiar with Nick's excellent record of performance in X-C and triathlon, this won't come as as surprise. However, this was his first serious X-C race in almost 2 years! It was also the result of very little serious preparation since returning from his many travels over the past 18 months. As his long time running coach, Nick has surprised me with his performances on several other occasions; but, this may topped them all. Nick will line up again in two weeks time at the Nationals, where he will be a member of P-K's very strong-- even potential medal-winning-- junior boys team.

Jeff Archer, a local senior high school athlete who has seen remarkable improvement over the course of his season this year. Last year, Jeff placed 57th in the school provincial championships in a time some 2:30mins behind that of the winner. This month, he finished 10th in the same race, some 55 secs behind the winner-- a performance far in advance of the average rate of improvement for an athlete of his age. And, to top off his school championship performance, he finished a close 4th in the club provincial race a week later in Newmarket, and even looked like he had a chance to win it in the final km! Jeff will join Nick in two weeks as a member of the P-K junior boys team at nationals, his first trip to this fall classic.

Adrien Noble, another local high schooler. Adrien joined the group a year ago and has made very steady improvement ever since. Like Jeff, he put the exclamation point on his progress this month at the school and club X-C provincials. Not even qualifying for school provincials last season, Adrian won the qualifying race this year in convincing fashion, and finished a strong 18th at the championship itself. Then, a week later, correcting the tactical errors that probably kept him out of the top 10 in the school race, Adrien finished a close 8th in the provincial race. Too young to run for the junior boys team at nationals, Adrien will now take a well earned, albeit short, break from training.

All results from these race can be found at: www.trackdatabase.com

I will no doubt add further nominees following the Nationals weekend on the 28th, after which I will declare a November Performance of the Month, the owner of which will join October winner Lauren Taylor as a nominee for P-K Performance of the Year, to be announced some time in January. And nominations from members themselves are welcome. (If fact, I will be asking for members to help me select nominees for Performance of the Month going back to January of 09).

Fartek: The Workout That Dare Not Speak Its Name

If you're looking to feel silly and slightly uncomfortable, try saying the word "Fartlek" to a group of primary school students. Even if you're talking to a group of keen young runners, it will do no good to follow this up by explaining that the word is actually Swedish, meaning "speed-play". The point is, you will have said the word "fart" without any comic intent, and they will find it hilarious.

In its original form, fartlek running was defined by the use of spontaneous changes in speed introduced within the course of an otherwise easy, aerobic training run. Its Nordic inventors intended it as a kind of hybrid of easy, recovery-pace running and formal interval training; and, like a lot of training techniques, it was given rise to by a combination of necessity and opportunity. Fartlek training was born in the forests of Scandinavia as a means of taking advantage of the opportunity that the natural environment afforded, and of making do without easy access to a running tracks or stopwatch-bearing coaches (there was, recall, a time before convenient, affordable and easily portable hand-held timing devices). Its pioneers also intuited that it was perhaps a more accurate simulation of the precise demands of actual long distance races, and of off-track races in particular, than the then standard track interval session run at faster than race speeds and with more passive recovery periods. Early fartlek sessions would have athletes running freely and picking their own landmarks between which to do pick-ups of varying speed and length. Later, with its broader international dissemination, fartlek would become more formalized in terms of the length and intensity of the accelerations, and more tailored to the needs of athletes in specific event ranges. It remains, however, an ideal way to combine the volume of a longer, easy run with the intensity of a track interval session, as well as an occasional alternative to the grind of standard interval and tempo sessions.

It it important to understand, however, that fartlek training is not form of compromise between two more ideal forms of running-- easy recovery running and hard interval training, or simply a psychological respite; it is its own form of training, and it offers its own unique psychological and (I think) physical benefits. Fartlek training is ideal preparation for longer, off-track races in particular. What makes it ideal in this respect is the imperative to recover on the fly, to accelerate when already running at a fairly high heart and respiration rate, and to focus throughout a longer, continuous bout of running. And the top speeds in fartlek workouts are typically no faster than those reached in a race of 5kms or longer, with the average pace in a good session frequently matching exactly the athlete's proper tempo run pace. The active recoveries and the typically longer duration of the fartlek session tend to prevent athletes from ever approaching their 1500 or 3k paces, forcing them to spend more time at their actual long distance race paces rather than above or below them, which frequently happens when the training plan includes only easy runs, interval sessions and tempo runs. So, while the foundation of any correct training plan remains the MV02 interval session and the tempo run, punctuated by the easy, aerobic run, the fartlek session remains a vital adjunct. It provides both psychological respite from these other kinds of sessions; but, more importantly, it offers a useful simulation of the physical and mental demands of long distance racing, which include the ability to respond to mid and late race changes in effort and speed, and the mental discipline to maintain focus under prolonged stress.

As my most of my athletes will have learned, I have a few favourite fartlek sessions, including:

-the 60/40, in which athlete runs for 60 secs @ 5k race pace and recovers for 40 seconds at or slightly faster than typical easy run pace; and

-the 6 to 1 "hybrid" tempo and interval-pace session, in which the athlete completes a series of runs descending from 6 minutes mins down to 1 minute, taking 1 minute recoveries @ typical easy run pace between each segment, and attempting to increase his/her pace from tempo speed to down to interval speed in the final 3 segments of the session.

The fartlek form, however, allows for infinite variations, and I never tire of inventing and self-testing new combinations of speed, recovery and total volume. And the introduction of different terrain expands the possibilities that much more.

So ingenious is the idea contained in fartlek running that it was bound to be invented at some point. It's just a little unfortunate for us anglos that the Swedes, whose word for speed happens to be "fart", got there first!

X-Country: A Race Only a Mudder Could Love

2009-11-03T20:07:00.006-05:00

Before I rhapsodize on the unlikely virtues of cross country running-- that most gritty and exhausting of disciplines-- I'd like to recognize the first of my Performance of the Month honorees. The nod for October goes to Lauren Taylor, who continued her remarkable trajectory just this past week at the Eastern Ontario provincial qualifier. On a challenging 5k course in Renfrew, Ontario, Lauren ran 24:30 to finish 63 in a field of over 100 girls, most of them a year older than her. As I mentioned last week, in her first two years of high school running, Lauren had become used to running alone, at the back of the back. This year, however, utterly undeterred in both training and racing, Lauren has managed to make remarkable strides, shaving over a minute per kilometer(!) from her race times. This past season, Lauren has offered dramatic testimony to the remarkable power of simply sticking with it. I have met fewer than a handful of athletes with Lauren's pure drive and unblinking determination. She is a beacon for all who have chosen to accept running's simple challenge: to remake ourselves, cell by cell.

Lauren's name will go into the pot for consideration for P-K Performance of the Year, with the overall winner (chosen by me, with help from you)being announced in December. Since I only began the contest this month, I'm going to have to review performances for the entire year, starting last January, in search of suitable nominees. For the next few weeks, I'm going to ask P-K members to help me by plumbing their memories in search of worthy performances for each month of the year. And remember, the main criteria is not the objective level of the performance (or else Dylan Wykes would win every month!); it is the level of performance relative to the age, the preexisting abilities of the runner in question, and/or the conditions overcome in the accomplishment of the performance (although Dylan could still win it on these bases too). And, with X-C season still upon us, the contest is far from over.

And, I am happy to announce that the Performance of the Year winner will receive a small Mizuno prize package.

Cross country running: What is there to love about it? It is exhausting and frequently filthy. It is run during the some of the worst weather of the year, and there is no chance for a P.B. And yet so many of us, particularly we 'lifers', do love it, in spite of its unique rigours and general unpleasantness. In fact, we tend to love it almost more than we love running itself.

Like so many of the best things in life, X-C running is an acquired taste. And those of us who love it tend to have acquired this taste early in our running lives, usually in school. The taste for cross country is so slow to take, in fact, that most of us didn't even know we loved it until years after our first leafy, muddy foray. Cross country running was, for many of us, the first kind of real distance running we ever did, since it came first in the school sports calendar. Most of us simply did it because it was there, and because we liked running better, and were better suited to it in body and temperament, than the other fall sports on offer. At first, there was only the difficulty-- the cold, the mud, the steep hills, the struggling through the first colds and flus of the year, and the crowds of other competitors, pushing us, stepping on us, and blocking our way along narrow trails-- and perhaps a small taste of victory here and there. Later, though, cross country-- its intensity, feel, and its smells-- would become intermingled with our melancholy nostalgia for autumn and our early school days in general. (And runners, being naturally comfortable in our own company, and given to introspection, are often prone to melancholy nostalgia.) For those of us who continued to do the sport beyond our high school years, memories of cross country racing, and of traveling with our team mates to run cross country races, would become integral to some of our fondest recollections of early adult life. Many of us would begin lifelong friendships and love affairs on cross country training fields and race courses, and on the buses that delivered us to these places. By our mid-20s, many of us would have acquired an attachment to the sport that would one day see us return to stand on chalked start lines, beside wooden states festooned with coloured tape-- red for the left turns, right for the white, just like the political spectrum-- long after our muscles had lost their bounce and our hair, if we still had it, its original hue. To run cross country, we would discover, is to time-travel: In the throes of competition, chest burning in the cool, dry air, and nose full of the sweet, musty smells of grass, mud and fall decay-- the very same air and the same smells as on our first childhood trips "over the country"-- we discover that less about us has changed than we thought, and we find comfort in this amidst the extreme challenge of the activity itself.

I am, of course, a running 'lifer', and I share this love of cross country, for all of these reasons. As a coach of late-starting masters runners, however, I have been pleased to discover that its harsh appeal is not confined to its power to evoke the past. New runners certainly find X-C difficult, more difficult than the road races which which they are more familiar, and they are often a little baffled by the preparations required to tackle it-- the shoes with the long spikes, the special clothing required to repel the fall and winter elements, and the training over soggy, hilly, and lumpy terrain; but, once they have had a taste, they are often found returning for more. Much of the appeal of cross country running is simply the extremity of the challenge, which is exhilarating in itself. After that comes the temptation to mastery: having tried it once, many runners are often interested to see how much better they could do with a little more practice. New entrants to cross country running are also subject to infection by the enthusiasm of those us who have done it many times before. There is bound to be some curiosity to see and experience what the fuss is all about. Finally, these days, many adults are attracted to X-C as a result of watching their children take to the trails in school races (with many no doubt discovering that it is far harder than it looks!).

Lately, it has occurred to me that X-C has another universal appeal for serious runners, and in particular those living at more northern latitudes. Training for and racing X-C is, quite simply, the best way to get through November without resorting to alcohol, reclusion, and other acts of quiet desperation. Without X-C to occupy our minds and bodies, it would be far more difficult to face the prospect of increasingly dark days, the imminent prospect of winter, training on the pavement (or worse, the treadmill), and a horizon of meaningful races far to distant to even glimpse. It is true that the fruits of spring and summer success are sown in the darkest months of the year; but, that is a mere abstraction when confronted with a 4:30pm sunset, on a rainy, windy and cold Wednesday afternoon, following a trying day at work. Having the most important X-C races of the season in November nicely dispatches running's bleakest month. With the focus squarely on conquering the hills, mud and cold, and in the company of crowds of brightly clad fellow enthusiasts, November is put squarely in its place.

No matter where you are in North America, it is not too late to register for your local,regional, or national X-C championship! Check your federation or local club's website for details.

P-K Performance of the Month/Year Recognition

2009-10-26T13:38:00.005-04:00

Although I should have initiated this at the beginning of the racing season back in April, I want to begin recognizing top competitive performances by P-K members each month in the form of a Performance of the Month and, eventually, a Performance of the Year, nod. (Actually, I'd like to come up with an actual prize-- perhaps some Mizuno foot wear or apparel- for the Performance of the Year award. I'll be working on that). The Performance of the Month/Year will not necessarily go to the fastest performance, or to a winning performance; it will go to an exceptional performance, relative to a number of variables determined by me. These variable with have to do with things like the percentage of improvement shown, the athlete's age and level of experience, and the obstacles that he/she may have had to overcome in the process of recording the result in question. With so many athletes and so many performances to consider each month(I will consider local, on-line and junior members), the process of selecting a "best" will not be an exact science; but, I pledge to do my best to ensure that all worthy performances are considered. And nominations are certainly welcomed. My hope is to offer some peer recognition for great feats of racing, and to inform the ever growing list of P-K athletes-- most of whom will not have met on another, or perhaps even know of one another's existence-- about what their fellow members are up to on the field of play.

A short list of performances that have caught my eye in the past four weeks include, in the order in which they were run:

-50 year old Bob McGraw's 17:00 5k, which represented a more than 40 second improvement on his masters personal best, and the fruit of more than a year of consistent, high level training.

-Emily Tallen's 16:45 in the same race-- her 3rd best time at the distance-- after being pushed to the ground and buried at the start, and sustaining a nasty bruise to her knee that would require 3 days off of running.

-42 year old Troy Cox's 1:12:42 performance in the Goodlife Toronto Half Marathon-- a very fine master's time, and an outright personal best.

-50 year old Clive Morgan's outright win of the PEC Half Marathon.

-48 year old Agathe Nicholson's 18:53 5k in Rochester NY, during a marathon taper, on a slow course, in windy and cold conditions.

-31 year old Mike Gill's 16:37 for 5k. Mike joined P-K in the spring of this year and his over-all focus and attention to detail has kept him improving steadily. But his ability to rise to the occasion in a race situation is remarkable. This race represented a 2 minute improvement over his starting fitness, and an almost 1 minute improvement in a single month. I always encourage racers to aim high, and to trust their conditioning, but I would never have thought to instruct Mike to pace for this kind of time at this stage of his program!

-High school runner Lauren Taylor's entire grade 11 season thus far. Until this season, Lauren had never beaten another runner in a race, period. This season, chopping more than a minute per km(!) off of her previous best race pace, she has moved close to the middle of the pack! Through it all, Lauren's resolve has never wavered. Always a very diligent trainer, she has really come to enjoy the fruits of her labour this season.

-Rejean Chiasson's 3 minute personal best over Half Marathon (69:30 down to 66:30), and runner-up finish, this past weekend in Niagara Falls. As we all know, the faster we are to begin with, the harder it becomes to make significant improvements; so, Rejean's run is all the more impressive. No one has more drive and focus in training than R.C., so this represents a very well deserved breakthrough result.

Congratulations all, and I'll pick a winner next week.

Allowing Ourselves to Learn

2009-10-19T12:41:00.004-04:00

Many years ago, in the hour before what was to be my fastest ever 10k, I made a pledge to myself that I have honoured ever since. If I run well today, I promised, I would never again worry about how my body felt while warming up for a race. As I had a hundred times before, I jogged through my pre-race warm-up that evening feeling so tired and sluggish that I wondered how it would be possible to reach and sustain my goal race pace. If four and half minute kilometer pace was making me feel uncomfortable, how would I ever manage the two minute and fifty-two second ks that my training had told me I was capable of!? I had, of course, felt weak and sluggish many times before what would turn out to be strong races, but I had never before promised myself to remember precisely how I felt in order that I might stop worrying about it for good. Each time in the past, all of my pre-race anxieties would be forgotten in the rush of excitement of the race and the great wash of relief when it was all over. And, when I logged my race report, I would rarely mention how I felt beforehand, only how I felt during, and the race result itself. What I had decided to do differently this time was to set my emotions aside and allow myself to consciously learn something from my racing that would benefit me next time out. We're always learning from our races and workouts, of course, but the knowledge that most of us accumulates is unconscious and intuitive, such that, over time, it is difficult to catalogue precisely what we know, how we came to learn it, and what it felt like not to know it.

Much of what I do as a coach these days, both during routine weeks and on race days, consists of spotting and recording patterns in the way my athletes respond to their training stimuli and racing experiences. Through my communications with athletes, I then try to pass on what I discern so that the athlete will be better able to participate in the process of his or her own coaching, both through providing more meaningful feedback, and through developing a deeper, more intuitive understanding of their own training process. My job is made much easier, and the coaching process much smoother and more productive, however, when athletes allow themselves to accumulate their own body of experiential and intuitive knowledge, and when they begin to record it, both mentally and in their actual training logs.

Over the years, I've discovered that some athletes are far better at both learning from me and from their own experience than are others, and that this has nothing to do with basic intelligence or innate running ability. The difference, I think, can be explained in terms of the ability of some athletes to set their emotions aside long enough to allow their rational faculties to fully apprehend the training and racing process. Emotional drive is, of course, absolutely crucial for success in this and any other sport, and those with more of it tend to enjoy greater success than those with less of it, when all other things are equal. Athletes with a greater emotional investment in what they're doing also, I think, have a richer experience of sport than those who manage to do it completely dispassionately. The best athletes, however, are better able to confine their emotions to the moments when they are useful-- such as in the difficult sections of a hard race or workout, or when they are forced by injury into a tedious cross-training regime-- such that they have the mental space to learn from what is going on around and within them. With many athletes, and younger ones in particular, I find myself having the same conversations, and trying to impart the same information, over and over again at workouts and before races. With these athletes, I'm always on the alert for the ideal "teachable moment"; but, the lessons are often slow to stick. These are the athletes who constantly worry about how they feel and doubt their fitness beforehand; who, in blaze of emotion, ignore carefully plotted pre-race plans in favour of "how they feel"; and, who forget everything that happened before and during a race or workout almost immediately after. Athletes like this are frequently very talented, and their passion and free-spiritedness often produce spectacular performance breakthroughs; but, more often, their fire and spontaneity lead to failure, disappointment, and confusion. And then there is the flip-side of the emotional coin: those athletes whose fear and anxiety repeatedly prevent them from taking risks and taking full advantage of the physical adaptations they have earned through their training. In the end, athletes who habitually put passion over reason tend to have shorter and less fulfilling career than those who strive to manage their feelings long enough to learn from their experiences.

Unfortunately, there is no simple secret to setting our emotions aside long enough to begin to learn from our own training and racing experiences. As athletes mature and gain more experience, learning to learn becomes easier; the ability, however, will always comes more easily to some than to others. The best way to become a better student of our own training and racing, however, is simply to keep a good training log. The next step is to learn what information is most useful to record; and, more important than things like daily training heart rates, body weights, and calories consumed, which rarely vary much, is subjective information, such as our thoughts and feelings before, during, and after our races, and at different stages in our training year. Among the things I've learned from recording subjective information in my training logs is that I will tend to feel in a race almost exactly the same on average as I did in my final two workouts before, regardless of my basic conditioning, or how I felt immediately prior to the race, whether good or bad. This information has both greatly calmed my nerves before races that my warm-up has suggested might go badly, and prepared me to face racing situations in which, in spite of feeling normal in the warm-up, things might not go my way. I've also come to learn from my training logs that periods of training that I remember as having gone uniformly well-- simply because they preceded a very good race, or included a particularly memorable workout-- often contained many more sub-par workouts and anxieties over possible injuries and other physical problems than my gilded memories suggested. This information has many times worked to allay fears that perhaps my training was not going well enough to prepare me for an upcoming race.

Short of having a good training log (which, of course, takes years to compile), the especially nervous or emotional athlete can begin to create some space in which to learn simply by spending some time post-race revisiting his/her feelings beforehand, both immediately prior to the race and in the key workouts leading in, with an eye towards better understanding and mastering any negative tendencies they might have. Often all it takes to prevent our emotional drives, fears and anxieties from interfering with our performance (to say nothing of spoiling the whole experience of racing itself)is a little self-knowledge gleaned from the study of our own basic emotional tendencies. This way, we are better able to get out of the way, so to speak, of our own well trained bodies long enough to let them do their thing, and confine our emotional drives to moment when they are most useful. Legendary American coach Jack summed-up this problem nicely when explaining how best to approach racing the marathon: run the the first 3/4 with the head, he said, and the last 1/4 with the heart. I would add that this works all the better when we have first used our heads, meaning our rational minds, to understand not just how our personal bodies work, but how our sub-conscious mind and emotions behave during the process of training and racing.

When to Pull The Plug?

2009-10-05T21:21:00.005-04:00

No, not that plug! However, while I've no intention of getting up on my hind legs to talk about medical ethics, the question of whether and when to put a bad workout or race out of its misery does have something of a personal moral dimension for some runners. My own recent DNF at the Syracuse Festival of Races 5k-- which, at it turned out, occurred at about the same moment as one of my athletes' steadfast refusal to abandon his marathon race, despite being hobbled by a preexisting calf problem that began slowing him down as early as the 8k mark-- gave me pause to consider this, for some, sensitive issue. What, I wondered, made it easier for me to bail out of a 5k race (and it was a pretty easy decision by the time I made it) than it was for my athlete to let go of his marathon, particularly when, it seemed to me, he was putting so much more at risk than I was?

I should start by saying that I have actually dropped out of more races and workouts than many runners have finished! It's not that I do it very often; this recent DNF was only my second in a decade, although I have ditched many workouts in that time. It's just that I've started such a vast number of workouts and entered so many different races, and under such a wide variety of circumstances, that even 5 percent DNF rate equals something like 50 races and 500 workouts! I'm never been happy about abandoning a race or workout, but I will do it in an instant, subject to certain conditions; these are also the conditions under which I tell my athletes that it's O.K. to pull the plug. And, I've relaxed my rules a bit since turning 40, since getting older has rather drastically reduced the number of races I can safely attempt in a year. My "DNF rules" are informed by a basic calculus concerning the probable net effect of struggling to finish a race on my ability to maximize my racing performance in that season. Basically, if I am obviously sick or injured (and particularly if I'm bothered by a a problem I suspected beforehand might flare up), and my condition is clearly going to both negatively effect my performance and quite probably going to reduce my ability to train and race in the near future, I will abandon the effort. In the case of my DNF on Sunday, I started the race feeling under the weather with a nagging cold for the entire week prior, but hoping I would come around just in time (which I often have in similar circumstances). When it was obvious, both in the way I felt and the performance I was putting together, that this was distinctly not my day, I shut it down without hesitation. (As I mentioned in an earlier post, racing or training hard whilst unwell has, particularly since turning 40, has been the chief cause of sudden injury for me). My only other DNF of the past few years actually happened earlier this year, when I pulled out of the national track 10,000 at 6k in hot and humid conditions. In this instance, it was because I had no chance of meeting my time goal-- the only goal I had going in-- and fighting to the finish would have meant squandering a one of my precious few race efforts of the year, and costing me a week or more of recovery time. In both instances, I made a calculated decision to abandon at a very particular stage in the race and left the field without regrets.

By why, one might ask, do I have rules at all? Why not just allow myself to abandon any race or workout that I simply don't feel like finishing? Although I don't see the decision to finish or not finish a race as in any way a moral one (and I find it a little odd when people take pride in having finished every race they've ever started no matter what), I do think that runners who want to be their best should not get in the habit of abandoning races or workouts simply because they're not going according to plan. Very difficult or unsuccessful workout and races have a very important role to play in the development of a strong racing mind. Finishing when it would be both psychologically and physically easier to let it all go is very important in building the kind of mental focus required to get the most out of one's body on the days when it is ready to deliver. As my DNF rules suggest, I certainly think this can be taken to counter-productive extremes; but, I do think that under all but the above circumstances runners should attempt to complete races and workouts to the best of their ability on the day. An uncompromising attitude is a powerful tool in realizing one's full athletic potential. Besides, I've often found that interesting and surprising things happen in the midst of what seem to be failed workouts and races. Sticking it out has often given me the opportunity to salvage something of value in an otherwise dismal outing-- a stronger than expected final repeat or a few places gained unexpectedly in the late stages-- something that becomes a springboard to a much improved performance next time out.

Finally, as a coach, I think it's important to let the athlete make the final decision when it comes to finishing or not finishing a race or workout. For some athletes, the decision to finish workout or race, even when the risk of injury, illness and lost training time is great, has a deeper personal significance. Likewise, the decision to abandon a particular race may be related to factors beyond the scope of the coach athlete relationship. In either case, while I may offer my own point of view, my policy is to respect the autonomy of the athlete when it comes to the decision to "pull the plug". So, while I certainly found it ironic that, at the very moment I was deeming it unwise to run but two more hard kilometers in my 5k race, one of my own athletes was deciding to push on for another 34(!)kms on a gimpy calf, I realized that what was ultimately at issue was our respective relationships to the sport itself. My decision to stop and his decision to persevere, while polar opposites in one sense, were equally expressive of our own uniquely personal reasons for running and racing in the first place, with neither being right or wrong-- another reminder that running is always about much more than simply running.

P-K Profile #4-- Bob McGraw

2009-09-29T21:23:00.005-04:00

This week, I offer another in my series of profiles of group athletes (it's been a while since the last one!), this one of local member Dr. Bob McGraw, who's been on something of a tear over the past year, making life miserable for his competitors in the 50-55 age bracket.

It feels as though Bob's been close to the group for a number of years (in part because his kids have run in the junior group since primary school), but it's only been in the past 18 months that he's been a regular feature at local workouts. An emergency meds doc, father of three, and travel enthusiast, Bob hasn't always had the time to train as consistently as he'd like, although he's managed to keep a hand in it all his life. A multi-sport competitor in the early years of the sport in Vancouver and Kingston, Bob would eventually begin to pare his athletic life down to running as the demands of his personal and professional life grew. After a couple of injury-related false starts with the group several years ago, Bob finally found his groove in the winter of 2008, and has been doing some of his best running since turning 50 in that year.

On the road, track and trail, Bob is the picture of calm, power and economy. I never saw him compete as a younger athlete; but, with some 70s era hair and a vintage mesh singlet, I imagine he'd have looked like one of the great European athletes of that era-- short, barrel chested, and light of foot! At 50, his stride is still smooth, light, and compact. (As I do with many of my talented masters athletes, I often wonder what Bob might have done in his teens and 20s had he elected to train seriously.)

Bob's recent run of racing success began with his 1:19:30 age-class victory at the Niagara Half Marathon, his first race of this length in years, and continued a month later at the National Masters Cross Country Championships, where he was the oldest member of our winning men's 40-49 team. A complete cycle of winter training, including some frigid tempo and fartlek sessions around our regular neighborhood circuit and a stack of very solid interval sessions on the indoor track a the Royal Military College, left him poised to rewrite his masters bests this spring and summer. Work, travel, and suboptimal weather conditions kept Bob from hitting his time goals in the first half of the racing season, but he started the second half with a bang, running a huge masters personal best of 17:00 at the Army Run 5k a little more than a week ago, winning the category by 40-odd seconds. Since he was involved in a fall at the start of this race, and since he elected to maintain a moderately high training volume going into it (his seasonal goal races being the provincial and national X-C championships), we can no doubt expect him to repeat, or even improve on, the quality of this performance before the year is out (fellow Canadian 50-55 competitors, consider yourselves warned!). And, having seemingly found the sweet spot in his work and family routine, I expect Bob will continue to be a top performer among the 50-somethings for as long as he'd care to.

The Devil in the Details

2009-09-21T14:19:00.010-04:00

Why do some athletes who seem to have everything going for them-- a knowledgeable coach, a solid program, and plenty of apparent natural ability-- nevertheless seem to consistently under-perform, and generally fail to develop their long term potential? And why do others, sometimes using the same coach and program, and with the same, or even sometimes less, apparent basic ability, go on to enjoy long and successful careers? Could it simply be a matter of luck?; the unseen and genetically determined "trainability" of some athletes and not others?; or, perhaps, could be it be some athletes' genetically determined proneness to injury and illness (another type of basic luck)? The truth is, there is no way to know for certain the factors that explain success and failure in athletes who appear to be equally endowed. Such is the complexity of the training process-- which is also, we can't forget, a "living" process, given the complex imbrication of our training with our everyday, non-running routines. Nevertheless, while a fully scientific answer to this question may elude us, a look inside the daily lives of a very large numbers of athletes-- such as I've been afforded in the course of a 30-year involvement in the sport-- offers certain hints. If fact, my experience strongly suggests that some athletes, for whom all other things seem roughly equal, enjoy dramatically different degrees of long term success because of the way that they manage the seemingly minor details of the training process-- what we might refer to as the supports of the training process, as distinct from the actual business of completing runs and workouts.

That the devil of repeated failure seemed to reside more often in the details of an athlete's quotidian routine became apparent to me as I began to look more closely for an explanation of my own periodic failures and set-backs. And my conclusion was gradually confirmed through subsequent observations of the daily habits of the many other athletes with whom I would come into contact over the years, whether as a friend, competitor or coach.

Using my years of detailed training logs, I was able to discover that there was invariably a moment, usually in the form of a single poor decision, such as an ill-timed or too intense workout session, or late night out, that triggered a series of events (often involving further poor decisions) leading to the periodic collapse of my training or racing. When I was younger, some of these initial episodes of bad judgment had simply to do with lack of knowledge or experience (I was, after all, largely self-coached). Later in my career, however, these bad decisions, when they occurred-- and they occurred less frequently the older I got-- had less to do the not knowing than with my occasional impatience, complacency, corner-cutting, or ill-advised risk-taking. I had, in particular, a marked tendency to force my return to hard training following a bout of illness (particularly common when my children were small). To this day, the vast majority (something like 90%) of all the injuries I've suffered have been sustained within a week of a lay-off caused by viral illness. After something like the 3rd or 4th repetition of this pattern, I began to discern it as, in fact, a pattern; nevertheless, I still occasionally took undue risks following minor illnesses, although, of course, usually without incident. It was the fact that I didn't always get hurt following a cold that lead me to take the risks I did, and the more time that elapsed between my last illness/injury episode, the more I would be willing to take the risk of doing a hard session during or immediately after a viral infection. Of course, every time an injury did occur, and I was forced into the pool or onto the elliptical again, I would realize that I had made the same mistake yet again, and I would remind myself of how stupid it was to risk losing 10 or more future workouts-- to say nothing of the tedium of obligatory cross-training and rehab-- in order to save just one workout this week. All the higher level sophistication and general determination in the world would amount to nothing, I would eventually conclude, without proper attention to the details. Like Achilles with his heal, I surmised, we were no stronger than our weakest link-- which was more likely to reside in some apparently trivial detail than one of our basic training principles.

As it would happen, I would sustain relatively few injuries or other set-backs in my career, and would enjoy long stretches of successful racing right into my 40s. And, the older I got, the more I realized that my long term success had more to do with my ability to recognize and attend to the smaller details of my program than with, say, "good genetics", or some other form of happy chance. In spite of my occasional tendency to take risks around illnesses, I began to realize that I must have been getting most of the details in my training and general preparation right most of the time, and probably more often than many of my equally talented and similarly hard-training, but more oft-injured, competitors. Sure enough, as I got to know some of my competitors as good friends, and saw first hand the many small lapses in good judgment they frequently made-- from pushing through workouts while obviously (to me, anyway) in the early stages of injury, to refusing to re-schedule or abandon workouts when obviously over-tired, to neglecting their strength routines-- I began to realize that, in many cases, their apparent "bad luck" had a much more specific cause: poor day-to-day judgment and lack of attention to the detailed supports of their training processes. And, on the other side of the coin, I began to notice that athletes who were doing better than I was were most often the ones who had developed, and were successfully adhering to, even more sophisticated support systems. Eventually, and finally, my entry into coaching would convince me that the devil of repeated failure was most often in the details of an athlete's training process.

Becoming a coach has entailed developing a familiarity with the personalities and daily habits of people normally reserved for psychologists and immediate family members! In addition to leading to some deep and abiding friendships, it has been an indelible lesson in the importance in athletic success of managing one's day-to-day affairs and controlling one's occasionally counter-productive impulses. Everyone I have ever coached has professed a keen desire to succeed; yet, some have proven much better at attending to the small threads in the fabric of their training programs, which, if allowed to come loose, will lead to the unraveling of the entire cloth. It is these athletes who have tended to enjoy the most long term success. Proper attention to most of the details in question-- from getting good sleep on a consistent basis, to managing illness, to maintaining a minimal core strength routine, to communicating with me immediately about possible injury problems (and following my advice), to simply following the training program as written-- is well within the realm of the practical for the average athlete, no matter how time-pressed. In fact, my busiest athletes are frequently the most diligent in the management of their daily support routines. Those who don't manage these crucial details effectively, I have come to understand, simply do not, deep down, believe they are as important as they are to their over-all success. Some who have not always been good at managing such details have, over time, and as a result of bitter experience, learned to become better at the job (much as I myself did). For others, on the other hand, a tendency to want to "get on with it" and never mind the fuss, is an ingrained trait of personality. In these instances, consistent success and long term talent development remain frustrating up-hill battles. This kind of athlete is, in fact, the most likely to abandon the sport prematurely, blaming "bad luck", in some form or other, for their failure to thrive.

When it comes to negligence in the maintenance of proper training-support routines, special comment must be reserved for the teenage athlete. Proper attention to details like rest and nutrition requires ability to understand the link between present actions and future consequences; this is an ability that most teenagers lack, simply because they are teenagers. Nonetheless, some young runners take lack of attention to detail and generally bad day-to-day judgment to new heights. Teenage runners generally want to succeed as much as adult runners-- perhaps more-- and their decision to pursue this most difficult of sports marks them as a special breed within their age cohort; nevertheless, the same kid who will complete every run and workout without fail, will also, without warning, decide to stay up half the night partying the week before his most important race of the season, and while already suffering from a cold! The teenage athlete is also remarkably difficult to sell on the merits of proper nutrition, strength training, and even simple injury rehab, such as icing or stretching. They are also sometimes reluctant to obey basic workout instructions, preferring, lack of experience notwithstanding, to do things their own way. And, amazingly, some asthmatic teenagers will repeatedly forget to bring their inhalers along to workouts and races, even when the simple, side-effect-free, administering of said medication means the difference between success and failure. In short, teenage athletes are often remarkable in their ability to confront the bigger challenge of being runners-- the regular completion of workouts and runs; but, just as often, they are reluctant to register the importance of getting the details right. Unfortunately for them, this makes them an excellent negative example for all of us.

In the end, I'm convinced that most unsuccessful runners of any age or basic ability level (from potential elite to age class recreational) are undone by a failure to do what they know, or ought reasonably to know (because the have probably been told!), is correct than by unknown variables, such as their basic genetic inheritance. Failed runners often speak of injury-proneness, or the basic, genetically-determined inability to handle the required training loads, in accounting for their troubles. And there are, of course, rare examples of otherwise genetically blessed athletes whose bodies are in some other way irreparably flawed, causing them to break down under the burden of even modest training. Upon closer examination, however, many more unsuccessful runners have failed because of their own repeated lack of attention to the important details that sustain any training effort, and because of a repeated inability or unwillingness to learn from their mistakes. In my experience, most runners are actually capable of training much longer, harder, and more consistently than they ever have; yet, many cannot progress because of a repeated failure to attend to the seeming minutiae that so often make the difference between success on the one hand and injury or poor race performance on the other. I conclude, then, with my list of the most common neglected areas of detail among runners, young, old, elite and average. These are mostly simple and easy to manage variables that most reasonably experienced runners know are important but nevertheless often neglect:

1. The treatment and proper rehab of common injuries, including the timing of return from injury.

2. The management of effort levels on a daily basis (i.e. failure to reign-in the very common "harder is always better" impulse).

3. The maintenance of a simple strength program to shore-up known areas of weakness.

4. Attention to basic nutrition (a fast improving area, it must be said).

5. Attention to sleep requirements and sleep problems (sometimes more complicated, admittedly).

6. Deciding when and how much to race (many runners enter races for the wrong reasons, at the wrong times, and generally race too often).

7. The choice of pacing strategies in races (many people insist on exemplifying Einstein's definition of insanity when it comes to their choice of racing tactics-- to wit: Repeat the same failed strategy over and over again with the expectation of different results).

The Retail Running Clinic: Boon or bane?

2009-09-14T12:10:00.013-04:00

Is it possible that a phenomenon-- the shoe store running clinic-- that introduces thousands of people to running might also be bad for the sport? And, is it "elitist" for a lifetime competitive runner like me to even entertain such a notion? A recent inquiry from a potential on-line client-- and current participant in a well known store-based marathon training clinic-- gave me occasion to revisit my views on this favourite discussion topic among running veterans and other aficionados.

When we attend an event such as the Ottawa Race Weekend, or any of the half a dozen Canada Running Series events, and see throngs of runners sporting those now familiar tokens of store clinic participation (the "back-flap" jacket and "ammo belt"-style water carrier) and dutifully stopping for the 60 second walk break that is the orthodoxy within the store clinic-based running movement, it is hard to argue that this phenomenon has been anything but beneficial for the sport of road racing, even, perhaps, at the elite level. "Ammo-belts", jackets and all, these throngs of new runners represent a significant stream of revenue for road race organizers (to say nothing of the stores that sell these accessories!), part of which sometimes goes to prize money purses for race winners. The mass entry of store clinic runners onto the road race scene has also been accompanied by steep spike in road race entry fees over the past 20 years-- a rate far above inflation, for sure-- meaning that each of these new runners has been worth 2 or even 3 "old-school" runners in terms of dollars generated. In many ways, events like the Ottawa Race Weekend and the Canada Running Series owe their very existence, in their current form, to the rise of the running store clinic. In fact, some of the bigger stores have developed close, even symbiotic, relationships with bigger events, such as Ottawa, with the clinics preparing runners for specific races and the stores buying premium floor space at pre-race commercial expos. So, with road races now bigger and richer than ever, in significant part because of the union of commerce and sport embodied by the shoe store running clinic, what could long-time supporters of competitive running possibly have against this new running boom?

For one thing, many long time runners resent what they perceive as a mass-market colonization of their once pristine sub-cultural preserve. Like members of any other formerly grass-roots sub-culture, long time, serious runners tend to dislike any form of commercial exploitation of an activity they see as having deeper, perhaps even spiritual, significance for them, and they are apt to direct this dislike at the most obvious manifestations of the trend-- in this case, the store clinic runner, with all of the associated trappings. In fact, many long-time, serious runners would be perfectly happy to see their sport return to its roots as a "hard-core" and therefore relatively fringe activity, pursued exclusively for its own sake by a well-trained minority of pure-hearted enthusiasts, even this meant that races became smaller, poorer, and perhaps less well organized. I see this reaction as, at least in part, expressive of a longing for a return to the purely "sportive" dimension of running-- as opposed, that is, to its purely hygienic, "life-style" and consumer-driven aspect. As a long time and very "hard-core" runner myself, I can well understand this reaction; it is a form of "elitism", to be sure, but one with some redeemable characteristics. Ultimately, however, I don't see it as a legitimate basis on which to be critical of the store clinic phenomenon.

My own critique of the store clinic "learn to run" and "marathon training" phenomenon has always been based on my belief that running should indeed be a "hard-core", sport-based, competitive activity; but, that it can and should also be a mass-based activity. My critique centres on my belief that store clinics actually sell their clients short as athletes,, and that they do so for the most crass of motives-- separating them from their money.

My argument here is, first of all, a structural one, meaning that I think the store clinic approach operates the way that it does because not because of the bad motives of the people who operate it (many people who have run store clinics are, quite often, serious, competitive runners themselves); instead, this model operates the way that it does because of context within which it is situated. The store clinic program can only exist as an adjunct to the retail enterprise itself, whose primary business is, of course, the sale of running gear.

In order for stores to devote time and attention to their clinics, their clinics must pay for themselves in the form of fees and sales of product that would otherwise not be sold. In order for stores to attract clinic patrons, they must "sell" running much the same way as they sell their other products. To do so, they must stress the ease of access to the sport, and they must offer a simple, tangible goal (race completion, weight loss) in return for the fee paid. They must also, of course, convince would-be runners that the sport is synonymous with a higher than strictly necessary degree of consumption-- of products and equipment, that is. Store clinics must also continually re-enroll runners in their clinics, in order to keep them coming back to the store, and to avoid having to look for fresh clientele every 3 months. Even more insidiously, store clinics must set their actual training schedules around the routines of store operation. It is therefore not uncommon for stores to host Sunday long runs to coincide with the opening hours of their stores, or to set the number and types of harder sessions based on the availability of staff. (In one popular marathon training schedule, fully half of the athlete's weekly volume is to be completed in just one run, and there are 3 faster running sessions-- including repeat hills, which are of dubious value in a marathon building phase in any case, particularly for beginners-- scheduled on consecutive days.) And in order to get around the problem of staffing clinics, some stores will actually appoint graduates of their own clinics-- those with very little experience as athletes, let alone as coaches-- to run the show.

In the end, while running store clinics serve to introduce thousands of new runners to the sport, and all but gift-wrap them for race organizers, they tend to leave them permanently stranded between the status of beginner and bona fide runner. No one could ever expect every new runner to one day become a serious, life long runner; but, store clinics do not, and indeed cannot, offer this a next option to their clientele. It is simply not in their interest to do so. But worse, store clinics, in pursuit of their particular business model, often systematically misinform new athletes about racing and training. The most infamous example here is undoubtedly the "walk-jog" theory of marathon completion. The "walk-jog" theory of marathon running, according to which it is more effective to take 60 second walk breaks for every 10 minutes of running, is a pathology that grows directly out of the store clinic's need to promise all participants a quick and tangible reward, the Holy Grail of which is marathon completion. The introduction of walk breaks, quite simply, allows under-prepared runners get from start to finish in one piece; yet, it is billed by proponents as a faster, perhaps even the fastest way for the average runner to complete a marathon or shorter race distance-- and this, even though it is well known that the best, and even just the very good, marathoners do not take walk breaks. The crucial distinction here is, of course, that between "the average" runner (i.e. the store clinic participant) and "the good" runners (i.e. those whose ability effectively puts them into a completely different sport). The store clinic insistence on the "walk-jog" approach permanently consigns all participants to the status of talentless "other", whose main concern is to complete races without getting injured, or particularly stressed.

Thus, in pursuit of its particular kind of commercial interest, the typical store clinic approach, while it may indeed put bodies into races, actually erodes the sport of running as such on the most basic of levels-- by mass-promoting the notion that an a vigorous and competitive approach to running is too difficult and dangerous for the "average" person. While it may serve to promote greater public health (actually, a somewhat dubious claim, since the typical clinic member and race entrant is, on the basis of being middle to upper income alone, already in better health than the average person), store-based "learn to run" and "marathon training" clinics systematically discourage thousands of people-- many of them women, who, for sociological reasons, were often discouraged from taking up competitive sport as girls-- the opportunity to experience the joy and fulfillment of a vigorous, competitive approach to running. Meanwhile, in running clubs and informal running groups across North America, people are proving that serious, competitive running can be for everyone, and for life. Interestingly, much of my information on the running clinic phenomenon has come from refugees from the clinics themselves-- from people who have looked for, and found, an exciting alternative to the endless routine of "walk-run" and "marathon completion" for its own sake, an alternative that the clinics would not, and could not, offer.