Training

Power Running Training Guide

Part 1:  Classification of Runners

Introduction

There are as many different training programs as there are runners and no one training program is suitable for all or even most runners.  The famous running philosopher George Sheehan said we are all an experiment of one, a philosophy that I agree with.  Even so, there are general principles and guidelines that each runner can use to create a training program that will work best for that runner.  In this Power Running Training Guide I will outline general training principles and guidelines and also provide some generic training programs.  Your job is to understand the general training principles and guidelines and to then use them to modify the suggested training programs to best suit your genetic talents and personal goals.  By understanding the general principles and guidelines and then adapting the suggested training program to fit you personally, your own "experiment of one" will result in you achieving the best performance you are capable of under the circumstances you find yourself in.

Classification of Runners

The first general principle of the Power Running Training Program is that there is no one training program that is right for everyone.  No matter how elite runners may train or what is believed to be the best training program for them, it does not mean that the same training program is going to work for you.  In fact, the chances are the training program of the elites won't work for you.  Why do I say that?  In a word - genetics.

Genetics:  There is an amazing broad variance of genetic talent in humans.  I suspect many people do not fully comprehend just how broad the range of genetic capabilities are.  Research has been shown that the variance of response to a standardized aerobic training program to range from -5% to as high as 100%.  If you took a large group of beginners and had them follow the exact same beginner training program you would see these results - a few subjects would lose fitness, some would show no change or very little change in performance, most would improve a modest amount, and a few would improve dramatically.  Fig. 1 graphically shows the results of just such a research study.  600 subjects were endurance trained for 20 weeks at a mild intensity level.  The average improvement in fitness of the subjects in this study was 17%, but the range of change was 61%, from -5% to 56%.

Figure 1:  Variance of response to a standardized training program

What caused the large 61% variance in response?  Genetics.  By far the biggest factor influencing performance and adaptation to training is genetics, with scientists estimating that as much as 75% - 80% of performance is due to genetic factors.  Unfortunately, no amount of training will allow you to change your genetics.  However, all is not lost.  First, only a very small percentage of people show no improvement with training.  The odds are very large that you will improve if you do the work.  Second, 20-25% of your trainability is modifiable - you can improve your body's ability to adapt to training.  Scientists haven't figured out all the things you can do to improve your trainability, but it's reasonable to say that proper nutrition, adequate rest, and optimal training will go a long way towards helping you reach your ultimate potential.

The bottom line is that genetics plays the dominant role in performance.  From a practical perspective this means that what works for the high responders is not likely to work for the low or average responders.  The training program that works best for the runners on the right side of the graph in Fig. 1 is not likely to be the best training program for those runners falling on the left side of the same graph.  The genetic factors at work that allow the fast runners to run so very fast also generally allow them to run and benefit from relatively high training loads.  Those genetic factors that cause an individual to run at average or below average paces also prevent them from thriving on relatively high training loads or mileages.  That being the case, it makes sense to provide training guidelines for people whose genetics cause them to fall at different locations on the normal distribution curve.  Thus, I divide runners into 4 levels, or classifications, and suggest what I believe are appropriate training guidelines for each of the 4 levels. 

The 4 classifications of runners - levels 1-4 - are based on race performance for experienced runners.  Levels 1 and 2 are composed of above average to elite level runners and levels 3 and 4 are those runners finishing in the lower half of races.  An example of this classification of runners is illustrated by the data in figure 2, which graphically shows the distribution of finishing times in the 2001 Austin Motorola Marathon plotted in 5 minute intervals.  Levels 1 and 2 are the faster runners, found on the left side of the graph, and levels 3 and 4 are the slower finishers, found on the right side of the graph.  The median finishing time is the 4:00:00 finishing block, so levels 1 and 2 run the marathon in 4 hours and less, while the level 3 and 4 runners finish the marathon in more than 4 hours.

Figure 2:  Distribution of finishing times in the 2001 Motorola Marathon

plotted in 5 minute intervals.

Level 1:  Level 1 runners are genetically blessed with speed.  Their genetics allow them to run fast off of little to no training and to improve significantly with training.  Level 1 runners finish in the top 25% of local races and the very fastest ones are good enough to compete internationally.

Level 2:  Level 2 runners are also genetically blessed with speed, but not as much as the Level 1 runners.  Level 2 runners form the upper 25 - 50% of finishing places in races.  The fastest Level 2 runners finish ahead of about 75% of the other runners in the race and even the slowest level 2 runner finishes just in front of 50% of the other race competitors.  Level 2 runners benefit from increasing their training load to a fairly high level, but performance levels off at a lower training load than that of the Level 1 runners.

Level 3:  Level 3 runners have average to below average speed and make up the 50 - 75 percentile of finishers in races.  The relatively low level of genetic talent prevent these runners from running very fast or from benefiting from increasing training load beyond a modest amount.

Level 4:  Level 4 runners have below average speed and reach their genetic maximum at very modest training loads.  Increasing training load beyond these very modest levels is likely to cause a noticeably poorer performance.  Level 4 runners finish in the back 25% of races.

Beginner Runners:  The 4 levels of runners are based on experienced runners, not beginner runners.  A beginner runner may, due to lack of conditioning, initially perform in a lower level than their genetics will ultimately allow.  Just because a beginner may initially run at the pace of a level 3 or 4 runner does not mean they will stay in that level.  My recommendation for beginners is to build up their training load until they are at the training guidelines for the level their performance indicates they are in and as they increase their speed to move up to the next appropriate level.

Classification Guidelines

Table 1 below outlines the 4 levels of runners, with the performance for various distances that correspond to each level.  Looking at the row for 400 meters you see that a level 1 runner would run 400 meters in the range of 43 sec to 1:05 min:sec. and a level 3 runner would run 400 meters in 1:27 - 1:49 min:sec. I've included guidelines for the most popular racing distances out to the marathon, but have also included guidelines for the 200m, 400m, and 800m sprints.  To determine what level you fall into, compare your performance in a recent race to the times provided in each level.  If, for example, you ran a 5k last week in 20:10 min:sec, you are a level 2 runner.

Sprints:  Why do I include the sprints in my classification of distance runners?  After all, this is a guide for distance runners, not sprinters.  Not to mention that sprints are anaerobic races, not endurance races.  Right?  The reason I include sprints in this guide is that, as it turns out, sprints are not anaerobic events, they are endurance events.  (shock, gasp)

For many, many years it was believed that events lasting less than about 3 minutes were highly anaerobic.  However, more recently multiple research studies have shown that sprints have a significantly higher aerobic component that previously believed.  In fact, the change-over to predominantly aerobic energy production occurs between 15-30 seconds.  In other words, 15 to 30 seconds after you begin running your aerobic system is providing the bulk of your energy needs.  Your aerobic system provides most of the energy for distances of 200 meters and beyond.  Based on this new information I believe it is appropriate to include the sprint distances in our effort to determine the appropriate classification of runners.

Table 1:  Classification of the 4 levels of runners

Abbreviations:  sec = seconds; min = minutes; m:s = minutes and seconds; h:m = hours and minutes; ; hrs = hours; mpw = miles per week

Predicting Performance:  Can you predict in advance what your ultimate potential is?  No, you can't.  While those with initially low levels of fitness may improve more than those with a higher starting level of fitness, the starting level of fitness does not predict how much someone can ultimately improve with training.  The only way to know what your potential truly is, is by actually doing the work of training.  Only training will reveal how much or little talent you may posses and how good you can become. 

Can a runner move from a lower level to a higher level?  Certainly.  The levels are a method of classifying experienced runners, runners who have at least several years of training under their belts.  Beginners, especially those without a training background in other sports, will likely begin at a lower level and move to a higher one as their fitness and capabilities improve.  Experienced runners, however, will be hard pressed to make significant changes in their level.  As noted above, genetics play a major role in performance and training won't change your genetics.  However, as much as 25% of your ability to respond to training is NOT controlled by genetics, so this is an area that can be positively influenced by other factors, presumably diet, training, stress, and other life influences.

Suggested Average Weekly Mileages

You may have noticed that I included suggested average weekly mileages for each classification of runner in table 1.  We will discuss weekly mileage in detail in part 2 of this guide, but in the meantime let's discuss it in relation to the main theme of part 1 - genetics.

Recall the great range of adaptation to a standardized training program illustrated in figure 1 above.  Figure 1 showed that different people respond very differently to training.  Some respond tremendously, improving dramatically, while others respond poorly and improve only slightly.  Everyone else is in-between the two extremes.  You can clearly see the normal distribution of response to training in figure 1.  I suggest that the ability to adapt to a particular training load follows a similar normal distribution.  Some runners can adapt over time to a very high training load, while others are not genetically capable of adapting to such a high load.

What happens when someone trains too much?  Most commonly they become overtrained and/or injured.  Injury is an indication that a runner has applied a training load to their body in excess of their bodies ability to adapt to that load.  Since injury is an indication of overtraining it is instructive to review rates of injury amongst runners.  Table 2 illustrates how injury rate skyrockets as weekly mileage increases. 

Table 2:  The effect of miles/week of running on cumulative incidence of injury in men.

As you see at 40 miles per week more than half of all runners experience a training altering injury.  By combining the data from injury studies like that above with data from studies on the effects of varying frequencies of training I have come up with suggested weekly training volume.

Hard and Fast?

Are my classifications and recommendations hard and fast?  Must you absolutely stick to them?  Absolutely not.  They are my guidelines only.  The simple fact of the matter is that people vary widely in their genetic talents.  You may be a slow runner yet be able to run higher mileage than I recommend.  You may be a really fast runner yet sustain injury after injury each time you build up to higher weekly mileages.  I believe that my training guidelines are generally accurate for the majority, but there are going to be exceptions simply because people are not all the same.

Next:  Part 2 - Training Variables