Training

The Science of Performance

Home

Physiology

Training

The Running Theory of Everything

Prelude

In his book, A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking, perhaps the world’s preeminent physicists, talks at length about the nature and history of the universe.  As part of his discussion he reviews the various theories that have been held about the universe through the ages.  What relevance does his discussion about various physical theories of the universe throughout history have to do with running, you ask?  I submit they are quite relevant to running, specifically run training methodology, and that they could help us advance our knowledge of training to the next step.  If I’m correct then we should review the theories of the universe to gain a basic understanding of how they relate to our running world.

Hawking begins his book with a review of the history of theories of the universe, starting as far back as 340BC with Aristotle's ideas on the topic.  He goes on to explains that throughout history new theories about the universe have come into prominence.  The interesting thing is that each new theory that has come along has generally been an extension of a previous theory.  He writes,

"In practice, what often happens is that a new theory is devised that is really an extension of the previous theory."

In the 17th century a really important breakthrough took place in our understanding of the universe with Newton's invention of his theory of gravity.  You may remember from your days in science class back in middle school that Sir Isaac Newton is credited with mathematically defining gravity.  You probably recall the story of how he came to define gravity after sitting beneath an apple tree and having an apple fall and hit him on the head.  Anyway, Newton is credited with a lot of other stuff too, so much in fact that an entire branch of physics came to be called Newtonian physics in recognition of his contributions and insights to our physical world.  Newton's theory of gravity is still used today, but as good as Newton theory of gravity is, it is not perfect.  It has some known flaws, minor flaws, but flaws nonetheless. 

Years later, Einstein came along and, based on his insights and discoveries, invented a new theory of the universe that is called the General Theory of Relativity.  Einstein theories accurately explain some of the known flaws in Newton's Theory of Gravity.  Hawking writes:

"For example, very accurate observations of the planet Mercury revealed a small difference between its motion and the predictions of Newton’s theory of gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity predicted a slightly different motion from Newton’s theory. The fact that Einstein’s predictions matched what was seen, while Newton’s did not, was one of the crucial confirmations of the new theory. However, we still use Newton’s theory for all practical purposes because the difference between its predictions and those of general relativity is very small in the situations that we normally deal with. (Newton’s theory also has the great advantage that it is much simpler to work with than Einstein’s!)"

Einstein was able to successfully explain some of the things that Newton could not.  But, as good as Einstein's theories are, they are not complete either – there are known inconsistencies in his theories too.  Most notably, Einstein physics does not accurately predict and explain behavior of very small scale systems – sub-atomic systems for example.  A new theory - quantum mechanics - came about in the 20th century to fill in the gaps left by Einstein's theories.

After his review of this history of different theories of the universe, Hawking brings us current with modern thought about the theories of the universe.

"Today scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories – the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. They are the great intellectual achievements of the first half of this century. The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe, that is, the structure on scales from only a few miles to as large as a million million million million (1 with twenty-four zeros after it) miles, the size of the observable universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales, such as a millionth of a millionth of an inch. Unfortunately, however, these two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other – they cannot both be correct. One of the major endeavors in physics today, and the major theme of this book, is the search for a new theory that will incorporate them both – a quantum theory of gravity."

So, what we have are 2 partial, competing theories, with flaws in both.  Quantum mechanics explains all the small stuff but can’t explain the big stuff.  The general theory of relativity explains all the big stuff but fails at the small stuff.

Despite the competing theories there is only one set of laws at work in the universe – not 2 sets of laws as would be implied by the competing models of quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity.  Both theories are known to have missing ingredients.  The goal of physicist today is to find those missing pieces which will result in the melding of these two theories into one, universal physics theory.  Physicists, being the known chuckleheads that they are, have dubbed this new, yet to be discovered theory The Theory of Everything.  It has a nice ring to it, don’t you agree?  Even more important than a cool name though, is the advances this new theory will enable.  Today, limitations in our physics model likely hamper physicists’ work and if those limitations were removed by The Theory of Everything, our advances in knowledge could potentially skyrocket.  Imagine how far our understanding of everything physics related will advance when this breakthrough understanding is finally realized.  Imagine the possibilities. Is time travel possible?  How about traveling faster than the speed of light (warp speed)?  Can we travel through worm holes in the universe?  The Theory of Everything will answer these questions and many, many others.  How exciting!

Okay, so now you know the basics of The Theory of Everything as it relates to physics.  How does this relate to running?  Glad you stuck around long enough to ask.

Just like in the physics world, there are two competing models in the running world too.  And again just like the competing physics models, both running models are right but both have missing pieces.  Eerie isn’t it?  What are these two running theories you ask?  The answer is high mileage training and quality training.

As explained in part 1 of this series, the High Mileage Theory holds that all runners will benefit from running high weekly mileages.  This theory believes that in order to maximize performance that a runner needs to get his weekly mileage up to around 100 miles per week (mpw).  However, there are some known holes in this theory.  First, not every runner can build up to 100mpw or more – the injury rate increases exponentially as weekly mileage increases, to the point that 70% of those who run 50+mpw will sustain training altering injuries.  It’s tough to say that all must build up to the point of running 100mpw when the vast majority will sustain injury after injury trying to get to this weekly mileage.  Even more damning to this theory is a boatload of contradictory scientific research.  Scientists have been studying endurance athletes for a long time and the research has shown that increasing mileage does not always lead to improved performance.  There are multiple studies that contradict the belief in high mileage training for all.

The competing theory – the Quality Theory – holds that quality training is more important than quantity, or high mileage training.  The Quality Theory holds that a more moderate level of weekly mileage, say 40 – 60 mpw, is optimal and that a greater emphasis on quality training rather than a high weekly mileage will produce the best competitive performance.  However, this theory too has it share of holes.  The most prominent of these shortcomings is that no elites have used this method in the modern training era to win major competitions.  If this method were truly superior, then surely some elites would have used this method and dominated the running world with it.  But that is not the case.  The top elites are all running high mileage, not following a quality approach to training.  The second inconsistency in this method is that many non-elite runners over the years have increased their weekly mileage up to about 100mpw and enjoyed improved performance.  If the Quality Theory were completely accurate it would not be necessary for anyone to run 100mpw in order to maximize performance.

So, in a nutshell there are two competing theories in the running world.  The High Mileage Theory accurately explains the performance of elite runners but fails to explain why scores of valid research studies contradict a belief in the superiority of high mileage training or what to do about the incredibly high incident of injury with high mileage training.   The Quality Theory fits perfectly with all the scientific data but cannot account for why no elites are winning top level competition using this method, why elites all seem to perform best on high mileage, and why some non-elites have maximized their performance only when they finally reached about 100mpw.

The point is that both theories have elements that are obviously correct and areas that are not correct.  There is only one set of training principles that govern our world, not 2 sets as implied by these two competing theories.  Both theories are missing something or things, which, by definition, means both are inaccurate.  Therefore, I suggest that, just like in the physics world, we in the running world need to focus our efforts on discovering the missing ingredients.  When discovered, we will be able to meld the High Mileage Theory and the Quality Theory into one, universal theory of run training – The Running Theory of Everything.  When this is accomplished, I believe the new Running Theory of Everything will help us remove the obstacles caused by the currently incomplete theories we are operating under today.  Image the advances we will be able to make when this is finally accomplished.  Perhaps we will be able to permanently relegate run injuries to the trash heap.  Maybe we can finally identify the correct training regimen that is optimal for each individual, based on that individual’s personal situation and genetic capabilities.  The possibilities are endless.

Is there any glimmer on the horizon signaling the arrival of The Running Theory of Everything?  Yes, there is.  I’ve given considerable thought to this topic and in part 3 of this series I propose a preliminary Running Theory of Everything and the research supporting this new theory.