TrainingThe Science of Performance |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Running Theory of Everything Part 3 In parts 1 and 2 of The Running Theory of Everything series I laid out the case that there are currently two competing training theories in the running community - the “High Mileage” theory and the “Quality” theory – and that both of these training theories have known flaws. The High Mileage theory uses as its primary proof the high weekly mileages run by elite distance runners, especially elite marathon runners. This theory claims that since elites run high mileage and elites are the fastest runners on the planet that this proves that elite training methods are the best training methods for everyone. If the High Mileage theory were correct then higher weekly mileages would produce superior performance than lower weekly mileages in most or all runners. This is not the case though, as a significant body of valid scientific research contradicts the belief that high weekly mileage results in superior performance. Numerous studies show that high mileage is not superior to more moderate mileage training programs. The Quality theory uses as its primary proof the same body of research contradicting the High Mileage theory; this research suggests high weekly mileage does not play a strong role in performance while also showing that high intensity training has the greatest influence on performance. The flaw in the Quality theory is that it cannot account for the fact that elite runners appear to performance best from a program consisting of relatively high weekly mileages and that no elites have won major competitions in modern times while running relatively low weekly mileages. If the Quality theory were correct then there presumably should have been one or more elites who performed well from a lower mileage, high quality training program. This is not the case though, as I know of no elite distance runners in the modern era who have reported to have trained mostly or exclusively following the quality method. There is only one universal set of laws governing human endurance physiology, not two competing sets of laws. Since there is only one universal set of laws governing human endurance physiology there can only be one valid training theory, one universal training theory, in accord with the one set of laws governing human endurance physiology. The situation we have today, though, is not one universal training theory, but two contradictory theories of endurance training, both with known flaws. The one universal theory of training will integrate the theories of High Mileage and Quality and will accurately explain the contradictions found in these two competing models. I have dubbed this single, correct, universal training theory “The Running Theory of Everything”. This universal Running Theory of Everything will successfully account for the contradictions between the High Mileage and Quality theories and will be the start of the next evolution in endurance training programs. I ended part 2 by explaining that a universal Running Theory of Everything had not previously been proposed. However, I have given considerable thought to this topic and here in part 3 offer a preliminary Running Theory of Everything. I use the term preliminary because though I believe my Running Theory of Everything has merit and is supported by a body of research evidence it will need to be confirmed or denied by additional research and evidence. What is The Running Theory of Everything? In brief, The Running Theory of Everything proposes that the broad range of variation in genetic talent across the entire human population means that there is a broad range in optimal training load. It proposes that significant differences in genetic talent result in significant differences in optimal training. Optimal training for someone with elite talent is not likely to be optimal training for someone with less than elite talent and vice versa. Some individuals are born with very high levels of talent, some are born with extremely limited talent, and everyone else falls between these two extremes. This broad range of genetic talent results in an equally broad range of capabilities in things like running speed, rate of recovery, and ability to adapt to training. Clearly we don’t all run at the same speed, recovery at the same rate, or adapt to training the same – some of us are faster than others, recover faster than others, and improve faster than others. In recognition of this range of genetic capability the Running Theory of Everything posits that there is a broad range of optimal training. No one training program or weekly mileage is optimal or nearly optimal for everyone because we don’t all posses the same genetic talent. Instead, the Running Theory of Everything suggests that there is a range of optimal training and the ultimate, optimal training load for any individual is primarily determined by genetic factors. The Running Theory of Everything further suggests that there is a significant relationship between running talent (i.e. performance in distance running), ability to adapt to a high volume of training, and resistance to injury. Basically it proposes that those who are born with the genetic talent to run fast are also generally endowed with the ability to train at and benefit from higher weekly volumes and are more resistant to injury than those with average running talent. In summary, the running theory of everything proposes that:
Evidence Let’s examine the evidence supporting the Running Theory of Everything. If the Running Theory of Everything is accurate, if there really is a correlation between running performance, optimal weekly training volume, and resistance to injury, then the following things will be true:
In order for the Running Theory of Everything to be true the above 4 points all have to be true. Let’s examine each in turn. 1. Role of Genetics in Performance How much influence do genetics exert on performance and response to training? A particularly illuminating study on this topic was conducted on identical (monozygotic) twins – twins that share the same DNA structure (1). By training individuals with the identical genetic structure scientists can determine how much of the response to training is due to genetic factors and how much is due to other factors. If both individuals that comprise a pair of twins respond exactly or very similarly to each other, it shows that genetics play a primary role in response to training. If both individuals comprising a pair of twins respond differently to training, then it shows that other, non-genetic factors are primarily influencing response to training. The study found that there was little difference in response to training within any set of twins – both individuals in each set of twins responded nearly the same to training. The researchers concluded that "...75-80% of the variance in response to training are associated with genotype differences." What the researchers are saying is that genetics account for 75-80% of the response to training and other factors account for the other 20-25% of response to training. As this study demonstrates, genetics do exert the most influence on performance. 2. Large variations in genetic talent Is there a large variation in genetic talent with the human population? Since genetic talent exerts the strongest influence on response to training, then a large variation in response to training shows that there is a large variation in genetic talent. Several research studies have examined the variations in response to a standardized training program. An excellent example of the studies on this topic is the HERITAGE study (2). This study found a range of -5% to 56% in changes in VO2max from a standardized, three-days-per-week, aerobic endurance training program. While some subjects improved performance as much as 56%, other subjects’ VO2max declines as much as 5%. Figure 1 graphically displays the range of response in VO2max and the number of subjects within each category of change. Fig. 1 Distribution of Changes in VO2max in the HERITAGE study
The results of the HERITAGE family study are not unique. Other studies on changes in aerobic capacity have been conducted with similar findings. A study by Prud'homme et al found a range of 0% - 41% improvement in VO2max (1). Lortie et al reported gains in VO2max ranging from 0% to almost 100% (3). Kohrt et al reported a range of improvement in VO2max from 0% - 58% (4). Aerobic capacity is not the only physiological attribute to show such large variations in response to training. A multi-institutional study examined changes in muscle strength and size of 585 sedentary subjects following 12 weeks of resistance training (5). Changes in muscle strength showed a variability of 250% (-32% - 149% in maximum voluntary contraction and 0% - 250% in 1 rep maximum). Changes in muscle size showed a variability of 61%, from -2% to 59%. Table 1 sums the changes in muscle strength and size from this study. Table 1: Changes in muscle size and strength in the trained bicep
The large range of response to a standardized training program found in these studies confirm that there are large variations in genetic talent. The variation in genetic talent results in a normal distribution of variation in response to training, with a few being endowed with tremendous amounts of talent and a large response to training, a few with poor talent and a poor response to training, and everyone else falling normally between the two extremes. 3. Correlation between genetic talent and weekly training mileage Now that we have seen that the broad range in genetic talent results in a broad range of response to training, let’s examine the correlation between weekly training mileage and performance. Is the correlation between weekly mileage and performance the same for all runners despite significant differences in genetic talent or does it vary based on the differences in genetic talent? In other words, does increasing mileage result in improved performance for everyone or just some runners? One study in particular addressed this question when it compared the relationship between running performance and weekly training mileage for runners divided into 3 performance groups (6). The researchers found a strong, positive correlation between weekly mileage and performance for runners in the fastest group. Runners in the fastest group were able to run 10 miles in under 66 minutes, a performance significantly above average. In this group, higher weekly mileage was strongly correlated with better performance. The researchers noted, "The runners from the fastest third of the sample showed significantly greater differences in 16km times with higher levels of weekly mileage than runners from the medium and slowest third..." In other words, in this group of fast runners there was a strong, positive relationship between weekly mileage and performance. Those in this group who ran higher weekly mileages outperformed those who ran lower weekly mileages. Does the performance of those with lesser talents improve with higher weekly mileages, just like those with above average talent? No, it does not. While a strong relationship between faster performance and higher weekly mileage was found for faster runners, markedly different relationships between performance and weekly mileage were found for the two slower groups of runners. For runners in the 2 slower groups, those running higher mileage did not always outperform those who ran lower mileages. In the middle group of runners performance leveled out at about 25 mpw. Those in this group who ran more than about 25 mpw performed the same as those who ran 25 mpw. For these runners, running more than about 25 mpw did not produce a faster performance compared to those who ran 25 mpw. However, those who ran less than 25 mpw ran slower than those running 25 mpw or more. Interestingly, the study found a third relationship between performance and weekly mileage for those in the slowest group. For this group of runners performance was highest in those who ran about 25 mpw; those running more or less than this amount ran slower than those running about 25 mpw. In summary, in three groups of runners divided by performance each group exhibited a unique relationship between weekly mileage and performance. Running more than about 25 mpw was beneficial for those in the fastest group, neutral for those in the middle group, and detrimental for those in the slowest group. This study demonstrates that differences in genetic talent result in different optimal weekly mileages and that not all runners will respond the same to increases in weekly training mileage. Some will benefit from it, other will not. 4. Rate of injury and genetic talent The Running Theory of Everything suggests that those with above average talent not only benefit from higher weekly mileages, but that they are also more resistant to injury than those with lesser talents. Is this truly the case? Do elite runners get injured at a lower injury rate per mile run than average runners? A recent study of triathletes answers this question (7). Researchers conducted an injury study examining 5 years of data in 3 groups of triathletes with very different performance levels - elite, development, and club triathletes – and found no statistical difference in rate of injury for the 3 groups despite very large differences in training volume. The researchers wrote, "No statistically significant differences in injury prevalence or severity were observed between Elite, Development and Club triathletes although training mileage, duration and number of training sessions differed." The results of this study are summed in table 2. Table 2: Relationship between rates of injury ad weekly training distance in 3 groups of triathletes
Summary The Running Theory of Everything proposes that the broad range in genetic talent in humans means that there are significant differences in optimal training and resistance to injury. Those with above average genetic talents are also generally able to train at and benefit from higher weekly mileages without suffering injury at a higher rate. Those with lesser genetic talents generally reach their optimal weekly mileage at a lower level and must generally train at more modest training volumes to avoid injury. The available research supports the Running Theory of Everything. It has been shown that there is a broad range of genetic talent in humans and that this broad range of genetic talent results in widely varying rates of adaptation and optimal weekly mileage. Finally, research has shown that there is an inverse relationship between genetic talent and resistance to injury – those with greater amounts of genetic talent are less likely to be injured, meaning the can withstand a higher training load without incurring a higher rate of injury than those with lesser talents. Reference
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
