Running drills: Do they "work"

runnER/DR wrote:

Are you asking for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial with a sufficient sample size in EXERCISE SCIENCE!? lol hilarious.

The studies in exercise science are a total joke. It's no fault of the scientists of course. There are all sorts of logistical and financial hurdles that don't allow for quality studies.

Exercise science is basically bro science.

You do know that Iain has posted on these boards, right?

high school xc coach wrote:

i think the form drills are probably more important for sprinters than distance runners. for distance runners, things like flying 30s and short hills and things of that nature are probably enough.

but outside of form, I think some of them can help take care of muscle imbalances and get some tighter muscles loosened up before running. I don't typically feel like I need that, but when I really ramp up my workload, my feet, ankles, and hip flexors can get really cranky. Something that could strengthen and loosen those things would probably be beneficial.

It's tough to throw 20 minutes of that stuff in when you already feel like you are waking up as early as possible to get your run in, or trying to squeeze a run in between dinner and bedtime, etc. etc.

Exactly this^

When you're in HS, college , or a pro you have all kinds of time to devote to the run/workout. Once you are hobbyjogging it, you are lucky to get enough time to get in a decent run, first thing you are going to dump is the drills.

I did them before every interval workout (so 2-3 times a week on average) from the time I was 11 until the time I was 20. Then I had to prioritize due to time constraints, and the drills went out the window. At the age of 18 with a couple of months of specific 800 meter training I ran 2:12 (including drills). At the age of 37 after about 3 weeks of specific 800 meter training (but no drills) I repeated my 2:12 time. That is the best "apples to apples" comparison I have. I was faster in longer distances since stopping the drills due to the higher mileage and more effective workouts.

My conclusion is that at least the way I was doing them was not effective for me. It is possible that if I were guided by an expert in the area, I could have seen improvement. Unfortunately, this is the area where many claim to be experts, but few are able to provide a hard proof for their claims.

What works is

1. Mileage

2. Consistency

3. Speedwork

4. Tapering properly

5. Proper nutrition

6. Racing

Way down the list is drills

Some do depends on the person goals

wikid pissah wrote:

What works is

1. Mileage

2. Consistency

3. Speedwork

4. Tapering properly

5. Proper nutrition

6. Racing

Well put. Order seems right, too.

I've only coached one NCAA championship-winning XC team and a couple of others that finished on the podium, so I get that I don't have enough experience and understanding to credibly post on the mighty Letsrun message boards. Having said that, there is one study that found that adding running drills to an interval running training program for (recreational) runners was ineffective for improving performance.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2015&issue=07000&article=00005&type=Fulltext

You could argue that drills would somehow be more helpful for well-trained runners, but that isn't logical since you would expect well-trained runners to already have better technique and less room for improvement in the first place.

If you want to look for it, there is much stronger research evidence to support inspiratory muscle training, barefoot running, warming up with a weighted vest, and/or even controlled-breath swimming to improve running economy and performance, all of which are things that don't necessarily take up more time than drills, but which very few runners utilize. Fwiw, I have found much success with my runners using many of these techniques, and that success has been despite never having my runners do drills. Also fwiw, there is some research on the use of drills with other (non-running) exercise that found that there is an interference effect, which is what makes the drills ineffective.

While I agree with Art that running is most definitely a skill, like most skills, the absolute best way to improve it is to correctly repeat it as much as possible (i.e. run more mileage) which also has a tremendous amount of support for improving running economy, fitness, and performance in the research literature.

Luv2Run wrote:

I have looked a few times on pubmed and google scholar but maybe just not using the right search terms.

What actual evidence exists that running drills that coaches often use actual improve what they claim to improve?

Evidence is not "the pros do it". In the past pros did all sorts of things that are not beneficial.

Your last paragraph was unscientific.

If the extensive drills that professional runners do makes their running more efficient, then maybe drills work to improve running fitness?

John Kellogg once referred to this concept as Neuromuscular Facilitation.

Is that a thing?

Discus.

migroc wrote:

I notice a difference in how I feel when I don't do them. I'm 62 and have been running for 50 years.

I have more "bounce" and run noticeably faster and feel much better when I do basic drills.

Same here. I used to do drills (skipping, lunges, plyos, mobility, etc.) to improve. Now, in my late 50's, I use them to warmup. Like you, I feel different if I don't do them before my running workout. I know I will strain something if I don't do them.

The closest thing you'll probably find to peer reviewed research on form running drills is by looking the effect of plyometrics on running economy. Not a perfect match but most of your conventional running drills (high knees, a-skip, b-skip, bounding, etc.) are plyometric exercises. You can probably find a handful of studies showing positive correlation between 2-3 time/wk plyos and 3k race time as well as oxygen consumption at given paces. Seems to really be apparent at marathon efforts and faster. If you look into the methods of these studies, they often share the exercise regimen which you can use to build your own workout. Some form of squat jumps and/or box jumps is usually included! Their barriers include small sample sizes and usually using elite or sub elite level performers making it difficult to generalize results.

Subjectively, as others have shared, I add these in (along with other plyos such as box jumps) 2 days per week and definitely feel more "bounce" in my stride after 4-6 weeks of consistency. In addition to the ROM, neuromuscular, and warm up benefits, I could also see merit in injury prevention by building stronger tendons.

Long story, short. Spending 10ish minutes on these exercises 2-3 times/week should be helpful but don't sacrifice run time to make it happen!

OU812? wrote:

I've only coached one NCAA championship-winning XC team and a couple of others that finished on the podium, so I get that I don't have enough experience and understanding to credibly post on the mighty Letsrun message boards. Having said that, there is one study that found that adding running drills to an interval running training program for (recreational) runners was ineffective for improving performance.

https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2015&issue=07000&article=00005&type=Fulltext

So these drills dont work, i knew it.

However, what works are running cues during running. If someone calls that drills, than we have drills which are working. :) As mentioned, a matter of definition.

Improving the running economy seems to work long term. Running is for sure a skill and has to be learned, most likely over several years. See here

I did drills for many years. The benefit is pretty much psychological (exaggerated movements somehow give you more bounce etc.). They provide a break from the monotony. Physiologically I think they are irrelevant, except they greatly increase your chances for injury.

As someone who often goes a long time between running fast or doing races (sometimes years), drills absolutely work for me when I return to doing them after a long time just doing easy distance every day (usually on slow trails). I feel a night and day difference in smoothness and ability to turn over the legs at faster paces after a few sessions over a week or two. I go from not even being able to do some strides without feeling like a klutz, tripping over my stiff, low-range-of-motion legs, to feeling very smooth fast and able to being able to sustain 4:45 pace on long trail downhills as a old guy 45+ (though now 52 and back in jogging mode). Could I just do strides and sprints instead and regain the same speed and smoothness? Well, the drills help me regain the lost range-of-motion to be able to actually do those strides.

If I keep up faster work in training and never neglect speed, maybe the drills become irrelevant, but, like I said, I often go a very long time between fast running/workouts or races. I don't need to do them all the time or obsessively. If I can't turn over my legs and want to return to faster running or racing, I do them two, three times a week until I iron out my stride issues and regain turnover smoothness. Then they do become irrelevant for a while.

From my own coaching experience, cues are only as good as the athlete can apply them, and therein lies one benefit of doing drills. I.e., teaching what knee drive feels like, teaching what proper shin and hip angles feel like. Teach them in relative isolation, then through cues apply them to actual running.

Some other benefits I see are from the plyometric nature of some drills, skips specifically (I agree that varying definitions are at play in this thread). Similar to how we're teaching isolated parts of the movement pattern, we're activating specific and relevant movement patterns. If you have the time in training, I see no downside especially from an injury prevention viewpoint. Furthermore, many of these drills are an easy way to micro dose plyos into a distance runners schedule, which have undisputed positive effects particularly in economy, RFD, and potentiation

team Unruly Bush wrote:

runnER/DR wrote:

Are you asking for a well-controlled randomized controlled trial with a sufficient sample size in EXERCISE SCIENCE!? lol hilarious.

The studies in exercise science are a total joke. It's no fault of the scientists of course. There are all sorts of logistical and financial hurdles that don't allow for quality studies.

Exercise science is basically bro science.

You do know that Iain has posted on these boards, right?

I don't have an axe to grind with him or any other exercise scientist. They have an impossible task. In order to come to valid conclusions using the scientific method you need large sample sizes with randomized controlled trials.

The money isn't there in exercise science like it is in big pharma. Bringing a new drug to market costs hundreds of millions of dollars. That money doesn't exist in exercise science. Also, logistically it is far harder to design and execute an exercise science study than to give someone a pill. Exercise science is a very soft science much like sociology and psychology because it's limited by the quality of evidence.

Just for the record this applies to my craft, emergency medicine as well. Many elements of our practice are based on either anecdotal evidence, or weak prospective studies with small sample sizes. Some areas of EM are very strong, others are garbage.

People need to be honest about the quality of evidence behind what they claim to know. Exercise science has enormous weaknesses with quality of evidence.

If i would train kids/teenagers i would focus highly on running form.

I would video them on a regular basis (2-4 weekly) and analyse there running gait.

Based on that information an individual advice is possible.

Individual exercisis are much better than general exercises.

A good running form means everything, because running is a skill.

Running drills keep you active

Umm, as a long time PT who follows the "science" of the exercises done in rehab, many of which have been co-opted by the fitness community: The research and the "science" is pretty lame. The exercises might help some people sometimes for some reason but scientists who really know about motor control and specificity of movement will tell you that our functional movement patterns-running for instance-are deeply established and any attempt to change them will require very specific timing, muscle contraction, all things not under conscious control, see Dr. Eyal Lederman for more. Point is that for most mortals the key is to get out the door and work at it.

lexel wrote:

If i would train kids/teenagers i would focus highly on running form.

I would video them on a regular basis (2-4 weekly) and analyse there running gait.

Based on that information an individual advice is possible.

Individual exercisis are much better than general exercises.

A good running form means everything, because running is a skill.

How would you do this with a typical high school cross country team of 50+ kids? You would have to organize and analyze 100s of video clips per week.

I don't know how often I see people on letsrun talking about how high school coaches incompetent, or 'only doing it for the stipend' without considering the significant logistical issues of running a program with a large number of kids of varying levels of interest, experience, and talent.

Without getting into the physiology of drills, I think the real reason a lot of high school coaches do them is because they see value in building a routine that kids can do as a group, with light supervision, while the coach takes care of some of the administrative tasks that go with running a big team at a public school (taking attendance, briefing assistant coaches on the day's plans, checking in with injured runners, etc.) Whether or not the specific drills are helpful, it is better for team cohesion, keeping teenagers on task, and keeping practices from dragging on for longer than they need to.

To the OPs point, I believe a lot of the relevant research on drills is not on the long term effects on fitness, but on the effects of a warm up. So, I think there are studies of say, girls soccer players on teams that do a dynamic warm up vs static stretching or no warm up, and how many get soft tissue injuries. Similarly, I believe there are studies showing that a dynamic warming leads to better performance in various physical activities than no warm up. Even in those cases, how the researches define 'dynamic warm up' might be the same, or pretty different from the type of drills that most running coaches have their athletes do.

As other posters have mentioned, there are some real difficulties setting up these types of studies, and what types of questions you can easily answer. It is a lot easier to study the short term effects of doing a warm up on performance a few minutes later, than on the effects of one specific exercise (which is almost always done as a small component of a larger training program) over weeks or months.