Can we try the Running Economy thread again?

Inquirer,

Of course we can't change the individual genetic factors which make each of us better or worse at certain events at maximal efforts. Training, can and does improve economy for people(not always). However, before this can happen there is an inherent ability which we will call talent/natural ability. After this beginning talent we then must move to developement of the SKILL OF RUNNING at the individual level. Unfortunately, in the current popular methodology to running, coaches skip this developement stage all together. Consequently we are left with runners at every stage from beginner to elite not tapping into their potential abilities.

Jeremy

Dr. Daniels,

Thanks for the post. I think i have a better grasp now of what "running economy" means. And the part about there NOT being any correlation between running economy as perceived by coaches/biomechanist and running economy measured in labs, that was very interesting.

I guess my question at this point is whether these changes to the way i run have improved my running economy. Among other things, i used to bound more; i used to pull more, reaching out and overstriding; i used to have a significantly slower cadence; and my arm swing used to have too much cross motion.

(As a side note, the only reason i ever started paying attention to these things rather than "just going out and running" was because of your own research on stride frequency. After reading it, i began paying attention to my own stride frequency and then one thing led to another. So i blame and thank you for this 2+ year odyssey.)

So how is it that with less intense training than what i used to do, and now being older (51), i'm running a great deal faster than i did in my early 40s? I can only attribute that to the reduction in wasted motion, eccentric forces, etc. Am i wrong to assume that this would translate to improved running economy?

dnixon,

No, you are absolutely correct to assume that your focus and attention to the optimization of stride frequency and reduction of wasted motion has improved your running economy. Congrats on this accomplishment as well!

Jeremy

It certainly makes sense that the changes (or some of them) resulted in an improvement in economy. However, I have seen and tested some terrible looking runners who had very good economy. You don't even know if changing to what appeared better economy, would actually result in that. I imagine that some runners have unusual body structure that prompts them to swing arms in an unusual manner (looking not so good, but balancing an irregularity somewhere else) so what looks poor is actually better for them. Swimming is even greater in variations in economy. I tested a girl who was Olympic 400m free champion with a VO2max of 46, but she sure had great economy. Among elite runners you see variations in economy of about 20% (that is big) and a study we published a few years back found a positive correlation between VO2max and aerobic demand of running (economy) -- the higher the VO2max the higher the submax (poorer the ecnomoy). It seems we will not find the runner with greatest economy and best max -- they don't seem to go together.

jtupper,

If you would like to learn a thing or two about running economy I would suggest you take a look at

www.posetech.com

and you will find a more positive outlook than the one your research as produced! You will be surprised that there are actually answers to this issue.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. There was a time many years ago when i considered going into exercise physiology. I made what for me was a better decision, but i still like to follow these things from a distance. I read your Running Formula from cover to cover and still thumb through it regularly for training guidance. Is there any other book on exercise physiology (accessible to lay people) that you could recommend?

By the way, the only reason i knew who Jim Crawford was is because i went to the same school he did. He was gone by the time i arrived, but he was a legend to us and owned all our track records from 800 up. (I think the sole exception was the steeplechase record, owned by a Bill Clark (correct name?) who at one point was one of the best steeplers in the U.S.

dnixon -- Was Dr. Robert Clark a vice president at Harding when you were there? His son, also Robt, was a runner whom I coached in HS in Okla. Dr. Clark died of a heart attack out on a run one day in Searcy. Son Robt went on to Med school. I did know the steeple guy pretty well -- he lived (may still) out on the end of Long Island in NY and ran a ferry service between parts of the island. I worked for Dr Clark in the Fed Aviation Adm in Okla City and he got me my first college coaching job at Okla City Univ. in 1961. Ed Howley (co-author) has an Ex Phys book out that is quite readable. Dave Costill and Jack Wilmore are also currently revising their book. I personally like Astrand's book, but he was my professor in Stockholm the year I studied in Sweden so I understand him better.

Dr. Robert Clark passed away just a few short years before i arrived. There were pictures of him in coach Lloyd's office. During the XC season, Coach Lloyd would often take us out north of town to what we called "Coronary Hill" to do repeats. It was a beast of a hill, and we understood that to be the hill on which Dr. Clark died — hence the name.

And yes, that's the steepler i was thinking of. The ferry service on Long Island tripped my memory. Bill Clark actually worked at Andrews Air Force Base for a while, right down the hall from my dad — to whom he reported! My dad told Bill that he had a son who ran for Bill's alma mater, so Bill invited me up to D.C. during Christmas break to do "an easy 10 or 12" (as he put it) during a long lunch break and to get acquainted. I think i was running about 80-90 miles p/wk. at the time and feeling strong as an ox. I've always suspected that Bill wanted to instill a little humility in me on that run. He started out gently but gradually increased the pace mile by mile, testing me and pushing me until i was in a world of hurt and could only talk in short gasps. Thn somewhere around 10 miles out, when the base was near and he was sure his boss's son wouldn't get lost, he just glided away and left me far behind. I still remember those long, loping strides of his. I'm 6'2" and long-legged, but felt like Frank Shorter looked next to Jack Bachelor.

Thanks for the book recommendations. I'll check them out.

JD, those who drink the Pose koolaid can't even pass high school physics. Don't bother going to the Pose website without wearing a tinfoil hat.

Unfortunately, your reverence to the almighty highschool physics is not going to help your running. And as we can see from this post that JD's best advice is there is no answer to the delimia of running economy. So please fill me in on some better advice to understanding running economy?

JTupper: So is RE typically measured at about 7:00/mile pace? Are there any studies that measure athletes' RE from different events across a spectrum of paces (say, 7:00-4:00)?

A different answer! wrote:

Unfortunately, your reverence to the almighty highschool physics is not going to help your running. And as we can see from this post that JD's best advice is there is no answer to the delimia of running economy. So please fill me in on some better advice to understanding running economy?

Jeremy Huffman, the entire board is tired of you hijacking every thread to sell your Pose snakeoil. Stop it! Use one name and stick with it.

Go away.

here is a relevant peer-reviewed scientific article:

Six weeks of training does not change running mechanics or improve running economy

Lake MJ, Cavanagh PR

MEDICINE AND SCIENCE IN SPORTS AND EXERCISE 28 (7): 860-869 JUL 1996

Abstract: Running technique and economy (VO2submax) were examined before and after a 6-wk period of running training. Fifteen males were filmed and performed 10-min economy runs at 3.36 m . s(-1) on a treadmill. An incremental treadmill test was used to record running performance and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). Subjects were randomly assigned to a training group and a control group that did not participate in any running program. There were no significant changes in kinematic variables between pre- and post-training tests for either group. Neither were there any significant physiological changes over the 6 wk in the control group. However, the training group demonstrated a significantly (P < 0.01) increased VO2max (57.7 +/- 6.2 vs 61.3 +/- 6.3 ml . kg(-1). min(-1)) and running performance. VO2submax in the training group was significantly (P < 0.05) worse (41.0 +/- 4.5 vs 42.4 +/- 4.3 ml . kg(-1). min(-1)) post training, although the percent utilization of VO2max (71.6 +/- 7.9 vs 69.3 +/- 6.9%) and submaximal heart rate (169 +/- 15 vs 161 +/- 15 beats . min(-1)) were significantly lower (P < 0.05). The training-induced improvements in running performance could be attributed to physiological rather than biomechanical modifications. There were no changes in biomechanical descriptors of running style that signaled changes in running economy.

and on a slightly different tack, the study below suggests that altitude living can help economy. a previous Japanese study showed similar results, but thre are some studies that show no effect. These sorts of studies may help provide clues as to what physiological/biochemical factors underlie economy. for example, the P:O ratio (energy obtained per mole of O2) may change. previous studies of high altitude natives in Peru showed that they have remarkable economy.

Influence of "living high-training low" on aerobic performance and economy of work in elite athletes

Schmitt L, Millet G, Robach P, Nicolet G, Brugniaux JV, Fouillot JP, Richalet JP

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY 97 (5): 627-636 JUL 2006

Abstract: This study tested the effects of "living high-training low'' (Hi-Lo) on aerobic performance and economy of work in elite athletes. Forty endurance athletes (cross-country skiers, swimmers, runners) performed 13-18 consecutive days of training at 1,200 m altitude, by sleeping at 1,200 m (LL, n = 20) or in hypoxic rooms with 5-6 nights at 2,500 m followed by 8-12 nights at 3,000-3,500 m (HL, n = 20). The athletes were evaluated before (pre-), one (post-1) and 15 days (post-15) after Hi-Lo. Economy was assessed from two sub-maximal tests, one non-specific (cycling) and one specific (running or swimming). From pre- to post-1: VO2max increased both in HL (+ 7.8%, P < 0.01) and in LL (+ 3.3%, P < 0.05), peak power output (PPO) tended to increase more (P=0.06) in HL (+ 4.1%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 1.9%). At post-15, VO2max has returned to pre-values in both groups, PPO increased more (P < 0.05) in HL (+ 8.3%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 3.8%), VO2 and power at respiratory compensation point (RCP) increased more ( P < 0.05) in HL (+ 9.5%, P < 0.01 and + 11.2%, P < 0.01) than in LL (+ 3.2 and + 3.3%). Cycling mechanical efficiency (8-5%)and economy during specific locomotion (7-7%) increased (P < 0.05) in both groups. This study shows that, for a similar increase in VO2max; HL had a greater increase in PPO than LL. The efficiency of Hi-Lo is also evidenced 15 days later by higher VO2 and power at RCP. This study emphasizes that during the post-altitude period, economy of work greatly increases in both groups.

The speed at which you measure economy is a function of how good or how fit the subjects are. When testing elite male runners I typically start at 270m/min (5:58 pace) and go to 290, 310, 330, 350 m/min (5:33, 5:11, 4:53, 4:36 per mile pace). I have done a few at 370 (4:21 pace), but you can't refer to the aerobic demand of running if the speed puts the demand too close to VO2max. Elite women often start at 230 or 250 m/min and go to 270, 290, 310, 330. This allows comparison of men and women at s few common speeds -- 270, 290, 310. When testing someone I don't really now well I ask what they think is a reasonable 10k race pace for them , and use the standard speed (290, 310, 330, etc.) that is closest to that pace, as their fastest test pace, then back off 3 speeds to start the series of tests. Hopw is to get at least 3 test speeds and hopefully 4 or even 5. When you have a group of subjects in some study, with a wide range of abilities then the best way to express economy is ml O2 per Kg body weight per kilometer, rather than o2 per kg per minute bacause those values vary with speed of running, but per km does not.

one mile at a time wrote:

JTupper: So is RE typically measured at about 7:00/mile pace? Are there any studies that measure athletes' RE from different events across a spectrum of paces (say, 7:00-4:00)?

running economy is measured at submaximal velocities. The choice is often left up to the researcher and can be based on the ability of the athletes involved in the study.

Since 4 min pace is going to be pretty close to VO2max for folks, that would not be an appropriate pace (at least to me). Also, you need to collect the O2 data over many minutes (in one study I was the "technician" on, the stages were 10 minutes long.

We're tired of you wrote:

A different answer! wrote:

Unfortunately, your reverence to the almighty highschool physics is not going to help your running. And as we can see from this post that JD's best advice is there is no answer to the delimia of running economy. So please fill me in on some better advice to understanding running economy?

Jeremy Huffman, the entire board is tired of you hijacking every thread to sell your Pose snakeoil. Stop it! Use one name and stick with it.

Go away.

Are you worried that you may actually have to listen to what myself and others are saying, and began to make huge improvements to your running. That would be awful. Btw-For 14 years I competed as a non-Pose runner, and I now happen to prefer the more detailed approach to running than my previous "Just go run hard attitude".

Jeremy

Are you worried that you may actually have to listen to what myself and others are saying, and began to make huge improvements to your running. That would be awful. Btw-For 14 years I competed as a non-Pose runner, and I now happen to prefer the more detailed approach to running than my previous "Just go run hard attitude".

Jeremy[/quote]

No. Your posts make the skin crawl; they're creepy. That's why.

jtupper wrote:

... you can't refer to the aerobic demand of running if the speed puts the demand too close to VO2max.

Since anaerobic metabolism strongly supplements the effort near VO2max and since the VO2 doesn't remain steady very long as those speeds, would there be any way to get a bearing on the caloric cost of running at those fast paces by measuring the amount of lactate produced? I suppose lactate production would not be steady either if the effort was great enough, but there might be some way to get a picture of the energy expended during a one minute period at, say, 4:00 mile pace, assuming the test subject was elite and could run somewhat within himself for that long at that speed.

Is it true that one gram of lactate formed is equivalent to 220 calories used? If so, the anaerobic demand of running might be measured and coupled with the aerobic demand (~5 kcal per liter of O2 consumed) to form a more complete picture of the energy cost of running (I'm assuming glycogen would be the sole aerobic energy substrate at such a high speed, since it supplies more energy per liter of O2 consumed than fatty acids can). Has this (or a better version of the same idea) been done, or would this entire scheme be unworkable due to rapidly changing VO2 and rapidly changing lactate production? Or would blood lactate measurements be unreliable for this?