NY Times Article on Cool-Down a BUNCH OF BS

Hey Cool-Down Coach,

I appreciate your enthusiastic response to the article. I put it up on the front page because I found it really interesting. So you have to blame me, Emory Mort aka employee #1 for that.

I thought the article was great and I'm a serious runner. I've always done cool downs because that's "what you're supposed to do". I've always been a high mileage person too based on what my coaches have taught me.

There are so many things I could say about the cool down but really it seems to be a huge mental thing that gets messy the more we talk about it. There are people who have success without a cooldown. There are those who swear by a long cooldown and are successful (the same is true of mileage or almost any other things that human beings swear by).

The point is there is tons of anecdotal stuff but science often helps us summarize a large and varied sample of people's experiences. There isn't a lot of science that shows stretching prevents injury. There isn't a lot of science that shows cool downs improves performance. Obviously these are very important things in many people's repertoire.

Personally I find it freeing to know that, hey, if I don't have time for a cool down, 15 minute stretch, ice bath, massage, chiropractic adjustment, 2 hour nap and gourmet eating, I can still pretty much get the same out of running as your big time pros who take up their whole days with that stuff.

I think the article is great because it makes us question what we may have thought before, though you seem to be less comfortable with that. I think, going along with one of your points about mileage and overall work load, we can look at Malcolm Gladwell and his 10,000 hours rule outlined in Outliers. The more disciplined practice one does, the better they will be. 10,000 hours and you'll be a master. But would more focused working out be better than mindless cooling down? Would mindful cooling down be better than mindless harder work? Haha now I'm confusing myself. The point is it's the amount of disciplined, consistent work that matters way more than anything else. Whatever practices and environments allow and encourage us to keep practicing are going to produce the best results.

Thanks for your enthusiasm and sincere opinions.

Emory

I think the article is misleading.

The "lactic acid theory" is not strictly true--we know it's lactate that is produced, and lactate consumes H+, retarding acidosis, blah blah blah. And acidosis doesn't cause soreness; eccentric contractions do. Again, blah blah blah.

Here's what Renato Canova has to say about cooling down:

So, according to Canova, the purpose of the cooldown (and an easy day the next day) is to remove lactate (and presumably the associated H+) from the blood.

I think this is another instance of physiologists saying "look, we finally got it right this time!" and the coaches, who work in the real world of training and racing, roll their eyeballs yet again. Remember when the physiologists told us that the best way to train was lactate threshold training, three times a week, 20 minutes per session? Or when they told us that plyometrics were just as good as interval workouts?

Curious Person wrote:

Race an all out 800 and don't cool down. Tell me how you feel the next day. (I'll agree that a 15-20 minute cool down is more of a way to maintain mileage than anything else). You also have to remember this article was written for the average person; most people never push themselves very hard.

I did 1:55s all the time in highschool along with doing the mile, neither with cool-down jogs.

Felt fine the next day for the 15 milers

Science doesn't dictate the training. The training dictated the science.

In the early 70's scientists said that a warm up was not benificial, just a waste of time. I was in college then and we thought that sounded great---until we tried it.

There are some really strange attitudes towards knowledge on this board. As others have pointed out, the NYT article looked into the research relating to cool-downs and found that there isn't really any. Why is that so threatening? Foster, Tanaka and Thompson are some of the most well-respected exercise scientists in the country. Does that mean you have to obey their every word? Of course not, and they wouldn't say that either. All they were saying is that when you launch into your cool-down, thinking "Well, I'd better get a couple of miles in otherwise that lactic acid will pool in my legs and I'll really pay the price tomorrow," you're relying on outdated thinking. You may be convinced that cool-downs help, but if so, you don't need to justify them with falsehoods. Just do it because you like it.

I suspect the cooldown may be overrated. I also suspect, and know in my own case, that it is post run stretching that makes the next day easier not the cooldown. Maybe we can get some real science going on both of these issues.

Canova has it right: cool-down after anaerobic work; not after threshold work.

I was guilty of doing cooldowns for 30 years. A few years ago, I was at a race and asked a good runner if he was going to do a cooldown. He said he never did them. That didn't deter me as I went out for 3 miles. Earlier this year, I ran a half marathon on not much training. Afterwards, I asked myself if going on a mile or two cooldown would benefit me any. The answer was no so I didn't do one. Sure enough the next day I felt no worse or better than any other race. I now only do a "cooldown" if I just want to get in a few extra miles. I ran a half marathon last weekend and didn't see any need to try to run on worn out legs so I didn't. Again, I felt no different the next day.

If you really want to know what is the absolute most important aspect of training that will keep you healthy and improving, it is ......................................................................................................................................................................................a very very easy warmup at the beginning of every run. Forget all the stretching. Forget all the plyometrics. Forget all the strides. Forget all the barefoot running. Just don't forget to start every run very slowly until you are warmed up to run faster.

Bagger wrote:

Gina Kolata strikes again!

If Gina wrote it, at least you __know__ it's crap.

Science is a study of what has already taken place. The fact that science can not figure out the benefits of a cool down does not mean that the benefits don't exist.

Science told us that "Man is not capable of breaking 4 minutes for the mile"

It was also scientists that told us that "if women run further than 800 meters their female parts would fall out"

Science still insists that their are no benefits to running more than 80 miles a week. Although 90% (at least) of World Class Marathoners choose to run well over 100 miles a week.

Ok, so let me clarify something...

My beliefs about warm-downs only apply to hard workouts. If I am running a 5-10 miler at a steady state, I do not do a warm-down.

When I am doing a fartlek, repeats, race, etc., then I and/or the athletes do warm-downs.

Cool-Down Coach wrote:

Ok, so let me clarify something...

My beliefs about warm-downs only apply to hard workouts. If I am running a 5-10 miler at a steady state, I do not do a warm-down.

When I am doing a fartlek, repeats, race, etc., then I and/or the athletes do warm-downs.

So here is a question for you then....

What about after you lift? Do your muscles need a warm-down then?

That's the thing, there is no one rule that makes it all simple. The article, as some have pointed out, basically says there is not much science showing a cool down is beneficial to performance.

The most simple rule is to do basically what you think is right most of the time. What else can you do?

The cool down is always going to be a gray area, not black and white. If we look at something that is much more widely studied and understood, such as nutrition, there are still many gray areas. It would be hard to find several highly respected scientists, however, who said there is no scientific proof that proper nutrition benefits performance.

A question the article brought up for me was a question of PRIORITY. For example, where should the "cool down" rank on a semi-fluid list of post-workout priorities. For me, I have noticed that paying attention to proper nutrition (aka putting the right drugs (normal food and drink) in my body, at the right time) is incredibly, incredibly important. Definitely a higher priority in the long run than how many miles I run for a cool down.

So I finish a long tempo run that is both aerobic and anaerobic (to use a workout that challenges some previous posters' simplifications that you cool down after anaerobic but not aerobic). What should I do? Or, even better, what if I have 2 hours in which to do a workout, shower, eat and get ready for my next obligation (i think we can all agree that time constraints are extremely legitimate for many runners in western societies).

How do I use those 2 hours most effectively?

Option 1. warm-up for 30 minutes, 30 min tempo, 30 min cooldown, quick shower, meal, stretch and out the door.

Option 2. warm-up for 10 minutes, 55 minute tempo, 15 min "cool down" which is 5-7" jogging, 3" stretch and 5-7" laying with legs propped up to help with blood pooled in extremities. (that's 1'20"). Then immediately prepare a meal with lean protein, lots of fruits and vegetables and good fats like olive oils and nuts and appropriate water for the amount I used working out.

So in 1. I do a 30" cool down.

In 2. I do a 5-7" jog cool down but I also do more quality work, more threshold running, place more emphasis on eating properly... all in the same amount of time.

Why would so much emphasis be on the cool down when we can see that the cool down might be less important than things like nutrition, overall time spent running where the heart is beating faster and our nervous system is working at a useful level. Perhaps leg elevation, nutrition, an improved aerobic capacity are just more important?

I also have a rule that says "what do the Kenyans do?". The Kenyans cool down very easy (12" miles?) on a soft surface and then sip tea, eat healthy food and lay down. Hey, sounds like a cool down is good for them, but it's certainly not the only or even MOST important part of all the things that help them be ready to run again the next time.

OK, lets say for the sake of argument that cooling down is not necessary for anything. Whats to be lost by slowly jogging for a few mins. after a run? You might run an extra 1/2 mile or so which can only be of benefit. Is your time really that valuable that you cant invest an extra few mins.?

Anecdotal stories are of limited value and some claim that science hasnt proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt. However, I've had 2 friends die right at the end of races/workouts. They both sprinted hard and came to an abrupt stop and promptly died. I think that the blood pools in the lower legs and feet as a result of a sharp drop in blood pressure when you come to a sudden halt in a run. Consequently, there is insufficient blood being driven back up to the heart which then becomes starved of oxygenated blood. The heart cant operate without sufficient blood, it seizes up and you die on the spot. Mother Nature doesnt like to be shocked.

A simple Google search will turn up lots of articles on this subject. Bottom line: I view the cool down (and the warm up) as cheap insurance). You have lost nothing and it may very well save your life.

here is the situation wrote:

Science is a study of what has already taken place. The fact that science can not figure out the benefits of a cool down does not mean that the benefits don't exist.

Science told us that "Man is not capable of breaking 4 minutes for the mile"

It was also scientists that told us that "if women run further than 800 meters their female parts would fall out"

Science still insists that their are no benefits to running more than 80 miles a week. Although 90% (at least) of World Class Marathoners choose to run well over 100 miles a week.

um, no science didn't.

dd wrote:

The big trouble with this in exercise, is that blinding athletes to an intervention is impossible."

What if you created a "fake placebo" experiment? For example, Tell runners that they are involved in a study of a "cool down recovery pill" that is really just a placebo. Maybe even tell them that initial evidence is that it works really well so they have the same preconception as a cool down. Divide the sample 4 ways: G1 = no pill + no cool down, G2 = pill + no cool down, G3 = no pill + cool down, G4 = pill + cool down. If G2=G3>G1 then this could be interpreted that the cool down is a placebo effect.

Guys all the article states is this:

The Cool down has not been studied.

Yes, some researchers try and make it sound like the cool down has no scientific basis or benefits. However, the truth is we don't know whether it does anything scientifically because we haven't studied it.

In the field of exercise science, we think we know more than we do.

Perhaps the reason for cooling down deals with a hormonal response? Does it not make sence that after a hard workout, getting the by products of fatiguing exercise like H+, ammonia, etc. cleared to get the recovery process and adaptation started earlier? Maybe the cool down allows for increased hormone circulation helping the body shift from a more catabolic activity to an anabolic?

These guys are off on one thing. Stretching post strength workouts has been shown to increased strength more so than strength done by itself. Why? We don't exactly know but it's possible that stretching post workout increases the number of sarcomere's in a series.

Many of the beliefs we have had in our sport had nothing to do with science. Those beliefs were prejudices. I have been told by doctors that several of the beliefs I have have not been proven by scientific studies and are a waste of time or money. I do not care because if they work or even if I think they work I will continue doing them. There probably will be studies proving many of them some day. I have been trained by several very successful coaches and they all have warm up and cool down proceedures. Coach Mihaly Igloi, one of our sports most successful coaces, was a keen student of how his athletes reacted to all phases of his workouts. In most cases his workouts ended with 10 to 20 shake-ups. Those consisted of running 100 yards back and forth on grass with about a 5-8 yard walk between 100s. At times, depending on the workout we had completed, we were to run every third or every other one, etc. at varying paces. Sometimes occassional 100s were buildups or even hard speed. He seemed to know what we needed and when. All I know is that we felt better for doing that cool-down and were able to come back with another hard workout the next day or even later in that day.