Owen Anderson's book Running Science

I think it's a fantastic work that summarizes a lot of the most technical research in comprehensible fashion. I'd put it right up there with Lore of Running as far as importance to the running/training research is concerned.

Midwestrunna wrote:

I am about half way through Anderson's new book. Anyone else read this book? Lots of somewhat unconventional claims about training. His claims do seem to be pretty supported by research. Just wanted to see what others thought.

Midwestrunna wrote:

I am about half way through Anderson's new book. Anyone else read this book? Lots of somewhat unconventional claims about training. His claims do seem to be pretty supported by research. Just wanted to see what others thought.

I've been reading it as well. While he does provide research to support his claims, I'd be more interested in experience that supports his claims.

I have not read this book, but I read a lot of HS stuff. Sometimes I was not sure how he was putting it all together to train someone.

Also some people respond to certain aspects of training enter than others.

Also most studies are short term. Tat can make it difficult to assess the effects long term

From memory (finished it ten days ago):

It does have an excellent summary of recent research and knowledge on almost all aspects of running.

However, I don't think the evidence fully supports his training recommendations. The latter are not bad but you can't say that the science shows this is the one true way to train. Some points that jarred with me a bit when reading it...

1. he asserts that quality speed work is more important than mileage, but in the absence of concrete examples or schedules, it's hard to know what balance he thinks is right. No real discussion of how long you can progress on particular schedules or of how to periodise volumes.

2. he argues running specific strength is very important. But he reckons you can only get that from strength-endurance circuits (mixed running and exercises) and very running-specific exercises; he gives a lot of these which would take a long time to work through. He doesn't give any coverage to traditional weight training (e.g. squats/cleans/deads with barbells, low reps, heavy weight) which is an approach has been taken by far more top athletes than have done toe-tapping and band exercises. And he doesn't discuss the BIG question: will all these other things actually develop "running specific strength" more effectively than you do by actually running? I would have expected a PhD with his long experience to address this.

3. he criticises everyone's periodisation schemes then outlines a "modern, science-based" periodisation system and explains how to build running specific strength through his four phases (general strength, running specific strength, hills, explosive work). But he completely fails to discuss how he thinks the actual running training should mesh with this.

4. When he discusses how to train for particular events (10k and below), he basically says "for race distance X, train at X pace, and a bit faster, and a bit slower". Over quite a few pages with a chapter for each event.

I think this will be useful for a runner who wants to know the current state of the science - exactly as the name implies. But if you want concrete guidance on how to train, it's not the place to go. Better off with "Daniels Running Formula", "Healthy Intelligent Training" , "Better training for distance runners" or "The art of running faster".

Thanks eurodonkey. It sounds from you explanation that his background knowledge of science research is not matched by his training knowledge? Surely all the best coaches are more artists than scientists?

I've been studying his training ideologies for a few years now. I've used his advanced marathon training and his advanced 10k training. I myself am not advanced in running but am advanced in the understanding of the physiology and coaching techniques. So I enjoy them.

1. Each generic plan is started six months out from race date. There are several time trials and races during the six months and goal and training pace is changed depending on the fitness level at different times during the 6 months. I like to use a six month plan for the marathon as my base training then the next six month using 10k as my "racing" training. During the latter six months I try to PR in the mile, 5k, etc.

2. The strength part was one of my favorite aspects. You basically are doing XFIT using your body weight and added dumbbell weights as needed. You run faster than race pace in between circuits so you won't feel physically fatigued during a race. I would replace "heavy" weight training during my "base" six months.

3. General strength is twice a week for the first month or so of the 6 months... You run laps in between sets. Easy days are set in between these sessions. Running specific strength training comes into play in the same manner. Start introducing race specific "long runs" a couple times a month... Easy miles, race pace miles, easy miles within one run. Hills come into play during the middle of the six months and attention done once week. First on short steep for weeks then on long gradual hills. Still do easy mileage in between, strength once a week, time trials every few weeks, etc. Towards the end of the six months you will be doing lots of plyometrics and race trials. If its a marathon your last long run is like a month before the race.

I recommend people go to educatedrunner.com and pick up some plans from him if they want to know more. I tried explaining it above but, it might be futile!

Am currently reading the book too. It's great. A lot of these topics can be found as articles if you google his name and the topic you're interested in.

Owen Anderson is the epitome of the misrepresentation and application of research and science.

He just doesn't get it.

the book has a good review of selected research, but the application is horrible. Doesn't apply to the real world.

And I am a science guy. He's what gives scientists who coach a bad name.

PS I agree on the Art of Running Faster as a better book to learn how to run faster. It's more to the point in terms of how to run faster on lower mileage and training/racing periodization.

The research that supports his claims are generally something like this: a number of "well trained" 20 min 5k runners are divided in two groups - one does only mileage for 3 months, the other does intense intervals for 3 months. After 3 months they measure which group has done the biggest progress. Problem: a running career, or even a full training cycle, doesn´t last 3 months.

well.. wrote:

The research that supports his claims are generally something like this: a number of "well trained" 20 min 5k runners are divided in two groups - one does only mileage for 3 months, the other does intense intervals for 3 months. After 3 months they measure which group has done the biggest progress. Problem: a running career, or even a full training cycle, doesn´t last 3 months.

Unfortunately, this is true of most running related "research". This is compounded by people that promote the conclusions, but fail to also identify the conditions under which the conclusions are valid.

I think running related research has an important role in that it can force us to rethink what we're doing, but I will also take the advice of an experienced, successful coach over that of a scientist on most days of the week.

purposeful wrote:

Owen Anderson is the epitome of the misrepresentation and application of research and science.

He just doesn't get it.

the book has a good review of selected research, but the application is horrible. Doesn't apply to the real world.

And I am a science guy. He's what gives scientists who coach a bad name.

If it's at all similar to his website you do need to VERY cautiously approach his conclusions. He cherry picks the science that works to his belief. If there is research that negates his general idea that slow distance isn't good for you, he doesn't bother with it.

Anderson reminds me of Scott Christenson (Stillwater H.S.). All science. No art.

Both are good at self promotion.

Should we throw Jason Karp into this conversation too?

Scott Christensen has probably developed more gun runners than you have. Are you aware of his HS team?

There's no comparison between Owen Anderson and Scott Christensen. Christensen has coached innumerable runners to success using a variety of training techniques to fit the athletes, Anderson has coached a couple of Kenyans whom anybody, even somebody who knows as little as you, to success.

Coach wrote:

Scott Christensen has probably developed more gun runners than you have. Are you aware of his HS team?

Sure. I've even seen him speak a couple of times. But, he boasts science, science, science. VO2 Max. VO2 Max. VO2 Max.

He's even said, "You can't argue with science!"

iopfgsdijfg wrote:

Thanks eurodonkey. It sounds from you explanation that his background knowledge of science research is not matched by his training knowledge? Surely all the best coaches are more artists than scientists?

I would not want to be too critical. It's very hard to write science-of-running stuff for a living. It's a very good research summary and it highlights a lot of newer thinking - we used to analyse everything in terms of VO2/lactate (the engine) and now people are giving decent thought to biomechanics (the suspension).

I just don't think anyone with reasonable education and time in sport would try to claim "science proves that training system X is better than Y". If he had said "after years involved in running, here is what I believe works best", that would be fair, but the areas I cited are where he sounds more like we have proof it's the best way.