For most of the 1990s, American distance running sucked. There were a few outliers, like Bob Kennedy (sub-13:00 5,000m) and Todd Williams (15k American Record), but for the most part the depth that characterized American performances in the 1970s and early '80s completely disappeared.
There are a number of potential reasons why (which may be a whole 'nother post), but suffice it to say that the '90s were a dark decade for American distance running.
That all started to change with the new millennium. By the 2004 Athens Olympics, the rebirth was on as Americans snagged two medals in the marathon: bronze for Deena Kastor and silver for Meb Keflezighi. Not only were they both Americans, but they were teammates; both trained with the Mammoth Track Club in California.
That Olympics is one of my earliest memories being a fan of distance running. I was in high school at the time, just getting into more serious running with cross country and track. Seeing Americans mixing it up with the best in the world on the biggest stage was hugely motivating and inspirational.
For this edition of HISTORY, I want to take a look at how the Mammoth Track Club built the performances that would lead to a medal; specifically, I'm talking about this article: "The Anatomy of a Medal."
The first thing that stands out is the application of modern exercise physiology to inform Deena's training. I believe one of the reasons Americans slowed in the '90s is due to the mis-application of exercise physiology (i.e., high mileage was out, hard anaerobic intervals were in), so it's nice to see the science applied in a way that meshes with experience.
The next thing that stands out, which is a great example of that scientific application, is Kastor's week-by-week mileage chart. Notice how her mileage varies each week: up one week, down the next; up the week after that, down the following; etc. It's a perfect application of the scientific principle of supercompensation, which basically states that after a physiological stress that tears your body down, with proper recovery it will build itself back up a little stronger and faster than before.
In a smart training plan you'll find regular down weeks, with less mileage and less intensity than normal -- these allow for supercompensation. But too often, most runners are 'up' all the time, never really giving themselves an appropriate recovery for their volume of work.
With the high volume and high intensity that her training must have entailed, that weekly variation in mileage was shown to be a perfect application of supercompensation. Don't be afraid to take down weeks (or even just a string of a few days) in your training; you might be surprised how much it helps you.
Finally, take a look at her taper; or, lack thereof. Three straight weeks leading up to race day of 80 miles. That's not the typical taper we're used to seeing, which is a gradual descent in volume (the classic example of a two week taper is an 80% first week and then 60% second week). But Deena didn't employ this descending model; instead, she went about 80% the first week and then stayed there for two more weeks.
You might think that too much running too close to the race will tire you out, but for a lot of high mileage runners the opposite tends to be true: dropping volume too much doesn't leave you feeling more fresh; it leaves you feeling lethargic and unfit. When you're running higher mileage, you'll find that an easy run is so ingrained as to be hardly stressful at all. You're often better keeping in that constant aerobic stimulus as opposed to eliminating it, since it should hardly be tiring. When you're used to running a lot, as your goal race nears you should keep running a lot (or only slightly reduced). Keep doing the simple thing that has gotten you to peak fitness.
Since 2004, American distance running has only improved. How much can your performances improve by following the same blueprint?
There are a number of potential reasons why (which may be a whole 'nother post), but suffice it to say that the '90s were a dark decade for American distance running.
That all started to change with the new millennium. By the 2004 Athens Olympics, the rebirth was on as Americans snagged two medals in the marathon: bronze for Deena Kastor and silver for Meb Keflezighi. Not only were they both Americans, but they were teammates; both trained with the Mammoth Track Club in California.
That Olympics is one of my earliest memories being a fan of distance running. I was in high school at the time, just getting into more serious running with cross country and track. Seeing Americans mixing it up with the best in the world on the biggest stage was hugely motivating and inspirational.
For this edition of HISTORY, I want to take a look at how the Mammoth Track Club built the performances that would lead to a medal; specifically, I'm talking about this article: "The Anatomy of a Medal."
The first thing that stands out is the application of modern exercise physiology to inform Deena's training. I believe one of the reasons Americans slowed in the '90s is due to the mis-application of exercise physiology (i.e., high mileage was out, hard anaerobic intervals were in), so it's nice to see the science applied in a way that meshes with experience.
The next thing that stands out, which is a great example of that scientific application, is Kastor's week-by-week mileage chart. Notice how her mileage varies each week: up one week, down the next; up the week after that, down the following; etc. It's a perfect application of the scientific principle of supercompensation, which basically states that after a physiological stress that tears your body down, with proper recovery it will build itself back up a little stronger and faster than before.
In a smart training plan you'll find regular down weeks, with less mileage and less intensity than normal -- these allow for supercompensation. But too often, most runners are 'up' all the time, never really giving themselves an appropriate recovery for their volume of work.
With the high volume and high intensity that her training must have entailed, that weekly variation in mileage was shown to be a perfect application of supercompensation. Don't be afraid to take down weeks (or even just a string of a few days) in your training; you might be surprised how much it helps you.
Finally, take a look at her taper; or, lack thereof. Three straight weeks leading up to race day of 80 miles. That's not the typical taper we're used to seeing, which is a gradual descent in volume (the classic example of a two week taper is an 80% first week and then 60% second week). But Deena didn't employ this descending model; instead, she went about 80% the first week and then stayed there for two more weeks.
You might think that too much running too close to the race will tire you out, but for a lot of high mileage runners the opposite tends to be true: dropping volume too much doesn't leave you feeling more fresh; it leaves you feeling lethargic and unfit. When you're running higher mileage, you'll find that an easy run is so ingrained as to be hardly stressful at all. You're often better keeping in that constant aerobic stimulus as opposed to eliminating it, since it should hardly be tiring. When you're used to running a lot, as your goal race nears you should keep running a lot (or only slightly reduced). Keep doing the simple thing that has gotten you to peak fitness.
Since 2004, American distance running has only improved. How much can your performances improve by following the same blueprint?
Comments
Post a Comment