Fast Running Blog

Heh. Ok, I admit, that title was just to grab your attention. I haven't actually come across such a coach. But I'm wondering if any of you have. My brother-in-law and I are adamantly camped in the two opposing views on this. He is a tri-athelete who is trying to convince me that there are 3 primary work-outs each week -- Tempo, Interval, Long Run -- and that the rest of the miles are junk miles that can be replaced by non-running cardio workouts that don't put as much pounding on your body and provide your 'running muscles' more recovery. I suggested to him that when an elite international athlete moves to such a program and provides even equal results, then I'll consider such a program. Is there any elite international athelete that replaces running miles with cross-training miles that you know of? And can you please explain to me specifically the 'system'-atic benefits that these extra 3 days of running provide that simply cannot be gained through cross-training and how this converts to faster times for the mostly serious racer/runner who lacks more than 90 minutes/day to train.

Yeah my sports chiropractor, Dr. Brady, has the same philosophy, that we do too much junk miles.  I proposed he give me an example of an elite low mileage runner and he couldn't.  I told him he was fired as my coach  :o  Great doctor, but without examples of success, I'm not convinced that low mileage/high quality with cross training is a legitimate path to marathon excellence.

I do not know of any. However, it is possible to run quite well with key workouts + cross-training in between in distances up to the half-marathon. I've been beat in those distances by guys who train like this. However, I've never been beat by anybody who admitted to this form of training in the marathon.

Unfortunately I am not elite, but... this summer I would do extra mileage in the pool.  It wasn't to replace any mileage, however, just EXTRA training beyond the call of duty, and I think it strengthened me - especially in my hip flexors.

No.

Half the point of training is to adapt the body to pounding. The way to get better at running is to run more. Running more miles more often (doubles, etc.) will help with form and economy. Running long and hard will help with fueling and most importantly with adapting the body to handle shock and impact. Cross training will give you a general aerobic fitness, but it will do nothing for you at mile 22 of the marathon.

Let's put it this way. Say we have several runners of equal ability, and each has an allotted hours/day to train. Runner A spends 2 hours/day running. Runner B spends an hour running, 45 minutes cross training, and 15 minutes stretching. Runner A will beat Runner B in a race every time. However, Runner B will still mop the floor with Runner C, who just runs 60 minutes/day, but does nothing else. Runner B also has the least chance of injury. And Runner D, who runs 3 hours/day (~150 mpw) will be yet the fastest...but has the highest chance of injury. With high-level, high-volume running you are always straddling the threshold between greatness and injury. Cross training can help with the injury thing, but you'll never hit your ultimate potential...which may be okay because one will never hit their ultimate potential if they are injured every other month either.

I am extremely new at this, yet Lance Armstrong would seem to me to be the best example of why cross-training does not replace the value of "pounding".  Nobody on the face of the planet has probably done more cross-training preparation for a marathon and look what he ended up with- as stress fracture.  I still do cross-training to build core strength, and as I push 40 to help maintain bone density, yet nothing seems more valuable to my improvement than the "junk miles".   

Paul, congrats on the impressive run on Sunday!

The fact that cross-training provides the same benefit aerobically that the 3 extra days of running does seems fairly obvious. The fact that running more miles prepares the body to handle pounding also seems fairly obvious. And the fact that cross-training provides you with an environment that is potentially more injury free is also fairly obvious. But I'm hoping that someone can break down what these extra miles give you that cross-training simply cannot as it relates to physiology. What do those 3 days do for your body (my guess is that it must be muscular) that translates to me being able to run a 39 minute 10k as opposed to a 40 minute 10k?

This is from a 51 year old woman who has been running marathons since the age of 38.  So obviously I'm not an elite nor anywhere even close, but I just wanted to relate my experiences with cross-training.  I ran my best marathon in 2007 (at the age of 50) at St. George when I ran approximately 30 miles a week but supplemented with lots of cross-training, especially cycling and also strength-training and yoga.  I had no injuries that year.  This year, I did very little cross-training, ran 50 to 60 miles a week for several months, ended up with a case of hamstring tendonitis and ran one of my worst marathons at St. George.  All I can say is maybe 20 and 30 year olds can get away with just running, but as you age, I think you'll wish you had done more cross-training and saved your legs from wear and tear.  Cross-training seems to have only helped my running. 

Also, Matt Fitzgerald, in his book Runner's World Guide to Cross-Training, says we don't really know how cross-training affects running because not enough runners are willing to try it long term.  He seems big on cross-training, though, and gives many examples of where it has helped elite runners.  Maybe you could look at that book for some answers to the question. 

Another good comment about cross training comes from coaching guru Jack Daniels. To paraphrase (off the top of my head), he says in The Running Formula to cross train if it will help you run more. In other words, cross train if it will develop supporting muscle systems and keep you injury-free. If these muscles are strong, you will be able to push running mileage further later on.

I hope I don't come off as anti-xtraining. I've been living in a gym lately, and have seen fruits from several cardio machines.

As far as the physiology, I'd recommend reading The Running Formula and The Lore of Running. You'll get plenty there. I'll readily admit I'm not qualified to get into the exact science. Mostly I know what I've seen and experienced.

Similar to Paul's reference to Daniel's advice in "The Running Formula to cross train if it will help you run more" I would say cross train if it means you will do something when you would otherwise do nothing.  I agree that running is best for running, but we can't all run all the time.

Enough said. He's a triathlete. Ask him to pick one of those three sports and get really good at it by playing basketball. You don't become a runner by biking or swimming any more than i become a better swimmer by running. Cross train if you need to for peace of mind or to prevent boredom that might otherwise drive you out of running, but don't expect greater running performances from it.

True, but there are some studies that show you can improve your racing time by replacing running miles with xt miles when said xt is similar to running (cycling, swimming, eliptical, etc).

http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-238-244--11816-0,00.html

and in this article they suggest that for the average genetic talent runner xt in place of running produced no change in running times

http://www.powerrunning.com/Training/Cross%20Training%20for%20Runners.htm

I have found 3 studies that show benefits the other way

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3497218

http://pfitzinger.com/labreports/crossbenefits.shtml

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7649709

This discussion board posts was interesting! Junk miles are like my rewards, every week i try and get in 1 long run, speed, and tempo day. The other days mean, i get to cruise and enjoy the scenery... Running at a comfortably pace is meditative for me.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7649709

"No significant changes in run performance, resting heart rate and blood pressure occurred during the study."

No wonder, Pfitzinger observes that both groups were too tired to see any improvements.

From http://pfitzinger.com/labreports/crossbenefits.shtml

---------------------------------
The Bottom Line

So, what can we confidently say about the benefits of cross-training?

1. Cross-training will help you stay in shape when you can't run. If you cross-train at the same intensity and for the same number of minutes that you would normally run, you will show almost no loss in running fitness for at least 4 weeks, and after that any loss in running performance will be gradual.

2. If you increase your training volume by cross-training you can improve your running performance. The improvement, however, will not be as large as if you had increased your mileage. This point goes right to the heart of the mileage versus injury trade-off. Sure, you would improve more by increasing your running, but you would also increase your risk of injury. The challenge for the runner is to manage that trade-off by running as much as you can before the risk of injury shoots up.

3. There is no evidence that cross training will improve performance in elite runners. The concept of specificity of training becomes more critical the higher the level of performance.

-------------------

That's a good bottom line. If you cannot use all of your training time and energy running without being injured, then cross-train. Otherwise just run.

One question I have on the topic of mixing crosstraining with running......

Suppose for whatever reason I'm wanting to spend 1/2 of my exercise time for the week doing cross-training and the other 1/2 running. So if I'm a 6-day-a-week runner I decide that half of the time I would have spent running I'll do cross-training instead.

Is it better to alternate days where you do running-only 3 days (i.e M-W-F) and cross-training the other 3 (T-TH-S)?

OR is it better to do some running and some cross-training every day, i.e. instead of running 10 miles a day you run 5 miles every day and equivalent of the 5 miles of cross-training every day? Or does it really even matter?

Tom- I would guess it depends on what you are training for.  I know Sasha doesn't agree, but I think that if you are training for a marathon, 3 longer runs and 3 cross training days would help the most.  For a short race, either way would probably work.

I am against cross training when it is used to substitute for running that you CAN do. If you can do it in addition to your workouts and it doesnt have a negative affect on your speed or recovery, then great. If you do it because of injury, its very helpful in maintaining some kinds of fitness.

But, simply put, why do the best runners log so many miles each week? Because you don't get better running by NOT running. You get better at running by running. The biggest problem with running so much (at least I think) is that the majority of people don't vary their workouts enough. Just running 5 miles a day is going to give you benefits. But varying the pace, tempo, speed, recovery, route, intensity, duration, etc you can make those five miles work for you to get more benefits- even more so than an eliptical or bike or swim can do- and you can modify each of those factors to attain your goals. Hit the hills, or change the pace, or change something, and you've got a whole different 5 miles and a completely different training stimulus.

The notion of "junk miles", I believe, is incorrect. There is no such thing. 0 miles works against you greater than "junk miles". Undoubtly, after a hard workout day, your form, your muscles, your running will be different and not as beneficial or easy as when you are fresh. But it is all part of developing running strength and ability. The physiological adaptations are higher by increasing running duration and longevity. There is no truly elite runner out there that will ever replace a run with cross training unless they are injured, and even then, what the good ones look for? Anti-gravity treadmills! Running makes you better at running. Running + cross training makes you better at running + cross training.

I would not necessarily disagree. I'd have to say I do not know, never tried, never observed anybody reliable who tried. I do agree with Adam, though. Do not cross-train instead of running, cross-train instead of watching TV.

I believe Paula Radcliffe would be the closest elite type case study of the benefits of cross-training when running is not possible.  However, one could argue that she was on just one long taper before the Olympics, but for her to do as well as she did on mostly x-training is impressive.

Personally, I set a PR after replacing 50% of my running with a spin bike because I was injured.  I'm stubborn and when I pay hefty racing fees I want to run the best I can, so recovery was not an option.  Anyway, I did the approach of three quality runs and on opposite days three x-training sessions (60-90 minutes long each).  My gripe was I couldn't just go for a run (always fast, even the long run) and 2 of the x-training sessions were not easy by any means (entered the "pain cave", dead Elvis grin, etc.).  In my experience, I don't believe x-training, when it replaces running, will make you a faster runner.  However, if you want to maintain your current running level then I think it will work as a replacement if you make it fairly intense.  I found stair climbers and spinning the best, but pool running is suppose to be even better (never tried it).

Just as a side note, one has to be impressed by how fast the marathon portion of the Ironman is completed by the professionals.

This topic has been interesting to me.  Maybe everyone is saying basically the same thing, but it seems to me that Sean and Adam think that cross-training doesn't help at all in improving running performance.  Does anyone disagree that the person who runs an hour a day and cross-trains an hour a day will run better than the person that only runs an hour a day?  If cross-training doesn't help at all, then these two people will run the same, right?  But if it does help, the person who cross-trains an hour will be a better runner.  Just wanted some clarification on that.

Also, Joe Henderson in his book Better Runs, cites the example of some runners who did standing bike intervals at a high resistance 6 days a week for 6 weeks.  He says all of the runners improved their running performance after this, the average improvement being 10% or about 4 minutes in a 10K.  Here's a quote:  "The professors who oversaw the project were impressed.  They told Miller [the person who designed the study] that the statistical validity of the results was above question and that they'd seen no other study which produced such dramatic improvements in just six weeks."  Does anyone have an opinion on this?  This would seem to show that some forms of cross-training can dramatically improve running performance.

The runner who runs 60 minutes + x-trains 60 minutes will beat the runner who just runs for 60 minutes, given equal genetic ability. The runner who runs for 120 minutes will smoke both of them. Think of it this way: performance is a product of training volume and training quality. The 60+60 guy has the same volume as the 120 guy, but the 120 guy has better quality, since he reaps the benefits of training specificity.

In Henderson's study, what was the previous training of the test subjects? If they were running for 40 minutes 4 days/week, then switching to biking for 60 minutes 6 days/week would represent an increase of both volume and quality. Also, what level runners were they? If they were relatively new runners in the process of increasing their fitness, then these results would not surprising. If they were fairly experienced high school - college - post collegiate veterans, then I would not expect this. Once you are highly developed, it's hard to get faster (1 minute in a marathon becomes a big deal). But for a new runner, it's easy to improve your times in spite of your training rather than because of it.

Just a few thoughts!

From personal experience I've found that xtraining simply makes you a stronger runner in general. As far as aerobic capacity maybe it's not going to help you beat the guy that consistently logs 100 mile weeks, but I think it will aid in injury prevention so you will beat them in the long run!

The book "Running With Lydiard" confirmed for me all doubt on this matter. Paying special attention to the first 2 chapters, one will find that the benefits of running over cross-training are considerable. Cross-training is only beneficial when done in addition to one's normal training program, not in place of running miles that were part of one's program. As an aside, Lydiard's suggestions on how many miles to do and what sort of miles to do would leave little room for cross-training unless training was one's full time job. Even then, the stress put on the system by this extra-cross training in addition to regular training might perhaps take away from recovery instead of aiding it. It seems to me that most of the time when this topic comes up the term 'Junk Miles' is used in conjunction with it. I'm convinced there is no such thing as 'Junk Miles', rather 'Junk Pace'. Check out this website for some Lydiard related articles if you don't have access to the book, and even if you do have access, these articles are worth a look.

http://www.hillrunner.com/articles/

After some thought I decided to enter some points from Lydiard's book here that essentially answer my original question as to the 'system' benefits to running miles over cross-training equivalents. This post will likely be quite long, I appologize, but I think these points are considerably important for serious trainers. As my original question pertains to the benefits for the serious racer interested in getting faster, I'm not sure that this debate applies to the runner who is merely running for enjoyment or general fitness. As such, Lydiard training program calls for no small amount of training time. Here I will lay out a few quotes of his that pertain to the benefits on the various systems.



'... let us look more closely at the running body. It is not just a matter of working muscles; excerise requires continuing adjustments in respiration, chemical reactions, circulation, temperature-regulation mechanisms, kidyey functions and so on. The entire body is involved and affected when you run - one of the reasons why running is such a fine general conditioner'.

'Aerobic training is directed towards improving efficiency connected to your ability to absorb oxygen from the air, transport it to various muscles and organs, and then use it. Through aerobic conditioning the heart becomes bigger and improves its ability. An athlete who runs daily for long periods maintains a reasonably high pressure on the blood circulatory system and steadily develops better circulation and the ability to transport greater volumes of blood to various parts of the body.'

So far all this is accomplished by both running and cross-training, if done correctly.

'The steady work and continued pressure progressively improve the pulmonary ventilation - the period renewal of air in the lungs. The lungs are thus more efficient.' So it shouldn't matter what type of steady state work we do, any type will result in this same reaction. However, 'continued use of muscles for long periods actually develops new capalaries within [the] muscles [being used]...  (Muscles and activity specialization improves the use of those specific muscles -- cross training may get at some of the same muscles, but not exactly the same, the result is greater improvement of the running muscles by running, not by doing similar activities).

'I learn[ed] years ago when i was averaging 24k a day in training that if I shifted to the daily balance of 32K one day and 16k the next, I got better reactions without altering my total running distance. Simply, the longer runs developed that greater muscular endurance, the shorter ones provided recovery and consolidation.' (Aha, the cross-trainer says, see, I can get recovery and consolidation also by cross-training instead of running and give my muscles a rest).

I submit that it is exactly this 'giving my running muscles a rest' theory that retards speed development.

Enter the ulimate cross-training example.

"It is worth noting that skiers develop a higher maximum steady state than runners because they are using more muscles for their sport. But the circulatory development would be greater in the legs of the runner. From this, it is also interesting to note that, because more muscles are being used in skiing - arms, shoulders, and back muscles - the skiers energy is expended more quickly (the result is less time spent working over the heart, lungs, and muscles at a steady state). This also makes the point that if you do not run economically, if you use muscles not required for running (excessive arm and shoulder movement for example) you are wasting energy in a way which will reduce the speed and distance of your running... Most of my runners trained on bitumen roads because they offered the best traction. We tested this by running for an hour cross-country and comparing that with the distance run in an hour on the road. On the road a much greater distance was covered without any increase in effort, soley because the better traction allowed more economical movement without tiring the muscles so rapidly... Cross-country is tiring because of the continued resistance of uphill and downhill running on slippery, wet, or holding ground where the traction ranges from indifferent to awful. The failure is muscular, no cardiac! (Here we are again, back to that old 'muscular talk').

All this steady-state talk Lydiard refers to is not LSD, btw, it is work that is done near your aerobic limit. And the result of this training that cross-training simply cannot provide to the same extent is MUSCULAR development. Stronger muscles, better at dealing with waste products, etc. Once you have put yourself in a position that you've developed your base in a way that cross-training simply cannot you are then prepared better to enter the speed phase of training. So its not just that running miles are better developers of muscles, but that running miles better prepares you to enter the speed phase of training (which is really what the original post is addressing).

Lydiard (in a basic sense) breaks running down into 2 types, aerobic and anaerobic. Aerobic running 'is 19 times more efficient' than anaerobic. 'The reaction that takes place to sustain anaerobic running is called oxygen debt. It can be incurred quickly and is accompanied by the accumulation of lactic acid and other waste products which lead directly to neuromuscular breakdown, or simply, tired muscles that refuse to continue to work as you want them to (Neural Drive Sasha?) That absolute limit when you are excercising anaerobically is an oxygen debt of 15-18 liters a minute; but that is a level that the average runner will not reach until he or she has excercised properly for a long period of time (he is referring to establishing an aerobic base that allows you to reach this level anaerobically as a result of a huge base)'.

'The effect of lactic acid in the bloodstream is to alter the blood PH ... hard anaerobic excercise increases the acidity and lower blood PH, and, if it stays, upsets the nuitrive system, which destroys or neutralizes the benfits of food vitamens and retards general development. The PH range which vitamens function is small, so any prolonged lowering of the level can be damaging. Enzyme fuctions are adversely affected, so recovery from training is poor and subsequent training becomes difficult. A continued lowered PH level can also affect the central nervous system, causing loss of sleep and irritability and, consequently, a lessening interest in training and competing. Blood platelets are reduced in number and the athlete is more susceptible to injury and illness because immunity is weakened (JUNK PACE!)

A note on anaerobic training. The important aspect of this training is this lowering of the blood PH (getting yourself fatigued) and the pace and amount necessary to do this varies as individuals vary. One last thing that pertains to the topic here. Continued running over cross-training leads to muscular development. This pertains to speed and endurance by developing the muscle fibers. 'Your muscles contain a number of fibres, some of them red, the others white. The red fibres contain amounts of myoglobin, which is chemically related to the haemoglobin of the blood. Muscles in which these red fibres predominate are capable of slow, powerful contractions that are not easily fatigued. The white muscle fibres contain less myoglobin and are specialised for speed, not strength, so they tire more easily.'

'Runners are lucky in that by running they develop all the systems needed for running.... Running is without question the best excercise for runners, and, as long as we watch the degree of effort we cannot really do too much of it (JUNK PACE over JUNK MILES!)

Sorry for the long post, but I thought this was good stuff. If you get the chance, I highly recommend Running With Lydiard as a good beginning for understanding how to go about developing a running program that best suits each individual runner.

I appreciate you taking the time to type all that information and it was very interesting.  I can't seem to leave this topic alone and I apologize for that.  It's just that I had my best running year ever when I incorporated a lot of cross-training in with a moderate amount of running.  The running I did was short and fairly intense, very little LSD running.  I had one of my worst years when all I did was a lot of running, lots of LSD runs.  I felt like my legs got weaker when I didn't do the biking and weight work and other cross-training, mainly circuit classes and yoga.  What did I do wrong?  Are the rules different for females than for males?  Do we need the extra strength that cross-training might give us?  Any thoughts on that is appreciated.

When I was talking about needing to more running to run better, I was not saying simply run more LSD miles. Run training does not mean run without a purpose. It means training to run something. In the same way, if you cross train you will become more fit. But fit for what? Fit for running a marathon? Fit for 1500m? Fit to bowl a 300? Fit in general? Fit for basketball? Fit to mow the lawn? Look at what you want to do and learn what will help you specifically reach that. If your going to get better, you need to decide what for.

I was also not trying to infer that cross training will lead to no running improvement. Resistance training, when properly placed with aerobic training, will lead to aerobic improvements. However, the majority of these significant improvements, at least in studies, are noted in people with little to no training. Why do the studies often show improvements for some kind of training over another? Mostly because the studies are short in duration (3-8 wks) and because the people they recruit are mostly college aged kids, with at least some exercise expierence. Problem with this (besides the obvious) is that many of the performance gains found through resistance and other forms of cross training that come within that time are neurological. It just means your body learned a new skill and can now perform it better. So we see people with limited of some training improve in their run times. Despite how much many of people think they train, they still are not at that upper level of training where performance increases come in baby steps over years in duration. So the majority of athletic/semi-athletic people stem to benefit from more exercise and cross training in addition to their run training. Elite runners, not so much.

Why don't we recruit elite athlete's for these studies and do them in long duration? Because no elite athlete will EVER want to lose a year of training to see if adding 3x a week cross-trainning sessions will lead to improvements. It isn't going to happen. Why? Because the extra 20-60 minutes each day of training could be better put to use in run training, which will definitively lead to performance improvements. You might see elite runners try things like altitude training, or altitude houses, ice vests, or new shoes or supplements, because these don't take away from their run training in any way.