Running Times Article and why scientists get it wrong.

First off, a shorttraining update. Going very well. I've had some solid workouts and am just getting into the swing of things. Right now I'm putting together the outdoor schedule, but it looks like for big meets I'll try and head to Mt. SAC, one of the nashville meets, another Cali meet, and who knows where else. Onto my rant, fueled by physiologists everywhere:

On another note, I was reading Running Times today and I just wanted to comment on an article in there. There was a short article on Improving Buffering Capacity by Owen Anderson. This article illustrates the problem most people have with connecting physiology with practical training. Before I go into that, a little about the article. It was discussing a study done that showed that intervals at something like 120-140% Lactate Threshold improved buffering capacity, while a similar group trained at 80-95% LT or around there and didn't improve buffering capacity. The author then suggests ways to improve buffering capacity and caps it off with saying that buffering capacity improves racing time in races less than an hour long.

There is a problem in this reasoning and it is a very common mistake and a reason why I am VERY VERY cautious when looking at studies or people interpreting studies and applying them to real world training. When scientists do studies they are normally looking for one variable at a time. They rarely assess the GLOBAL effects of the workout. Rather, they find if a workout effects a single variable. In this case, the scientists see if X workout improves buffering capacity.

The problem comes when coaches/scientists take this data and puts the workout into a category of workouts that "improve buffering capacity." But wait, that is just one effect of the workout. No one studied or knows the other effects. So while this workout could be doing something beneficial, at the same time it could be harming another component.

Let me give an example. If we listen to the authors advice and do all these workouts to improve buffering capacity, then WE, the readers, are ASSUMING that are race performance will improve. This is because "they" tell us that buffering capacity is a limiter to performance. Well it will, BUT not if that workout effects other things negatively to a greater degree. For example, if we do lots of these buffering capacity workouts, all that acidosis (which is the stimulus for improving buffering capacity) will probably reduce our aerobic capacity in certain muscle fibers. This is because once you get to higher acidosis levels, the mitochondria can lose function and other scientific stuff that I don't feel like discussing right now.

In essence the high acidity is a stimulus for improving buffering capacity, but it also "hinders" some aerobic processes.

I'm pointing this out to show that you MUST look at the GLOBAL effects of a workout. Getting back to the Running Times article, the global effects of the suggested workouts could or could not improve racing time. If you just haphazardly place them in your schedule to "improve buffering capacity" then you will probably fail, but if you know the global effects of the workout and know that doing these workouts will decrease aerobic capacity then you can plan your training accordingly. For example, you can minimize the drop in aerobic capacity that the workout creates by surrounding these workouts with different kind of aerobic stimulus workouts. Or you can plan for the drop, by doing several of these workouts, then having a 10 day session of "aerobic refresh" to recharge the aerobic capacity.

I know I've been rambling, but to tie things up; Scientific studies only analyze one variable, in the real world we have to have an idea of ALL the variables. Training a person is not done in controlled lab conditions. Be wary of coaches/athletes/physiologists who try and make direct connections between the latest new study with real world training.

Sorry for the long rant, hope it made sense.

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous2:10 AM

    Have enjoyed reading your blog and I wish you a very healthy and fast 2007.

    I first came across you on DyeStat when you were probably between your freshman and sophomore year in high school. Those were the days, eh?

    You kind of lost me with some of your crazy antics with your FMR home boys, when it seemed your fame had definitely gotten to your head. A lot of it is understandable, now looking back at how it must have been for you. I haven't had any occasion in the past few years to think you were just another high school kid who never grew up. After all, most people do grow up after high school.

    The thing that really lost me was your "Racism is fun!" comment which seemed to epitomize just how blindly and naively you were experiencing life's more sober and sad realities.

    Pardon me for putting you on the spot Steve, but it is a question that has been nagging me for several years now. (And feel free to delete this blog entry without any hard feelings from me).

    But do you still believe racism is fun? I'm hopeful through the sheer passage of time, you may realize things differently now. But there are no guarantees in life and sometimes attitudes never change.

    We're all on this journey called life and we're all constantly evolving whether we want to or not. If you could go back in time, maybe you could have stated your feelings differently.

    Whether you want to believe so or not, I am sure people remember that comment and perhaps you could devote some of your next blogging to what you have learned about racism not being something to joke about. That would be big of you if you could.

    Regards and best wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is well said and applies to nearly all research that deals with complex systems. cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:00 AM

    I am a sports scientist, and i agree with the crux of what you are saying here.

    There needs to be some kind of digestion of ideas between the scientific study and the application to training.

    Unfortunately, few coaches have enough understanding (and awareness of the many related studies in the field), and few scientists have sufficient knowledge of the context and practicalities of a complete training plan.

    Misinterpretation and mis-application of sports science is responsible for much of the drop in performance in GB over the past 15years (IMO).

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Related Posts with Thumbnails