Our bodies  can utilize two different energy production systems. One requires oxygen to release the energy stored in the food we eat, while the other can release energy without oxygen. As distance coaches you must train both of these energy systems if you want to he help your athletes be successful at distances of 800 meters and greater.   We refer to these types training as Aerobic Training (with oxygen) and Anaerobic Training (without oxygen).

In the clip below Coach Scott Christensen discusses what he refers to as combined zone training.  The 5k cross country race can be divided into two zones. The comfort zone which he describes as the first 80-percent of the race and the critical zone or final 20-percent of the race.  A runners aerobic training is what gets them through the comfort zone, the part of the race where he/she are running easily.  The critical zone, which relies on the bodies ability to produce energy both anaerobically and aerobically , is where the race is won or lost. Keep in mind when planning your training for combined zones races like the 5K  aerobic training requires 20-24 weeks and anaerobic training requires 9-11 weeks. Therefore it would be wise to begin your anaerobic training early in the season.

Coach Christensen is a highly regarded distance coach. His high school teams have been ranked in the national top 10 eight times.  He has coached 13 Minnesota State Championship-winning teams and 27 individual Minnesota State Champions.  Coach Christensen has also spent 14-years as a USATF Level II endurance lead instructor and currently serves as lead endurance instructor for the USTFCCCA Coaching Academy.

He has has put together a complete training program for high school cross country. His program includes Aerobic Training, Speed and Strength Training (Anaerobic Training), Peaking and Motivation.  To find out how to gain access to his training program click the link Scott Christensen Complete High School Cross Country   . You can also find many other great resources at Complete Track and Field

The YouTube video has sound so please make sure that your audio is turned on and that you have access to the site. Some school block access to YouTube. The first part of the video is an overview of his program and his background. The combined zone training info begins at the 5:02 mark

 

 

Scott Christensen’s program is available for immediate digital access or on DVD. Click the image or the link for more info on his Complete High School Cross Country .  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coach Christensen has two other training programs that you might like:  Advanced Topics Symposium in Cross Country (The science behind cross country training) and Training Model for High School Cross Country (includes individual workouts and sequences to follow)

                                                                                                                                                                            

Training a distance runner properly requires and thorough understanding muscle physiology. We must train two different energy systems and understand how they work together to power our bodies so that we can design the most effective workouts.  If your background is not is physiology or exercise science, you might want to turn to some experts that can help you become a little more scientific in your training.

In the first of two clips below renowned distance coach Scott Christensen discusses issues related to fatigue in distance runners. Coach Christensen states that training to delay fatigue will improve performance .  He believes that all other factors being somewhat equal, fatigue will determine winners and losers and finally the athletes with the greatest ability to manage fatigue are the ones setting all of the records.

In the second clip he discusses proper rest intervals during workouts and how to adjust them as the season progresses. Generally speaking he believes they should be shorter early in the season and longer as the season progresses. Exactly the opposite of what one might think.

For those of you unfamiliar with Coach Christensen his high school teams have been ranked in the national top 10 eight times.  He has coached 13 Minnesota State Championship-winning teams and 27 individual Minnesota State Champions.  Coach Christensen has also spent 14-years as a USATF Level II endurance lead instructor and currently serves as lead endurance instructor for the USTFCCCA Coaching Academy.

He has produced several products that are great items to add to your coaching toolbox. The clips below are from his program  ADVANCED TOPICS SYMPOSIUM IN CROSS COUNTRY.  In this program he covers the following topics: (These are just a few. In all it consists of 6 hours of training)

 

 

1. Scientific theory of training
2. Role of fatigue in performance
3. Cross Country training theory
4. Influence of Aerobic Training
5. Influence of Anaerobic Training
6. Training Schedules for 5K

 

The YouTube videos below have audio, so please make sure that your sound is turned on and that you  have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 

 

 

 

For more information about Scott Christensen’s ADVANCED TOPICS SYMPOSIUM IN CROSS COUNTRY click on the link here or on the image. This and other great coaching resources may be found at Complete Track and Field

 

 

When planning the training  for distance runners there are a lot of factors to take into consideration.  Whether it is balancing tempo runs with speed workouts, or working on their form and posture, as a coach you are always trying to gain an edge. How can we train our runners so that we cut time, reduce injury and keep them motivated.

One often overlooked area that can help distance runners is improving their balance. Running is an activity that demands that the athlete be on one foot while performing. Therefore it is critical that they have the necessary strength and balance needed to stabilize their foot on each strike. In reality a runner requires just fractions of seconds to stabilize on each foot strike. If you consider the thousands of foot strikes required in training and racing, improvement in this area will not only reduce injury but also have effect on their performance.

In the video clip below Ryan Warrenburg, strength coach at Zap Fitness Team USA Training Center, demonstrates some very simple exercises that he incorporates into each of his workouts with his distance runners. These are simple exercises that can be completed easily outside of the weight room.

These exercises are one example of the type of strength and conditioning drills that he uses with his distance runners. For a more information about training distance runners you check his dvd. The dvd also includes instruction from elite distance coach Pete Rea. Coach Rea shares the secrets behind his training methods, the different types of workouts you can use within a single training session, and discusses how you can implement them with the individual runner. The bulk of his training ideologies are based on Arthur Lydiard’s training theories. For more information about that dvd click the link Zap Fitness: Proven Training Methods for Distance Running Success

I have also included a second clip. I this clip Coach Rea takes you through two different workouts he is using 10 days prior to competition

The YouTube video have audio, so please make sure that your sound is turn on and that you have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 

As we near the start of cross country season, I thought I would post a couple of videos from Scott Christensen, USTFCCCA Lead Endurance Instructor and experienced high school coach. Coach Christensen’s teams have been ranked in the Top 10 nationally 6 times, won multiple state championships , and been named Senior Team Leader for World Cross Country Team. He is without doubt a coach many of us could learn from.

Hopefully most of your runners have been putting in some great work this summer and have improved their aerobic fitness levels. Now as they return to school in a few weeks, you can begin to work of their anaerobic fitness.

Aerobic training can be improved by putting in many miles and results in structural changes in the body. This requires a time frame of approximately 20-24 weeks. Anaerobic training causes biochemical changes.  While anaerobic training requires less time, it still takes 9-11 weeks to make the necessary changes for maximal performance. For this reason it is important that coaches do not wait very long into their season to begin anaerobic training.

In the two clips below from Complete Track and Field Coach Christensen discusses anaerobic training. In the –  first video he shares an example of a 9 day Multi-Paced Microcycle and in the second an example of a speed workout.

Both of these clips are taken from Coach Christensen’s Complete Cross Country Training Program.  The program consists of four parts:

Part 1 – Aerobic Training

Part 2 – Application of Speed and Strength Training

Part 3 – Influence of the Peaking Period

Part 4 – Psychological Issues, Inventories and Motivation

The YouTube videos below have sound, so please make sure that your sound is turned on and that you have access to the site. Please note that some schools block access to YouTube.

 

Cross Country Training – Anaerobic training

 

How to Develop Speed in Distance Runners

 

If you are interested in learning more about Coach Christensen’s program  Click on the image or link below.

Complete High School Cross Country Training

This article was provided by Training and  Conditioning

 

By Dr. Daniel Cipriani

Daniel Cipriani, PhD, PT, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physical Therapy at Schmid College of Science and Technology at Chapman University, where he teaches courses in biomechanics and kinesiology. He can be reached at: cipriani@chapman.edu or follow him on Twitter @danielcip3.

The popularity of barefoot running has once again reared its dirty foot. From competitive track and field athletes to weekend warriors, more and more runners want to feel the earth underneath them while they train. This “trend” actually has a long history.

When the running fitness craze took off in the 1960s, a small but very dedicated group opted to run without shoes. This practice gained international attention after the barefoot running success of athletes such as Abebe Bikila (1960 Olympic gold medalist in the marathon) and Bruce Tulloh (1962 European Championships gold medalist in the 5000 meters).

Two decades later, the world was captivated by Zola Budd (1985 and 1986 World Cross-Country champion) who mainly ran barefoot. Her success revitalized the notion that running shoeless might have performance benefits, and many gave it a try in the mid to late 1980s.

In recent years, there has been another push to trade running sneakers for bare soles thanks in part to the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall, published in 2009. McDougall argues that the human species is engineered for long distance running (hunters would run their faster prey into a fatigued state to allow capture without the use of weaponry) and compares the incredible distance running performances of today’s athletes to current-day tribes in Mexico and Africa who run either barefoot or in nothing more than a sandal. McDougall likens barefoot running to a sense of freedom and liberation from modern-day constraints.

Another significant factor contributing to the growth in popularity of barefoot running is the development of “minimalist” style shoes (such as Vibram’s FiveFinger, New Balance’s Minimus, and Sockwa’s G2/G3). These have allowed runners to try near-barefoot training without risking injury to the plantar surface of the foot. Current research suggests that running in a minimalist shoe not only replicates the mechanics of barefoot running, but may be more efficient.

Thus the big question arises: Is barefoot and minimalist running better than shod running (with shoes)? Is it more efficient? Is it safer? Thanks to the research of epidemiologists, biomechanists, and sports medicine specialists, we are much closer to answering these questions–although there is still more research to be done.

LANDING PATTERNS
Before we can even begin to compare the pros and cons of each style, it is important to understand the mechanics of running with shoes vs. without. Running barefoot and in minimalist shoes involves a different technique than running with traditional shoes. This results in differences in foot position at initial landing, stride length, cadence, knee flexion, and ground reaction forces.

All barefoot runners and most minimalist shoe runners land using the midfoot or forefoot portion as the primary contact area on initial impact. Unlike shod runners, the heel touches the ground barely, rarely, or not all. Landing this way, the athlete’s ankle begins contact with the ground in a position of slight plantarflexion. The vast majority of shod runners, on the other hand, land with the ankle neutral or slightly dorsiflexed and with the heel as the first point of contact.

Mid/forefoot landing requires the use of a shorter stride and a higher cadence compared with the traditional heel-strike runner. This leads to slightly greater knee flexion of mid/forefoot strikers, particularly during the stance component of running.

In looking at ground reaction forces, it has been demonstrated that the mid/forefoot striker experiences a reduced impact force at initial contact. This is due to the action of the ankle joint, which undergoes a rapid dorsiflexion motion to absorb the impact with the ground. The heel-strike runner absorbs this force through very limited subtalar joint eversion and knee flexion, resulting in a higher and more rapid impact force.

However, it is important to note that the overall peak ground reaction forces are very similar between a heel-strike runner and a forefoot-strike runner. The slight difference is that the forefoot runner does not have an initial spike in ground reaction force.

INJURY RISK
It’s no secret that injury risk for runners is high and many who have parted with their traditional shoes are seeking a way to lower their chances of injury. Research on injury rates for shod runners is bountiful, showing that 75 percent of these athletes will sustain some form of injury. Because mid/forefoot strikers experience less impact on initial contact with the ground, it seems to follow that this should reduce the prevalence of injury.

A recent survey study performed on military personnel examined this idea and suggests that midfoot and forefoot striking might be a way to protect against injuries. In a sample of 900 runners, the authors found that those who self-reported to be mid/forefoot strikers (69 percent) had less injuries than those who self-reported as heel strikers (31 percent). Unfortunately, self-report of striking style is highly unreliable, with other research showing that nearly 70 percent of runners who claim to be mid/forefoot strikers are actually heel-strike runners. Another study examining more than 1,000 marathon runners, which videotaped their running form at a mid-point location in the race, noted that over 90 percent landed on their heels.

A smaller study looking at a sample of very select competitive runners (36 heel strikers and 16 forefoot strikers) found a two to three times greater incidence of injury in the heel-strike runners compared with mid/forefoot strikers. While these results are certainly promising, the small number of subjects and highly specific sample makes it difficult to apply these findings to all runners.

One theory to explain the possible reduction in injury risk relates to the differences in ground reaction forces. As mentioned earlier, mid/forefoot landing eliminates the initial spike in ground reaction force that is seen with heel-strike runners. Advocates of barefoot running postulate that this initial impact is a cause of injury in shod runners.

However, research has not found any relationship between ground reaction forces and injury risk (primarily stress fractures) in runners. A study examining the correlation between these forces and the incidence of stress fractures in runners found no substantial differences. In addition, the bulk of the ground reaction forces (shod or barefoot) occur during the full loading and propulsive aspects of running, which are similar between the running styles. Unfortunately, there have not been any studies to date examining ground reaction forces and the multitude of injuries observed in runners, including tendonitis around the foot, ankle, and knee, as well as anterior knee pain.

Barefoot enthusiasts have also speculated that running shoes impede foot proprioception and reduce foot strength, which could leave the athlete more susceptible to injury. However, there is no research to support or refute these anecdotal claims. Nor is there any research to support the notion that greater foot strength contributes to injury prevention.

Overall, running shoes have not yet been shown to increase or decrease injury risk. In fact, the rate of running injuries reported in the literature has not changed over the past 40 years, despite all of the advances made to sneakers. There are a few biomechanics studies that suggest a modern running shoe might contribute to the pronation motion at the foot, rather than control for this motion. And since excessive relative pronation is associated with injury risk, there is certainly a need for further research to test this theory.

Although we know a great deal about the injury prevalence in shod runners, we do not know the rates or types of injuries of barefoot runners, due to the lack of research on the topic. Beyond the obvious plantar foot skin injuries, anecdotal evidence reports an increased risk for metatarsal stress fractures and Achilles tendonitis. However, it is not clear if the incidence rate of these injuries is less or greater than that of shod runners.

The good news is that research is starting to pick up on barefoot running. In March, a team of researchers reported they found that running on the ball of the foot places greater stress on the metatarsals and could potentially lead to stress fracture development. MRIs revealed that runners transitioning to minimalist shoes had greater increases in bone marrow edema in their feet and more stress injuries than those in sneakers.

PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS
Beyond injury risk, many athletes want to know if there are any training or performance benefits to going minimal or barefoot. Those who have made the switch often say they feel they are running faster and getting a better workout. Many also report feeling less “beat up” after a run. However, research has yet to find anything to back this up.

In terms of energy cost, limited research on this topic has found no significant differences between barefoot and shod running. The benefit of less mass (no weight of the shoe) during barefoot running is lost because of greater muscle work from using the ankle plantarflexor muscles (the gastrocnemius and soleus) to absorb the initial impact and produce propulsion.

Running in a minimalist shoe, however, does provide a slight energy advantage. The same research that examined energy cost between shod and barefoot runners also included a group with minimalist shoes, which were found to be the most efficient, albeit by only a slight amount. It is possible that the shoe material, along with the running mechanics, contributed to this advantage. Still, the energy advantage did not translate into improved performance.

Another area to examine is temporal and spatial differences, since the mid/forefoot landing results in a shorter stride and a higher cadence compared with the traditional heel-strike runner. Barefoot/minimalist shoe runners often report feeling less stressed while training by taking shorter, faster strides. But we do not know if this translates into improved performance.

One possible advantage is the fact that, as speed of running increases, the tendency to run on the midfoot or forefoot also increases. At speeds approaching sprinting, the runner will use an entirely forefoot landing style. Thus, training in a minimalist shoe would likely help prepare a runner to develop faster running form.

A recently published study refuted the notion that all barefoot runners land on the ball of the foot, finding that increased speed leads to adopting a forefoot running style, while runners landed on their heels while going slowly. This supports the notion that faster running is facilitated by forefoot landing mechanics, but that barefoot running does not always translate to forefoot landings.

MAKING THE TRANSITION
If your athletes want to make the switch to barefoot running or minimalist shoes, how can you help? First, figure out if the move is right for them. Although there is a lack of research to indicate who is best suited for barefoot running, it is safe to suggest that any current runner likely has the potential to train in a minimalist shoe or even barefoot.

With that said, individuals who have extremely flat feet (excessive pronators) should pay particular care with progression to a barefoot style of running. An individual with a “high arch,” however, is already somewhat programmed to the stress of forefoot landing and might make this transition a bit more readily. Regardless, the best plan is a gradual, careful progression from a heel-strike to a forefoot-strike running form.

To begin, instead of tossing away traditional running shoes, athletes should slowly introduce barefoot or minimalist running to their training. This allows the athlete time to develop different movement skills associated with midfoot and/or forefoot striking while running. It also gives the skin on the bottom of the foot the time necessary to adapt to these new forces. Frequent barefoot walking before beginning barefoot running is a great place to start.

It is also important to explain the changes in running form. The athlete will need to adopt a short stride and high cadence while remaining in a more upright running posture. This will require slightly greater knee flexion prior to initial contact. The athlete will need to consciously avoid heel strike, attempting to land with the foot flat on the ground or biased toward the forefoot.

These form changes will place a much greater mechanical demand on the metatarsals and metatarsal heads, as well as the Achilles tendon and calf musculature. Preparatory activities to condition the foot and calf musculature can include backward running and uphill running. Backward running has been shown to improve function of the calf muscles, and it requires a forefoot landing pattern and greater knee flexion at initial contact. Training on a treadmill or track are the safest environments for this form of running. Running and walking briskly uphill requires a forefoot strike pattern, greater knee flexion, shorter stride, and greater muscle effort of the calf musculature, as well.

Before the athlete takes off with no shoes, he or she should try wearing true minimalist shoes such as the Vibram FiveFinger sock or Sockwa’s G2/G3 shoe-socks for a period of time. Beginning with some form of foot protection, while avoiding the feel of traditional shoes, might improve the athlete’s transition to a forefoot striker and eventually barefoot runner.

The final step is to condition the skin on the bottom of the foot to withstand the abrasive forces encountered with ground contact. This will likely require several months of gradual dosage of fully barefoot running. Again, barefoot walking is a sensible place to start.

Recommendations range from 10 to 15 minutes of barefoot running three days a week, to exposure of five to 10 minutes a day, gradually increasing barefoot running time at a rate of 10 percent per week. And of course, selecting the safest terrain for barefoot running, free of litter and debris, as well as training with sufficient daylight to see the running surface are critical.

Most important to remember is that, regardless of footwear, the predominant risk factors for injury remain excess mileage and training errors. Too many miles puts athletes at greater risk for injury, and any runner (particularly a novice) is at increased risk when training is not conducted properly. In fact, any major change, whether it is an increase in distance or speed work or running on new terrain, ups the chance of injury.

Sidebar: Feeling the Floor
While most of the discussion on minimalist shoes is about how they affect runners, it is interesting to speculate how they might impact athletes in other sports. One question is whether they provide an athlete with improved proprioception.

Consider the dancer, who performs highly dynamic activities in minimal footwear. These athletes complete demanding foot-to-ground movements including jumping, landing, twisting, and spinning. Interestingly, they demonstrate a significantly lower incidence of injuries to the knee, particularly the ACL, when compared with court sport athletes.

It could be argued that because dancers choreograph their movements, they are well prepared for every jump and landing. However, research has demonstrated that the difference in landing styles between men and women basketball players (leading to higher rates of ACL injuries in females) does not exist between dancers. Female and male dancers exhibit similar hip and knee movement when landing, which protects the knee from injury.

Could it be that training in a minimalist shoe or barefoot provides athletes with improved proprioception and foot-knee-hip interactions compared with athletes who train and compete in standard athletic shoes? Research on this hypothesis would be interesting.

Sidebar: Footwear Overview

Type: Traditional
Features:
– Heel material thicker than forefoot material (heel rise)
– Supportive heel counter and longitudinal arch
– Heavier in weight
Common Brands: Asics, Saucony, New Balance, Mizuno, Nike, adidas

Type: Minimalist shoe
Features:
– Heel material equal in thickness or slightly thicker than forefoot material (less than 4 mm difference)
– Minimal or no supportive materials in heel or arch area
– Lightweight (6-8 oz)
Common Brands: New Balance Minimus, Mizuno, Saucony

Type: “Barefoot” footwear
Features:
– Sock-like with no heel wedge
– Thin, abrasion-resistant sole
– Fits like a sock
Common Brands: Vibram FiveFingers, Sockwa G2/G3 or Amphibean