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: [email protected] 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

This article was provided my McMillan Running, a recommended resource for running coaches and runners.

By Greg McMillan

TWEAK TRAINING FOR BETTER RESULTS SIMPLY BY KNOWING YOUR RUNNER TYPE

Runners can usually be divided into three general types — Speedsters, Endurance Monsters and Combo Runners – based on how they respond to training and racing. Think about your training and racing history and see which description sounds most like you.

Speedsters

The Speedster dominates his peers in any workout where the repeats are short and fast (15-minute race pace or faster which for many competitive runners is 2-mile to 5K race pace). Speed workouts and short races get the Speedster excited and leave him fatigued but not exhausted. Long runs, tempo runs, marathon training and longer races, however, take more out of the Speedster than a day of hard repetitions on the track. When comparing race results with his peers, the Speedster is often frustrated that he can perform so well at short races but as the distance increases, he gets left behind. I also find that the Speedster was usually an athlete who could sprint fast (like running to first base in baseball/softball), jump high (like in basketball or volleyball and/or was really good at dynamic activities like jumping rope.

Endurance Monsters

For the Endurance Monster, long runs, marathon training, tempo runs and any workout at long distance race paces are a breeze and usually invigorating. The more miles per week the better is a common mantra for the Endurance Monster and she finds that she can almost double her 5K personal record (PR) in a 10K and nearly double her half-marathon PR in her marathon. The Endurance Monster, however, finds it very difficult to get her legs to go fast. Short, fast training like speed workouts leave the Endurance Monster feeling deflated. Short races like 5Ks also leave her exhausted and sore. When younger, the Endurance Monster gravitated to events that were more about steady effort (think cycling, swimming or other “endurance” sports) rather than short, fast burst.

Combo Runners

The Combo Runner is the most common type of runner. He performs fairly well in all types of workout – short/fast and long/slow. The Combo Runner also performs equally well in races of 5K to the marathon, placing nearly the same compared to his peers in each distance. No runner is perfectly balanced, however, so even Combo Runners may find some subtle tendencies toward one type of workout or race. So you may be a Combo-Speedster or you may be a Combo-Endurance Monster. I find that 90% of runners are Combo Runners and if you are unsure of your type, start with Combo Runner training plans and as we learn more about your, it will become clear where your tendencies are.

What’s Your Type?

So, which one are you? By knowing whether you tend to be more of an Endurance Monster, a Speedster or a mix of both, you get an idea of your strengths and weaknesses as a runner. This is valuable because it does you no good to train like a Speedster if you’re an Endurance Monster, even if you’re getting ready for a speed-oriented event like a 5K. I’ll say it again: It does you no good to train like one type of runner if you are the complete opposite type.

What we need to do is set up your training to match your type. This doesn’t mean you won’t do some training in your weaker area, but it does mean that any workout that isn’t your strength needs special consideration in your training plan. Why? Because that workout will likely be a tougher workout than it may appear when just looking at it on the training plan. You will need to be mentally ready to challenge yourself even though your training partner may fly through the workout with no apparent effort or concern.

What you’ll learn as you use the McMillan training system is that we have to carefully mix training that is your strength, with training that is your weakness, to bring you to peak fitness as your goal race or racing season nears. I cannot emphasize enough that it’s the subtle manipulation of training plans that can take your fitness to an entirely new level, and knowing your type is vitally important for you.

This article is courtesy of McMillan Running, a recommended resource for distance coaches and runners.

By Greg McMillan, M.S.

A LAYPERSON’S TEST OF AEROBIC DEVELOPMENT

Most competitive runners include a base phase once or twice each year. The purpose of the base or maintenance phase is to further develop the aerobic system and to prepare the body and the mind for future training phases that will become increasingly more race-specific as the goal race or season of races nears.

In the base phase, the focus is less on the intensity and more on the volume of training. A common guideline is to increase weekly mileage by 10 to 20 percent above “average” mileage level. Intensity is necessarily reduced to keep the stress/rest cycle in balance, and to let the race-specific energy systems recover from the previous season. Physiologically, the extra training volume adds components to the muscular system that help deliver oxygen to the working muscles–a critical aspect of racing faster. First, with a few weeks of adding volume and reduced intensity, the body builds more capillary beds around the working muscles. Think of capillaries as pipes that deliver oxygen to the working muscles. Adding more pipes to deliver more oxygen-rich blood allows the muscles to perform better. Second, within the muscle cells, mitochondria are the structures that produce the aerobic energy that powers muscle contractions.

Base training helps build more of these power plants, and it also builds them bigger and puts them closer to the end of the cells to better pull oxygen from the blood, resulting in the ability to create more energy. Third, within these mitochondrial power plants, base training stimulates the body to build more of the enzymes that aid in aerobic energy production. Finally, base training increases the durability of the musculoskeletal system–muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones become more resistant to injury.

Some coaches consider only race-specific training valuable, and pooh-pooh the idea of a base phase. But the fact is that adding more capacity to deliver oxygen to working muscles and adding more capacity within the muscles to produce aerobic energy is necessary for ultimate success as a distance runner.

So, I’m a firm believer in the base phase, though it may vary from runner to runner. I also like to know the training I’m prescribing is working. Enter the Marker Workout.

THE MARKER WORKOUT

While you could go to a lab and have your aerobic system tested (usually via a VO₂ max test), I use a Marker Workout once every four to six weeks as a layperson’s way to test aerobic development.

To test your aerobic capacity, run a workout that includes five or six repetitions, with each lasting 5 to 6 minutes. This corresponds to repetitions of 1200 meters to 1 mile for most competitive runners. The recovery is just over half the duration of the repeat (e.g., 2.5 to 3 minutes). In theory, these repeats should all be run at 8-15 minute race pace (3K to 5K race effort for speedy runners).

5-6 x 5-6 minute repeats at ~5K race effort with 2.5-3 minutes recovery jog between

But runners in a base phase usually aren’t as tuned in to pace as they are in a race-specific phase, so I suggest running these repeats by effort. Start at what feels like 5K effort and try to get slightly faster with each subsequent repeat. If you can’t run the last two faster than the first two, then you started the workout too fast. If you can run more than 15 seconds per mile faster on the last one than you ran on the first one, then you started too easy. The goal is to progress the pace across the workout but to also make sure you get the most out of yourself by running strong for all five or six repeats.

This workout is tough, and it’s meant to be. The goal is to see what your aerobic capacity is and then to compare it to a future Marker Workout. Effort is your guide, but record the times of each repeat; you should see your performance in the next Marker Workout, four to six weeks down the road, improve.

With the pro athletes I coach, we include a base phase before we get into race-specific training . During this base phase, I’ll prescribe this Marker Workout every 4 weeks or so. It provides me with information on how the athletes are developing their aerobic systems (and helps me to see just how much each individual athlete is “aerobically blessed”). It also provides the athletes with an objective indicator that their fitness is improving. Every runner enjoys improving in workouts, and this base phase Marker Workout provides just that.

COACH’S NOTES

This workout is a favorite from one of my most important coaching influences, Dr. Joe Vigil. He uses it frequently with his runners. It’s a workout my athletes get excited and nervous about. They bring their “A” game to practice, and I think inserting this workout from time to time during the base phase helps the athletes stay in touch with the race mentality that’s so vital to peak performance. So, even during all the relaxed running during the base phase, the workout keeps the athletes connected with their competitive juices, which helps them in their transition out of the base phase and into the more intense training phases.

Read more of our “Best of” Workouts.