The Science of Running
Picking a Pack; Post-Run Heat; Treadmill, M.D.; Milk vs. Beef
Is it better to stick with a group of other runners, even if they’re racing a bit faster or slower than you’d like, or should you set your own pace? Researcher Brian Hanley, of Leeds Beckett University in Britain, has been looking for insights by studying the pack behaviour of top runners. His latest paper, in the Journal of Sports Sciences, breaks down the intermediate splits of Olympic and World Championship marathons between 2001 and 2015, adding to previous studies of cross-country and half-marathon championships.
His conclusion? Running in a pack can be a double-edged sword. Those who find a group of runners of similar ability and stay with them throughout the race fare the best. But those who try to stick with a pack that is too fast for them fare the worst, fading badly in the second half of the race. That’s not surprising – but there are some interesting subtleties between those two extremes.
Hanley’s analyses find that “nomadic” pack runners, who spend most of the race running with others, but not always with the same group, fare better than those who run on their own. This suggests that it pays to make a deliberate effort to seek company. If you’re getting dropped from a pack, ease off and gather your energy to make sure you can latch on to the next group that catches up to you; if you’re feeling strong, make a strong move to catch a pack in front of you rather than getting stuck between two packs.
Of course, none of these rules are ironclad. Sometimes there’s simply no one else running the pace you want to run, in which case you need to be ready to go solo. But Hanley’s analysis of the very best runners in the world suggests that working together, even with your fiercest competitors, pays off for everyone.
Post-run heat
The post-run bath of choice for dedicated runners is usually an icy one, since the cold is thought to help fight inf lammation and accelerate tissue repair. But could the opposite approach also have merit? Researchers at the University of Bangor in Wales recently tested the effects of post-run hot baths on 17 volunteers. These were serious baths: neck-deep, with the temperature maintained at a toasty 40 C for 40 minutes. The volunteers took these baths after a 40-minute run on six straight days.
The results, published in the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, showed that the hot-bath routine triggered some of the same benefits as weeks of hot-weather acclimatization. After six days, the subjects had lower resting temperatures, and showed evidence of a small increase in blood plasma volume. Compared to a control group, they ran 4.9 per cent faster in a 5k time trial in hot (33 C) conditions, though they weren’t any faster in temperate (18 C) conditions. The results will need further testing, but it’s an intriguing possibility for Canadians training through a long, cold winter in preparation for a spring race with potentially warm weather: a simple, practical way of acclimatizing to heat.
Treadmill, M.D.
Looking for a simple but powerful medical test? Head to the nearest treadmill. Earlier this year, researchers presented the latest results f rom a long-running study that started in 1985 and tested almost 5,000 young adults. Their fitness was assessed by how long they could last on a treadmill whose speed was gradually increased, with an average time of about 10 minutes. The new findings, published earlier this year in JAMA Internal Medicine, show that every additional minute someone lasted on the original treadmill test corresponded to a 15 per cent reduction in their risk of dying during the 27-year follow-up period, and a 12 per cent lower risk of heart disease.
The links between aerobic fitness and long-term health are well-established i n older people, but the study is among the first to show that how fit you are in your 20s (the subjects were between 18 and 30) also has predictive value. It’s not clear why: the subjects’ medical exams didn’t reveal any links between treadmill times and subsequent artery hardening, for example. As an accompanying editorial in the journal points out, we still can’t nail down exactly why aerobic fitness is so good for heart health – but studies like this one (and many others) confirm that it is.
Milk vs. beef
Your body needs protein to repair muscle damage after workouts and to build new muscle – and there are whole industries eager to feed you the “right” protein to maximize your recovery. How much does the type of protein matter? Researchers at Maastricht University in the Netherlands set out to compare two of the highest-quality proteins available: milk and beef.
In order to accurately track how the proteins were processed, they infused a carbon isotope tracer into a 680-kg Holstein-Friesian cow, then milked the cow and had it slaughtered to produce meat. The resulting milk and meat were fed to volunteers after the strengthtraining workout, giving them 30 g of protein from either skim milk (350 ml) or ground beef (158 g). A series of muscle biopsies in the hours after the workout, along with the isotope tracer, allowed the researchers to track how much muscle was being synthesized.
The verdict? After two hours, the milk had produced a significantly greater level of muscle protein synthesis. But by the five-hour mark, the two groups were in a statistical tie. That’s good news, because it means that you don’t need to fret about getting exactly the “right” protein. Focus on getting high-quality food within a few hours of your workout (in most cases, your next regularly scheduled meal will do the trick), and your muscles will be getting everything they need.