Inspiratory Muscle Warm-up Improves 3,200-m Running Performance in Distance Runners.

ABSTRACT: Barnes, KR and Ludge, AR. Inspiratory muscle warm-up improves 3,200-m running performance in distance runners. J Strength Cond Res 35(6): 1739-1747, 2021-This study examined the effects of an inspiratory muscle exercise as part of a warm-up (IMW) using a resisted breathing trainer on running performance. In a randomized crossover design, 17 trained distance runners completed two 3,200-m performance trials on separate days, preceded by 2 different warm-up procedures: IMW or sham IMW (CON). In each condition, subjects performed 30 breaths against either 50% of each athlete's peak strength (IMW) or 30 slow protracted breaths against negligible resistance (CON). Perceived race readiness and inspiratory muscle strength, flow, power, and volume were measured before and after each warm-up. Heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and dyspnea (RPD), and expired gases were collected during each trial. A 3,200-m run performance was 2.8% ± 1.5% (20.4-second) faster after IMW (effect size [ES] = 0.37, p = 0.02). After each warm-up condition, there was as small effect on peak inspiratory strength (6.6 ± 4.8%, ES = 0.22, p = 0.02), flow (5.2 ± 4.4%, ES = 0.20, p = 0.03), power (17.6 ± 16.7%, ES = 0.22, p = 0.04), and volume (6.7 ± 6.3%, ES = 0.24, p = 0.01) after IMW compared with CON. There were no differences in HR, minute volume, peak V̇o2, or V̇o2 at each 800-m interval between conditions (ES ≤ 0.13, p > 0.17). There were small differences in RPE at 800 m and 1,600 m (ES = 0.32, p = 0.17; ES = 0.21, p = 0.38, respectively), but no difference at the last 1,600 m (p = 1.0). There was a moderate positive effect on RPD (ES = 0.81, p < 0.001) and race readiness (ES = 0.76, p < 0.01) after IMW. Overall, the data suggest that IMW improves 3,200-m performance because of enhancements in inspiratory muscle function characteristics and reduction in dyspnea.

A Randomized Crossover Study Investigating the Running Economy of Highly-Trained Male and Female Distance Runners in Marathon Racing Shoes versus Track Spikes.

BACKGROUND: Running economy represents a complex interplay of physiological and biomechanical factors that are able to adapt chronically through training, or acutely through other interventions such as changes in footwear. The Nike Vaporfly (NVF) shoe was designed for marathon running on the roads and has been shown to improve running economy by ~ 4% compared with other marathon shoes, however, during track racing, distance runners traditionally wear a much lighter shoe with an embedded spike plate around the forefoot. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if, and to what extent, the NVF shoes improve running economy compared with established track spikes (Nike Zoom Matumbo 3 [NZM]) and marathon racing shoes (Adidas Adizero Adios 3 [ADI]). METHODS: Twenty-four highly-trained runners (12 male, 12 female) ran 4 × 5 min trials on a treadmill while wearing each of the four shoe conditions: NVF, NZM, ADI, and the NVF matched in weight to the ADI shoe (NVF +), during three separate visits-visit 1: familiarization; visit 2: 14 and 18 km·h-1 for men, 14 and 16 km·h-1 for women; visit 3: 16 km·h-1 for men, 15 km·h-1 for women, plus a maximal rate of oxygen uptake (VO2max) test for both sexes. We measured the rates of oxygen uptake (VO2), carbon dioxide production and biomechanical measures while running at each velocity and shoe condition. RESULTS: The NVF shoe improved running economy by 2.6 ± 1.3% compared with the NZM, 4.2 ± 1.2% compared with ADI, and 2.9 ± 1.3% when matched in weight of the ADI shoe. Among the 24 subjects, the difference in running economy over the four velocities between the NVF and NZM shoes ranged from + 0.50 to - 5.34%, and - 1.72 to - 7.15% for NVF versus ADI. Correlations between changes in running economy and changes in biomechanical variables were either trivial or small, but unclear. CONCLUSION: The NVF enhanced running economy compared with track spikes and marathon shoes, and should be considered a viable shoe option for track and road racing.

Physiological and Biomechanical Responses of Highly Trained Distance Runners to Lower-Body Positive Pressure Treadmill Running.

BACKGROUND: As a way to train at faster running speeds, add training volume, prevent injury, or rehabilitate after an injury, lower-body positive pressure treadmills (LBPPT) have become increasingly commonplace among athletes. However, there are conflicting evidence and a paucity of data describing the physiological and biomechanical responses to LBPPT running in highly trained or elite caliber runners at the running speeds they habitually train at, which are considerably faster than those of recreational runners. Furthermore, data is lacking regarding female runners' responses to LBPPT running. Therefore, this study was designed to evaluate the physiological and biomechanical responses to LBPPT running in highly trained male and female distance runners. METHODS: Fifteen highly trained distance runners (seven male; eight female) completed a single running test composed of 4 × 9-min interval series at fixed percentages of body weight ranging from 0 to 30% body weight support (BWS) in 10% increments on LBPPT. The first interval was always conducted at 0% BWS; thereafter, intervals at 10, 20, and 30% BWS were conducted in random order. Each interval consisted of three stages of 3 min each, at velocities of 14.5, 16.1, and 17.7 km·h-1 for men and 12.9, 14.5, and 16.1 km·h-1 for women. Expired gases, ventilation, breathing frequency, heart rate (HR), rating of perceived exertion (RPE), and stride characteristics were measured during each running speed and BWS. RESULTS: Male and female runners had similar physiological and biomechanical responses to running on LBPPT. Increasing BWS increased stride length (p < 0.02) and flight duration (p < 0.01) and decreased stride rate (p < 0.01) and contact time (p < 0.01) in small-large magnitudes. There was a large attenuation of oxygen consumption (VO2) relative to BWS (p < 0.001), while there were trivial-moderate reductions in respiratory exchange ratio, minute ventilation, and respiratory frequency (p > 0.05), and small-large effects on HR and RPE (p < 0.01). There were trivial-small differences in VE, respiratory frequency, HR, and RPE for a given VO2 across various BWS (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the male and female distance runners have similar physiological and biomechanical responses to LBPPT running. Overall, the biomechanical changes during LBPPT running all contributed to less metabolic cost and corresponding physiological changes.

Comparisons of Perceived Training Doses in Champion Collegiate-Level Male and Female Cross-country Runners and Coaches over the Course of a Competitive Season.

BACKGROUND: Session rating of perceived exertion (sRPE) is a practical tool for coaches to assess internal training load of their athletes. In a sport like cross-country running, that is individual in nature, but has a team training and competition component, information about the association between external and internal load is lacking. Furthermore, there is a need for studies that examine perception of training doses across multiple training cycles including the competitive season as well as between male and female athletes. METHODS: Session RPE, duration, and training load (TLRPE = sRPE × duration) of 25 highly trained male and female cross-country runners and their coaches were recorded for every training session (110 days) throughout a collegiate cross-country season. Intensity (sRPE), duration, and TLRPE were compared between coaches and runners by gender separately. Training sessions were also analyzed by those intended by the coaches to be easy, moderate, and hard as well as by training period. RESULTS: Data from 3024 training sessions were collected, 62% of which were considered "easy," 18% "moderate," and 20% "hard." Men and women rated coach-intended easy sessions significantly harder during each month of the season (effect size (ES) > 2.9, p < 0.0001). Men rated moderate intensity sessions significantly higher than coaches (ES ≥ 1.0, p ≤ 0.002), whereas females rated hard intensity sessions significantly lower than coaches (ES > 0.5, p < 0.008). There was no difference between males and coach's hard sessions (ES < 0.07, p > 0.05) or females and coach's moderate sessions (ES < 0.18, p > 0.05). Training intensity and TLRPE tended to increase throughout the season (p > 0.05), with a significant increase in moderate and hard intensity sessions in the last training period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate the male and female cross-country runners tend to regress to moderate intensity training throughout the cross-country season. Given the success of the athletes in this study, these results show how a simple system for monitoring training such as the sRPE method may improve control of training variables and provide a useful tool for coaches to evaluate training load placed on athletes in a simple, responsive way.

Running economy: measurement, norms, and determining factors.

Running economy (RE) is considered an important physiological measure for endurance athletes, especially distance runners. This review considers 1) how RE is defined and measured and 2) physiological and biomechanical factors that determine or influence RE. It is difficult to accurately ascertain what is good, average, and poor RE between athletes and studies due to variation in protocols, gas-analysis systems, and data averaging techniques. However, representative RE values for different caliber of male and female runners can be identified from existing literature with mostly clear delineations in oxygen uptake across a range of speeds in moderately and highly trained and elite runners. Despite being simple to measure and acceptably reliable, it is evident that RE is a complex, multifactorial concept that reflects the integrated composite of a variety of metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics that are unique to the individual. Metabolic efficiency refers to the utilization of available energy to facilitate optimal performance, whereas cardiopulmonary efficiency refers to a reduced work output for the processes related to oxygen transport and utilization. Biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics refer to the interaction between the neural and musculoskeletal systems and their ability to convert power output into translocation and therefore performance. Of the numerous metabolic, cardiopulmonary, biomechanical and neuromuscular characteristics contributing to RE, many of these are able to adapt through training or other interventions resulting in improved RE.

Strategies to improve running economy.

Running economy (RE) represents a complex interplay of physiological and biomechanical factors that is typically defined as the energy demand for a given velocity of submaximal running and expressed as the submaximal oxygen uptake (VO2) at a given running velocity. This review considered a wide range of acute and chronic interventions that have been investigated with respect to improving economy by augmenting one or more components of the metabolic, cardiorespiratory, biomechanical or neuromuscular systems. Improvements in RE have traditionally been achieved through endurance training. Endurance training in runners leads to a wide range of physiological responses, and it is very likely that these characteristics of running training will influence RE. Training history and training volume have been suggested to be important factors in improving RE, while uphill and level-ground high-intensity interval training represent frequently prescribed forms of training that may elicit further enhancements in economy. More recently, research has demonstrated short-term resistance and plyometric training has resulted in enhanced RE. This improvement in RE has been hypothesized to be a result of enhanced neuromuscular characteristics. Altitude acclimatization results in both central and peripheral adaptations that improve oxygen delivery and utilization, mechanisms that potentially could improve RE. Other strategies, such as stretching should not be discounted as a training modality in order to prevent injuries; however, it appears that there is an optimal degree of flexibility and stiffness required to maximize RE. Several nutritional interventions have also received attention for their effects on reducing oxygen demand during exercise, most notably dietary nitrates and caffeine. It is clear that a range of training and passive interventions may improve RE, and researchers should concentrate their investigative efforts on more fully understanding the types and mechanisms that affect RE and the practicality and extent to which RE can be improved outside the laboratory.

Lower-body determinants of running economy in male and female distance runners.

A variety of training approaches have been shown to improve running economy in well-trained athletes. However, there is a paucity of data exploring lower-body determinants that may affect running economy and account for differences that may exist between genders. Sixty-three male and female distance runners were assessed in the laboratory for a range of metabolic, biomechanical, and neuromuscular measures potentially related to running economy (ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)) at a range of running speeds. At all common test velocities, women were more economical than men (effect size [ES] = 0.40); however, when compared in terms of relative intensity, men had better running economy (ES = 2.41). Leg stiffness (r = -0.80) and moment arm length (r = 0.90) were large-extremely largely correlated with running economy and each other (r = -0.82). Correlations between running economy and kinetic measures (peak force, peak power, and time to peak force) for both genders were unclear. The relationship in stride rate (r = -0.27 to -0.31) was in the opposite direction to that of stride length (r = 0.32-0.49), and the relationship in contact time (r = -0.21 to -0.54) was opposite of that of flight time (r = 0.06-0.74). Although both leg stiffness and moment arm length are highly related to running economy, it seems that no single lower-body measure can completely explain differences in running economy between individuals or genders. Running economy is therefore likely determined from the sum of influences from multiple lower-body attributes.

Effects of resistance training on running economy and cross-country performance.

PURPOSE: Heavy-resistance training and plyometric training offer distinct physiological and neuromuscular adaptations that could enhance running economy and, consequently, distance-running performance. To date, no studies have examined the effect of combining the two modes of training on running economy or performance. METHODS: Fifty collegiate male and female cross-country runners performed a 5-km time trial and a series of laboratory-based tests to determine aerobic, anthropometric, biomechanical, and neuromuscular characteristics. Thereafter, each athlete participated in a season of six to eight collegiate cross-country races for 13 wk. After the first 4 wk, athletes were randomly assigned to either heavy-resistance or plyometric plus heavy-resistance training. Five days after completing their final competition, runners repeated the same set of laboratory tests. We also estimated the effects of the intervention on competition performance throughout the season using athletes of other teams as controls. RESULTS: Heavy-resistance training produced small-moderate improvements in peak speed, running economy, and neuromuscular characteristics relative to plyometric resistance training, whereas changes in biomechanical measures favored plyometric resistance training. Men made less gains than women in most tests. Both treatments had possibly harmful effects on competition times in men (mean = 0.5%; 90% confidence interval = ±1.2%), but there may have been benefit for some individuals. Both treatments were likely beneficial for all women (-1.2%; ±1.3%), but heavy-resistance training was possibly better than plyometric resistance training. CONCLUSIONS: The changes in laboratory-based parameters related to distance-running performance were consistent with the changes in competition times for women but only partly for men. Our data indicate that women should include heavy-resistance training in their programs, but men should be cautious about using it in season until more research establishes whether certain men are positive or negative responders.

Effects of different uphill interval-training programs on running economy and performance.

PURPOSE: Runners use uphill running as a movement-specific form of resistance training to enhance performance. However, the optimal parameters for prescribing intervals are unknown. The authors adopted a dose-response design to investigate the effects of various uphill interval-training programs on physiological and performance measures. METHODS: Twenty well-trained runners performed an incremental treadmill test to determine aerobic and biomechanical measures, a series of jumps on a force plate to determine neuromuscular measures, and a 5-km time trial. Runners were then randomly assigned to 1 of 5 uphill interval-training programs. After 6 wk all tests were repeated. To identify the optimal training program for each measure, each runner's percentage change was modeled as a quadratic function of the rank order of the intensity of training. Uncertainty in the optimal training and in the corresponding effect on the given measure was estimated as 90% confidence limits using bootstrapping. RESULTS: There was no clear optimum for time-trial performance, and the mean improvement over all intensities was 2.0% (confidence limits ±0.6%). The highest intensity was clearly optimal for running economy (improvement of 2.4% ± 1.4%) and for all neuromuscular measures, whereas other aerobic measures were optimal near the middle intensity. There were no consistent optima for biomechanical measures. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support anecdotal reports for incorporating uphill interval training in the training programs of distance runners to improve physiological parameters relevant to running performance. Until more data are obtained, runners can assume that any form of high-intensity uphill interval training will benefit 5-km time-trial performance.