RUNNING & TRAINING: in reply to the forum topics

I do understand your questions and your skepticism as well. Running success paradigm had been build during many years as an aerobic development concept, which was primarily dependent on training mileage or volume of running. Historically it was confirmed by the Olympic success of Emil Zatopek and others, and was structured into some successful systems like the one by Arthur Lydiard. It was the time when VO2max concept was a dominating practical application in endurance sport. Since that time our vision of VO2 max has changed and we have a different understanding of its value now. Nevertheless, the volume of training still dominates as a major contributor to the long distance running performance.

When you mentioned the fact that many heel strikers run 120 miles a week and have 2:15 in marathon, you wanted to use it as your strongest argument. But, as a matter of fact, it is very common to confuse the ability to run 2:15 marathon with the ability to run 120 miles a week. It is something like saying that, if someone is lifting 120 ton of weights a week, then he is able to lift 100 kg in one rep. There is no direct relationship here and talking about weight lifting training, people understand this.

In the running community this vision is out of sight, because of the influence of volume concepts. The fact that someone is running marathon 2:15 doesnt necessarily mean that it came from 120 miles a week. It may come from just his ability to run this time, in other words, from his talent and only then his volume of running. Some people could also manage around this mileage a week, but they will never be able to run as fast.

In the Russian old school of distance running it was understood that the base of endurance lies in speed. Surely it may be a separate subject of discussions as to how much input comes from genetics and how much from training. This discussion has a long life in history, and the question is still unresolved.

I am not against any volumes at all, as long as it is a positive and progressive part of developing our abilities to run faster in the given distance. The volume is just another tool, as everything else: technique, speed, strength, etc., and I am not trying to devalue it.

But we shouldnt be confused about our primary goal in training: it is to run faster and with less costs.

Running marathon faster depends on many factors where aerobic abilities are just another part of them. An aerobic system is just an energy supply system, which works for muscles, organs, and brain. When some of these systems work wrong, the necessity to provide more oxygen increases and the energy cost goes up as well. So the proper kind of movement and proper brain condition (thinking and emotions) reduce the cost of running.

Certainly, some people with genetically pre-determined high level of aerobic capacity (more powerful engines) could have a luxury to spent more energy to compensate for the lack of technique, wrong thinking and over- reacting emotionally.

I do understand that having this kind of ability allows them to run substantial volumes and more than this, they need it, to consume this energy production and achieve a more balanced condition. But nevertheless their primary goal will be the same as ours to develop their ability to run faster. In order to run faster our mechanical system should be free from any obstacles, such as work against gravity and any unnecessary muscle tension. Heel strikers could reduce it to a certain extent, but never to the level required by the efficient mechanics.

Efficient mechanics in a cyclic movement comes down to the performance of one single cycle, or step during running of any length. So, no matter what distance we run, we need to do perfectly only one single step at a time. And this is all about technique, which we have to keep as our main goal of training, using for this matter our mental focus and perception to maintain this perfection over the length and time of running.

From my point of view, volume of running in traditional training serves the same two purposes as in Pose Method: mental training and sustaining muscle ability to maintain the length and speed of running. The development of an aerobic system comes here as a by-product.

In Pose Method it comes through concentration on technique work, while in the traditional system it comes from the volume of running with the illusion of increasing ones aerobic capacity. We do not increase it, we cant, but we start using it more efficiently. The big difference however lies in the fact that in the traditional system of training it takes one a lot of physical efforts (volume) and a risk of injuries (because sooner or later, the wrong mechanics will bring one to an injury) in order to get to the level of efficient running, while in Pose Method it doesnt.

Form and running training are not in any conflict with each other, they are part of the same skill of running. In Pose Method our students run as long and as fast as they are able to maintain the technique, which has its own level at each distance and is related to a certain heart rate as the indicator of this level. When the runner is certain that he has achieved this level he is free to go beyond this point without any fear of being injured or overstrained. So, basically we are training our ability to have more freedom for our performance and our abilities manifestation.

At present we dont have a Pose runner doing a marathon with 2:15 and faster and it is a good argument for Pose opponents, but it is just temporary. I do believe that sooner or later someone will come who will run this with Pose Method, but for now we just losing our time discussing this instead of doing.

Nevertheless, I think, this discussion has also its positive side, because it allows us to look at this problem from different angles and make another step toward the truth.

Dr.Romanov