BELL LAP #29

IS SPORTS SCIENCE HELPING? (July 26, 2000)

Have you noticed that countries with the best sports scientists seem to have the worst distance runners? I'm stating this bluntly in a transparent attempt to raise hackles, but it's worth thinking about. Cutting edge exercise science in the U.S. and elsewhere on the globe carries the weight of papal pronouncements--these lab dwellers seem to know exactly what kinds of training strategies produce optimal physiological changes. Where, then, are the slews of great runners who should be popping out of those countries like groundhogs in springtime?

There are some, of course, including notable luminaries at the recent U.S. Olympic Trials--Regina Jacobs, Adam Goucher, Deena Drossin and others. And a few countries, like South Africa, seem capable of producing great research as well as dozens of top distance runners. But, to carry this observation a step further, it seems like the more the U.S. has developed scientific information about distance running, the fewer top marathoners we're able to produce. Are the majority of our runners undervaluing things we know produce top results--a stable training environment, great coaching, flat-out hard work--and instead hitching their training fortunes too securely to scientific advice? And is the typical scientific/medical bias toward moderation, caution, and injury prevention likely to produce champions?

My own understanding of the physiology of training goes back to 1975, when I was part of a study of American distance runners. I was awed with the knowledge the great researchers involved in the study, people like Kenneth Cooper and David Costill, had to share with us. But I was even more impressed with their willingness to admit that they didn't have all the answers. I specifically remember Costill's assertion, "We're not here to tell you how to train. We're here to try to figure out why what you do works."

There are still exercise scientists who view their craft from this angle, but as a body of research has developed in the past quarter-century, more scientists seem to see it the other way around.

Consider this recent analysis from "Running Research News," a respected monthly newsletter: "Overall, scientific research does not support the idea that going above 70 miles per week has any noticeable impact on VO2max, lactate threshold, running economy, or race performance."

And now consider what Paul Pilkington had to say a few years ago after winning the L.A. Marathon, when he admitted to training well above 100 miles per week. A reporter pointed out that research hadn't shown any advantage to that much mileage. To paraphrase Pilkington: "Yes, I know. And as soon as I hear that the people I'm trying to beat are running less than 70 miles per week, I'll consider it."

Pilkington did win the race, so with or without a noticeable impact in the lab, high mileage seemed to pay off. If researchers haven't figured out why, that's a problem with their methodology, not his training.

Top distance runners in the recent Olympic Trials have clearly--and wisely--spent more time following traditional training advice than the latest physiological reports. Their coaches, in turn, while no doubt informed by science, also understand that some things aren't reducible to scientific analysis. Gabe Jennings comes to mind.

Training shouldn't be slave to science. Heart, guts, focus, spirit, even obsession--not to mention a variety of training techniques--may be difficult to quantify or validate, but anyone paying attention can see when they propel a runner forward. Researchers may argue about why, but runners are better off ignoring their arguments and training with conviction, as hard as they can. You might get injured that way, but you might also wind up on the Olympic team.