Run DMZ

I read a lot of studies in my line of work, and every once in awhile something's published that makes me stand up and take notice. This week it's a piece in Scientific American that looked at more than 150 other studies to conclude that "jogging" and cycling while angry or stressed actually makes you feel worse, not better. The researchers cite the physiological responses that show elevated, rather than reduced, aggression in people after rigorous or repetitive exercise.  "Some activities people use to manage their anger amp up arousal and increase anger and aggression levels. Jogging, a popular stress-relief activity, actually increased anger in the studies we looked at. The repetitive nature of jogging may induce feelings of monotony and frustration, potentially exacerbating anger rather than alleviating it," researchers wrote. Reading further, the meta-analysis essentially contradicts what we've long been told: Take out your anger through physical ac...

I waited a few weeks to weigh in on the latest face cover controversy: whether or not to toss the neck gaiters that runners and hikers favor when encountering others on roads, sidewalks or trails. It’s convenient and allows someone to continue exercising at their current pace and capacity without exposing their exhales to those nearby. Or, so we all thought. A  widely publicized study by some Duke University researchers  cast doubt on neck gaiters’ efficiency in preventing aspirants from contaminating someone else’s space. Certain masks and bandanas are at risk too.   I read the article, and  those that followed , and then waited for the social media buildup and inevitable takedown. Anyone familiar with studies knows the one at Duke did not meet scientific standards—even the people performing the “tests” admitted as much. Their point, and those that publicized it, was to get people to reconsider their protective gear. I definitely have seen a drop in use since the st...

Part of me doesn't want to publish right now while the nation continues to mourn for those killed on Friday. Sometimes running sounds so trivial, and this is one of those times. That said, I wanted to be sure everyone at some point takes a look at a New York Times piece  on a recent study that was addressed on this blog too about the marginal, sometimes even morbid, returns on running as we age. It's potentially bad news for anyone training for an Ironman in their 40s, 50s and beyond, provided health and fitness and longevity are what drives you. No surprise, that study generated a lot of public discourse. And, of course, there were plenty of other studies to trot out showing just the opposite. That's the problem with studies, and with runners. They come in all sizes and flavors and you don't have to look too hard to find one that agrees with your own stance. And that's the gist of the Times piece. That and why people exaggerate their pace when it's easy to ...

A hat tip to my friend Deborah for sending me a link to this fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal that should give older athletes some pause when it comes to training hard after training for so long. What the new research suggests is that the benefits of running may come to a hard stop later in life. In a study involving 52,600 people followed for three decades, the runners in the group had a 19% lower death rate than nonrunners, according to the Heart editorial. But among the running cohort, those who ran a lot—more than 20 to 25 miles a week—lost that mortality advantage.   Others in the article question whether data is being manipulated to prove a point, but I keep thinking anecdotally of men who die of heart attacks during races, including one exceptionally fit man who was well known to many here . And even though the research focuses on older runners, a younger professional triathlete is mentioned for repeatedly passing out during competitions an...

Shorter workouts may help you lose more weight than longer ones, according to an article in yesterday's New York Times. A Danish research group took three groups of sedentary, overweight men in their 20s and 30s and assigned each a level of structured exercise to perform for 13 weeks. They also were required to keep detailed food logs. The group that didn't add exercise to their regime, didn't lose any weight. No surprise there. The group that worked out daily for 60 minutes lost an aveage of 5 pounds. But the group that worked out 30 minutes daily (burning 300 calories jogging, compared to 600) actually lost more weight, an average of 7 pounds. Researchers think the 60-minutes group actually ate more and were less active other hours of the day to compensate for the fatigue from running or cycling for an hour that day. So if weight loss is your goal with running or cycling or swimming ... or whatever aerobic activity you choose, shorter workouts may be the way to go...

I'm long past chasing PRs in running, but for those of you who are still seeking new bars to cross, consider this experiment written about in New York newspapers and summarized well on The Brilliant Blog . Basically, beginning runners were given 10 weeks to train for a half marathon. None knew much about the art, let alone science, of running and so they just did what came naturally. And, guess what, they steadily improved. Their bodies instinctively learned how to economize their movements and improve their endurance and speeds. They did it by listening to their bodies, rather than generic magazine articles telling you how to run a faster 5k. And they remained uninjured even if their gait and foot strikes were not the norm. The results "raise an interesting question in regards to teaching people to run," Isabel Moore, head researcher at the University of Exeter, told The New York Times. “If runners can self-optimize [then] maybe we should teach runners to learn to un...

I don't know about you, but when I'm considering entering a new race, especially if it's a trail race, one of the first things I do besides look at the price is to look at the results. I basically gauge from the results if it's a really hard course and if there typically are many competitors around my age. Back before the Internet, most of us entered races blindly - having no idea of the field or the course unless it was printed on the race flier. You went with word of mouth but had to consider the source. You would pick up or be mailed a race flier and look for code words - like "rolling course" meant there were a lot of hills and "net negative elevation" meant the course was far from flat and you like wouldn't feel the "net" as much as the "elevation" (Hello, Charlottesville 10-Miler!). A trail run in or anywhere near a mountain range was going to be super hard and maybe single track with a lot of technical elements. Now...

For the past month I’ve developed a new routine to try and overcome a major weakness in my running: overall fitness. So I’ve been running less and hitting the machines more to provide more balance and to prevent burnout. Ideally, I’d like to hit a new masters PR in the 10k this summer but a recent visit to the doctor’s office has me reconsidering. I’ve developed severe allergies that have dramatically restricted my running (and breathing) capabilities. Here are a few things I’ve learned about running with allergies: Pollen counts are highest between 5 and 10 a.m. So, if you can, avoid running during those hours. Wind is your worst enemy; sunglasses, your best friend . The wind factor is obvious, but if you are caught in a windstorm or just hit a pollen pocket being blown around, those sunglasses help protect your eyes so they itch less. It’s easier to develop allergies as you age . I rarely suffered from nasal allergies until last year, and then the case was rather mild. But as we age...

I know of a lot of middle-aged running friends who are motivated by their parents to run. Their mother or father was in poor health for many years and it ultimately cost them their lives (or at least a higher quality of it), and so one reason they initially put on a pair of running shoes was to avoid the same fate. However, that's not the sort of parental connection outlined in a provacative post about the link between exercise and genetics in this morning's Daily Beast. It reflects a couple of scientific studies that show we may be genetically encoded to favor workouts. That means some of us will never enjoy exercising like others, nor will our children. If this is true, then those of us modeling good behaviors by eating well and exercising in moderation may merely be passing along the endorphin baton to those with our "exercise gene." And that might also explain why some parents who push their kids into sports end up disappointed that their child never "takes...

When I read someone's bonked in a big race, especially an Ironman or ultra, I often ask in a comment: Did you take painkillers before or during the race? They almost always say yes. I ask because I once had a terrible experience with the drug during my last marathon and have since done a lot of research. Most recently, an article in The Los Angeles Times underscores the dangers of taking over-the-counter painkillers during heavy-duty exercise , like a marathon or ultra. Researchers have been using Western States participants as guinea pigs and discovered something every endurance athlete should know. After the race, runners who had taken ibuprofen showed signs of mild kidney impairment as well as mild endotoxemia, a potentially dangerous condition in which bacterial toxins present in the large intestine get into the bloodstream. . . . The drug also failed to help performance or recovery, the researchers reported in that paper and others. Both groups of runners reported equivalent a...

Here's a post you may wish to read and comment on over at Amazon. The author disputes weight loss strategies that focus on cardio exercise and particularly running. Consider her opening paragraph: Running is the gold standard of fitness. Not only is it touted as the ultimate fat burner, but you get bragging rights at every social function from fiestas to Facebook. If you're looking to get fit, the first thing you do is strap on those running shoes and hit the pavement, right? That's what we've all been taught, anyhow. Friends, we were taught wrong. Read more .

Those who are regular readers of this blog know I'm more of a Zen runner inspired by nature, not numbers. But, of course, that's probably because the numbers no longer seem to go my way. That said, a post called 40 Exhilarating Reads for Runners came to my attention this week, and having read many of the suggested entries, I wanted to point you to the site and highlight a few of those books I've read and still include in my permanent library. They make great gifts for those just discovering the joys of running and those who can never get enough literary inspiration. Running and Being by George Sheehan . When I first got into competitive running, I'd make reading a chapter from this book or another by Sheehan part of my pre-race prep. That I regularly read George Sheehan's Runner's World column while he was still very much alive gives away my age. Yes, there are some dated parts but it's still one of the best books on the subject of why we run. The Lore of...

Just finished reading a great piece by Matt Fitzgerald on The Art and Science of Marathon Pacing . It explains some of the physiological reasons behind pacing and how what works at shorter distances tends to fail at longer ones, particularly marathons and ultras. My best marathon times all involved running negative splits, in which I ran the second half faster than the first. Sometimes this is due to crowding in the early miles or flatter terrain in the second half. Rarely was it pure skill on my part. Consider this passage: There’s a large and possibly crucial difference in the fitness levels that elite and non-elite runners bring to the marathon event. It’s plausible to me that the more modest a runner’s fitness level is, the more likely it is that he will achieve his fastest time by running somewhat aggressively in the first half and then “hanging on” in the second half. Put another way, it’s plausible to me that the smaller the difference between the most comfortable pace a runne...

Why do I always seem to stumble on great articles the day I am sworn to keep my mouth shut? Yesterday, a.k.a. "Wordless Wednesday," I discovered an article in the Wall Street Journal that every distance runner/triathlete should read - and heed. Runners Learn to Realize Their Training Limits As the title suggests, it's about the downsides of staying a little too focused on training and not really listening to your body when it is trying to tell you something. It's a place almost every seasoned runner has been in. A more-is-better mentality permeates the endurance-exercise culture. Novice runners in particular tend to think that finishing a marathon requires no end of training. In fact, however, under-training is rare. After all, more than 95% of marathon starters reach the finish line. But, as the article later makes us aware, getting to the start line is a different story. Of the tens of thousands of Americans who pay as much as $180 to register for marathons, as many...

I’m going to guess that as you read this you are also doing something else, like watching TV, listening to music, texting a friend or toggling between computer screens. Am I right? And I bet you call it multitasking because, in practice, you are doing more than one thing at once. But I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately, and the thing is, unless you are fully focused on reading this post in a distraction-free environment, you aren’t really doing two things at once (listening, watching, reading, writing, etc.). You are trying to make your brain shift between tasks, and if you are like 97% of people , you are not doing it well. Ever since watching the Frontline program Digital Nation last winter, I’ve become fascinated with how our brains react to the enormous amount of data we now must try to absorb daily. In that PBS program, scientists discussed an experiment with Stanford University and M.I.T. students who claimed to be masters at multitasking. But the majority of them, presumabl...

A BBC Health report today explains why people like to use music while exercising and how it can increase performance by as much as 15%. Among other things, it "masks" effort and helps you maintain a quicker pace. Of course, this is with training. Here in the USA, most major races still prohibit running to music for mostly safety and competitive reasons. But if you find you "can't run without my music," this may be why. [I couldn't embed the video, so here's the link .]

I just read this week's Personal Best column in the New York Times on the lack of scientific proof that specific types of warm-ups work any better than others before a race. Back in my competitive days, my pre-race ritual included several sprints for 10k or under races and about a mile jog before a half marathon. Then, I made the typically rookie call to "save my energy" and not run at all before a marathon. Suddenly, that became the norm and I merely walked and did some static stretches, if that. I'm curious: What is your warm-up routine for, say, a 10k? Is it different for a marathon? Here's the NY Times piece for reference: The Right Way to Warm-up Is (Your Answer Here)

I never ran during my pregnancies. Between the intense morning sickness of the early months and the stomach strains and imbalance of the latter ones, I couldn't. Not to mention, most obstetricians back then would have told you it was not safe for you or your baby. So I downshifted to walks and gave birth to very healthy baby girls. This weekend the New York Times featured a piece on pregnant marathoners Paula Radcliffe and Kara Goucher . I remember reading an article in the early 1990s about a woman who ran a marathon well into her last trimester and was repeatedly jeered by spectators and some other runners. They shouted stuff like, "How could you be so selfish?!" Today, there seems to be growing support for running through pregnancies in general, but there also remains much debate about how much is too much. I went for a long run this morning along a favorite route. It's how I've started my Mother's Days for decades now. I'm still fortunate to have my mo...

It seems a little strange to most folks to consider extremely heated (literally) races, but yesterday's post in a Runner's World blog has got me thinking: What would you do if your big marathon was canceled due to hot temperatures? Peak Performance: What's Too Hot to Handle? In shorter races, it's easy - and it's been done - the race directors take a Web Bulb test about an hour prior and if it's at or above the threshold, they declare it a "fun run." The first time I saw this in play personally was in the mid-90s at a July night-time 8k in Rockville, Md. With heat and humidity, it was still near 100 degrees by 7 p.m. and four times the safe limit to race, so the competitive part was canceled and the race money given out by random drawing instead. The fastest runners were told to stay with or behind Jeff Galloway , who would be doing 7-minute miles. The original Richmond Marathon was a different story. It used to be held much later in the day to accommo...

One of my most popular columns when I wrote for The Complete Running Network was on how frequently marathoners gain weight, rather than lose it, during training . To date, it's garnered more than 50 comments , which is a lot for that site and especially when you consider it was written years ago and still gets feedback from fellow souls. I thought I might again look into why some of us bulk up when we are in the throes of heavy training. In that piece, a then-new study showed we eat more when we exercise and tend to justify the extra calories as an offset of those expended earlier in the day for a net-zero gain. But it doesn't balance out. We also tend to indulge in foods that satiate (pastas, breads), rather than those that leave us hungry within a couple of hours (like many raw fruits and vegetables). Anyone who has kept a food and calorie log quickly realizes that the serving sizes on a lot of packaged foods and prepared meals are completely unrealistic for a typical appetit...