Jonathan speaks: site origins and coach-science conflict

The origins of the site and the eternal science-coach-athlete conflict

I realised the other day that in the two and a half years that The Science of Sport has been running, very few of you have ever heard directly from us. Sure, there are posts and opinions and replies to comments, but unless you're in Chicago or Cape Town (or you've seen the odd TV appearance), we've been no more than words on a page!

And so today, while Jonathan and I visited with the Vitality Group here in Chicago for a Q & A session, I decided we should change that! Being in the same city, something that happens only once every 18 or so months, affords us the chance to actually get "interactive" and more personal, and so there will probably be a few more of these in the coming days!

To start with, below are two videos of Jonathan at our Q & A, just so you know we're real people after all!

The origins of The Science of Sport: modest beginnings



Nothing false about that - when we started, I'd wake up in SA and check the site and discover that a grand total of 4 people had visited the site the day before. I recall the first day we hit 100 visits, it was a momentous occasion! And no, we don't have that many friends, so by then we had at least spoken to some 'strangers'! To all the "strangers" since, thank you for your continued support!

But seriously, what Jonathan doesn't allude to is that we started out with the view to being a coaching site, but very quickly recognized that the news was where the gap existed, because, quite frankly, the mainstream media often didn't deviate much from "the script" when it came to reporting scientific angles on stories. The very first big story we hit was Oscar Pistorius, where the media, particularly here in SA, lapped up everything they were fed by the PR machine, and there was no science. Some have disagreed with our version of that science, but that's OK, I would prefer for there to be disagreements around the science than none at all!

I guess the very latest controversy, that of Caster Semenya, again highlights just how the general sports media are often 'blind-sided' by sports news that requires scientific reporting. It is ironic that both these cases involved SA athletes, so I was 'fortunate' to be exposed to much of the media coverage, and the claims of 'pull down her pants' made by esteemed politicians here in SA, which provided plenty of opportunity for comment!

We're actually very fortunate to be in a field where so many opportunities for this kind of insight are needed - whether it's pacing during marathons, dehydration, muscle cramps, world records, doping or sports management, sport creates news, and science and management help interpret it. So we're in a good position to be swept up by the current!

The marriage between science, coaching and medicine



The next video has Jonathan talking about one of the biggest challenges facing sports science today. That is the challenge of taking knowledge and applying it to the 'end-user', the athlete, coach, and occasionally, the medical doctor. Case in point is hyponatremia, which is what Jonathan speaks about in this clip.

So that's a few thoughts from Jonathan.

Tomorrow might be my turn - I give a talk at Jonathan's University, and so we'll see if we can film some of it and post clips here.

Ciao!
Ross

Pacing strategy and limits to performance

Chicago 2009: Thoughts on pacing and the limit to performance

Well, I have arrived in Chicago after a great couple of days in Washington, and now the build-up to the Chicago 2009 Marathon can begin! A little later today, Jonathan and I will be meeting with some of the Marathon organizers to discuss race-day logistics and to figure out how (if at all) we can go about doing live 1km race split reports here on The Science of Sport.

We're also meeting with a local health insurance company for a Q & A and a short presentation, and then tomorrow, I am at the UIC to give a talk to the department. So a busy few days have begun!

However, the marathon is the focus, and particularly, the presence of Sammy Wanjiru, Olympic and London Champion. There was talk of sending pacemakers out at 61:40 to halfway, in a quest to break the world record. The most recent reports suggest that he won't go for the record, but will rather focus on solidifying his lead in the World Marathon Majors. Is that an attempt to deflect attention and downplay the occasion? I have a feeling he'll go for it though, only because he's spoken of his desire before, and if he's in good condition, Chicago represents a real opportunity. Wanjiru is also so aggressive - remember his Beijing performance in the heat - that I can't see him holding back if he has good form.

So far, the weather forecasts look favourable - it won't be too hot, that's for sure. The only concern may be around the wind, which has been pretty gusty since I arrived. Regardless, 1km splits will be interesting, because if it's a slower race, then the surges, which Wanjiru used in both Beijing and London will make for an interesting analysis.

Pacing strategy analysis

And it's pacing strategy that is the focus of today's post. At least, some thoughts on pacing and the limits to performance, which were inspired by the talk I was preparing for UIC tomorrow.

Below is a graph of the pacing strategy from every men's world record in the 800m, mile, 5,000m and 10,000m events. "Interval number" on the x-axis refers to the lap number for the 800m and mile races, and the kilometer number for the 5,000 and 10,000m


So, looking globally, in the 800m event, the first lap is on average 2.4 seconds faster than the second (52s vs 54.4s). That's why I've often written that if you run an even-paced 800m, with a second lap that is as fast as the first, you're underperforming (more on this another time).

However, from the mile up to the 10,000m, the strategy (at least globally) is similar. Fast first interval, then a gradual reduction in pace in the middle, before what is called an "endspurt" in the final interval, be it the last lap, or the last kilometer (note that in the long distance races, that fast end is probably also due to the last lap, not a whole last kilometer).

Physiology of pacing - not as simple as it may seem

Now, the physiological basis for this pacing strategy is very interesting, but not really the topic of this post. Briefly, if you've always been told that you slow down because you become anaerobic, because lactate affects your muscles, or because of other chemicals that run out or accumulate, then you have a very difficult time explaining how the fastest part of the race comes at the end. Does the muscle suddenly overcome the inhibitive effects of the chemicals? Does the muscle suddenly 'tolerate' being anaerobic to allow a shift in pace that is often as large at 6 seconds over the final lap?

The peripheral fatigue explanation doesn't allow that. The only explanation is that the athlete had some reserve during those middle kilometers when they were slowing down. This is obvious to most people - except if they're taught otherwise! Most athletes and coaches will readily agree that there is reserve, but this reserve was not acknowledged in exercise physiology, amazingly, until quite recently.

What does this reserve look like? Well, there is evidence that the activation of muscle is increased at the end of the event, when the finish line is in sight. Also, it's pretty obvious that when you are running a 10,000m race, you are not going "all-out" and so there is without doubt a reserve capacity. During the middle part of the race, for reasons I won't go into here, you don't use that reserve, but at the end, your brain allows you to use it and you speed up. So now, you should be asking how large that reserve is, how it is maintained, and whether you can 'eat into it' to run faster? That is another series of posts altogether, and I must confess, I don't know the answers to those questions, I can only theorize!

Simple observations, complex physiology! I won't go into more detail on this, but if you'd like to read further, then I'd recommend two review papers which I had published earlier this year, in which I did theorize and propose a model for how the brain regulates performance (Tucker, BJSM, 43(6), 2009)

Pacing and performance limits - a change in how records are paced

In any event, this post is about the limits to performance, and for that, we must look more closely at the 5,000m world record. The graph below somewhat arbitrarily breaks 32 world records into three eras:

1. 1920 to 1953 (9 records)
2. 1954 to 1973 (11 records)
3. 1974 to present (12 records)

It will be pretty obvious that something has changed in the way the world records have been paced. The first era, from 1920 to 1953, reveals a typical pacing strategy where the start is fast, the middle gets slower and slower, and the final kilometer is very fast.

The second era starts to look a little different - the drop in pace from 1 to 2km is not as large, and overall, the mid-race slowdown is nowhere near as pronounced. However, the same pattern exists, with kilometers 1 and 5 being significantly faster than the middle kilometers.

And then comes the third era. There is no longer a slowing down in the middle part of the race, and the only 'pacing anomaly' is a faster final kilometer. This period, from 1974 onwards, has seen the 5,000m WR fall from 13:13 to 12:37 (36 seconds), but the difference in the first kilometer is only 4 seconds.

So what is the significance of this change? Well, there are a lot of differences between the present era and the 1950s, for example. Training methods, technology, diet, equipment including shoes and track surface, genes (since the population is different in the third era - it's dominated by African runners), and dare one say, doping...do these differences explain why not only the pace, but the pacing strategy has improved? Perhaps - that is an interesting debate!
(Incidentally, if you look at the 10,000m record, you find exactly the same thing - a distinct trend towards even pacing has driven most of the performance improvements in the world records)

Eroding the reserve to reach the limit

So what does this mean for limits to performance? Well, it suggests that the absolute limit may be reached when the optimal pacing strategy is achieved. That would be the point where the reserve is entirely 'eroded' and the athlete is performing to the maximum of their physiological capacity on that day.

Of course, you may be thinking that the reserve and 'maximal physiological capacity' is dependent on training and fitness. And I agree, which is why it's possible that as you read this, you may believe you're already pacing yourself optimally, but you fancy that you can still improve with training. Your reserve (both on the day, and over months of training) is larger.

But we're talking about the elite here, and the very best elite athletes in the world at very close to the peak of their fitness. And once you're looking at this group, the notion of knocking 2 seconds per kilometer off becomes a lot more difficult. Their reserve, collectively, is much smaller, and even months of training doesn't change that. Haile Gebrselassie illustrated this in Berlin, when he ran close to perfect even pace the whole way and then imploded in the final 7km. That suggests that he had run just a little too fast for the conditions and for his physiological capacity, which means he's very, very close to the limits of what he is able to achieve.

Someone else may come along (maybe Wanjiru this weekend), but they're not going to blow records away to the tune of even 2 seconds per kilometer anymore! The reserve available to an elite athlete, even with many months of training, is much smaller than to your 20-min 5k runner. That's why the only improvements in the last ten world records have come from running the middle kilometers faster, and not just running the whole race faster, which is what you'd do if you went out and ran 19-minutes after 3 months of good training.

The key is in the reserve, and for the very best runners in the world, at the very peak of their fitness, there is very little of it. But that which exists represents the margin by which performances can be improved, until performances are almost perfectly even-paced and only minute improvements will be possible. Perhaps the limit to performance is near.

Chicago Marathon - even paced for the WR?

So it's in that light that I'm looking forward to Sunday's race, in the hope that Wanjiru does go out and try to get this record. If he hits halfway in 61:40, I dare say it would be too fast. That would put him on course for a 2:03:20, which is a 40-second improvement, and I believe that's too great. I'd rather suggest a 61:55 for the first half, with something close to that on the second. Time will tell!

More to come from Chicago in the coming days!

Ross

Rio 2016

Rio 2016 continued

Just wanted to make a late addition to my earlier post, and thank Lauter for pointing it out. I'd said that I couldn't think of a city that had hosted two huge sporting events in the same cycle, and Lauter promptly pointed out that Mexico City in 1968/1970 and Munich in 1972/1974 had done the 'double'. In both cases, they hosted the Games and then the FIFA World Cup. Rio gets to do it in the opposite order, hosting first FIFA and then the IOC.

So thanks for the correction - Lauter took time off celebrating, since he lives in Rio himself! My cognitive function must be fading! I could list the Olympic venues and the FIFA venues, but the lists didn't seem to overlap! Clearly, I need that US-holiday!

Well done again Rio!

Ross

It's Rio in 2016

Rio 2016: The Olympic Games head to South America


Rio de Janeiro will host the 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The decision from Copenhagen today sent crowds on Rio's Copacabana into raptures, and for the second time in a few years, Brazil celebrated being awarded a major international sporting event.

The 2014 FIFA World Cup will now be followed by the 2016 Olympic Games, which means Rio is in the same position as Mexico City back in 1968/1970, and Munich in 1972/1974, hosting two huge events in the same cycle. The only exception is the order, since Rio gets the FIFA World Cup before the Olympic Games (of course, the FIFA World Cup is shared across Brazil, not just Rio, but the point remains). Still, the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games are the biggest sporting events in the world, and so Brazil will be in a prolonged sporting spotlight for the next 8 years. (when I first posted, I'd completely forgotten about these two - losing my memory, clearly! However, can I escape by saying that since the "professionalization" of the events, no city has hosted two events consecutively?)

The defeated applicants - Chicago falls in round 1

The Rio decision left three very disappointed cities - Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago. In that order of elimination, too. The voting process, which saw one city eliminated in each of four rounds, saw Chicago fall at the very first hurdle.

This was the big surprise, and I'll be honest, a big disappointment for us at The Science of Sport. Both Jonathan (a Chicago resident, of course) and I had supported the Chicago bid, and so we're disappointed in the vote for personal reasons. For anyone who loves sport, the Olympics are such a highlight that it would have been great to share in the buildup and maybe even get involved in the preparation for the 2016 Games (the one occasion where sports science is in demand in in the lead-up to major events. Not that the US has this problem - here in SA, we need that stimulus far more!).

Chicago was one of the favorites in what was one of the closest races in Olympic bidding history. The two front-runners were Chicago and Rio, and when Chicago was eliminated first, there was shock and amazement from Chicago and from the delegates in Copenhagen. Among the public, however, there were a few protests leading up to the decision - people who feel that the spending required on the Games cannot be justified when other social services are deemed inadequate. Justifying billions on sport is always a tough task to those not passionate about sport. Others see it as a platform for change, an economic stimulus, a force for positive change. Perhaps Jonathan will give us a local perspective on the response to the decision a little later.

In my sports management work, I've been involved at different levels with a couple of bids, and know people who have headed up bids for other major events, and I will say that the only thing you can ever know with certainty is that you know nothing about how the voting will go. The typical bid process requires a committee to jump through all kinds of hoops, to meet certain requirements in an attempt to make the bids as uniform and objective as possible. How much money, guarantees on the money, commitments to facilities, rooms for tourists, the Olympic village, and so forth.

But the reality is that the bid often swings on personal issues, voting blocs and alliances with future promises or previous favors being called in. So you can meet every criteria, and even exceed them, but you can't guarantee success. Sentiment plays cold, hard cash and business sense, which is NOT as simple as seeing which city can spend the most money or raise the highest sponsorship (as people have tended to oversimplify it) - the business sense is often a function of how much the rights owner (the IOC in this case) is assured of by the host city, and this goes beyond the sponsorship and government/business backing.

And both sentiment and business are often trumped by politics, and politics is personal. The result is a voting process that is always debated - just look at the 2012 decision, where Paris was a 'sure thing' until the last moment, or any vote before it.

But onto Rio and 2016

But onto Rio, which did have a great bid - you can read a really great summary of the four different bids here. It was comfortably the largest financial bid - close to $14 billion split between operating expenses ($2.82 billion) and capital costs of $11.1 billion (Chicago had the largest operation budget at $3.8 billion, incidentally). I suspect some of the capital costs will have to be absorbed into 2014 planning and construction, since both will really have to be done simultaneously - resources are going to become very lucrative in Rio!)

For Rio, a big selling point was "distribution" of the Games, because it had never been to South America, and so 2016 will be the first time. This is quite an amazing stat, actually.

Brazil will be a fantastic place between 2013 and 2016, with one major sporting event following the next. The culture, the energy, should make for a fantastic Games. It will be interesting to see how Brazil uses the Games to prepare its athletes - we have seen China spend millions on its athlete development, and Great Britain have done the same leading into 2012. Brazil are not a classic powerhouse in Olympic sport (you can be sure the soccer at the 2016 Games will be a highlight, though), and so I'm really interested to see what hosting status does for their high performance sports strategy.

I'm sure there is more to come, maybe some opinion from Jonathan on the reaction in Chicago, maybe more related to the voting process (as is typical), and the reaction of some elite athletes - one thing that is for sure, there'll be a lot of 15 to 18-year old prospective Olympic athletes who are marking their calendars tonight..."Rio, here I come!"

Ross