KEEP IT SIMPLE

THE APPLIANCE OF SCIENCE HAS ITS PLACE IN MODERN TRAINING METHODS, BUT IT HAS YET TO PRODUCE MEANINGFUL RESULTS, ARGUES ROSS MURRAY

Ross Murray: wonders why British distance running hasn’t improved more

MARK SHEARMAN

IN TODAY’S sporting world, sportsmen and women are always looking for that extra edge and a more efficient way of training. Sports science has evolved and we now understand the body in a way we never could previously. It allows us to utilise areas that were not previously given much attention – strength and conditioning, nutrition, altitude camps, physiology, drills, ergogenic aids like beta alanine and countless amounts of vitamins and minerals to keep the body healthy during hard training periods.

With all of these added dimensions to our training, is it logical to think we should be running significantly quicker than we were 30 years ago?

Before I continue, this is not going to be one of those articles that has a go at standards of British endurance running today. I think it’s in a good place, being led by superstars like Mo Farah and Laura Muir.

What I’m questioning is the effectiveness of all of these new elements of training and how much of a role they have to play in determining the success in endurance athletes. I wonder whether we overcomplicate simple training principles by throwing in all the new science. For example, a physiologist giving you four different training zones for running and then sub-zones within those zones makes it a concept difficult to grasp. It used to be: easy running, steady running and hard running. You gauged it by how you felt on the day. Not, it seems, any more.