After The Work, The Rest is Easy

From the award-winning (but I didn’t get invited to the banquet), critically-acclaimed (Billy Rodgers likes it) When Running Was Young And So Were We.  My best book to date.

What follows is the first article with my byline ever published nationally. It appeared in the December, 1975, edition of Runner’s World.  Later reprinted in The Complete Book of Marathoning. [Without permission.  Still waiting for payment.]  Dr. E.C. Frederick was the originator of the piece, co-author and the source of anything scientific therein. Back in those days, Ned and I were the closest of friends, which is often what happens when two people run together on a daily basis. He allowed me to keep stride alongside… And the piece appears here with his permission.

Dr. Frederick checks my vital signs after marathon PR

His doctors were upset at his determination to race. It appeared pointless. Not even Emil Zatopek could hope to overcome the debilitating effects of his hospitalization in time to compete.
Zatopek had been bedridden for some two weeks with a serious stomach ailment. It seemed impossible he could be competitive after missing two weeks of training and in such a weakened state. Nevertheless, his determination won out and within an hour of his discharge, he was aboard a plane for Brussels and the 1950 European Championships. The rest is history.
Zatopek nearly lapped second placer Alain Mimoun in the 10,000 meters and captured the 5000m by a 23-second margin. Distance running historian Peter Lovesey has termed his victories “the most decisive double long-distance victory in any major international championship.” It seems only logical to add that Zatopek’s effort was all the more amazing when we remember the two weeks of training he missed.
Or was it?

Most modern coaches and runners would have us believe that everyday training is essential for maximal performances. Equally well touted is the dogma that points to continuous hard work as the only path to high-level running achievement.
We have serious doubts about the truth underlying these ideas. If this training dogma were based on fact, then how could Zatopek, for example, achieve his decisive victories following two weeks of bed rest? A “fluke” would be the answer of the hard trainers. Or perhaps it could be explained away by Zatopek’s overwhelming superiority or by speculating poor preparation on the part of his competitors.

These criticisms might be reasonable if the Zatopek story were an exceptional one. The startling realization is that this pattern is not unique. Similar incidents have happened time and again.
Several years ago, Dave Bedford surprised the track world by running a world record for 10,000 meters. The surprise was not that Bedford had run that fast but that he had done it with only minimal training. Bedford had been nursing a hamstring injury, which hampered his running. Instead of his characteristic high-mileage weeks, which sometimes pushed 200 miles, he had barely averaged 25 miles weekly for a three-month period.
Bedford did have the benefit of three weeks of accelerated training following this light period. But few serious proponents of the hard-training dogma would consider three weeks enough to put the athlete at a world-record peak. The answer has to be in his rest.

Dick Tayler, 1974 Commonwealth Games competitor, was in a similar situation. Torn ankle ligaments allowed him only three weeks of hard training before the Games. He won gold in the 10K with a time of 27:46.4.
Another Commonwealth Games competitor, 800-meter silver medalist Mike Boit, also had little training before the New Zealand competition. After a month’s layoff, he trained only two weeks before running 1:44.4 in the final.

A not so dramatic example is supplied by Craig Virgin. Virgin was unable to train for more than a month due to severe tendonitis. In early February 1975, he began training again, and on February 11th he ran an indoor double. While his times of 4:12.5 and 8:51 are not world-class, they were, at the time, strong performances for Virgin.
Emil Puttemans missed 14 days of training six weeks before the ‘72 Munich 10,000 final. Yet he ran 27:39 to win the silver medal.
Dave Wottle missed 31 days of training between the Trials and the Munich Olympic Games, averaging only about four miles a day during that period. Yet he had the strength to come from behind in the 800-meter final and win the most exciting race of the Games.

The examples go on and on at all levels of competition. The pattern repeats itself again and again: Hard work + rest = success.
We can learn from these examples. They teach us that our ideas of what constitutes an effective training program need some revision. We need to take a closer look at the function of rest in a running program. But, before doing that, we need some perspectives on the use of rest in modern training programs.

Over-trained runners are much more common than under-trained runners. Observing this aspect of the problem, you would think runners were generally uninformed about the importance of rest. Ironically, this does not seem to be the case.

Engage a group of runners in a conversation about rest, and you’ll find most agree rest is important. Most will also agree they probably don’t get enough of it. Perhaps a number of them will even admit to having given more rest some serious thought. But in all likelihood, only a very few will ever have done anything about it. At least not voluntarily.

Rest is much like stretching exercises in that respect. A lot of lip-service is paid to its importance, even to its necessity. But few runners actually incorporate it into their training programs. We are creatures of habit, and our bad habits (or lack of good ones) are firmly entrenched.

Realizing the worth of something, intellectually, does not guarantee a constructive change will result. Cognition is one phenomenon, application another. Most often, the bad situation will persist, and the new realization will fade into the background.

This seems particularly true when dealing with ideas that relate to the body and health. How many people do you know who wish they could lose a few pounds or give up smoking but “just can’t”?
The reason so many runners have neither stretching nor rest built into their training programs can only be apathy and/or negligence. The reason they don’t care is largely an attitude we have developed about natural things and their relationship to the will.

What enforces this attitude is a lack of any clear conception of why rest is needed and what rest does. Further, many runners have no idea of how much rest is needed or just how to go about resting.

Our Western concept of the path to success doesn’t include rest. Instead, the formula contains liberal doses of persistent hard work aimed at overcoming resistance – the resistance supplied by natural physical limits, intellectual capability, financial constraints, etc. It seems like it is always man against nature – man overcoming himself. When we get a headache from overstressing, do we stop and rest? No, we take a pill and forge on. The body is just another obstacle on the path to success. All too often, we see our own bodies as objects of conquest rather than cooperation.

This brings to mind a story about the first ascent of Mount Everest. There are some enlightening parallels with competitive running.

When Edmund Hilary and Tensing Norgay returned from their successful climb, they had different ideas about what had just taken place. New Zealander Hilary spoke triumphantly of conquering the mountain. Norgay, a Sherpa, saw things differently. He stated humbly, “The mountain and I together attained the heights.”
More often than not, runners see their bodies as Hilary saw Everest – as an obstacle in their paths. When a runner does well, the impression one gets is that success has come in spite of the body, rather than because of the body.

Apparently, many (if not most) runners have lost touch with the simplest of realities. They have lost sight of the fact it is the whole organism which achieves and not just the power of will. Most runners are too busy conquering themselves with high-mileage weeks to see the profound significance of this idea.

If we could only realize we can gain more (in the largest sense) by cooperating with the body than by trying to conquer it, everything would fall into place. We would begin to see running as a means to develop the body to make maximal performance possible. Words like “nurture, coax and develop” would replace “thrash, push and force.” The necessity of rest would be dramatically obvious.

Running is an exercise in destruction. Each time we run, we tear ourselves down. Muscle tissue is torn. Mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cells, swell grotesquely. Metabolic wastes accumulate. Blood-sugar levels drop. Dehydration occurs and, along with it, excessive losses of electrolytes upset the delicate balance required for efficient muscle and nerve function. We become overheated. Muscle glycogen is depleted. And, as the intensity and/or duration of the workout increase, this damage becomes more pronounced.

In the period between runs, the body attempts to recover and to rebuild. Torn muscle is repaired. New mitochondria are formed, metabolic wastes are flushed out of the system, blood-sugar levels are restored. We rehydrate and replace lost electrolytes. Any damage to muscles and to the nervous system due to hyperthermia (high body temperature) is repaired. Glycogen is replenished.
These two phases – destruction and regeneration – together constitute conditioning. And the two can never be separated if conditioning is to proceed in a positive direction.

In any program of running, then, the body is systematically broken down and rebuilt. And each rebuilding leaves the body a little stronger than before. These incremental increases amount to the development of a progressively stronger body, capable of more and faster running. That is, if the rebuilding is done correctly.

If the body is not allowed to complete the rebuilding phase of training for lack of time (rest) or materials (nutrition), the destruction will eventually exceed the body’s ability to repair itself. Conditioning will proceed at a slower rate or not at all. In extreme cases, conditioning can actually deteriorate.

On the other hand, if the breakdown phase (the stress) is not optimal, then progress is also retarded. Since we all have become experts at the “stress” phase of training, nothing needs to be said about effective training methods. But the rebuilding phase – let’s call it “regeneration” – does need some elucidation.

Some aspects of the regenerative phase take longer than others. All depend, to a certain degree, on the intensity and duration of the stress. For example, glycogen depletion, mitochondrial destruction and extensive muscle tissue damage all take about 48 hours to be completely reversed. Eating properly, getting plenty of rest and a little exercise seem to promote regeneration. Still, the time period needed to completely return to the status quo is well over 40 hours.

To understand how this information fits into a running program, we must juggle different intensities and durations of runs with the frequency of runs.
First of all, no one runs all day every day, so we have, say, 21-23 hours of non-exercise time during each day to recover from the physical havoc created by a daily run. It should be obvious the greater the amount of time spent in intensive rest (e.g., sleep), the more effective the rest time is. It should be obvious the more and faster we run, the more there is added to the “regenerative load.”

This regenerative load is the product of the speed and distance of workouts, and is also influenced by the quality and quantity of rest during the same time period. We can, therefore, regulate this load by controlling the relationship between our daily dose of destruction and our daily capacity to regenerate.

Let’s say, we take a hard 20-mile run in the afternoon of day one. If we do nothing on days two and three but rest and recuperate, we should be completely regenerated by the afternoon of day three. But few runners would be willing to do no running for such period of time. So, they are going to contribute to the regenerative load by running during this recovery time. If, however, they do only light workouts, get more rest than usual, and eat a diet rich in carbohydrates, protein, vitamins and minerals, they should regenerate on schedule. Or possibly they will need 72 hours to recover rather than the usual 48-hour period.

By tuning into such body signs as stiffness and soreness, lack of energy, cravings for sweets, etc., it is possible for a runner to determine the period required for rebuilding from a particular workout. Workouts, rest and diet can then be adjusted to promote quick and total regeneration.
However, if runners do the opposite, if they continue hard workouts and make no concessions in the lifestyle, then they will be delaying recovery from the hard run. Indeed, if high-intensity training is maintained continually, then the body never catches up with the regenerative load, and eventually staleness & overstress symptoms will result.

In this way, workouts can be varied in intensity and duration from day to day to promote regeneration. Running hard or long only every 48 hours seems to be optimal. In between, workouts should be short and/or easy. And one’s life should be adjusted to maximize regeneration. Plenty of sleep is certainly important, but what one does with the waking hours is equally so.

This “cycling” of workouts is nothing new. Enlightened students of distance running, like Bill Bowerman and Tom Osler, have been preaching such cycling for years. Its efficiency at producing optimal training effects has been proven time and again by the high proportion of world-class runners who have flourished on this type of program. So there should be little doubt this type of training schedule is effective.

Much has been written about the structure and application of hard-easy training programs, so in all likelihood we wouldn’t be able to contribute anything worthwhile. An area that does need to be developed, however, is the application of rest in this type of program. The resting phase is just as important as the running phase, and just as capable of being refined and perfected to produce maximal effects. Let’s take a look at some regenerative techniques with an aim to maximizing our gains from this phase of conditioning.

Rest can be divided into two types: “passive rest” and “active rest.” Passive rest is what we normally do, or actually don’t do. In short, passive rest is inactivity. We do nothing in particular to promote rest, but instead give nature time to run its course. Passive rest certainly is important and effective. Such rest has its place in a program of regeneration.
But there are other activities we can do which will enhance regeneration and will multiply the effectiveness of rest. We would lump these activities under the heading of active rest. In other words, we are doing things to more effectively utilize the regenerative effects of rest.

After a hard run, activities such as light stretching, meditation, a sauna or a massage will cause regeneration to proceed more quickly than if we simply took a nap. These sorts of activities are regeneration promoting. Liberal doses of active rest can quicken and deepen healing, and thereby enhance the rebuilding of the body after a destructive run.

Yoga-type stretching exercises have been shown to stimulate circulation in all areas of the body but particularly in the exercised areas. There is also an enhancement of oxygenation of the tissues, not to mention the physical effects of the stretches on the muscle fibers themselves.
Meditation has been studied by a variety of researchers, and the majority of them have found meditation to be an intense form of relaxation and rest. The physiological state achieved in meditation is thought to be deeper even than sleep.
Sauna baths and steam baths are cleansing and often produce an intense relaxation, a relief of tension. Swimming and massage have similar relaxing qualities and have the added effect of promoting deep circulation.

These activities also have a soothing effect on the psyche, something which we have neglected so far, but something which is of equal or more importance than the physical factors we’ve mentioned. We can regenerate a psyche which has been damaged or overworked by a long or hard run using the same positive approach we taken in healing the body.
Do something unusual. Take a walk somewhere you’ve never been before, read something different, sit in a bus station and watch the world in action, catch a Walt Disney movie, take a long drive over a back road, stroll in the rain, visit the ocean, go to a museum, make love. Not necessarily in that order nor one after another. In short, do something that will increase your awareness, stimulate you, generate new interests and ideas. It is just as important to have a fresh, healthy interest in your running as it is to have a sound body to do it with.
Bedford, Zatopek, et al., have stumbled upon the secret of this relationship. They have all followed long months of intense work with extended rest and then gone on to achieve superlative performances.

Their long months of steady intense work with only minimal regeneration produced a maximal stress load accumulated over time. The result was either sickness or breakdown beginning a period of enforced rest. During this prolonged rest period, their bodies were given the time and materials to completely rebuild – to adapt to the maximal stress which they had accumulated during months of intense training. In short, the body had time to catch up. The results were impressive.
Actually, what they were doing was no more than an expanded version of what every runner should be doing constantly. Using the running-regeneration cycle on a day-to-day basis is a much more efficient way to accomplish the same goal – maximal adaptation.

Even the most conscientiously designed balance of running and regeneration is bound to produce an accumulation of stress over a long period of time. For this reason, runners should cultivate an awareness of the signs of overstress and be prepared to take extended non-running rest periods from time to time.
For example, world three-mile record-holder Emiel Puttemans at least once yearly has a period in which he does no running at all. He overeats, gets a little sloppy, becoming the antithesis of his normal self. Puttemans claims these “rest” days are the most important part of his annual training pattern.
Ron Hill, a 2:09 marathoner, used to take at least a week’s “vacation” during which he ran two workouts daily – two miles in the morning and two miles in the afternoons.

Although the idea of not running for even a day can generate tremendous anxiety in certain runners, we don’t believe their fears are well founded. After all, look what rest did for Zatopek and Bedford.