There is an ancient expression used in endurance sports: "It's better to be 10 percent undertrained than 5 percent overtrained." I've never been too sure what to make of this expression. I mean, isn't it best to be 100 percent perfecly trained? But of late my attitude toward this unattributed piece of wisdom has changed, largely due to the frequency with which I see athletespaticularly American distance runnersperform surprisingly well in early-season tune-up races and other races preceded by relatively moderate training, and perform poorly in peak races preceded by very high training loads.

It happened again at the U.S. National Cross-Country Championships in San Diego, which I had the pleasure of watching live. Dathan Ritzenhein blew away the field, winning by 26 seconds, despite the fact that an IT band injury had forced him to train exclusively on an antigravity treadmill until just 10 days before the event. Ritz's coach, Brad Hudson, told me after the race that he had been unsure whether Ritz should even compete, fearing that the young runner might have his confidence crushed by losing badly. He needn't have worried. Apparently his greater "freshness" more than made up for his limited fitness.

I'm starting to believe that there's no such thing as being 100 percent perfectly trained for a race--or at least that there's no way to know whether you're 100 percent perfectly trained. What the maxim that I cited at the beginning of this post now means to me is simply that one should always train somewhat conservatively in order to minimize the risk of overtraining. It's not that one should try to show up to races undertrained. It's that training is a blind process, in the sense that you cannot discern a clear line marking the threshold between undertrained and overtrained ahead of you. If you try to feel your way right up to this limit in training, you put yourself at great risk of crossing it, and I do believe that every step beyond the limit is equivalent to two steps behind it.

I think I overtrained myself slightly for my last marathon in December. This year I'm going to take a lesson from Dathan Ritzenhein and others and train with a bit more restraint. I still plan to do some workouts that are just as hard as the toughest workouts I did in my recent marathon ramp-up; I just won't do as many of them, and I will train more lightly betwen them as well. It's worth a try.

Not everyone agrees about grains.  Some nutrition experts (and would-be experts) believe that grains should be a major part of everyone’s diet.  Others believe that grains should be marginalized in the diet.  Whom should you believe?  Let’s take a look at what science and common sense say about the place of grains in a healthy diet.

The Anti-Grain Arguments

There are two distinct camps that stand against grains: the low-carb advocates and the ancient diet advocates. The Low-carb advocates argue that grains should have a small place in the diet because they are high in carbohydrates, and carbohydrates should be limited in the diet because they cause weight gain, diabetes and other horrors.

The problem with this argument is that there is no solid evidence that a high-carbohydrate diet causes weight gain or metabolic disorders.  In a recent review of the scientific literature, University of Virginia nutritionist Glenn Gaesser, Ph.D., found no association between carbohydrate consumption and overweight or metabolic diseases.  In fact, he found that the balance of research indicated that those who consume high-carbohydrate diets tend to be slimmer than those who eat fewer carbs.

The ancient diet advocates have a more credible argument against grains.  Their position is based on the fact that grains did not become a significant part of the human diet until the agricultural revolution occurred in approximately 10,000 B.C.  Since humans were more or less fully evolved by this time, according to this argument, grains are not ideally suited to the human genotype, which represents an adaptation to the vegetables and other foods that humans ate for tens of thousands of years preceding the incorporation of grains.

The nutritional profile of grains is certainly very different from that of the vegetables, which contain a greater density and variety of vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients and a lower density of calories than grains do.  Research has clearly shown that fruits and vegetables are the most indispensable foods in the human diet.  Men and women who eat the most fruits and vegetables have fewer chronic diseases and live longer than others.  By contrast, grains can be completely eliminated from the diet without consequence as long as the level of fruit and vegetable consumption remains high.  No vital nutrient is underrepresented in the diet of those who follow “Neanderthal” or “Paleolithic” diets.

That which is unnecessary is not necessarily harmful, however.  The scientific literature contains no evidence that high levels of grain consumption are harmful.  In fact, studies have found that higher levels of whole grain consumption are associated with lower risk of overweight, heart disease, diabetes, and various types of cancer.  Notice I wrote “whole grains,” though, and not simply “grains”.  I’ll say more about this distinction below.

The bodies of many men and women do not react well to grains.  Some are allergic to the gluten contained in wheat and other grains while others experience sluggishness, slow thinking and other such symptoms due to the high carbohydrate load that comes with grain consumption.  These problems have a genetic basis and provide a solid indication that grains are not the human genome’s preferred source of nourishment.  Life is better for gluten-allergic and carbohydrate-sensitive individuals when they minimize grain consumption.  Everyone else can maintain a fairly high level of grain consumption without consequences as long as the overall diet is balanced and the activity level is high.

What The Establishment Says

Mainstream nutrition experts have long recommended that people eat more grains than any other type of food.  The nutritional establishment is most fully represented in the MyPyramid nutrition guidelines created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which advise men of my age, height, weight, and activity level to consume nine servings of grains per day and only five and a half servings of fruits and vegetables combined.

The problem with these guidelines is that they suggest that high levels of grain consumption are necessary for good health, when they are not.  You can be perfectly healthy with a diet that includes no grains whatsoever.  One must understand, however, that the MyPyramid guidelines are based not only on nutrition science but also on cultural dietary norms.  Grains are the most abundant food in the typical American diet, and most of us would be loathe to eliminate them.

The MyPyramid guidelines also include a recommendation that half of one’s daily servings of grain be whole grains.  If I could, I would tweak this recommendation to read: “Get as many of your grains as possible in the form of whole grains.”  As you know, refined grains such as processed wheat flour have been stripped of most of their fiber and vitamins and minerals, leaving only the calories.  Consequently, replacing most of the refined grains in your diet with whole grains will have a significant, positive long-term impact on your health.

For example, a new study from Penn State University provides new evidence that a diet rich in whole grains may promote weight loss and reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes. Participants in the study were 25 men and 25 women with metabolic syndrome. All 50 subjects were placed on the same weight-loss diet for 12 weeks, except that half of them were counseled to get all of their grains in the form of whole grains. Members of both groups lost weight8 to 11 poundsbut those in the whole grain group lost more abdominal fat. In addition, members of the whole grain group exhibited a 38 percent decrease in C-reactive protein, a marker of whole-body inflammation, which underlies various chronic diseases, whereas C-reactive protein levels remained unchanged in members of the control group.

The straight dope on grains can be summarized as follows: Eat as many or as few grains as you like, as long as your overall diet is well balanced and your body seems to tolerate grains well.  Regardless of how much grain you eat, make sure most of it is whole grain.

Endurance athletes are accustomed to thinking of metabolic stress

(the high rate of energy use associated with endurance exercise) and

exercise fatigue (the involuntary loss of work capacity) as

inextricably linked. In other words, we tend to think of energy

depletion as the cause of declining performance during exhaustive

exercise. However, it is possible to fatigue the muscles without

significant metabolic stress, for example by repeatedly jumping to the

ground off a platform. So, how would local muscle fatigue induced

without metabolic stress affect endurance exercise performance? If

metabolic stress were truly THE cause of exercise fatigue, then it

would have little or no effect.

Muscle fatigue during endurance exercise is typically associated

with an elevated cardiovascular response. The heart rate increases at

any given level of sustained work output. It is commonly assumed that

metabolic stress is the link between muscle fatigue and the elevated

cardiovascular response associated with it. But in light of the fact

that it is possible to induce muscle fatigue without significant

metabolic stress, researchers from Bangor University in Wales recently

investigated the effects of muscle fatigue induced by drop jumps on

cycling performance and heart and breathing rate.

In this study, subjects rode stationary bikes to exhaustion at a

high intensity level. The ride was later repeated after the subjects

completed 100 drop jumps from a height of 18 inches. This resulted in

an average 18% decline in the maximum amount of force they were able to

generate with their quadriceps. Despite the fact that the drop jumps

had cost the subjects little energy, their time to exhaustion following

them was significantly reduced compared to the control trial and their

heart rate and breathing rate were significantly elevated.

So, what caused these effects if the subjects' muscles still had

plenty of energy available even after the drop jumps? The study's

authors concluded, "These effects seem to be mediated by the increased

central motor command and perception of effort required to exercise

with weaker locomotor muscles." In other words, the muscle fatigue

induced by the drop jumps impaired the brain's capacity to drive the

same level of cycling work output compared to the rested state.

So, what does this mean for you? Aside from the obvious

lesson--don't do 100 drop jumps before an endurance workout if you want

to perform at your best in the latter--there's nothing practical to be

gleaned from this particular study. I just find it interesting as

further evidence that the brain is truly the governing organ in

relation to exercise performance.

While I'm back to somewhat serious training, as the memory of my early December marathon fades and I look ahead to the Carlsbad 5000 in April, I'm not exactly back to high mileage. In October and November I was running 60-80 miles a week. This week I'll run about 30 miles. And I'm loving it. I feel good every day. I mean, I have that hold-me-back, I'm-ready-to-race feeling every time I lace up my shoes and start. I had forgotten that such a thing was possible. While I was certainly fitter last fall, I was lucky then to feel so good even once a week due to all the fatigue I was carrying from one workout to the next.

I'm also enjoying running fast. Today I did a seven-mile run that included 10 all-out uphill sprints of 10 seconds apiece. Let me tell you, 100 seconds of uphill sprinting is a good, solid training stimulus, but it's a total blast, and over with so quickly. Somewhat experimentally, I'm trying to do some hard running in almost every workout. I want to see how my body responds to a low-mileage, very-high-intensity approach to training for this 5K.

The backbone of my training will be a series of workouts focused on my goal race pace of 5:05 per mile. I will start this week with a session consisting of 10-12 x 400 meters in 76 seconds. Over the next several weeks I will gradually increase the distance of the intervals I run at this pace, to 600 meters, then 800 meters, then 1K, and eventually a full mile. My hardest workouts will be a session consisting of 5 x 1K @ 3:10 with only a 200-meter jog recovery between intervals and another consisting of 3 x 1 mile @ 5:00 with a 90-second recovery between intervals.

I can hardly wait until I'm actually fit enough to do these workouts!

Previously here I have reported on research demonstrating that exercise fatigue is caused not by "catastrophic" events within the muscles themselves but instead by reduced motor output from the brain to the working muscles, which contribute to fatigue by providing feedback indicating local, peripheral fatigue to the brain. An elegant new study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and published in the Journal of Physiology provides some of the best proof yet of this increasingly undeniable fact.

Eight trained cyclists performed 5K time trials on three separate occasions. Before one time trial they pre-fatigued their legs by riding to exhaustion at 83% of peak power and then began the time trial after four minutes of rest. Before a second time trial they rode at 67% of peak power for a duration equal to that achieved in the ride to exhaustion at 83% of peak power and rested for four minutes (leaving them fatigued but less fatigued than in the other trial). The third time trial was performed in a fresh state. The researchers used EMG sensors to determine the level of motor output from the brain to the quadriceps muscles during each time trial and also measured power output and finishing time.

Compared to the fresh time trial, central motor drive was reduced by 23%, power output was reduced by 14%, and finishing time increased by 6% in the time trial that followed the exhaustive pre-fatiguing ride. The loss of motor output, power, and performance was smaller but still significant in the other, non-exhaustive pre-fatigued time trial. Interestingly, the quadriceps muscles exhibited precisely the same level of fatigue (as measured by a test of maximal twitch force) after all three time trials. The study's authors concluded, "We suggest that feedback from fatiguing muscle plays an important role in the determination of central motor drive and force output, so that the development of peripheral fatigue is confined to a certain level."

The ice is getting thin underneath the feet of those who continue to cling to the conservative vew that exercise fatigue is caused strictly by physiological events occuring from the neck down!

Every distance runner is a little crazy. I'm no exception. Just three days after my disappointing marathon performance on December 2, I began to entertain the idea of trying to milk my fitness peak for six more weeks and run the Rock n' Roll Arizona Marathon on January 13. That hare-brained scheme lasted exactly one day. During my second post-marathon recovery run I developed a pain in my right heel and decided to stay off it for a week to prevent it from becoming a severe problem. This decision eliminated any possibility of milking my fitness peak and running another marathon, which was, of course, a bad idea anyway, even before I got hurt.

Since then I've been blowing off steam by riding the stationary bike and lifting weights at the gym. I enjoy lifting weights and find that putting some effort into building strength in the winter helps me get off to a good start when I shift my focus back towards running in the spring. It's also nice to get a mental break from the grind of running every day. After several weeks of focusing on alternative activities I always find that the hunger to run returns in full force. Thus, when I do resume focused run training I am more motivated and enjoy my workouts more than I would if I did not give myself that mental break.

It's also not a bad thing to prioritize other facets of life above exercise in general at certain times (and there's no better time than the holiday season). As competitive athletes we have to make many sacrifices. The need to train hard consistently limits our travel, our social lives, and other opportunities. I don't think it's healthy to make such sacrifices year-round. Currently I'm exercising just 30 minutes a day, six days a week, and it feels great. My wife and I are enjoying more quality time together and getting out of the house more often than usual to do fun stuff.

My heel is already feeling better, but I'm in no hurry to test it. In fact, although injuries are normally the bane of my existence, I'm actually glad this one happened. It kept my runner's insanity in check.

With five days remaining before my next marathon, I have race strategy on the brain, so I thought I would share a few quick thoughts on the topic.

When aiming for an aggressive goal time, I believe it's important to hold oneself back in the early miles, but without running so slowly as to necessitate a dramatic increase in pace later in the race. My goal is to finish the race with an average pace of 6:01-6:05 per mile. I plan to run the first mile in 6:05 to 6:10 and to run no faster than 6:02 for any single mile in the first half of the race. If I do this and find myself feeling very strong at the half-marathon mark, I could pick up my pace to 5:57 per mile and still finish with with an average pace of 6:01.

I have done a lot of running in this pace range within the past few weeks. Although I have been able to run long distances at this pace, even in a pre-fatigued state, it has felt alarmingly fast to me even on my best days. Recently I realized that it feels fast because it is fast, and I should not be alarmed. My mindset has been caught back in the days when my marathon pace was 6:20 per mile, a pace that always felt easy in the beginning. So I've tacitly expected 6:00/mile pace to start feeling easy too. But now I see that I have moved so close to my ultimate performance limits that this just isn't going to happen. The marathon is now truly a race for me rather than a game of survival. Therefore I should expect to feel as though I'm racing as soon as the gun goes off. The fact that I feel the strain of my goal pace even within the first mile does not indicate that I cannot sustain the pace for 26.2 miles. (I'm quite sure that Haile Gebrselassie felt the strain of running 4:45/mile in the first mile of his recent 2:04:26 marathon!) This shift in mindset has taken a lot of fear out of me and will help me race more relaxed.

It's going to be very cold when the race starts at 7 am. I remember being painfully cold in the first miles of the California International Marathon when I ran it back in '99. So this time I'm going to start with a cheap fleece sweatshirt over my shortsleeve running top, and an old pair of running gloves. When I feel warm enough I will take them off and hand them to a volunteer at a fluid station.

Speaking of fluid, here's my nutrition plan. I will have my usual pre-race breakfast of a banana and a can of Boost. I will also drink a little water, but not much. Runners often overestimate how much fluid they need to drink on the morning of a marathon. It's much more important to drink during the race. I hate having to pee too often before the race starts, and I really hate to pee during the race. Half an hour before the start I will swallow two caffeine pills (400 mg). I have consumed no caffeine since 10 days before race day to maximize the ergogenic effect I get from caffeine on race morning. During the race I will take some sports drink at every fluid station. The amount I consume will depend on how my stomach/GI system feel. When they feel good I will drink a full dixie cup. Otherwise I will take just a sip. But I will always take at least a sip. I have underfueled myself before in marathons and it's not a mistake I care to repeat.

The first time I ever "went for a jog" I was only six or seven years old. I was inspired to do it by my dad, who ran regularly for exercise at the time. He wore a primitive pedometer when he ran. It was a small, disk-shaped unit that hooked onto the wasitband of his shorts. The oscillation of each stride caused some sort of mechanism inside it to tick, adding one stride length's worth of distance to the total measured distance. As you can imagine, the device was incredibly inaccurate. While you could calibrate it to your estimated stride length, the device had no way to account for changes in stride length resulting from changing speeds or running uphill or downhill. I thought it was pretty cool anyway, and I wore it for my first jog. I ran about half a mile, according to it.

Today's devices for measuring distance coveredas well as speed in real timeare inifnitely more sophisticated, using accelerometers or GPS technology to achieve accuracy levels as high as 99%. I was an early adopter, purchasing the first-generation Timex Speed + Distance device. I've since switched to the Garmin Forerunner, and I use it for almost every run. There are many benefits to using such a device, but their greatest benefit, in my opinion, is one that is seldom talked about: they make you train harder.

In each of my key workouts, I have in mind one or more pace targets that I want to hit. My Forerunner not only allows me to know whether or not I am hitting my targets, but it also encourages me to slightly surpass them, if possible. It's just basic human psychology. You can always dig a little deeper when you're chasing some standard outside yourself than when you're just going by feel. What's more, the device also pushes me to improve my performance from week to week as I repeat certain types of workouts. So, for example, if last week I ran a 10K tempo run in 35:30, when I repeat the workout in two weeks I might pursue a target time of 35:10.

Training runs are not meant to be races, of course, so the purpose of using a speed and distance device to train harder than you might otherwise is not to unleash absolute maximum efforts in everyday workouts. That would take you nowhere in a hurry. The real purpose is to motivate just a slightly greater effort in the two or three workouts you do each week that are supposed to be challenging anyway. The benefits of these extra bits of effort will gradually accumulate over the course of the training process, enabling you to run significantly faster on race day, when time really matters.