Running science is amazing and over the last 20-30 years has made some serious advances to help pros as well as amateurs perform their best, recover well, and avoid more injuries (ironically, now we’ve had as many if not more injuries than we had in the past with all of our technology).
Back in the 60s and 70s, people just ran a bunch in what would be considered today super minimal shoes with very little education. The ones that succeeded were usually those with a combination of good genetics, useful information, and a bit of luck.
Modern-day running studies do have their limits. They represent the average from a very specific population under control conditions. Amateur runners make up a population that might not neatly fit into research applicable to them.
The research is helpful, but everyone’s a 1-of-1 experiment. This is when knowing the rules and framework of how to be a good self-coached runner comes into play. Figure things out through your own discovery process: research your specific needs, listen to experts, then experiment on yourself. And this is where being a special snowflake is actually a good thing. You get to find out what works for you and your specific body, mind, life circumstances, etc.
Here is my quick list of 20 areas where run science may not apply to everyone.
Again, this is no knock to run science, as “I’m a huge fan of science. It’s the closest thing to an absolute objective truth that we have in this world (and it’s also quite literally magic). Because of that, I want to do deeper dives on this whole idea of “is science really right here?”, so let me know what I’m missing. I’ll do 10 more in the future or go more in-depth on each of these ten. Let me know either way!
10 Areas Where Running Science Might Not Apply to You:
- Carb Loading Protocols: Studies show optimal glycogen loading, but your digestive system might have other plans, according to a bunch of factors.
- Heart Rate Training Zones: Age-based formulas (and most formulas, tbh) assume everyone’s heart works the same. Obviously, this is far from true (take Zone 2 and Maffetone MAF guidelines for instance… it’s the wild west)
- The 180 Cadence Rule: I actually go deep on this here, but this rule mainly ignores your body type, stride length, how tall you are, experience, and how fast you actually run.
- Recovery Timelines: Research says X days to recover. Your genetics, sleep, and stress levels will always dictate another story.
- Hydration Formulas: Standard recommendations don’t know your sweat rate, what’s in your sweat, or if you’re running in New York in the winter or New Zealand in the summer.
- Foot Strike Patterns: Science loves midfoot striking, but many studies have shown heel striking doesn’t cause more injuries.
- Nutrition Timing Windows: That “anabolic window” thing is more important for elites than hobby joggers, but eating carbs and protein as close as possible after a workout is still best for most (I get the jitters and will have a nasty migraine for the rest of the day if I don’t time it well)
- VO2 Max Trainability: This is genetics-based more than most running training protocols. The same workout for two different people can produce totally different results.
- Stretching Protocols:Static vs. dynamic stretching don’t care about your flexibility, age, or how tight your hamstrings actually are. Mobility is what we all want, though.
- Training Frequency: Experts and training plans say to run x number of days per week to do y. Obviously, the more you run, the more fit you get at running (law/rule of specificity). But these experts don’t know about your priorities, job stress, or that you’ve got two kids under five.
