For Oldster: why training in groups is better

[ahutch]

You get twice as many endorphins doing a workout in a group compared to doing the identical workout by yourself:

www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/is-group-exercise-better-than-working-out-solo/article1421529/

(Obviously I don't really think everyone has to train in groups. But I thought this was a really interesting study -- maybe playing a minor role in why so many runners from strong university programs don't find training quite as satisfying anymore once they're removed from the group context.)

[oldster]

Hutch, as a longtime Globe subscriber (the last vestige of my Torontonianism), I read your fine column this a.m., as I do every Thursday (or second Thursday, whenever it is). These are interesting findings, but how well do you think they would apply to groups that are not "directed" by a central orchestrator, as in the old "aerobics" class setting, or today's "spin" class set-up? Are running groups really "groups" in this same sense? I can certainly see the old tribalistic/communalistic dynamic getting going in situations where everyone it doing exactly the same moves, under direction of a single "caller", but I'm not sure it would work the same way with a running group. There are certainly big benefits for most runners, most of the time, in training with a group, but I'm not sure they would necessary accrue on the same basic, hormonal level. I think the competitive drive to "keep up" is what keeps running group trainers sharp, not necessarily anything related to the basic "groupiness" examined in your study. And because it is the impulse to "keep up" that drives runners in groups, running in groups is not always a good thing for runners. Sometimes we need to allow ourselves to be in better touch with what our bodies can tolerate on a given day, which can only really happen when the inducement to compete is removed.

As it happens, I've been thinking a lot about this lately. This past few weeks, I've been doing more genuine group training than I have ever done in my life (with my very fine junior boys team). I've certainly enjoyed the sessions, and many have been much sharper than anything I might have done on my own. But I've also noticed that, on almost every session, at least one group member struggles and falls off a bit. Since one of my coaching principles is that athletes should never slow down in the course of a session (do we really want to practice slowing down?), I have misgivings about this. Sometimes I think it would be better to stop the session mid-way, give the struggling athlete a little break, and restart with a new configuration (maybe individually, or in smaller sub-groups).

An interesting discussion. Thanks for this, hutch.

[ahutch]

Interesting thoughts, Steve. And I'm very glad to hear that you're an upstanding Globe subscriber!

I think group training, from a practical point of view, has to be evaluated on the basis of quite a large number of pros and cons, each of which will be different for different people. So even if someone really does get an enormous endorphin-fuelled pleasure boost from training with a group, that's still not useful if they're training with a group that's too fast for them and they consequently are always blowing up. Feeling good doesn't always mean being productive, as many training heroes have discovered to their detriment.

So whatever the truth about endorphins, they certainly don't override a more holistic evaluation of training. But your first question is right on the money: what was it about the rowing sessions that produced the endorphins? Was it the perfect synchronization (as controlled by a cox), which might also apply to an aerobics class but not to a running group? Or was it the sense of camaraderie and shared goals? (This was, after all, one of the most highly-trained rowing squads in the world, with intense team spirit.) If that's the case, I think a lot of running teams would tap into that.

Those are basically the questions the researchers are now working on. They're doing a further study with Oxford rowers where the crew will work out "together" but not perfectly synchronized. And they're also looking at other experiments to tease out to role of "team" feeling and so on.

Personally, I was always a bit of loner in training (partly because I often felt my training partners were running with their hearts rather than their heads). But the few times I've experienced something akin to "runner's high" (which we now know is also produced by endorphins) came when I was doing long, hard tempo runs with a really solid group of guys united by common purpose. I actually got addicted to those runs!

[gwig]

Training with others definitley pushes you to run your fastest, not to mention I find it a lot more fun than running on your own.

[ess92]

Jan 7, 2010 11:07:13 GMT -5 oldster said:

But I've also noticed that, on almost every session, at least one group member struggles and falls off a bit. Since one of my coaching principles is that athletes should never slow down in the course of a session (do we really want to practice slowing down?)

This is an interesting principal. Somebody falling behind in a session could be caused by a myriad of factors. Why isloate the athlete? That has gotta just kill the guy's (as per the example) confidence, which is probably more deterimental then any problem he was previously dealing with, especially if he was a junior.

Reasoning behind it?

[benjamin]

The reason should be obvious. He is going too fast for his fitness level at the start of the workout and is forced to slow down over the course of the workout to a level that is at or most likely lower than the pace he should have been running. So slow him down by separating him from the athletes he's racing in the workout so he will get the intended stimulus from the workout instead of going flat or burning out halfway through the season.

[benjamin]

That's not to say that the pace he's going that day is *always* too fast for his fitness level, but every day is a different day and you're not always on your game. You could be tired, or have a nutritional imbalance, or you went too fast the previous day on your easy run, or any number of other things. Running a certain pace because that's the pace everybody's running today isn't going to work all the time. You have to be able to recognize the effort level and stop enslaving yourself to a watch or someone else's effort level.

[benjamin]

Level level level. Just in case anyone notice that I said level a lot.

[oldster]

Jan 7, 2010 19:26:49 GMT -5 benjamin said:

That's not to say that the pace he's going that day is *always* too fast for his fitness level, but every day is a different day and you're not always on your game. You could be tired, or have a nutritional imbalance, or you went too fast the previous day on your easy run, or any number of other things. Running a certain pace because that's the pace everybody's running today isn't going to work all the time. You have to be able to recognize the effort level and stop enslaving yourself to a watch or someone else's effort level.

Levels or no levels, this hits the nail on the head. One of the problems with group training, in spite of its many benefits, is that it induces runners to ignore how they're feeling on a particular day and just run with group they usually run with. This all too often leads to workout "blow-ups"-- i.e. drastic slowing in the final half of a session-- and the undermining of the purpose of the session. And, as a rule, if you want to avoid slowing drastically in the 2nd half of a race, you don't want to be "practicing" it in your workouts. Trying to "fix" or salvage a workout for an athlete who has started too fast on a particular day has nothing to do with stigmatizing the athlete, or otherwise undermining his confidence. On the contrary, allowing him or her to flail away at the back of a group he/she can ordinarily keep up with will do more to undermine the athlete's confidence than stopping, regrouping, and restarting the session at a more appropriate pace.

Further on the subject of group training, I've noticed that it works far better in the longer term for the faster athletes in a given group, even if these athletes are only slightly faster than the group average. More often, the faster athletes will be working closer to their optimal pace than the slower athletes in a group, and will retain the benefits of group training even on their "off" days, since they can still maintain contact at slower speeds. Faster athletes will tend to have far greater influence over the pace of the whole group than slower athletes, for obvious reasons. However, I specify that the faster athletes in a group will tend to benefit more in the longer term because slower athletes can sometimes get a little short term bump in fitness from working with faster people, simply from the greater intensity of training that this induces. Sometimes this little bump will set the stage for a permanent breakthrough to a new level; but, just as often, it will be short-lived, as the athlete gradually becomes worn down from effectively racing every training session.

This just goes to show that it's probably trickier than we might think to make group training work well for every member of a group.