The benefits of isometric training

I recently came across an article on the effects of exercise training on blood pressure. I found the idea interesting since the antihypertensive action of exercise is well known and the usual recommendation is aerobic training of various intensities. However the current guidelines for blood pressure control are based on rather old data, where more modern exercise modes like interval training and isometric exercise training had not been considered. 

The findings of the study were somewhat surprising. As expected, aerobic exercise training, dynamic resistance training, combined training, high-intensity interval training and isometric exercise training do reduce blood pressure. What was unexpected was that the most effective exercise mode was isometric exercise training.

The authors of the study argue that their findings provide a framework that would allow the proposal of new exercise recommendations aiming at preventing and/or treating hypertension. Their findings are summarised in the infographic below.

First let us define what is meant by isometric. Isometric exercises are static. The muscles do contract but do not change their length. The joints involved do not move. The body is supposed to be stable. Isometric exercises can be done with weights but also using just one's body weight. In this sense they are extremely simple, neither necessitating specific equipment nor taking up much space. And they are of rather short duration.

The paper I mentioned being a scientific, public health-oriented, one does not offer specific exercise recommendations. For those of you who would be interested in more specific recommendations here are my favourite two. 

The first is the plank. One starts by assuming a position with the elbows directly beneath the shoulders and the body forming a straight line from head to heels. One must engage the core muscles and  hold this position, keeping the back flat and avoiding sagging or arching. One must remember to breathe steadily throughout the exercise. The duration should be one that challenges one's endurance, gradually increasing the time as strength improves.  Variations, such as side planks or plank with leg lifts, do also exist.

The second is the wall-sit exercise. One begins by standing with the back against the wall and the feet about shoulder-width apart. Then one lowers the body into a seated position, sliding down the wall until the knees form a 90-degree angle. One must ensure that one's back is pressed against the wall and the thighs are parallel to the ground. The position is held, engaging one's quadriceps, hamstrings, and glutes. This is an effective isometric exercise that targets the lower body, particularly the quadriceps, and helps build muscular endurance over time. For those who would like variations of the wall-sit exercise, here is a link to a page from Inspire US Foundation. (And, in case you are wondering, they also have a page on an interesting plank variation).

A proper isometric training program usually involves four two-minute contractions, separated by one- to four-minute rest intervals. Beginners should not go for such durations and should adapt the contraction times to their possibilities, increasing them progressively as they become more proficient. One sees that the plank and wall-sit set can be done in less than half an hour. Isometric training can be done three times per week and can be incorporated into a training program involving exercises of other type. 

Great news for women's decathlon

Women's decathlon was officially introduced more than 20 years ago. And, after the initial enthusiasm and two great world records, World Athletics decided to forget about it. Was that due to pressure from short-sighted heptathlon coaches? Was that due to existing heptathlon champions who, in order to win another medal, were ready to sabotage the discipline? We'll never know. It remains that the most exciting event in all athletics remained, in a blatant display of anti-feminism, a men-only affair. And all this when World Athletics was speaking about men-women parity and even pushed for the inclusion of the 50 km race-walk for women in the official program.

A few women did fight for the right to compete in the decathlon, learning to throw the discus and pole vaulting, and thus perhaps compromising their chances at the official discipline, the heptathlon. Jordan Gray has been leading this fight, with her "Let Women Decathlon" and organizing decathlon competitions. And little by little things started to change (although the epidemic did complicate the situation). 

In 2023 there have been several organisations, two of them taking place in France. And the one during the "Open de France" was a definite success. (Jordan Gray did participate but injured herself and could do no better than 7841 points). And the FFA, the French Federation of Athletics, decided to organise the first national championship of the event. It will be held in Talence (that was where Marie Collonville established the inaugural world record with 8150 points). It will be again during the Open de France in mid-July.  

That will be the first time in the world that a national champion title will awarded to a woman decathlete. Will the french initiative pave the way for more official national organisations? Will the french success, in particular, if imitated worldwide, push World Athletics towards establishing an official competition for women's decathlon? I guess we'll have to wait and see.  

Not much is known concerning the technical details. However, as it was announced that if the number of female participants is not sufficient to warrant the creation of a specific group the women will compete together with the juniors, one can conclude that the order of the events will be the "normal" one, i.e. that of the men's decathlon. (And not the utterly stupid one where the field events were contested on the opposite days than those for men, penalising thus the women decathletes).

In preparation for this new event, two members of the documentation and history commission of the french federation compiled the list of the best french feminine decathlon performances. There are 41 entries in their list with performances above 5000 points. M. Collonville is, obviously, leading this list. But what I found interesting is the first performance by Corinne Truffault who in 1994 participated in a decathlon in Germany. The funny thing was that she had to run the 110 m hurdles, with the men's 9.14 m distance between the hurdles (but, at least, with the women's height of 0.84 m). Her score of 5465 points is, by rights, the first national record in the event. It was improved the following year by A.-S. Devillier with 6888 points, then J. Mezerette in 2001 with 7470, three years before the world record of Collonville.

But the news does not stop there. During the same meeting of the Federation it was (more or less) decided to organise a women's heptathlon, (following the men's model). During a competition that is part of the World Combined Events Tour. Having a women's indoor heptathlon included in an official, World Athletics-sanctioned, competition would be a great step forwards for the women's combined events. My only reserve is that I do not like the men's heptathlon. In a recent post of mine, I explained that a pentathlon would have been the perfect indoor combined event for men. And, since the pole vault is crucial for this event, one could imagine a pentathlon formula like the one for women, with the pole vault replacing the high jump. And, apply the same formula to a new women's pentathlon, with a 1000 m replacing the 800 m. The women's heptathlon is tentatively scheduled for January. I will certainly follow the event and report here.

Who is the real winner of the first Olympic Marathon?

Warning. The subject of this post is delicate. Had a foreigner written about this, I would have found it untoward. But being Greek I consider everything Greek to be part of my inheritance and so I can question and cast doubt on what is considered one of the greatest moments of Greek athletics.

If there is a name even people who do not care at all about Athletics do know (at least in Greece) it's that of the winner of the first Olympic Marathon: Spyridon (Spyros) Louis. He appeared into the world of long-distance running out of thin air and, as soon as the Olympics were over, he disappeared, never to run again. In order to understand why I am questioning his victory, I must tell the story of the Olympic Marathon from the beginning.

As I explained in my article on the myth surrounding Pheidippides, it was Michel Bréal, a personal friend of de Coubertin, who suggested that a race from Marathon to Athens be held during the 1896 Olympics. The news spurred enthusiasm among the Greek and long-distance races started being organised ahead of the official race. On March 10th the Greek Marathon Championship took place. It served as qualifier for the Olympic Marathon scheduled for March 29th, the first six athletes being qualified for the Olympics. Ch. Vasilakos won the race in 3 hours and 17 minutes. 

Vasilakos (middle) during a training session

At this point, I must stress that the person in charge of the official Marathon was an Army major, G. Papadiamantopoulos. He was a one-person organising committee and was also in charge of the Marathon course. Now it happened that Louis had served under Papadiamantopoulos during his military service and the major remembered that his ex-recruit had a good running stamina. So he lobbied for an additional qualifying round (to be held on March 24) in which Louis would be participating. The condition for being included in the team was to finish in a time better than the one of Vasilakos. The first four finishers succeeded. Louis finished fifth with a time of 3:18:27 and was not qualified. Big discussions ensued and in the end, all six finishers of the additional race were included in the team. The rationale behind this decision was that with a large Greek team, the chances for a Greek victory were increasing. (I really don't see how adding inexperienced runners who had run a marathon just four days before the official one would increase the chances of a victory but one cannot know what Papadiamantopoulos was thinking). 

The Marathon milestone

The big day was March 29th. Four foreigner runners were taking part: E. Flack, A. Lermusiaux, A. Blake and G. Kellner. The first three were middle-distance runners without any experience in marathon-long distances. Only Kellner had a long-distance experience having run a 40 km qualifying race in Budapest. They started next to the boundary stone indicating a distance of 40 km from Athens. There were no judges along the course which was patrolled by Papadiamantopoulos soldiers on horse. 

At mid-race, Lermusiaux was leading followed by Flack, Blake, Kellner and Vasilakos. Louis was 10 minutes behind the leader. Shortly afterwards Blake dropped out. Lermusiaux could not go beyond 32 km and Flack took the lead. And then an amazing thing happened. At around km 33 Louis caught up with the leader. Flack tried to resist but ran totally out of steam and at km 37 dropped out of the race. Louis took the lead and continued with a brisk pace until he arrived at the Panathenaic stadium. Meanwhile, Papadiamantopoulos on horseback had rushed to the stadium announcing that the leader of the marathon was a Greek. Louis arrived at the stadium completing his race in 2:58:50. Vasilakos followed him in 3:06:03 with Belokas and Kellner obtaining the next positions in 3:06:30 and 3:06:35 respectively. 

All three runners arriving after Louis were astonished when they learned their relative order, all pointing out that they did not remember Louis surpassing them at any point of the race. Vasilakos was more explicit. He met Louis after the race in the changing room and told him: "I don't wish to spoil the day and disappoint those who are rejoicing. I will not file a protest. Let God be your judge". Indeed it was too late to change the result. Louis' victory was the only Greek one in Athletics and casting any doubt on it would have been a major disappointment, even if Louis were replaced by another Greek. 

McFail's book on Vasilakos and Louis

So, first, let us look at the facts. Vasilakos, an experienced runner, improved his time by some 10 minutes between March 10th and March 29th. Louis, running two marathons in four days, improved his time by 20 minutes. And not only this, but he managed to make up a 10-minute delay at mid-race. In his book, D.G. McFail (he is Greek despite the Scottish name) does not hesitate to offer the hypothesis that Louis must have run part of the race on horseback thanks to Papadiamantopoulos' troops. 

On the side of the cart is written "Sp. Louis Olympic winner"

After the Olympics Vasilakos and Belokas challenged Louis but the latter did not rise to the challenge. He never ran again. He lived the rest of his days making a living by carrying water with a cart offered to him as a reward for his victory. His last official appearance was at the 1936, Berlin, Olympics as part of the Greek delegation.

Vasilakos went on to have a career as a race-walker. (He was the one who introduced the discipline to Greece). An injury in the weeks preceding the 1906 Olympics prevented him from taking part in the Olympic Marathon.

Personally, I think that Louis has been used by Papadiamantopoulos who, fearing the victory of a foreigner, concocted a plan ensuring a Greek victory. When it became clear that the Greek athletes could prevail it was too late, the plan had been executed and there was no going back. This probably deprived Vasilakos of a well-merited title, but, alas, the 1896 Marathon history cannot be rewritten.