Showing posts with label heart rate training. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heart rate training. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Run Like A Pro: Balance Intensities Like A Pro (Part 1)

So like I was saying (lo these many months ago 😬), reading running books by your favorite authors can be a little like a religious devotee reading their religious text. They already know pretty much what's in it, they don't expect a lot of surprises, but sometimes it's good to be reminded of what you know you should be doing that you've maybe gotten a bit away from doing. So we are here to talk about where and when in Run Like A Pro I found myself feeling a bit convicted and like I needed a bit of revival.

The chapter in question is called "Balance Intensities Like A Pro," intensities being whether you're running easy, hard, or somewhere in the middle. 

If you have read 80/20 Running or any other book that discusses how runners should allocate their fast training miles vs. their easy training miles, the advice in this chapter will not come as a shock. In case you haven't, though, a quick overview.

When scientists look at the most successful endurance runners, from 3-10K track specialists to half marathon and marathon road racers, all of them seem to stick quite close to an 80/20 split--that is, 80% of their miles done at an easy, comfortable pace and 20% done at moderate and high intensities (speed work, tempo/threshold runs, etc.). 


The conclusion: "Relatively high training volume at low intensity ... was beneficial for the development of running performance at the top level" (Run Like A Pro (Even If You're Slow), pp. 66-67). The same has been found to be true for elite athletes in other endurance sports such as cross-country skiing, cycling, rowing, swimming, and triathlon.

Saturday, January 1, 2022

PRESENTS + Kaiser Permanente Half Update

Hello friends! I hope you and your loved ones are having a joyous, fulfilling holiday season and staying covid-free.

Just a quick update on my goal to complete the Kaiser Permanente Half Marathon at literally any pace. I had been starting to build back up after getting back from vacation at the end of November in hopes that my right hip/hamstring would cooperate. And, woo-hoo, it really had been! I slowly worked my way up to ~5 or so days a week of short runs and a "long" run of 6 miles. And then one day, 3.5 miles into a six-miler, my left calf seized up to the point of cramping. I tried walking it off and seeing if I could jog a block here and there (seeing as I was now 2.5 miles from home) but it only got worse. I tried again after a full week off, but I didn't even make it two miles before my calf was seizing up again.

A visit to my sports chiro revealed some weakness in my lower legs and ankles on both sides, which isn't a smoking gun exactly (it seems to me there rarely is), but it certainly isn't helping, so I've been diligently doing my calf/ankle/foot strengthening exercises over the the holiday break. And in each of the past two days, friends, I have been rewarded with a painless three-mile run through my neighborhood! (Well; three one-mile loops so as to never have to walk back more than half a mile should something feel off.)

Monday, July 9, 2018

From Scratch



OH HEY THERE RUNNING. Long time, no see.

Hi there friends! It's been a while, but these last couple of weeks I've actually gotten out on the roads & put some miles on my (frail, weak) legs.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Evolution of a Distance Runner: How I Learned to Stop Worrying & Love Going Slow

I've wanted to write this post for a while now, but it's not the kind of post you can really write while you're in the middle of multiple years of being injured & not being able to train & DNF'ing and DNS'ing. Now that I've managed to cobble together something of a reasonably successful season, though, I feel like writing it finally makes at least some kind of sense.

For the first few years of my distance running "career," I didn't own a GPS watch & didn't race, so I honestly had no idea what my pace was. If I was going on a run of x miles, I had a vague idea of what to tell people regarding when I'd be back, but I really had no concept of whether I was running 7:00 miles or 12:00 miles. I even ran my first few races watchless, and although I did get my official finishing times, they didn't really mean anything to me and it never even occurred to me to go back and calculate my pace. (I was a sprinter in school and sprinters don't really talk in terms of pace, so it wasn't part of how I thought about running.)

The first time I can remember ever thinking about pace was when I started training for the Kaiser Permanente Half Marathon in fall of 2009. I would plot out my route using MapMyRun to find the distance, run with an old-school stopwatch, then do the math afterward. Even then the number didn't mean much to me. As I recall, at that point most of my easy training runs were somewhere in the 8:30-9:00 range, depending. I honestly had no idea what kind of race goal time was reasonable, but I sort of arbitrarily decided that trying to run under 100 minutes (so 1:40) sounded nice & round & calculated that I'd need to run about 7:38-7:40/mile to do it. (I ran 1:47:10, ~8:05 pace, in case you're curious. I overdressed and went out waaaay too fast & paid for it with an utterly miserable death march down the Great Highway & Back. SO MANY LESSONS!!)


lol what even is that outfit
(also, that dude behind me tho)

Kaiser '10 was an utterly miserable experience, so naturally, I immediately turned my thoughts towards another half and getting that completely arbitrary sub-1:40. Knowing really nothing more about training for distance races than what I'd learned from Hal Higdon, I concluded that duh, obviously, if you want to race fast, you darn well better start training faster. (Though to be fair to Hal, I should probably point out that he never said this. It just seemed obvious to me.)

I trained and trained and trained kinda sorta in retrospect really not that hard at all but it felt like a lot at the time, did get a good bit faster, watched my PRs drop like flies, nailed that elusive sub-1:40 no less than three times, and by summer 2014 was running my "easy" runs in the 8:00-8:15 range (basically, my goal marathon race pace). Some friends started calling me fast and comments admiring my speedy training paces occasionally dotted my Strava feed.

In a way I felt super baller but in other ways I was frustrated. I was mostly happy with my performance in shorter races, but never seemed to be able to translate those times into the marathon times on the same row in the pace chart (or even remotely close). Positive marathon splits were par for the course. Long runs made me feel like death, so I found excuses not to run so many (or didn't fight too hard to find the time), and every time I tried to sneak my average weekly mileage above the 40 mark for too long, I ended up hurt (whether shin splints or tendinitis or something a lot worse like a stress fracture or torn muscle).

In retrospect, it's hard to remember where or when I started to see or hear more about the wisdom of slowing down. Or, maybe it was always out there and I just didn't want to believe it. "That's not me, I can legitimately run those paces, not like people who try to race every workout." "Oh, those guidelines don't apply to me in the same way; I have a naturally high max heart rate." "No, really; this IS easy pace for me." It makes me cringe a little now but I remember a co-worker on my Ragnar(ish) team asking if I thought I could manage 10:00 miles and I swear to god I sniffed a little & said something about how if at any point I were running 10:00 miles it was because I had a broken leg.

{"Wow, you were a snooty bitch." Yes, but an OBLIVIOUS snooty bitch! That's better, right? No?}

So it's sort of fine and good to be snooty and hoity toity about how fast you run your training runs until you suddenly realize it's been nearly two years since you've run anything like a PR or even managed to string together a single successful training cycle. At that point you kind of have to take a hard look at what you're doing & ask if maybe, just maybe, it isn't all dumb luck and maybe all these experts and coaches and people who actually do this for a living know what they're talking about when they say things like "80% of competitive recreational runners are sabotaging their races by doing training runs too fast."

Probably one clue that this whole "go-slow-to-go-fast" deal wasn't complete bullshit was the sheer number of running/endurance sport experts out there recommending it. People talk about it different ways and the exact recommendations vary depending on who you're reading ("You should run xx% of heart rate reserve" "You should run x minutes per mile slower than your marathon race pace" "You should run easy enough that you can carry on a conversation in complete sentences") but the basic concept showed up over and over and over again. It's one thing if it's one fringe dude saying people should do something that sounds counter-intuitive, but when it's the majority of them, you should probably at least check it out and make an effort to make sense of the science.

So between fall 2014 and spring 2015, I decided I didn't have a whole lot left to lose & dove in.

I dug out my heart rate monitor and calculated my heart rate reserve. I took all the 'pace' fields off my watch, and for months and months and months did nothing but run for time, based on nothing but my heart rate and effort level. The recommendations, at first, seemed ludicrous--"There is no way I can run 10:30 miles for my easy runs, that's barely a shuffle." "OMG there is no way I can do easy runs at 142 bpm, that's like fast walking."--but then I'd think to myself, "Yeah, maybe, but what you're doing now doesn't really seem to be working, sooooo...????"


ca. 2011, ie, the bad old days of chest strap heart rate monitors

And little by little, it got easier. I discovered that yes, 10:00-10:30 pace was actually still running. And, what's more, if I wanted to keep my heart rate in the right range, I actually had to run more like 11:00 miles at first. o.O

(Then again, Phil Maffetone describes working with relatively fast runners whose aerobic base fitness was so bad that they had to actually start with walking fast in order to stay out of the anaerobic zone; at least things weren't that bad for me!)

A couple months back Cat gave me her copy of 80/20 Running by Matt Fitzgerald. I'd first learned about the book long after I was already sold on slowing down so had never sought it out, but decided I might as well give it a read. It was a lot of stuff I already knew, but also a ton more that I didn't!

Two bits I found particularly intriguing were:

    1) If you ask a bunch of "recreationally serious" runners to run at their normal, comfortable training pace and then rate their level of effort on the Borg Scale (which goes from 6-20 for a dumb reason), the overwhelming majority will rate their level of effort right around 13, which the Borg Scale calls "somewhat hard."

    2) If you ask just about any runner to run for a while at a comfortable pace with no access to GPS or other pace/speed information, they'll almost always end up running at about the same pace, AND if you explicitly ask them to start out slower, they'll still gravitate back toward their usual pace, whatever it is.

Ie, we are incredible creatures of habit, and we very quickly come to perceive our usual level of effort as "comfortable," even if when asked we describe that effort level as "somewhat hard."

Thinking back on my own experience, this wasn't at all surprising. Going from running 8:00-8:30 miles on my easy days to running 11:00s felt like crawling, and if I didn't pay close attention to my heart rate, I would very quickly find myself gravitating back towards those low 8:00's while my heart rate climbed through the roof.

Now, this is the part where people will often say things like "But you have to train fast to race fast!" and "Your body does what you train it to do!" and "You have to make your race pace feel normal!" and start yelling about the Specificity Principle. I know, friends. These things felt truthy to me too, once. And the reason they feel truthy is because they all do contain some element of truth. But not necessarily the way our brains intuitively want to apply them.

I won't repeat all the science here because many, many people who are actually experts in this stuff have already explained it far better than I can and I'm sure you know how to use Google. The bottom line is that there is science, quite a lot of it. When you're a relatively new runner (say in your first few years of actually putting some consistent work into it), it's easy to get faster. Most of us have so much room for improvement in so many areas that literally any amount or kind of running is going to make us faster. But once you've picked a lot of that low-hanging fruit, it's not uncommon for recreational runners to find ourselves plateauing. Then what?

Thanks to science, we do know for a fact now that running mostly slow, probably way slower than you think, makes you race faster at just about every distance. There are piles and piles and piles of evidence to prove it, both on the biology side and the real-world results side. The more reading I did, the more I believed that if you train mostly at 8:00-8:10 pace and then manage to race a marathon at 8:00-8:10 pace, you are likely cheating yourself out of a significantly faster race time.

So, I dutifully ran my 11:00(+) miles and worked hard to get my heart rate to stay down in the 140s.

And after a few weeks, a funny thing started to happen. Instead of feeling like I was crawling, running 2-3 minutes per mile slower started to feel...normal. At first you might be tempted to think that indicates I was losing fitness, but my heart rate data disagreed. Whereas my early runs in the 10:30-11:00 range often resulted in an average heart rate in the 160s, I was soon running that pace in the 150s, then the 140s. And then I started to be able to keep my heart rate in the 140s, but run just a little faster.

Something else happened, too.

Back in 2012, I wrote a post entitled "A Confession," which included gems like the following:

    "Friends, I do not enjoy the act of running.

    I don't. It's not fun. I do not find it enjoyable. Most of the time, it's a chore I pretty much have to force myself to do. Nine times out of ten, I would SOOOO prefer to sit on the couch and read or watch X-Files reruns or--gasp--get some extra work done.

    And really, can you blame me? It's physically uncomfortable. You have to breathe hard. You sweat. Your various little aches & pains get going. It's hot sometimes. Or cold. Or it's raining. Or you have afternoon brain coma. This is why I find it funny when someone is like, "Oh, I wish I was a runner, but I just REALLY HATE running." Well no shit, Sherlock! I want to tell them. Of course you hate running. Most of us do. It kind of sucks.

    Of course, I understand that some people really do enjoy the actual act of running. I think I'm friends with a lot of them! And I'm super jealous of those folks. I mean, yes, very occasionally I do enjoy it, if I'm feeling really good and the weather's nice, or if I haven't been able to run for a few days, for example. But most of the time, I can only dream of mustering the same enthusiasm for my runs as I do for a lazy afternoon Dr. Who."

Oh.

My.

God.

These days, those words kind of make me cringe in a combination of horror and pity. If a runner friend were to tell me something like now, I'd immediately be like "Then Christ, girl, give it up already & go do literally anything else! Learn to paint or some shit." I don't even recognize that person now, and that's a good thing.

Do you want to know what changed?

I stopped trying to do my "easy" runs at goal marathon pace or just-slightly-slower-than-GMP. I made myself go slow, until slow felt easy and comfortable and--GASP, you guessed it--actually pleasant.

    "It may seem odd that runners do not naturally choose to train at an intensity that feels more comfortable. The reason, I believe, is that humans are naturally task oriented. When we have a job to do, we want to get it done. Of course a twenty-minute workout is a twenty-minute workout, regardless of how fast you go. But humans evolved long before clocks existed, so we think in terms of covering distance rather than in terms of filling time even when we are on the clock." -80/20 Running, p. 16

    "Runners typically are not aware they are working somewhat hard when running at their habitual pace until they are asked to rate their effort. As a coach, I know that if I tell a runner to run a certain distance at an 'easy' pace, it is very likely the runner will complete the run at her habitual pace, which is likely to fall in the moderate-intensity range. And if I ask the runner afterward if she ran easy as instructed, she will say that she did. In short, most runners think they are running easy (at low intensity) when in fact they are running "somewhat hard" (at moderate intensity." -p. 17

Some other things that happened:

  • I could mentally handle more miles because I didn't hate it.
  • I could physically handle more because I got hurt less (except for the time I tried to do three 20+ milers in three weeks after only about five weeks of running ~30 mpw & got a stress fracture because SMART LIKE THAT).
  • I went from 8:00 pace requiring a heart rate of 190+ bpm to it requiring about 180 bpm.
  • My running economy went through the roof.
  • I ran a marathon just for fun at 8:50 pace and it wasn't even hard (5 months of going slow).
  • I ran a marathon at 8:04 pace, it was the easiest 26.2 I'd ever run, and I finished feeling like I could have run at least 2-3 minutes faster (2 years of going slow).


Running economy, CIM 2016 training (June through November)

Now, let me be very clear--I did not give up speed and tempo work, except for that initial 6 month hardcore base-building period, which I needed to do because my aerobic fitness was so underdeveloped as compared to my ability to run short and fast and hard. But since then, my training plans have pretty much followed the traditional thing where you have one speed workout and one tempo workout per week. (That would be the "20" in "80/20" philosophy.) The difference is that if I'm not doing a workout, I am taking it really, really easy.

I learned a few other interesting things from 80/20 Running as well. For example, I've known for a while that VO2 max, while an important factor in endurance performance, has a relatively low ceiling. But I did not know that many highly competitive runners (say, top college runners or emerging elites) max out their VO2 max with just a few years of serious training. Paula Radcliffe, for example, reached her lifetime best VO2 max just two years into her college running career, yet she continued to run faster and faster for many years afterward by improving her running economy.

Running economy seems to be mostly connected to sheer training volume, though the exact mechanism is still not 100% understood. Mostly likely it's a number of things, including the following:

  • Cardiovascular improvements. This is the part I already knew a good bit about (and I'm sure most others do too). The more miles you run, the more and larger mitochondria you grow, the more red blood cells you grow, the more your blood plasma & overall blood volume increase, the more your body learns to metabolize fat more than carbs, etc. What a lot of people don't realize, I think, is that these benefits come from bathing your cells in lots of oxygen and not much lactic acid, which means mostly zone 2 (ie, 60-70% of your max heart rate, which probably means ~2-3 minutes slower per mile than your marathon race pace).
  • Neuromuscular improvements. Basically, your brain just gets better and better at figuring out the most economic way for your body to run--literally practice, practice, practice. The more you do it, the better you get. (This is also where sleep comes in. You don't reap even close to the full benefit of neuromuscular adaptations unless you're consistently sleeping 8+ hours a night. For more on this google sleep spindles.)
  • Increased fatigue resistance. This part seems to have both physical and psychological components, but one of the major players seems to be a cell signalling compound called IL-6. IL-6 is generated by muscle cells and contributes to fatigue. However, the release of large amount of IL-6 also seems to trigger the body to release less IL-6 in future workouts, thereby kind of "fatigue-proofing" itself. And how do you generate IL-6? By depleting your glycogen. And what is best for that? Hours and hours and hours on your feet. And since running faster puts more stress on your body parts, and IL-6 release is affected by time and not intensity, the best way to maximize this benefit is through lots and lots and lots of super easy miles.

So, yeah. Like I said; the science is out there & you can certainly find plenty to read simply by googling. But if you're the type of person who is more interested in personal experience, I am here to tell you that no, running your non-workout days at goal race pace or close to it will not make you race faster in the long-term, and no, slowing your easy days way, way down will not cause you to lose fitness or make it harder to run fast. Living proof, right here.

Monday, November 7, 2016

CIM WEEK 14 of 18: Fun mileage facts & some HR wonkiness.


With these 50 miles, I've now officially run more miles training for this marathon (594.55) than I have in the 18 weeks leading up to any previous race. Looking back at old training logs, my previous high was 566.4 (NVM 2015), and although I ran that race comfortably and not for time, it suddenly makes a lot of sense why those 26+ miles felt so easy and how I felt better afterward than any other marathon I've ever run.

It was a little surprising to me because apparently I've had a false idea in my head of how hard I'd trained for various marathons in the past. With the exception of doing more/longer long runs, I didn't think I'd been running all that much more this time around than I had before. False!

Saturday, August 20, 2016

How to tell if your base training is working.

All you need is a GPS watch (or a stop watch & a course whose distance you know) and a heart rate monitor that records data!

I think most of us would agree that endurance athletes tend to have a certain temperament, part of which is the ability to make a long-term commitment to consistently do incremental, sometimes-boring, not-necessarily-gratifying work on a day-to-day basis without much in the way of immediate feedback. Like, if you're the type of person who needs to see progress on a daily or even weekly basis, you probably won't find endurance sports very satisfying.

For the most part, I do okay with the day-to-day grunt work. I'm mostly fine with delaying gratification, but it is still nice to see some evidence that the work you're doing is accomplishing something. I get this urge even more when I'm doing nothing but slow, easy runs, I suppose because it can get soooo monotonous.

Anyway, if you come here often, you probably know that this summer has been a VERITABLE THREE-RING CIRCUS of aerobic base training up in here. Garmins! Heart rate monitors! Maaaaaaaybe breaking marathon pace + 1:30 going downhill with a tailwind!


Settle down, y'all.

I'm not going to completely rehash the whole "Why aerobic base training?" schpiel here, but you can check out the following posts if you want to read more.

Because numbers are my favorite (also because I enjoy a little validation as much as the next gal), I've been collecting data on my runs this summer & putting it all into a nifty little Excel table, plotting the date on the x-axis and my running economy (or, really, a decent proxy thereof) on the y-axis. (Units = miles per heart beat. Technically speaking running economy is about oxygen consumption, but heart rate is a pretty good indicator of that and is much easier to measure directly.)

So, after 9 weeks, what have we got?

(See this post for information on my methodology/math.)

Not bad, eh?

As you can see, the data jumps around a lot from day to day and even week to week because there are so many factors that can affect your pace & heart rate on a given day (weather, sleep, stress, medications, general fatigue, GPS issues, HRM accuracy, etc.). Because of this, you need rather a lot of data points before you can see the trend clearly.

BUT, after 9 weeks, there is a clear trend. We can have Excel calculate & plot the line of best fit (which you can see running through the data points.) Much, much cooler, though, is the fact that we can also have it calculate the variance (the number labeled R2). What is variance? Basically, it tells you what percent of the trend the x variable is responsible for. In the data above, R2 ≈ .33, which tells us that the x value (the date, ie, how many days of base training I've done) is responsible for about 33% of the variation. That means all those other things (weather/sleep/stress/GPS/HRM accuracy/etc.) account for about 67% of it.

Essentially, this is telling us that about a third of how efficiently I've run on any given day has been a result of how far into the training I am (and also that there is a lot of noise caused by other factors--weather, device accuracy, sleep, stress levels, etc.).

Now, we can't automatically assume all of that 33% is due to base training, because there are some other things connected to the passage of time besides how much base training I've done. For example, how many days of strength training I've done, or the fact that I have gradually been losing a little weight these last few weeks as my mileage has picked back up. If I wanted to be SUPER rigorous I'd have to control for all those things (which is a little impractical if you're just a normal person training to do your best at a race).

Obviously I expect to still continue getting faster as I add in speed & tempo work due to improving my VO2 max & lactate threshold, but I am curious to keep tracking this data for my easy runs to see if my running economy continues to improve between now & CIM, or if it levels off.

Want to track your own running economy (or proxy thereof)? I have a spreadsheet with all the formulas already set up which I'm happy to share with anyone who's interested. Just let me know.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

How I'm Spending My Summer Vacation.

I know technically we still have like another month to go, but for some reason I feel like the Eugene Marathon sort of ushered in summer, maybe because afterward I had a bit of that WEEEEE EXAMS ARE DONE TIME TO CHILL!!! vibe.

And, I have been taking full advantage of it. I took a week off from running (though I did go to karate & do some climbing) and have been getting to all kinds of procrastinated tasks in the afternoons when I'd normally be running. Behold, my car is smog tested & legally registered, my luscious locks no longer make me look like a sheep dog when not tied back, and I once again have professional office lady shoes that are not literally falling apart.


#lusciouslocks ca.2001

We've also had a few weekends recently where we didn't have to get up early or be anywhere specific, and as a result our floors are shiny, our toilets are spotless, and our friends have been well fed on 10 year old cab & 90-day dry-aged sous vide ribeyes.


#sousvide


Basically, perfection.

(Related: Dinner parties are good for floor mopping and toilet cleaning.)

Running-wise, I'm now up to a brisk 4 miles per day, more or less, and feeling pretty darn good. My next big training cycle will be CIM in December (and Folsom Breakout Blues Half in mid-October) which I'll probably start training for in earnest sometime in August. So what's going on between now & then?

  • Danville 10K on 5/28. I kind of forgot that I signed up for this! I think trying to actually race it less than a month after a marathon is probably incredibly stupid, but it sounds like maybe I will try to pace my lovely friend Cat to a PR???? I have little experience as a pacer but maybe she will let me hang on for the ride.
  • Ireland 6/1-6/14. This all happened kind of suddenly & I don't know all the details, but I have been told there will be amazing food and lots of beer & whiskey and really what more does one need to know. #sláinte
  • Jungle Run Half on 7/16. Again, not actually racing, but I have a deferral from last year so what the hell. (Also it's in Los Gatos in July meaning temps will probably be in the 90s so major race goals include not passing out/dying.)
  • Another round of base-building, y'all. Honestly, I doubt I'll even follow a real schedule; my only goal is to log a metric butt load of really slow, easy miles.

Apologies if you've read the aerobic base training schpiel before, but ever since I spent fall 2014 & spring 2015 doing almost nothing but running lots of easy miles and collecting data on it, I'm a believer. I mean, I understood the principle in theory, but it's a whole other thing (for me, at least) to use my own body as a guinea pig & watch the hard evidence pile up.

Basically, when it comes to distance running (or any endurance sport), your body works like a combustion engine, and the two things that determine how fast you'll be are 1) power and 2) efficiency.

(Okay fine, there's also a third thing, but it doesn't really fit into the engine metaphor, so I'm leaving it out for now.)

Power is about how quickly the engine can process fuel. A car with a big 5 liter engine will be more powerful than a similar-sized car with a small 2 liter engine, because when you hit the accelerator, it can combust over twice as much fuel in the same amount of time. In endurance sports, the "size of your engine" is your VO2max. If you have a big engine, your body is able to burn a high volume (that's the V) of oxygen (that's the O2) very quickly. (The "max" just refers to whatever that fastest rate your body is capable of at all-out effort, which is how it's measured.) The most effective way to increase the size of your engine/VO2 max is through speed work.

Efficiency is about how much forward motion you get out of each bit of fuel. A sedan that gets 30 miles to the gallon is obviously more fuel efficient than an SUV that gets 15. In endurance running, this is called running economy--how much of the oxygen that you burn gets converted into forward motion. If you can go very far on a little oxygen, you are obviously more "fuel efficient" than someone who can't go very far on that same amount of oxygen, or who needs to burn more oxygen to go the same distance. The most effective way to increase your fuel efficiency/running economy is through lots and lots of easy running (aerobic base training).

Now obviously the fastest people are both very efficient AND have big engines. And when you're actively training for something, you need a healthy mix of easy miles as well as faster running. But, a very very (very) common problem among semi-serious recreational runners is focusing too much on speed work & growing that giant-ass engine and ignoring its efficiency. Which, as I understand the science, is a great way to not make much progress in the long term.

So yeah. In fall 2014/spring 2015 I decided to bite the bullet & do almost nothing but base train. It had been a very long time since I'd devoted any real attention to it, and because I was sure it would be the most boring six months imaginable I decided to collect some data and see if I could actually detect changes in my running economy.

You can read about my methodology here, but these were my results from September 2014 (when I was already in what I considered pretty decent marathon shape) through February 2015:

(r2=.39 for all you stats nerds out there, i.e., damn significant.)

The vertical units are "miles per heartbeat," ie, higher = more efficient/better running economy. Weeks and weeks of nothing but slow, easy running may not sound sexy, but it effing works.

Sadly, in February 2015 I left my HRM charger in a hotel room in San Diego and they never found it. BUT! In January of this year I ponied up for a Forerunner 235, which has a heart rate monitor built in. The upside is that that means I get heart rate data automatically every time I run with my watch with zero effort. The downside is that apparently sometime after March 13 my watch deleted all its data and that was the last day I'd synced with Garmin Connect.

ANYHOO, I was curious to see just how poorly my current running economy compared to that little experiment in 2014/2015, so I added the data to the same graph:

Side-by-side:

When we do graphs in math we ask kids to make "summary statements," ie, what conclusions can you draw by looking at the graph. My summary statements for the right-hand (Jan-Mar 2016) graph are:

  • Probably this is not enough points to draw meaningful conclusions from. (We have formulas for this in statistics & I did not do them, but r2=.02, ie probably not very significant.) That said...
  • I maybe wasn't starting from *quite* as bad a place efficiency wise this January as I was in Aug/Sept 2014.
  • Kinda-sorta marathon training these past months might have improved my running economy by a tiny amount.
  • I'm *maybe* kind of in the neighborhood of where I was in say October 2014.

So. Now that I've got a working HRM again, I'm planning to kind of run the same experiment this summer--collecting data & seeing what happens.

(Gotta stave off the boredom somehow, eh?)

STAY TUNED FOR RIVETING UPDATES!!!!

Sunday, February 8, 2015

Holy smokes, the base-building is **still working**

Firstly: We are just not even discussing this new study that says running kills you, except to point out that 1) the study design is incredibly biased and 2) the statistical methods used are as we say in the biz hella sketch. Alex Hutchinson tells you more here. The End.

Moving on.

For anyone who missed it, back in September I decided to multi-task by letting my somewhat busted right hip/leg recover while also getting back to super slow, low-heart rate base training. The plan was to do nothing but sloooooow easy miles for eight weeks, then add in one goal marathon pace run per week.

This meant I went from running my easy and long runs in the 8:15-8:30 range to doing them in the 10:00-11:00 range. Which kind of might sound like a bummer, but once I adjusted to the slower pace, it was actually really nice and relaxing after a summer of marathon training.

Quick recap from this post on how base training helps make you faster:

    You can google all the biochemical details of how & why it works, but basically, when you spend hours and hours and hours each week bathing your cells in oxygen at a nice, easy effort level, a couple of things happen:
      1) Your heart becomes more efficient at pumping blood. That is, you improve your "stroke volume"--how much blood your heart pumps out with each beat or "stroke." Stroke volume is important because the aerobic system relies on oxygen, so greater stroke volume = more oxygen delivered to cells more quickly with less work by your heart.

      2) Your body becomes more efficient at using the oxygen you breathe in. That is, you improve your "running economy"--converting the same amount of oxygen into more forward motion. Part of this has to do with delivering more oxygen more quickly (more red blood cells, more myoglobin, etc.) and part of it has to do with cells using the oxygen they get more efficiently (more and bigger mitochondria, more enzymes for metabolizing fat efficiently, etc.)

    When you improve both of these things, the result is generating more forward motion with fewer heartbeats. So it seemed to me that the question I should be asking here is, How much forward motion am I generating per heartbeat?

So I collected my pace & heart rate data, graphed it, & at the end of eight weeks, my "miles per beat" had done this:

Base building: It may not be sexy, but it's got teeth.

I mean the trend here really shouldn't be all that unexpected; that's how training is supposed to work, right? Still, I was pretty pumped to see objective mathematical evidence.

After that I started doing one run a week at goal marathon pace (usually a two mile easy warm-up, six miles at goal marathon pace--around 8:00/mile--and a two mile easy cool down). I wasn't sure what would happen to my "miles per beat" numbers after that, and here is why.

In the course of reading about base training and speed work and the whole idea of periodization, I came across this article from Running Times, which explained the following:

    DON'T SABOTAGE YOUR BASE BUILDING. Arthur Lydiard learned this more than 50 years ago. Too much speed work in your base phase will interrupt your fitness development. Olympic bronze medalist Lorraine Moller, whose training was Lydiard-based, says that in the era of New Zealand track domination, "Going to the track to do speed work during the base phase was considered the height of folly and something only the ignorant would do."

    ...

    Peter Snell, exercise physiologist and Lydiard's most famous runner, explains that the enzymes within the mitochondria operate at an optimal acidity (or pH) level. High-intensity exercise, however, causes significant and repeated high levels of lactic acid (and thus decreased pH) in the muscle cell. Given too much intensity, the environment within the cell becomes overly acidic and the enzymes can become damaged. Snell says that the increased acidity is also harmful to the membranes of the mitochondria, and it takes additional recovery time to allow the membranes to heal.

    Given this damaging effect, large and frequent increases in lactic acid during a period when you're building your aerobic energy system (mitochondria and aerobic enzymes) are a big no-no.

So yeah, marathon pace is below LT pace, so it shouldn't do too much damage. Then again, right now, 8:00 miles are still GOAL marathon pace, not actual marathon pace, and during a normal week of training, they sure start to feel kind of hard by mile five or six. So I've been maybe a touch paranoid.

I haven't been tracking & recording my paces & average heart rate quite as assiduously since those first eight weeks, but I've recorded some numbers, and truth be told had been kind of avoiding plugging them into Excel because I didn't want to see that they'd plateaued or, worse, started to droop back down. So, after an extremely wet and windy run on Friday afternoon, I decided to finally just bite the bullet, for better or worse.

Behold:

Twenty weeks and still going.

There are a few interesting features to point out on this graph. First, that super low dot just a couple of weeks ago? One of my unhappiest sick/asthma days. And the two far and away highest ones (Oct. 31 & Feb. 6)? Both warmish, windy, and pouring rain.

I know that I tend to run significantly worse in warm weather (above 65 or 70) and that my fastest runs have been in cold-but-not-TOO-cold temps (mid-to-high 40s, say), but I've never particularly noticed any trend related to rain. I have been scouring the internet to see if there could be some physiological reason for it, but so far, nothing. I mean I could understand it if they'd been cool rains, but both days were mid sixties-ish.

(That Halloween run was particularly freakish. It was nearly three months--three months!--before I ran that efficiently again.)

The question at this point is when to start doing real speed work again, & what kind. After NVM on March 1, my goal race (Santa Rosa) will still be nearly six months away, which is way too long to do real speed work for. I need to figure out how many weeks will be just enough to let me "peak" without messing up my hard-won aerobic system too much. RunCoach is great at prescribing workouts on a day-to-day and week-to-week basis once you're really gunning for a goal race, but they're not so much with the periodization, so that is something I will probably have to get some additional advice about.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Gear Review: Mio Link "Strapless" Heart Rate Monitor

One way you can tell I am not a professional blogger is that I am posting this review now, rather than, say, a month before the holidays as a "Great Gift for the Runner In Your Life!"

(Newsflash: You are the runner in your life. Does anybody actually go "WELL THANK GOD FOR THIS LIST, I HAD NO IDEA WHAT TO GET ALL THOSE RUNNER CLOSE FRIENDS/FAMILY MEMBERS THAT I TOTALLY NEED TO BUY GIFTS FOR"? I have serious doubts.)

I think it's a great product, though, so now that I've used it pretty consistently for several months, I figured I might as well share my thoughts.








As I've mentioned before, I gave up on wearing the chest strap with any regularity a couple of years ago because of the bloody, mutilated patch of skin it inevitably left on my chest. (I'm pretty sure I have permanent scars, actually.)


ca. 2011. Yes, it did actually get this bad.

I found heart rate-based training incredibly useful, though (you can read more about the hows and whys in this post), & tried going back to it with the Garmin soft strap early last summer. Alas, it turns out there is no strap in the world soft enough to make wearing the thing every day bearable. So after reading a few favorable reviews of the Mio, which uses a wrist strap instead, I decided to give it a shot.

The first thing to know is that Mio makes two different HR monitors -- the Link 56P-GRY, and the Alpha I. The link is just a strap with a sensor that connects via ANT+ to a device (GPS watch, phone, etc.), whereas the Alpha I is a self-contained monitor that displays your HR on a screen. I wanted mine to sync to my Garmin so I got the Link.

The monitor itself is a small, plastic pod with LED sensors on the underside.

You slip the monitor into a pocket on the rubber strap, buckle it snugly around your wrist, turn it on, have your device scan for it, & boom, there's your heart rate.

When you're done, just pop out the plastic pod & plop it on the charger.

(FYI, mine did not come with a plug adapter. The charger is USB, but for me it was simpler to just stick the USB into the adapter so I could plug it into a normal outlet.)

The only physical feature of note on the Link is the little LED light on the side that turns turquoise when it's charging & when you first turn it off. You can also program it to flash different colors for up to five different heart rate zones (green through red), but I've never bothered with this since seeing the number is good enough for me. (This means mine flashes all kinds of crazy colors all the time & I have no idea what any of it means & just ignore it.)

Over the last few months I've gotten a few questions about it from folks who are thinking about buying one (or just curious); my answers are more or less compiled below.

Q: How does it work?

A: The Mio is an optical heart rate monitor, meaning it uses LED light sensors, a fundamentally different technology than the electromagnetic sensors used in chest straps and hospital EKGs.

The LEDs are not actually that blinding; my shitty phone camera just didn't deal with them particularly well. Here is another focused on the LEDs, which is closer to what they actually look like:

According to this CNET article, "Unlike chest strap heart rate monitors -- which closely emulate a real EKG machine by measuring electrical pulse -- these devices use light to track your blood. By illuminating your capillaries with an LED, a sensor adjacent to the light measures the frequency at which your blood pumps past (aka your heart rate). Moments later, you've got a BPM (beats per minute) reading." This is why you need a tight seal against your skin for the Mio to work--any outside light will interfere with the LED sensors. It doesn't need to be boa constrictor tight, but it does need to be snug.

Q: Is it comfortable?

A: I don't even notice it when I'm running and kind of forget it's there, so yes. Like I said, in order to function properly the LED sensors do have to be right up against your skin so it does need to be buckled snugly, but it shouldn't be so tight it's uncomfortable. (See the pic above with my watch.)

Q: How accurate is it compared to a chest strap?

A: According to the Mio website, it reports "EKG-accurate heart rate data at performance speeds." The details of the technology were a little fuzzy to me, so I looked into it a little more. As the CNET article above explained, the technology is different from that used in chest straps, which, like an EKG, use electromagnetic sensors to actually pick up the electrical signal that tells your heart to beat, not the beat itself.

Because optical sensors pick up capillary blood volume (essentially measuring pulse), prior generation optical HR monitors have not been as reliable as chest straps or EKGs, and can become wildly inaccurate if the wearer is not completely still (making them rather impractical for athletes). The CNET article tested several wrist and fingertip monitors, including some specifically marketed for use during athletic activity, and indeed found some serious discrepancies (up to 10% in some cases), whereas the chest strap models tended to be dead-on & match a medical EKG machine exactly. (The fingertip monitors were pretty close as well, though.)

This, however, is where Mio comes in. The problem they've solved isn't optically measuring heart rate accurately; it's optimizing that technology to deal with the jostling and jarring of athletic activity. The technology itself apparently comes from Philips Medical & is exclusively licensed to Mio, so it would make sense that they'd have a significant advantage over other wrist straps in terms of accuracy on someone who is moving around a lot.

Of course the only way to empirically answer the question of whether the Mio is as accurate as a chest strap is to wear both at the same time & look at what the numbers do. And lucky you! DC Rainmaker did just that and found the two to be in near perfect agreement. Indeed, the numbers I've seen on mine are very much in line with what I used to see with the chest strap, even at faster paces (though I haven't done any speed work with it yet), and although I've read that a few people have occasionally experienced brief lags or drops in the signal, I haven't had any of those issues.

Q: Is it compatible with my [x device]?

A: As far as I can tell, it seems to be compatible with just about everything in existence--iThings of every ilk, Google Nexus 4/5, Android Jelly Bean or higher, & a whole slew of GPS watches & other training devices. I've only used mine with my Garmin FR 310XT, but it's been great. In four months I haven't noticed any lags, spikes, or drops of any kind.

Q: Battery life?

A: The site says it will last 8-10 hours on one charge. For the most part I tend to plop it back down in the charger after every run out of habit, just like my watch, but when we went to Spokane for Thanksgiving, I forgot to bring the charger & it lasted the whole week (~7 hours of use, maybe?) with no problem.

Q: Cost?

A: The Link retails for $99 right now, I think, though I got mine refurbished on Amazon for ~$75ish & have been completely happy with it. There are some pieces of running gear where I have to question whether it's worth the cost, but for me, being able to use a heart rate monitor every day in complete comfort has absolutely been worth it.

So really, it just kind of comes down to whether you want to train with a heart rate monitor and what it's worth to you. If the answer is yes and you've been thinking about it for a while and $80 or so is not going to break your budget (think of it as a race entry, more or less), I can't recommend the Mio Link more highly.

Friday, December 19, 2014

The Data: Encouraging, Yet Confounding

By now you all know I'm obsessed with data, right? If something can be measured and tracked, by god I will measure & track it.

This week, I was scheduled to move up to six GMP miles in a row from five miles, with a two mile warm up and a two mile cool down. My memory of the five GMP miles I did last week was, yeah, it was hard, but not insanely hard, and once I settled into the pace, actually felt good. So I was optimistic going into this run.

I'd also decided that since I'd established that I can run at ~8:00 pace at an acceptable heart rate (ie, under 180) to just start doing these miles by pace, with instantaneous & lap average pace up on my Garmin instead of heart rate. Mainly, this is because when I first started adding in GMP miles a few weeks ago, my goal was, "Just keep it below 180 bpm," but lately that's been resulting in paces in the 7:40-7:50 range. Which, don't get me wrong, is super sweet--that's getting close to my PR half marathon pace, which in the past has required heart rates in the 190s. On the other hand, the whole point of these miles is to practice 8:00 pace, so I don't really want to be running too much faster than that right now. (For all my easy & long runs, I'm still looking only at heart rate & never at pace except for the splits my watch spits out.)

Ten miles total is a convenient distance for me because it means I can do two easy warm-up miles, which gets me mostly out of the start-and-stop world of traffic lights & narrow sidewalks, then run six miles mostly through the eastern half of Golden Gate Park (few lights, wider sidewalks, water fountains), & then finally finish with the same two-mile warm-up stretch in reverse, which spits me out pretty much right back at home. The six miles in the park are mostly gently rolling, with a few shorter, steeper hills, which is a reasonable imitation of what you get at NVM & SRM. Because it's a loop all the ups & downs wash out, and I can be pretty sure that whatever I'm doing in terms of pace & heart rate & all that is a pretty good indicator of what I'd be able to do on that kind of course in general.

I am not even going to lie; this run did not feel great while I was doing it. I was supposed to do it Tuesday but it was pouring rain again, so I switched it with my easy day since Thursday was supposed to be (and was) dry. It didn't feel awful, but I kept getting weird twinges in my shin bones, and I kept thinking I was feeling some grumbling in my right quad/hip/adductor (the problematic one). I never really settled into that nice, "on," crack-like feeling I had on last week's GMP run.

Also, keeping that 8:00 pace just felt a lot harder than I thought I remembered it feeling last week. I kept thinking, "I shouldn't be breathing hard. If I'm breathing hard I should slow down. If I'm working this hard my heart rate's GOT to be above 180. This is like running a 10K." Which, okay, no. It wasn't. Half marathon, more likely. (It's just been so long since I raced a half marathon all-out that I've forgotten how hard that actually feels.)

On the flats & downhills I tried to stay right at 8:00, and by the way having not looked at it for so long, I'd forgotten how instantaneous pace can totally play mind games with you (7:42? 8:18? 7:50? 8:40? 7:30? WHO KNOWS REALLY) & you really have to pay more attention to lap average (or at the very least, process the two together). I kept forcing myself to ease up on the hills, reminding myself that even in a perfectly executed marathon, I should be running those in the 8:15-8:30 range if my goal is to average 8:00 overall. And that was particularly hard, for some reason; both my brain & my body really just wanted to charge right up & get them over with.

I finished the run feeling sort of, "Well, that was whatever it was," but not really thinking it had been all that great. I didn't have any time afterward to download & dissect the data, and in fact it was a full 24 hours before I had time to sit down and actually look at it. Here's what it showed:

I'm very very far from a professional kinesiologist, but I've done my best to educate myself so that when I look back at my own data, I can make sense of the story my body is telling me. Since you don't live in my body & haven't spent years trying to understand the numbers that come out of it, let me interpret as best as I can.

Back when I was training with a heart rate monitor somewhat consistently, I usually did my marathon pace workouts (8:00-8:10ish) in the 175-190 bpm range, depending on how long they were & what else I had done that week & how fit I was & what have you. So to do a GMP workout at 8:05 pace with an average heart rate of 169 is kind of unexpected & awesome--I have never been able to run that fast at that low a heart rate, and while it's obviously a study with one participant and no controls, I'm pretty inclined to chock that up to low heart rate base training.

Obviously I have a long way to go before I can hold this pace for 26 miles, but back in 2011 in my first marathon when my training was patchy at best, I ran with an average of heart rate of 182 for three hours and forty-seven minutes, so getting to the point where I can maintain 169 for (ideally) three & a half hours seems eminently do-able.

As for why these miles felt SOOOO much harder than my heart rate would indicate, I can only guess, but as long as I'm going to guess, I think that a) I was kind of mis-remembering how easy the five GMP miles (at a slightly higher heart rate, BTW) felt last week, and b) I was just tired. It's been a busy week, I haven't slept well, the eight miles Tuesday through absolutely Biblical rain took a lot of out of me, and there's always the added stress of getting ready for the holidays/travel.

Overall, though, I'm encouraged. My sort of secret mini-goal lately has been to run the Foster City Ten Miler on Jan. 18 at 8:00 pace or better, and at this point, barring catastrophe, I actually think it could happen.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Goal Marathon Pace Miles Are Basically Like Crack.

It was just like this. Not really.
On the off chance that you haven't committed my whole fake-marathon-kinda-sorta-training-plan-wtf to memory (WHAT??), my plan was to do nothing but base train for six weeks (which ended up being seven), & then start adding in chunks of ~8:00 pace miles once a week, the idea being that I would start working on getting that pace back into muscle memory while still spending 90% of my mileage on slow, easy, low heart rate runs. (I also thought it might be interesting to see what effect working on my aerobic system and not much else might have on running at that pace/effort level.)

Tuesday 11/11 was my first GMP run. Having no idea what to expect after averaging ~10:30/mile for nearly two months straight, I figured I'd play it by ear, not let myself get too serious about it, & just see what happened. I wasn't sure what 8:00/mile would feel like & kind of had this terrible fear that 1) I would no longer be capable of running that pace for multiple miles at all, or 2) my legs would have totally forgotten, like, how to move that fast & I would just trip all over myself & come crashing down onto the pavement if I tried. But hey, if eight minute miles had me sucking wind after two blocks, I could always downgrade to "marathon effort" & be all, "Meh, I listened to my body which told me to do an easier, less sucky thing, blah blah blah."

(BTW, I am hella suspicious of people who use the phrase "I listened to my body" too often because the body does always seem to be saying things like "Go slower!" or "Unplanned rest day plzthnx!" or "Spontaneous cutback week ftw!" I mean whose body DOESN'T want to go slower or take more rest days or cutback week after cutback week? [Spoiler: If you take several cutback weeks in a row, they are no longer cutback weeks. You're just running less.] Obviously I'm not advocating doing stupid things like ignoring actual pain or never backing off if something feels really wrong or making yourself sick with exhaustion, but the fact is that training for something with any kind of seriousness is hard work, and sometimes it sucks, and sometimes you're just going to be tired & uncomfortable & should probably just suck it up anyway. If I "listened to my body" too closely I would do nothing but lie on the couch & drink wine & eat bon bons all day & stay up until 2am binge watching Dr. Who. True story.)

In the end, I decided to look up at what heart rates I've done marathon pace workouts in the past & try going by that. (For the record, generally anywhere between 175 & 190. I wore a monitor for my first marathon in 2011 & haven't since, & apparently my heart rate in that race averaged about 182. On the other hand, that number is of questionable utility considering that 1) I was having an asthma attack the whole time, & 2) I ran the race basically at long run effort, not marathon race effort, as a result.) I thought I would not aim to keel over and die blow the doors off right out of the gate & thusly decided to just try to keep my heart rate under 180ish, even if that meant running slower than 8:00/mile.

All through my warm-up miles, I kept repeating words of wisdom from Coach Matt Russ re: base training:

    "You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training. You will lose some of your anaerobic endurance and the ability to sustain speed near lactate threshold. LET IT GO, LET IT GO."


I do not have children so I can only assume that song was about aerobic base training.

Though part of me definitely was fantasizing about cranking it up to marathon pace & magically finding that through the mystical voodoo of base training 8:00 miles were suddenly easier than they'd ever been, I knew that was extraordinarily unlikely. After six more months of base training? Maybe. In the mean time, though, I had less than two months under my belt, and as Coach Matt repeated once again in my head, likely a heavily atrophied anaerobic system. (Read: My body has been getting more efficient at using oxygen to run slowly, but anything remotely akin to going fast is going to feel much harder because I'm no longer processing lactate as quickly.)

Oh, friends. If you only could have been there to watch me laughing my ass off as I chugged away at that first mile. (Except it would have been kind of hard to tell I was laughing what with all the sucking of wind.) Yes, it was uphill a bit, so I knew things would get easier, but I will not say I didn't cackle to myself a bit when that first mile--which felt like maybe 10K race effort--ticked off in 8:30.

    "You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training. You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training. You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training."

The second mile (gently rolling & very slightly net downhill) at the same level of effort was a bit faster at exactly 8:00. I ran an easy recovery mile after that, then did another two miles in that 170-180 heart rate zone, which ticked off at 8:04 (mile two in reverse, so gently rolling but very slightly net uphill) and 7:36 (mile one in reverse, so gently but relentlessly downhill) respectively.

    "You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training. You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training. You have to let your anaerobic system atrophy during base training."

I know this. It's just a fact. A fact I know in my brain but that I haven't experienced directly in a very long time, thanks to years of ignoring real base training in favor of trying to peak for one more race (and one more, and one more, and one more).

Yes, those four miles at goal marathon pace felt more like 10K pace. You can tell from the heart rate data, though, that I've made some aerobic gains, and here is why.

When I've taken big chunks of time completely off in the past and then tried running at ~8:00/mile, it definitely did feel hard--at least as hard as these miles, and maybe a little harder. BUT, my heart rate was also up around 200 (ie, the heart rate I hit racing a 10K when I'm in shape). That's not what happened here. With this run, I ran four miles at almost exactly my marathon goal pace (8:03 average), but my heart rate for those four miles averaged 175 bpm. (Read: The absolute lowest end of what I have *ever* considered marathon heart rate.)

When I'm actually out of shape--aerobically and anaerobically--my heart has to work very hard (~200bpm) to get enough oxygen to my body to sustain an 8:00 pace.

When I've been in pretty good shape in the past, aerobically and anaerobically, my heart hasn't had to work as hard (~180-185bpm) to get enough oxygen to my body to sustain that pace, and I can also sustain it comfortably for a long time because my body has become efficient at clearing out lactate.

Right now, my body is definitely not clearing lactate very quickly, as evidenced by the fact that marathon pace felt like 10K pace. On the other hand, my heart really wasn't having to work all that hard (175bpm) to provide enough oxygen to sustain 8:00 miles, and that's kind of awesome.

To sum up:

  • Being in good aerobic shape means you can cover ground faster at lower heartrates (because more economical transport & use of fat & oxygen).
  • Being in good shape anaerobically means you can sustain higher heartrates for longer (because high lactate threshold).

I am now up to five goal marathon pace miles in a row. Although it always feels a little bit tough to kick it up to that higher effort level after running easy warm-up miles 2-3 minutes slower, once I settle into it, I remember why I enjoy running right in that barely-comfortably-fast zone and how it is basically like crack. It's so much easier to hold good form, and everything just feels right and comfortable and "on." Yes, I've detoxed a little in these last few months of 10:00+ minute miles, but after a few (relatively) fast miles, my brain definitely starts throwing an ugly little tantrum at the thought of slowing back down again.


NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1!!1!

No, I can't run 26 miles at that pace right now (13, maybe), but after two months of restraining myself and exercising patiences and discipline, it's felt so great to open up again and really run instead of shuffle. I'm also starting to develop some confidence that I might be able to run at that pace/effort level at Foster City in January, which is fun.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Low Heart Rate Training: The Two-Month Mark

So, a quick recap:
  • Once upon a time I used to base train properly, ie, running at a very slow, easy pace for hours and hours each week in order to develop my aerobic system, before jumping into race training with speed & tempo & race pace work & what have you.
  • In the last few years I've gotten away from that practice, partly out of impatience ("But I want to run this race! And this one! And that one! And wheeeeee!") and partly due to letting a couple of years of setting PR after PR mostly on the strength of my anaerobic system lull me into a false sense of security. (Pro Tip: You can get away with this for a while but it is not really a viable strategy long-term, particularly if you want to run marathons.)
  • Since I decided in September to devote some serious time to not racing & instead trying to fix my freakish right hip, it seemed like a good time to also get back to base training.
  • Because I'm really good at lying to myself about what a truly easy effort feels like, I've gone back to using a heart rate monitor to keep me honest.

I started this business officially on Sept. 21, mainly just aiming to slow myself down to a completely easy, comfortable pace. After a few days it seemed like most of the time that correlated to heart rates in the 140s, so for the most part I just tried to stick to that. After each run, I would record my average pace and heart rate, following basically the same route every time to try to minimize any variation because of terrain. (I just turn around sooner for shorter runs, and the serious hills are all close to the beginning.)

With aerobic base training, there are two ways to tell you're making progress. Either you can run at the same pace and watch what your heart rate does (hopefully decrease with time), or you can maintain the same average heart rate and watch what your pace does (hopefully get faster). Basically, you want to see that you're accomplishing more with less work.

Now, if I could manage to pull off EXACTLY the same average pace or EXACTLY the same average heart rate on very run, then it would be easy to see whether or not I was improving. Since neither of those things are very easy, though, you end up with data that looks like this:

AVERAGE PACE & HEART RATE, BASE TRAINING MONTH 1

Because both variables jump around so much from day to day, it's hard to draw conclusions just by looking at the numbers. Clearly running at a 10:32 pace with a heart rate of 142 is better than running at a 10:48 pace with a heart rate of 152, but what about 10:32 & 142 vs 10:21 & 150? To make sense of it, I needed some mathematical way of comparing runs with different heart rates AND different paces and determining which was "better."

Luckily, this is exactly the type of thing I am paid to do in my day job. :)

First, here is a quick-and-dirty recap of how base training is supposed to work.

(***Remember, I am a mathematician, not a kinesiologist, so I won't embarrass myself by trying to explain the finer details. There are plenty of good explanations on the internet written by people who are actually experts at this stuff. On a related note, experts, please don't be shy if I have completely misconstrued something.***)

You can google all the biochemical details of how & why it works, but basically, when you spend hours and hours and hours each week bathing your cells in oxygen at a nice, easy effort level, a couple of things happen:

    1) Your heart becomes more efficient at pumping blood. That is, you improve your "stroke volume"--how much blood your heart pumps out with each beat or "stroke." Stroke volume is important because the aerobic system relies on oxygen, so greater stroke volume = more oxygen delivered to cells more quickly with less work by your heart.

    2) Your body becomes more efficient at using the oxygen you breathe in. That is, you improve your "running economy"--converting the same amount of oxygen into more forward motion. Part of this has to do with delivering more oxygen more quickly (more red blood cells, more myoglobin, etc.) and part of it has to do with cells using the oxygen they get more efficiently (more and bigger mitochondria, more enzymes for metabolizing fat efficiently, etc.)

When you improve both of these things, the result is generating more forward motion with fewer heartbeats. So it seemed to me that the question I should be asking here is, How much forward motion am I generating per heartbeat?

Stick with me; here be equations. I promise they are not too painful.

The variables I have are pace (minutes per mile) and average heart rate (beats per minute). Since pace tells me speed in terms of time rather than in terms of distance, I first converted minutes per mile to miles per minute.

Through a little dimensional analysis, it's easy to show that dividing "miles per minute" by "beats per minute" is the same as "miles per beat" -- ie, how much forward motion is generated with each heart beat, on average.

Now, I had a way of objectively comparing two different runs where neither the heart rate nor the pace were the same and determining on which run my body had been more efficient.

Here's a table listing each run since Sept. 21 for which I have data, along with its pace, heart rate, and "miles per beat":

Then I graphed the table:

Pretty hard to argue with.

A (mathematically calculated) line of best fit makes the exact nature of the trend a little more obvious:

This graph shows that, over time, I was covering more and more ground per heartbeat, on average.

For all that the trend here is pretty clear, it's important to note that if I'd only shown you the data for the first month, it wouldn't have looked nearly as convincing:


You can kinda-sorta see which way the wind is blowing, but
it's not nearly as convincing because there's so much variation day-to-day.

The reason for this is that average heart rate can be affected by a lot of different factors from day to day, like temperature, sleep, blood sugar, stress/mood, medication, etc. For that reason, you really need a longer period of time (Pete Pfitzinger says eight weeks is kind of the minimum) in order to see the trend. You just aren't going to see a nice, neat gain from day to day or even week to week because all of the noise from the factors above. In the long term, though, they'll wash out enough to see the trend.

I'll be honest with you, it is kind of a relief to run those numbers and see real, actual, tangible progress. Yes, I believe in science and (mostly) understand the biology, but there was definitely a small part of me that was all, "OH GOD WHAT IF IT DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE/THIS TIME???" Like I've said before it takes patience, discipline, and consistency to slow yourself down, waaaay down, & go week after week without necessarily seeing obvious improvement in the numbers. But it does work!

Eight weeks is really as long as I have ever formally base trained before, so I'm now in uncharted waters. Though I am starting to add some GMP miles, I'm still doing 85-90% of my miles at a super easy pace, so it will be interesting to see for how much longer I continue to make progress aerobically before the numbers plateau.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Fake-Marathon Training

A few nights ago I was hanging out with some runner friends & talk turned to our one friend who had just BQ'd at the Chicago Marathon for the first time. In spite of the fact that the race hadn't gone exactly the way she'd wanted and she'd almost given up at one point, she kind of felt like she could maybe kinda-sorta finally retire from running super-hard, all-out "goal" marathons & just jog them for fun every now and then. Because really, truly running 26.2 (26.5? 26.7???) miles as hard as you can is just so, *so* incredibly difficult and painful and who needs to put herself through that on the regs.

This was a good thing for me to be reminded of, having not finished a marathon in well over a year. Much like natural childbirth (or so I'm told), your mind and body just won't let you imagine for a second that you will EVER voluntarily do this again while the memories are still fresh. But then time passes, you get some distance from the misery, the gory, excruciating details start to fade from your brain, and a year or so later you find yourself going, "Well, yeah, I mean it was hard and stuff, but I dunno, I could handle another one, I think?" It was a good reminder not to ever get too cavalier about running a marathon all-out and reminded me of how after my first one I didn't run for a month and couldn't even confront the question of running a second one for seven months after that.

My plans could definitely change over the next few months, but right now (assuming I get my right hip under control) I'm kind of thinking that Santa Rosa next August might be the next time I put a marathon squarely in the crosshairs & really aim to blow the doors off. However, between now and then I am signed up for another one, which I do want to complete if possible, so the next few months kind of seem like the perfect time to engage in a little fake-marathon training.

By fake-marathon training, I mean I am planning to more or less follow a schedule for 16 weeks and (ideally) run a marathon at the end, but without all the pressure & nail-biting & THERE IS NO TRY & all that business. The next time I shoot for a hard race and a PR, I want to train in a certain way, and at this point I know I'm not ready, physically or mentally, to do that (at least not without the wheels coming off).

So fake marathon training is really about a) continuing to get into better shape aerobically, b) getting physically & mentally tougher in marathon-specific ways, & c) breaking some bad habits--both mental & physical--& replacing them with good ones.

More specifically....

  • Blend the low heart rate/base training stuff into the fake-training schedule. Yes, I want to do goal pace miles & add a little speed work in a few weeks, but mainly I want to keep the emphasis on getting my aerobic system back where it should be, which will take time.
  • Plan to run four days per week rather than five or six (the idea being fewer, slightly longer runs interspersed with more rest days). I'm hoping that doing that while still building mileage will be a good way to safely get my body back in shape for five-to-six day weeks later on.
  • Long runs early & often. Hopefully this will help me break the bad habit of doing the bare minimum (ie, the 14-16-18-20-Taper! plan) that I've fallen into over and over. I want to get over my long run phobia & (eventually) become one of those people who happily & safely runs 17-20 miles most weekends.
  • Goal marathon pace miles. I've mentioned this before too, that something I felt was missing from my Santa Rosa training was the occasional 6-8-10 mile chunk of miles at marathon goal race, just for the purpose of getting the feeling of that pace into my body & being able to dial it in.
  • Lower peak mileage. Currently I'm running in the mid-30s, mileage-wise, and I don't plan on breaking 50 before NVM. The idea is to just try to be consistent and keep up the aerobic emphasis. I want to keep building the mileage, but SUPER gradually so that both my brain and body have plenty of time to adjust.
  • No time goals. Right now I'm thinking that my only real goal at NVM will be to run evenly & by feel at maybe ~80% & just see what happens time-wise. Definitely do not want to push hard or try to reach a specific time goal.
  • Modifying as needed, with no pressure. Yes, I have a schedule, but not having a time goal will hopefully make me feel like I can tweak things here & there depending on how things are going without mentally being like "OHGODOHGODOHGOD WHAT IF I TOTALLY JUST SCREWED IT ALL UP?!?!?!?"

So yeah. Mainly I kind of want to think of it as "Base Training Plus." Lots of mileage, but also lots of rest days, lots of getting my zen on, and a lot less intensity & pressure than actual marathon training.

I am sure the details about my fake training schedule for my fake race are not really that interesting to anyone but me, but typing it all out where I can see it in one list (as opposed to scrolling through an Excel sheet) helps me parse things a little. I promise I won't judge you for not perusing it in minute detail.

    WEEK 1 (Nov 10-16): 36 miles (19 easy, 4 GMP, 13 long)

    WEEK 2 (Nov 17-23): 35 miles (16 easy, 5 GMP, 14 long)

    WEEK 3 (Nov 24-30): ??? We'll be in Spokane for Thanksgiving that week, so a lot will depend on the weather & time. Ideally I would like to get in ~35 miles & a 15 mile long run, but I have never once accomplished such a feat in the past (though twice I've had injuries as an excuse) so we'll see.

    WEEK 4 (Dec 1-7): 36 miles (15 easy, 6 GMP, 15 long)

    WEEK 5 (Dec 8-14): 38 miles (14 easy, 7 GMP, 17 long)

Technically I was supposed to start speed work in week 6, but given that it falls right before the holidays and my ass will be lucky just to get easy running of some kind in during that time, I have a feeling it may be more realistic just to start in January.

    WEEK 6 (Dec 15-21): 42 miles (including 8 GMP & *hopefully* 19 long...Again, we shall see.)

    WEEK 7 (Dec 22-28): ??? This is the week I will be home in Texas with family, so although I'd like to get 40 miles in including a long run, most likely I'll just have to play it by ear & do whatever I can. (Also, trying to figure out where in my mom's neighborhood I could possibly run 20 miles without having to stop every 20 yards at a traffic light, & short of making laps around the block, I'm kind of drawing a blank.)

The last 9 weeks have speed/tempo workouts built in, but I'll probably have to wait until I get there to see how things are feeing & how excited I'm feeling about it. Like I said, I want to make sure I give the aerobic stuff plenty of time to lock in, and if I feel like I'm still not there once I hit January, I may back off on the faster stuff in order to get in more long, easy runs.

Obviously the exact numbers here are kind of arbitrary, but they at least give a sense of what I hope to be more or less doing by Jan/Feb. Unless I feel like doing something else.

    WEEK 8 (Dec 29-Jan 4): 46 miles (8 easy, 9 speed/tempo, 8 GMP, 21 long)

    WEEK 9 (Jan 5-11): 47 miles (10 easy, 6 speed/tempo, 9 GMP, 22 long)

    WEEK 10 (Jan 12-18): 45 miles (10 easy, 8 speed/tempo, 10 GMP, 17 long)

    WEEK 11 (Jan 19-25): 47 miles (19 easy, 6 speed/tempo, 22 long)

    WEEK 12 (Jan 26-Feb 1): ??? This is the weekend I'll be in Mexico with friends, so again, it will probably just depend on time / facilities. Theoretically this is supposed to be the peak weak, but since only weirdo freaks run peak weeks on vacation, it may have to wait until Week 13.

    WEEK 13 (Feb 2-8): 43 miles (12 easy, 4 speed/tempo, 8 GMP, 19 long)

    WEEK 14 (Feb 9-15): 36 miles (6 easy, 7 speed/tempo, 7 GMP, 16 long)

    WEEK 15 (Feb 16-22): 29 miles (7 easy, 5 speed/tempo, 5 GMP, 12 long)

    WEEK 16 (Feb 23-Mar 1): 42 miles (8 easy, 4 speed/tempo, 2 GMP, 28 warm-up/NVM)

My fondest hope is that I'll do all this aerobic base training (plus a little something to nudge the VO2 & LT along a tiny bit), run NVM at ~80% effort, end up with a certain time, & be able to say, "Check, that's how far base training has gotten me in ~5.5 months." Hopefully that will at least give me SOME sense of whether I've got enough of a base to jump into a non-fake training cycle & reasonably bust my ass for a 3:30 sometime in 2015 or still need to pump up dat base for another six months or so.