900 miles is easy but running fast is hard

Hoping for 80 in December

Hello runners and the running adjacent! It's December 10th: the first night of Hanukah, the 12th day of the Advent and, most notably, national Dewey Decimal System Day. 

This is my first after-election post and while I try to stay non-political on this blog, I will say my faith in democracy has been restored by the 81 million people who voted for a return to trust, competence and decency. Let's move on, unify and hope that the next Attorney General puts the current president and his cadre of corrupt criminals in federal prison for a long time. If you don't like what I'm saying here, I invite you to comment below. But please share respectfully and don't put in a link to your stupid product website because I will delete that 🏃

Okay, now onto 2020. The pandemic is getting worse and we are "rounding the corner" into a horrible winter season (see what I did there?). So instead of not running the Seaford Hot Chocolate 5K in Seaford or the Ho-Ho-Ho Holiday run in Bethpage this year, I won't be running the virtual versions of those races. I don't want to race for a couple of reasons. First, I've slowed considerably and I'm self conscious about posting a pathetically weak finish time. Second, I don't really get virtual racing. The best thing about racing is being present with a a bunch of strangers and having the possibility of beating some random person over the line at the last minute. I've done it and I've had it happen to me. I'm talking to you TPP. 

I recently passed the 900 mile mark, my distance goal for 2020. I run between three and four miles every day except Mondays, and I could easily do a virtual 5K or 10K race. A couple of months ago I started looking at my running stats on Garmin Connect that go back to 2009. I saw that I'm running more miles than I ever had in any of the previous ten years. The difference of course is the quality of those miles. Back in 2011 most of my training runs were between 8:45 and 9:30 a mile, my average stride length was about .9 meters and my cadence was around 174. Things have changed.

A few months ago I decided to test the waters and see what would happen if I actually tried when I ran, rather than defaulting to a comfortable pace. Or as someone in the Running Lovers group in LinkedIn put it, "Slow mindful running." Up until that point I figured I'd just drop a couple of gears and roar back to when I was a mid-pack competitor. I set off on my next run with a pedal to the floor mindset, finished my run and checked my watch. Once my heart rate fell below the point where "vagal maneuvers" would be required, I saw the data.

I was nowhere near my past performance benchmarks but I did see a marked improvement against my running average. Yes, that's a pun. Subsequent runs at vagal imperiling speed brought marginal improvement. I started doing weekly speedwork hoping to unleash a little more speed but I finally reached my performance limit. I realized that in order to move to the next level, I would need to train longer and even harder. I'd have to do regular hill training, long distance runs and maybe even core work. I thought about it and decided to focus on holding the gains I'd recently made.

So now I go out and push myself a little harder than I had prior to this performance focus. I rate my  perceived effort for each run on Connect and most of the time it's between moderate (3) and hard (6). The scale goes to 10. Every once in a while I push myself to very hard (7) and my numbers reflect it. While it's nice to see the mirage of higher performance, it comes at the cost of pain and discomfort. If every run required a "no pain, no gain" mindset, I don't think it would be worth doing. Speed is a nice to have, but it isn't everything.

If you disagree please feel free to comment below 👇 

It's not fair that I have to try harder to run better

Apparently you also need to put in more effort 

Today's run (street): 4.1 miles
Yesterday's run (street): 3.2 miles

Considering how much I run, I'm not really that good at it. People tell me that I need to run more intervals, do more hill, core and strength training, run longer distances and run more frequently. I'll concede that those things could help, but they all require more time and/or the acceptance of more discomfort. I'm not a physiologist, but I've always understood that if you do something a lot, you get better at it. If I'm putting in a dozen or more running miles a week, shouldn't I see continuous improvement?

My running experience since late summer has been positive. I reduced my intake of sugar and simple carbs and that led to some weight loss. Running with less weight would usually yield direct improvement, but it wasn't until my friend KWL surprised me with a Garmin 35 watch that I started to see gains. That's because I was paying closer attention to my running data, especially heart rate. Using percent of HR max as a guide to pacing myself on runs helped me improve my average pace by almost two minutes a mile.

While I did see a measurable improvement from that, I've still been averaging 30-40 seconds a mile slower than my average pace from a few years ago. I know some of that is due to getting older, but it hasn't been that long since my overall performance began to noticeably drop. Of all the helpful suggestions people have made to me, the point about running frequency probably hits closest to home.

This morning seemed like a perfect running day and I expected to run as well as I did on Friday when I exactly matched my current pace. But today felt much harder. When in doubt, I always look at the data. My average heart rate for my last two runs were exactly the same. Rate of effort was the same -- 76% of max with the last six minutes pushing closer to 85%. Today's run also matched yesterday's for average cadence. The only variable was stride length, with Friday's being a foot longer than today's.

So if effort was the same, why was my stride so short? I did feel fatigued throughout run and that surprised me because I'd had a good night's sleep. There's really nothing that can explain why I did worse today (by 50 seconds per mile) except that every stride carried me 175 feet less every minute than yesterday.

I'm hoping that tomorrow I'll bounce back and open my stride enough to get back to current pacing. I know that some of my friend's suggestions for improvement would yield a quicker cadence which is the other lever I can pull to improve. But increasing cadence is tough and I still maintain that I should be getting faster because practice alone should be enough to make perfect.

Faster cadence is my next frontier

All clear on Colonial Road

Today's run (Bethpage bike trail): 5.1 miles

I found it hard to believe that the weather on October 30 could be as mild as it was this morning. 64° with a little humidity made for pretty good running conditions. I'd decided to run the Bethpage bike trail and thought it would be a nice change to start in the park. I figured that the season had ended and the were no more admission charges. At the last minute I changed my mind and headed to Colonial Road. That turned out to be a good decision because, when I came through the park, I saw that they were still collecting parking fees.

My plan was to run five miles. Had I started in the park, I would have run to where the bike trail runs under Hempstead Turnpike and come back from there. I haven't run that section of the trail in a long time but that would have been a nice change of scenery. Since I was closer to Haypath, I took off north and did a two mile out-and-back to my starting point. I kept going and ran towards the park all the way to the big hill that's south of the lot. I returned from there for a tidy five.

The good weather conditions should have helped today, but my pace was 20 seconds per mile slower than my current average. Based on heart rate, I should have been faster. I have opened up my stride a little and that's accounted for most of my recent gains. My cadence hasn't really increased and I think it's the key for me to move to the next level. I'm not sure what I can do to address that. I found an article that suggested downhill sprints. That sounds good. Anything downhill is good.

I need to get serious about adding another workout to my weekly schedule. With my current commute, I'm not going back to 4 AM street runs and the treadmill isn't too appealing. My best option is to get in a short run or elliptical session before dinner one night a week. Increasing my running frequency will definitely help. And I have the perfect street for those downhill sprints.

The data behind the pace

Open the stride and quicken the cadence

Today's run (street): 5.5 miles

Conditions were chilly this morning and I had to dress like I was going out for a winter run. I feel like it's payback for all those weeks of unseasonably warm weather that we had in March. Somehow I picked the right combination of gear and set out for a run in a nearby neighborhood. I started out with a loop around a local business park that has one hill that I always dread. I did another half loop before moving on to run in what I call neighborhood #3.

Once around the park

My run was fine and, although I thought I was doing a good job introducing speed at times, I ended up running fairly slowly. When I looked at the data from today's run, I noticed that my current pace hasn't degraded that much since mid-2014. It was interesting to see that my training paces were often 2 minutes per mile slower than my race paces. That gave me hope that I could get back into race shape if I wanted to start focusing on performance.

I decided to do an analysis that compared three data points from my run history: pace, stride length and cadence. I randomly selected thirteen runs between 2013 and today that had data captured via my Garmin foot pod. Pace is measured in xx:xx time format, stride length is typically between .8 and 1.1 meters and cadence usually falls (for me) between 160-180 SPM. Those disparities required me to index the metrics so they could all be displayed on the same scale.

My first reaction when the data was visualized was that faster paces are clearly correlated to longer stride length and faster cadence. Not a surprise. I know that 13 data points doesn't yield statistically significant findings, but it's enough information to be directional. It shows that if I want to get back to 9:30 training paces, I'll need to average between 172-176 SPM and stride lengths between .98 to 1.0 meters.

I have work to do to get to those numbers but at least it's a baseline target. I need to decide whether to focus on cadence and let my stride adapt as needed, or if I should try to open my stride before taking on the tougher metric. I'd prefer the latter, but messing with stride length is tricky because over-striding is the gateway to injury.

The two dimensions of running speed

Sample combinations

Today's run (street): 3.4 miles

I was looking at the metrics of today's run on Garmin Connect and thinking about the factors that determine pace. I recently put a new battery into my foot pod so I can capture my cadence as well as time, pace, heart rate and elevation. Besides steps per minute (SPM), the foot pod also shows average stride length. After looking at new and past data, I'm seeing some correlation to pace.

When you think about it, running speed is controlled by two factors -- how far you are propelled with each step and the frequency of these steps. As an example, last year I ran the Hot Chocolate 5K averaging 178 SPM, but with an average stride length of 1.03 meters. That translated to an 8:46 pace. A month later I did the LIRCC Hangover Run averaging 172 SPM and .95 meter stride length and averaged 9:50. Fairly small differences translated into almost a minute difference in pace.

Interestingly, my data shows when I run intervals, my stride length drops to half a meter. However, average cadence jumps up to 188. That usually results in an 8:00 pace or better. I've read that, to improve performance, increasing cadence is a better approach than increasing stride length. I'm sure that's due to the danger of over striding which can put excessive pressure on the knees, tendons and ligaments.

Today both my cadence and stride length were middling and I ended up pacing in the mid 10's. That was by design as I wanted to minimize wear and tear on the muscles that may be aggravating my sciatica. Once I'm past this annoyance I'll start playing more with cadence and will try to make my way to the ideal (180 SPM). I'd like to run some intervals this week get that started, but I want to make sure I don't do more harm than good.

Late start on a rainy day run

Back in business

Today's run (street): 3.4 miles

Our guests were leaving mid-morning, so I delayed my run until after they'd left. The intermittent rain made it an easy decision. I got out around 11:00 when the rain slowed to a mist. I only planned to run for about half an hour and thought that short period of time would help me avoid the next downpour.

The sciatic pain has eased considerably and didn't restrict me much on the run. I'd forgotten that today was Tuesday and not the weekend. I was surprised to see so much activity on the road. When I came to the top of the first street, I encountered a gaggle of town trucks blocking my way. This caused me to change direction and follow a road that I rarely take. It was a nice change from my usual route.

The run was fine, but it seemed to take a lot longer than 32 minutes to complete. I put a little more into the second half and was pleased to see that I was maintaining about 80% max HR. If I wasn't so concerned about re-aggravating my sciatica, I would have pushed even harder. The rain didn't stop, but it never got any worse.

Later in the day I finally got around to replacing the battery in my foot pod. I haven't used the pod in a number of weeks so I'm happy to get it back working. Next time I go out I'm going to be able to capture another important performance metric - cadence - and use that, along with heart rate, to help me amp up my speed.

Great weather, great run, weird cadence

Curious cadence

Today's run (street): 3.4 miles

This morning's weather was nearly perfect for a run. I needed to go out early due to today's business schedule. It was still dark when I got ready and I considered starting my run with a head lamp. I managed to stall long enough to do without it. I was out the door a little after 7:00 and ready to run.

I had a lot of trouble falling asleep last night. It was probably because I drank so much coffee that morning during breakfast. With that, I expected to be tired. Instead, I was fully energized and was able to maintain a decent pace from the beginning. I give most of the credit to the weather that kept me cool and dry. Perhaps some credit goes to all the standing I've been doing while working.

I ended up with the best performance I've seen in weeks. While I'm encouraged by this, I know it could be related to the circumstances of the day. I ended up with some puzzling data about my cadence, as Garmin reported my SPM to be less than 30% of normal. Not only that, Garmin reported my average stride at 3.15 meters (10.3 feet). Perhaps it's time for a new battery in the foot pod.

Tomorrow morning's schedule is busy and I'm left with little choice but to do another early morning neighborhood run. I'm hoping that I can finally get together with my Runska-buddies on Sunday, but it sounds like we may need to wait until next weekend.

Not a step back, but not what you'd call progress

Disappointing cadence

Today's run (street): 4.6 miles

I wasn't sure what to expect on today's run but I hoped I would find it easier to reach my targeted performance numbers after seeing some improvement yesterday. To my dismay, I felt less energy this morning and I hoped that I'd rebound during the run. Although I did quickly get into rhythm, I found even the first couple of miles difficult. I wasn't sure if I'd started too fast, or if I was simply too tired.

I've read numerous times that an ideal (non-competitive) pace will allow a runner to maintain a conversation while still providing some level of challenge. For most people, that's 75-85% of max heart rate. A check of the data from today's run showed that I stayed primarily between 76 and 79% of max for the first 3.75 miles. Even though I was primarily at the lower end of the HR scale, the going felt difficult.

My response was to pick up the pace and, for the last 3/4 of a mile, I kept heart rate between 80-86% of max. In terms of technique, I adopted an almost bouncing stride that I hoped would translate to greater speed. It did, but it still fell short of today's expectations. My cadence, even after using my new form, never got out of the middling range. The one upside is that getting my HR into the higher 80% range is good preparation for harder workouts.

I don't know if I can return to doing 8:00 minute range training paces, but even if I can't, I still have lots of room for improvement.

Cadence increasing, visibility high

Artist's rendering using Google Maps street view

Today's run (street): 3.3 miles

I missed Tuesday's run and needed to make it up today, although the Higdon plan called for a rest day. I felt ambivalent about today's workout and whether to go easier this morning after yesterday's semi-fast run. My motivation for speed was low, so I decided to let my level of intensity play out as I ran. Once I got the door I noticed the cold, but the winds that made Wednesday's conditions feel like 24°, were no longer a factor.

My Garmin hasn't performed well lately in terms signal accuracy, making my real-time pace data suspect. I've been running by feel and heart rate which seem to provide more useful feedback. The type of workouts that I've been doing over the last five weeks have helped me increase my cadence. As a result, I'm finding it easier to hold a decent pace on shorter runs. I kept my heart rate around 85% today and ended up running my distance in the high 9's. That's exactly what I wanted to do.

Today's run was unremarkable, except at one point when I was running down a long road near my house. I spotted my wife's car heading in my direction. She and the kids were going out to do errands and when they passed me, the windows were down and they were cheering for "The Emerging Runner." They saw me from a distance because I was wearing a bright orange running shirt. High visibility isn't just for safety!

It's JavaScript's fault that I ran slow

What I've been staring at 

Today's run (street): 3.2 miles

I have a consulting practice that focuses on digital media business and technology. I'm in the process of expanding my portfolio of services. That involves including more strategic partners and re-branding my website. I'm spending time on the development site whenever I can fit it in. Although I get input from my partners, I'm handling both the web design and the technology. This is fun for me, but staring at HTML and JavaScript code for hours really wears me out.

I'm hoping that will explain the gap between my perceived effort (PE) on today's run and my actual performance. I didn't expect to see impressive numbers when I checked my Garmin after my run, but I ended up running over a minute slower than how the run felt. It was a more challenging workout than I'd anticipated. It was also a sign that I haven't gained back as much speed as I hoped I would by now.

It was interesting to see that the Garmin data showed that my average cadence was up measurably, compared to my last few runs (174 vs. 168 SPM). So my turnover was good. Had I opened up my stride a little more, my pace time would have likely reflected my PE. It's something to think about on my next run. But I won't be thinking about it until Saturday, because Hal gives me a rest day tomorrow. Great, more time to code my site.

Describing running in 419,000 words

 

Today's run (treadmill): 3.2 miles

It's amazing to me that, with today's entry, I've posted on Emerging Runner 1,700 times. Based on my average word count, I've published the equivalent of Brave New World 6.5 times over. It's interesting how quickly these posts have added up. Still, I'll need to post 509 more times before I reach the word count of War and Peace.

The incredibly cold weather kept me inside today so once again I used the treadmill. The lack of humidity kept me comfortable and I found it fairly easy to distract myself by watching the news. I can't remember the last time I ran outside, but it may be close to a week ago. I worry that using the treadmill all the time might change the way I run. On the other hand, it does force me to shorten my stride. That's something I want to do on the road as I work to increase my cadence.

Another run on that thing

 

Today's run (treadmill): 40 minutes

Not long ago, I was having lunch with some business friends who also said they ran. I espoused trail running and another friend mentioned how much he loved running in Prospect Park. Our other colleague said that he did a five mile run every day on his treadmill. I asked him if he ever ran outdoors. He said that he lived adjacent to a wooded bike trail, but still preferred running on the treadmill. I couldn't understand that at all.

To be fair, my wife does 45 minutes on the treadmill almost every day and it works for her. Time is important and the treadmill is very efficient. No ten minute process to put on layers and other gear when it's cold outside. There's even a timer to help her keep her schedule to the minute. Knowing this, I should have been more understanding of my friend. But he has a trail in his back yard.

Yesterday was devoted to meeting a tight deadline and that meant starting at 5:30 AM to ensure that I'd complete what was needed by 5:30 PM. There was no time for a run and I was okay with that. This morning I had more flexibility and planned to go out in the 24° cold, but my wife warned me that the roads were extremely icy. I have enough concerns about sanitation trucks, school buses and bad drivers in my neighborhood that I don't like to increase my risk with slick roads. So it was back to the treadmill.

 

I think the treadmill seems harder because it forces a higher cadence relative to stride length. In other words, if I require 174 SPM to maintain a nine minute pace on the road, I may need to run 177 or more SPM to manage the same pace on the treadmill. It's a lot of extra work to get to the same speed. Still, training at a higher cadence might yield a benefit that I can leverage outdoors. Until they put a bike path through my backyard, I guess I'll be stuck on that thing from time to time.

Is 93% of max the magic number?

Not far from 180spm, so where's the speed?

Today's run (street): 3.5 miles

I'm a little disappointed with today's run because I could not generate any speed. Despite clocking my first mile in 8:57 (easy for many, but hard for me lately), I ended up averaging an unremarkable 9:29 pace over 3.5 miles. After a good start, I'd lost time on mile 2 and then tried to make up for it over the last 1.5. I felt like I'd made a good effort, but according to Garmin Connect, my heart rate across the whole run ranged only between 77-85% of max.

I took a look at my race history and compared my pace performance with my average heart rate. Since I've only run about a dozen races using a heart monitor, this wasn't a statistically significant representation. Directionally, it seemed to indicate that my best times happened when my heart rate averaged 93% of max HR or greater.

Does this mean that I'm somehow holding back, even as I work to push my speed during a run? The numbers seem to point to an opportunity to unlock some speed by adding even more effort. My cadence rate has actually improved over the 5+ years since I've starting daily running, but that hasn't translated to speed. I will do my best to hold the effort on Saturday. I'm not asking for much, but beating 27:50 would be nice.

Data visualization drives a decision

Downward slope

I downloaded my Garmin after yesterday's race to get a breakdown of my run. I'm a big fan of data visualization. When I looked at the cadence chart the data showed exactly where my base training had come up short. At 3.2 miles (almost the exact distance of my daily training runs) my average cadence had dropped from 89 to 85 SPM.

The shortcomings of my running routine could not have been clearer. I wasn't putting in enough distance in my daily training. I've always prided myself on the fact that I usually run six days out of seven. While the frequency is high, the distance is middling. It's a healthy routine, but not one that produces great race performances.

I'll admit that it's hard to break a running routine that's been a way of life for five years. Clearly a change is due. I'll continue to aim for longer runs on weekends, and try to increase my weekday distances. I'll aim for the same 18-20 miles a week, but will only run three days instead of four. If I could get closer to a 5 mile average run, my performance might proportionately improve.

Running views and visualizations

Sure looked like fall along the trail

Today's run (Bethpage): 6.25 miles

The Hope for Warriors 10K next weekend prompted me to head to Bethpage this morning for a base run. I've plateaued on distance since Cow Harbor, having completed only a handful of 5+ mile runs since that race. After a week of rainy and windy conditions, today's clear, dry 57° weather made a run at Bethpage very appealing.

More scenes from today's run

When I arrived I saw that the right side of the lot was fairly full. There were lots of people with bikes and I wondered if there was a cycling event planned. I don't think it was anything that formal, although there were a lot more bikers on the trail than I usually see. Considering the density of cyclists on the path, along with many runners and a good number of walkers, I encountered few reckless riders.

With my headache and sinus pressure gone, I felt good energy along the trail and felt less intimidated than usual by the big hills. That isn't to say that I particularly enjoyed them. My plan was run 5K south and turn around at the 3.1 mile mark. It works for me to break a middle or long distance run into parts. For that same reason, I like to familiarize myself with a race course before running it for the first time. It's always valuable to understand the challenges of the course before you face them for real.

New Garmin Connect cadence graph

I didn't dog the pace but I wasn't looking to simulate race conditions either. The purpose of this run was to get a 10K distance under my belt close to the real thing a week from Sunday. When I downloaded my Garmin after the run, I saw that they'd changed the data visualization on Connect and added a new metric: average stride length. Better still, the site has a pop-up that helps explain SPM and running dynamics. I felt good when I read this in the explanation: "The data values in the green, blue, or purple zones are typical for more experienced or faster runners."

Good context on cadence

Ideally, I'll see less green and more blue data points as I work to increase my cadence. Races tend to bring out our best performances (my recent history excepted) so I might even get myself into purple territory next week.

Despite real evidence, a puzzle remains

Cadence confirmed

Today's run (5.3 miles)

This morning's run brought me closer to understanding the impact of the metronome, but there is still a missing piece of the puzzle. I put a new battery in my foot pod and clipped it to my shoe for the first time since I bought my Garmin FR210 in May 2011. The FR210 uses GPS, but the foot pod allows me to capture my cadence during my run. It's a metric I've missed having when I analyze my performance data.

The good news is that I now have proof that the metronome works. I set the app for 87 SPM before I started and the data shows I averaged exactly that on today's run. This is no coincidence. I have mounds of pre-FR210 data that shows that (at best) I used to average 83 SPM on a training run. The cause and effect of the metronome's beat could not be clearer. All I have to do is jump it up to 90 SPM and my performance is optimized. Problem solved!

(Cue sound of record scratch)

What? That's not the whole story?!! Indeed it is not. While there seems to be evidence supporting the effectiveness of a metronome, the result of today's 87 SPM performance was an average pace of 9:42 per mile. I measured my route using two different browsers (Milemeter is behaving much better now) and they were pretty consistent, so I'm going with that pace. So cadence improves, and my pace gets worse. Huh?

The last puzzle piece clearly involves stride length. It's likely that I'm achieving my SPM target by maintaining a shorter stride. It makes sense that opening stride length with an increasingly higher cadence will bring my pace down to my targeted level. Sounds easy, but we all know the danger of over striding. I think I'll take one victory at a time and work my way up to 90/180 SPM and see what that gets me. Once I can do that consistently (and without the need for a metronome), I can start experimenting with stride technique.

Measure for measure, I don't like this change

New and improved?

Today's run (street): 5 miles

In business, many people subscribe to the idea that, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I made my career challenging that notion and I firmly believe (at least in technology) that complacency is the enemy of success. Okay, no more clichés, but I do believe that open source technologies further the cause of progress. So am I a hypocrite to condemn the new Gmaps version that just went up, using OpenLayers in place of the Google Maps API?

I've relied on Gmaps for years as a tool to precisely measure my routes. Foot pods and GPS watches/apps both fall short due to calibration, route angles or weather. I always use mapping, combined with time, to calculate my exact pace. This morning I was surprised to see a new interface for Gmaps. I also discovered that Gmaps is now an open source supported framework, and will now be called Milermeter. It wasn't until I tried mapping this morning's run that I started to grumble.

I won't go into the specific issues that I had, but I will say that the interface can use some refinement. I'm not sure of the reason, but items flicker on screen and the tools behaved inconsistently. I'm also unsure about the accuracy. I mapped my route using "Milermeter" with both Chrome and Firefox and saw a 1.5% difference in distance between them. Both measurements fell short of what my Garmin captured, surprising because that usually under-counts distance.

Forgetting the technology issues for a moment, this morning's run turned out to be a really good workout. I ran over to the business park to run the loop a few times. This route offers either a steady uphill for almost a mile, or a shorter but steeper section if you run it in the opposite direction. I took the steeper option and made three circuits before heading home.

I used my metronome app and set it to 87 SPM. Although I felt I was coordinating my steps with metronome, I didn't end up with a particularly fast pace. To be fair, except for the hill, I didn't push that hard, although I kept a steady stride throughout the run. Right now, I care more about managing up my cadence than speed. If I understand how this all works, better paces should follow

Metronome running: Calls and Cadence

Runnis Interruptus

Today's run (street): 3.4 miles

Using a metronome may have actually helped my cadence this morning. Once I start using my foot pod (good suggestion FS) I will know for sure. It was a weird run, punctuated by a ringing cellphone that I would normally ignore. Today I had two good reason to stop. First, the call was business related and important. Second, the ringing phone shut the metronome app off. Grrr.

I used the Metronome Beats app today because it has better features than the one I tried yesterday. Most importantly, it punches out beats loud and clear, unlike Metronome Mobile's softer sound. I set it for two clicks per beat, which is easier than trying to coordinate two footfalls to a single beat. Focusing on the sound made my first mile go by quickly and the odd beeping noise produced double takes from neighbors as I passed by.

The phone call caused an interruption and I was honest about being in the middle of a run. That was no problem and I think the endorphins helped keep me calm during an intense conversation. Soon I was back to the run and I realized that it would be easier to time my arm-swing to the rhythm, rather than try to keep my footfalls synchronized.  Do your arms move at the same rate as your cadence? That would be interesting to know.

I moved really well and everything was fine, until the app quit about half a mile from home. I considered stopping and restarting the metronome, but I'd already stopped once on the run. I tried to "think" the beat that I'd been following and that may have worked. Today's pace was 9:22 and it felt fairly easy. I'd set the metronome one SPM faster than yesterday and that yielded a 2.4% improvement in pace. That assumes a lot, but it was progress and that came from somewhere.

Running cadence, there's an app for that

Metronome apps

Today's run (street): 3.4 miles

Yesterday I wrote that I wanted to increase my run cadence, but wasn't sure how to approach it. I got a comment from fellow running blogger, The Petite Pacer, who suggested I try a metronome phone app. That was a great idea and I downloaded a couple of free ones, Metronome Beats and Mobile Metronome. After researching how to use a metronome for cadence, I was good to go.

I decided to use Mobile Metronome first, and set the BPM at 85, which is undoubtedly higher than my current SPM. Back when I used a foot pod, my cadence typically averaged 80 SPM on the road and 83 SPM on the treadmill. I wanted to set an aspirational cadence, rather than start with the ideal of 90/180 SPM. I was curious whether I'd be able to sync my steps with the metronome's rhythm.

I always run with my phone and I keep it in a SPIbelt on my waist. Even after setting both the phone and application volumes to their maximum, the sound of the beat was faint. Under normal conditions I could hear it, but the occasional sounds of helicopters, lawnmowers and passing school buses would drown it out. The challenge of matching stride with beat was a little tough. I decided to let it happen naturally by focusing on the beeps.

I'm not sure that I achieved my targeted cadence today, since I have no way to capture the metric. I felt like I was on top of the beat, but it's hard to really know. My overall pace, a pedestrian 9:37, doesn't indicate fast turnover. Tomorrow I'm going to try the Beats app that provides the option of beat pairs that could help me sync both steps. The app also offers more ways to shape the sound, so I'm hoping it will be easier to hear, even with lots of background noise.

Rethinking GPS versus foot pod

Today's run (treadmill): 2.5 miles

My first method of capturing running data was with the Nike+ chip that fit into a concave spot located under my shoe's sock liner. The accuracy of the this system was surprisingly high, but the software was buggy and the wristband that displayed metrics like pace, time and distance had serious corrosion issues. After going through three of these wristbands in less than a year, I got my money back and bought a Garmin FR50.


FR60



The Garmin 50 (and after that the FR60) uses a foot pod that works in a similar way to that Nike+ chip and I got used to tracking my distance and pace that way. The foot pod needed to be calibrated each time I switched running shoes (in my case, frequently) but the accuracy was very high. I started running with the Saucony Hattoris that have no laces to hold a foot pod, and made the switch to the Garmin FR210 GPS watch thinking I'd be upgrading my experience.

As it turned out, after almost two years, I've discovered I've given up more than I've gained by switching to GPS. The accuracy of GPS (~ 3%) is far worse than with the foot pod (~ 1%). The foot pod also captures cadence, an important metric, but the FR210 does not.



FR210



I had an amusing experience on the treadmill with the FR210 this morning. I wore the watch to capture my heart rate but, even indoors, it had locked in on satellite. When I finished my run I saw that the watch had recorded my distance at .14 miles. I've been considering using the FR60 again with the foot pod for treadmill runs. But for outdoor runs, I have to say the one big advantage of using the GPS watch is that there's no fussing with calibration or switching foot pods. Nothing's perfect, but at least I have a choice.