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 lost workout

Onion volcanoes and warm sake -
Emerging Sister-In-Law (L), Mrs. Emerging Runner (R)

Today's workout (elliptical): 45 minutes

In the almost-seven years that I've been running, I've prided myself on my meticulous process to record workout metrics. I can look back on Garmin Connect to see the detail about every run and elliptical session that I've done since early 2010. If I want to go back further than that, I can look at MapMyRun stats, or see my earliest running data on the Nike+ site. I also have years of Daily Mile records that capture different information like shoe mileage.

In addition to all this, I can look at the Emerging Runner archives for measured mileage on every run. All this data recording takes time, and over the last year my record keeping has gone from meticulous to casual. I stopped recording my runs in Daily Mile last July and most of the time I don't even wear my Garmin when I'm on the elliptical. It's because of this that I cannot remember whether I did a workout on Friday.

I've been on vacation this week, but my time off has been more busy than relaxing. On top of that, I needed to go into my office on Wednesday. That made this vacation more like a couple of long weekends. Friday afternoon my brother and his family came to stay for a few days and my dad and his wife came out on Saturday afternoon. Later we went out to a local hibachi place and had a great time, but I don't recommend the lukewarm sake administered via a squeeze bottle.

With all that going on, I didn't have the opportunity to do a workout on Saturday, because our guest room is also our fitness room. It's also my office. Maybe we should take page from the local elementary school and call it the multi-purpose room.

So I may have done an elliptical session on Friday morning. I know I did a workout this afternoon. My pain from the herniated disc has been manageable, although it does give me a small zap if I move my leg in a certain way. I've been applying heat and that seems to help. It's no worse after today's elliptical session than it was before I started.

My biggest concern is that I'm returning to a week of commuting. That means three hours a day sitting in a driving position. I'm convinced that driving has been a factor in this disc compression. My standing desk (or as they put it, "stand up desk adaptation") gets installed on Monday. I'm hoping that will help me counteract all that drive time. I'll know more about the problem on Friday after my MRI.

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.

Fitbits don't work across the room

Ouch

Today's run (treadmill): 3.2 miles

About halfway through this morning's treadmill run, I spotted my Fitbit sitting on the guestroom bed. I'm really into capturing my activity through that device, so I was a little nonplussed by the situation. While I was still capturing metrics like time and heart rate on my Garmin, all those steps would be lost to my daily and weekly totals. I considered stopping the treadmill to retrieve the device but decided that it wasn't worth the disruption.

Years ago, when my first Garmin failed during a run, I felt frustrated and asked myself, "If the run didn't record, did it really happen?" I know it sounds silly, but I once felt that way. A documented run is a tangible entity. Something that happened. Something to look back upon. A run performed independent of a watch or device doesn't become part of recorded history. I'll admit that on the rare times when I've gone out "watchless" on a run, I later Gmap'd my route so I could at least capture my distance.

Even without a device, running data on the treadmill is always available via the display. I don't fully trust the accuracy, but at least it provides ballpark metrics. I maintained a challenging pace through the workout and that took my mind off forgetting my Fitbit. So it looks like I'll need to wait a little longer to get my next Fitbit badge. Further, today's totals won't approach my daily goals. But I got a good run in today, despite the lack of evidence.

Falling short of daily goals

I'd been thinking about taking another rest day this week because I ran Monday through Thursday. This morning I needed to get into the city for some meetings and I figured today would be as good a day to skip a run. I'm tempted to get on the treadmill and do a quick three miles this afternoon, but I'm sticking to my plan.

I only covered 10,000 steps yesterday and fell short of both my daily distance and flight (staircase) goals. I'd hoped that walking in the city would get me close to today's step goal, but I've still got a ways to go. Even though I rested both Sunday and today, I'm still slightly ahead on weekly mileage. I'll target a couple of longer distance runs this weekend and get my Fitbit stats back in line.

Sixteen staircases on the Bethpage trail

This morning it was full

Today's run (Bethpage State Park): 4.2 miles

The next couple of days look to be windy and wet, so this morning I figured I'd go someplace where I could enjoy the outdoors. Although the warmer weather has melted most of the snow, I didn't want to deal with the muddy trails at Stillwell just yet. I decided to go to Bethpage and hoped that the gates were open.

When I arrived, I saw a large maintenance truck parked in front of the gate and feared that access would be restricted. I then saw that the gates were open, and as I made my way in, I noticed a couple of people running on the path. The trail head was blocked off with a webbed fence and a sign saying "entrance closed."  Like everyone else, I ran around the sign and headed up the hill toward the original trail.

Despite seeing two runners as I drove in, the trail was almost empty. That wasn't a surprise, as it was a Tuesday morning, not the weekend when I usually run there. I liked the quiet but I wasn't loving the run for the first mile. My legs felt leaden and I wondered if I should have taken an extra day's rest after my race.

I started the day with my Fitbit and was curious to see what data it would capture during my workout. After I reached the one mile point, I turned around and headed back in the other direction. I wasn't looking forward to running up the big hill, but at least I'd be doing it while I was relatively fresh. Once I made it to the top, I continued east and reached the entrance to the new section.  I had covered two miles and my legs still felt like they were carrying ankle weights.

Bethpage is hilly and the route is rolling. Most of the time you are either running uphill or down. The first segment of the new trail has a series of hills that are individually short, but collectively challenging. I ran down these hills until I reached three miles, where I turned around and went right back up. Once I got past the worst of it, I noticed that my legs were feeling a little more flexible.

Once I finished my run, I looked at the Fitbit and saw that I'd covered about 7,000 steps and climbed the equivalent of 16 staircases. The activity meter on the Fitbit (a flower) was full to the top. It also captured my distance accurately, along with calories burned. I liked that the Fitbit, unlike the Garmin, is always on and ready to capture activity at any time. But the Garmin provides valuable data that the Fitbit doesn't record, so I'll use them together.

After lunch, my wife and I went to a local park for a walk and I picked up enough steps for me to modify today's goal to 13,500. My wife already has me beat, and I can see it will be hard to keep up with her. But today was a great start.

Good data can make you thin

BodyMedia, FitBit, Withings

Tuesday and Wednesday's workouts (treadmill): 50 minutes (total)

Yesterday was a busy day for me and I didn't get a chance to post. During the first part of the day, I attended a session on the future of journalism that was put on by the MIT Media Lab. I've been representing my company at MIT for over a decade and I always find it interesting to hear views on the direction of media from students and faculty. The theme that repeated throughout the dozen or so talks centered on the way data and data visualization is shaping news reporting.

On the same theme, I just read an article in the November issue of Men's Journal called, "Living By the Numbers" that examines how targeted data can directly contribute to personal fitness. The writer used tools like BodyMedia, FitBit and the Withings Body Scale to capture and track calories and performance metrics.

For some reason I expected the article to present a negative view of these devices, but  it actually supported their use. The writer started off at 195 lbs with a BMI of 25.7 and ended up losing over twenty pounds by the end. He didn't specify the time period for when that happened, but my own experience tells me that your weight can come down quickly once you've committed to a program.

An important point that the writer made was that interest in these tools diminishes over time. He likens it to the infatuation stage of new relationship that gives way to a more realistic viewpoint. In addition, the process of tracking certain things (like calorie intake) can become a real burden. The key point is that good data helps an athlete maintain awareness of diet and effort, and that can lead to improvement.

This may all seem self evident, but the way data is acquired and the way it's applied can make a big difference. In the end, it's not the gadget that puts us into better shape, it's the effort that we put into the process. However, good data seems to provide the type of feedback that will help keep us on track.

When metrics matter less, the run matters more

Today's run (street): 2.5 miles

When you first begin to run, it quickly becomes obvious how much you need to learn. I look back at my early days and realize how many bad decisions I'd made (sprinting without a warm-up,  buying Nike shoes, wearing cotton socks, etc.). Once I understood that wicking clothes were de rigueur and finally learned what "PR" meant, I started to focus more on performance metrics and the technologies to capture data.

As I mentioned above, I first bought Nike running shoes, but it was primarily because I didn't know brands. But I also bought them because they had a storage well under the insole where I could put my Nike+ chip.With the Nike+ chip and Sportband, I was able to capture interesting data about my runs including time, speed and distance. Until the Sportband display corroded (I actually went through three Sportbands, each with a MTBF of 3 months) I was able to see my pace in real time as I ran. It was exciting to monitor my progress.

I switched to Garmins after that, and studiously recorded my metrics. I analyzed my performance and tried to understand why my average pace improved or worsened from month to month. The numbers were important to me. Over the last year, I've noticed that I've stopped checking my pace as often when I run. I watch my distance and monitor my heart rate but the speed that I run doesn't interest me much anymore. I can't say that I've given up on performance (it's always great to see when I'd paced under 9:00) but that's not what's important right now.

I can't help thinking about the recent WSJ article that correlated fast paces to negative health in older athletes. Maybe that's part of it, though my decreased focus on speed (except when racing) has been a long time coming. I ran my usual route today about 15 seconds slower than average, but I was happy because I did the run. It took years to feel that way. I wonder how long it will last.

My first 100K (it's not what you think)

A unique feeling

When I started this blog four years ago, my only goal was to document my experience as a runner. I'd run in the early '90's but never documented my progress and I regretted that. I thought a daily journal might motivate me to get out and run so I'd have something to write about. Although I felt committed to both, I couldn't help wondering whether I'd tire of writing or running and, if so, when.

I noticed that the Emerging Runner site odometer has recently passed 100,000 unique visits. I used to look at hits, pageviews and other metrics and even thought about going beyond the rudimentary SEO that I'd set up for web discovery. After a while I decided to just focus on the content and let the audience build organically. Still, I appreciate every one of those 100K visits.

At some point I'll go through my large collection of posts and select some favorites that I will share. I've found a lot of value from this archive as a gauge of my running progress. But more than that, it's been a great way to capture the daily occurrences of my life (albeit with a running bias) that would normally be lost over time.

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.

A pace I can live with

Today's run (street): 4.12 miles

Yesterday afternoon I updated the firmware on my Garmin FR60 which reset the watch to its factory settings. I was happy that I had the foresight to upload this week's runs to Garmin Connect before I did the upgrade or they would have been lost to the ages. I restored all the settings and preferences but I neglected to re-pair the watch to the foot pod. When I went out for my run this morning I hit the start button and didn't think much about it. A few minutes into the run I looked at the display and saw it was tracking time but not distance and I realized that I hadn't paired the unit. I figured I'd just Gmap the route I ran and calculate pace later, based on the recorded time.

I recently had a similar experience when I saw that I hadn't started the Garmin after I'd begun to run. I ran most of  my route knowing that my speed and distance weren't being captured and that was both annoying and liberating. Today I felt better when I discovered the problem because at least I had captured the run time. I decided to forget about pace, speed, etc., and just ran free for 30-40 minutes. I took it easy because that was what I'd originally intended for this run -- a short version of LSD. About 30 minutes into the run I was feeling like I could run all day and it occurred to me that I should think about a pace that I could maintain comfortably for a half marathon.

Today's pace was 9:53. Not fast but manageable over long distances. It would be good (psychologically) to average below 10 min/mile for the half marathon. The challenge of running a half under two hours is much greater -- I'd need to average 9:09 or better to do that. I'll work on my distance as much as I can from here on. With the temperatures moving toward the 50's I might get the first chance in a while to do a long run at Bethpage next weekend.

Your mileage may vary

Today's workout: Rest day

Despite my meticulous efforts to capture my running metrics, I'm realizing that my perception of my overall performance differs from the hard facts. When people ask me about it I usually say I run 9:00 miles. I can run faster than that, but I don't. In truth, I only hit 8:00-something paces a few times a month and most of the time I average between 9:10-9:30/mile. Yesterday, after uploading my latest run into Garmin Connect, I noticed that my average monthly distance is 65 miles. This confused me because, when asked, I usually say I run 20 miles a week. I think part of that delusion comes from when I used MapMyRun to record my metrics and included the distance measurement from my elliptical sessions. In fact, I ran less monthly distance a year ago than today because I was limiting my morning weekday runs to no more than 20 minutes.

In order to really reach the 20 mile per week level I will need to average closer to 3 miles per day during the week (less one rest day and one cross training day) and 10 miles over the weekend. The gating factor is time, not conditioning. However, if I really could average 9:00 per mile I would definitely compile more distance in the same amount of time.