Cyclists with a "Running" Problem

[Andymann]

It's messy on Trails I won't lie - this is my file from CT Trail last year - couple of things.  I started way too hard - my fault - Trail running in CT is not Cowhouse Farm running in Gauteng!  Also, my inexperience of descending is clear to see - usually my power on the descents is the same as the ascent - but in this case I had to walk a bit on the downhills.  But in general my power was fairly constant, and i finished well - probably more on adrenaline than good pacing!

 

In contrast - this is my Wife's file of CT Marathon the day after - look how well she managed her power over the entire route.  More importantly - the lower line is her Form Power - that is the Power you need to maintain good running form.  Usually your form power will drop as you fatigue - you start shuffling and your shoulders drop.  Hers in absolutely flat - meaning her running form after 4 hours was the same as when she started.

 

Another thing which is the sign of a good runner (and why she went to Kona and I drank Kona beer), is that when I run, I set my watch to beep if I'm going out of my Zones, while when she runs she does it totally on RPE - she was able to keep her power absolutely constant just by running on feel.

[Andymann]

In contrast - this is my Wife's file of CT Marathon the day after - look how well she managed her power over the entire route.  More importantly - the lower line is her Form Power - that is the Power you need to maintain good running form.  Usually your form power will drop as you fatigue - you start shuffling and your shoulders drop.  Hers in absolutely flat - meaning her running form after 4 hours was the same as when she started.

 

Another thing which is the sign of a good runner (and why she went to Kona and I drank Kona beer), is that when I run, I set my watch to beep if I'm going out of my Zones, while when she runs she does it totally on RPE - she was able to keep her power absolutely constant just by running on feel.

 

Correction - having a close look now I see her form power got a bit ragged towards the end, and I remember now she said she did have to walk a bit up the last hill.

 

The big challenge now for us as coaches is to learn to be able to read into the power curves and start interpreting the values.  I played around during the lockdown with Leg Spring stiffness and tried a few things, but I'm really at the beginning of the learning curve.  Neil in Cape Town is really good at analysing the data.  In fact, he has just brought into SA the first set of Swimming Paddles with Sensors - to analyse your Swim stroke.  But that's chat for a different forum!

[Pieter-za]

What is the aim - to rather try and run with consistent power instead of HR eg?  (I know about and have experienced 'HR drift', I presume one don't get this phenomenon with power?)

 

(I still have a bit of difficulty with the Running Power concept as there are no 'mechanicals' involved.  In cycling there is your torque which get exerted on a crank strain gauge, icw angular velocity etc resulting in watts, but in running the only force is actually the 'striding' force on the sole of the shoe imo?)

Edited June 25, 2020 by Pieter-za

[Jehosefat]

Once you have a critical power number then you can create workouts and train accordingly, same as you would do with cycling.

 

Also once you have a spreadsheet with different powers relating to different pace, you can do a run or race at specific power.  Stryd app has a calculator to do this but is easy enough to create a spreadsheet of the correlation of power to pace.  i.e, if you want to run a 10km at 6min/km, that will relate to say 200w (for ease of numbers).  Irrespective of whether it is a flat 10km or hilly 10km, if your run to power (a consistent 200w) you expend the same amount of energy but will be more efficient especially on the hilly course.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that running at (as per your example) 200W will get you 6min/km regardless of whether it is a flat or hilly course? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Vetplant]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that running at (as per your example) 200W will get you 6min/km regardless of whether it is a flat or hilly course? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

What you lose on the uphills in terms of time you will make up on the downhills. This assumes it is a circle route which means all of the elevation metres gained is given back to you on the downhill.

 

The theory is that you are worse off going far into the red in terms of effort than trying to stay at constant effort.

 

In a cycling TT event, you do get quite a bit of benefit by knowing what you can sustain over long periods and then pushing only about 10% harder on the inclines and then 10% softer on the downhills to even it out.

 

I would think a similar strategy in running would be beneficial. Power is just more instantaneous feedback than HR. 

 

EDIT: I just reread you question and the above doesn't answer it.

 

Something to consider: Speaking to marathon runners, most of them prefer a hilly course to a pan flat course. I don't know if this is true of their PR's but at least in the enjoyment of the event.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Swift&Aero

[Jehosefat]

What you lose on the uphills in terms of time you will make up on the downhills. This assumes it is a circle route which means all of the elevation metres gained is given back to you on the downhill.

 

The theory is that you are worse off going far into the red in terms of effort than trying to stay at constant effort.

 

In a cycling TT event, you do get quite a bit of benefit by knowing what you can sustain over long periods and then pushing only about 10% harder on the inclines and then 10% softer on the downhills to even it out.

 

I would think a similar strategy in running would be beneficial. Power is just more instantaneous feedback than HR. 

 

EDIT: I just reread you question and the above doesn't answer it.

 

Something to consider: Speaking to marathon runners, most of them prefer a hilly course to a pan flat course. I don't know if this is true of their PR's but at least in the enjoyment of the event.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a consistent effort is worse, I get that it is much more efficient to not burn matches on the ups.

 

I get that people prefer undulating routes as well because of the fluctuations in effort compared to a completely flat route.

 

My point was that I don't buy that a consistent power output will get you the same speed regardless of how flat or hilly the route is (even if it is a loop with 0 net elevation gain). Otherwise we would see world records set on any type of course and not just the really flat ones (which is actually what happens).

 

E.g. 200w on a flat course vs 200w on a hilly course would be the same effort but the pace will be slower on the hilly course and not the same as per shaper's post.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Jehosefat

[Andymann]

What is the aim - to rather try and run with consistent power instead of HR eg?  (I know about and have experienced 'HR drift', I presume one don't get this phenomenon with power?)

 

(I still have a bit of difficulty with the Running Power concept as there are no 'mechanicals' involved.  In cycling there is your torque which get exerted on a crank strain gauge, icw angular velocity etc resulting in watts, but in running the only force is actually the 'striding' force on the sole of the shoe imo?)

 The accelerometer measures the Acceleration of your foot as it nears the ground and then the deceleration as it strikes the ground and then acceleration as it accelerates up again.  From there the force at which your foot strikes the ground is calculated.  The reasoning then is that if you can ensure that this effort is constant over an entire run, you will be more efficient and as a result faster.

 

So you end up running on a calculated Effort in place of a perceived Effort.

[Andymann]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that running at (as per your example) 200W will get you 6min/km regardless of whether it is a flat or hilly course? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

You are correct - when you run on Power, your HR remains relatively constant over undulations, but of course your pace varies.  Just as in Cycling your speed going up a gradient at 250W will be way slower than your speed going down a gradient of 250W.

[Pieter-za]

 The accelerometer measures the Acceleration of your foot as it nears the ground and then the deceleration as it strikes the ground and then acceleration as it accelerates up again.  From there the force at which your foot strikes the ground is calculated.  The reasoning then is that if you can ensure that this effort is constant over an entire run, you will be more efficient and as a result faster.

 

So you end up running on a calculated Effort in place of a perceived Effort.

Thanks Andymann - so with enough experience one can target different distances with a specific power target for that distance, to get the best results?

[Andymann]

You are correct - when you run on Power, your HR remains relatively constant over undulations, but of course your pace varies.  Just as in Cycling your speed going up a gradient at 250W will be way slower than your speed going down a gradient of 250W.

 Look how the pace (blue line) varies from 5:58 to 5:30 and back again while the Power (yellow line) remains constant.

[Andymann]

Thanks Andymann - so with enough experience one can target different distances with a specific power target for that distance, to get the best results?

 

Exactly - if you look again at my Wife's CT graph, her Critical Power was 263W (the straight white line)  Using that we calculated that if she ran at 80% of 263W she would just dip under the 4hr mark. Bearing in mind that her entire program was based on qualifying for Comrades and this was her seeding race - sub 4hr.  She stuck to it religiously and hardly ever hit 263W, and came in at 03:57 - exactly as we had predicted.

 

If you look at my trail graph, I regularly went over mt CP (all brawn, no brains!) and suffered as a consequence toward the end.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Andymann

[Pieter-za]

Exactly - if you look again at my Wife's CT graph, her Critical Power was 263W (the straight white line)  Using that we calculated that if she ran at 80% of 263W she would just dip under the 4hr mark. Bearing in mind that her entire program was based on qualifying for Comrades and this was her seeding race - sub 4hr.  She stuck to it religiously and hardly ever hit 263W, and came in at 03:57 - exactly as we had predicted.

 

If you look at my trail graph, I regularly went over mt CP (all brawn, no brains!) and suffered as a consequence toward the end.

Good info thanks Andymann

[Vetplant]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that a consistent effort is worse, I get that it is much more efficient to not burn matches on the ups.

 

I get that people prefer undulating routes as well because of the fluctuations in effort compared to a completely flat route.

 

My point was that I don't buy that a consistent power output will get you the same speed regardless of how flat or hilly the route is (even if it is a loop with 0 net elevation gain). Otherwise we would see world records set on any type of course and not just the really flat ones (which is actually what happens).

 

E.g. 200w on a flat course vs 200w on a hilly course would be the same effort but the pace will be slower on the hilly course and not the same as per shaper's post.

I think you are correct that a 200w run on a hilly course will give a runner a different finish time than on a flat course.

 

Running at 200w is what you are capable of hypothetically, spiking it too much will reduce your finishing time. Staying at a constant effort will likely net you the best time you could get for that course. Or at least better than blowing up on the inclines and then not being able to speed up once you crest the summit.

 

But like Andy mentioned earlier: the really good runners know their bodies extremely well and actually regulate themselves on feel.

 

This is for the benefit of the rest of us who go out too hard on those climbs

Edited June 25, 2020 by Swift&Aero

[shaper]

Unless I'm misunderstanding, are you saying that running at (as per your example) 200W will get you 6min/km regardless of whether it is a flat or hilly course? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

Yes there is a slight misunderstanding as Andy has pointed out.  I think you are confusing constant pace over both a flat and hilly course where as I am saying that a constant power will achieve the same thing but be more efficient (burn less matches and keep HR down).

 

If you want to run 10km in 1 hour being 6 mins/km.  You know that this is 200w for you. Run averaging 200w on the flat you will finish in 1hr. 

 

Same with a hilly course and will expend the same energy as if running on the flat as you are averaging 200w over 10kms.  By averaging 200w, you may be running at 6:30 min/km up the hill and 5:15min/km on a downhill.  The pace changes, the power however is constant running averaging 200w.  You will  still be averaging 200w over a hilly course and finish the 10km in 1hr, the only difference is the pace varies but the power doesn't. 

[Vetplant]

Yes there is a slight misunderstanding as Andy has pointed out.  I think you are confusing constant pace over both a flat and hilly course where as I am saying that a constant power will achieve the same thing but be more efficient (burn less matches and keep HR down).

 

If you want to run 10km in 1 hour being 6 mins/km.  You know that this is 200w for you. Run averaging 200w on the flat you will finish in 1hr. 

 

Same with a hilly course and will expend the same energy as if running on the flat as you are averaging 200w over 10kms.  By averaging 200w, you may be running at 6:30 min/km up the hill and 5:15min/km on a downhill.  The pace changes, the power however is constant running averaging 200w.  You will  still be averaging 200w over a hilly course and finish the 10km in 1hr, the only difference is the pace varies but the power doesn't. 

Real-world question for you guys.

 

What did the course profiles look like for your PR's for 10k and longer?

 

Mine was undulating, with the main climbing portion happening in the 3rd quarter of the distance. But I haven't done enough races to call it a big enough sample group. The biggest factors by far was actually the altitude and my fitness on the given day, rather than the course profile.

[Let's Ride]

Some really funny stories here. My worst was two oceans half and I had an upset stomach. Needed to go from the start. Made it till Southern cross drive where the porta loos were. Never attend a party the day before and eat eat eat. I was not feeling good the whole race.

 

Still managed to beat my team racing captain by 10 min. Was chuffed and surprised.