Cyclists with a "Running" Problem

[Andymann]

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.

Mine was in Denmark which was really flat. And a bit short.  But the results say 10km so I'll take it thank you!

 

One unintended advantage I had with running with a Stryd that day is that the course was through the City center where they blocked off the roads.  If you can imagine a 300yo European city, it's all tall buildings with very narrow cobbled streets - which plays havoc with GPS signals.  A lot of the Athletes I spoke with afterwards who were running on GPS pace had shocking runs, purely because they were getting erratic GPS readings.  I ran on Power that day - and had a storming run.

[shaper]

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.

10km - Northgate (hilly)

21km - Robor Scafolding (hilly)

42km - CPT (flatish)

 

Here my CPT marathon last year, the goal was a sub 3:30hr.  Pre-race average power was calculated to run sub 3:30. Race was run on power.  You will see from the chart how constant I tried to keep my power on the flats, up hills and down to achieve the result apart from at the end where I put foot to make sure of the sub 3:30.

 

Where there are hills, the pace dropping (blue line), but the power remaining constant. Similarly on the downhills, the pace increasing but power remaining the same.

Edited June 25, 2020 by shaper

[Andymann]

You kept below CP too which is great, and nicely at around 90-ish % of  CP - especially in the beginning where most people overcook it.  As a result, you had some gas left in the tank to push a bit right at the end 

[shaper]

You kept below CP too which is great, and nicely at around 90-ish % of  CP - especially in the beginning where most people overcook it.  As a result, you had some gas left in the tank to push a bit right at the end 

I think where running to power helps, you do enough runs, flat, hilly, undulating, irrespective, you know if you run at a target power you will finish in that time.  Knowing this, you stick to your own game plan and ignore those around you and especially the hype at the start.  

 

Whether it is a stand alone race like this or at the back end of a triathlon, I know what pacing on power for that race I can achieve, stick to it and generally achieve it if not better.  Often off the bike in a triathlon is when I generally have to slow down to target power for the run, else will cook it.

[Andymann]

I think where running to power helps, you do enough runs, flat, hilly, undulating, irrespective, you know if you run at a target power you will finish in that time.  Knowing this, you stick to your own game plan and ignore those around you and especially the hype at the start.  

 

Whether it is a stand alone race like this or at the back end of a triathlon, I know what pacing on power for that race I can achieve, stick to it and generally achieve it if not better.  Often off the bike in a triathlon is when I generally have to slow down to target power for the run, else will cook it.

 

My biggest benefit was the second run in the Duathlon.  I never had enough in the tank for the second run, so always tried to make up the time I lost on the second run during the bike.  And the more I tried the more I failed.  It took a whole mindset change to convince myself that I didn't have to ride the fastest bike leg on the day to get onto the podium.

 

And then there was the trust in my coach - it took a while to believe him when he said if you run your first run at this power, you will have enough left to run the second at that power.

 

But it's difficult when all around you are taking off at sub 4-min/km and you are lagging behind and thinking its only 10km, I'm going to finish last!

[shaper]

My biggest benefit was the second run in the Duathlon.  I never had enough in the tank for the second run, so always tried to make up the time I lost on the second run during the bike.  And the more I tried the more I failed.  It took a whole mindset change to convince myself that I didn't have to ride the fastest bike leg on the day to get onto the podium.

 

And then there was the trust in my coach - it took a while to believe him when he said if you run your first run at this power, you will have enough left to run the second at that power.

 

But it's difficult when all around you are taking off at sub 4-min/km and you are lagging behind and thinking its only 10km, I'm going to finish last!

Definitely comes with experience and trusting your numbers.  Here my run from Dubai 70.3 earlier this year.  Would love to be a racing snake at sub 4min/km but at 55yo, the body and mind wants, but alas the legs don't lol

 

The first 2kms I had to reign myself in to slow down to target power, which meant that the last 5kms, I could run on adrenaline, what's left in the tank and know it's the finish and push it hard across the line rather than fade and stagger across! The drops in power are at the aid stations to grab water, sponges etc (extremely hot day).

[Jehosefat]

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. 

This is the bit that I disagree with. The same power output on a hilly course and a flat course cannot possibly result in the same finishing time. If that were the case, one would expect running world records to be set on any type of course and not just on the flat courses which is what actually happens in practice.

 

If the measured power is the same for the different courses and they are done in the same time then the measurement must be wrong. It's simple physics.

Edited June 25, 2020 by Jehosefat

[Hacc]

Thank you guys for all this info/comments about running to power. (Much more interesting than all the poo stories  ) 
I started a 12 week Zwift cycling training program, based on power output and I can already see a huge improvement with my cycling. I never thought about trying it with my running.

 

I downloaded the Garmin Power App, looking forward to giving this a try. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Hacc

[shaper]

This is the bit that I disagree with. The same power output on a hilly course and a flat course cannot possibly result in the same finishing time. If that were the case, one would expect running world records to be set on any type of course and not just on the flat courses which is what actually happens in practice.

 

If the measured power is the same for the different courses and they are done in the same time then the measurement must be wrong. It's simple physics.

Go look at my CPT power chart in an earlier post. Power is pretty constant whether course is flat or hilly, only thing that changes is pace with hill.

 

To give you a simple example

 

If totally flat your run at 200w which is equivalent to 1hr for 10km. Your average for the run is 6min/km.  We have built a spreadsheet during training, so know what power equates to what pace.

 

If you run a course which is one hill 5kms up and 5kms back down, you run up at 200w being at a pace of say 6:30min/km (as you have to run slower to stay at 200w as working against the slope and gravity).  Coming back down with the use of gravity and slope it easy running downhill so you have to run faster at now 5:30min/km to maintain the 200w.  Net result 6:30min/km on way up, 5:30min/km on way down, Average pace for the run 6mins/km finish in 1 hour on a 10km hilly course. 

 

You still raced both courses at 200w power output and had the same finish time even though one was a hill and not flat.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by shaper

[Pieter-za]

OK this afternoon I went out checking only RP - targeting 230W (I realise values will differ between equipment, apps etc, but I would hope that when using the same app / appliance it will result in comparable (relative to) measurements on the same platform, be it this app, Polar V, Stryd etc)

 

I hit it fairly easy on 6% gradients but had to almost sprint downhills to reach it.  Now next question - when running on HR I could easily detect that I was eg getting into the anaerobic zone or that my (ave) HR is getting to high for reaching my objective, how do I map this to RP?  My perhaps unfounded 'concern' is that RP might not take physiological (fatigue etc) factors into consideration, but will just indicate a number to hit which could result in you running yourself into the ground if you don't select the correct RP value?

 

BTW - here is a review of the RP app : https://www.prorun.nl/runtech/hardloopvermogensmeters-13-running-power-estimator-iq-app/

[Vetplant]

OK this afternoon I went out checking only RP - targeting 230W (I realise values will differ between equipment, apps etc, but I would hope that when using the same app / appliance it will result in comparable (relative to) measurements on the same platform, be it this app, Polar V, Stryd etc)

 

I hit it fairly easy on 6% gradients but had to almost sprint downhills to reach it. Now next question - when running on HR I could easily detect that I was eg getting into the anaerobic zone or that my (ave) HR is getting to high for reaching my objective, how do I map this to RP? My perhaps unfounded 'concern' is that RP might not take physiological (fatigue etc) factors into consideration, but will just indicate a number to hit which could result in you running yourself into the ground if you don't select the correct RP value?

 

BTW - here is a review of the RP app : https://www.prorun.nl/runtech/hardloopvermogensmeters-13-running-power-estimator-iq-app/

You are correct on it being a number disconnected from physiological factors. And just like with cycling, that can have good and bad aspects.

 

Biggest thing which I learnt from cycling power is to know when to listen to your body and ignore the numbers, and vice versa.

 

This is just another tool in our toolbox. Don't trust it blindly.

[Vetplant]

I did my own test of the free Running Power Estimation app.

 

I like it.

 

It has significantly longer lag than what you may be used to from a cycling power meter. But still very useful in extended climbs for us lot without the Garmin Power App and without the Stryd.

[Pieter-za]

I think the 'lag' (interval sample) is configurable?

[Vetplant]

I think the 'lag' (interval sample) is configurable?

Jip.

 

Going to play with that for sure. There's going to be a sweetspot, where the readings don't become too erratic. I'll tinker a bit

[shaper]

OK this afternoon I went out checking only RP - targeting 230W (I realise values will differ between equipment, apps etc, but I would hope that when using the same app / appliance it will result in comparable (relative to) measurements on the same platform, be it this app, Polar V, Stryd etc)

 

I hit it fairly easy on 6% gradients but had to almost sprint downhills to reach it.  Now next question - when running on HR I could easily detect that I was eg getting into the anaerobic zone or that my (ave) HR is getting to high for reaching my objective, how do I map this to RP?  My perhaps unfounded 'concern' is that RP might not take physiological (fatigue etc) factors into consideration, but will just indicate a number to hit which could result in you running yourself into the ground if you don't select the correct RP value?

 

BTW - here is a review of the RP app : https://www.prorun.nl/runtech/hardloopvermogensmeters-13-running-power-estimator-iq-app/

How close to your Critical Power were you with 230w? If close you will struggle to get to it on a downhill.

 

I suspect 230w even on the flat you will be up around threshold or higher.

 

You need to know your Critical Power (Running FTP), then in the same way as for cycling you calculate your power zones so that you run in your proper zones when training and doing workouts, especially intervals. So you do not just pick a power number then try to run to it and bonk or fail because it is not realistic.

 

A good read if you can find locally is by Jim Vance-Run with power https://www.amazon.com/Run-Power-Complete-Meters-Running/dp/1937715434

[Pieter-za]

How close to your Critical Power were you with 230w? If close you will struggle to get to it on a downhill.

 

I suspect 230w even on the flat you will be up around threshold or higher.

 

You need to know your Critical Power (Running FTP), then in the same way as for cycling you calculate your power zones so that you run in your proper zones when training and doing workouts, especially intervals. So you do not just pick a power number then try to run to it and bonk or fail because it is not realistic.

 

A good read if you can find locally is by Jim Vance-Run with power https://www.amazon.com/Run-Power-Complete-Meters-Running/dp/1937715434

Ah - thanks Shaper, excellent info and advice - let me do some more reading and learning 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Pieter-za