Technology and Running

As part of work, I regularly deal with new technologies to assist sporting performance. Over the years I have tried many different methods of measuring running speed/distance, from a unit around my waist that worked like a speed camera to see how fast I was moving in relation to surrounding objects right through to current technologies (by the way, the waist mounted speed sensor wasn't great, especially around passing traffic). However it is the technology that I am going to mention today that makes me most excited as not only does it offer the most accurate means so far, but it is a rather ingenious use of technology packaged into a small and well priced unit.

As I have stated previously in this blog, I am not a big fan of GPS for running. The foot pod offers a cheaper, smaller and less energy hungry method of measuring speed to the same accuracy as GPS. For example, my 9 gram Suunto foot pod is generally 1% off when doing 1km repeats.

However, I also acknowledge that many runners believe that GPS is the superior method and it offers the obvious benefit of mapping. It is this popularity that has resulted in Suunto developing it's new Ambit heart rate monitor (or training computer when you see all the functions it has). Personally, I don't see inbuilt GPS as being overly exciting but what I am really excited about in the new Ambit is that the inbuilt GPS is combined with an inbuild accelerometer. One of the major issues with GPS is their accuracy in a watch as small as they are and the arm is continually moving meaning the GPS is far from ideal. Additionally the smaller the GPS, the less the signal strength and thus the greater drop outs. By intergrating the accelerometer, the watch can then smooth out these errors as it knows the arm movements and is far more sensitive to rapid speed change. All sounds good, right? But now comes the really exciting bit.....

When the GPS signal is poor, the accelerometer can take over and provide speed measurements on it's own. So the accelerometer in the watch is not only correcting the GPS but offering to ensure good accuracy even when the GPS signal is lost.

The Australian release of the Ambit is expected next week and I am very excited to try it and see if it lives up to all these promises. Currently I use my T6d daily and love it, so the Ambit looks like a super powered T6 with all its extra features. 

If this post is of interest, you may also like this YouTube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCpOK0L8o5E

Back Blogging - Pre-Season Training

It has been almost a year since the last blog post. For the majority of that time, I have been keen to write a post, but have simply struggled with time. So here, I am again with the aim of getting more regular in 2012.

In this first post back I want to discuss the pre-season training approach for a marathon runner. By pre-season, I prefer to that period more than 3-4 months out from your next marathon (we will focus on this period later). We are now in February and while there are some early season marathons in April, as a general rule, most marathons are later in the year. Yet, we get inspired over the Christmas period and start focussing on running a marathon PB. This inspiration leads to a spike in motivation which in turn leads to us getting out there for long weekend runs, extra volume during the week and dreams of great marathon times. 

The problem is we are possibly still 6+ months out from our goal marathon and all this work in the short term will probably do us more harm than good when it comes to marathon performance. Quality long runs of 2 hours or more are demanding on the body; therefore our body can only tolerate a certain number of them. Additionally, they are mentally draining, requiring motivation, focus and the ability to push through those hours of hurt. So if our bodies and mind only have a certain number of good long runs per year, why are we wasting them so early in our preparation? They will likely lead to an increase risk of injury, reduced motivation by the time the key training period come around, and possibly fatigue which will hamper our preparation closer to the marathon.

So what is the best approach? We are still 6 months out from the race and we are ultra keen to train, so what should we be doing?

I recommend that during this pre-season period, you aim to race some shorter races, maybe 5-10km, with the aim of getting in some good shape for these. Thus the focus becomes on improving your speed through intensity work, while not focussing on volume. This will allow you to be motivated and physically ready to step it up in those final 3-4 months pre-marathon. Additionally, this approach of developing speed and then building your volume on top has been shown to be effective. Traditionally called reverse periodisation, it is becomes more of a common practice in modern training.

So your training during this pre-season period might include sessions like:

• Long runs of 100-120 minutes - giving you a good base to build to the marathon later.
• Short intervals - this could come in the form of 1-3 minute efforts, or track work of 400-1000m efforts. Aiming for an intensity around 3-5km race pace and having short recoveries between efforts. In total, 15-20 minutes of hard running would be the maximum recommended. 
• Longer intervals - the idea of the longer intervals is to sustain a speed at close to your half marathon pace. At times you might be a bit quicker than this but never quicker than 10km race pace. These are the early stages of tempo sessions which will be the backbone of your marathon training, however at this early stage, we only want 20-25min of total running at this speed. So something like 2 x 10-12 minute efforts are ideal.
• A range of moderate intensity aerobic running to pad out the rest of the week. We probably don't want a third intensity session at this point so any extra running can be aerobic sessions. 
• Injury prevention sessions - you arn't going to be in good shape if you are injured, so aim to include 2-3 weekly injury prevention sessions (core stability, flexibility and specific strength work).

So in summary, this is an important part of your marathon preparation, not just because of what you can gain but also because of what you can lose if it is done incorrectly. 

Is consistency the key to good performance?

For a long time I have been an a believer in the value of training consistency. The philosophy being that regular consistent training will get you the results you are after. As we moved into 2011, I realised I had actually been putting this into practice with my own training and had run every day for 10 months and averaged over 9 runs per week.

This was probably the most consistent block of training I had undertaken over the years and it was a good test of this consistency theory. My 2010 goal was to break 35min for 10km. I had previously run ~35:15 twice, but I had never managed to break that elusive barrier. So how did performance during this period compare to other years?

I had some ok races, enough to keep me happy but no PB and in same cases I was actually further than I should have been off my PB. So this got me thinking, how did I achieve those previous PBs? Well it wasn't consistency. My 10km PB came after only training for ~8 months, following several months of no running due to injury.

How can I be running slower now than I did with only 8 months of training under my belt? To answer this, I think we have to look away from the consistency theory. To get that extra few percent improvement, it isn't a matter of just being out there consistently, the key is to be able to really overload the body, test it, try and push it to the limit. 

This is a slightly higher risk approach as if you really push yourself, the risk of injury is much greater and you are not going to be running PBs when injured. However, if you don't try, you will plateau and be able to get to that next level. I would call this approach the overload theory. If you are aiming for shorter events, it measures focussing on hard sessions that push you to the limit on a regular basis. For the longer distance athlete, the focus is on volume and tempo based intensity work.

The next question is then, can you have both consistentcy and overload? Well possibly, but when you overload yourself, you also need to allow more recovery as without this recovery you won't be able to maximise the next overload period very well. Therefore, just as you have to have those periods of pushing yourself to the limit, you also need those periods of easing things back and letting the body repair and recovery in preparation for the next overload period. 

So what can we take away of this information? There is no doubt that training consistency is crucial; without it you will not get results. However, consistency alone will not help you reach those PBs. Look at the graph below. If both lines are a measure of an athlete's training load, the average in each is the same, but the way in which the load is constructed is completely different. The blue line shows a consistent training approach, similar week in and week out, while the red line shows an overload and recovery approach. The red line is what will get you the results.

In saying this, it is important to consider the training background of the athlete in mind. To use my example from above, I have been running for 18 years, so the consistency theory has maybe done it's dash with me. It is perhaps better placed to assist those with a younger training age or regular injury concerns. I have no doubt that endurance athletes who have been doing their sport for less than 2 years will benefit more from consistent training than the overload approach. This just goes to show that your training approach needs to be individualised: horses for courses!

Buying Your Way to Good Results

It has been a while since my last post but this topic has been in the back of my mind. It is more opinion than science and was further promoted to the top of my 'blogs topic' list in follow up to a similar article by Rod Cedaro in the recent edition of Triathlon and Multisport Magazine.

Why is it that a large number of athletes spent huge amounts of money of the latest cool equipment when the impact this will have on their performance is minimal. This trend is definitely more evident in cycling and triathlon than it is in running, but there is no doubt it is a trend across all endurance sports.

A cyclists or triathlete might try and justify that their new $5000 bike frame will assist performance with improved aerodynamics; and there is no doubt that it will but........ 

Take an average recreational triathlete who is say 75kg. He could get an 80sec improvement in his 40km TT performance simply by losing 2kg of weight. Or that same athlete, could get the same 80sec improvement by improving power output by only 2%. Lets go one step further, this athlete could save more than 2 minutes by simply improving their riding position. So how much does that new expensive frame save? About 60 seconds.

So there is no doubt that equipment can be beneficial in improving performance, and it is an easy saving, but it is also a very expensive way to enhance performance compared to the other examples given. This is especially the case given that most recreational athletes still have a lot of performance to gain through simply optimising training. The expensive equipment is only really a necessity for elite athletes looking for that extra edge.

It is important to remember that most of us train for enjoyment, and race performance is a secondary priority. So this means that expensive new bike frame is actually more of a cool toy to show your friends, than it is a means to racing faster.

The bottom line, when you are next about to lash out and make that big purchase that will help with your performance, think about it. Are you buying it just so you have the latest toy, or are you buying it as you couldn't be bothered to make the hard changes that will result in even greater performance. 

And The Barefoot Running Debate Continues

The discussion about barefoot running is ongoing with many different opinions being continually expressed. In my opinion, there is no clear cut right or wrong as the differences between every runner is so large. However it is worth noting that even the barefoot fans are not generally volume runners; I don't know of many people running 100+ km per week barefoot. Therefore, it may be that a combination is ideal.

Anyway, rather than rabbit on for hours about it, I thought I would refer through to a recent post at The Science of Sport blog. Check it out here.