To Infinity and Beyond - Becoming a Better DopeyBadger (Comments Welcome)

[DopeyBadger]

37 Days to Go (Change is good. Yeah, but it's not easy.)



Date - Day - Scheduled Workout (Intervals within desired pace, Strength +/- 5 sec, everything else +/- 10 sec)

11/23/16 - W - OFF
11/24/16 - R - 2 miles @ 9:47 min/mile + 8 miles @ 7:33 min/mile + 2 miles @ 9:47 min/mile
11/25/16 - F - 7 miles @ 9:01 or slower min/mile
11/26/16 - Sat - 8 miles @ 8:22 or slower min/mile
11/27/16 - Sun - 11 miles @ 8:13 min/mile
11/28/16 - M - 7 miles @ 9:01 or slower min/mile
11/29/16 - T - 2 miles @ 9:47 min/mile + 2 x 3 mile @ 7:05 min/mile w/ 1 mile RI + 2 miles @ 9:47 min/mile

Total mileage = 56 miles
Number of intervals within pace = ?/? (?%) *I'd say 100% based on "effort"

These times are a changing. When I started this training plan roughly 6 weeks ago I didn't really know where I was at. Was I injured? Was I still able to run? What was the mystery of my leg? I settled on a training plan to balance where I thought I was with getting better. If I had to back off, then so be it. When I set this training plan up, I would have placed the odds of how I am currently feeling at about 5% or less. So this past week, I just let me be me. I know what each of these runs "feel" like. I've been doing it for 1.5 years this way. So I know what EA or EB or Long run or Marathon Tempo feels like. So rather than focus on the pace, I decided to go essentially blind the whole week. If I felt good, then run fast. If I felt slow, then run slow. Everything effort wise matched what I believe was the appropriate pace for that day. Especially since now that almost every run is in the dark I don't spend much time checking my pace between miles. It's like a Ronco...



So, marathon tempo day was on Thanksgiving. As I posted earlier in the week, it went pretty well. Solid pace with no fade. Solid HR with no fade. HR equal both at the beginning and end of the run during WU/CD. Cadence and GCT continued to show me getting stronger and more efficient. And with all that I ran a 7:23 min/mile average instead of a 7:33 min/mile average. It was too fast, but the effort was right. And the HR matched historical marathon effort data (152.1 vs 153) to suggest that it was an appropriate pace. The question afterwards was is this just a single good day or a sign of really getting better? The other thing I noticed was the HR monitor on my chest was starting to give me an abrasion again. Since it took several months for the last abrasion to disappear I decided it was time to retire the chest strap HR monitor.

I had Black Friday off, but Steph didn't. So it was an early morning run for me. Up at 5:00am and out the door at 5:30am. Nothing to note. Average pace was 8:59 min/mile. My wife and I did some Black Friday shopping before her work and then I dropped her off. Before we left each other, it was the decision that I could get the Garmin 235 (with optical HR monitor) if Fleet Feet had it for $250 with the coupons ($70) to make the effective price $180. I got the last one after they had been open for roughly an hour. Huzzah! It wasn't my first choice in color (Force Yellow), but honestly the color doesn't mean much to me.

Saturday was the first day with the new Garmin 235. It was nice to have a confirmation from sleeping with it that A) I do indeed get a lot of "deep sleep" and B) my resting HR is 45. The run went well. Another early morning because my wife worked again. So up at 5:45 and running by 6:15. The pace was again a tad quick (8:27 min/mile) but felt like EB. The HR was a solid 136. After the run was a gorge on college football. Between the OSU v Michigan game, and then the WI v Minn game it was a blast. My HR got up to 149 during the OSU v MI game and 138 during the WI v Minn game, but not for any extended period of time. Glad Bucky could pull out a 13th straight victory. Fun fact the rivalry is now tied at 59-59-1. This is the first time it has been tied since 1901. Wisconsin has never led the series... Until 2017....?!?!?

Sunday was another early day. Up at 5:45 and out the door at 6:30. My wife worked again. I could tell almost instantly this was going to be a different kind of day (in a good way). When I reached my water bottle drop off spot, I was already at a 9:19 min/mile. Which is much quicker than normal. When I hit the first mile marker I was at 8:39. Then the second was 7:55. Now in my last few long runs I haven't been getting down to sub 8 quite so quickly. So either this was going to be a trend or I went out way too fast. Then 7:52, 8:01, 7:43, 7:45, 7:48, 7:45, 7:48, 7:43, 7:49. Not bad... Not bad at all... So then the question post-run was did I push it too hard? Well I can use my HR as an indicator based on historical data. My HR from the last two long runs were 145 (8:01) and 138 (8:02). This run was 142 (7:48). So looks like the HR was in line. My effort was in line. No drift, no fade, looks like it was an appropriate workout. Seems like a trend is developing...

Monday was not an ideal running night. Weather Underground said it was currently 45, raining, and no wind. I took that and went with it. So I dressed in a singlet and shorts (my above 40 outfit). In reality, it was 45, raining, with 10-20 mph wind. Thus, with the cold, windy, rain it was not a pleasant run. I should have worn a jacket... Oh well... Beyond being cold and wet throughout the entire run, it went well. Too fast at a 8:41 min/mile but the effort felt like EA. And the HR was in an appropriate area for an easy run (130). So everything seemed in line with the type of workout I intended on doing.

Tuesday was a repeat 2 x 3 miles at HM strength. Being the week of blind, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. But the weather was PERFECT. About 40, no wind, night, just beautiful. So I knew it could be another special day. So how did it go.... well... let's just say.... BOOM!



So a NEW MILE PR!!! At a 6:38 min/mile (Strava rounded)! And a 3rd fastest mile ever at 6:47. What the what?!?! And with that the average was 6:53 instead of the scheduled 7:05. Crazy enough the HR for the first three miles was 157, 161, and 160 whereas the 2nd 3 mile interval was 156, 155, and 157. So for the 3rd straight HM strength week the 2nd half of the workout's intervals had a lower HR than the first intervals. This is an interesting trend developing and I'm not sure what to make of it right now. But regardless, this is a DOMINANT run.

So remember this:

So in two short weeks, my HR prediction calculator has moved my marathon time from 3:20 to 3:12. A predicted 8 min improvement. I venture to guess that this improvement will start to slow and that I won't see nearly the dramatic jump in another two weeks of training. That far off outlier in the yellow boxes at 8:02 and 138 is Sunday's long run. So if the trend continues you can already see the line is starting to shift again. Nonetheless, it is an interesting improvement to monitor.

I said that last week about my HR graph. Well that "far off outlier" has some friends as the graph continues to shift to faster and faster times.



Just look how the yellow squares continue to shift down and to the left at similar HRs or paces. Just keep getting better.

So how about the current predictor then?

11/20-11/29
Mile - 5:41
5k - 19:21
10k - 40:29
HM - 1:28:26
M - 3:09:50

Now here's the interesting part. What if I take an EA of 8:41 and a LR of 7:46 (roughly the last 7 miles of the 11 mile LR)? What do they look like in my completing unrelated pacing calculator?



So let this soak in. My HR chart is based on my HR relative to effort I believe to be equivalent to paces. My effort in paces gives me the following "blind" idea on my pacing. That's to say these two systems are related but approach the answer in two different ways. One is HR v Pace and the other is Pure blind effort. And yet we get the following comparison...

5K - 19:21 vs 19:28
10K - 40:29 vs 40:34
HM - 1:28:26 vs 1:29:32
M - 3:09:50 vs 3:06:54

That's actually pretty cool how close those two prediction models are based on effort or HR. So let's look to Dopey again...

My original projections at the beginning of training 6 weeks ago:



Versus where I believe I am now:



The catch is the values used to make the 2015 and 2016 predictors for Dopey where with actual October marathon times. Is it fair to use predicted fitness? Is it fair to use fitness as of 11/29 and not October? Hard to say. It's a relatively large window that I may fall for my times:

5k = 19:36 - 21:29
10k = 38:58 - 44:15
HM = 1:32:19 - 1:42:19
M = 3:11:47 - 3:39:16
Goofy = 4:45:53 - 5:20:54
Dopey = 5:44:37 - 6:26:37

It's going to be fun to see which of these 8 current models comes the closest to predicting Dopey 2017. Which brings me to this. Since everything is going well again, and I'm feeling better than ever. I will likely have another prediction contest for Dopey 2017. I wasn't planning on doing one. But seeing all of these possible scenarios it would be fun to see what other people come up with. I'm thinking predict all 6 event times. Get points for closest predictions based on number of entrants. And double points for Dopey predictions. Don't worry about making any guesses now. I'll probably open up the window come around taper time.

Only...

1 HM Tempo
2 Long Runs
3 HM Strength
4 Marathon Tempos

remaining until Dopey day! It'll be here before I know it.

PS - Hooray for Post #1000!!!! Thanks for following along everyone. It means a lot.

 

[FFigawi]

Caution, math ahead.

I'm surprised there aren't more points on your HR graph. Which ones do you choose to plot from your watch data and why those?

 

[DopeyBadger]

Caution, math ahead.

I'm surprised there aren't more points on your HR graph. Which ones do you choose to plot from your watch data and why those?

I tried to make this the "Math Zone", but I'm not nearly tech savvy enough to figure out how to alter this gif.



*Well done @roxymama!

Anyways...

The data points from Jan 2015 through Apr 2015 are based on the times I ran with the HR monitor. Back then I was training 3 days per week, and I didn't wear it on every run. So the data set is the following...



Back then my training consisted of long runs on the weekend and barely in mileage during the week.

The data set for June 2015 through September 2015 I started wearing the chest strap more often and ran more often (with Hansons). It allowed more data points.



However, I didn't use all of the data points to make June through September. I used August through September which it would be more appropriate to change the legend to this. That's because including all of the data became messy as I progressively got better under Hansons. Here is the graph with all data between June to Sept.



Comparing to the original graph you can see quite a few red triangles smattered about. This shows the true progression over 3 months. A few additional data points on 9/1 and 9/3 were thrown out because of excessive weather conditions. I didn't feel these were representative of my fitness but a by-product of the temperature of the day.

In October 2015, the HR monitor broke. It started giving me extremely (HR in the 220s and the 80s mid-run with no set pattern as to when it would occur so likely not a by-product of wetting it) faulty data. I presumed the battery needed to be changed. But came to find the screws on the back of the HR monitor are extremely soft. I damaged the screws trying to remove the back plate and thus ruined the HR monitor. Thus, I lost data collection for a large period of time. Since I was developing a large scar on my chest from wearing the HR monitor I chose not to pursue getting a replacement. In March, I borrowed a HR monitor from my coworker and got a few points from a single run. In October I again borrowed the HR monitor and got many of the data points you see under the current data set.



I have found over time that the HR changes occur in two week blocks. Some due to weather and some due to changes in fitness. Thus I find the most appropriate selection of the data for a "current" projection is to use roughly the last few weeks. Any further back and the weather/fitness might be significantly different and thus greatly alter the projection.

In the end I choose to plot data that I feel is representative of my fitness. If there is a 50 mph wind day and the HR doesn't match recent runs, then I won't use it. It's good for predicting 50 mph wind days, but not the typical day. If it's snowing (or snow on the ground) I don't tend to use those days. I use WU pace/HR but I don't use CD because the workout impacts the HR at the end (which then doesn't make it necessarily appropriate for a prediction model). For my steady state runs, like Tempo and Strength I choose to average the paces together, but may remove the first couple miles when I'm "easing" into the pace. The last 75% of the run is steady (pace and HR wise) so it gives me a better data set. I choose to average the HR on all individual runs because of the varying elevation I run. If I plotted the runs using each individual mile there would be a lot more variability dependent on whether that single mile had more uphill or downhill. But since almost all of my runs follow the same path (dependent on mileage), then the average of the 8 mile run should have nearly the same elevation as every other 8 mile run.

 

[roxymama]

 

[roxymama]

Does that image work or should I take another try at it?

When I look at your predicted Dopey times, it's pretty incredible to me that you can finish a whole Dopey before a lot of people can finish one marathon. Then again, you do have breaks in between each race, but you know what I mean. Now I need to study your fastpasses and dining plans again so I can figure out how to work those into my prediction. Figure out the "one more photo with mickey...gigi requests" and "can we walk to Ariel ride again" type things (as they get older the requests grow.) I have a notepad of equations at my desk at all times (no, really, I do...I sell building materials and I have to talk to engineers on the daily) so now I need to start "math-ing" for that contest. Or I can just pick a bunch of numbers that "look nice" which is how I play the lottery.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Does that image work or should I take another try at it?

PERFECT! I added it to the original post!

When I look at your predicted Dopey times, it's pretty incredible to me that you can finish a whole Dopey before a lot of people can finish one marathon.

No cart before the horse just yet. These are just projections and may or may not actually happen. But with that being said my first Dopey (2014) was in 8:02:24, and the marathon was a 4:35:07. Michael Wardian ran the Dopey in 4:38:45 in 2014. So I essentially said the same thing when I crossed the Dopey line in 2014. Wow, he just finished the entire 48.6 miles in the same amount of time that I ran 26.2 miles. Incredible! So I know the feeling both as the person on the slower side and more recently on the somewhat faster side.

Then again, you do have breaks in between each race, but you know what I mean.

It definitely helps. I couldn't run 48.6 miles continuously nearly as quick as running it broken up. You know, #Math and #Science. But one of the things I am really good at is recovery. Thus, having these breaks between races allows me to get very close to PR times on all 4 races even with the other races occurring.

Now I need to study your fastpasses and dining plans again so I can figure out how to work those into my prediction. Figure out the "one more photo with mickey...gigi requests" and "can we walk to Ariel ride again" type things (as they get older the requests grow.) I have a notepad of equations at my desk at all times (no, really, I do...I sell building materials and I have to talk to engineers on the daily) so now I need to start "math-ing" for that contest. Or I can just pick a bunch of numbers that "look nice" which is how I play the lottery.

Best of luck. I'd say the original calculations are probably the most accurate. But it will be interesting to see what happens. I know that I likely won't go 100% for the 5k because I'm not sure I trust my body to run a 6:20 min/mile for that long. When I ran Dopey 2016 and pushed the 5K I could tell my body wasn't happy with me because I was hitting paces that I had never trained or ever done before. I'll probably be a bit more conservative. But again that's just a few minutes here or there. The real winning prediction will come from that marathon time since it is a large portion of the marathon, goofy, and dopey time. Nail the marathon and you'll likely win.

 

[ZellyB]

My head hurts now from all the math, but I can say, "WOW!!" Your improvement is just so impressive and those are some pretty stinking fast mile paces!!!

 

[DopeyBadger]

My head hurts now from all the math, but I can say, "WOW!!" Your improvement is just so impressive and those are some pretty stinking fast mile paces!!!

#Math!

Maybe that's why I like running as a hobby so much. It has strategy, math, it's personal, science, data, competition, patience, commitment, time, the amazing community, the need for more spreadsheets, etc. All things that I enjoy doing in my life.

Thanks! I'm just happy to be running healthy and it still feeling good. I honestly didn't expect to be in this shape at this point. Just sticking to the plan and the science that has guided my improvement over the last 1.5 years. But it's kind of "scary" to look at those HRs and know from historical data that a 160 is HM pace, and yet I attempted sub-HM pace (HM Strength) and got as low as 6:47ish in the 2nd 3 mile interval and didn't hit but 155-157, but I was booking it. Still felt comfortable, but I was really putting in a solid effort. For HM strength, I would anticipate around 160-162. I'm starting to find (and confirm what I believed would happen) that my endurance is very very strong. Now it's becoming a matter of learning how to run fast. I'm trying to figure out how to run sub-6. How do I do that biomechanically? Because stylistically I can feel my body resisting using my current form. That's why I'm being really careful and trying to feel out what comes naturally.

When I started the question was, Can I get a sub-4? Can I get a sub-3? What is my physical limit? Every time I feel as if I'm getting close to that threshold I seem to find a new gear. I'm interested to find my limit whatever that may be in the coming years.

 

[DopeyBadger]

November Mileage Report
(Completed/Scheduled)
Running Miles - 224.7/230.7 (97%)
Running Duration - 31:46:28/32:47:33 (97%)
Average Pace - 8:29 min/mile
HR Average - 139 bpm (Roughly 61% of my Heart Rate Reserve) *PS - Hooray for HR stats!

Happy with the stats! I came into the month not knowing what to expect my body would give me after the October marathon and the pain I was in. I decided to play it by ear and a few of the runs in the beginning of the month I lowered the mileage and slowed the pace. Overall though a very solid training month. And given my more cautious and smart approach I am in the best shape of my life. These last few runs this past week have truly been magical (even without being in Disney World).

 

[DopeyBadger]

@dis_or_dat

I put together the following analysis of my cadence vs stride length at different paces over time. So the question to you and the rest of the readers is, what conclusions can you draw from this data?

Some notes about the data collection:
-Cadence is defined as the number of steps per minute (both feet included).
-Stride length is defined as the distance in meters from one footfall to the next. Thus, it is the distance from the point at which the left foot leaves the ground to the point at which the right foot makes contact.
-Each dot represents an individual split and not an average of an entire run.
-Each dot is not necessarily the same distance. Some are as short as 0.1 miles and others are as long as 1 mile. *It was the only way to have matching data sets across the timeline.
-The lack of data between Sep 2015 and Nov 2015 exists because of the loss of the Run-HRM and the inaccuracy of the Garmin 620 cadence and stride length (determined by the consistent near zero cadence values).
-The weather conditions under which these were run are not the same, but no run with snow/ice on the ground (or snowing) was used.
-The training conditions under which these were run are not the same. The level of training load varied from run to run based on the training plan at that time.
-I chose to break the data into 30 second blocks because the relationship of cadence and stride length creates pace. Thus, to have a fair comparison over time it is necessary to split the data set as it was done. The goal is to see how I accomplished running a certain pace by using the cadence and stride length.
-There was a concerted effort to increase cadence starting in Feb 2015.













I believe these are semi-relevant to the discussion.



Displays HR vs Pace. Is an average for a steady state in a run so the data points could represent as little as 1 mile or as much as 26.2 miles.



Current fitness is estimated at:



So, what's the conclusion?

 

[cavepig]

Yeah, I was the one confused on why she was trying to slow her cadence so I'm probably all mixed up Seems to me fast cadence and long stride is optimal for faster paces on your charts if I'm reading right. Basically I was coached with the "quick feet" concept and spring off your foot. Longer strides too are beneficial as long as you aren't over reaching or too much air time bounding also how I think. But then I'm not a huge analyst of running so probably messed up in my thinking!

 

[rteetz]

So many charts and graphs my head is spinning. This really is the Math Zone! Anyways great job as always!

Wisconsin has never led the series... Until 2017....?!?!?

I sure hope so! But first let's win that Big Ten Championship!

 

[DopeyBadger]

Seems to me fast cadence and long stride is optimal for faster paces on your charts if I'm reading right.

Maybe something like this?



Makes sense right? To run faster, you either have to increase your cadence or increase your stride length. But how you get there could be key. Although this graph loses that individual characteristic for both cadence and stride. In fact, you could almost guarantee that Garmin uses your counted cadence and pace to determine your stride length using the logarithmic line of best fit on the above graph (and the tiny variation is likely due to rounding error on the Garmin display).

So many charts and graphs my head is spinning. This really is the Math Zone! Anyways great job as always!


I sure hope so! But first let's win that Big Ten Championship!

LOL, the Math Zone! We shall see on the BTCG. I'm hopeful, just enjoying the moment right now.

 

[roxymama]

the PICTURE ZONE! My brain made me think of these guys.
vs

Mr. hummingbird has rapid turnover with those little wings. Distance those little wings have to travel before they start over isn't very far compared to Mr. Eagle. Little bird is staying in place though, so you still need to give power behind your little steps/fast turnover to propel yourself forward faster, right? Otherwise you just look like Sully in Monster's University (Scary feet, Scary feet, Scary feet) Which is why you can have that 180+ cadence (right now for your black triangles) for several different paces. You've gotta be giving more oomph to speed up, too.
Mr. Eagle has big' ol wings. He's got a lot of distance to flap his big pendulums.
Hey, remember those clackers we had as kids? No reason, i just remembered them. But I do remember how fast they'd clack once they didn't have to do the big swing up...when they'd just hit really fast at the end. Probably a good reason not to over stride.
Hey, here's a fun pendulum fact "the natural frequency of a pendulum increase as it's length decreases" Thanks google.

Literally no idea where I'm going with this post. But I bet if you figured out a way to lengthen you stride a little, without going too far in front or behind your body, and turn it over faster, you'd be a pretty fast eagle-bird-human????

Edited to say that I re-read this and apologize for my insanity

 

[cavepig]

Yeah I don't run with anything to analyze myself so I did wonder how it could calculate stride. Even cadence, how does it determine that? Does it sense when your foot hits? I'm just so old school with data all I look at is pace, but I do like Math so you aren't alone there

Now Big 10 talk, I think I would like to see Wisconsin win I suppose. I was actually glad Wisconsin won last week, since Nebraska lost terribly so any chances to go to the Big10 game were already gone.

 

[dis_or_dat]

I'm at work (and don't typically look at stats or graphs here), so will attempt to look at this later tonight with a glass of wine. I've been following along with your heart rate stats, but selfishly felt morose over my elevated HR and didn't comment. But thrilled with your improvements!

 

[DopeyBadger]

the PICTURE ZONE! My brain made me think of these guys.
View attachment 208513 vs View attachment 208514

Mr. hummingbird has rapid turnover with those little wings. Distance those little wings have to travel before they start over isn't very far compared to Mr. Eagle. Little bird is staying in place though, so you still need to give power behind your little steps/fast turnover to propel yourself forward faster, right? Otherwise you just look like Sully in Monster's University (Scary feet, Scary feet, Scary feet) Which is why you can have that 180+ cadence (right now for your black triangles) for several different paces. You've gotta be giving more oomph to speed up, too.
Mr. Eagle has big' ol wings. He's got a lot of distance to flap his big pendulums.
Hey, remember those clackers we had as kids? No reason, i just remembered them. But I do remember how fast they'd clack once they didn't have to do the big swing up...when they'd just hit really fast at the end. Probably a good reason not to over stride.
Hey, here's a fun pendulum fact "the natural frequency of a pendulum increase as it's length decreases" Thanks google.

Literally no idea where I'm going with this post. But I bet if you figured out a way to lengthen you stride a little, without going too far in front or behind your body, and turn it over faster, you'd be a pretty fast eagle-bird-human????

Edited to say that I re-read this and apologize for my insanity

Makes sense to me. I could run 180 spm at a 10:00 min/mile or a 6:00 min/mile, but dosing so directly influences the stride length. And that "power" is how I see stride length. I give more "power" I increase my stride length. I need the cadence of the hummingbird and the stride of the eagle and then I would be dominant!

Yeah I don't run with anything to analyze myself so I did wonder how it could calculate stride. Even cadence, how does it determine that? Does it sense when your foot hits? I'm just so old school with data all I look at is pace, but I do like Math so you aren't alone there

Now Big 10 talk, I think I would like to see Wisconsin win I suppose. I was actually glad Wisconsin won last week, since Nebraska lost terribly so any chances to go to the Big10 game were already gone.

I believe (and someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the Garmin measures cadence based on the accelerometer within the watch based on arm movement, or uses the Run-HRM with the bounce in the step to register as different steps.

Based on this chart, it would appear the "stride" is calculated by your pace and cadence measured by the GPS watch. To confirm, someone provide me 2 paces and 2 matching spm and I could tell them what the output was for their stride.



And this makes sense because eventually one or the other will max out. Either you can't take more spm or you can't increase your stride any further and that will be your final limiting factor on pace.

On Wisconsin!

I'm at work (and don't typically look at stats or graphs here), so will attempt to look at this later tonight with a glass of wine. I've been following along with your heart rate stats, but selfishly felt morose over my elevated HR and didn't comment. But thrilled with your improvements!

Sounds good! I do feel as if we can figure out how to lower your HR that you may unlock even further potential. I wouldn't say it's your limiting factor, but surely it would help. I wonder if doing some type of yoga or a training cycle almost exclusively easy with a HR never out of zone 2 would lower your HR. I know when I run I focus on trying to keep myself "in the zone" and thus try to keep my HR low. Who knows if it's actually why it's working, but maybe it has an effect? I do think you should start to see an effect with these longer long runs that you'll be doing. Try typing your HR v pace in a graph to see if you're also seeing a small change.

 

[roxymama]

So off-shoot question that's probably personal to my form...but maybe others can relate.
I was formerly and formally trained in partner dancing (think swing, ballroom, what have you) and other realms of dance (tap, irish step.) And dependent on the dance your arms either naturally go right along with your bodies natural way of movement or you are drilled to keep them arms in certain places even while your legs are doing incredible (even fast paced and wild) things. So I think I maybe tend to sometime just leave my arms right up in front of me like a good little partner dancer and...yeah, I don't think I'm swinging them too much. Especially on the treadmill for some reason. I'm real good at having good posture and relaxed shoulders and then those arms just stay right there. I'm wondering
A) should I be moving my arms more to generate more speed/power? Probably yes? But how bout on the easy runs?
B) will my accelerometer inside my garmin tonight think I'm running waaaaaay slow?
C) Do I look like a t-rex? I think I might?

Guess something to think about tonight.

 

[DopeyBadger]

A) should I be moving my arms more to generate more speed/power? Probably yes? But how bout on the easy runs?
B) will my accelerometer inside my garmin tonight think I'm running waaaaaay slow?
C) Do I look like a t-rex? I think I might?

A) Only when you have to. As I understand it, the more you move your arms the more energy is expended. So the energy being a valuable resource we want to refrain from forcibly pumping the arms unless you have to. As you get faster and faster, relative to your current fitness, the more arm movement would be helpful. Although holding them perfectly still also uses energy because you are in essence "braking" them from their natural movement. So having them move fluidly with the run is the best, as well as having them not cross your center. By crossing the center it's adding force in a 3-dimensional plain that isn't necessarily helping you run faster (it would be causing wasted motion).

B) Potentially. My understanding is the Garmin "learns" your movement to determine pace based on the accelerometer for the purpose of the treadmill feature. If you run differently (cadence, stride, or arm movement) between any pace and the matching outdoor v treadmill, then the Garmin will be off. Bad incoming data = bad outgoing data.

C) Personally, I don't care what I look like as long as I'm "crushing" it. But, yes probably. I looked like a complete goofball from a video taken of me during my October 2015 marathon. T-rex. Crazed Gorilla. Road Runner. I think I've done them all.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I'm at work (and don't typically look at stats or graphs here), so will attempt to look at this later tonight with a glass of wine. I've been following along with your heart rate stats, but selfishly felt morose over my elevated HR and didn't comment. But thrilled with your improvements!

You know after thinking about it and evaluating the data (and this isn't specifically about my data set, so keep drawing conclusions readers). You don't want to decrease your cadence (or at least in my opinion) if it isn't in of itself causing any issues. If you decrease your cadence, and increase your stride length, you'll still be at the same speed. You want to maintain your cadence and increase your stride length. That will make you faster. And the graph of Pace vs (Cadence x Stride) bears that out. I'd actually argue your cadence is a gift. Look how people would love to be able to do 200 spm. If you could combine your 200 spm with a slightly longer stride, then you could be unstoppable.

To increase your stride length, that's essentially your "power". So I wonder if exercises focused on creating power in the legs wouldn't be a better solution to what you are trying to attempt. After all, your end goal is to get faster and stay healthy.