Re: How do you keep track of progress?

Ignoramus4980 said:

In article said:

Ignoramus4980 said:

I as I trying to modestly ramp up my running, to run for higher speeds
and longer distances, I would like to know if any of you use any free
methods of tracking performance and progress (or lack thereof). Any
suggestions for spreadsheet type solutions? Maybe there is some
freeware or some such that I could use? A linux based programwould be
preferred. Thanks...

Spreadsheet. I use it mostly to track milage across different shoes, and
keep a diary.

Makes sense, thanks. Do you have pre-measured mileage for your runs
also?

Yep. There are a number of high and low tech ways to do this -- measure it
either with a GPS, SDM like the Fitsense or Nike, bike meter, mapping software
(e.g. Microsoft streets and trips), or just estimate it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tracking performance is simple enough -- enter some races, and keep track of
WAVA scores or some other performance index.

Well, I would like to see if I can run my distances faster than
before.

This subverts the purpose of your training, because you're not supposed to
be pushing the pace on your training runs. You will probably notice that your
training runs gradually get slightly faster, but this is not a reliable way to
measure improvements in fitness.

Races are the best measure of progress. The next best is a particular speed
workout. For example, I can use my 4x1200 track workout, because this is a
workout I often come back to. Training runs are not very useful as a measure
of fitness though.

Quoted message said:

Since I run different routes, it would be good to use a
spreadsheet to compare and keep track of various routes.

Yep.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think it's useful to try to set a PR on every single
workout, or to do exactly the same speed work each time.

I agree. I want to get very used to running with a higher speed than I
did at the half marathon. I will try to run as far as I can at about
8.5 minutes per mile, for some time.

Before you do that, pick up a book ... any book. I think you mentioned you'd
picked up the Glover book. 5k pace is not appropriate for day-to-day training
runs.

You can't run fast and long. You can run fast and short (speed work, heavily
carb dependent!!! trains vo2 max and running economy) or slow and long (more
fat utilisation, because it's partly metabolic cellular level training).

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

<< Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi >>

Cheers!
Indeed.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

Donovan Rebbechi said:

You will probably notice that your
training runs gradually get slightly faster, but this is not a reliable way to
measure improvements in fitness.

Isn't this the very definition of fitness - amount of work that
can be done with the same effort?

N.B. I'm not saying the improvement can be translated to
meaningful units, just that improvements in your training run pace
on an identical course indicates an improvement in fitness.

Bear G said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

You will probably notice that your
training runs gradually get slightly faster, but this is not a reliable way
to measure improvements in fitness.

Isn't this the very definition of fitness - amount of work that
can be done with the same effort?

There are many problems with using training runs as a measure of performance:

(1) it's difficult to verify that "effort" is indeed constant. If the level of
effort is 100%, as in a race, then there is no guesswork. And no, a heart rate
monitor isn't in my opinion good enough to reliably and actively measure
"effort".

(2) performance on submaximal exercise may not reliably predict performance in
a race. I've had good race performances even when I wasn't doing my training
runs at a very fast pace.

(3) If the progress metric is training pace, then it follows that performing
the training runs as quickly as possible is a training goal. There is an
obvious problem with this.

Quoted message said:

N.B. I'm not saying the improvement can be translated to
meaningful units, just that improvements in your training run pace
on an identical course indicates an improvement in fitness.

For the purposes of this discussion, fitness means race performance. Something
that doesn't translate into race performance doesn't count.

Of course if you can do the same training run a 30 seconds per mile faster and
you're more or less aerobic, that indicates an improvement in fitness. But you
don't need a spreadsheet to work that out, do you ? The big improvements in
fitness will be plainly obvious, and the more incremental gains cannot be
reliably measured by training runs. Therefore, using a spreadsheet to track
"progress" in training runs serves little purpose other than to provide
idiots with hours of amusement.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Ignoramus4980 said:

I am confused. Let's say I run a 5.6 mile run on a routine
basis. Let's say that I ran it at 56 minutes before, and after some
training, I can run it at 48 minutes. Would that not be an
improvement?

If you get faster by over a minute per mile, even you will be able to work
out that you're getting fitter without using a spreadsheet.

Quoted message said:

Why can't I try to run as fast as to not be too uncomfortable?

Because that will cause you to train your "carb oxidation system", which will
make Og the low carb caveman god unhappy, and he'll hurl rocks at you from
above. Don't try to run it fast.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Races are the best measure of progress. The next best is a particular speed
workout. For example, I can use my 4x1200 track workout, because this is a
workout I often come back to. Training runs are not very useful as a measure
of fitness though.

I agree that races are the best measure of progress, but would
performance on a known run not be a decent measure of progress?

If you're getting faster by minutes per mile, it will be plainly obvious. You
won't need a spreadsheet to work it out.

To detect progress on the order of seconds per mile, you will need a maximal
effort on an accurately measured course. A favourite speed workout on a track
is ideal for this, as is a race.

Quoted message said:

My fast speed if 7:52 mpm, measured over one mile. I thought, perhaps
foolishly, that I would run at about 10% slower speed for much
longer.

Depends. Mile times don't reliably predict longer distances. My bests:
1 mile: 4:51
5 mile: 28:27 (5:41 per mile)

I think I could at best do about 5:20 per mile in a good 2 mile race. (I
attempted this year it and couldn't quite do it, but it wasn't a great race.
the 5 mile and 1 mile races were.)

So 10% slowdown only gets me as far as 2 miles.

But there is a lot of variability in 1 mile time for a fixed 5k performance.
This is less true of distances 5k through half marathon, which relaibly
predict each other, because they largely depend on the same thing (aerobic
fitness)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

<< For the purposes of this discussion, fitness means race performance.
Something
that doesn't translate into race performance doesn't count. >>

indeed,
contextual definition of terms.
(Aristotle! that you?)

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

<< Because that will cause you to train your "carb oxidation system", which
will
make Og the low carb caveman god unhappy, and he'll hurl rocks at you from
above. Don't try to run it fast. >>

wise, rocks hurt.

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>