Opinion Piece: Running With Data Everywhere

Today’s piece is a little more of an ‘opinion piece’. I have looked over a lot of data over the years and find it incredibly valuable to gauge how you all are doing in your running! There’s a lot that running metrics can tell us, and I just want to dive in a little into what I look at as a coach. 

Some are using Training Peaks as a scheduling platform. As a coach, this is a wonderful platform. I can easily schedule, keep track of trends over time, and see valuable data from each run. This information is somewhat confusing and overwhelming, and it’s easy to get lost in the ‘noise’ that TP provides. For those of you not using TP, Strava also provides some great details and you often fill in what is missing in the logs. 

I want to really stress the point that metrics are fun, but you know your body best and the insight you all provide into your own training is far more valuable to me than any number that I can see following a run! Additionally, following metrics in real time during a run can be dangerous. If you are always changing pace and effort based off of immediate feedback you will likely lose some enjoyment as well as run the risk of losing efficiency. I have fallen into this trap so many times, and research really supports the idea that listening too closely to what your watch is telling you can lead to a much worse performance than you are truly capable of. 

Now that we got that ‘warning’ out of the way, let’s talk about the running metrics that I like to pay attention to.

Cadence: 

Most watch and phone activity tracking will keep track of your running cadence during a run. This is either measured as steps/minute (number of times both feet hit the ground during a minute) or strides/minute (number of times that just one foot hits the ground during a minute). A number that is often thrown around for the ‘ideal cadence’ is 180 steps/min (90 strides/min). 

I have pointed to Alex Hutchinson’s articles in the past, but this one contradicts the need to keep tabs on cadence at all. According to Hutchinson and the studies that he mentions, cadence varies dramatically between runners competing at the same level of competition. Additionally, cadence seems to vary within the same runner during the race, and even during different points of training. For example, if I want to race my fastest 5k, I’ll do a lot of work trying to get my legs turning over fast enough to run a fast 5k. If I’m training for a 100 mile mountain race, a high cadence doesn’t seem as beneficial, and I may lose some efficiency by having one. 

So… why do I check on cadence during runs? If you do a workout at the same cadence that you run an easy run, I know that you’re increasing stride length to increase pace versus increasing stride rate. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but if you happen to have injuries pop-up following these situations, this is a good thing to address and change. Another reason I like to keep tabs on cadence is to see how you may react to more technical or steeper running terrain. This is an area I aim to stress the importance of a high cadence, in order to stay ahead of yourself and avoid an unnecessary fall or twisted ankle. Lastly, if you feel as if you are plateauing in training, cadence is a good focus point as it is something you have a lot of control over and can change neuromuscular adaptations to help you break through that plateau. 

Decoupling (Pa:Hr or pace to heart rate ratio)

Admittedly, this one is pretty ‘in the weeds’, but a fascinating value that compiles normal training metrics into some useful information. Same as cadence, most watches track pace, and most have the ability to track heart rate (at least with the addition of a HR strap). The Pa:HR (TP’s method of measuring decoupling) takes your efficiency factor during the first half of a run and compares it to the second half. TP assigns your ‘efficiency factor’ by dividing your pace by your HR. More simply put, you will have a higher efficiency factor as you become more fit as your HR will decrease at a given pace. Decoupling compares the EF from the first half of the run to the second half to see how your EF drops off during the course of the outing. 

The above paragraph and description is confusing, so I’ll tell you why I care about this. Pace and heart rate are important metrics to track, but really in-so-far as they compare to one another. Decoupling can tell me how sustainable a pace is over time as your HR will creep ‘more’ if it’s less sustainable. Granted, feedback from you all is still needed as HR is contingent on so many things outside of fitness (i.e. general stress, heat, altitude, etc…). 

Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE): 

We all knew this one was coming and it’s something I mentioned above. I truly believe that the data is fun, but your perception of the run and how you felt during it is the most important aspect. I don’t know what is going on in your life unless you choose to share and stress outside of running makes a noticeable difference with both HR (something I do see) and how your run feels (something you have to share). 

Some of the greatest running performances of all time weren’t predicted based off of the data. Olympians all have similar fitness indicators and one ‘point’ that I love is that...if VO2 max was all that mattered, why hold a race? Shouldn’t we just take lab measurements to decide the winner? Obviously, there is a ‘human element’ and monitoring how we all respond to different training stimuli on a mental level is incredibly important as a coach. 

Even if things look ‘normal’ on paper, if you are having a low week and things aren’t turning around, it’s always good to back off a little and play things conservatively. Running sustainability and consistency in training is one of the absolute best things that you can do for long-term growth. If taking a few days off here to avoid a major injury or burnout is required, do it! The HR data can hint at this on occasion, but you know best! 

Other: 

There is some incredibly fancy ‘data equipment’ entering the world of running and training and it’ll be really fun to see how we can incorporate all of them moving forward. Power meters and products that measure stride and gait metrics are very cool, but certainly add to the noise as well. Power is a great metric for cyclists as you can eliminate variables that we deal with as runners with a bike’s ability to change gears and our ability to maintain a steady output as a result. Running trails obviously adds variability and limits how useful power measurements are. 

Gait analysis is fun as it can provide more feedback than just cadence. You can look at measurements like ground reaction time (GRT) and vertical oscillation to see how much wasted energy is in the stride. The Hutchinson article linked above makes a great point that changing cadence is an easier approach to fix things like GRT and vertical oscillation even if it’s not the best indicator of the ‘most efficient’ running form

Gear Advice: 

Just as shoe advice is very subjective, today’s gear ‘plug’ is also rather athlete-dependent. However, the new GU liquid energy gels are great as far as I’m concerned! These are a less ‘glue-like’ energy shot that taste similar to the rest of the GU lineup. They are in a slightly larger package and contain the same caloric and BCAA density as the GU Roctane lineup. In addition, each liquid energy gel has 75 mg of sodium! 

When should you consider taking these? They would be best in a race environment, and likely a better option when it’s especially warm out! I have always had an issue getting calories down in the later, and warmer, stages of a race, but these really solve that problem! It’s easy to skimp on calories when closing in on the finish line, but getting something down for that final 30 minute push will leave you with a better memory of the day as opposed to bonking and walking it in. 

BCAAs (branch chained amino acids) are an interesting addition for an in-race supplement, but theoretically they save muscle damage and possibly combat ‘fatigue’. The mechanism for combatting fatigue is especially interesting. Tryptophan (an amino acid) is the precursor to serotonin and other amino acids (found in the GU lineup) with a similar structure can ‘get in the way’ of serotonin production. From the little I have followed up on this, the science seems pretty ‘theoretical’ still, but an interesting theory none-the-less!