"Better fitness? (Assuming the variable factors are unchanged.)"

You mean like heart rate.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Um, no. I don't think that's what I mean, anyway.

It seems to me that if you're running faster today at a given heartrate than you were a year ago at the same heartrate, you're fitter now than you were a year ago. Your physical ability to run has improved. You are in better running condition. I'd go so far as to guess that you're a better runner, and can run faster now than a year ago.

So, let's say last year you could maintain a pace of 8:15/mile at 165 bpm. This year, you can run 7:30 pace at 165 bpm. It looks to me as if you're a better runner.

The variables I was thinking about were things like weather conditions, fatigue, nutrition, etc.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Actually, what increases stride length is going fast. That requires a stronger push into the ground, not necessarily "pushing off the back foot". As Aaron explains, getting off the ground quickly with a strong force into the ground is the combination needed. telling people they need to push off the back foot is misinterpreted as needing to push longer, this will slow them down.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

But, how do you ensure that all the variables that impact heart rate remain constant?

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

Yes, obviously bounding and hills are important, but using the 'claw back' works as well trying to flick the toe back at the end of the push off. We have seen some results with this method such that the runners come back with sore calves but faster run times on the same HR as before. So, it works, but it's not easy to concentrate on it for an hour or 90 minutes or more. It takes practice.
______________________

Interesting. I'll have to search around and see if anyone else does this. My guess is that hill work and "skipping for height" will have similar effects, as will some of the plymetrics that Paulo provided us with from some research paper a while back.

A lot of the form training that I've been accustomed to had been in the form of specific drills, rather than a "concentration" on any one particular aspect while "running for 90 minute"....for example. However, short periods of focus during 50 meter striders or hills are done. I believe the theory is that once you give your body the specific "muscle memory" it will naturally gravitate to what works best while running......not always the case, though.


With regard to Paulo's comments about measuring pace vrs heart rate, it can be misleading when utilizing different muscle groups. There are two examples that come to mind in my personal experience in recent history. 1) My heart rate goes up much higher than my effort when I run up hills and 2) my heart rate goes down much lower than my effort when I cut my cycling cadence by 50%. IOW, I can run up a hill for an hour at 95% of my max HR but cannot do that on flat ground and I can cycle for 6 hours at 70% of my max HR @90 rpm but only for 30 minutes or so at the same HR at 60 rpm.

The only reason I think it may be of importance here is that you may be teaching the runners to utilize more of different fibers and *that* may be having the effect on the heart rate. This doesn't mean that they didn't get faster as a result of the form work. Only that HR may not give the full picture.

Frankly, if you do that exercise for 6 weeks and your runner looks more like a Kenyan.....then that's enough evidence for me! ; ^ )

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The only reliable measure of fitness is performance.
The only way to measure econony is to measure oxygen consumption at submaximal pace/power.
Efficiency is mechanical power output for a given energy consumption.
Both economy and efficiency can't be measured by measuring HR.

The only reliable measure of fitness is performance.
________________________

And what becomes really difficult is figuring out if 6 weeks of drills improved performance or if it was simply 6 more weeks of running. If you can figure that one our, I'll buy your book! Until then I'm stuck reading your boring Fluids papers = (


(jk)

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

The only reliable measure of fitness is performance.

I doubt it. You'll have to elaborate for me.

The only way to measure econony is to measure oxygen consumption at submaximal pace/power.

Is oxygen consumption unrelated to heartrate in an individual?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

You can doubt all you want. Hopefully your doubt will lead you to do some research on this and gather some knowledge on the subject.

Hopefully your doubt will lead you to do some research on this and gather some knowledge on the subject.

I was hoping to gather some knowledge on the subject second hand.

Let's say that last year, I ran 3 miles in 24 minutes. My average hr was 180. This year, I ran the same course under the same conditions- except for a year of training. I kept my pace to the same 8 minute miles, and my average hr was 165. That's not a reliable indicator that I'm more fit?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Nope.

Why not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"That's not a reliable indicator that I'm more fit? "

Uhh, no, its not.

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

No. The only way to know if you were more fit was that if you had gone faster.

Can I not safely assume that if I was running at the original 180 bpm, I'd be faster?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Maybe you cannot even reach the 180...

No.

Actually the only true way is to race (or run test workouts) and compare times. During my IM last fall I bike for over 2 hours with my HR above 160, which was my HR for a 40K TT just weeks before. Once you consider that I continued on for almost 5 more hours after that one *might* conclude that my fitness dramatically improved in just a month.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Why not?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Your RPE on the same route at the same pace would be more reliable. IOW, last year you were breathing really heavy, in a lot of pain, and couldn't wait to finish.....consistently. This year you feel like it's a walk in the park, could easily carry a conversation, and felt like you could have done it a second time.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Improved blood volume and stroke volume with training.

The clock never lies. You need to race and see if you can run faster.

That doesn't count as improved fitness?

I'm not trying to argue with you guys. (I am not related to Learn.) I am not understanding what you're saying, I think. It seems to me that if my physiology has changed after training to the degree that I can't even get to the same hr as I averaged for a 3 mile run last year, I'm a lot more fitter.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

One WOULD tend to believe that, but it just simply isn't the case. As I pointed out before, ESPECIALLY when utilizing different muscles than you used before (or temperature, humidity, anxiety, etc) your heartrate at a given level of fitness and pace *can* change.

HR monitors are good guides, but they should be used with caution. It would be like using a voltmeter connected to your cars wiring harness to determine how fast it is going. If you turn on the radio or the windshield wipers, you will get a different reading without going faster. This isn't the best analogy, but I hope it gets the point across.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

If you want to answer the question "Am I fitter?" with "I'm probably fitter, but maybe I'm not", then using HR is good enough.

If you want to measure economy (or efficiency, I am still wondering what Ricci was talking about) changes for different running styles, then HR is certainly not good enough.