What is the difference between a cheap bike and an amazing bike? Not much...

A lot of my non-cyclist friends and family members are amazed that I have spent over $1000 on a bike. Conversely, a lot of my cycling friends would question the quality of a bike that costs less than 1000 quid.

Who is right? And what exactly do I get for my $1000 Specialized Allez Sport that I don't get with my $100 Happy*Mart bike? Sadly, not much, but also A TON! Let me explain.

If you go down to Happy*Mart and buy a $100 bike, you will have a terrible experience if you ride the bike more than 2 or 3 times a week or for more than 200 miles a year. The brakes will fail, the shifters will stop working and then brake, the handle bars will soon be twisted and so on. But it is not because the bike is a lower quality than the $1000 bike shop bike.

What is the difference? When you buy the $1000 bike shop bike you get a free tune-up after everything settles in. You see, shifter cables and brake cables stretch over time on any bike (unless the bike shop pre-stretches them for you). This means the shifting and braking becomes imprecise and the bike doesn't work correctly.

If you bought the $1000 bike, you have a free-tune up. At that tune up, the bike shop tells you that you will need to learn to do this yourself or to return every 6 months to a year. Because you spent $1000 on the bike, you will probably acquiesce. By contrast, the thought of paying $120 for a full service tune up on the $100 Happy*Mart bike seems terrible.

Here's the biggest irony: The $100 was not built correctly in the first place. When I am in a

Me with a completely overhauled department store bike

department store (or mass merchandiser or *gasp* grocery store) just looking at the bikes I can name 3 problems with the way they were built. Do you know why? It is because the employee that does not know which isle dog food is on exactly or how to ring up produce is the same person that built the bike (I know because I worked at one of these places in my dark past). It sounds like I am being facetious but I am not. The "bike builder" is just an employee taken from some department or other job to help put bikes together when they arrive (they do not come assembled in shipping).

What I am saying is that when you buy a bike from a department store, you should add $100-200 onto the price and take it to a qualified mechanic afterwards to rebuild it the right way, then get a 6 month tune up. If not, the bike will not make it past 250 miles or so.

Now, enter the person who says, "Wait a minute! That is not the ONLY difference between department store bikes and bike shop bikes!" Correct. It isn't. However, the other differences are minor unless you are going to be racing. I know because I have taken VERY cheap bikes, re-lubed the bearings in the bottom bracket, the pedals, the headset and the wheel hubs, put decent tires on and bar ends for a more aerodynamic option and tested the difference between those bikes and my $1000+ bikes. The difference is less than HALF a mph (for equivalent tires [road vs. mtn] and aerodynamic setups [any kind of aerodynamic option like bar ends vs. flat bar]).

So what are the differences between the $100 department store bike and the $1000 shop bike? Roughly speaking, the $100 bike uses technology from before the 1980s. Companies in Taiwan and China make tons of cheap parts using this old technology and those are the parts that are used on the $100 bike: The one piece crank, the threaded headset, older derailleur and shifter styles, 6 speed setups vs 11 speed setups and so on. The parts are often heavier as well: steel vs. carbon fiber for example. So the typical $100 bike weighs about 30# compared to 20# and has really old (annoying) technology that most works great as long as you do regular maintenance on the bike. You may need to invest in specialized tools (like brake wrenches) that are no longer common use on more modern parts. That is the great thing about more modern parts: you can buy a set of allen wrenches (hex keys) to complement the wrenches and screwdrivers already in your tool box and mostly be on your way except for some of the more advanced repairs (crankset, bottom bracket, hubs...).

So am I saying you might as well go to the bike store and pay $300 for their entry level bike? Not necessarily. I am saying to steer clear of the department store bike unless you have a friend that is a wrench turner. I have had people bring me their department store bikes and within an hour I have them in a condition that I would be happy to ride them in. If you are going to have to pay to get the department store bike in that kind of shape, then, yes, you may as well pay $300-400 for a bike that is put together correctly and will do a free 6 month tune-up.

If you know someone that is good at fixing up bikes, have them do a full overhaul on your department store bike, especially adjusting the hubs and any other turning points, and notice the difference!

Either way, you will have to plan on paying for regular tune-ups or learn to do them yourself (nothing a few hours on YouTube with the Bike Man can't fix).

If you learn to do basic maintenance on your bike, you can save $100-200 per year and have a bike than keeps running great for a long time. 

Another good option is to buy a shop-quality bike from a garage sale or online site. The same goes for this option though: you will still need to tune it up regularly.

So, a bike is kind of like a car in that the purchase price is the least of your worries. If you think you are really buying a bike for $100 you are wrong. You are committing to regular $100 tune-ups every 6 months to a year or learning how to do them yourself or the bike will eventually shut down (even if it makes it 2-3 years, it will eventually quit on you).

If you decide to pay $100 for a department store bike, add $100-200 to the price that you will need to pay a qualified mechanic to rebuild and inspect the bike, then decide if it is still worth it. 

So buy what you want. I have a department store bike that I overhauled for commuting (the frame makes it look cheap and less desirable for theft), a 1991 steel mountain bike that I overhauled and converted to drop bar for similar commuting purposes and a couple of nicer bike shop bikes. None is really faster than the others as long as they are set up with slick (road) tires and at least a semi-aerodynamic hand position. I do love working on the bike shop bikes more because the newer parts are a little easier to work with. The bike shop bikes are a little easier to heft (lighter weight) and require maintenance less often (derailleurs need tuned every year vs. every 6 months for example), but other than that, I wouldn't notice a difference in my speed unless I were to climb a 12% grade for 50 miles. My dad used to go on group rides with very fit road cyclists. He was on a department store Huffy mountain bike. He made some adjustments to the bike and kept up with everyone else on all the rides.

So, a department store bike is old technology, a little heavy and poorly built more than it is a "bad" bike. Rebuilding the bike can make it almost as good as anything out there, but to make sure it is up to par, you will have to spend $100-200 with a qualified mechanic. That is why it is hard to argue that the department store bike is really worth the cost savings unless a friend will do the overhaul and inspection for free...But, to each their own!

*A final warning (and not a minor one): I have noticed that department store bike parts are more likely to be defective (slightly crooked, bent, prone to cracking)--this further justifies the need to take a department store bike to a mechanic to make sure it is safe. However, department store bikes are not built to handle extreme riding or weight. If you will be doing extreme riding, or are a heavier rider DISREGARD EVERYTHING IN THIS POST AND BUY A REAL BIKE! Always consult the bike manufacturer with questions about the conditions a specific bike can handle!

RUN SLOW!

Here's a summary of every running article and study in the universe: Run slow 80% of the time.

No problem.

Except that a lot of runners don't do it! Why don't they? It's a mystery of the universe, like why the Chia Pet came into existence or why people have Magic 8 balls. 

Putting together a good running schedule can be very complex: Long run should be no more than 1/3 total weekly mileage, only increase weekly mileage or any single run by 10% a week, keep turnover at 180 and alter stride rate to change speed, threshold runs should account for 10% of mileage...etc...etc...etc..

But really, it doesn't have to be. I once heard a theory from a pretty seasoned runner giving advice to new runners: Just go run every day (AH! That is not C25K approved!!) but pay attention to how you feel.

IS IT REALLY THAT SIMPLE?

Maybe. Think about it. Your body knows what it can handle if you learn how to listen to it! And I think a lot more of us know how to listen to it than we know. I bet most of us would be GREAT listeners IF WE TURNED THE GPS OFF!

Ok. You don't have to turn it OFF...it's a great, easy way to keep your fitness journal with just two clicks of a button. But don't listen to it or look at it while you run. 

THE PROBLEM IS THAT TOO MANY OF US ARE TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING.

To ourselves, our Runkeeper friends, the people watching you from their car...whoever...STOP IT! IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER!

Most of us aren't worried about going too fast either. It's the slow run that kills us. Remember in the movie "Remember the Titans" when the quarterback is struggling with the pitch-out, and Denzel Washington's character says something like, "You can throw the ball a mile, but you can't pitch it three feet." That's what running is like. READ MY LIPS:

YOU WILL NEVER (NEVER) KNOW HOW FAST YOU CAN RUN UNTIL YOU LEARN TO RUN SLOW!

Why? It's just like learning a musical instrument. If you can't play a song at a PAINFULLY slow beat, you are probably not playing the right way when you play it fast. You really may just be covering your mistakes by rushing over things. 

YOU HAVE RUNNING WEAKNESSES AND A LOT OF THEM CAN HIDE AT FASTER PACES.

I'll prove it to you: Go stand in the middle of the floor, stick one leg out and (with one leg extended) do a squat--just one--but there is only one rule--you have to take at least 60 seconds going down and coming back up. 

How about this: Stand on one leg about a foot from a wall. Slowly tap the wall with your other knee in three places--to the left, center and right. Then go back to center and left. Repeat 10 times. Go as slow as you can. 

What do these crazy routines have to do with anything? They both use muscles that are critical to good running form. I will bet my new running shoes that every 2:30 marathon runner could do either of these with no problems. 

IF YOU CAN'T DO THEM, YOU PROBABLY HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING LIKE RUNNERS THAT CAN!

This is better illustrated through an example using a fictitious runner in two scenarios. It is the same runner in each, but with three different outcomes. 

The running schedule is as follows: 

Day 1: 5 miles easy plus strides

Day 2: 7 miles steady pace

Day 3: 4 x 1 mile @ 10K pace with 2:00 recovery between

Day 4: OFF

Day 5: 7 miles easy

Day 6: 10 miles with 3 at HM pace

THE RUNNER IS A 19:00 5K RUNNER

SCENARIO 1

Day 1: 5 miles easy plus strides 

(The runner starts the run at 10mm pace. After a mile the GPS announces the pace. The runner thinks, "Oh no! I am getting slow! My slow pace should be at least 8:30 or so if I am really fit. Am I losing fitness?!" Subconsciously or consciously, the runner speeds up and really nails the strides. OVERALL PACE 7:15)

Day 2: 7 miles steady pace

(Impressed with their day yesterday, the runner is convinced they are pretty fit. They average 6:50 for the 7 miles and are SUPER impressed with their skills and happy to post the results on facebook. Their casual runner friends are super impressed.)

Day 3: 4 x 1 mile @ 10K pace with 2:00 recovery between

(Interval day! The perfect time to REALLY impress your casual runner friends! The 1 mile fast sections are going to be at 10K pace (around 6:18) so the runner imagines, "What if I push a little on the 2:00 recovery? I could maybe come in around 6:30 for the whole run." The runner does just that and is feeling pretty good. Plus they get to post a 6:30 pace run on facebook!)

Day 4: OFF

("OFF?! No way! I'm a champion! Look at my past week!" The runner thinks. So they do a 4 mile easy run instead, and it ends up being EASY because the runner is starting to feel some twinges in the joints and tendons...8:30 pace)

Day 5: 7 miles easy

(The runner wakes up unable to walk. DAY OFF--BY FORCE)

Day 6: 10 miles with 3 at HM pace

(10 miles?! The runner can't even think about 10 miles without the joints hurting. Plus the pulse is elevated, the runner feels a little achy and sick all over. "I better rest up so I can even run next week," the runner thinks. So...ANOTHER DAY OFF BY FORCE)

Day 7: OFF

RESULT 1:

Overtraining, sore joints and muscles that are too tight. Injury is likely! 

Lack of aerobic fitness (too many runs too close to threshold)

Reduced mileage=less muscular, biomechanical and neurological development

22 mile week

7:40 pace average

SCENARIO 2

Day 1: 5 miles easy plus strides

(Easy means EASY. Fast means FAST. The runner takes the 5 miles at 9mm pace, and really hits the strides hard but controlled. Overall 8:30 pace.)

Day 2: 7 miles steady pace

("7:00mm pace should be "steady" enough to get the job done," The runner thinks. The runner makes sure not to look at the GPS and just runs a pace that is brisk, but the runner can still converse (no aerobic debt). The run ends up being right around 7:00. The runner felt like they could have easily hit 6:40 pace, but knows that intervals are coming up tomorrow and wants to hit that key workout feeling strong).

Day 3: 4 x 1 mile @ 10K pace with 2:00 recovery between

(The runner wants to really hit the fast sections hard so the warm-up, cool down and recovery are 10:30mm pace--just enough to keep the legs alive. The strides are around 6:18, but the slow sections bring the average pace to around 8:30. The runners friend posts their first run of the week: 7:10 pace for 4.5 miles. The runner thinks "Man, I'm faster than that friend by a lot! They're not going to know how fast I am if I keep posting these 8:30 workouts!" Then the runner tells himself to shut up. There is a rest day tomorrow, but a 7 to tire the legs out on day 6 followed by a key workout of 10 the next day. The runner knows he needs to stay fresh, and that the aerobic "miles in the bank" at 8:30 will pay big dividends without taking a big toll on the body.)

Day 4: OFF

(The runner feels under-worked at this point and wonders how they could be improving with so little effort. The 6:18 pace intervals remind him that he is keeping his fast-twitch muscle active and he decides to trust the day off as a time to rebuild muscle. He does 20 min cross train at an EASY pace (like 2/10 effort) just to keep blood flowing but does not tax the cardiovascular system, muscles or joints)

Day 5: 7 miles easy

(Easy means easy! This workout is not about proving anything to anybody. It is just to put aerobic miles in the bank for tomorrow. 8:45 pace.)

Day 6: 10 miles with 3 at HM pace

(The run goes great. 3 miles at 6:50 pace, the rest at 7:15. Average pace: 7:08.)

Day 7: OFF

(Knowing its good to have 1 day TOTALLY off. The runner sleeps in an hour and even walks slowly all day and does a lot of sitting)

RESULTS 2:

35 miles. Good balance of aerobic/anaerobic/speed workouts. Legs feel tired, but strong. The body feels good and is a little twingy at times but with fast recovery (only twingy for a day or so). Average pace: maybe 8:30 or so. 

WHAT WILL PRODUCE A BETTER RACE A THE NEXT 5K? SCENARIO 2. 

If you think otherwise, you probably have never tried option 2, which focuses on building leg strength over working the body's systems at their max. There is just enough aerobic, anaerobic and speed work to optimize the runner's performance. Plus, it's like they say, the best running miles are the ones that actually happen. In scenario 1, 13 miles never happened compared to scenario 2! (That's 38% fewer miles!!) Miles in the bank improve oxygen delivery, form, strength and neuro-muscular response--even the ones that don't tax the anaerobic system or bones and joints! If you short yourself in developing those processes--you will not improve as much.

Simple.

How do I know all this? Because the runner in both scenarios is me! Running slowly has revolutionized the way I train. I used to favor a three-a-week type schedule because I couldn't handle any more, but running slowly has let me build up the weekly mileage to see what kind of results I might get. Updates will follow!

However, I can already say that I think I have finally learned to run slowly and it's beautiful. Basically, you keep your feet light and almost "choppy" with the same high turnover rate. Slow running is low impact running that doesn't strain your joints or your anaerobic system nearly at all, but it is still a good workout. It requires more balance and core strength in my opinion and takes some real skill. As a 19 minute 5Ker I have become quite proud of my 10, 11 and 12 minute mile pace runs. It may sound strange but I feel a real sense of accomplishment in having learned to run at slow speeds because it takes a different kind of effort.

So the next time you see someone post a run with a pace that is 3 or 4 minutes per mile slower than marathon pace, give them your respect!

HOW DO I KNOW WHEN I AM READY TO RUN A 5K/10K/HM/MAR?

This is a question I have often pondered myself. Recently, I pushed my long runs up to get into half marathon shape and started posting some decent times, but also started feeling a little burn-out.

Was I ready to take on a half marathon? Some people go from couch to full marathon in 12-16 weeks after all...So why not?

POINT #1: Define "ready"

For some people, they say they are "ready" to race a certain distance when they think there is even a remote chance that they can finish the race. So being ready for a marathon means simply being somewhat confident that you can probably finish one. 

For me, "ready" means that I am prepared to fulfill my potential at a certain racing distance. That definition leaves some ambiguity though because it opens a new question, "How do I know I am prepared to fulfill my potential?"

POINT #2: Let mpw determine the race distance, not the other way around...

FIRST, from Runner's World: http://www.runnersworld.com/running-tips/how-many-miles-a-week-should-i-run

5K ready:
20-25 MPW (non-elites)

10K ready:
25-30 MPW (non-elite)

HM ready:
30-40 MPW (non-elite)

MAR ready:
30-50 MPW (non-elite)

To me, this does not mean you should log those distances if you want to run a certain race, it means you should wait to run a given race until you have safely built up to that mileage over time!

So, my opinion is: If you have not run 30-50 miles consistently (whatever that means...call it for the last 3 months or a year) you are NOT ready to run a marathon.

I'm not saying you won't be able to finish a marathon, but you aren't doing it right, probably. By that I mean you run much higher risk of injury, burnout and never running again because it was too much too soon.

Here is an example:

The end of the 5K felt hard to me and I experienced some slowdown toward the end and didn't really understand why. But at a certain point in my running it all went away. I could easily run negative splits and posted PR after PR (sometimes even on a "tempo" run without even trying...) at the 5K distance.

This was right around the time I started posting 20 mile weeks. (Just like Runner's World suggests). 

But at this point, I was still experiencing slowdown in the 10K distance. I tried to do a bunch of workouts to reduce it, but it was still there. That is because YOUR BODY KNOWS BEST WHAT IT IS READY FOR and it is hard to override that by trying to force things that your body is not ready for. 

POINT #3: The length of the long run should be determined by your MPW.

Another benchmark for me on race readiness seems to be the length of the long run. When my long run regularly became 2-3 times the 5K distance (6-9 miles roughly), I started to feel really proficient at the 5K. The thing is that a lot of people I know try to push up the long run prematurely to get extra gains in fitness. One of my friends runs about 20 MPW, but only runs twice and the long run is 13 or 14 miles. 

THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO METHODS YOU CAN USE FOR DETERMINING HOW LONG YOUR LONG RUN SHOULD BE:

1) No more than 1/3 of your total weekly mileage

2) No more than double your average run (excluding the long run)

The two usually yield pretty similar results. (The first is a little cyclical, but we will not undertake that here).

What happens if you exceed this and run longer than these methods suggest? I have never seen anything that answers that question--only the suggestion that you should not do it. So, I am forced to answer out of my own experience:

YOUR LEGS, JOINTS, MUSCLES AND BODILY SYSTEMS WILL FEEL A LITTLE TOO BEAT-UP. 

Sure, a little pain or soreness can be helpful, but why do push your body into it if it is not ready. In my first year of running, an 8 mile run would have left me down for a week and maybe caused an injury. Now, an 8 mile run is relaxing--refreshing even and I could easily run the next day even if the 8 miles includes tempo work. So why not just wait until your body is ready and have a better running experience? If you really love to run, keep your long run where it should be so that you are fresh and able to run more. Perhaps my friend that runs only twice a week does so because the 14 mile run is too much at this point (with total MPW at just 20) to leave him fresh to run more. 

I have been guilty too. I wanted to start training for a half marathon before I was ready and dropped some long runs of over 14 miles as part of a 28 mile week. In some ways I feel that can be helpful to push your body to the next level by shocking it a little and OCCASIONALLY giving it a little more than it is ready for, but doing it all the time will drastically increase your risk of injury, burnout and unnecessary time away from running.  

MY OPINION: Stick to one of the long run rules above--max out at 1/3 of your weekly mileage or double your average non-long run. Think of it this way: Would you rather be able to run 4-5 days a week and have a long run of 8 or 9 miles, or run a 14 or 15 mile run to impress your friends the most on Monday morning but only be able to run twice a week? I will take the first scenario...

Now, there is a point where your long run will not be 2-3 times your target race distance. For a 10K, you will maybe be doing 10-12 mile long runs, for a HM, maybe just 14-15 mile runs and for the full marathon you may max out at less than race distance--perhaps 20-22 miles. However, my advice based on personal experience is to wait until those long runs come naturally as part of your body's natural increase in tolerance to higher weekly mileages. Or, think of it this way: save those runs until they are no more than a third of your total weekly mileage.

So, if we follow the maxim that long runs should be 1/3 of the total weekly mileage, you will not be ready for those kinds of long runs until you have roughly the following weekly mileage numbers with consistency.

For 5K: 18-27 mpw, long run of 6-9 miles.

For 10K: 30-36 mpw, long run of 10-12 miles.

For HM: 42-45 mpw, long run of 14-15 miles.

For MAR: 60-66 mpw, long runs up to 20-22 miles.

Notice that these are different from what Runner's World gives. This is because these number reflect peak mileage during your training program.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE FIRST SET OF MILEAGES SHOULD BE CLOSE TO WHAT YOU ARE DOING REGULARLY, AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD UP TO THIS SECOND SET OF MILEAGE NUMBERS DURING A TRAINING PROGRAM.

So, you are probably ready to start a marathon training program in my opinion if you regularly run 30-50 mpw and feel like you could build up to 60-66 mpw in just a short time (maybe 3 months).

SUMMARY:

For me, I have decided to hold my mileage steady from month to month and if I have no problems with burnout or excessive soreness, I will up it just a couple miles and hold it there again for a month and continue to do so as it unfolds naturally. 

It is tempting to push up the weekly mileage just to be able to do a super cool race that will impress your friends, but in the long run, you will be much happier that you waited until your body was ready for those new race distances. 

It is also tempting to push up the weekly long run--especially because they are usually on the weekend or on another day when we have more free time. It can feel like a way to "get your weekly mileage in" or some people might push up the distance on the long runs to impress their friends or try to get ready for a race they are not yet ready for. KEEP YOUR LONG RUNS AT LESS THAN 1/3 OF YOUR WEEKLY MILEAGE and give yourself the gift of letting your body adapt as it is ready. You will be have a much better experience and one day you will wake up and realize you are regularly doing 14-15 mile long runs and it may be time to give the half marathon a try! 

If you want to build mileage, it often means learning to slow down on easy days. Make sure to hit your key workouts (intervals, repeats, tempo runs, long runs) but if you slog along as slow as you can otherwise, it will let you build up to bigger mileage numbers. Plus, running slowly seems to do wonders for some reason. I have set more than one PR right on the back of a 15 minute SUPER slow warm-up (like my 5K pace plus 6 minutes kind of slow!).

We usually know when our body is telling us we did too much, but it can tell us we are ready for more too! For me, that is two weeks of consistent running with only minor twinges (that go away within a day or two). If your body doesn't give you the go ahead...stay where you are at mileage wise and slow down your easy days and then reevaluate in a couple of weeks. There is no hurry! It is better to do it right. Your future HM-PR-running self will thank you!

Running slowly should feel a little boring, but I like to offset it with some excitement. An occasional longer-than-even long run or faster-than-ever 400m at the end of an easy run won't hurt anything and keeps things exciting. I like to end super easy runs with some strides of 20-30 seconds. They don't tax the system but build a lot of leg speed and let you test your limits before race day finally comes around!

So, while I may want to try a marathon sooner than later, I will be letting myself progress naturally to 60+mpw and 20 mile long runs before I give it a go...

How about you?

RUNNING MCMILLAN'S BEST 10K WORKOUT & RUNNING AT 180 TURNOVER RATE

Sometimes I am a little wary about one-size-fits-all advice. Constantly, I find myself testing out supposedly "tried and true" running advice. Does more millage work better for me as many elite coaches advise, or does something like the Furman FIRST minimalist program work better? Is the mid-foot strike really best for everyone, or are some people built to heel strike a little more--even if they are the exception to the rule?

Of course, as always, nothing here is qualified advise, just personal experiences.

The lesson I learned today came by accident as I decided to give G. McMillan's "Best 10K Workout" a go. He advises on his site that it is a tough workout, so I geared up for it mentally. 

RUNNING THE "BEST 10K WORKOUT"

The workout is: Jog to warm up, the 3 x 2M with 5 minutes jog to recovery in between, then cool down.

IF YOU CAN COMPLETE THE WORKOUT AT YOUR DESIRED 10K RACE PACE YOU ARE ON TARGET (McMillan says that if you can do it, you will hit your 10K goal pace based on what he has seen).

My 10K pace is supposedly 6:26. I haven't run a 10K race in ages but I have done plenty of 10K tempo runs at about a 6:40 or 6:50 pace. I've been going out too hard on the tempo runs  though and then fizzling so it is really like a few miles at 6:20 or 6:30 pace, and then I am struggling to just hold on at 7:00 pace at the end.

McMillan suggests working up to the full 3 x 2M workout but I decided to just jump right in because I have been doing 6-7 mile tempo runs anyway.

I get my best 1 mile time with a rather high turnover rate (208-210).

My best 10K tempo run recently came when I tried to (and did) hold a 190 turnover rate for the whole time. But I fizzled pretty bad toward the end of that run.

I was not going to use a metronome on today's Best 10K Workout, but was feeling sluggish so I turned it on to 180 just to keep me from being too sluggish.

TO MY GREAT DELIGHT I FOUND THAT IF I JUST KEPT THE 180 TURNOVER I WAS ABLE TO HOLD THE DESIRED PACE.

I did fizzle a little toward the end of the workout, but not nearly as bad as usual. I managed to hang onto a 6:30 pace which I was happy with even though it was not the 6:26 the McMillan predicts.

Here were the splits:

FIRST 2M: 6:24 pace
SECOND 2M: 6:28 pace
THIRD 2M: 6:38 pace

My Best 10K Workout (McMillan)

As a sort of side note: On the last 2 mile effort I looked at the GPS wrong and thought I was done at mile 1. That's why there is a dip for the second half. I quickly realized I had to do another mile but it threw me off psychologically!

MY ASSESSMENT OF THE WORKOUT

This is a great way to get your 10K race pace for someone going to race a 10K for the first time, or the first time in a long time.

It gets in almost a full 10K (minus the 0.2) at race pace, but is not quite so hard mentally and gives the body a little recovery in between so that it is not so hard on the body.

Does it work? Can I do a 10K race at 6:30 pace? That I don't know yet, but I will update after I try it out (either in a "real" race setting or giving a 10K race effort on my own).

I can say that the workout was as hard as McMillan says, so believe him. I felt like my legs had been to the dentist afterwards as I "slopped" my way home. But that's what we runners love after all isn't it? Now I feel a few rest days coming up!

Finally, I found the little jewel that is the subject of this post: the wonder of the 180 turnover. It was so efficient compared to even 190. It is that magical turnover where you keep your momentum and build on it (very little "braking" force like you feel at lower cadences) but it is not turning over so much that you burn out.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE? DOES THE 180 TURNOVER WORK BEST FOR YOU? WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE 10K WORKOUT? COMMENT BELOW!

Burst and Coast strategy for racing

Burst at your race pace for the next shortest race distance (HM pace if running a Marathon, 5K pace if running a 10K and so on), then coast for 10 steps. Keep alternating like this until you are ready to kick at the end of the race.

The idea with the coast is to "give in" to the momentum you have built up during the burst and keep it going as much as you can with the least amount of energy. It should be about a minute to 90 seconds slower than the surges.

You can build up to this by doing fartlek workouts, yassos, alternating tempo workouts and advanced intervals (instead of the jog between intervals, just do back-to-back intervals with part a fast tempo and part at a fast pace). There is an article here on these different workouts, and on using surges during a race.

	Burst steps	Coasting steps
MAR	25	10
HM	66	10
10K	100	10
5K	160	10
mile	200	10

CYCLICAL NATURE OF RUNNING CALCULATORS

*Nothing I say here (or ever) constitutes professional advice, just personal experience and some experience-based questions.

It may seem ironic for me to start a post that is critical of running calculators by saying that I LOVE THEM. That's not to say that they are for everybody (nothing is), but I find them to be a very helpful training tool. One of my favorites is the McMillan calculator...and I mean that. 

The McMillan calculator is one of the biggest tools in my arsenal that I use to coach myself as a runner. What could be better? You just pop in one of your most recent race times, hit the button and out pops a full list of your ideal race paces for any practical distance, and training paces. It's great.

This does not mean that I am oblivious to the criticism of the McMillan running calculator and other similar calculators. 

For example, a few years ago, I could have popped my "magic mile" time of 6:10 into the calculator and up would have come a bunch of paces: 

I should run a 5K at 21:24 (that was pretty accurate)

A 10K at 44:27 (a little less accurate)

A Half Marathon at 1:39:06 (no way in Gehenna! Not happening!)

And a Marathon at 3:28:34 (not a prayer! The odds of rainbow-colored unicorn sipping a latte running across my path during the run are higher!) 

So the criticism with the McMillan running calculator is that it gives paces that are too aggressive the longer the distance is! The rebuttal is that the times given are not what you could run right now, but reflect your potential to train up to that pace at the longer distances. So, if you are a 6:10 miler, you have roughly 3.5 hr marathon potential. I agree with that. That's why I like calculators like the McMillan because I take them for what they are. They acknowledge that you need to train up for a given distance in order for the time to be most accurate. They also know that everyone is different and that some 6:10 milers will NEVER run less than a 4 hour marathon, and some 3 hour marathoners may not be able to drop a 6:10 mile very easily. So, potentially, some 6:10 milers will NEVER hit the 1 hr 39 minute half marathon time and some 1 hour 39 minute half marathon runners will never hit the 6:10 mile mark. 

The first kind of runner has more genetic potential for speed over short distances, and the second runner is more adept at endurance than short bursts of speed. Fast twitch, slow twitch, fast twitch I and II and Ia, b, c and IIa, b, c, neurological adaptation, blah...blah...blah {insert some scientific studies if you want here...They're not really my point in this whole post anyway...}!

So, I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that, depending on a bunch of science that we will not delve into here, some runners may be better adapted to speed at short distances vs. endurance or whatever...

Moving on...It dawned on me one day that there is still something of a conundrum about running pace calculators!

The conundrum is this: Improvement at one kind of race often leads to improvement in others.

So that sounds obvious, but stay with me and you will see what I mean. Again, this is nothing to do with science or expertise of any kind, just personal experience.

So let's say in my first year of running I am a 6:10 miler. Entering this time into the calculator, I get a projected half marathon time of 1 hour 39 minutes and change. Let's say that there is no way I am even able to run 13.1 miles at that point and even if I run as far as I can and walk when I can't run anymore, I am looking at maybe a 2.5 hour time.

The 1 hour 39 minute time isn't about this though--it is about my POTENTIAL. So, I happen to agree and decide to train up for the 1 hour and 39 minute time. What does this involve? Working up to maybe 6 x 800 intervals once a week, a 2 hour long run, 50-60 minute tempo runs and some easy runs.

Now take a straw poll: "If you do 6 x 800 intervals at a 7:00 pace once a week, a 2 hour long run once a week, and an hour of tempo work at around 7:45 pace, what will happen to your mile time?"

BINGO! You see where I am headed, right. Doing Half Marathon training to hit your "potential" is going to improve your fitness at the mile.

Finish playing out the analogy though for the sake of fairness. I wake up one day and drop a Half Marathon in a time of 1 hour and 39 minutes. So, I have hit my potential, right? In terms of the original McMillan running calculator (or whatever running calculator), yes. The projected potential was attained.

There is a problem with the running calculator prediction though!

What is the problem? The 6:10 miler should run a 1:39:00 half marathon according to the calculator and that is what happened. So where is the problem? The problem is the improved mile fitness. Go run a mile again with fresh legs after all that half marathon training and see what happens. Maybe the 6:10 miler now runs the mile in 5:30 as a result of all that "half marathon training!" So that runner goes back to the drawing board and puts in the revised mile time of 5:30...

Here are the new running calculator times:

A 5K at 19:05 now instead of 21:24 

A 10K at 39:39 instead of the former time of 44:27 

AND HERE'S THE KICKER--A Half Marathon at 1:28:23 instead of 1:39:06 

SO IT WAS ALL FARCE! I DIDN'T REALLY HIT MY RUNNING-CALCULATOR-PREDICTED HALF MARATHON TIME! It only looked like I hit my "potential" because I was using an outdated mile time! I really had the potential to hit 1:28:23!

MC Escher's Drawing Hands

So you see the problem? Running calculators are cyclical. They are like the song that gets on everybody's nerves or an M.C. Escher painting! 

 Running calculators basically set up an impossible situation in which satisfying one end of your potential (speed--the mile) can alter the projection at the other end (endurance--half marathon).

Now here is where I issue a huge note of caution!

The conundrum is not necessarily a bad thing. Otherwise it is like saying that as a runner you hate improvement. Isn't that why a lot of us like these calculators in the first place? To try to improve? I don't see any problem with the cyclical nature of running calculators other than to be aware that it happens.

For me, I started around the 6:10 mile, and got my training paces off of that time. Eventually, the mile time dropped which changed my training paces. I am learning to simply become diligent about running the "magic mile" every once in a while just to make sure my training paces are on par. (I recently wrote a post about my tempo pace being too low for too long because I had slowly gotten faster without realizing it and kept running tempos at the outdated, too slow pace!)

For me, the step-back week is a great time to run a magic mile and update your training paces (or at least make sure they are on track).

Recently, I have lived the "hypothetical" example I have outlined here. I based my training paces off of the McMillan calculator and worked to hit the half marathon time it suggests. In the course of my half marathon training, my mile time improved.

The result is that just as I was getting close to hitting the half marathon pace suggested by the running calculator my mile time improved, causing the running calculator to give me a faster suggested half marathon time.

So you can see from my experience that training for the half marathon pace improved my mile time which suggests I should be aiming for a faster half marathon pace.

The problem is: How can I ever know the right training paces if it is so cyclical?! The benefit is: Who cares?! It is a great problem to have because it means I am still improving! That is a problem that most people can envy, so if it happens to you, just enjoy it. 

At some point, most runners hit a plateau and would stop seeing this cycle with running calculators. But that becomes the subject of a much different post for another time!

What is your experience? Post in the comments below to help out other runners! Do you have any luck with running calculators? Love 'em? Hate 'em?

THE WORLD'S GREATEST INSIGHT EVER ABOUT LT WORKOUTS: EVERY BLOG POST NEEDS A CLICK BAIT TITLE!

For some reason, I can't shake the half marathon bug, even though I mostly consider myself to be a 5K and 10K runner...

My long runs are between 10 and 12 miles anyway, so it seems like it is right there for the taking--but that's not entirely true for me. I just don't like to race at distances that I am not really trained for and the fact that I easy run up to 12 miles does not really constitute being well trained for a half marathon. Being able to finish a half marathon and doing well at it are two different things, and I would prefer the latter. 

SO I SET OUT TO LEARN HOW TO DO A HALF MARATHON THE RIGHT WAY.

Remember, I am building from 5K and 10K experience which is a little more about speed and a little less about endurance than the half marathon. So my first thought was to extend my long runs a little bit. So, goodbye 1:15 long run, hello 1:45-2:00 long run. But it turns out it is not a longer long run that I needed the most. This is the story about how I found that out...

SURE, THE FIRST "LONGER" LONG RUN KILLED ME!

But not in the way you may be thinking. I had plenty of endurance, plenty of speed and plenty of mental fortitude, but around mile 11 or 12 of an 1:45 run I was tired in a way I had not felt since I started running 20 years ago. In fact, it baffled me so much that I walked around for the better part of a week wondering what I had experienced. Legs worn out? No. Lungs worn out? Nope. Joints hurting? No more than usual...Just a generalized feeling of wanting to stop running.

WHAT WAS THIS NEW KIND OF EXHAUSTION?

I tried to do a "practice" half marathon close to my target pace of 6:50 and wanted to quit so badly for basically the entire time. I ended up finishing around a 7:50 pace because I abandoned the 6:50 pace and slowed down quite a bit. I was totally baffled...everything seemed to suggest that I should be able to run a half marathon around a 6:50 pace. My last 5K time on a flat course was just over 19 minutes (6:14 pace), so I plugged this into the McMillan running calculator which suggested a half marathon time of around 1:29. It also gave the following training times:

MY ENDURANCE PACE SHOULD BE BETWEEN 7:19 and 8:37 

MY TEMPO PACE SHOULD BE BETWEEN 6:29 and 6:45

MY PACE FOR SPEED WORK SHOULD BE 6:14 to 6:30

So, this corroborated my hunch that I should be able to run a sub-1:30 half marathon, but it also snapped me into a realization about my training times:

I HAVE BEEN FAILING TO ADJUST MY EFFORT AS I HAVE IMPROVED!

Over the course of a year, my 5K pace had dropped from 6:54 to 6:14, but I was keeping my workouts at the same pace. The implication:

MY TEMPO WORKOUTS HAD INADVERTENTLY BECOME ENDURANCE WORKOUTS!

This is because one year ago, running at a 7:20 pace would have been considered a tempo workout for me, but as my running has improved, this pace had dropped more into the "endurance" category. (See the McMillan times given above that suggest endurance paces starting at 7:19).

SO IN EFFECT, I INADVERTENTLY HADN'T RUN A TEMPO RUN IN WELL OVER A YEAR!

I thought my tempo runs were getting easier, and in fact I had become able to maintain a 4/4 breathing pattern at that speed--that alone should have been a trigger to me, but I didn't really think about it too much...It is a "plus one" for those who advocate running by feel instead of by pace. However, if I run completely by feel, all of my runs end up being super sluggish or super fast. That must just be how my body feels comfortable. Like a light switch I have two speeds: On and off. Turbo and turtle. So the tempo run is one case that is dictated by the GPS for me in order to keep me moving.

Despite the realization that I had not done real tempo work in so long, I wondered if it would make much difference for my half marathon time. After all, my endurance had increased over that time, and so had my speed work. Additionally, my understanding was that tempo runs teach your legs to not feel tired, and I was not having that problem. The only way to describe the exhaustion I felt during my extended long runs (of 13+ miles) and my practice half marathon was a generalized desire to stop running at that pace. 

My exhaustion could only be described as a generalized (rather than specific) feeling of wanting to quit. Not "my legs are tired" or "I'm out of air" or even "I've hit 'the wall'"--just a generalized feeling of wanting to quit.

Once again, I hadn't thought that it was a lactate threshold issue, but then I looked again at the McMillan LT pace which was 6:29-6:45 minutes per mile. Then I made a connection: My goal half marathon time (6:50 pace) is basically in the LT range given by the McMillan calculator.

SO THE HALF MARATHON IS BASICALLY A 1.5 HOUR TEMPO RUN!

I already knew that, but I say it here in hug font in order to come back to it later on. It will be important.

This week I had been on a quest to find the source of this mysterious form of generalized exhaustion, so at the beginning of the week I had decided to run one of each of these three different kinds of workouts: endurance, tempo and speed. I ran the endurance run first: CHECK. No problems. Next, I did a speed workout: 4 x 800 at 5K pace with 400m jogging in between. CHECK. In fact, I kept having to slow down a little, and still ended up running them a little too fast. I even left the track with a lot of gas left in the tank. So from these two workouts, I realized that I felt good running a 7:30 pace for however long I need to, and I have to ability to run at 5K speed with very little rest in between. So, could anything be left? Endurance is good; speed is good...aren't those the two main components of running? Finally, I did the third workout, a 45 minute tempo run.

I did a 10 minute warm up and then eased up to the 6:50 pace. After just 1 mile I wanted to quit so badly! My legs weren't burning, my lungs were fine, but I just had this powerful generalized feeling of wanting to quit--not to quit running, but to quit running 6:50 pace!

I wanted desperately to slow down OR to speed up! 6:30 pace would have been more comfortable (even though my legs or lungs would probably have tired out more quickly, it would have been more comfortable until then!); 7:20 would have been fine; it was 6:50 that was the problem. Even though I wanted desperately to stop after even just a few minutes I pushed through it anyway...Minute after minute I was so tempted to speed up or slow down but I just kept holding it right between 6:49 and 6:52 pace. "I'm going to bail out after 20 minutes of this" I kept thinking. But that thought was enough to make me stubborn enough to go for the full 45 minutes at the 6:50 pace like I had planned.

At 34 minutes something "miraculous" happened. I hit "the zone". 

As soon as I hit the 34 minute mark, I knew I would make it the whole 45 minutes. My legs were on auto-pilot--like a machine, they kept turning over at the same rate at a 6:50 pace.

SO WHAT IS THE "WORLD'S GREATEST INSIGHT" ABOUT LT WORKOUTS?

That speed-endurance is its own thing that is neither speed nor endurance. You can't get the same benefits from doing endurance workouts and speed workouts or even endurance and speed work in the same run. You have to do speed-endurance workouts to get a specific set of benefits. 

Of course this is no mystery to running experts who advocate incorporating all three kinds of workouts into a training plan. Even though I find that a sort of minimalist approach tends to work best for me (I even take a few days or even a week or two off running sometimes and ride the bike for that time and I always come back stronger than ever at running) I have always tried to incorporate aspects of speed, endurance and speed-endurance (LT/tempo work) in my workouts. I just happened into this realization because what I thought was my speed-endurance pace had changed leaving me without the benefits of those workouts for a time and allowing me to see the negative impact.

If you like the minimalist idea, the Furman FIRST program is my favorite. It involves only three workouts a week. Not surprisingly, one is a speed workout, one is a speed-endurance (LT/tempo) workout, and one is an endurance workout.

Now the question is if I can get by on just three workouts and still hit go sub-1:30 on the half marathon.

Here is my next five weeks worth of goals. As a minimalist, I am using a standard advanced half marathon training plan without the easy runs in the spirit of the FIRST program. Additionally, if I feel a little sore or tired on a given day I just skip workouts and ride the bike instead so that I can come back stronger.

WEEK 1: 6 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/50 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/1:45 long run
WEEK 2: 7 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/30 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/2:00 long run
WEEK 3: 8 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/55 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/HM test run
WEEK 4: 9 x 800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/60 min tempo run (6:50 pace)/2:00 Easy
WEEK 5: 10x800m at 5K pace, 400m jog in bw/30 easy run/HM RACE

We will see how this plan works out...But you will notice I am not leaving tempo runs out of the training! Speed-endurance workouts are the only way to improve your speed-endurance! Be assured that doing speed and endurance workouts or even workouts with endurance and speed is not the same thing!

But in case I don't get "up to speed" on tempo pace, I have a back-up plan--a half marathon pacing strategy that involves no tempo speed:

1 mile @ 8:00 pace
3 mile @ 6:30 pace
1 mile @ 7:30 pace
3 mile @ 6:30 pace
2 mile @ 7:30 pace
3.1 mile @ 6:30 pace for 2 miles and 1.1 mile push to the end.


This gives an 89 minute finish time and best of all involves 0 minutes at 6:50 pace! Physiologically, it allows me to do what my body does best--a nice easy warm up and then it is kind of like running three slow 5Ks with rest in between and double rest before the last one to allow for the big push at the end. I also like the psychological aspects of this strategy. I feel like I can push a little at 10K pace for three miles at a time if I know I have a one mile rest coming in between. I might give this strategy a test run first and then report the results back here!

Minimalist Half Marathon training note: If you are limited in the number of runs you are doing each week (for whatever reason) add workouts in this order: Only one workout--do an endurance run. Two workouts--do an endurance run and a tempo run. Three workouts--endurance, tempo and speed. 

UPDATE: So I decided on an adaptation of the racing strategy above.

This update relates the results of me trying out what I call a "burst and recover" strategy versus a more standard and highly promoted even split or negative split strategy. It turns out there may be something to the burst and recover strategy for me. 

In my long run today, I started doing so math (I love math) and realized that the half marathon is roughly three 4.3 mile runs (it's a little more than that...) So, I reasoned that a 1:30:00 goal can be attained by running three 30 minute 4.3 "mini races" back to back. I decided on-the-fly to try out this new strategy--three efforts that start easy with a surge at the end to make sure to finish in 30 minutes.

So after my warm-up, I pushed and closed in on the 30 minute 4.3 mile distance. (I actually beat it by about 2 minutes). After that, I reasoned that I could kick back into a "recovery" pace for a few minutes so that I have something for the next two 4.3 mile efforts. So I eased back to about 8:30 pace.

The second 4.3 mile "mini race" went well too. In fact, I surged a couple of miles early and got the second 4.3 miles basically locked up (I only needed to keep like a 10 minute pace for a little over a mile). So, I handily finished the second 4.3 mile distance in under 30 minutes as well. The problem was that my surges were around a 6:20 pace.

So I had 8.6 miles under my belt and all looked to be going well, but just past mile 11, I bonked pretty hard! I had to drop WAY back--just faster than a 9:00 pace. I did a little quick math and realized that I also had an extra 0.2 miles to deal with that I had not accounted for (because 3 x 4.3 only equals 12.9). Additionally, I was having to keep track of the total time in my head because I had lost the first 2.7 miles and 26:28 due to a button-pressing error (my bad!). So I had to keep figuring in the rogue 26 minutes and change.

At first, I determined that I had to finish by the 79:00 mark (doing math while running a half marathon distance creates extra challenges--try it sometime if you doubt me!). So, I kept thinking that I had plenty of time and laid back at the 8:50 pace for a mile or two of the third "mini race". Then, it dawned on me that 1:30:00 minus the 26 would simply be an hour and 4 minutes, which is 64 minutes.

So I was giving myself an extra 15 minutes! Running at a recovery pace of 8:50 should have allowed me to burst ahead and try to make up the time, but I was exhausted. (I think our subconscious mind makes some running math errors work to our advantage--more rest!) I had a few very short surges in me, but I bonked at mile 11, so I determined to hang out around 6:50 pace for as long as I could. When I could see the light at the end of the tunnel of the 13.1, I broke out a 6:22 pace (about the last 0.5 miles)--not as much because I had more left in me as I wanted to be done running so badly!

At the end of it all, I could see my time was just over 70 minutes (without the extra 26 and change I needed to add in). I was too spent to think about what that meant after adding the 26 minutes and change. I was pretty sure I came in not too much under the 1:44:00 mark that I had already accomplished by using the standard negative split strategy.

SO, I WAS PRETTY SURE MY "BURST AND THEN RECOVER" IDEA HAD PROVEN TO BE LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THE HIGHLY TOUTED NEGATIVE OR EVEN SPLIT STRATEGY. BUT IT TURNED OUT TO BE NOT THAT CLEAR-CUT...

My time today with the burst and recover strategy, while short of the 1:30:00 goal, and even though I bonked at mile 11, was about 8 minutes faster than my usual results using a negative splits strategy. 

I can't overlook the fact that I bonked pretty hard at mile 11 though. Also, I have seen great improvements at shorter distances (5K to 10 miles) by using a negative splits strategy. So, here is a revised strategy that combines the best of both worlds:

1st 4.4 MILES IN 31.5 MINUTES (avg 7:10 pace)
2nd 4.4 MILES IN 30 MINUTES (avg 6:49 pace)
3rd 4.3 MILES IN 29 MINUTES (avg 6:44 pace)

Each section is treated like its own "mini race" with an easy pace at first, building up speed, and capping off as need with a burst of speed to hit the goal. This makes it so the burst of speed is followed by a recovery pace in the first part of the next "mini race". However, the first mini race is an easy effort, the second moderate, and the third harder in keeping with the negative splits idea.

Additionally, I plan to run the first "mini race" starting off at a 7:20 and only building up to around a 7:00 for the surge--no 6:20 in that first section! So each burst-and-recover mini section gets more intense than the previous one.

Hopefully this will prevent the "bonk" with a couple of miles to go!

The other thing I realized today is that it is hard to simply avoid your tempo pace. It is like a bike with a broken middle chainring and you only have the most efficient gear if it happens to be very high or very low. So with that, I continue to work on my tempo efforts. I have already noticed even after just a week that the low 7's feel more comfortable. Hopefully the high 6's will follow!


 VELOZOUT!