Qualitative vs Quantitative Training

Yesterday at work, I was browsing an email from active.com about triathlons, the same email/newsletter they send out each week with articles, races, etc.  Usually they aren't too packed with critical information, but this week's I really enjoyed, particularly an article on HR training.  It wasn't the fact that the author Jesse Kropelnicki of QT2 Systems mentioned some good tips on training with HR, but the reasoning behind it, and why some people choose to race and train without metrics.  (FYI, here's a link to the article.)

As a PhD student in the early stages of my research education, I am slowly learning about research design and measurement.  A LOT of planning goes into each and every study done (believe me, it's really incredible...).  To give an extremely broad summarization of just about every research study done, there are 2 types of studies:

1. Qualitative-  These studies look at measuring things that are difficult to associate a value with, like feelings, emotions, etc.
2. Quantitative- These studies look at analyzing specific things in each study, and are measured (aka a value is associated with an outcome).  Some easy examples would include strength and range of motion.

Both types of studies have their own strengths and weaknesses, and are valuable tools in the research world because researchers are able to measure and look at different outcomes, either specific or broad.

The article immediately caught my attention because it applied these basic research designs and principles to triathlon training!  Seriously, talk about hitting just about every one of my interests!  Had Kropelnicki mentioned the Jayhawks, I would have declared this to be the greatest article ever written!

Kropelnicki stated just like research, there are 2 types of racers: those who train with metrics (anything measurable and specifically defined), and those who go on feel.  Again like research, there are benefits and weaknesses to each approach.

The racers going on feel are using a qualitative approach to their training, relying on their body to tell them when to push the pace or slow down when training.  The greatest benefit to this approach is freedom.  Freedom from your Garmin, power meters, watch, and weekly volume.  You go based on how you are feeling at the moment, and have nothing to answer to.  This can lead to some great race experiences and results, and many professionals now go based on feel (and time vs distance). 

Although this is a great benefit, there are several shortcomings to this approach.  Tracking your training is difficult, and tracking progress vs decline in overall fitness is even more difficult.  Racing with this approach can have great results, but also extremely devastating impacts if you push too hard too early.  While this may not be as big of a deal in short sprints, this can lead to a DNF (did not finish), of a DFL (hmmm let's just say the last one to finish....) in longer races.

Those who train and race by measuring outcomes would be using a quantitative approach.  Pace, power on the bike, and heart rate during the swim/bike/run are just a few things that can be objectively measured throughout training sessions.  Those who use these metrics during racing and training have very specific training plans and structured workouts, and will be in specific HR zones or trying to maintain a specific power output for a specific amount of time.  Notice any key words?  Specific, specific, specific.....

Some benefits of this training style includes data!  Data makes it easy to see progress, improvements, or declines in performance.  Based on what you see, you can alter your training plans to fit your current needs.  Using this approach is also good for people just starting out because it gives you justifiable information based on how you feel.  An example for me involved recovery runs.  I always thought I was going pretty slow, but turns out my HR was close to zone 3, and sometimes zone 4.  This is WAY too high, meaning I was running too hard.  It may have been hurting my training... Lastly, the quantitative approach gives you some ideas for race day strategy.  Having a structured race plan with specific HR/Power/Pace zones will make sure you finish within a given time, without blowing up your legs too early in the race. 

There is one drastic downfall to this approach:  You are governed by your technology.  And it kinda sucks.  A lot of your freedom is gone.  You are constantly looking at your watch for pace, listening for beeps, making sure your power is in the right zone at the right time.  Every morning, you check your resting HR to make sure you aren't becoming overtrained, you load and analyze each workout... the list goes on and on.  Eventually, all this information tends to drag on the athlete, and could lead to burnout.

What I do:

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but I tend to follow a bit of both, but am becoming increasingly obsessed with the data and metrics produced by my Garmin during training.  I don't have a power meter (yet), so I guess it could be worse, but I still do follow a fairly strict plan for each workout.  I train with heart rate zones, specific pacing for specific miles during my runs, specific HR and cadence for my biking workouts, specific resistance for my trainer workouts, and specific splits for my swim workouts.  It takes a lot of time and preparation to make sure I know what I am supposed to be doing.  But in the end, this is what works for me.  And to keep me from going insane, I don't track my active recovery workouts, other than time and distance.  

For racing, I just unleash.  And I love it.  I spend all this time tracking my training, analyzing my results, altering my training plan, and come race day, I hold nothing back.  I don't look at my watch, I just try to chase people down.  I have yet to completely lose it on the run, but know that day could be coming.  The bike for me has been a challenge, and I will continue to evaluate my race strategies this winter to make sure I am on the track I want to be on. 

Shawnee Mission Park Triathlon:  No HR monitor, just a cheap ol' Timex on the other arm...

But wait?!  There's a Garmin now!  I know... I just wanted a sweet GPS map... And it was brand new!!!
Side note: Please don't analyze my pedal stroke.  It's getting better....

In 2012, though, I will be tracking HR/Speed/Cadence/Pace throughout all my races.  Here's why:  I want to replicate race intensity in my training.  If you want to race hard, you need to replicate that same intensity in your training.  I know what my splits have been, but I want some more data to go with the timing.  I am still planning on racing without being aware of my Garmin, at least for the sprints.  

I am pretty interested in everyone else's approach to training and racing.  Does any of this ring a bell to you?  What do you measure or go by?  

Thanks for reading!

Finding and Evaluating your "Race Pace"

Tomorrow starts my "speed" work in my Half Marathon training plan.  Thank God.  I like the endurance aspect of exercising (duh), but I am ready to break up some of the monotony of "going long" with some speed. Today, I had a 10 mile run to finish up my "build" phase for my race in October.  The warmup was 4 miles, then I had 3 miles at my "race pace" and finished with 3 easy miles.  As I went through the workout, I got to thinking about re-evaluating what my "race pace" should be. 

I started thinking about this mainly because I was DYING on the run today and was trying to distract myself from the pain in my feet, but the past few workouts at race pace were pretty easy.  I'm guessing the tough run today was attributed to poor hydration yesterday... bad Mark!  

Post run... very facebooky.  At least my shirts on, though.

When I got home, I realized why one of my feetz was painful... Apparently I had a dagger for a toenail and shredded the middle toe.

Pssh whatever. I didn't even cry.  Cuz I'm super tough, ya know?!

Knowing your race pace for longer races is really, really important. Basically, you are setting yourself up for failure if you think you can go out and run as hard as possible for 13.1, 26.2, 50K, etc.  5Ks and 10Ks are doable, but there is a good amount of preparation and research involved with what you should shoot for.

Okay, so now that I got you interested in figuring out YOUR pace, let's get into some brief explanations on how you can do it.

To find out your race pace, for any race, the best thing to do first would be race in a 5K!  This will give you a good mile time comparison, with you running at your best.  Plus, the extra adrenaline from the race day excitement should help your times.  To break down your 5K results into mile times is really easy!  Take the total time of your run (TT), and divide by the distance in miles you ran (3.1 miles for a 5K), and you get your average mile time! Or just check your race printout, if you got one.

What if you are training for a 5K? One easier/shorter way that happens to be less expensive would be a 2 mile time trial on a track.  Even though you would be running a shorter distance, this will probably be slightly slower than your 5K time because you aren't running with adrenaline or a bunch of people.  But it is still effective.  Your 2 mile time trial time and your 5K time should be pretty close!  To do, warm up for 15 minutes at a track, then run for 2 miles (8 laps) as fast as you possibly can.  Again, divide your time by 2 (for the miles) and you have your average mile time.  If all else fails, run 1 mile as fast as you can, and boom! You have your 1 mile pace.

Now that you have your mile time, you can "guess" what your times would be for longer distances.  Since I am training for a 13.1 race, that's what I have usually been looking at.  You can find this information in a number of places.  All you have to do is Google search "race pace calculator" and you will get a whole slew of them! On a personal note, I have tried using the one from Runner's World Magazine, and think the times are a little tough for longer races.  It has my 5k time and 10k time exactly the same time per mile.  Yeah Runner's World, that's not happening...

The one I use is the McMillian Running Calculator.  I like this one better because the times aren't conservative, but also possible.  It also gives you a better printout of different paces per race distance, suggested paces for different workouts (recovery, tempo, long runs, easy runs), and suggested paces for interval and speed workouts.  Basically, it takes the guesswork out of your pacing! I highly suggest the site!

I plan on re-evaluating my race pace soon. Honestly, I have been using a 5K time from one of my triathlons, so I'm guessing my pace should be a little faster.  I have heard from other runners that you should continually re-evaluate your mile times every 4-6 weeks, because it fluctuates as your fitness changes.  I'm excited to see if my pace has changed now that I am running much more than previously!  I will let you know which way it goes!

This may be some pretty basic information for the "seasoned veterans", but I learned about it this year, so it is still new to me.  I always thought people just went out and ran, just doing what they could and pushing themselves for a good total time.  Today, I now see the strategy and planning involved in not only the races, but also the hours of training that goes in. Pretty awesome.