
Monday, March 28, 2011
Race Report - River City Marathon

Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Race Report - Davis Stampede
Warmup consisted of a few dynamic stretches and a light jog with my friend Bernhard, who was also running. My strategy for the day was to go out at about 6:20 per mile and then try to bring it into the 6:10-6:15 range for the last 7-8 miles and see how that felt. Then in the last 2, I was hoping to really push. I really wanted to focus on learning how to run with discomfort, stay inside my own head, not focus on how long till I can stop, and not let any negative thoughts take over. The power of positive thinking can go a long way and I wanted to make sure I stayed on top of the mental game this time around. Push myself into discomfort and then hold it there and learn to deal with it. From a nutrition standpoint, my intention was to have a gel about 20-30 minutes before start and then have another gel about half way. At each aid station, I would attempt to get a swig or two of water or Gatorade down. For a race that’s less than an hour and a half, you can get away with less. Plus, I had recently had some metabolic testing done and know that at this approximate pace I burn 18-20 calories per minute with about 5 of those calories being from fat and ~15 of those calories being from CHO. At 15 calories per minute and 80 minutes, I knew I would burn through about 1200 calories of CHO. I should have plenty of “juice” for that effort, especially with a gel 20 minutes before hand and a good breakfast 2-3 hours before the race.
I lined up with my friend about 3-4 people back from the front line and we waited for just a few minutes to the start. At the start, I took it out fairly hard to try to get around some people and then tried to find a groove. The first time I looked at my watch, I was around a 6 minute pace – a touch fast, so I needed to settle in to a steadier effort. I started early on with my internal dialogue (“relaxed, calm, focused, strong”) and tried to focus on that for a while and just run at a “comfortably uncomfortable” pace. It was a bit windy, but the course has a lot of turns so sometimes you were going with a nice tail wind and sometimes you were right into a stiff headwind. For the hard sections into the wind, I was trying to get behind people as best as possible. But the 10k’ers turned off pretty early and the race thinned out. There wasn’t really anywhere to hide, so I just rolled along. I didn’t get passed in the 2nd half of the race, which was nice, and I gradually creeped up on and passed about 3-4 more guys in the 2nd half.
Mile splits are below. I'm pretty frustrated with the HR data from my Garmin – I thought I had that fixed, but I still get junk HR data, even after changing the battery. I think my HR was in the high 160s through most of it and then raised into the 172-175 range by the end. From a pacing standpoint, mile 2 was my slowest, and miles 3, 4, 5, and 6 I tried to remain steady in my 6:20-ish pace. According to my watch, I was a little fast, but the mile markers didn’t match my watch exactly, there seemed to be about a 5 second discrepancy. Mile 8 was slower mostly because it was windy and I was on my own and it was getting hard to maintain that pace.
1 00:06:06
2 00:06:21
3 00:06:16
4 00:06:12
5 00:06:16
6 00:06:11
7 00:06:09
8 00:06:18
9 00:06:12
10 00:06:11
11 00:06:05
12 00:06:14
13 00:06:11
14 00:01:22
Around miles 7 and 8, I was working pretty hard to NOT think about the finish and how long I had left… staying focused on the internal self-talk and staying positive about being “relaxed, calm, focused, and strong.” It worked pretty well and I maintained a steady pace. Around mile 10 and 11, I started heading back towards town and passed 1 or 2 more people. The last two miles were tough; I was breathing harder (although still mostly in an every two step pattern), my legs were starting to really fatigue, but I still hung onto a <6:15 pace. Last time I ran a hard half-marathon, I was doing about 6:20-6:25 at the end so I really wanted to hang tough those last 2 miles. I rolled back into town and a guy told me he thought I was about 9th or 10th overall (it turned out he missed a few people). I made the last two turns, continued to push hard, and rolled to the finish in what I thought was a little under 1:22. Turns out they had me at 1:22:05 for a 10 second PR (3rd AG and 13th OA). My watch had me at 6:10/mile and a 13.22 mile run so it is either a little off or the course was a touch long. Regardless, I was satisfied with how the race went – I think I dealt with the discomfort better than I had before and next time around I can build on this... In summary, a good experience racing on a beautiful day with a good result.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Metabolic efficiency - are we sugar burners?
I first heard about the concept of metabolic efficiency when I went to the USAT coaching certification clinic. One of the speakers there was a sports nutritionist named Bob Seebohar who talked about this concept of how we can potentially manipulate our bodies into burning more fat during exercise. Why would you want to do this? Well, for anyone who has done a long (3+ hours) event, like a long-course triathlon or a century ride or something else where you are exercising for a long time, you may be familiar with the idea that your digestive system gets to the point where it decides it’s not happy with anything you ingest. When we exercise, our body shunts blood to our active muscles so they have the nutrients and fuel they need to keep working. However, this means we are getting less blood to our digestive system and our digestive system cannot process what we take in (very well, unless we stay at a low-enough intensity). So as our long event goes on and we take in more and more sports nutrition products, gel, sports drink, etc., the concentration of stuff in our gut just keeps going up and up while our body continues to shunt blood to our other muscles to keep powering our bodies forward. This is when things start to go south. For anybody who has done a long event, you’ve probably seen somebody doubled over along the course (particularly rampant at Ironman events) and unfortunately their nutrition is now coming back up (literally) because their body has decided to shut down. It goes like this: no fuel getting absorbed because we are exercising and taking in too much too fast resulting in a high concentration in our gut -> we feel worse and worse because no fuel is getting absorbed -> we take in more and more gel, etc. thinking that will solve the problem -> body shuts down and eventually forces contents of gut back up. Not pretty. What’s the answer? Burn more fat during exercise. Even a well-trained athlete only has maybe 2,000 calories of glycogen in their muscles and liver ready to act as fuel for exercise. However, even the leanest person has 80,000+ calories of fat to use to fuel exercise. You can see how 2K calories won’t last long if you are burning only sugar.
So how do we change all this? How can we make our bodies better “fat-burners?” In Bob Seebohar’s book, he suggests, and presents a fair amount of evidence that you can do this by:
1) Training at an aerobic intensity
2) Manipulating the macronutrients of your daily nutrition
Item number 1 is fairly straightforward – most of your training should be at an easy/moderate intensity. Do the hard stuff sparingly (for lots of reasons). Because of this, it may be easier to try improving your metabolic efficiency during a time of year when you are not racing as much and concentrating on building a big aerobic engine. Item #2 is about what you eat on a day-to-day basis MOST of the time. I say MOST of the time because I believe that if we are too black-and-white about anything, it can backfire. This is why most “diets” don’t work. If you completely cut stuff out, then it’s no good and our nature is to end up “falling off the wagon.” What you do on a consistent basis 90% of the time is key - keeping things simple and doing everything in moderation. In Bob’s book, he describes a periodized nutrition plan where the focus most of the year is on eating fruits and vegetables, low-fat protein, and healthy fats. You don’t need as much whole grain as you think. Sufficient carbs to support your training come from the fruits and vegetables (and other sources, dairy, etc.). Only when you are in a heavy period of training you supplement with some whole grains. This flies in the face of most of what has been preached to us endurance athletes for a LONG time. The entire sports-nutrition-product industry has been created to “fuel” our workouts. However, what do you think people ate prior to Gatorade and prior to Gu? Real food. Simply eat a well-balanced snack prior to your training sessions and then do the same immediately after. This is enough. During training, particularly if it’s easy/moderate intensity, we don’t need all the extra sugar. It teaches our body to be more efficient at burning sugar. And we know that burning sugar can only last so long. If we can be more metabolically efficient, we can go longer with a lot less risk of any GI distress.
How do we know or measure any of this? Do we have to just guess? I am fortunate to have a friend who actually IS a sports nutritionist and has the equipment and capability to do metabolic efficiency testing. Sheila Leard (www. MyNutritionZone.com) is a registered sports dietician and can perform this kind of testing. By analyzing the content of what you breathe in and out, you can understand the blend of carbohydrate (CHO) and fat you are burning at different exercise intensities. This is VERY powerful information. For example, with a marathon on the horizon, using this data, I can understand EXACTLY what intensity (for running pace and HR) I can shoot for and be confident how much carbohydrate I am going to burn through the duration of the event. I now know what intensity to run for whatever duration I am interested in. I can also devise a fueling strategy based on this and practice it in training. The test is not complex or intimidating. You can do it either on the bike or on the treadmill and simply involves wearing a mask while you ride or run. Here’s a link to a video of me on the treadmill during the test: http://qik.ly/BE8pH3Nk3uESI5yqf4KsQsJ. You do an easy warm-up and then progressively increase the treadmill speed at set intervals, all the while, monitoring what’s called the Respiratory Quotient (RQ) via the mask and your heart rate via a heart rate strap/monitor. The RQ is the ratio of CO2 expired to O2 inspired and tells us how our body is handling the exercise intensity, by either burning mostly fat, some of both fat and CHO, or mostly CHO. The point where it changes to mostly CHO is called the crossover point. Ideally, you want to stay below this for much of your training, and combining that with daily dietary manipulations, you can teach your body to be more metabolically efficient.
My results were very informative. In the plot, you can see I was burning a decent mix of fat and CHO up until we took it from 8 (~7:30 min/mile) to 8.5 mph (~7:00 minutes per mile) at which point my body transitioned to burning mostly CHO. Not only that, now I KNOW how many calories I burn per minute and what the blend is between fat/CHO at each intensity. Perfect. I can come up with training and fueling plans optimized for my upcoming races! It takes out the guesswork and makes me confident I can achieve the goals and performance targets I have set for myself! I am very excited about this concept and continue to work on the dietary changes myself. With two toddlers at home and a busy life, I will admit, it is tough, but like I said, I try to do well MOST of the time. I am also very excited about this concept and using the metabolic information with the athletes I coach. Fueling in endurance sports is definitely a trial-and-error process, but this testing helps take the guesswork out of it and the athlete and I can work together to come up with a fueling strategy more specific to their race circumstances and goals.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
PowerCranks - do they make you a better cyclist?
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010 Dec 31. [Epub ahead of print]
The effects of 6-week-decoupled bi-pedal cycling on submaximal and high intensity performance in competitive cyclists and triathletes.
Sperlich B, Zelle S, Kleinöder H, Lochmann M, Zinner C, Holmberg HC, Mester J.
Institute of Training Science and Sport Informatics, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Müngersdorf, 50933, Cologne, Germany, sperlich@dshs-koeln.de.
Abstract
Aim of this work was to examine the effects of decoupled two-legged cycling on (1) submaximal and maximal oxygen uptake, (2) power output at 4 mmol L(-1) blood lactate concentration, (3) mean and peak power output during high intensity cycling (30 s sprint) and (4) isometric and dynamic force production of the knee extensor and flexor muscles. 18 highly trained male competitive male cyclists and triathletes (age 24 ± 3 years; body height 179 ± 11 cm; body mass 78 ± 8 kg; peak oxygen uptake 5,070 ± 680 mL min(-1)) were equally randomized to exercise on a stationary cycle equipped either with decoupled or with traditional crank system. The intervention involved 1 h training sessions, 5 times per week for 6 weeks at a heart rate corresponding to 70% of VO(2peak). VO(2) at 100, 140, 180, 220 and 260 and power output at 4 mmol L(-1) blood lactate were determined during an incremental test. VO(2peak) was recorded during a ramp protocol. Mean and peak power output were assessed during a 30 s cycle sprint. The maximal voluntary isometric strength of the quadriceps and biceps femoris muscles was obtained using a training machine equipped with a force sensor. No differences were observed between the groups for changes in any variable (P = 0.15-0.90; effect size = 0.00-0.30). Our results demonstrate that a 6 week (30 sessions) training block using decoupled crank systems does not result in changes in any physiological or performance variables in highly trained competitive cyclists.
First study:
J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Nov;17(4):785-91.
Effects of short-term training using powercranks on cardiovascular fitness and cycling efficiency.
Department of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence 66045, USA.
Abstract
Powercranks use a specially designed clutch to promote independent pedal work by each leg during cycling. We examined the effects of 6 wk of training on cyclists using Powercranks (n=6) or normal cranks (n=6) on maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) and anaerobic threshold (AT) during a graded exercise test (GXT), and heart rate (HR), oxygen consumption (VO2), respiratory exchange ration (RER), and gross efficiency (GE) during a 1-hour submaximal ride at a constant load. Subjects trained at 70% of VO2max for 1 h.d(-1), 3 d.wk(-1), for 6 weeks. The GXT and 1-hour submaximal ride were performed using normal cranks pretraining and posttraining. The 1-hour submaximal ride was performed at an intensity equal to approximately 69% of pretraining VO2max with VO2, RER, GE, and HR determined at 15-minute intervals during the ride. No differences were observed between or within groups for VO2max or AT during the GXT. The Powercranks group had significantly higher GE values than the normal cranks group (23.6 +/- 1.3% versus 21.3 +/- 1.7%, and 23.9 +/- 1.4% versus 21.0 +/- 1.9% at 45 and 60 min, respectively), and significantly lower HR at 30, 45, and 60 minutes and VO2 at 45 and 60 minutes during the 1-hour submaximal ride posttraining. It appears that 6 weeks of training with Powercranks induced physiological adaptations that reduced energy expenditure during a 1-hour submaximal ride.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Race Report - Resolution Run
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Consistency in Endurance Sports
Monday, October 4, 2010
IM Branson 70.3 - Spectator Report/Pictures












