Tilden Moschetti

SETIcon was last weekend in Santa Clara, CA. It was a terrific event with scientists, celebrities and writers all getting together to talk about SETI, space science, and science fiction. 56 sessions(!) over 2 full days. Because of work and stacking I could only attend 9, but they were great. Here is my breif recap of each from Day 1:

"Multiverses: Is One Cosmos Enough?" with Alex Filippenko (Astronomer and Professor), Sean Carroll (Theoretical Physicist and Author), and Robert J. Sawyer (Author)

A great talk to start it off talking about multiverse theories. I didn't know that there were two competing theories. The one I knew of is the DeWitt model that has each reality as a branch on a tree, with each variation a new branch. The other theory, for which I can't recall the name and was rather doubted by our panel, had each universe lying at the bounds of our universe. Sawyer played devils advocate in a very thoughtful and funny way. My only critique of the discussion was the apparent problem Filippenko had with the ethics of it (that his 'self' in another universe was a murderer), but I fail to see that the other identity was really the same self. 

"Ask a Science Fiction Writer" with Robert J. Sawyer (Author)

I followed Sawyer to his next talk. It was really great starting off with a neat puzzle (well, actually a solution) from one of his books about using mathematics to build up a foundation to talk about ethics. It was very clever. He talked about his work and processes. I identified with a lot of this and see a lot of similarities between our personalities. His books have a deep connection to the science and, from what I can tell, are sparse on fantasy.

"'Warp Eight, Mr. Scott': Will it Happen? The Future of Space Travel" with Kevin Grazier (Scientist and Science Consultant to Battlestar Galactica), Sean Carroll(Theoretical Physicist and Author), Tim Russ (actor who played Tuvoc on Star Trek Voyager), and Greg Papadopoulos (former CTO and Exec VP at Sun)

Work called me a way for a bit, and I returned to this question: warp drive? Carroll says no and pretty much all agreed. But, in a really great moment, Russ created a compelling picture: Imagine that we are all in the 16th Century and we are sitting around in those ridiculous collars. Someone posits that we should go to the moon. What would any scientist say about this lunacy? (aha, great pun.) The only thing we know about is wind power, how are we going to even get off the ground?

"Which Came First: The Science or the Science Fiction?" with Robyn Asimov (Daughter of Isaac Asimov), Andre Bormanis (Writer and Producer for Star Trek Enterprise), Robert J. Sawyer (Author), Kevin Grazier (Scientist and Science Consultant to Battlestar Galactica)

A fantastic way to end the day. All were great and great together. The bottom line is this: so many scientists have been influenced by sci fi, they go take us into the future, leading to more sci fi, and on and on.

What is Hadoop? 

Hadoop is a framework for processing very large amounts of data in a batch. It was developed in Java and sits under the Apache umbrella. 

Lets say that you have been hired to analyze trends on Twitter. Your employer receives the firehose of data from its API and writes it to a file every day. Now they want to know out of those 50M tweets per day how many times people use split infitives. And then they ask you to tell them: for all those people people who tweeted more than once and did not use split infinitives, how many used a proper name in the tweet? 

Why would anyone want this? Beats the heck out of me, but it is your job to solve it. A job like this cannot be done efficiently on your TRS-80 that you somehow managed to put Windows 98 on. This is a job for Hadoop. 

How does it work?

A Hadoop cluster has 2+ computers – a NameNode and 1 or more slaves. The NameNode is the controller of the cluster. It is a single point of failure. Its job is to keep an index of all of the data and all of the tasks (using JobTracker). 

The slaves are where the action happens. They store and process the data. How? 

Hadoop has two underlying technologies at work – the Hadoop Distrubuted File System (HDFS) and MapReduce. HDFS is a very clever file system where the data sits near other relevant data. It is distributed across the nodes, normally in 3s for redundancy. The actual topology of HDFS is configured for efficiency. MapReduce processes chunks of data, we’ll get to that in a minute. 

So, the first thing that happens is that the JobTracker takes this large chunk of data and splits it into logical chuncks, normally about 64MB each. So, using our example, the chunks would be sets of tweets. Each one of these chunks will be processed individually by the slaves that it was assigned to (and where the data lives). The chunk then goes through MapReduce. 

MapReduce first takes the chunk of data and simply maps it. It sets a key and a value. So, again with our example, the Map would process all of the tweets it has. It would find a split infinitive and set that as its key and maintain the rest of the tweet as the value. It would process the next tweet, fail to find a split infinitive and mark that with a separate key. After it is done with the chunk, it would Reduce the chunk, grouping all tweets with split infinitives into one group, and those without into another. (In our example it would then chain another MapReduce to find the tweets with proper names.) And that is it! 

When does one use it? 

Hadoop is very, very cool. It is part of the future of cloud computing and is a brilliant framework for batch processing large amounts of data.

Here are some build photos of my Level 3 project: Trifecta

I first attached the aft ring to the boat tail.

I then filled then added epoxy to the other side.

I built a jig to mount all of the fins and to align them.

I glued all of the fins at the root to the motor mount.

I reinforced the joints by adding fiberglass fillets.

I like to use expanding foam to lock the fins forever into place and to make the fin can one unit. This is from the first of two pours.

[Continued from Part 5b]

Part VI

Let me try and squeeze some more mileage from my toothpaste analogy:

If you open a brand new tube, you can squeeze anywhere and expect to get some toothpaste. Without wanting to be too simplistic, see the tube as a new runner: pretty much any training you give him or her will result in improvement (toothpaste).

It could even be possible that you are not a new runner, and have been running for some years but are now failing to improve substantially and believe that you have tapped all of your “trainability”. Here it is very possible (especially if you have no pace relationship) that all you have merely achieved is to squeeze all you can from halfway up the tube. You might have done a very good job of doing so, and seen sizeable improvement (toothpaste) for some time. However you might now (mistakenly) believe that is all there is in the tube.

I think most people would agree that to get everything possible from a tube of toothpaste (to get every last drop), we need to go to the very end and squeeze/roll carefully all the way up. That, if you can excuse the analogy, is what this whole thread has been about. Maximising your trainability. So we can all walk away from the sport as “old farts” secure in the knowledge that we got out of ourselves every last bit of genetically limited potential.

Okay, the reasons why I suggest/promote this method of training are already out there, and so is an example of how effective it can be. Within that example, I believe the "how" is quite clearly discernable, but let me be more clear and give some general guidelines that almost all runners should be able to apply to themselves.

I have already mentioned that in one of Lydiard's books (Running With Lydiard, by Lydiard and Gilmour 1983) he suggests the initial one-week (mainly) aerobic training in his schedules is repeated "for as long as possible" before going on to the later parts of the programs. The advice contained in this (and the earlier) thread is my version of the training aimed to get every runner to an extremely high level of aerobic fitness. The first time it is undertaken (like "Joe") it may take some months to get to a very high level of aerobic fitness. But if this is not lost after each competition period, each subsequent "build-up" period will require less time (you start each time from a higher level). And in time will become more like 10-12 weeks instead of the (first time) 20 weeks.

I believe that if you get this first part right, then the major proportion of your training for any distance event will already be complete. You will be able to rock and roll pretty much year round. (Here we might consider such runners as Ron Clarke, as an example of this being possible). Okay, you might not be always in PR shape, but your season will not be characterized by odd peaks and deep troughs either.

All or any other (interval, speed, call it what you will) training undertaken will be done better, and achieve more, if it is added onto a correct implementation of this first stage. Of course this is not all the training you will need if you are aiming for middle distance success. But get this first part right and you will be one mean “mutha” when you step onto the track for your first interval session. Indeed, I would refer you all to re-read and understand HRE’s comment above by Peter Snell and McFarquhar? that it is very possible to even race close to your (middle distance) best simply off of this base period.

Now the guidelines I am about to offer have not been proven with the rigor of a scientific study, but have arisen as a general trend out of repeated testing and training of distance runners over the years. I have found these to be valid for runners of all ages from 17 years and over. I would not suggest applying them to runners younger than 17-18 years old.

    1. Do an HRmax test on yourself (how-to example is in the text) and make every effort to ensure your complete and absolute confidence in the result (note that within 2-3 bpm of HRmax is accurate enough. Whether it is 195 or 197 will not affect how you train).

    2. Perform a 2400m test on yourself (from easy training pace to a max of 5bpm higher than your particular HRmarathon- see below).. Once again ensuring you are fit, fresh, rested as if for an important race and all possible variables (wind, etc) are controlled as much as possible. Since you are going to conduct this 2400m test again and again, you must try and ensure that, as much as possible, all tests are done under near identical conditions (or else you start wondering such thoughts as, "am I faster because it was less windy this time?"). Do all you can to control against such doubts having to occur (ie: don’t test in gale force winds).

As a general rule, the best possible HR/pace/effort you can maintain for a full marathon (without crashing, hitting the wall, etc) will not be closer to HRmax than 15-20bpm. Getting within 20bpm of HRmax might be hard enough at first, but with proper training it is possible to get even within 15-20bpm of HRmax. Closer than this (as an average over the whole race) I would not expect you to be capable of.

So, HRmarathon is ~20bpm below HRmax, and easy running HR is another 30bpm (or more) below HRmarathon (therefore 50bpm or more below HRmax). Like this:

If your HRmax is 193 OR HIGHER, then the following applies:

HRmax: 193+ (even if over 200)

Best possible HRmarathon: 175-177 HRav (note, this is the average taken from mile 5 to mile 25, not the peak. Your HR might peak to 181 in the final miles as you throw everything onto the fire).

Suggested training HR's: Easy every day running: 145 HR or lower (If you begin really unused to this form of training, initially you might start at 150, but as soon as the pace at this HR improves, it is recommended that you reduce your easy running HR to 145 or lower). This can often feel very slow to begin with, but should improve within 3-6 weeks and continue to improve for months. You may do as much running as you wish at this HR/intensity (always being careful to avoid overuse injury).

Initial LTHR (initial lactate threshold heart rate): As with Joe in the example, begin at 155-160 and do not let the HR rise on the run. Build up the distance you can run for, over time, to 10 miles. At first, you may have to slow down within the run to maintain HR, but over the weeks and months, you should note that the running speed begins to remain more stable and you do not have to slow down (so much) to stop your HR rising. In time, the running pace at this HR (and all other HR’s above it) will also improve. Only move this HR up when your running pace vs HR is rock steady and you (easily) are able to run 10 miles at this HR without loss of pace or rise in HR. At that point, only move the HR up by 5bpm and begin again. The slower you build up the first time, the better your pace at HRmarathon will be. Remain at each HR as long as you are seeing improvement on the 2400m test and definitely until your pace vs HR is stable. You are trying to reach a state where your predicted/expected marathon pace and your 170 HR pretty much coincide in the 2400m test. And that this pace per mile can be maintained in training for 10-15 miles at 170-175 HR without rising effort or rising HR.

For example training weeks (60, 70, even 80+ mpw), go back to Part V (B) and plug your numbers into the example weeks given for Joe's training. (Want to run more mileage? Add in some extra miles at 140-150 HR. This can be as doubles on some days, up to 8miles in the morning and 10 miles at night. All easy aerobic running.)

Rid yourself of any sign of impatience and just knuckle down to the work. Remember, a constantly dripping source of water will eventually erode solid rock. For this to work, you need your muscles to change, and change takes time. Mitochondrial growth takes ~6 weeks. So look for small change every 3 weeks or so, and significant change every 6 weeks or so. It is not suggested you 2400m test more regularly than every 6 weeks. More often is just frustrating, like someone who is trying to lose weight, jumping on the scales every morning hoping to see the pounds drop off. Just do the work and give it time to have an effect. Farmers don’t pull up their potatoes every five minutes to see if they are growing…

If your HRmax is 183, read all of the above, but use the following numbers:

Best possible HRmarathon: 165-167av

Easy running: 135 HR or lower (This training HR will not change with time - it may drop, but the pace at this HR will definitely improve.)

ILTHR: Begin with 145-150 and only move it up (only by 5bpm each time) when your pace vs HR is steady and you are able to run 10 miles at the particular HR without loss of pace or rise in HR. You are eventually trying to reach a state (some weeks or months down the line) in which you can run 10 miles at HRmarathon with no rise in HR and finish confident that you could go round again at the same pace with no rise in HR or loss in pace at constant HR.

If your HRmax is 173, read all of the above, but use the following numbers:

Best possible HRmarathon: 155-157 HRav

Easy running: 125 HR

Wetsuits

The most obvious benefit to wearing a wetsuit is to keep your body warm. Wetsuits are made of neoprene, which provides insulation from the cold ocean water. When your body is fully-submerged, the thin layer of water forming between your body and the wetsuit is warmed by your body heat but remains insulated from the cold ocean water by the wetsuit, thus keeping you warm!

Note that different wetsuits provide appropriate protection for swimming at different water temperatures. So when shopping for a wetsuit, it is important to know the approximate water temperatures where you’ll be training and racing. When the water temperature is 75 degrees or above, using a wetsuit may cause over-heating. In most races, wetsuits are not allowed at such temperatures.

Because neoprene is filled with tiny air bubbles, it not only insulates your body from the cold water, but the buoyancy also makes it harder for you to drown! This safety aspect is especially important when you are new to open-water swimming, or just starting to train for longer distances. At larger races, the mass swim-start can be intimidating, and sometimes I find the wetsuit helps me stay afloat and feel safe amidst a crowd of flopping arms and legs…

Wetsuits, maybe the most important of all, make you faster. The reason why you go faster is 1) the buoyancy helps you achieve a horizontal, higher in the water, more efficient body positioning; and 2) the wetsuit’s silicon surface is smoother and slicker than your skin, which reduces drag against the water. Just how much faster a wetsuit makes you swim depends on numerous factors and is subject to some debate. For an Olympic distance (1.5K) swim, it could be 1-3 minutes’ difference!

There is only one answer to the question “What is the best wetsuit?” It is the one that fits you best. Wetsuits, like shoes, absolutely, never ever, should be purchased based on brand name. If the suit doesn’t fit you, it will not work.

Despite the many benefits, wetsuits are expensive (a new wetsuit retails from $130 to $400+) so you want to choose wisely. It is important to get a wetsuit that is appropriate for the water temperature in which you swim and is the right size to fit your body. Your wetsuit should be snug, but not uncomfortable or restricting. Too tight and it might limit your full range of movement and breathing, making you slower rather than faster. Also, water temperatures aside, some people simply prefer the extra buoyancy and protection from having sleeves, whereas others prefer sleeveless wetsuits for the freedom in movement.

After some research, you can purchase your suit online or at your local retailer. While you might be able to find a suit for a small fraction lower price online or from a triathlon catalog, you can see, feel and even try on the actual suit at a local retailer. (Personal advice: Practice good karma! Do not try on a wetsuit at a store, taking advantage of the staff’s help, and then buy the same suit online just because it’s a few bucks cheaper. Support your local retailer for carrying inventory that you like and for their helpful staff!) 

Wetsuit Care

You bought yourself a nice and shiny new wetsuit. As you now know, these aren't the cheapest piece of triathlon equipment to purchase. So how do you care for your new investment?

Storage - Most schools of thought believe that hanging your suit inside out on a hanger in a cool dark place is best. Not a thin wire hanger - but a thick, rounded one - even going so far as to stick cardboard tubes on the hangers to create a larger diameter. I use two wooden hangers taped together. The other school of thought is to fold it once (twice max) inside out and store it in a dry cool place. The difference of opinion is that the pro-hanger folks believe that hanging out in the open allows the suit to dry out quicker. The pro-folders believe the weight on the hanger will distort and eventually crack the shoulders. My experience - the hanger works well with no distortion or cracking.

As seen above, the consensus is two major elements will damage your suit - heat and light. As such, cool and dark (or shaded) should be kept in mind when selecting a storage spot. Don't leave it in a hot car, or stuffed into a damp bag.

Wash your suit regularly. After swimming - especially in salt water - you should rinse off the inside and outside of your suit. Use a mild shampoo - even baby shampoo will work fine - to help wash away the saline and bacteria.

To Pee or not to Pee - that is the question. Yes, many people do pee in their wetsuits - the cold water of the bay seems to bring that out of people. The urea in your urine may be bad for the neoprene and increase bacteria levels, but, everyone does it and you might as well too.

Do not use Vaseline or other petroleum-based lubricants. These will damage the suit. Neoprene is a petroleum product and the Vasaline will break it down. Use cooking spray (such as Pam), Body Glide or other non-petroleum based products if you need lubrication.

Be careful putting the suit on and removing it. Neoprene does tear and your fingernails, jewelry, sharp objects on the ground can all damage your suit.

Repair: Small nicks and scratches can be mended with wetsuit repair glue (also called liquid rubber). I have also heard that Shoe Goo can work well. QR makes a wetsuit repair kit that can also come in handy.

Goggles

To choose the right goggle, there are three considerations: style, size and shading. Not all goggles fit the same - different brands and models offer different shapes and contours.

For practical purposes triathlon has two different styles to choose from: the mask and the goggle. A lot of triathletes, and probably more beginning swimmers, are most comfortable with the mask. The mask differs from the goggle in that it has a single air pocket over both eyes to goggles’ one. Neither is ultimately better than the other, it is a matter of personal choice. I alternate between the two.

Athletes with smaller faces may find better luck with a "junior" model featuring contours that fit a smaller face better. To find goggles (or masks) that fit there is a simple test. At the store, hold a pair of goggles to your eyes (without putting the strap over your head) and gently press them into your sockets, testing suction hold. Look for a snug fit with a reasonable degree of suction created when you press on them. If they fall away immediately, look for another model until you get one that holds to your face for a few seconds. As with swimsuits, when you find a pair that works well for you, consider buying several pairs at once. You should have at least one backup pair of goggles at all times.

The last issue is shading. Goggles come in tinted and untinted. For sunny days and races a tinted lens helps keep you able to see when you inevitably have to look at the sun either during sighting or breathing.

To keep your goggles from fogging, the best, cheapest, and easiest method is to simply lick the inside of the lens before swimming and give a quick rinse in the water. Anti-fog solutions are also available and work reasonably well, though licking is cooler. 

Swim suit

A comfortable, reasonably snug fit is essential for a swimsuit, whether you’ll use it for training or racing. Many manufacturers (such as Orca, Louis Garneau, Arena, Speedo, Iron Girl, and others) offer triathlon-specific women’s suits in both one- and two-piece styles. Men’s styles come in varieties too, the most popular in the triathlon community being jammers, a knee length, lycra swimsuit.

For swim training only, some manufacturers make thicker, ultra-chlorine-resistant suits that can last up to a year (five swims a week). If you need more specific information, specialty swim shops or triathlon stores will have a large variety of suits in stock and can usually order what you need.

Anti-Chafing

One drawback of wetsuits is that they can chafe - sometimes very badly even causing some bleeding. As such, be sure your wetsuit fits properly. Also, get yourself some wetsuit lubricant. I use BodyGlide which comes in a stick like underarm deodorant. Also, get yourself a can of Pam. That's right, the cooking spray. You spray it on your calves and forearms and it makes the wetsuit slide off easier.

Two words of caution - (1) If you use Pam, try not to get it all over your hands. It will make taking the suit off harder if your fingers are slipping off everything and will interfere with your ability to "feel" the water during your swim strokes. (2) Never use Vaseline or other petroleum products as these damage wetsuits.

Kick Boards

“Do I really need to kick?” Who hasn’t asked this question? The current dogma holds that the kick is just there for triathletes to take energy out of the legs. But this is not entirely accurate. Yes, a super-strong kick will zap the strength of the legs, but much more important is that the kick is necessary for balance and hit rotation. Kicking drills also offer a good way to strengthen the legs. Huge kick sets are not necessary, but a couple hundred yards per workouts are a good idea.

Hardly anyone buys their own kick boards; almost every pool has them for free.

There are two ways to use a kick board. The first has the swimmer holding on the top with the head out of the water. If you are going to use a kick board at all, this is probably the best way. The head stays out of the water the whole time. The second way is to hold onto the back of the kick board and hold it out in front. This lengthens the effective body length of the swimmer making it a bit faster.

Pull Buoys

Gordo Byrn calls pull buoys “crack for triathletes.” The point being that they are a crutch. Sure, they have a purpose, but extensive use of pull buoys will not make you faster or more comfortable.

A pull buoy is a device you put between your thighs that is buoyant and elevates your hips. It takes the place of kicking (a main thing kicking does is elevate your hips). In a sense it mimics some of the benefits of the wetsuit by artificially giving the swimmer better form.

[Continued from Part 5a]

 Part V "B"

Starting from 11 May (when he had reached 50mpw and conducted his first 2400m test), over the next 16 weeks, Joe's weekly mileage was as follows:

wk1 (64mpw) wk2 (67) wk3 (88) wk4 (85) wk5 (60) wk6 (103) wk7 (86) wk8 (116) wk9 (110) wk10 (98) wk11 (96) wk12 (110) wk13 (116) wk14 (67) wk15 (107) wk16 (99).

Joe was given schedules to show him how to best get from 50 mpw to 80 mpw.

    Mon 60 min easy 145 HR

    Tue 75 min easy 160 HR

    Wed 45 mins easy 145 HR

    Thu 60 mins easy 150 HR

    Fri 75 mins easy 160 HR

    Sat 45 mins easy 150 HR

    Sun 90 mins easy 155 HR

    Approx 60mpw

    Mon 75 min easy 145 HR

    Tue 60 min easy 155-160 HR

    Wed 60 mins easy up to 150 HR

    Thu 75 mins easy 145-150 HR

    Fri 75 mins easy 160 HR

    Sat 60 mins easy 14-150 HR

    Sun 90 mins easy 150 HR

    Approx 69mpw

    Mon 60 min easy 140-145 HR (or lower)

    Tue 90 min incl. 70 @ 160 HR

    Wed 75 mins easy 140-150 HR (or lower)

    Thu 75 mins easy 150-155 HR

    Fri 90 min incl. 70 @ 160 HR

    Sat 75 mins easy 140-150 HR (or lower)

    Sun 3 hrs easy 145-155 HR (w/60 min @ 160)

    Approx 80+mpw

We should note that Tue and Fri are preffered "work" days (although the pace was always easy/aerobic). Sunday is obviously long-run day as it is for many. The remainder of the week was just increasing miles at easy running HR.

For the first 8 weeks, Joe did not run higher than 160 HR at any time (even though he intended to race at 175 HR in the marathon). As can be seen from his 2400m tests on 29 Jun, his pace at all HR's was slowly improving. Even the paces at 170 and 180 HR were improving despite the fact that Joe had not run at that intensity AT ALL in the previous 2 months.

By wk6 he added some more easy 150HR+ running on three days per week (to go to 103mpw). Also on wk6, each Sun became simply 2hrs-2hrs30 at 150± (no longer including 60 mins @ 160 HR)

Sample weeks are as follows (mileages are approx, Joe notes times eg: 1h45mins @ 150HR±):

    wk4:

    Mo (8m @ 145)

    Tu (10m @160)

    We (12m@145)

    Th (14m@145-150)

    Fr (8m @ 160)

    Sa (12m @ 150)

    Su (2hrs @ 150 incl: 60 mins @ 160)

    wk7:

    Mo (10m@ 150)

    Tu (12m @ 145)

    We (10m @ 160)

    Th (14m @ 155)

    Fr (10m @ 145)

    Sa (6m @ 140)

    Su (2hrs 15 @ 145-150)

Over time, the running speed at each HR was slowing improving (see 2400m tests).

On wk 8, we introduced a session simply designed to to get Joe used to moving faster biomechanically, without incurring high lactate. I call this 200/200 or 200-fartlek. It is done on a track and involves 200m @ approx 5k pace followed by 200m easy and continues without stopping for 25 laps (10,000m). The point is NOT to do the overall 10k in the fastest possible time (by slowing up the fast bits and speeding up the slow bits), but to maintain a healthy differential of approx 15 secs or more between the fast/slow 200s. Something like 40s and 55secs or 43s/60s.

Joe ran this on weeks 9 (38s/55s – 38.40 for the 10k); wk10 (37s/52s – 37.18 for 10k) and wk12 (37s/51s – 36.53 for 10k). This session replaced one of the 160 HR runs on those weeks, the rest of the week remained unchanged.

Up until wk 12, these 200/200 runs had been the only time Joe had run at higher than 160 HR (and even then, only for a short time).

Only on wk13 was Joe allowed to run at 165-170 HR and this replaced his 160 sessions (because we believed his LT had now moved up from 160 HR). That week (Tue) he ran a measured 10m @ 168 av and managed 58.28 and found it "easy" (indicating therefore low lactate and a pace under/slower than LT). This was NOT a race effort. He ran it again that week (Fri) and managed 58.56 (166 HRav) and found it again, "easy".

Since this intensity was now a regular part of the schedule, in wk14 (Tue) Joe ran the same 10m at HRav 171 in 57.58 and found it "very easy, legs fresh, could have kept going no problem". Also that week (Sat) he took part in a local road 5km for "fun" (something to do with impressing a girl) and ran 15.58 (5.09m/m) with a HRav of 186. He phoned me afterwards and explained he could have kept going, but could not get faster. This is a common feeling on this kind of training which was not (yet) aimed at 5km racing.

Just note here that Joe had never AT ANY TIME run this 5km race pace (5.09) in training. So far his fastest paced training had been 10m @ 5.48 apart from 3 x 200/200s worth of 10k. This is the power of a strong LT. His third mile had been the same as his second. He had not been slowing down. I told him that after the marathon, if he wanted, he could train to knock another minute off of this time... and that got him thinking.

On wk 15 (Tue) Joe ran his 10m in 57.34 (5.45m/m) at HRav 169 (remember his marathon target was 5.30 at 175 HR, so he was getting there) and later that week (Fri) he ran 3 x 15 mins at 170 HR with 5 mins jog.

On wk16 (20 Aug) Joe ran 13 miles (HRav 168; simply as part of his 165-170 run) in 1.16 (5.50m/m). This pace was now "comfortable" and something he could keep up for much longer.

And on wk19, as already noted, Joe ran a HM (as part of a marathon) in 71.43 (5.28m/m) with an HRav of 181 (due to some cardiac drift).

Was his aerobic training finished at that point? Far from it. I figured we were only halfway there. We needed to be able to see sub-5.30 at 170HR (or lower) on the 2400m test.

Note that Joe was only now being introduced to 170 HR training/intensity. And that this was now becoming comfortable for him (ie: because the lacate at this effort was now low ). Conventional wisdom would have now stated; "based on his HM time, he needs to run tempo runs every week at that pace for 20 mins..."

In truth, Joe was not yet ready for such intensity. He would do much better to just keep working away as he was. Continue for some weeks at 160-170, then slowly move that up to work at 175 HR when the time was right. Always slowly slowly raise the intensity of training, and only when you are very sure you have maximised your running pace at all the lower intensities. Do not be fooled into thinking that you only need to be fast at 175 (race) HR. You also need to be pretty quick at 160, 150 and 140 HR too.

Think of it like a tube of toothpaste. To ensure you get every last drop (of ability) you have to go to the very end of the tube and slowly squeeze your way up. Never hurrying.

If you are not as aerobically strong as you should be (you have no pace relationship as race distances get longer, as explained way back at the beginning), it can only be for one (or both) of two reasons: 1. You don’t run enough miles. 2. The miles you do run are being run too fast. Fix either (or both) of those, and (aerobic) improvement will follow.

Kurt Harris has a great post on his website PaNu about dietary fat being stored as body fat. He explains that insulin is just one set of parameters to the equation. And he is right. If the answer was just insulin levels, no one would lose weight with low fat & high carb diets. But they do. The drawback from these diets is energy levels, slow weight loss, and overall health problems associated with high intake of carbohydrates. 

As Taubes points out in Good Calories, Bad Calories, the way to lose weight is to change the left hand side of the equation dE = E(in) - E(out). (dE is delta E, E(in) is energy taken in by eating , and E(out) is energy expended by exercise.) When focused on the right side, as told to us by conventional wisdom what happens? Well, we eat less and exercise more. We get tired because the body tries to adapt to the change. But we already know that exercise is a terrible way to lose weight (yes, still very important, but for health not weight control). Focusing on the left side are doing those things which affect dE - changing our diet to low carb lowers the amount of fat accumulated. 

But, the low carb diet is only a piece of the puzzle. The body is an amazing balancing machine. For example, if the thermodynamics approach people were 100% right, then we would need to eat within less than 1% of the needed calories to stay within 10lbs of body weight over a 10 year period. Some crash dieters though, can actually gain weight if their intake is too low or their calorie consumption is too high. Overweight people make up a large percentage of famine areas - they are still malnourished. Harris writes, "The question of whether the fatty acids you ate were stored or whether existing fatty acids were not released is meaningless because fatty acids are fungible- just like the bank reserves growing if money does not leave is the same as money coming in - think BALANCE or EQUILIBRIUM." 

He goes on to write, "Is insulin involved? Yes. Do higher insulin levels, all other things being equal, shift the equilibrium towards storage and away from fat release? Definitely. Does any of this mean you cannot store fat without eating carbohydrate or that you cannot burn fat with insulin present? Of course not. You always have some level of insulin present if you are alive and healthy. What effect it has is contextual, as is the case with every hormone." And this is the point. You want to lose weight, a calorie deficit or even homeostasis will probably do it if you are eating low carb. The insulin levels are reduced, and your body is more prone to losing than gaining. By, I said MORE PRONE, not that it always will. 

Here is the thing - the paleo critics often say that the reason the people who lost weight on low carb is because they had a calorie deficit. Well, yes, but that is looking at the wrong side of the equation. They did not lose weight entirely because of a low E(in), but mainly because the conditions of dE were optimal for how much fat to store and then they presented a less amount of E(in) to store.

Of the swim, bike and run that make up triathlon, often times the swim portion can be the most daunting, especially for those who didn't learn to swim as kids. You are not alone – a lot of newer triathletes are in the same boat. With time and practice you will be comfortable.

Swimming is safe. When training in a pool, if you feel unsure about yourself, stand up. In open water, you will probably be wearing a wetsuit, and they are very buoyant, it is like wearing a life preserver. Once you can recognize that you are going to be okay, you can relax, learn to like swimming more, and probably get much faster.

When you first get in a swimming pool, you may be able to do just one length before feeling tired. That's ok. Just like running, it takes time to build up endurance in swimming. But it will definitely come in time, especially if you commit to swimming 2-3 times per week.

Pools are typically 25 yards in length, though some pools are "off" lengths: most gym pools in big cities are 20 yards.

For most pools, one length is 25 yards- one lap is 50 yards. However, you will sometimes people describe lengths as laps. If a swimming distance described in laps sounds ridiculously long, then likely the person meant lengths. People often use the term "laps" when they mean "lengths," but it's usually clear by the context of the workout they are explaining what they mean. For example, if you are swimming with a friend and he says, "Hey, let's swim 500 yards straight, it's only 20 laps" he really means 20 lengths- 20 laps would be 1,000 yards, a distance far greater than what most swimmers do in a single set even in masters classes.

If you jump in a lane at your pool and see people swimming up one side of the lane and then down the other side, they are circle swimming. Keep to the right side of the lane as you are swimming, touch the wall somewhere near the center, and then swim back down the pool, again keeping to your right. Leave the flip turns for later if you don't know how to do them. 

As a beginner, you might set as a goal to finish 20 lengths of a standard pool, or 500 yards. In time, you will likely swim total yardage somewhere around 2,000 yards in a workout. The single most important thing at this stage, either as a beginning swimmer or a swimmer just getting back into the pool, is to keep getting in. Consistency makes great swimmers.

[Continued from Part 4]

Part V "A"

First up, be sure that you understand the above addendum. To move your LT (for all the reasons given earlier, reasons that show that a high LT is THE prime attribute for a good performance) you must work BELOW (slower than) the pace at which your LT currently turns.

No pain, no gain, doesn’t work with LT training.

Now, how did I train Joe? If you can follow this, you can do exactly the same to yourself. I am trying to write this as carefully and simply as possible, but it's going to be wordy and full of numbers and data which you will have to sift through. Please make sure that you read it just as carefully and don't just jump in with questions, because this part of all this thread is a major key to improving your race performances. I will do my best to sum it all up at the end and put it into key points to apply to your own training.

First off, what I did with Joe was ask him to do a simple (but tough) test to determine his HRmax. I asked him to go to a track and warm up, stretch and do some strides as if preparing for a race. Then (wearing his HRM) he was to run an all-out 800m and note the highest HR recorded on his monitor. He was to rest 2 mins and run an all-out 400m. The highest number he would see as he crossed the finish-line, we would take as his HRmax. Since HRM’s can sometimes be tricky and go blank or haywire at the wrong moment, he was to have someone there to be ready to immediately manually take his pulse for 6 seconds (and multiply by 10). This proved not to be necessary, since his HRM read 193.

I have taken enough lactate measurements and had people wear HRM’s in marathons (even Joe himself, years earlier) that I was able to tell him that based on this HRmax his best marathon HR would be 175-177. Higher than this would not be possible/sustainable. (Note; I just got them to wear them for my information purposes, not to use as a race-pace guide, a practice I do not agree with).

A few days after this HRmax test, I got Joe to run his first 2400m test on 11 May. If you check back at Joe’s results, you will note that the speed at 170 was only 6.05m/m.

For reasons of cardiac drift, I had learned that the pace at 170 in the test would pretty accurately reflect the running pace he would maintain for a marathon (assuming he was trained well) even though in the race his HR would climb to 175-177. This because for 2400m he is not having heat dispersal problems such as he will encounter if he keeps up such a pace for 2hrs+. So, assuming proper training, the pace at 170 HR (for Joe) in the 2400m test equals pace in the marathon at 175-177 HR (in other words, his best marathon pace/effort).

So, with an eventual target of sub-2.25 (5.30m/m) in the marathon, Joe’s current pace at 170 on 11 May (6.05m/m) was too slow.

I told Joe that to move/improve the running pace at this HR, he had to train a lot of miles at HR’s lower than 170 (and obviously, slower). He knew this anyway. It would be some time before he would even be allowed to run at 170 HR intensity. Not until he was ready for it. And by the time he was ready for it, it would be much easier than he was finding it at present.

As noted in an earlier addendum (to Part IV), Joe found this initial test effort at 170 HR to be okay for 8-10mins, but not something he wanted to keep up for too long, maybe 30-40 mins. Indeed 180 was something he did not believe he could maintain at this early stage for even 18 mins. Both of these subjective perceptions (and Joe has a lot of running experience) were telling us that his lactate was rising even at 170 HR and was going very high at 180. If we can look back at the A-B-C? graph I described above (Second addendum to part IV) we can picture Joe as being runner A (or maybe B). If you draw this graph it will become clearer. For an optimal marathon, we needed Joe to be capable of the sort of lactate curve generated by runner C.

To do this, we needed to get Joe to work at paces before his lactate curve turned. It obviously was turning BEFORE 170 for 3 reasons:

    1. The pace at 170 (6.05m/m) was not the target marathon pace (5.30m/m as predicted by the relationship between Joe’s other shorter distance performances, and as predicted by Joe’s earlier ability from 5 years previously. We KNEW Joe was capable of 2.25 if well trained. The fact that he could not do it at present simply meant he was not well-trained. A fact we were aware of.)

    2. If Joe was well-trained, the lactate curve should not curve till just about/just after Joe's marathon pace/HR (ie: 5.30m/m and 170+). In fact, his marathon target pace and marathon HR should pretty much coincide at 170HR. The fact that they did not, showed us his LT was low.

    3. Joe did not want to run for too long at 170 HR. A significant pointer that he was already above his LT.

Let me go over that again. It look complicated, but it isn’t.

    a) If you have a POOR relationship across race performances (as already discussed at the very start of this thread) you have a low LT compared to what it possible for you. If you do the 2400m test, you will either find that the pace at your best marathon HR is too slow (like Joe at 170) or that the effort required at that (170) HR is too much and something you cannot hope to maintain for 26 miles.

    b) If you have a GOOD relationship, and your HRmax is like Joe’s (193+) then your best marathon race HR will be 175 ±. If you do the 2400m test, you should find that your pace at 170 HR is very close to best marathon pace (although HR in the race might be 175+). AND you should feel that running at 170 HR is no big deal. You can maintain it comfortably for a long time without even thinking.

So, Joe's marathon pace was not where we expected it to be. And 170 HR was "too tough" at present to maintain for 26 miles. He had to train slower/easier and lift his LT which was currently very low.

Here we needed to find 2 training paces for Joe. One, we knew had to be low aerobic conditioning pace for every day, the second could be up closer to his current LT.

The low aerobic pace had to be ~50 bpm lower than his HRmax (70-75% of HRmax). Since Joe's HRmax was 193, this put his easy mileage at 145 HR (or lower). The second HR was to be a bit higher, but still under LT. This one was set at 155-160. (Note here: the LT at this point was still low, and occurring at a low HR. In time, Joe would be able to run at marathon HR 175 very very comfortably, because the lactate at that effort/HR would be low by race time. Until then, he had to work BELOW this effort and ease the comfort zone up until it reached 175+). This second intensity was set at Marathon HR minus 15-20 bpm (for now, it would be allowed to rise as Joe's fitness improved... as will be explained in the example).

As a general guide, and in my experience, this is what I have found works best. Marathon HR will be approx 15-20 beats lower than HRmax (no better). And aerobic conditioning HR needs to be another 30 bpm below THAT (and hence ~50bpm below HRmax) I will qualify this in a more general statement at the end.

When Joe's LT moved, the pace/HR at which he could train and still be under LT would also move/rise. Although his upper limit at first was 155-160, in time he would be able to train at 170HR and still be very comfortable. But not yet. He had a lot of work to do first. 170 was still too "uncomfortable" (ie: too close to, or slightly above LT).

The totally WRONG thing Joe could have done at this point was to think "right, 175 is marathon HR, I'll work at that pace until I can do more and more of it." Or he could have thought, "right, 5.30m/m is target race pace, I'll start with 2 miles at that pace and add on one per week until I can do 26..." Neither of these would have worked for him.

What he had to do in effect was find his aerobic upper limit and slowly ease it up, not by working harder, but by working just at the optimal pace/effort to stimulate his muscles to become better at providing energy at this rate. This would cause the effort at that pace to drop, to become easier and the HR at that pace to fall (and usually the pace at that HR to improve/drop). He would then slowly be ably to work at higher and higher HR's while still remaining fully aerobic and working under his LT.

In fact, for his HM, 20 weeks after starting, Joe would average 181 HR at 5.28m/m. This was a HR he was not able to maintain for longer than 18 mins at the start of training. The difference would be that by HM time, Joe's lactate at 180 HR was LOWER than his lactate at that same HR 20 weeks previously (and therefore less "stressful" and more "comfortable"). This, despite the fact that the pace at that HR was now faster.

The following information is not going to be tidy. I cannot put it in chart form, so you may need to copy it out into Excel and straighten it out a little. Or print it out and digest it slowly.

[Continued from Part 3]

Part IV

Let’s move from the Why to the How To...

And in contrast to the accepted method, let’s start from the end. I have repeatedly stressed throughout this thread and the preceding one (see link to it from Part I), that there is a huge improvement in performance that can be made from purely aerobic training, if you get it right. A huge improvement wayyy before any faster work is done. In the example that follows I want to stress that what was achieved was done without any of the sort of sessions that many of you might expect.

So when you read what follows, just bear in mind that there were no sessions of repeat 1,000s, no repeat miles, no "tempo" runs (at least in the accepted sense of 10k-pace +15 secs). Just lots of controlled aerobic training (detailed examples of the training will follow)

All the figures and timelines that I will quote are genuine and I want to use the example of my friend Giuseppe (whom I’ll refer to as Joe, for the purposes of this thread).

A little over 5 years ago I coached Joe to two 2.27 marathons. We had expected the second race (some 6 months after the first) to be sub-2.25, but raceday proved to be extremely wild and windy and Joe ran his heart out and yet just broke his earlier 2.27 by a bare 2 seconds.

We would have ducked the race under normal conditions and found another, but it was a fall marathon and we did not have a fall-back. Life being what it is, there was no guarantee how things would be if we waited till the following spring. Work, injury, illness... anything could happen in four/five months. Joe made the decision to race, and I admired him for doing so.

Some months after the race I moved house, away from the area and we lost touch.

Early last year my wife raced near Rome and Joe came across her after the finish line and we all met up that evening for a meal and a chat about old times. We had all enjoyed many long runs together all those years ago, so we had much to recall and talked late into the night.

Joe ruefully admitted that he had put on 20 pounds and was now approaching 35 years of age. He was also mired in work, since he was the financial controller of his family’s printing business and was having to hassle many clients for lack of payment on time. A relaxed, easy-going guy, Joe admitted that the stress of having to constantly argue with clients was getting to him and serious training had long been forgotten. It was at least two years since he had had any kind of fitness and now he was down to maybe 20 miles per week, if that. And slow!?! (many of us could tell similar stories).

Anyway, we parted after swapping email addresses and telephone numbers. During the evening Joe had several times remarked that his best running days were behind him, but my wife (older than him by a few years) had admonished him every time, repeatedly telling him he was talking nonsense. All he needed, she said, was to make the decision to begin, and with the right training it would all come back.

A few weeks after I got back home, I got an email from Joe saying that he was going to go for one more serious marathon. We had got him hyped and he had been able to think of little else. I told him before he began to look at his working life and figure out how he was going to find 90 mins to 2hrs per day for training. I also told him to ease his way (taking as long as he liked) to get to 50mpw and then I would give him a written schedule from there. (Examples of the schedules will follow).

One thing that concerned him (and I) was how we would monitor his growing fitness without jumping into regular races. Since he had worked with me in the past, he knew all about lactate testing and HR training. After some thinking, I told him we would be able to do the same, only without the blood tests. If we were really careful, I said, and he kept me informed of everything, it would work. He agreed to try. He argued with his brothers, telling them he was going to alter his work hours to suit his training. Grudgingly, they agreed.

Elsewhere, on another thread, I had explained why I liked the period in lactate tests to be a minimum of 8 mins long. I have long used a protocol that consists of repeat runs over 2400m at slowly increasing intensities (with pauses after each period to draw blood). (Note: you really should have followed and read the lactate link I put up earlier to be able to fully understand the discussion from this point on. Don’t worry, it’s not difficult and it's well worth the read).

Once Joe got to 50mpw, I told him to perform the following mini-test (he knew the protocol). Go to a track on a windless day, as rested as if for a race, and do the following:

Run 2400m at a steady 140 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 150 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 160 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 170 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

Run 2400m at a steady 180 HR (Stop 90 secs and record time)

At all times, adjust the running pace to maintain a stable HR. On each new stage slowly edge the HR up (ie: it is ok if the HR takes the first 600-800m to reach target level), then simply maintain HR. DO NOT start fast and have to slow to maintain target HR.

Joe got back into things in mid-April, and ramped to 50mpw of easy jogging pretty quick. I got him to do the mini-test on 11 May and periodically thereafter (bearing in mind the ~6 week period for mitochondrial growth). The numbers below detail his progression in running speed at each date and each HR. The times are in mins/mile. Joe’s oganised training began immediately after the first test.

In 12 weeks ± Joe improved his HR vs running pace at all intensities. A pace that required 150 HR initially, only required 140 HR a brief 12 weeks later. This was true across the board. A pace that used to require 180 HR now required less than 170 HR...

Dates — 140 — 150 — 160 — 170 — 180

11May – 7.56 – 7.22 – 6.42 – 6.05 – 5.40

06Jun – 8.03 – 7.17 – 6.36 – 6.01 – 5.33

29Jun – 7.23 – 6.49 – 6.12 – 5.42 – 5.18

04Aug – 7.18 – 6.36 – 6.00 – 5.33 – 5.10

Six weeks after this last test (and less than 20 weeks after beginning organised training), Joe entered a marathon with instructions just to sit quiet with the 2.20-low group and stop at halfway. He ran 71.xx.

Managing to finish less than 2 mins off his all-time half marathon PR after only 20 weeks organised training, Joe began to see how his sub-2.25 dream could still happen.

Discussion:

Before I get into the exact details of Joe’s training, let me pre-empt one question you might have: how was Joe able to run 5.33m/m with 170 HR when it used to require 180 HR to run at 5.40m/m?

If you have read and understood all that I have posted, you should have a good idea of why this occurs, but let me just review it quickly.

A prime function of your heart is to deliver oxygen to your active muscles. Your muscles then use this oxygen combined with glycogen or fat to create energy to run. If your muscles are inefficient at doing this, you will not get as much running energy per unit of oxygen as you could.

Think of your heart as a pump that is told what to do by the muscles. "We need more oxygen!" say the muscles and the heart beats faster. "We have enough", they say and the heart rate stays low.

To break one unit of glucose down into energy anaerobically (WITHOUT oxygen) you get two units of energy (let’s say that you get 2 paces/strides up the road before you need more energy).

If you break that self-same unit of glucose down into energy aerobically (WITH oxygen) you get 36 paces up the road before you need more energy. Obviously this is much better. So if you can make what used to be an anaerobic pace into an aerobic pace, you are a much superior runner and can keep this pace up for much further.

But even better, if you were so efficient that you could break down one unit of fat into energy (instead of glucose) you would get 460 paces up the road before needing more energy. And your HR would be wayyyyy low at the same time.

Now 100% fat-burning isn’t going to happen, but I hope you can understand that the higher a percentage of fat there is (along with a percentage of glucose/glycogen) in the fuel mix you burn at marathon race pace, the more comfortable you will be, the longer you will keep up the pace, and the faster you will run.

The short answer? Joe just got more efficient at using oxygen and breaking glucose/fat down into energy for running.

Addendum to Part IV

When Joe ran his first mini-test on 11 May, as well as emailing me the data, he also sent his opinions on the effort levels involved at each stage. At the lower end, he remarked that it was somewhat difficult to keep his HR low enough. This is often the case at first. As can be seen, Joe was very slow initially which showed how much aerobic fitness he had lost. The running pace at this very low effort level improved in time with the training. Most runners would skip this effort level and so lose the valuable adaptations that take place.

At the higher end he found 170 to be a bit of work, and he said he would not like to have maintained the 180 HR effort for much longer. When pressed, he stated that he would be lucky to keep the 5.40m/m pace up for 5km. Definitely not further. This signifies, even without testing, that Joe had passed his lactate threshold at this pace and was now building serious amounts of lactate in his running muscles.

Less than 20 weeks later, Joe would complete a HM (at 21km, a distance that was over four times longer than the first mini-test) at faster than this 5.40m/m pace he had found so tough (HM pace was 5.28m/m). He would be able to do this because, through training, his lactate at this pace was now significantly lower than it had been in his first test. Since this was so, the “effort”, the degree of difficulty to him, the stress at this pace, was greatly reduced and he had no problems maintaining this effort for 71+ mins.

Second addendum to Part IV

How can we all move our Lactate Thresholds? Actually, the question is not that simple, because for some of you it will be necessary to first establish a threshold. Think back to the lactate charts I linked you to in Part II (and here I wish I could post some charts to make this more clear).

You’ve got the x and y axes, and the lactate curve begins from the left and runs horizontal for a short way and then climbs at 45 deg angle. For some of you, that would be exactly what we would find if I lactate tested you; your anaerobic energy kicks in wayyy too early, and you have no good relationship between your 1500m time and your 10k / HM time.

Slightly better would be the next runner whose lactate curve stays horizontal for slightly longer (remember, the horizontal axis is running speed, so the further the curve goes to the right before climbing, the better). At a slightly better running pace, this athlete’s curve then climbs at 33 deg angle.

And, of course, we have the well trained athlete whose curve stays flatter for much longer before curving upwards.

We need to train to become like the third athlete. If you have not already read and fully understood the earlier lactate link, you might want to consider drawing these 3 curves on a graph paper. Draw the x and y axes. You can mark the vertical axis 1-10. Starting from about 2 on the vertical axis, give the first athlete “A” about 2cm of horizontal line before curving/slanting upwards at 45 deg all the way to 10. Starting from about 1.5, give the second athlete “B” about 4cm of horizontal line before climbing at 33 deg again all the way to 10. Finally, give the third athlete “C” about 6cm+ of horizontal line before his slope climbs at an even flatter angle to a max of 8.

Having done this, note that if you draw any vertical line that crosses the horizontal axis anywhere on the graph you can see how much lactate each athlete has to build to run at the same pace as the other two athletes. Runner A’s lactate can be crazy high, and runner B’s climbing, while runner C’s lactate is still at calm levels.

How do we make runner A like runner B (and B like C)? To move the lactate curve to the right, we need to go wayyy back to just before the curve begins to turn, and train both at the point, and below (slower). Not faster. If we do this right, in six weeks the curve will move and we will be able to run faster, more easily (ie: aerobically and not by calling up some anaerobic energy).

Obviously, doing lactate tests, the effort levels at which to train are easy to find. How can we find them without lactate testing? That is what I will try to explain in Part V.

Of course, almost every running book since Lydiard has asked you to train this way, but they just say “run easy”, and it has been my experience that very many runners get the definition of "easy” wrong.

[Continued in Part 5a]