Heart Rate Monitor Tips

This is 100% not me.

Over the years I’ve owned a lot of GPS running watches and most of them had Heart Rate Monitors (“HRMs”). However, I’ve been very careful to make sure that these added to my training and didn’t have a negative impact. So I thought it would be helpful to list some of the ways a HRM can benefit running and things to avoid. 

Benefits:

- Heart Rate (“HR”) gives a neutral, comparable measure of effort that factors in internal (levels of fatigue/recovery, muscle damage etc) and external (weather, terrain, altitude, temperature etc) variations day-to-day. Pace changes a lot depending on all these factors and HR can be used to check that recovery runs are easy enough and harder sessions are tough enough.

- Estimates (ideally accurate calculations from lab testing) of maximum HR can help with using heart rate zones to keep to differing purposes on runs, in line with a structured and intelligent training plan.

- Analysis of data after races can highlight where mistakes were made, showing at what point a given HR for a given distance became unsustainable. Also, if a recent similar race had a higher average HR it can indicate that the effort level could have been greater. Often it takes some trial and error to work out where that red line is for different race distances.

Things to be careful about:

- Some athletes become too focused on the real-time feedback from an external sensor like a HRM (or GPS watch) and lose the ability to judge intensity, which is a key skill for all running, especially in ultras. Even if you find a way to perfectly work out what HR is sustainable and can adapt this exactly to any new race situation (unlikely, given that other factors also have an effect - see the next point), what happens if a HRM breaks or runs out of battery and you have no other way to judge your effort? A HRM is just one internal or external tool to incorporate and not the only one to rely on.

- HR only reflects cardio effort, which factors in many things, but not everything. For example, in a hilly race the effort required to run downhill may be low and the HR correspondingly low, but judgement of how much impact your legs can sustain is also important. What may seem sustainable from a HR perspective may lead to trashed legs later in the race from hammering the downhills.

- Most HRMs rely on a strap around the chest (see photo above), which often chafes, plus many models take several minutes of running and sweating to settle down after spiking the HR early on. This can be very mis-leading and is another reason to be very careful when using HR to adjust your pace, so it’s important to make sure effort can be judged independently of the HRM. One excellent way to get past this particular problem is to use a HRM attached in a different area of the body. In my experience this leads to a more accurate measurement, especially in the early minutes, and no chafing issues - I use a HRM within a cap made by LifeBeam (see below) which I’ve found very effective and the battery lasts for around 15-17 hours in my experience, so it’s suitable for most ultras for most runners. I once tried to use a HRM chest strap in a 100-miler and it took several months for the scars to heal!

My magic LifeBeam hat - HRM in the front.

- HR data during a race can be useful for feedback but override this with how you feel, based on your past experience. Using this data in a way that assumes it’s infallible can lead to poor races. For example, if you estimate that your sustainable HR for a marathon is 150 beats/minute, don’t look at the monitor every few seconds to continuously adjust your pace to keep it at this level. This continuous checking can elevate your stress and effort levels and stop you settling into a rhythm, although it can be more useful on a very hilly route to avoid spiking the HR on the climbs. Instead, check less frequently just to make sure that your internal assessment of effort is roughly (not exactly to the nearest beat/minute) in line with the external data from the HRM. This is equally valid for the frequency of checking pace via a GPS watch.

- Factor in that using a HRM with a GPS watch will reduce the battery life of the watch due to the bluetooth syncing. Up to marathon distance this is rarely an issue, but it can be essential for ultras where watch battery life is often tested to the limit. I’ve run with two watches before - one to sync with the HRM in my hat, but with no GPS data, and one purely for GPS. This much data at the fingertips can be a bit of a overload and I find it most useful for checking infrequently then analyzing later on on a computer to see what I can learn for future races.

Ultimately a HRM is just one tool to aid running and it can help if used in a smart and effective way. However, the factors above show that it can also lead to worse training and racing (and scars) if not used appropriately.

Hill Running Tips

I've contributed to a couple of hill running articles recently, especially focusing on downhills, so here are the links in one place. Hope you find these useful and constructive.

Trail Runner Magazine - "Speed Downhill Like Ian Sharman" by Alex Kurt

iRunFar - "Controlled Chaos: Learn To Be An Elite Hill Runner" by Joe Uhan

Lessons From Returning From Injury

When injured, it's easy to lose motivation and suffer from some degree of depression or at least feel sorry for yourself. I generally try to accept things I can't change and look for positives, so the 2.5 months I missed due to my right foot's stress fracture weren't all that bad and I've had a month of getting back into running which has got my juices flowing.

Once I realized I was injured, I focused 100% on doing everything I could to fix it, including fun stuff like spending over a week on crutches and committing to not running until it was completely ready. It took a while to accept the stress fracture at first, but at least it was during my off-season so I wasn't planning on running in the early stages anyway.

I got back to running after a week of walking to test the foot after ditching the crutches. Like any injured athlete I tried to learn everything I could about the injury, likely recovery times etc and none of it sounded as optimistic as I hoped. Again, this is the all-too-familiar route back from injury for athletes of all types, but I hoped that I could use my experience as a personal trainer, coach and common sense to get some kind of edge.

Luckily the fracture seems to have been at the less serious end of the spectrum and the lack of running in off-season helped stop it getting worse from running when I shouldn't. In addition I worked on my lower body and core fitness even before I could walk again, using cycling and weights. Then I used a simple philosophy as soon as I could put weight on the foot again - start off easy with plenty of walking (including with a weight vest after a week or so), backing off at the first hint of anything negative around the stress fracture.

My training plan was as flexible as possible once I tried running again. I didn't even write it down, just going out the door each time to start walking then slow jogging before deciding on how far to go and how hard to push, mainly based on how it felt. Occasionally I pushed a little too much then took the next day off completely, except for a small amount of biking and weights.

Things progressed well and I had five weeks of gradual improvements, including some fast running that surprised me. I also had to take some risks after about three weeks since I have Rocky Raccoon 100 at the end of January and only want to race it it I feel fit and fast. To gauge that I felt I needed to be capable of a marathon at the start of December, eight weeks prior to the 100. So I had that at the back of my mind for the weeks leading up to the California International Marathon, which was yesterday on Dec 7th.

Even on the morning of the marathon I had big doubts and I was completely willing to stop if my foot deteriorated. I had a soreness near my right tibia, so my first thought was that the past month of running might have caused a new stress fracture in a different area. I imagined running 100ft down the road then turning back and trying to get a lift to the finish, going back to square one again with a new injury. However, this time I was willing to back right off and accept the injury immediately, despite not being happy at the prospect. Again, flexibility was the key and denying an injury doesn't make it go away.

Luck was on my side again (I don't count on it, but I'll take it when I can) and at the end of the first mile neither my foot or shin felt anything other than normal. It even looked like I might be able to run a fast marathon. Oh, and I should probably add in one extra detail - I decided to wear my old Spiderman costume to take some of the pressure of running fast and remind me that the main priority was finishing with no injury. No attempts at Guinness World Records this time, but I've found it a very effective way to spice up a marathon and make it more relaxing. Not the best pacing or highest level of fitness at this one so I slowed down a fair bit, but a finish without injury woes is a big win. My Strava data from the race.

CIM. Photo credit: Sacramento Bee

So what did I learn from all this, now my foot felt fine through a marathon and the injury problems are virtually over?

1. Mainly it reinforced the fact that there's no one-size-fits-all path back from injury, something I already knew, but this put it in clearer context. Everyone heals differently based on fitness, age, severity of an injury and a whole host of other factors.

2. It's also vital to discover the cause of the injury to avoid incurring it again. In my case that's less of a problem since it occurred over two days of running at Mt Whitney and Death Valley on sharp rocks with roads shoes and I felt it happen, not like a standard stress fracture occurring over time from overuse.

The path back to fitness needs close guidance from experts, including medical professionals for anything remotely serious. But one of the most important things is the ability of a runner to hold themselves back and not rush into doing too much. Starting runs with a walk, then an easy paced jog is a good way to include this flexibility and often it's possible to do more rather than less when approached this way. It's not an easy process and we all tend to try to do too much to regain our previous level of fitness faster than the body can cope with...but the body is a resilient entity.

For example, Mike Wardian was injured for a long period, losing almost an entire season yet he's now back to racing so much and so fast it would break a mere mortal. He ran (hard) at the North Face Endurance Challenge 50-miler near San Francisco on Saturday then wrapped up the weekend with a 2:33 marathon at CIM. The human body is inspiring, especially in the hands of guys like Mike.

Interview With Ellie Greenwood Post World Championship 100k

Crossing the line in 7:30:30 at the WC100k in Qatar. Photo: irunfar/Bryon Powell

After being named Ultra Running Magazine Ultra Runner of the Year (UROY) in 2011 and 2012 (plus probably winning it this year too), Ellie Greenwood has already had her share of success. However, this year is arguably her best yet due to wins at Comrades in South Africa and the recent 100k World Championship in Qatar. In addition she also won the 2014 Chuckanut 50k and the Squamish 50k.

I've been lucky enough to help Ellie through this year by coaching her, plus she now coaches others through my company too. There are a lot of interview with Ellie right now, but I wanted to ask a bit more about how she's approached races this year and what she's learned about coaching.

No doubt Ellie will continue to dominate global ultra running for years to come, so here's an insight into how she does it:

1. How did you deal with injuries in the last year, given you weren’t able to run much in 2013?

Ellie - Coming back to ultra running in 2014 I have been very careful to avoid getting injured again.  I now work closely with a Sports Med Dr., a physio and a massage therapist to work through any little niggles before they turn into injuries and prevent me from training.  I appreciate their expert advice and am careful to follow it.  In addition, I have focused on building back to high mileage very slowly and instead have done more quality rather than just pure quantity of training this year, so get a bigger bang for my buck in the miles that I do put in.  This year I have had some little niggles but with careful maintenance, foam rolling, stretching and being smart I have been able to work through them and still perform at my key races.

2. What cross-training did you incorporate while injured and what will you continue to do now you’re injury-free?

Ellie - I pool ran, cycled and rowed/ used elliptical in the gym.  I continue to cycle and use pool running when I feel my body needs a break from too much pounding of outdoors running.  I also was more dedicated to basic strength training when injured and continue to do this regularly even now I am 100% healthy as I know this is vital in injury prevention and making me a better runner.

3. How does your training differ for road races compared to trail races?

Ellie - In training for road ultras I tend to spend a similar number of hours each week training as if I was training for the trails but the mileage goes up and the amount of elevation goes down.  I focus on more consistent pace long runs, rather than just time on feet and hiking, when training for a road ultra.  I will always incorporate some tempo runs and speed work into my training, but these sessions become more important when training for a road ultra.  However even when training for a road ultra I'll spend some time of trails but just choose flatter and less technical trails, this gives my body a reprieve from the hard tarmac and also adds variety which is key for motivation.

4. How do you deal with unexpected factors on race day, such as the harder surface (tiles) and large number of 180 degree turns at the WC100k in Qatar?

Ellie - I just accept that all athletes are running the same course so no one has an advantage or disadvantage over another.  My UK team mate Jo Zakrzewski had run the course before so we checked out the course two days prior to the race, even this amount of time meant I was able to be forewarned of the courses challenges ahead of the race so there were no surprises on race day.  With the hard tiles I chose to wear a more cushioned shoe that I might have done otherwise, and with the sharp turns I didn't obsess if these kms were slower than others as I accepted that the turns would slow me down a little.

5. What have you learned from your experiences this year with wins at Comrades and the WC100k that you’ll apply to coaching others?

Ellie - I have learned that volume in training is not the be all and end all, and that fewer miles with quality can achieve just as good results.  I have also learned that really training specifically for a course (terrain, elevation etc) yields the best results and thus targeting one or two 'A' races each year is the way to really perform at one's best, if that is your goal.  I have also learned to take care of what seem like little extra factors e.g. trying to travel pre race a few days before, having a race day nutrition plan, heat training etc.  There is no point in just doing the run training and missing these extra factors which can really make a difference to race day performance.

Running on the tiles in the WC100k. Photo: irunfar/Bryon Powell

Welcoming Ellie Greenwood to the Sharman Ultra Coaching Team

Ellie winning Comrades 2014. Copyright MMPhotoSA

I'm really excited to announce that Ellie Greenwood is joining the Sharman Ultra Endurance Coaching team. Ellie needs no introduction as a runner, having won almost everything out there, including Comrades and Western States. Her focused training and smart race tactics make her almost unbeatable in races, while her smiley demeanor is legendary. So now she can pass on that experience to others to allow people to maximize their running potential, however an individual chooses to define that.

As well as her stellar personal achievements, Ellie has given numerous talks to runners and has the USATF Fundamentals of Coaching qualification. Ellie uses the philosophies and tried-and-tested methods I've developed through Sharman Ultra to provide the best advice and highest levels of personal contact in the online coaching business.

In honor of Ellie joining the team, Sharman Ultra also has a new website, so check it out at www.sharmanultra.com.

Races As Training Runs - Super-Compensation

In the latest edition of Ultra Running Magazine (April, 2014) I discuss using races for purposes other than racing all out for the best time or place. Related to this is the concept of super-compensation, involving subjecting the body to a greater than usual training load or stress which leads to muscles being forced to adapt and improve.

This is the time of year where many runners are building up to their focus 'A' race. Many of the people I run with as well as many I'm coaching are preparing for Western States 100. WS100 is also my target event right now and it's just under three months away so I'm getting into the peak phase of my training.

Super-compensation in practice

At this stage in the build up to a focus race I find it's really beneficial to run several races in close proximity, but off maximum effort. It gives an effective boost to endurance by using super-compensation since the period of racing involves a greater workload for the body to deal with, but not too much extra. The key here is having a period (in my case for about 3-4 weeks, but this varies depending on individual circumstances and the level of training a runner has reached) of slightly harder effort by the body, derived from a mixture of a little more volume and intensity. Choosing interesting and exciting races also helps.

There's a very fine line here to avoid over-doing things with much higher risk of over-training leading to fatigue and lower performance or injuries. Possible errors include:

- Running the training races too hard with intensity above the optimum for adaptation

- Increasing total mileage by too much with volume above what the body can withstand without overtraining

- A combination of a little too much of each of the above factors

- Picking up a small injury during the races and continuing to race, thus making it much worse

I wouldn't recommend the tactic of using multiple races in every situation for every runner, but it can usually be adjusted effectively.

Below is the example of my current training using races off maximum for super-compensation through the month of April this year.

- Mileage increase from around 80 miles/week to around 100 miles/week for four weeks

- Races as follows but with flexibility over the effort levels:

1. Grizzly Peak 50k (6,700ft ascent) 4/5/14 - comfortable pace, approx 100-mile effort

2. Lake Sonoma 50 Miler (10,500ft ascent) 4/12/14 - comfortable pace, approx 100-mile effort

3. Boston Marathon 4/21/14 - hard effort but a much shorter amount of time

4. Big Sur Marathon 4/27/14 - hard effort, but less than at Boston

Note the most important part of this process is the ability to be flexible and adjust the effort as required if the body seems overly tired. Potentially not starting races is an option but that's only likely if an injury occurs.

Tips For Leadville Trail 100 For Non-Mountain Dwellers

With Leadville's series of races opening registration on Jan 1st, there'll be a lot of people wanting to run but having second thoughts due to the elevation. As a runner who lives at sea level in California, this was certainly a concern for me in the 2013 100-miler since most of the race is above 10,000ft and the high point is 12,600ft on Hope Pass.

So here are some tips for how to approach the training and the Leadville Trail 100 race itself for the majority of us who don't live high in the mountains.

1. Plan to run a lot - sounds obvious, but LT100 is a very runnable course for the most part with long stretches of flat or near-flat running, despite it being a 'mountain race'. So switching between hiking on climbs and running the flats is a very effective tactic which allows the leg muscles get regular rests from the impact of running then feel fresher to restart when the terrain gets easier again.

2. Don't arrive a few days before the race - ideally spend well over one week in Colorado above 6,000ft. I'd recommend two weeks as a good minimum to start to see benefits in altitude acclimatization and this is how long before the race I personally went out there. The worst thing you can do is arrive between about two and six days before the race coming from sea level. Research (such as that summarized in The Lore of Running by Professor Tim Noakes) shows that arriving into a high altitude location for this amount of time pre-race means you feel the negative side-effects of being at altitude without noticeable positive adaptations. It's more effective to arrive the afternoon before the race, pick up your race number and then run the race before the altitude has time to affect you as much.

3. Hike above the high point of the race - if you can make more of a vacation of the race then hiking some of Colorado's fourteeners is a great way to spend time pre-race (not the last few days). It helps your body adjust to the altitude faster, strengthens your ability to hike and gives spectacular views.

4. Consider using an altitude tent - these can be rented and attach over your bed, allowing you to sleep with air that's more similar to what you experience at high altitude, although it doesn't replicate the pressure differential. Downsides are the cost, heat/humidy and the fact your other half may consider your 'hobby' to be too weird and ban you from doing any more races. If possible going to altitude is more effective, but time off work and a family vacation for two weeks in the mountains is a big commitment too.

5. Take it extra easy in the race - aim to keep your intensity low so your oxygen needs are also low. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement and try to run lots of the climbs because they'd be runnable at sea level. 10,000ft makes a big difference and the oxygen content in the air is almost exactly one third less than at sea level. That increases to a 38% oxygen reduction at 12,600ft (based on calculations from this source here). So if you can keep your effort level down you're less likely to feel the symptoms of altitude sickness, such as throbbing headaches. In particular, go especially gently on the two ascents of Hope Pass.

6. Eat regularly from early on - whatever your normal eating strategies in races, stick to it with more discipline in the early stages of LT100. Once you feel symptoms of altitude sickness (which you probably will to some degree within the race) it'll be especially hard to stomach anything and keep up your energy reserves.

7. Hope Pass is the key - if you treat the race as starting after your second descent of Hope Pass at around mile 58, then it'll focus your mind and your tactics well. Aim to get to this point feeling as good as you can and not getting caught up in mini races before that or trying to hit splits for particular finish times (like the sub 25-hr buckle). Run based on how you feel and concentrate 100% on looking after yourself to avoid serious issues for as long as possible. Many of these issues stem from the altitude on the 12,600ft Hope Pass and this is the cause of the vast majority of DNFs.

Good luck to everyone since it's a classic event.

Back-To-Back Long Runs

Road marathoning helps with all forms of running.

One of the staples of ultra training are back-to-back long runs. However, I don't favor the long, slow run except for beginners who need to gradually increase mileage. For runners who can comfortably run a 20-miler and have run several races of marathon distance or beyond, keeping some elements of speed in the long runs makes sense. That's even true for back-to-back long sessions.

Renato Canova trains many of the top Kenyans and his athletes run long runs close to marathon effort. If they want to run a marathon at 4:45/mile there's little benefit in training the body to run much slower than that. For them a comfortable long, slow run might be 6:00/mile pace but that won't help them much.

I use the same principle when coaching ultrarunners and for my own training, which is why I like to include double or triple marathon weekends. A great option for this is the scenic Tahoe Triple with three marathons over three days around beautiful Lake Tahoe in California. There aren't many opportunities to fit in a marathon on Sat and Sun for double marathon weekends so this year I decided to include the Santa Barbara and Malibu Marathons as a good training weekend since both are in Southern California and are close together.

Even for trail running I find road marathons are very effective at working on speed and improving the ability to judge and maintain pacing. So for road training these are even more effective and I'd strongly recommend a back-to-back weekend like this for those aiming to improve their road marathon time. However, don't just jog the runs at an easy pace - the aim is to get the muscles used to running close to marathon pace.

I acted as an official pacer at Santa Barbara for the sub 3-hr group, knowing that a pace 30 mins off (roughly 1 min/mile) my marathon target time should leave me fresh enough for to run the next day harder. Keeping the mile splits even was a key element here since there's less benefit in going off faster then slowing - it's not a good thing to practice as it's an inefficient (and unenjoyable) way to train and race. Also, it wouldn't be much use for the runners I'm helping to go sub-3. Then the following day I pushed things more at Malibu, still focusing on even splits throughout. Strava files for each race are here for Santa Barbara and Malibu. Both are excellent races that I'd recommend.

There are few training sessions that are more satisfying than this and it can really improve the ability to judge pace and effort in an ultra (or marathon) because of the fact it involves running when tired. Even ultrarunners need marathon speed.

Living In The Moment

Christmas ad for Target?

One of the things ultras allow all of us to do is to focus on the moment, but when it's over our day-to-day lives can seem less exciting, leading to craving for more adventure and success. So it made me think about how easily I move on from one race to the next and don't take in the experience afterwards, wanting the next 'hit' and challenge. After pretty much achieving my goals through the summer at the Grand Slam, I've felt a little empty and drained partly because of this factor (I don't like sitting around doing little exercise).

In our modern lives we're constantly measured and forced to come up with goals - just think of your last appraisal meeting at work. However, this has become second nature to do this with all aspects of our lives. I know I certainly do, whether it's a time goal in a marathon, a placing in an ultra or business goals for my coaching, we're typically very goal-oriented creatures, especially 'type A' runners. This is the way we humans drive ourselves on to improve, but it can also mean that we don't appreciate our successes because we immediately look to the next target. It can also affect our happiness because this mentality can lead to never being satisfied and always wanting more. It's why a generally rich country like the US is filled with affluent people who live beyond their means and rack up massive credit card debits. We always want more and there's nothing wrong with that as long as we also enjoy the ride along the way to our objectives.

It's worth stepping back and bearing this in mind, especially around the end of the year after the bulk of the running season is over. Whether your goals this year were to finish races under the cut-offs, earn a buckle of a certain color or something nearer the front of the field, take in the positives from your races this year and don't be in too much of a rush to think about the next one. There's plenty of time to build that passion for the next focus event, but it's only worthwhile if you can enjoy each of your achievements as they happen.

The Other 10% Rule

Fast uphill running. Photo: Ian Sharman

Before I start, this isn't a post about how men or women are 'better' than each other. This is just a simple and high level look at stats and comparisons between the sexes. I've met women who are made of granite as well as men whose wills could slice through diamond. Pretty much anyone who undertakes an ultra is unusually strong-willed.

We already have age-grading that allows a degree of comparison between the sexes and ages. But it assumes that the records (especially age-group records) are equally as impressive for men and women, plus that the record is equivalent to the fastest non-masters runner. If either the men's or women's record is relatively more competitive then it skews the results of that sex. More on this in the conclusion.

What is the other 10% rule?

We've all heard about the 10% rule for increasing mileage week-on-week to avoid getting injured, but there's a more precise relationship I've noticed throughout watching the Olympics all my life. The two events that most captured my imagination, the 100m and the marathon, had a relationship between the best men's and best women's record times. Doing simple calcs in my head I could see it was about a 10% gap - women's times were around this much slower than men's times. It seemed to roughly apply across a lot of track and field events, so I thought I'd see how exact that figure is and what it says about ultras.

I've heard people state that at longer distances women have an advantage and I know that scientists predicted the female marathoners would catch the men's times within a short period of time. Unfortunately they based that off simple extrapolation from women's times improving faster than men's in the past when the women's field became more competitive, while the men's already were.

Is there an advantage for women in ultras? Are they more efficient and physically superior for these types of endurance events? Or perhaps they're mentally stronger, able to withstand more pain or are more determined? If so then we'd expect to see that showing through in results at the most competitive ultras and the fastest times by the best athletes.

The stats

Below are the world bests on any surface for various running distances and events for men and women. I've split these into four categories, with the first three being Olympic or at least fully professional and competitive distances - Sprints, Middle Distance and Long Distance. Then I've separated ultra distances below because these don't tend to have the same deep level of full-time pro athletes as the distances up to the marathon. The professional distances are where I'd expect to see enough competition to make the records be a good representation of the best athletes in the world ever at their respective events.

TABLE 1: Olympic/Professional Distances

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men	Women	Percentage Difference	Notes
100m	9.58	10.49	9.50%	Women's record by Florence Griffith Joyner (USA) record has some doping questions, never proved
200m	19.19	21.34	11.20%	Also a Flo Jo record yet relatively less impressive, doping or not
400m	43.18	47.6	10.24%	Women's record by Marita Koch (East Germany) during period of known doping by Eastern Bloc
Avg for sprints			10.31%
800m	01:40.910	01:53.280	9.50%	Women's record by Jarmila Kratochvílová (Czechoslovakia) during period of known doping by Eastern Bloc
1500m	03:26.000	03:50.460	11.87%
1 mile	03:43.130	04:12.560	13.19%
Avg for middle distance			11.52%
5000m	12:37.350	14:11.150	12.39%
10000m	26:17.530	29:31.780	12.31%
Half	0:58:23	1:05:40	12.48%
Marathon	2:03:23	2:15:25	9.75%	No woman other than Paula Radcliffe has broken 2:18, showing just how special her record is
Avg for long distance (pro)			11.73%

Source: IAAF 

What this shows is that it's rare for female world bests to be within 10% of the men's time. In fact, the two distances that made me think about this relationship are two of the toughest and most impressive female records. Both Flo Jo (100m) and Paula Radcliffe (marathon) have run records that have barely been approached - Paula's marathon time is a decade old and is so good it's almost a 3-minute gap to the next best female time, while the men's marathon record has numerous other runners within 1 minute, plus it's only 1 month old at the time of writing. Flo Jo's record is even older.

What seems most notable to me for these Olympic distances is that getting within 10% of the men's performance is the sign of a mind-blowing record. And that's for the most fiercely fought events in world running!

How does the 10% rule relate to ultras?

Already it can be seen that most women's professional distance records are more than 10% slower than men's records. So what about the increasingly competitive world of ultrarunning? I'd argue that the only ultra races that have a long history and truly deep fields on both the men's and women's sides are the South African road ultras - Comrades and Two Oceans.

TABLE 2: Ultra Distances

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men	Women	Percentage Difference	Notes
50k	2:43:38	3:08:39	15.29%
Two Oceans (34.8 miles)	3:03:44	3:30:36	14.62%	The 50k records were the same runs as these records, as a 50k split
Comrades Down Run (55.5 miles)	5:20:49	5:54:43	10.57%	Better representation of 50 mile comparisons as 50 mile distance wasn't raced at the top level by women outside of Comrades
100k (Ann Trason)	6:10:20	7:00:47	13.62%	Second best female 100k time by Ann Trason (USA) - see below for reason
100 miles	11:28:03	13:47:41	20.29%	Not raced by women at the same deeper competitive level as by men in 1980s-2000 when male record set
24 hrs (m)	303,506	254,425	19.29%
UTMB (trail)	20:34:57	22:37:56	9.96%	Records set same year so weather not a differential
WS100 (trail)	14:46:44	16:47:19	13.60%	Records set same year so weather not a differential
Avg for long distance (ultra/semi-pro) without Tomoe Abe			14.66%
Avg for long distance (ultra/semi-pro) with Tomoe Abe			13.72%	More info about the Tomoe Abe record here
Other Results of Note:
50 miles	4:50:51	5:40:18	17.00%	Top women ran much faster for 50 miles at Comrades, so that's a better comparison
100k	6:10:20	6:33:11	6.17%	Record by Tomoe Abe (JPN) who was a professional marathoner

Sources: IAU, race websites

The 10% rule almost applies to Comrades, the larger, older and more competitive of these two races with a longer history - a 10.57% difference. But not so much for Two Oceans, despite the record holder for women being the same person as at Comrades, Frith van der Merwe.

It certainly doesn't hold up for most of the events in the table, possibly due to lower female participation but also because Yiannis Kouros spear-headed huge improvements in men's ultra road and track running. In fact, his dominance is so great that his 24-hour record is a half marathon ahead of his next closest challenger!

Most trail ultras are either too new or have fields that are only a few elite runners deep. So I included the two that have the longest and deepest history of competitiveness, especially since their records for men and women were set in the same editions (2012 for Western States 100 and 2013 for UTMB), removing differences in trail conditions, distances or weather. What stands out is that Rory Bosio's record at UTMB is a truly competitive record relative to a very impressive men's record.

The 10% rule doesn't seem to apply to ultras as much, probably due to it being a male-dominated sport with deeper men's fields to push the men's limits closer to a theoretical maximum than for the women. But women like Frith and Rory show that women's records at the top level can hit around 10% off the men's bests.

Women's records at some ultra races are indeed within 10% and sometimes women win outright, but I'd argue that those results reflect more on the lead women being closer to the best of the best than the lead men in those cases. That's why I've only included the most competitive races that are directly comparable. A separate question is whether women below the very top level race better than equivalent men, since women's finish rates are often higher than those of the their male counterparts. However, that's a different angle and is where I'd expect to see sensible tactics and a lack of testosterone-fueled over-exuberance giving women a relative edge on average...but not enough to overcome the physical attributes that lead to the 10% advantage at the upper limit of what's possible.

The one clear outlier is Tomoe Abe's 100k world best for women, which is so fast it's 27 minutes better than the next result and this is the only ultra result I can find from her. She was a professional road marathoner with a 2:26 PR, roughly equivalent to many of the fastest male 100k runners. So I've excluded her because she was a pro marathon runner while the top men weren't (making her closer to the female 'potential' than the men may have been to the male 'potential'). Her 100k time is around what would be expected from a male runner with an equivalent marathon time and very good aptitude for road ultras.

Predictions

Although the 10% rule doesn't hold up perfectly throughout, it looks like it roughly applies when both the men's and women's records are equally close to the best possible results a human can achieve. This doesn't seem to be the case in most truly top level ultra events yet, but if we use it as a benchmark, what kind of times might we see at ultra events by women as the fields get deeper and more astounding women push each other to their limits?

Note that the predictions below have an obvious caveat - the weather and conditions need to be equivalent to compare results year-on-year. So Timmy Olson's Western States 100 record was run in near perfect conditions for the course and no man or woman is likely to get an equivalent performance without equally good weather. If they manage it it tougher conditions, it's not equivalent - it's better.

TABLE 3: Predictions For Women's Times For Selected Fast Men's Global Records

Distance (All Surfaces)	Men's Actual Record	Women's Predicted Record	Women's Actual Record	Notes
Two Oceans (34.8 miles)	3:03:44	3:22:06	3:30:36
Comrades Down Run (55.5 miles)	5:20:49	5:52:54	5:54:43
100 Miles	11:28:03	12:36:51	13:47:41
24 hrs (m)	303,506	275,915	254,425	That's 171.5 miles - 1 mile short of the US men's 24 hr record!
UTMB (trail)	20:34:57	22:38:27	22:37:56
WS100 (trail)	14:46:44	16:15:24	16:47:19
Rocky Raccoon 100 (trail)	12:44:33	14:01:00	14:57:18
Leadville 100 (trail)	15:42:59	17:17:17	18:06:24
Grand Slam (trail)	69:49:38	76:48:36	79:23:21
Hardrock 100 (trail)	23:23:30	25:43:51	27:18:24
Spartathlon 153 (road/trail)	20:25:00	22:27:30	27:02:17
Rim2Rim2Rim (Grand Canyon)	6:21:47	6:59:58	8:15:51
JFK50 (trail)	5:34:58	6:08:28	6:11:59
TNF100 Australia (trail)	9:16:12	10:11:49	11:01:08
Speedgoat 50k (trail)	5:08:07	5:38:56	6:17:02
Vertical K (trail)	0:30:26	0:33:29	0:36:48	Included this one for fun, despite not being an ultra as it's very competitive

Sources: IAU, race websites

Conclusion

I think the 10% rule stands up as a way of measuring potential. It only applies when the men's best times are truly at the top end of what's physically possible, but even allowing for that it can compare when women have out-done the men on a given course, allowing for differences in weather etc. Distance running women in that list include Paula Radcliffe, Frith van der Merwe, Tomoe Abe and Rory Bosio with several other women around that level.

So I'd argue that men have been 'virtually chicked' ('chicking' refers to a woman passing a man in a race) if a woman runs 10% slower than them...look out all those guys that thought they could beat Rory or Ellie Greenwood currently! This would also allow for a ranking at a race based on times adjusted for the sex of the runner.

Age gradings could also be altered to allow for when the record for one sex is relatively less impressive than that of the other sex by making the gap in theoretical fastest times be 10% (ie whichever record is relatively slower gets improved to retain the 10% gap). That is likely to apply when the female field is a lot smaller than the male field, but makes the amazing masters' records of people like Meghan Arbogast even more impressive.

Apologies if I offended anyone with this article, but I found it fascinating to look at the results and comparisons for all types of running. The data is as objective as I could make it, but I'm sure many would disagree with even the sentiment of what I was comparing.

Top Five Tips for Recovering Between Grand Slam Races

Only photo I have of massage, back at the 2009 Rome Marathon with Roberto 'the Butcher of Pimlico'

One of the biggest challenges of running four 100-milers over the summer for the Grand Slam is recovering in the three to four weeks between each race. So far I've found a few easy tips have helped but the more races I do, the more the body has to deal with so the more important these become.

1. Rest - don't feel the need to run much between races. The main training occurs before the first race so I take at least one week completely off running after each 100. Even after that my mileage is tiny compared to normal, generally not running on consecutive days.

2. Don't race in the rest periods - it's tempting to throw in extra races to fit in long runs to get rid of the 'guilt' of running less than normal. I paced at the Badwater 135 a few days before race number two at Vermont. The speeds involved were gentle enough to not be an issue but the sleep deprivation and overnight flights didn't help.

3. Eat well - the body has so much more muscle damage to deal with than during normal training and the recovery rate needs to be so much quicker. Nutritionist Meredith Terranova gave me some pointers here - lots of protein, branch chain amino acid supplements, CoQ10 supplements and BComplex/B12 vitamins. Generally I try to get my nutrients purely through food, but in this extreme case I can see the benefit of topping things up.

4. Quality sleep - giving sleep a higher priority than usual and aiming to get eight hours or more as often as possible allows the body to heal itself more effectively. Events like the Grand Slam involve a huge amount of time so it's worth including this as part of that commitment.

5. Massage - I generally get a sports massage every two to four weeks even when in normal training, but I find it really helps to get one of these about three to four days after each race (to allow enough time for muscle soreness to subside) and again about a week later (when a deeper massage can be given). It reduces tightness and I certainly find it speeds up recovery, even if that hasn't been proved conclusively in scientific studies.

Downhill Technique

Downhill trail running at Crater Lake

I love my downhills. Unlike many runners at mountain or trail races, this is the bit that makes it really fun for me and some of the most enjoyable solo moments in running are technical downhills where there's the chance to bounce around on rocks. If you see me at a race on a downhill you may see a lunatic grin on my face which I just can't help when it gets really fun. Uphills just aren't fun in the same way for me personally and are just a suffer-fest.

As a coach one of the most frequent questions I get is tips for running downhill better - more efficiently and in a way that causes less damage to the leg muscles. So this video from Portland-based Dana Katz includes helpful commentary and explanation of things to look for and aim for when downhilling. It was taken at the 2013 Miwok race last weekend and is of me running around 11 miles into the race.



Also, here's her full article showing both good and bad technique.

Hydration - Tim Noakes' Waterlogged And Personal Experience

Having a drink on Mt Diablo, CA

Having read plenty on the subject of hydration relating to exercise, I thought I'd write a high level discussion about it, based on the controversial conclusions from Professor Tim Noakes' book, 'Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Endurance Sports' as well as my own personal experience and that of friends and coaching clients. His previous book, 'The Lore of Running' is like a bible in the exercise science world and has been very helpful to me in everything I do within the running world. With temperatures starting to warm up and races like the Marathon des Sables (article about how to train for the MdS) in the Sahara Desert around the corner I thought it's a topic that could hopefully help some runners to avoid bad races, based on advice from the book and my own experiences from 170+ ultras and marathons across the world.

One thing I've noticed a lot since I started coaching a couple of years ago is that almost everyone in the world of sport clings to the idea that athletes must remain 100% hydrated to not suffer from a drop in performance. The sports' drink industry has put countless millions into marketing this idea and telling people that 2% dehydration (presumably 2% loss of body weight due to sweating) can seriously affect performance and should be avoided. They backed studies to show that losses in excess of 5% of body weight can decrease the capacity for work by about 30% (Armstrong et al. 1985; Craig and Cummings 1966; Maughan 1991; Sawka and Pandolf 1990).

This is advice I assumed to be unbiased and effective so I followed this advice in one of the first ultras I ever ran, the Marathon des Sables in 2006. Unfortunately, I'd never heard of hyponatremia, an electrolyte disturbance in which the sodium concentration in the blood serum is lower than normal from drinking too much. So I drank virtually every drop of the 9Ls (304 ounces) of water provided per day by the organizers and found myself fainting twice on day two as the symptoms started to affect me.

The author hydrating in the Sahara in 2006

So after that experience I certainly questioned the general advice at the time to drink as much as you can to stay hydrated. I've never heard anyone mention the dangers of drinking too much, yet when you hear about a death at a marathon or half marathon, more often than not over-drinking. Considering how dangerous it is to drink too much during a race, surely the dangers of drinking to little must be equally as severe?

When Professor Tim Noakes published his book on this subject last year, 'Waterlogged: The Serious Problem of Overhydration in Endurance Sports,' I knew he'd have a thorough review of all the evidence without any pre-existing prejudices or corporate sponsors wanting a bias to the conclusions. Bear in mind that Gatorade and the Gatorade Sports Science Institute (GSSI) funded much of the research on this subject with a clear interest in telling people to drink lots.

His book is more than thorough, looking at every single published study on this subject that he could find in all scientific journals, including all those written by the GSSI. There was a striking common theme amongst these studies that either examined the effects of dehydration on performance or the effects of exercise-associated hyponatremic encephalopathy (EAHE). It was that dehydration levels seen in an ultra or Ironman race (never mind a marathon or less) don't reduce performance and many of the studies had conclusions that were the opposite of what the evidence they presented showed. This is particularly worrying because the guidelines produced by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) still provides guidelines that suggest dehydration is the main worry for athletes, not the effects of hyponatremia. US races therefore still urge runners to drink too much, although I'm noticing more of them start to tell people that drinking too much can be dangerous too, but that's not the focus of the advice.

EAHE is a much more serious danger than dehydration in races and the percentage of people having medical issues in races has increased as more people follow the advice of drinking to maintain body weight during exercise, with the major cause (based on the clearly defined and explained symptoms in Professor Noakes' table below, backed up with extensive evidence from his book). The striking point is that the main symptom of dehydration is thirst and it's only when an athlete feels very thirsty that performance can be reduced. The old advice of ignoring the body's thirst mechanism and trying to stay ahead of thirst by drinking to maintain body weight is a load of rubbish.

Table taken from 'Waterlogged' by Professor Tim Noakes, 2012. Note that EAPH refers to Exercise-Related Postural Hypotension

The clearest evidence of this is that in the many high-level races where body weights were taken before and after for lead runners and people running more slowly, the highest levels of dehydration (biggest percentage of body weight lost) were found in the leaders with the winner almost always being the one who lost the most body weight percentage. So if losing any water through exercise reduces performance, how come the best performers are the ones who lose the most (as a percentage)? The evidence suggests the ability to run while 'dehydrated' is an attribute of a top athlete, not a reason they fail.

From my own experiences in marathons and ultras, as well as those of people I know and coach, I'm not aware of anyone having their performance reduced from dehydration except Kilian Journet in the 2010 Western States 100 where he ran without water bottles in extreme heat and lost the lead to finish third. Even in that instance, heat-stroke probably played a large part, not just dehydration (see next section for more details). In every other instance I can think of, dehydration has not been a problem as long as drinking to thirst was adhered to. I've run some of my fastest marathons on barely more than a couple of sips of water (in cold conditions) but I wasn't particularly thirsty on those days in those temperatures. On the other hand, I've suffered from drinking too much at both the Marathon des Sables (desert) and Western States 100 (extreme heat).

Heat-stroke versus dehydration

The general fallacy that has been popularly disseminated is that drinking too little raises the body temperature to dangerous levels when exercising which affect performance so endurance athletes are particularly prone to this. However, to summarize Prof. Noakes' evidence and conclusions, there are two key problems with this:

1. Body temperatures rise more in higher intensity, shorter forms of endurance running such as 10ks or below - the chance of heatstroke is much higher in these than in a marathon but a very hot day can cause this too (think Western States, not a 70F road marathon).

2. Importantly, drinking has a very minor effect on cooling the body although iced water would have marginally more effect. Getting into the shade or an ice bath is the only effective way to reduce body temperatures fast in a race and have an effect on heat-stroke.

Again, personal experience suggests this is true. I've crewed for people at Badwater 135 through Death Valley where temperatures can hit 130F and external cooling like ice baths helped my runner while constant drinking only served to quench thirst. It certainly seems that heat-stroke is more likely to happen to ultrarunners than dehydration, particularly in the exposed sections of extremely hot courses. However, drinking alone won't help much here and use of ice and water externally will make much more difference, as well as adjusting effort levels to reduce heat produced in the muscles.

Mike Wardian in an ice bath at the 2011 Badwater 135 

What about electrolytes?

Another commonly-assumed piece of running lore is that as a body exercises, electrolytes are lost and must be replaced. This is a reason to drink Gatorade instead of water and therefore pay Pepsico (owners of Gatorade) for their product. Yet Prof. Noakes also examined this area using all the evidence available as well as his own research. In summary, he found that the body is very good at regulating electrolytes and that the levels lost in sweat and urine are adjusted by the body based on exertion and liquid intake. He basically says we don't need to try to replace these with drinks or salt tablets.

That sounds counter-intuitive as most runners will have experienced cramps or bonks that were seemingly fixed once they took on electrolytes. However, he goes on to show that cramps and bonking are unrelated to salt/electrolyte intake and are really affected by exertion levels above what the body is trained for (something that will typically happen in an ultra given its extreme nature) or a lack of fuel in terms of glycogen. That means that getting energy (not salts/electrolytes) into the body combined with lower effort levels such as walking for a while are what fixes these problems. Given that most runners have to slow down and will eat as well as take salt tablets, the effects can get muddled and improvements attributed to the wrong factors.

Sports drinks do have glucose and there's no doubt that taking this on board in endurance activities is beneficial. At least Prof. Noakes didn't burst that bubble!

Conclusion

I found the book to be very illuminating but it won't alter my own tactics in races much, mainly because I don't tend to over drink since that means carrying too much liquid between aid stations in an ultra which therefore weighs more. I will be more careful in trying to identify and stop the causes of things going wrong in a race such as Western States. In fact, I'll use the mantra of drinking to thirst rather than aiming for a certain volume of liquid per hour.

Sports drinks are still good for athletes, we just don't need to drink as much since hyponatremia is a bigger worry than dehydration. Also, I'll still take on electrolytes within drinks because they haven't been shown to cause any harm, so even a placebo effect is useful. Besides that, electrolytes are usually bundled with calories in the form of glycogen in drinks, but any low calorie drinks will be off my list during races and I'll stick to my Clif Shot Electrolyte drink because it has calories and sugars (basically, glycogen). If the electrolytes help then that's a bonus, but it seems the calories will do the job anyway and I won't aim to take on extra electrolytes in tablets etc unless things go really wrong - it's worth trying anything at that point.

For food during races, gels and similar products will still be the basis of my own nutrition (Clif Shots) to provide the energy required to sustain a long endurance effort. However, the place for salty foods isn't so much to replace lost salts as to provide a change in taste after hours of sugary foods during an ultra.

It helps to learn more about the way the body works during exercise so that errors can be avoided or minimized as well as successes being better understood.