Sunday, November 1, 2015

Bridging the GAP.



The 7th of April, 2015 AD.

Late evening.

My first run in the mountains where I now live.

I remember standing outside my room, in a gracefully contemplative pose, waiting for my Garmin to lock on. The goal was to run an out-and-back, tempo-effort 10k. This was undoubtedly the hilliest terrain I had ever run on. I was not really sure what was about to happen, and there was only one way to find out...

Long story short... an hour later, I was in a different pose... on my knees at the exact same spot, gasping for breath, leg muscles aflame, whimpering like a Grade-A wuss.

Over those 10 kilometers, I had climbed almost 500 meters.

Hills do strange things to runners....things that are almost impossible to accurately calculate, and therefore, compensate for.

Consider this...

An ‘out-and-back’ run is one on which you run to a point and then return along the same route. On such a route, you invariably climb exactly as much as you descend, irrespective of the elevation profile. Since you run slower than average on uphills and faster than average on downhills, intuitively, the effects of the two should cancel out and one should be able to run, on average, as fast as one would run the same distance on flat ground.

But, as any moderately experienced runner will tell you, that doesn’t happen...

You never gain on downhills, the time you lose on uphills. The factor here is approximately 0.5, i.e. while running downhill, one tends to make up only half the time one has lost running up the hill.

Since I am about as mathematically skilled as the average kitten, I saw that this was really going to be a problem when I started training in earnest for Dubai 2016. Training by pace (which, on flat ground, is proportional to effort) is all I knew.

The obvious alternative was to train directly by effort, or heart-rate zones, something that almost all wise runners and coaches advocate anyway.

I don’t have a heart-rate monitor. So much for that, then.

Another step up the wisdom ladder, people swear upon training by feel.

Somehow, even that didn’t seem to work (at least for me) on the kind of ups and downs I was facing.  Going by feel, I realized that running up or down a slope at a variety of paces felt equally hard/easy.

With no reliable numbers to help me, I was doomed to train by faith... something that, as on date, I continue to do.

Not entirely, though.

A couple of weeks and a few more disastrous runs after that first disastrous run, I ported my runs to Strava.

And there, under the pace/elevation graph, I saw this little thing...


...and I was like, “Whoa!”

Quoting Straight from Strava’s knowledge-base... “Grade Adjusted Pace estimates an equivalent pace when running on flat land.”

It sounded exactly like what I needed, right? Yet, I remained wary...

Firstly, GAP is an estimate. It’s a re-evaluation of my actual data by some mysterious algorithm living in Strava’s servers. It's not real.

Secondly, the algorithm is based on a study. Quoting again, “...work done by C.T.M Davies and Alberto Minetti studying the effects of grade on the energy cost of running.” Statistical studies are like tequila. A pinch of salt is essential. They work well for populations, not individuals.

While Strava's coders seem to have done their best to improve the accuracy of GAP, I just couldn't rely on it.

I looked back at that first run...

Feel- All-out best effort (~4 minutes/km)
Actual Pace (~6 minutes/km)
GAP ( ~5 minutes/km)

Well, that didn’t help at all.

Epilogue: Now.

After about seven months of running on the same terrain, I ran an 18k yesterday (climbing 1100 meters), and the picture was somewhat different.

Feel- Twilight Zone, harder than Tempo/ easier than best effort (~ 4:30 minutes/km)
Actual Pace (4:42 minutes/km)
GAP (3:36 minutes/km)

Three-bloody-thirty-six!

Four weeks to the incline-less ADHM, I see that I’m touching GAPs that, if accurate, should see me crossing the finish line in about 75-77 minutes! 

Is that even possible? Dare I be that ambitious with my goal? Let me meditate on that.

One way or another, ADHM is sure to give me some sort of indication about how seriously I should take the whole GAP business. Right now, surrounded by hills, I have no way of knowing.

In any case, before I taper into that race, there are three monstrous weeks to go with my weekly mileage slated to peak at 112 km. Here’s a picture of the last month, if you’re interested...


19 comments:

  1. You're doing exceptionally well. The hard work is apparent and is also inhumane!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awesome account! I completely agree about the uphill-downhill not being equalisers. I am
    100% hill phobic. The math doesn't work for me, either. Hats off to your training! See you in delhi. All the best. ��

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for reading, Parul. Math is the worst!

      Looking forward to meeting you in Delhi...

      Delete
  3. Even though I don't understand any technicalities that you talk about, I just love your style of writing. It's fun, honest and quirky.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the read, Anupriya.

      Guess what's really quirky, though... I don't understand any technicalities that I talk about, either... :D

      Delete
  4. Guy from plains wll surely write smthin like this about his life in mountains.. Apart frm all the technical ups and downs, one must not forget the kind of air and water going inside the body which wll actually make u Superman for life. These hills wll make ur dream come true and I am both happy and jealous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great going Shiv Bro.. I don't know about the GAP bit but I am willing to bet my money on you completing ADHM under 1:25 (If not 1:20).. and believe me when I say this.. You are absolutely on course of being BOSTON STRONG.... All the best for next three weeks training.. See you at ADHM bro..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll not let you lose your money, Dilbag!

      (What's my cut?)

      Delete
  6. Hey Shiv... I often run in and around mussoorie (slightly higher altitude and with virtually no flat terrain) though most of my running is done in the plains.....I have a few years of experience of alternating weeks between the hills and and plains.... I must admit that at first it was extremely difficult to make the conversion of my runs up in the hills..... I find the GAP estimate to not really be useful... I'll tell you why... they estimate the terrain (ie the elevations) based on the maps for the area (unfortunately the maps for our parts of the world can be quite unreliable). So the GAP is often being estimated based on faulty elevation data.... not too useful..... My suggestion based on my own experience of trying to convert between schedules and running in the Himalayan foothills..... A) do all easy and steady paces runs purely by feel on roads and trails of your choosing - distance of any scheduled long/steady run can be reduced by 10-15% as you would be running at a slower pace (yet at the correct intensity) ie for longer than planned. B) If possible find a treadmill and do some/all of your tempo and interval runs on it - then you can use the following guideline based on what altitude you are at - pace reduction on treadmill to compensate for altitude - 6 s/km at 4000ft, 9 s/km at 5000ft, 13 s/km at 6000ft, 16 s/km at 7000ft. These paces assume you are already altitude adjusted (ie. have been at altitude for over a week. C) when you do short or long intervals at altitude you need to take 2-3 times the recovery time between intervals than what has been given to you in your schedule... Finally... HR data in the hills is also unreliable... I find when i have tried to use HR data then my heart rate has been over 10beats per minute slower in mussoorie for the same intensity of effort.... In sum, seems like when running on roads and trails in the hills there is no alternative than to run by feel....... However... if you are able to run on a treadmill (or a plateau) then there is more of a chance of converting paces between the plains and the hills!!! :) ps - useful like to generate training data http://fellrnr.com/wiki/Running_Calculator

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. apologies for typos and spelling mistakes (should say useful link to generate ....)

      Delete
    2. Hey Pritam,

      It’s a privilege to get detailed inputs from a runner of your caliber.

      Having read through it, I feel I may be missing something here.

      You’re absolutely correct about the lack of accuracy in altitude data. It’s not just inherent to digital maps, but a known handicap of GPS data per se. And your suggestions to deal with altitude are excellent.

      But the issue remains-

      GAP adjusts for gradients, not absolute altitude. Of course, since both are measured by GPS, the error nevertheless exists. However, over time, it tends to even out through repeated sampling as the device fixes itself along the same route repeatedly. It's still inaccurate, but good enough for sport purposes. Worst case, say I have a 100 meter altitude error in my gain data, but what’s a 100 meter altitude error over 18 kilometers? Half a percent of gradient, maybe?

      I can live with my GAP being calculated with that much of an error, even to my disadvantage, PROVIDED, it translates onto a flat surface when I race. I mean hey, I’ll be happy to be able to run at 3:50 per minute instead of 3:36 (a 6% error!). It’ll still be my fastest race :D

      And that’s what I’m unsure of. Does it translate? I've talked to people for whom it has, and others for whom it hasn't. I guess I’ll find out at the end of this month! Too many variables.

      Plateau/ Treadmill are not viable options here. How I wish they were...

      Thanks for your feedback. I hope we’ll run into each other at the start line in Delhi?

      Delete
  7. Hey Shiv,
    pleasure to add to the subject.....
    here are a few samples from the SAME route on multiple visits to mussoorie over a one year period...
    I'm afraid I haven't seen any improvement in gradient accuracy over time .... whatever method strava is using to calculate gradient seems far too inaccurate....
    27/09/15 actual average pace=4:47 gap=3:00 http://www.strava.com/activities/400966354
    26/07/15 actual average pace=5:34 gap=3:28 http://www.strava.com/activities/354459435
    27/07/15 actual average pace=5:07 gap=3:15 http://www.strava.com/activities/355132393
    16/02/15 actual average pace=5:06 gap=3:10 http://www.strava.com/activities/255586976
    20/10/14 actual average pace=4:30 gap=2:49 http://www.strava.com/activities/209508276/overview
    22/10/14 actual average pace=4:41 gap=2:58 http://www.strava.com/activities/210236836/overview
    24/10/14 actual average pace=4:39 gap=2:58 http://www.strava.com/activities/210955115/overview

    Perceived effort level of the above runs vary from feeling like steady pace (a bit faster than easy pace) to feeling like marathon pace runs.

    Accordingly I should be running a half marathon in 65 to 70min!!!!! I wish!!!!

    According to strava themselves "GAP is also highly dependent on accurate elevation data, as elevation noise has a significant impact on the underlying grade calculations."
    ref - http://labs.strava.com/blog/improving-grade-adjusted-pace/

    In sum, GAP accuracy will vary considerably depending on the underlying elevation data strava is accessing....
    too hit and miss for me... but hey.. I am open to the idea that a combination of specific gps devices on a specific well mapped route may lead to more accurate estimates at times...:)

    Seeing your training I am sure you will get a massive PB in delhi... now its just a matter of making sure you remain injury free..... Look forward to seeing to at the start and the finish... happy running...

    ReplyDelete
  8. You may have come accross the below link on strava... if not it will add to the detective work!!!

    https://strava.zendesk.com/entries/20965883-Elevation-for-Your-Activity

    "Elevation databases
    For devices without barometric altimeters, we consult elevation databases to determine the elevation at each point in the activity. The resolution of these databases can vary based on location. For example, the USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), which we consult for activities located in the US, generally has a 10 meter resolution though some small areas have a 3 meter resolution. For activities located outside of the US, we consult the ASTER and SRTM databases which have a resolution of anywhere from 30 to 90 meters"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok.... thats my final input .... got to go running to clear the brain!!!!! take care

      Delete
    2. Thanks. The stats are revealing. The takeaway is pretty obvious...

      1. GAP is not accurate.

      2. GAP is not reliable.

      3. There is little I can do about it except look at it and scratch my head :) ...which was the whole point of this blog entry

      It would be interesting, though, to try to reverse-engineer it by running a race-effort distance on undulating ground and see whether the GAP-predicted finish time matches with actual, flat ground race results. Same distance, same effort, just different elevation profiles.

      Delete
  9. Hey Shiv.. I'm back again to confound things a bit more :) .... I couldn't help myself!!! During my head clearing easy run last evening I had a thought (as one often does on a run) and so I looked back at another run I did up in mussoorie.... here's the link https://www.strava.com/activities/404523616 ..... the GAP estimate for this run is very close to what it should be.... so what's the difference here compared to the other runs I gave above????? I think the main difference is that this is a long out and back run whereas the ones I referenced earlier are on a 3km loop... Seems you are correct... the longer the segment the more accurate GAP is likely to be.... And one more thing...... To provide Strava with more accurate grade data (so that is can do a better GAP estimate) it seems one can use a running watch that measures altitude with a dedicated built-in barometric altimeter instead of using gps data ....eg the Garmin910, Garmin Fenix, Suunto Ambit....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha. Pritam, one thing's for sure... It's bitching fun to analyse the living hell out of our running statistics :D

      The long out&back does involve more sampling by the device, thereby bringing mean altitude values closer to the right ones. I guess it does lend some weight to the pro-GAP camp (which I only belong to because I have no choice in the matter...)

      But then, it may be argued that repeated sampling of the same points (as happens in a shorter loop) should actually give better values!

      I wouldn't say that 'I am correct' . In quantum terms, we are probably like Schrodinger's cat... correct AND incorrect simultaneously... until the wavefunction collapses through experiment/observation on 29th November :)

      Delete