The Go Naked Challenge

Dubgal72

Just dropping this in here and running.......:D


The idea is that you commit to a week (wimps) or a month (the brave) of garmin free running and report back here.

The rules:

- No garmin (or equivalent, obvs) for training or racing. Runners who use heart rate monitors/zone training are exempt from this challenge I suppose, sorry

- You can use a stopwatch for sessions: intervals, tempos, fartlek, mp sessions etc

- The idea is that you run your general aerobic runs
1) via a set distance, planned in advance or
2) using a stopwatch, by time or
3) if you must, *sigh* time the length of your measured run.
Anything more complicated? Ask yourself what a 70s runner would have done....

- 'The brave' are allowed a 'cheat' at the end of week 2 in that you can get the data 'after the fact' from a taped up watch and can use your watch once a week. Once a week only, mind

- You can keep a diary here of how each run went and your feelings on it.

Why? Just curious.....

Chivito550

I must be going naked all the time so. Wouldn't even know what a garmin or heart rate monitor looked like. No flashy gadgets for us sprinters. Just good old fashioned hard work.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

I must be going naked all the time so. Wouldn't even know what a garmin or heart rate monitor looked like. No flashy gadgets for us sprinters. Just good old fashioned hard work.

Equally so at the other end of the spectrum!

Dubgal72

The fully over dressed runners know who they are

ThisRegard

I pretty much went all of last year without timing or measuring my runs, apart from some races.

Did nothing for me whatsoever, my slowest times for most courses were all from 2015, I just had no motivation or incentive.

Dubgal72

ThisRegard wrote: »

I pretty much went all of last year without timing or measuring my runs, apart from some races.

Did nothing for me whatsoever, my slowest times for most courses were all from 2015, I just had no motivation or incentive.

Good thing you're not being asked to do that here

bluestrattos

I found the title of this thread very very misleading

but on topic, I didn't know there was special apparel for running.

also:

ThisRegard

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Good thing you're not being asked to do that here

True, but why not go completely watch/timer free which would be going naked?

Dubgal72

ThisRegard wrote: »

True, but why not go completely watch/timer free which would be going naked?

No, real naked would be




This.

ThisRegard

I'm awaiting a tap on my shoulder from the morality police within my company now.

Coffee Fulled Runner

But if it's not on strava it didn't happen, right?

Firedance

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Just dropping this in here and running.......:D

The idea is that you commit to a week (wimps) or a month (the brave) of garmin free running and report back here.

The rules:

- No garmin (or equivalent, obvs) for training or racing

- You can use a stopwatch for sessions: intervals, tempos, fartlek, mp sessions etc

- The idea is that you run your general aerobic runs
1) via a set distance, planned in advance or
2) using a stopwatch, by time or
3) if you must, *sigh* time the length of your measured run.
Anything more complicated? Ask yourself what a 70s runner would have done....

- 'The brave' are allowed a 'cheat' at the end of week 2 in that you can get the data 'after the fact' from a taped up watch and can use your watch once a week. Once a week only, mind

- You can keep a diary here of how each run went and your feelings on it.

Why? Just curious.....

Okay, here's some genuine questions from an overdressed runner, the fact that I have to ask these probably means I need to do this mini project....

1. Lots of people run their easy runs too fast, how do you keep it slow if you're not getting watch feedback (or for me heart rate feedback). Is it purely the conversation test?
2. How do you monitor your progress??! For example if I'm hoping my easy pace increases for the HR zone I train in how will I know when this is happening if I've no watch? is it purely that the run took less time to complete for the same effort (yeah, actually, that seems very obvious as I type )
3. Is there any counseling available for post run sans watch - how are we to cope!??! (ok, that one was a joke...)

Seriously though, you're the naked queen, what tips and or advice can you give us gadget geeks for going cold turkey!

Dubgal72

Hey FD, should have put that in. Will edit OP. HR runners are exempt. Heart rate training was good enough for Catherina McKiernan, good enough for us lot

Dubgal72

And I really want to let this unfold itself, no suppositions or anything so no tips, sorry....except pay attention to your sensory data (breathing, heaviness/lightness of step, comfort/discomfort etc). Oh ok...and for easy runs, if you think you are going easy, slow it down again

ThisRegard

Firedance wrote: »

1. Lots of people run their easy runs too fast, how do you keep it slow if you're not getting watch feedback (or for me heart rate feedback). Is it purely the conversation test?

I always run with a Garmin but I don't use it to figure out if I'm running too fast or slow, I just go by how I'm feeling. I can judge well enough if I'm out too fast.

Firedance wrote: »

2. How do you monitor your progress??! For example if I'm hoping my easy pace increases for the HR zone I train in how will I know when this is happening if I've no watch? is it purely that the run took less time to complete for the same effort (yeah, actually, that seems very obvious as I type )

Main reason I bring mine with me is to record and check out my distance and time, but after the run though.

Chivito550

Asking a distance runner to give up a Garmin is like asking an Irish person or American to give up their car and use public transport instead. People are awfully stuck in their ways, to their detriment.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Asking a distance runner to give up a Garmin is like asking an Irish person or American to give up their car and use public transport instead. People are awfully stuck in their ways, to their detriment.

sprinters, on the other hand, are very relaxed about their training and don't bother recording anyth...

6 x 60m (20m steep - 20m flat - 20m steep). Times were:

10.8 - 11.0 - 10.9 - 11.0 - 10.6 - 10.9
...
Times were:

30.7 - 31.0 - 30.1 - 30.0 - 30.7
...
400-300-200-100 with 4 mins, 3 mins and 2 mins recovery. ...Times were:

66.0 - 48.8 - 30.6 - ?

... oh, never mind :pac:

annapr

Dubgal72 wrote: »

- You can use a stopwatch for sessions: intervals, tempos, fartlek, mp sessions etc

- The idea is that you run your general aerobic runs
1) via a set distance, planned in advance or
2) using a stopwatch, by time or
3) if you must, *sigh* time the length of your measured run.

.

What's a stopwatch?
Who has time for all that advance planning?

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how using multiple manual technologies is preferable to using one watch (yes I admit it's a garmin) with integrated functions....

I get that it's good not to over focus on any device, everything in moderation

Chivito550

RayCun wrote: »

sprinters, on the other hand, are very relaxed about their training and don't bother recording anyth...



... oh, never mind :pac:

Afterwards. And a nice simple watch that records splits. Nothing more And only the endurance sessions I time. No heart rate monitors, no GPS, no big Dr Dre style headphones.

RayCun

Chivito550 wrote: »

Afterwards. And a nice simple watch that records splits. Nothing more And only the endurance sessions I time. No heart rate monitors, no GPS, no big Dr Dre style headphones.

You record - in great detail - the things that you find useful. Average pace and HR are not useful to you so you don't record them.
Many distance runners record - in great detail - the things that they find useful. Time per 100m to the fraction of a second is not useful to most distance runners, so they don't record them.
You assess your session (I assume) in the recovery periods between intervals.
Distance runners often don't have those recovery periods, but they assess their run on the fly.

Different training, different records.

adrian522

People need to learn to use the technology not be afraid of it. Studies have shown that the use of a GPS watch improves your pacing not makes it worse.

http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1453&context=ijes

Yes GPS tech is not necessary or even all that helpful on every run, but it doesn't do that much harm either. I really don't get the point of not using things that make your life easier just because "that's how it was done in the 80's and weren't runners faster then anyway?"

I mean Roger Bannister ran a sub 4 min mile in these, does't mean we should all throw out our runners does it?

Myles Splitz

Have to agree with Adrian.

It's not the technology this the issue its the attitude's around how to use them that needs to change. Running naked is great for learning to get sensory feedback but only if the person addresses it objectively

If you have a tendency to run too hard, running naked will compound that as we convince ourselves we are running easy when we are not. Perceived effort will not change for these people without some sort of feedback at first its how you use this information that will be crucial (and where most falter). I have seen people base sessions off effort and really don't have a clue what that effort should feel like so ends up as even more of a guessing game.

I would advise people who run in groups to try instead to not go quicker than the slowest runner on easy days as more often than not the back marker is usually where most people should be pace wise.

Too many people view easy runs as gauge of improvement. This is the mentality that needs to change rather than the technology aspect. Common sense of not being a slave to the watch is important but can be done while still using the garmin etc.

spaceylou

This thread makes me think that my watch can do a lot more than I currently utilise it for - but then I only figured out how to programme runs a few weeks ago! Doh! :rolleyes:

I think the cold turkey thing might be better for those who are as someone above put it - a slave to the watch, but if you already have the moderation thing down am not sure what is to be gained other than reassurance that the training or race will still go fine some day you forget the watch.

Not going to take the challenge myself, mostly because I am lazy and don't want to calculate a distance before I go out the door but will be interested in hearing how others get on if anyone does decide to have a go.

Coffee Fulled Runner

Chivito550 wrote: »

Asking a distance runner to give up a Garmin is like asking an Irish person or American to give up their car and use public transport instead. People are awfully stuck in their ways, to their detriment.

You are comparing distance runners to sprinters. It's a bit like asking some one from Achill to give up their car because someone in Dublin can do without a car. :pac:

Chartsengrafs

Myles Splitz wrote: »

Too many people view easy runs as gauge of improvement. This is the mentality that needs to change rather than the technology aspect

Can you expand on this Myles? I would have thought this was a good thing- easy run pace increasing over time for same hr level?

Myles Splitz

Chartsengrafs wrote: »

Can you expand on this Myles? I would have thought this was a good thing- easy run pace increasing over time for same hr level?

It is in terms of viewing general aerobic fitness but its only one element of your running and is not event specific. A lot of people tend to forget this and as such the focus on the easy run pace supersedes the race specific sessions and people end up under recovered from sessions yet paradoxically still not able to hit the right intensity levels.

Chivito550

Coffee Fulled Runner wrote: »

You are comparing distance runners to sprinters. It's a bit like asking some one from Achill to give up their car because someone in Dublin can do without a car. :pac:

Emil Zatopek and Paavo Nurmi got on grand without all those gadgets.

Myles Splitz

@Chivito one mans Garmin is another man's Mondo track

Chivito550

Myles Splitz wrote: »

@Chivito one mans Garmin is another man's Mondo track

…and specific type of replacement spikes, aerodymanic sprinter shorts, the request for no wind, or a nice wind at our backs, which if running a 400, changes direction at half way to bring you home. Nice warm temperatures, which are not too warm during the warm up, but then blisteringly hot for the race itself. A nice mondo track, and a good lane draw. Yep sprinters are just as anal about stuff.

But it’s fun to slag off distance runners. I once did 300m reps with an 800m runner (speed session for them, endurance for us, so we doubled up) who no joke, would check his watch after each 100m segment of the 300. :eek: Even his coach told him to cop the f on.

There was also a lad who joined athletics from Australian rules football, who started off with 800 training, but then become a 400/800 runner. He asked me would it be a good idea to wear a watch during a 400 race so he could take a quick look at half way to see if he is on pace. :pac:

Wubble Wubble

I've never had a Garmin in the nearly 4 years I've been at this to varying degrees. Considering ending Garmin free days soon however!

I only got a Garmin a month ago and you're saying give it up?

NEVER!

Actually, I really only use it if I'm running alone and want to run hard. The pacing aspect does give an incentive. No huge interest in the other functions tbh.

annapr

Very interesting thread, DG, even if I don't see anyone taking the challenge yet...

demfad

I think that there are advantages to both GPS and being able to run by feel.
I also feel a reliance on the former can cause a runner to ignore most sensory feedback from the latter. The best way to develop running by feel therefore is a period away from the technology so the idea of this thread is a very good one.

Running by feel has advantages over technology and also can add perspective, and help you refine intensities. The ability to naturally gauge changing intensity is actually a quality of immense specific value to racing.

Regarding easy runs: If you already have a tendency to run too hard during easy runs using a GPS then ditching the GPS for a while is also probably a good idea. The reason is usually trying to match or beat the easy times on the Garmin. This was true well before the GPS age. 'Easy pace' depends on surface, weather, fatigue levels and other factors. 'Easy feel' is 'Easy feel'. And 'easy feel' is what you are looking for on an 'easy' run.

Now you can tell a runner to stay below X pace. But this is a blunt instrument and the result is a watch/pace focused run which an easy run should not be. Better that the runner learns what 'true easy effort' feels like.

It can be true that runners get these intensities badly wrong when running by feel. But that is not a reason not to give it a go if the result can be great improvement.

It might be a good idea for people trying this out to have cues and strategies to help people get the intensities right.

here is how I would regard an easy run

-It's a 'tourist' run
-start at a stupid slow jog. Slowly increment without breathing ever becoming unsettled.
-imagine the run being so far enough under control that youre 'storing' energy for the next run/day.
-keep cadence from dropping by imaging you're spinning the lowest gear on a bike, again in tourist/looking around/enjoyment mode. Putting energy in the bank always.

dublin runner

demfad wrote:

-It's a 'tourist' run -start at a stupid slow jog. Slowly increment without breathing ever becoming unsettled. -imagine the run being so far enough under control that youre 'storing' energy for the next run/day. -keep cadence from dropping by imaging you're spinning the lowest gear on a bike, again in tourist/looking around/enjoyment mode. Putting energy in the bank always.

Yeah, that's how I now gauge easy runs. If I am looking around enjoying the view it really is an easy run. Once I begin to focus on actual running the easy part has been forgotten.

Easy easy too hard is a very common mistake, made by all at certain points. What I do find is that it's a habitual act. What you think of as 'easy' isn't easy at all. It's just a bad habit of running too fast. In my case, having a watch on or not makes no difference.

uvox

[font=arial, sans-serif] \_( )_/ [/font]

Bring a laptop and Microsoft Excel with you. Most QS fanbois do it anyway in combinations with other tech.

Dubgal72

uvox wrote: »

[font=arial, sans-serif] \_( )_/ [/font]

Bring a laptop and Microsoft Excel with you. Most QS fanbois do it anyway in combinations with other tech.

So that'swhat you've been doing on these run-mutes Singer......

Really interesting points of view popping up here. Ran out of time yesterday and might well do the same again today :eek: but will hopefully be able to join in the chat at some stage today

Younganne

I applied the nearly naked approach to my easy run yesterday, i set the watch to display distance and off i went.

When i got into my normal easy pace I deliberately slowed it some more and continued to keep it slow and was mindful off my breathing. I have a few hills in the route so allowing for that i used the sensory feedback to keep it slow. My easy pace range is 9.45 - 10.30 and i tend to be around or under 10.00 by using the watch as my guide so i was very happy & surprised with the result.

5.22m @ 10.23 I will definitely be using this approach for more easy runs.

for my session today, i tried to get the feel for the pace i needed, 7.30, but by feel i was too fast and was coming in at 6.50ish so definitely need the watch for these for more learning the feel of different paces!!

Ruu

I have a second hand Garmin 305 and all I have ever used it for is to track the mileage, for speed work, my body will say stop and go (or run from stop sign to stop sign).

El Caballo

Barely ever wear a Garmin or stopwatch or anything on my runs or races. As a bit of an obsessive, these things become a bit all too encompassing for me and running was supposed to my break from reality and go and clear my head so I stopped wearing them to make feel less like work and more like fun instead of being obsessed over what pace I was going, what my cadence was, what my HR was and about a million other things that Garmin calculate now with text even been sent to my watch

To me, they all get in the way of why I actually run but everyone is different I think.

davedanon

El Caballo wrote: »

Barely ever wear a Garmin or stopwatch or anything on my runs or races. As a bit of an obsessive, these things become a bit all too encompassing for me and running was supposed to my break from reality and go and clear my head so I stopped wearing them to make feel less like work and more like fun instead of being obsessed over what pace I was going, what my cadence was, what my HR was and about a million other things that Garmin calculate now with text even been sent to my watch

To me, they all get in the way of why I actually run but everyone is different I think.

I use a Garmin 225 and embrace all the technology and stats, including using Garmin Connect and Strava. I'll pore over the stats looking for useful info, comparing races and sessions in order to gauge progress, but I can do all that without ever feeling like the above during a run. I might note the mile time when it beeps, and obviously there are times when I need to consult it, such as a track or interval session, but for the most part, the watch stays very much in the background while actually running.

Of late I have become even less of a slave to it than before. When I first got one, I felt obliged to defend the technology as club diehards dismissed them as faddish and inaccurate. Now I know that they are inaccurate, and in recent marathons I have been keenly aware that the Garmin can lead you astray when trying to stick to a pace. In 5k races I have avoided consulting it, either because I don't want to know if I'm going 'too fast', in case it spooks me, and if I'm going too slow despite feeling that I'm flat-out, well, then it doesn't matter anyway.

kit3

Not being the owner of a garmin I've always run 'naked' . I used a stopwatch & would simply divide the time taken by the mileage and get an average. However, I downloaded the Strava app last October & am loving it. The fact that I get an individual time for each mile is a novel experience and I'm learning that I'm possibly capable of more than one pace :rolleyes: Having said that, I use it for cycling and my commute (which is along the canal so should have very little variation) varies from 6.4 miles to 7 miles. Overall, I think the access to some form of stats is of benefit to me at the moment.

davedanon

kit3 wrote: »

my commute (which is along the canal so should have very little variation) varies from 6.4 miles to 7 miles.

Is there much tree cover? that can throw it right off. What I find is that while it is inaccurate, to a lesser or greater degree (as with the aforementioned tree cover) it is usually consistent in its wrongness, as it were.

kit3

davedanon wrote: »

Is there much tree cover? that can throw it right off. What I find is that while it is inaccurate, to a lesser or greater degree (as with the aforementioned tree cover) it is usually consistent in its wrongness, as it were.

No tree cover - slight variations in which canal bridge I cross but shouldn't amount to that much

Maximus Alexander

It's interesting that some people find them to be so inaccurate. I have a few routes around my local area that I use regularly and the Garmin is extremely consistent over them, to the point that I know it's going to beep as I pass a particular house for example. Now, it might not be exactly right (I haven't really checked) but it is, as davedanon says, consistent in its wrongness at least.

Personally I don't look at it much during an easy run, but I love having a detailed record for later. I do need its cues when running at paces I'm less familiar with, 400 / 800m repeats, tempo runs, that sort of thing. I don't really see the harm myself. It adds to, rather than subtracts from my enjoyment.

ThisRegard

The inaccuracy kit3 is reporting is from a phone though rather than a dedicated device.

Maximus Alexander

ThisRegard wrote: »

The inaccuracy kit3 is reporting is from a phone though rather than a dedicated device.

D'oh! Right you are.

Murph_D

Looks like the Go Naked Challenge has bet etiolated into a techy discussion about GPS inaccuracy rather than natural pacing. :rolleyes:

Maximus Alexander

Murph_D wrote: »

Looks like the Go Naked Challenge has bet etiolated into a techy discussion about GPS inaccuracy rather than natural pacing. :rolleyes:

Superb word. Word of the day!

Also sorry, didn't meant to contribute to derailment. I'll go away now.

kit3

Didn't mean to derail either My initial post was about starting to use technology the mention of inaccuracy was just by the way

MrKingsley

Cant say ive ever had a GPS, or Garmin, or pedometer strapped to me. I just go with a stopwatch to measure certain splits.

Ive just gotten back into running the last couple of months and at the minute my route is a 9km trip every second day. My current average for the trip is 42 min 30 secs (4.35 per KM) and I never feel that im forcing myself

davedanon

Murph_D wrote: »

Looks like the Go Naked Challenge has bet etiolated into a techy discussion about GPS inaccuracy rather than natural pacing. :rolleyes:

Now, did Murph mean to use 'etiolated', or is that an autocorrect turning 'deteriorated' into 'bet etiolated'?