I bought my first running watch over a decade ago.  It was called a ‘watch’ but really was nothing more than a running computer mounted onto my wrist.  I put it on when I went on a run and it gave me numbers like current heart rate (via a linked heart strap), distance and duration.  However, this trusty watch recently got to the stage when the battery would no longer re-charge and I had to take the plunge to buy a new model (well actually I asked for one as a birthday present). 

A lot has changed in the last decade.  The fitness watch is now part Smart watch (or perhaps Smart watches are now part fitness watches!).  There is a wrist based heart rate monitor, ability to track sleep and loads of metrics I had never heard of.  There is an expectation that the watch is worn all the time rather than just ‘on a run’.  Therefore it learns so much about you and gives you so much information that you almost don’t know what to do with it all.

Other than changing my watch, I thought little would change.  After all my mentality was that the watch was just a record creating tool.  But after a while I became intrigued about the different ‘suggested workouts’ the new watch gave me each morning.

This morning it suggested that I do a ‘cardio capacity’ workout – warm up (10 mins), run at high heart rate (15 mins), recover (5 mins), run at high heart rate (15 mins), cool down (10 mins).  It fitted with the sort of run I wanted to do so I thought I would give it a go.

I wasn’t thinking about relational dynamics at first but all of a sudden I found myself on a patch of ice left over from Friday’s snow and icy weather.  My legs still did the running motion but I was no longer moving forward.  I started thinking of the way Ison (2017) illustrates the meaning of the concept ‘relational dynamic’ – he uses walking but the same applies to running.  Running arises due to the relational dynamic between me and my moving legs and a solid, non-slippy surface.  Change the surface and running does not take place.

Back on non-icy ground, my mind switched to Ison’s PFMS heuristic – the idea that practice arises from the relational dynamic between practitioner (P), their framework of ideas (F), the methods they are using (M) and the situation (S).  I’ve mentioned this in a previous blog.

As a runner (P) who has previously trained for endurance events like half marathon and marathon, I do have some traditions of understanding relating to the way in which different types of run do different things – some help you recover, some help you build endurance, some help build speed.  However, for the most part I’ve ignored all that stuff in my routine running that isn’t associated with event preparation.  Up until today, my regular Sunday run was based on little other than some general principles that I want to do a run of at least 40 minutes and I will do a pace that I ‘feel like’.  But agreeing to do the scientifically informed, albeit algorythmically calculated cardio-capacity run was bringing forth different traditions of understanding – the ones that I hadn’t really used for ages.

Ultimately, this framework of ideas meant that rather than running as fast or slow as I felt like in the moment, I had to run to maintain a certain heart rate range for a set number of minutes.  I soon realised that this change meant that I needed to make other changes so that I avoided the dreaded ‘beep, heart rate too low’ or ‘beep, heart rate too high’.

I became all too aware of the situatedness of my running practice – the situation in which I run (S).  Like most runners I have various routes in mind for my running that I don’t give much thought to.  But suddenly, this became all important.  The inclines that I previously ‘pushed myself’ up to prove that I could, were now risk points for a high heart rate.  Conversely, the downhills that I previously enjoyed at a relaxed pace wer risk points for a low heart rate.  I started trying to change the situation – to avoid steeper uphills or downhills – by taking new turnings and thus devising new routes.  I also kept trying to work out how to avoid busy road crossing where I knew that I would usually stop.

But it wasn’t always possible to change the situation so I had to change my methods (M) too.  I started backing off my pace on the uphills and pushing myself on the downhills – exactly opposite to what I am used to.  In the ‘recovery’ phases,  I had to resist the urge to use other runner’s as sources of motivation to run faster and just let them zoom past me.

As a running practitioner, I often stop thinking about my running when I run.  I plan my day, or think about situations I am dealing with or even write blogs in my head (most of which never actually get typed out!).  The fact I am running often fades into the background.  But today, it was different.  This blog started forming in my head and I started tuning out – ‘beep, heart rate too low’!  This whole new practice – whole new approach to running performance – required an emotion of attentiveness.

My running practice performance arises from the relational dynamic between the P, the F, the M and the S.  I can think about each of these elements separately because it is a useful way to reflect on my practice.  But it’s the relations between the elements that are important – change one element and it creates a whole new dynamic that mean the other elements adapt in response.

The overall measure of performance was different too – rather than simply a ‘mmm that was a nice/tough/easy/fun run’ – I learned that I was 82% effective at executing my cardio-capacity run.

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of that!  It was a good challenge though and I can see myself engaging in this new form of running practice again.

Reference