Back to Dashboard

    Pace Progress Algorithm Whitepaper

    Unlocking Performance: An Approach to Tracking (Running) Pace Improvements Without Extra Performance Tests

    Version 1.1•March 2025

    Abstract

    Running performance is traditionally measured by pace and heart rate, but these metrics alone do not provide a comprehensive view of an athlete's progress. Many runners rely on subjective feeling or outdated benchmarks, leading to suboptimal training adjustments. This whitepaper explores an advanced yet accessible method for tracking endurance improvements, leveraging physiological data beyond simple race times and heart rate zones.

    Contents

    1. 1. Introduction
    2. 2. Problem Statement
    3. 3. Proposed Solution: A Data-Driven Approach to Running Progress
    4. 4. Conclusion

    1. Introduction

    Tracking progress is essential for any athlete aiming for continuous improvement. While many runners measure success through race results or personal bests, these indicators often fail to capture incremental progress in aerobic capacity, running efficiency, and fatigue resistance. This paper presents a scientific yet practical method to evaluate fitness changes without requiring a laboratory-based performance test.

    2. Problem Statement

    Limitations of Traditional Metrics

    • Race Times & Personal Bests: Only reflect peak performance on race day, not everyday improvements.
    • Heart Rate & Pace: Variability due to weather, fatigue, and other external factors can obscure actual fitness gains.
    • VO2max Estimates from Watches: Often unreliable due to algorithmic assumptions and inconsistencies.

    Lack of Quantifiable Progress Data

    • Runners struggle to determine if their training is leading to meaningful adaptations.
    • Performance tracking tools focus on end results rather than tracking physiological trends over time.
    • Most non-lab fitness estimates lack precision and individualized adaptation analysis.

    3. Proposed Solution: A Data-Driven Approach to Running Progress

    Instead of relying on sporadic race results or estimated VO2max values, a more scientific method involves analyzing sub-maximal effort performance trends. Key variables include:

    Aerobic Efficiency (Heart Rate vs. Pace)

    • Tracking heart rate at a fixed, moderate pace over weeks can indicate endurance adaptations.
    • Example: Running at 5:00 min/km with a HR of 160 bpm improving to 150 bpm suggests aerobic efficiency gains.

    Pace at a Fixed Heart Rate

    • Monitoring pace at a set heart rate (e.g., 140 bpm) over time reveals cardiovascular conditioning improvements.
    • Example: If you maintain 140 bpm but your pace improves from 6:00 min/km to 5:40 min/km, your fitness has improved.

    Fatigue Resistance (Pace Drop Over Time)

    • Analyzing how much pace slows in prolonged efforts at consistent intensity provides insight into endurance sustainability.
    • Reduced pace decay across long runs indicates improved stamina and muscular endurance.

    4. Conclusion

    Runners no longer need to rely solely on race day performances to assess progress. By tracking trends in aerobic efficiency, pace consistency, and fatigue resistance, endurance athletes can make more informed training decisions and ensure sustainable performance gains. This method bridges the gap between subjective effort perception and scientific performance assessment—without requiring expensive lab diagnostics.