A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
You test multiple speeds/efforts at max intensity to draw a curve. A point on that curve represents your CP/CV, so the test is necessary to figure out what your CP/CV is.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
I'm talking UNPACED. You run as hard as you can the whole time. Eventually, you deplete your W' and while you are still running as fast as you possibly can and seeing stars, you're running at critical velocity. I'm not out here doing a 3 minute time trial.
To clarify, the first 2 minutes of the test are simply to deplete yourself so you cannot run faster than critical velocity. Then, your speed plateaus and you take an average of the last 30s - 60s speed. That's your CV baby. The average pace for the whole 3 minutes is not what I'm after.
OK, but seems overly complicated and of little practical use. Run 5 x 1,000 meters with 1:00 rest and you’ll likely get similar results.
forcerunner wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
You test multiple speeds/efforts at max intensity to draw a curve. A point on that curve represents your CP/CV, so the test is necessary to figure out what your CP/CV is.
Also want to clarify that I'm not doing what you describe, although that is probably a more bulletproof way of arriving at a CV value (more data points corresponding to different durations). You're referring to a series of paced efforts with varying durations. I'm talking about a 1-trial 3-minute sufferfest that gives you W' and CV.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, but seems overly complicated and of little practical use. Run 5 x 1,000 meters with 1:00 rest and you’ll likely get similar results.
Why would I try to pace myself for 5 x 1000 when I can get an accurate, repeatable CV value from a 3 minute test?
Y'all are stuck in the past. Cycling has some good concepts that are readily available to runners who stay up to date. Perhaps 5x1000 would get me something close, but that also makes an assumption about my speed. What about the slower runners - these tests should be prescribed by time. Your head is in the training and coaching realm, I am in the physiology realm.
forcerunner wrote:
How exciting! You get to learn something today!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371646/
I don't need Andy Jones to tell me how to pace myself on a long bicycle ride. Why would you believe otherwise?
forcerunner wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
You test multiple speeds/efforts at max intensity to draw a curve. A point on that curve represents your CP/CV, so the test is necessary to figure out what your CP/CV is.
Nonsense. There is no such 'point' it depends on many variables.
overthinking wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, but seems overly complicated and of little practical use. Run 5 x 1,000 meters with 1:00 rest and you’ll likely get similar results.
Why would I try to pace myself for 5 x 1000 when I can get an accurate, repeatable CV value from a 3 minute test?
Y'all are stuck in the past. Cycling has some good concepts that are readily available to runners who stay up to date. Perhaps 5x1000 would get me something close, but that also makes an assumption about my speed. What about the slower runners - these tests should be prescribed by time. Your head is in the training and coaching realm, I am in the physiology realm.
How is your thinking more advanced if you are making dogmatic claims about imaginary thresholds?
ya better watch out wrote:
forcerunner wrote:
How exciting! You get to learn something today!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5371646/I don't need Andy Jones to tell me how to pace myself on a long bicycle ride. Why would you believe otherwise?
I can tell by that reply that you’ve surely done a deep dive and read through fully!
overthinking wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A hard 3:00 test seems way faster than critical velocity which is more 10k pace. I think this guy is confused.
I'm talking UNPACED. You run as hard as you can the whole time. Eventually, you deplete your W' and while you are still running as fast as you possibly can and seeing stars, you're running at critical velocity. I'm not out here doing a 3 minute time trial.
If I did what you describe, I'd run ~22.xx for the first 200m, then probably hang on for a 400m just under 50 seconds, then die a painful death from 400-600m, after which I would be finished doing anything that could properly be called running. I have no idea what the point of this would be other than some bizarre form of self-flagellation.
forcerunner wrote:
ya better watch out wrote:
I don't need Andy Jones to tell me how to pace myself on a long bicycle ride. Why would you believe otherwise?
I can tell by that reply that you’ve surely done a deep dive and read through fully!
I don't agree with all of Andy Jones' ideas. For example in another paper he refers to marathon pace as being completely aerobic. So his understanding of bioenergetics and biochemistry is limited.
ya better watch out wrote:
overthinking wrote:
Why would I try to pace myself for 5 x 1000 when I can get an accurate, repeatable CV value from a 3 minute test?
Y'all are stuck in the past. Cycling has some good concepts that are readily available to runners who stay up to date. Perhaps 5x1000 would get me something close, but that also makes an assumption about my speed. What about the slower runners - these tests should be prescribed by time. Your head is in the training and coaching realm, I am in the physiology realm.
How is your thinking more advanced if you are making dogmatic claims about imaginary thresholds?
It seems like an over complicated attempt to be scientific when a little bit of common sense would deliver better results. But the OP doesn’t care about that. OK, jack off less, and see if that leads to a faster CV pace in your 3:00 test. :-)
@ y’a better watch out
What paper is that? Would love to read
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
ya better watch out wrote:
How is your thinking more advanced if you are making dogmatic claims about imaginary thresholds?
It seems like an over complicated attempt to be scientific when a little bit of common sense would deliver better results. But the OP doesn’t care about that. OK, jack off less, and see if that leads to a faster CV pace in your 3:00 test. :-)
I think the OP is inexperienced and trying to overcompenstate with dubious science.
And what the heck is Critical Velocity supposed to mean anyway?
Every intensity has its place in the training spectrum.
There are no great undiscovered training secrets.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
ya better watch out wrote:
How is your thinking more advanced if you are making dogmatic claims about imaginary thresholds?
It seems like an over complicated attempt to be scientific when a little bit of common sense would deliver better results. But the OP doesn’t care about that. OK, jack off less, and see if that leads to a faster CV pace in your 3:00 test. :-)
I have zero desire to do this, and suspect it works best on a stationary bike, but running for 3 minutes isn't complicated.
Question to OP: how do you measure your final speed?
eating mitochondria? wrote:
overthinking wrote:
I'm talking UNPACED. You run as hard as you can the whole time. Eventually, you deplete your W' and while you are still running as fast as you possibly can and seeing stars, you're running at critical velocity. I'm not out here doing a 3 minute time trial.
If I did what you describe, I'd run ~22.xx for the first 200m, then probably hang on for a 400m just under 50 seconds, then die a painful death from 400-600m, after which I would be finished doing anything that could properly be called running. I have no idea what the point of this would be other than some bizarre form of self-flagellation.
The slow painful death is you slowing down to CV. It sucks but I like the repeatability. I'm a numbers guy and it's fun for me. Same way it's fun for people to push themselves to their limit in a 5k or marathon.
knox harrington wrote:
Question to OP: how do you measure your final speed?
I like to do it on the track, so it's easy to note where I was at 2:30 and then where I was at 3:00. Helps to have someone out there to observe, but can be done alone. Distance over time for avg pace at the end of the test. And then I compare that with my watch-reported speed and distance over that same interval. It's all in the post-processing baby; for the test itself, you just need to worry about having big balls!
ya better watch out wrote:
There are no great undiscovered training secrets.
For you, apparently there are. I'll never understand the rhetorical technique of reiterating your own ignorance of what I'm talking about. It's like me saying to read a book, and you're like "I CAN'T READ - CHECKMATE!"