Critical Power (CP) - Cirtical velocity (CV)

I'm sure many runners could run 100 miles non stop if they trained for it. But how does that relate to a concept of 'critical power'?

What's critical about it? It seems completely arbitrary.

If you watch the video on page 1, it shows people plotting power vs time to exhaustion. It makes a line on a graph, similar to graphing a person's average speeds for various race distances. I agree, I don't see how it gives any particular 'critical' pace.

Above CP/CV you can calculate the time to exhaustion, depending on the power or velocity you have. CV can be derived from at least 3 all-out time trials at different distances. Better you have 4 or 5 TTs.

Below CP, the carbohydrate storage is the limitation factor. Depending on pace the time to exhausten varies.

If you are more interested in the concept you can read here

I looked at the link. Roman legions observing the fastest pace they can keep up all day, which was a brisk walk. How do you use this in training, unless you are training for an all-day race?

CV as used by Tinman works out to race pace of 30-35 minutes for most people (90% vo2)

CP30 is the power you can hold at race pace for 30 minutes.

Is that not right? Pretty much 30 minutes race effort running or biking.

...so it is basically unrelated to the previous links in this thread. Tinman considers 30-35 minute race pace to be useful in training. Thanks for clearing that up.

Pretentious gibberish. Where's the Neuroscience in that article? Where is it?

Why do the authors pretend that running is all about metabolism?

Pretentious reductive BS.

Yes about 30minutes as mentioned. Based on the paper CP seems to be about in the middle between gas exchange treshold (anaerobiv threshold) and VO2max. So tinmans 90% are on the low side. I would say 92-93%VO2max is more typically and better for trained athletes.

We probably go into this range regularly as slowing an athlete down is difficult. Tonight session 3k/3k/2k on grass rolling circuit splis 9:55 9:47 6:40 (hilly) w/ 1 min recovery. Session goal was threshold but closer to cp pace. Now to recover and hard again on Saturday. 3150 10k is goal on May 1st

Thx interesting, so you use the concept of CP.

Do you calculate the CP from time trials or do you use e.g. the pace between 5k and 10k race performance, or %VO2max?

Do you use CP as a upper limit during such threshold runs? I think if the athletes crosses the CP value , the recovery time is possible much longer. So CP could be a good upper limit.

We use multi tier pacing ie Horwill but rarely do I prescribe 10k pace...we float between threshold and 3k/5k.

Fine, so you use the multi-tier or the Five-Pace Training system which is also a neurological training system. This aspect is missing in the CP system. Maybe cycling requires much less neurological adaptation/learning as running as the movement pattern is much easier with cycling. This is defentitely a week point for that system.

On the other side with a five pace system, e.g. for a 5k runner we have: mile, 3k, 5k, 10k, LT60 paces. 3 of them are above CP and the metabolic stress is much more as for 10k or LT60 (=LT 60min). That should be considered in a way ...

It takes years to develop pedalling skills. I don't know how you could think the movement pattern is easier?

I was trying to explain this to someone half my age recently. How he would need 10,000 miles of training to even think about beating me in a 50 mile race. He has no concept of how this adaption works independent of metabolic pathways.

Isn't this what the Stryd foot pod is for? To measure "critical power"? I don't know, but I think they have a podcast on it, that I listened to about Boston Marathon pacing. It seemed to me like it essentially measures your effort level by putting a number on it, kind of like monitoring your heart rate. But I honestly can't remember. Check out their podcast on it.

Stride rate x stride length can generate a number. HR can give a number. Speed can give a number. Lactate monitoring can give you a number. Vo2max can give you a number. They all have pluses and minuses.

That 30-40 min race type effort seems to be a great general training stimulus for aerobic development. Fast enough to get pretty high on the oxygen consumption. Slow enough that you can get in a decent amount of volume. Trying to get super specific is beyond today's science. There trying at 88% level versus 90% isn't going to give some radically different result

Stryd comes up with a 50-60 Min. Threshold and not CP (LT30)! So it calculates LT60. The idea of Stryd is to provide a power value equivalent to the oxygen consumption VO2. That concept is very good in theory. Unfortunately my experience is that the Stryd pod works only in almost flat areas and has serveral severe bugs. They did not even change the pod firmware in 1 year since i bought it, but thats another topic.

CP is exactly not 88% versus 90%. It defines an intensity level above you reach VO2max, sooner or later. This is not the case if you are below CP. So it is a metabolic threshold. Also the first rise of blood lactate above the basline level (typically 1mmol) is another measurable and true existing threshold.

I listened to the podcast "that triathlon show" the other day, when Mark Burnley (PhD) talked about lactate threshold. He used only LT1 (the first threshold when lactate is beginning to be produced above resting levels) and then he used CP. He said there are no other thresholds and this made me realize the so called lactate threshold (60min) is just a number, but it still does not have to be a bad idea. The concept of a CP that is the upper sustainable power (or velocity which can be the same) can be true, but that does not mean TRAINING at this level is the optimal. Optimal training is much more complicated and probably connected to the whole balance in the training philosophy. In the Norwegian model and what Marius Bakken claims, training too much at a too high lactate can have negative effects, so he limited his intervals in base training to below 3.5mmol, but did a lot of it. He even claimed that too much at just right above 3.5 was enough to risk burn-out or stagnation. But it is all about volume at different intensities. I also think development of VO2max is a thing, for a while, but when developed other abilities are more important (running economy, high threshold pace, fatigue resistance, etc). Matured runners also show that their VO2 max is constant for years but they still improve. For young runners, maybe CP/CV is more important for a while to both develop threshold pace and VO2 max?

A difference between CP and lactate training is that in CP/CV you would go at certain power/pace, but in lactate training one can design very different interval sessions where the paces can vary with length of intervals as long as the lactate is below a certain level. For example I can do 45/15 short intervals at a threshold effort at 15-20s/mile faster than my 60min threshold pace. While a CP approach would probably not differ, but training according to CP can of course be used to control lactate if you know the relationships. (I have a Stryd and track power)

Thank you for your insight and I also listened to that podcast w/Mark Burnley. I regularly see athletes doing their threshold sessions too hard and convincing my female athlete to slow down is difficult. Recently one my athletes with a 1:49 800m Pb was tested and his threshold pace was only 3:28k pace. Finding the right pace as exercise physio Alann Couzens stated recently is difficult and athletes generally go too fast. Do you use lactate testing?