Lastly, sirpoc leading on that he’s not scientific is a bigger troll job than JS Wizard ever leveled on this thread haha. He’s far more keen minded than he credits himself as.
I never deliver any "troll job", only superior coaching. My original low mileage Dancan system is by far superior to this amateur low mileage 'Norwegian method' presented and discussed here. One example I coached a then aged 43 Irish master to run 15:37 5000m track in just 2 months(!!) coaching down from a former 16:30 master best. This on just 5 sessions per week(!) due to he had a shift job and 2 little children to take care of.He also ran a 1:12 half with this very effective method with the thresholds mainly at LT2 to give maximal and fastest effective results. Of course this method has nothing to do wiith magic, just the results look magical. 🇸🇪🧙🏼♂️🇸🇪
You are a liar and a scammer, Jan. Leave before you make things worse for yourself.
First, sirpoc ran 15:40 at a verified 5k not a park run.
Second, Mods, I don’t want to detract from this amazing thread but you need to immediately and permanently ban Jan.
He is in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and will easily be proven to have committed cyber fraud on your website. He is intentionally making fully provable misrepresentations in an effort to induce consumers to pay for his services, including misrepresenting himself as multiple people with false handles. This goes well beyond fun and games as he is clearly doing this to further his pecuniary interests. There is no doubt a court and jury would find this to be the case. With this knowledge, by allowing him to continue to post on your site, you will be found liable for conspiracy.
If Jan makes one more post, my office will absolutely file a criminal complaint with the U.S. attorney’s office and pursue this matter in U.S. Federal District Court for D.C. We will also pursue interpol to arrest this man and bring him to justice.
I am not kidding. I am very well connected with the U.S. Attorney’s office in multiple districts.
Cyber fraud. All because he posts sometimes under multiple unregistered usernames and offers coaching. Glass houses etc.
No. Because he lies in order to attract paying customers.
fraud
1a: specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
2a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be
b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
No. Because he lies in order to attract paying customers.
fraud
1a: specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
2a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be
b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
JS posts as JS while soliciting business. If and when he posts under other names he is NOT asking for money, he is essentially posting fake reviews. It's called guerrilla marketing. Are you going to rant about retail businesses that put up fake Yelp reviews? I've never read about any of those being prosecuted for fraud. )
No. Because he lies in order to attract paying customers.
fraud
1a: specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
2a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be
b: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
JS posts as JS while soliciting business. If and when he posts under other names he is NOT asking for money, he is essentially posting fake reviews. It's called guerrilla marketing. Are you going to rant about retail businesses that put up fake Yelp reviews? I've never read about any of those being prosecuted for fraud. )
I will not engage. This thread is not about that scammer. Have a great day.
The training method described here by sirpoc, improves mainly running economy. I.e. one theory is that fast twitch fibers (type IIa) will get more aerobically and therefore more efficient during training. Easy paces need mainly slow twitch fibers and higher paces require more and more fast twitch fibers (additional to slow twitch fibers). That further leads to the theory that more time spend around LT2 (sub-CV), recruits type IIa fast twitch fibers for a longer duration and that leads to the improvement in CR (cost of running). Total time spend around LT2, consistent over some period, seems to be important. TSS/CTL is not a good index for that and in general (agree with H2find), and can be easily falsified. I am sure brain learning is involved too, as the brain fires and adresses the fibers. Also here, more time spend around LT2 means more learning time for the brain.
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to look at this as mainly a cost of running (O2 consumption at a certain speed) matter when it's also (arguably more) about increasing the budget we have to spend. Running a lot at around threshold effort pushes up LT1 and LT2 so we can run relatively faster within a sustainable effort. It's the ability to sustain a higher % of max O2 consumption and thus run faster at sustainable speeds.
Running economy involves a bunch of different factors that contribute in different ways (musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, bioenergetic, etc). The aerobic training of fast/intermediate fiber types looks like an issue of efficiency when looking at all these factors collectively, but in large part that efficiency is achieved by improving the bioenergetic capacity of these fibers -a bigger budget to spend so we spend more (run faster) without going bioenergetically bankrupt.
While I'm not a fan of TSS/CTL as the leading/only metric of training load in running (and I don't use it currently myself), I think it makes sense within in the context in which it's being used here. It's being used for the optimization of training within relatively narrow parameters already set by common sense. If we are primarily addressing an issue of bioenergetic capacity the optimal solution is likely going to be just throwing as much training load at is as we can sustain. The ways in which TSS/CTL could really be "falsified" are outside of the common sense bounds we've already set so it's not a huge concern.
You can email Rojo, Wejo, or even Erik if you need to (web guy).
Is there a way to keep this thread pinned at the top? It's the most comprehensive LRC thread I've read other than Canova for beginners or maybe Hadd's "clock face relationship between paces" thread/Kellogg's Rojo training.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to look at this as mainly a cost of running (O2 consumption at a certain speed) matter when it's also (arguably more) about increasing the budget we have to spend. Running a lot at around threshold effort pushes up LT1 and LT2 so we can run relatively faster within a sustainable effort. It's the ability to sustain a higher % of max O2 consumption and thus run faster at sustainable speeds.
Running economy involves a bunch of different factors that contribute in different ways (musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, bioenergetic, etc). The aerobic training of fast/intermediate fiber types looks like an issue of efficiency when looking at all these factors collectively, but in large part that efficiency is achieved by improving the bioenergetic capacity of these fibers -a bigger budget to spend so we spend more (run faster) without going bioenergetically bankrupt.
While I'm not a fan of TSS/CTL as the leading/only metric of training load in running (and I don't use it currently myself), I think it makes sense within in the context in which it's being used here. It's being used for the optimization of training within relatively narrow parameters already set by common sense. If we are primarily addressing an issue of bioenergetic capacity the optimal solution is likely going to be just throwing as much training load at is as we can sustain. The ways in which TSS/CTL could really be "falsified" are outside of the common sense bounds we've already set so it's not a huge concern.
The fact you can make such an excellent point in the midst of all this thread chaos only goes to add to it's legendary status! The mods should keep the craziness in here in my opinion. Adds to it all!
I pretty much agree with what you are saying. Training like this as sirpoc has laid out, I suspect CTL pace based metric is a fantastic tool. It's a narrow range and in my experience sweetspot is predicted very, very well by Coggan's original formula when it comes to power. I suspect more is more, until it's not. The higher you can get your CTL training like this method laid out, you'll almost certainly be faster. I also broadly agree with sirpoc and other posters, the difference between training systems and CTL reached per individual, is not that large. I've seen other cases in cycling especially like sirpoc where you can predict what power will be at a certain CTL, almost no matter what makeup of training is. Many grand tours are planned like this for pro cyclists, in a broad simplistic term.
Very, very interesting debate. Not something I ever thought I would engage with on a place like LRC!
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to look at this as mainly a cost of running (O2 consumption at a certain speed) matter when it's also (arguably more) about increasing the budget we have to spend. Running a lot at around threshold effort pushes up LT1 and LT2 so we can run relatively faster within a sustainable effort. It's the ability to sustain a higher % of max O2 consumption and thus run faster at sustainable speeds.
Running economy involves a bunch of different factors that contribute in different ways (musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, bioenergetic, etc). The aerobic training of fast/intermediate fiber types looks like an issue of efficiency when looking at all these factors collectively, but in large part that efficiency is achieved by improving the bioenergetic capacity of these fibers -a bigger budget to spend so we spend more (run faster) without going bioenergetically bankrupt.
While I'm not a fan of TSS/CTL as the leading/only metric of training load in running (and I don't use it currently myself), I think it makes sense within in the context in which it's being used here. It's being used for the optimization of training within relatively narrow parameters already set by common sense. If we are primarily addressing an issue of bioenergetic capacity the optimal solution is likely going to be just throwing as much training load at is as we can sustain. The ways in which TSS/CTL could really be "falsified" are outside of the common sense bounds we've already set so it's not a huge concern.
The fact you can make such an excellent point in the midst of all this thread chaos only goes to add to it's legendary status! The mods should keep the craziness in here in my opinion. Adds to it all!
I pretty much agree with what you are saying. Training like this as sirpoc has laid out, I suspect CTL pace based metric is a fantastic tool. It's a narrow range and in my experience sweetspot is predicted very, very well by Coggan's original formula when it comes to power. I suspect more is more, until it's not. The higher you can get your CTL training like this method laid out, you'll almost certainly be faster. I also broadly agree with sirpoc and other posters, the difference between training systems and CTL reached per individual, is not that large. I've seen other cases in cycling especially like sirpoc where you can predict what power will be at a certain CTL, almost no matter what makeup of training is. Many grand tours are planned like this for pro cyclists, in a broad simplistic term.
Very, very interesting debate. Not something I ever thought I would engage with on a place like LRC!
Yeah I think the whole CTL thing in this case basically comes down to that we're dealing with runners who are mainly limited by bioenergetics, have a training framework that is sensible independent of CTL, and then use CTL to optimize that framework so that we are throwing as much training load at the bioenergetic limitation as possible. Obviously, there are still other aspects to training, and there's cases where the utility of CTL would start to break down (events shorter than 5k, athletes nearing their true limit of training and ability, etc). For a lot people some basic attention to stuff like strides, short hill sprints, and plyometrics is probably enough to pretty well handle the non-bioenergetic aspects of training that aren't reflected in CTL.
Maybe a CTL/TSS concept could be refined by using an athlete's power curve instead of just FTP to calculate TSS. I'm not super clear on the math off the top of my head.
I'd also still be cautious about using CTL or similar metrics as predictive of running performance in the same way as cycling. In cycling the bike handles a lot of aspects of biomechanical "technique" and it is not a plyometric exercise like running, so a generalized measure of training that reasonably captures bioenergetic fitness will correlate well with performance. With running our biomechanics at different paces and various musculoskeletal characteristics will create a lot of variance in how well our general bioenergetic fitness translates to actual performance, so CTL is likely less predictive.
This sir is a lie. Coach JS has 40 year now experience in elite athletics. All his athletes are in verification races. He has nothing to prove. Sirpoc does parkrun and nothing else, so 15:40 it not even counts. The distance we have no idea is 5km.
It is only fair someone defends his name. Who knows , sirpoc most likely would be sub 15 at least already with the magic touch of a wizard :)
First, sirpoc ran 15:40 at a verified 5k not a park run.
Second, Mods, I don’t want to detract from this amazing thread but you need to immediately and permanently ban Jan.
He is in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and will easily be proven to have committed cyber fraud on your website. He is intentionally making fully provable misrepresentations in an effort to induce consumers to pay for his services, including misrepresenting himself as multiple people with false handles. This goes well beyond fun and games as he is clearly doing this to further his pecuniary interests. There is no doubt a court and jury would find this to be the case. With this knowledge, by allowing him to continue to post on your site, you will be found liable for conspiracy.
If Jan makes one more post, my office will absolutely file a criminal complaint with the U.S. attorney’s office and pursue this matter in U.S. Federal District Court for D.C. We will also pursue interpol to arrest this man and bring him to justice.
I am not kidding. I am very well connected with the U.S. Attorney’s office in multiple districts.
This thread has inspired me to replace my 20 minute tempo runs with steadily increasing durations of tempo intervals. Maybe I'll start with 2x12 minutes and build from there.
And maybe I'll cut my race pace intervals from once a week to once every two weeks, replacing it with more tempo intervals.
At this point when we already know this training is easily repeatable month after month, year after year, and it provides significant improvements in the long term in 5k-HM range, the next very very cool thing to see would be Sirpoc entering a 1500m/mile race to check whether the result aligns well with his 5k performance. I suspect it'd still give a good outcome as the mile is mainly aerobic. Sirpoc, if you read this, sacrifice yourself in the name of science, please.
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to look at this as mainly a cost of running (O2 consumption at a certain speed) matter when it's also (arguably more) about increasing the budget we have to spend. Running a lot at around threshold effort pushes up LT1 and LT2 so we can run relatively faster within a sustainable effort. It's the ability to sustain a higher % of max O2 consumption and thus run faster at sustainable speeds.
Running economy involves a bunch of different factors that contribute in different ways (musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, bioenergetic, etc). The aerobic training of fast/intermediate fiber types looks like an issue of efficiency when looking at all these factors collectively, but in large part that efficiency is achieved by improving the bioenergetic capacity of these fibers -a bigger budget to spend so we spend more (run faster) without going bioenergetically bankrupt.
While I'm not a fan of TSS/CTL as the leading/only metric of training load in running (and I don't use it currently myself), I think it makes sense within in the context in which it's being used here. It's being used for the optimization of training within relatively narrow parameters already set by common sense. If we are primarily addressing an issue of bioenergetic capacity the optimal solution is likely going to be just throwing as much training load at is as we can sustain. The ways in which TSS/CTL could really be "falsified" are outside of the common sense bounds we've already set so it's not a huge concern.
I do not get what you mean with 'budget'. It is an unscientific expression.
About over 1 year ago, i posted the universal running formula
Here it is:LTv = LT% * VO2max/CrLTv is the running velocity at LT, LT% is LT in percent of VO2max (mL/kg/min), and CrR (ml/kg/meter) is the oxygen cost of running.
This formula correlates nearly perfectly. There are only 3 variables:
LTv is the running velocity at LT, LT% is LT in percent of VO2max (mL/kg/min), and CR (ml/kg/meter) is the oxygen cost of running.
Studies show that there is no difference in LT% between elite, national and recreational running athletes, which means only two variables are trainable with running, which is VO2max and CR. This is it (talking about distances where LTv is relevant, which are mainly aerobic endurance performances).
No one will ever care about your stuff until you: a) make your own thread and stop derailing others b) document your own training method and how it affected your own fitness/times or that of other runners
If you want to be taken seriously then take yourself seriously. Do you see sirpoc or other contributors to this thread interjecting everywhere else on the board? At the moment you're just a slightly less annoying version of coach js.
At this point when we already know this training is easily repeatable month after month, year after year, and it provides significant improvements in the long term in 5k-HM range, the next very very cool thing to see would be Sirpoc entering a 1500m/mile race to check whether the result aligns well with his 5k performance. I suspect it'd still give a good outcome as the mile is mainly aerobic. Sirpoc, if you read this, sacrifice yourself in the name of science, please.
I'm sure his first impulse will be "f@#! that".
Funnily enough, during a recent discussion he explicitly stated that 5K is about the shortest event he'll probably run, because anything shorter/faster and "his legs might fall off" 😂
Studies show that there is no difference in LT% between elite, national and recreational running athletes, which means only two variables are trainable with running, which is VO2max and CR. This is it (talking about distances where LTv is relevant, which are mainly aerobic endurance performances).
Fair enough, but why do think that the threshold method does not do a good job of training these two variables?