The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
The equation i posted was derived from the cycling formula LTw=LT%*VO2max/CC, were CC is cycling economy (oxygen cost of cycling), LTw is power output at LT, LT% is percent of VO2max, and correlates nearly perfect (r=0.98). Interestingly with cycling LT% seems trainable. Why this seems different to running, i do not know and i can only speculate.
Interesting is also the weight difference between Elite and National athletes (table 2), the higher VO2max and better running economy for Elite, but around the same LT% for all groups.
Actually feel you get an unfair hearing here lexel. You are probably the one who understands the science the best in this head, it's just lost on these people.
"Having said all that, I still stand by my initial guide. That if you don't get even mixed up and involved in the metrics etc and just run 3x sub threshold a week by following roughly the paces ( the spreadsheet someone made on Strava is excellent) given,...
I tried to find this spreadsheet in the Strava group but failed..anyone knows where it can be found?
See page 2 (sir)pocs' post and page 60 post by summary. Not a spreadsheet but the paces and sessions are explained.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
Actually feel you get an unfair hearing here lexel. You are probably the one who understands the science the best in this head, it's just lost on these people.
Lexel 1-0 Coggan.
Not that hard really to beat Coggan these days in a a debate. He's the last century relic now won't leave the internet. Last time I saw him posting online forums he was jealous Seiler is way more popular than him and has more credible work . Also, Lexel my friend, Coggan didn't come up with TSS Hunter Allen did more so than him. But he likes to create that myth.
Also, sirpoc84. I think you full of hot air. You are hiding workouts on Strava. You are doing speed work and I have proof. Next time you mistake and delete the workout within seconds I will screenshot for all. No way you made this progress following this horrible training plan and we all know it. I think you just like the attention pretending creates.
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
The equation i posted was derived from the cycling formula LTw=LT%*VO2max/CC, were CC is cycling economy (oxygen cost of cycling), LTw is power output at LT, LT% is percent of VO2max, and correlates nearly perfect (r=0.98). Interestingly with cycling LT% seems trainable. Why this seems different to running, i do not know and i can only speculate.
Interesting is also the weight difference between Elite and National athletes (table 2), the higher VO2max and better running economy for Elite, but around the same LT% for all groups.
I am inspired by this thread but being 50 and somewhat injury-prone and running only 40 mpw I intend to do only one (sub)treshold session per week.
In my opinion, you are missing bigger picture here. Just one session won't get the job done. The key is the third session I feel. That's the difference maker that over a long period of time absorbs the extra load into the body, versus say some of the more traditional running plans. I think sirpoc laid out well a while back why this works over say a Daniel's plan. It's accumulation of load over a long period of time without need for rest. One session a week in my humble opinion there is much better ways to train than this. As I said above, in my opinion this is also the best way to train, but if hou vary too much from sirpoc guide, you will start to stray into territory of changing things where it's not needed.
For true beginners, 3 sessions of 10x3 (w/1m jog) at sub-thresh sound right, with 3 EZ days and 1 LR day. That way you run 7 days a week but are not overcooked, yet not doing too much volume. I know the sub-thresh has to be 25% of total weekly volume but no more...
Actually feel you get an unfair hearing here lexel. You are probably the one who understands the science the best in this head, it's just lost on these people.
Lexel 1-0 Coggan.
Not that hard really to beat Coggan these days in a a debate. He's the last century relic now won't leave the internet. Last time I saw him posting online forums he was jealous Seiler is way more popular than him and has more credible work . Also, Lexel my friend, Coggan didn't come up with TSS Hunter Allen did more so than him. But he likes to create that myth.
Also, sirpoc84. I think you full of hot air. You are hiding workouts on Strava. You are doing speed work and I have proof. Next time you mistake and delete the workout within seconds I will screenshot for all. No way you made this progress following this horrible training plan and we all know it. I think you just like the attention pretending creates.
Why you dogging sirpoc? He's basically coaching everyone out of his own good will here--don't bite the hand that feeds you. This is probably the best LRC has been.
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
Lexel, I agree with several of the recent posts suggesting you get an unfair immediate negative reaction. Having said that haha…
If two variables are independent, then they are uncorrelated. Two variables being uncorrelated does not imply independence, you’ve mixed it up. For example, %LT (expressed as a % of VO2max in this case) and vLT not being correlated COULD mean that the runners with the lower %LT have stronger “anaerobic” systems despite having similar VO2max values. Alternatively, runners with a higher %LT could simply have weaker “anaerobic” systems, again, despite similar VO2max values. How that manifests in this study is the former will be reaching the arbitrarily defined LT at a lower %LT than the latter. This would actually fit into Alois Mader’s lactate threshold model, thus explaining why you see the lack of correlation between %LT and vLT. Test the correlation between %LT and Lactate Max though, and I’d suspect you’ll see a significant relationship. Of course, this is not my field, just something I toy with.
Also, the equation you posted is basically just an algebraically rearranged economy curve, no? That's going to require that people go to a lab and get both lactate and oxygen consumption tested. Not sure how that is the universal running formula. BTW, is this universal running formula different from the universal intensity descriptor, CS? Asking for a friend who’s confused by all this universality.
In my opinion, you are missing bigger picture here. Just one session won't get the job done. The key is the third session I feel. That's the difference maker that over a long period of time absorbs the extra load into the body, versus say some of the more traditional running plans. I think sirpoc laid out well a while back why this works over say a Daniel's plan. It's accumulation of load over a long period of time without need for rest. One session a week in my humble opinion there is much better ways to train than this. As I said above, in my opinion this is also the best way to train, but if hou vary too much from sirpoc guide, you will start to stray into territory of changing things where it's not needed.
For true beginners, 3 sessions of 10x3 (w/1m jog) at sub-thresh sound right, with 3 EZ days and 1 LR day. That way you run 7 days a week but are not overcooked, yet not doing too much volume. I know the sub-thresh has to be 25% of total weekly volume but no more...
I’d say 90 min of work per week is high for a beginner. I’d start with 20-24 minutes twice a week, work gradually to a 3rd session, then gradually up to 30 minutes per session.
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
The equation i posted was derived from the cycling formula LTw=LT%*VO2max/CC, were CC is cycling economy (oxygen cost of cycling), LTw is power output at LT, LT% is percent of VO2max, and correlates nearly perfect (r=0.98). Interestingly with cycling LT% seems trainable. Why this seems different to running, i do not know and i can only speculate.
Interesting is also the weight difference between Elite and National athletes (table 2), the higher VO2max and better running economy for Elite, but around the same LT% for all groups.
The LT % of VO2 were +/- 4% of avg of 37 males with an avg utilization rate of ~83.
so the range in this group was between 79-87% and we know you can go to 90-92%.
of course it’s independent from performance but it tells you where you have room to move if that’s your prerogative
Who ever made the claim that what mattered was LT% of Vo2 vs LTv?
Sounds like another one of these situations where you posit a question no one asked, answer said question, and declare “Eureka”.
Just like when you posted you thought what was happening here wasnt due to an increase in aerobic power which should be pretty obvious by the interventions design itself.
If the person is doing mostly sweetspot work what would lead you to conclude that they’ve massively increased their vo2 max?
Actually feel you get an unfair hearing here lexel. You are probably the one who understands the science the best in this head, it's just lost on these people.
Lexel 1-0 Coggan.
Not that hard really to beat Coggan these days in a a debate. He's the last century relic now won't leave the internet. Last time I saw him posting online forums he was jealous Seiler is way more popular than him and has more credible work . Also, Lexel my friend, Coggan didn't come up with TSS Hunter Allen did more so than him. But he likes to create that myth.
Also, sirpoc84. I think you full of hot air. You are hiding workouts on Strava. You are doing speed work and I have proof. Next time you mistake and delete the workout within seconds I will screenshot for all. No way you made this progress following this horrible training plan and we all know it. I think you just like the attention pretending creates.
Have you listened to Seiler? And which iteration?
Please share your hidden workouts.
So after all this sub T hes doing even more is what you’re claiming?
Hunter Allen did more do than him? I guess they shouldn’t have coauthored a book together
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
The equation i posted was derived from the cycling formula LTw=LT%*VO2max/CC, were CC is cycling economy (oxygen cost of cycling), LTw is power output at LT, LT% is percent of VO2max, and correlates nearly perfect (r=0.98). Interestingly with cycling LT% seems trainable. Why this seems different to running, i do not know and i can only speculate.
Interesting is also the weight difference between Elite and National athletes (table 2), the higher VO2max and better running economy for Elite, but around the same LT% for all groups.
Also, you really think %LT is trainable for cycling but not for running?
Possibly one of the more ridiculous contributions you’ve made this far and that’s saying simmering
lab test after a period of high intensity focus. Then lab test after a period of threshold focus. the results you see will be applicable to both running and cycling, obviously
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
The equation i posted was derived from the cycling formula LTw=LT%*VO2max/CC, were CC is cycling economy (oxygen cost of cycling), LTw is power output at LT, LT% is percent of VO2max, and correlates nearly perfect (r=0.98). Interestingly with cycling LT% seems trainable. Why this seems different to running, i do not know and i can only speculate.
Interesting is also the weight difference between Elite and National athletes (table 2), the higher VO2max and better running economy for Elite, but around the same LT% for all groups.
Also, you really think %LT is trainable for cycling but not for running?
Possibly one of the more ridiculous contributions you’ve made this far and that’s saying simmering
lab test after a period of high intensity focus. Then lab test after a period of threshold focus. the results you see will be applicable to both running and cycling, obviously
In the paper i shared recently, there is another paper referred for cycling, which is that
Have a look at figure 1, they found a weak correlation between LTw and LT%(Vo2max). As i mentioned, i do not know why there is a difference between running and cycling. However, 75 runners is really a very good sample size and has its statistical power.
These guys from Norway are top notch scienticists (i.e Ronnestad and others), at least i respect them.
Why you dogging sirpoc? He's basically coaching everyone out of his own good will here--don't bite the hand that feeds you. This is probably the best LRC has been.
If you are not careful Lard2find will get jealous, stay away from his man!
Also, why so much heat for Lexel? He does actually make very good points.
Coggan vs. lexel is the entertainment I didn’t know I needed
You took the words right out of my mouth! It was already an epic thread with sirpoc progression, all the great chat etc. But I think Lexel v Coggan is what it needs for all time 😅
Also good to see some of the top other posts come back for this fun. Unbelief , funny trolls, probably js again next, shirt boy, chillruns and jiggy then I think so we have all top players back together to enjoy this spectacle.
The study attached below included seventy-five competitive runners (37 males and 38 females) and they found no correlation between LTv and LT%. That means it is independent from performance level! (LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR)
Lexel, I agree with several of the recent posts suggesting you get an unfair immediate negative reaction. Having said that haha…
If two variables are independent, then they are uncorrelated. Two variables being uncorrelated does not imply independence, you’ve mixed it up. For example, %LT (expressed as a % of VO2max in this case) and vLT not being correlated COULD mean that the runners with the lower %LT have stronger “anaerobic” systems despite having similar VO2max values. Alternatively, runners with a higher %LT could simply have weaker “anaerobic” systems, again, despite similar VO2max values. How that manifests in this study is the former will be reaching the arbitrarily defined LT at a lower %LT than the latter. This would actually fit into Alois Mader’s lactate threshold model, thus explaining why you see the lack of correlation between %LT and vLT. Test the correlation between %LT and Lactate Max though, and I’d suspect you’ll see a significant relationship. Of course, this is not my field, just something I toy with.
Also, the equation you posted is basically just an algebraically rearranged economy curve, no? That's going to require that people go to a lab and get both lactate and oxygen consumption tested. Not sure how that is the universal running formula. BTW, is this universal running formula different from the universal intensity descriptor, CS? Asking for a friend who’s confused by all this universality.
The formula provided is applicable for highly aerobic events, where LTv correlates well with race time. It is true that as shorter the race distance gets, as shorter the race duration is and as more relevant the anaerobic system gets. But i see no main contradiction and i do not conclude that that explains the non-correlation between LT% and LTv (we are talking here about trained athletes). However, yes the relative strength of the anaerobic system to the aerobic system might explain small variation in LT% between athletes, this is a (nice) theory.
Maximum Lactate Steady State (MLSS) is related with CV/CS. So it seems reasonable to postulate CV= (CV%Vo2max) * Vo2max/CR . CV%VO2max is then a fraction of VO2max (e.g. typ. around 0.9) analog to LT% (in the last paper typ 0.84), CV%>LT% (LTv is a little bit slower as CV). Also here VO2max and CR are the main variables.