The whole point of training with a meter and actually measuring and then checking with training is that you are basing the training on your own personalization instead of an arbitrary round number cutoff.
That may be the theory, but all you're doing is chasing your tail. Lactate concentration during exercise is as, if not more, variable, than heart rate, and changes in response to things other than fitness/"readiness to train", especially glycogen levels. You're better off focusing on what really matters, i.e., actual performance, rather than faffing about with lactate.
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
It is not only about the 3 variables (three-legged stool) itself, it is more about the realtion to each other creating the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR. That is the relevant thing here. I have not the feeling you got that.
As mentioned now several times, in the paper from Stoa, 2020, they had trained experienced athletes. With experienced athletes i mean they do it for a longer time, several years. In the paper 'determinants of endurance in well trained athletes' (post #2331) most of the group L cyclists they had only 1-3 years of cycling. That is ridiculous little experience and therefore adaptation time. You call them well trained, that is funny, so i have to reject also this paper for that purpose.
As elite train more as recreational athletes and have the higher LTv, you would expect to see statistically higher LT% values for elite. This was not found for running (Stoa, 2020). One theory could be that muscle fibers can only partly transfered (over a longer period of time) i.e. from fast twitch IIa to slow twitch fibers and after several years of training its over, no more adaptation possible. Also what you do in your childhood, might play a significant role.
There are individual LT% adaptations between athletes and because a marathoner or you have a higher LT% as the average, that does not prove anything. There is always the argument he is good at marathon because of his high LT% and not the other way around.
So there seems to be some evidence, that after years of training LT% is hardly trainable at all. The experienced athlete should then focus on VO2max and CR.
After years of training, everything will tend to plateau.
FWIW, I once followed your logic, and did Hickson-style VO2max intervals (i.e., 6 x 5 min @ 95-100% of VO2max) 3 d/wk for 18 wk in a row. At the end, I recorded my highest VO2max ever (but by <1 mL/min/kg than when following more balanced approaches). However, my sustainable power was actually down, and I got my hat handed to me in the race I was targeting. Hence (in part) the mantra I have shared ever since:
Re. big picture: Training for longer, steadier endurance events isn't (and shouldn't be) complicated. The "Norwegian approach" a.k.a. "sweetspot training" a.k.a. Lydiard's "best aerobic pace" is just bog-standard application of what is known from laboratory studies. There's no magic to it.
Agree with Sam. 15 miles is way too long for a long run if you are only getting 5 miles on a quality (threshold) day.
Based on your saying 3 miles in reps of 24 minutes total, I’d say your easy pace will be 10:00 per mile or slower. So even 6 miles for EZ is probably too much at that fitness. And I think I’d cap the long run at 90 minutes.
In general, the total mileage of a run with the threshold reps should be higher than your easy runs.
I did not know that the threshold volume should be more than the EZ runs, thank you! I thought it would be less and more of a supplement to the EZ runs. My EZ pace is 9:45-10:15--which works.
So cut the EZ runs back to 2-3 and then have threshold be more? I thought the rule was the threshold volume should be 25% of total run volume per week.
The threshold volume is not greater than an easy day. The threshold volume plus warm up and cool down mileage will in total be greater than an easy day.
Re: sirpoc84 with regards to Stryd power. I have found the same you with latest gen model. I am very light not very tall. The numbers it generate into 15kmph + winds just cannot be correct. As I follow up to one of your posts many months ago, I also tried contact Stryd and ask them about this. They didn't have any answer. Just generic response.
With regards to EIM. This in my opinion doesn't really have any similarities. I've done EIM. It's very basic and doesnt give me very good results. I almost feel like the easy runs too hard, the intervals too easy. I think this method laid out is probably a better balance.
@Coggan. You really think HR is less variable than lactate? Do you have any studies? Or are you just making a wife assumption? Most runners I know who have used meters and plotted it against HR have found for paces and lactate under similar circumstances corresponded , but HR is the most variable metric. Making it the least meaningful. I hope my English is good to understand this point. Many thanks
I did not know that the threshold volume should be more than the EZ runs, thank you! I thought it would be less and more of a supplement to the EZ runs. My EZ pace is 9:45-10:15--which works.
So cut the EZ runs back to 2-3 and then have threshold be more? I thought the rule was the threshold volume should be 25% of total run volume per week.
The threshold volume is not greater than an easy day. The threshold volume plus warm up and cool down mileage will in total be greater than an easy day.
Alfie is correct in what I meant.
In general, the total time spent in the workout should be similar, or a little more in the "threshold" days. Remember, harder stress "loading day" followed by easier day to recover (but still get a little training load). If the total time is similar, you will have higher mileage in the threshold days because you are running faster.
The main idea is to start conservative and make sure you are scheduling a week you can repeat every week. Then slightly increase the volume of each session, stepwise, never digging yourself in a hole you can't recover from.
Thanks for the lancet advice, and the consumerism caution -- I understand my post probably screams "I just saw a pro doing this in a video and now I want to buy what they're using!" but I've actually been trialing Sirpoc's training since late last year and I've seen great results using just LTHR and a strap, but something thing I'm starting to run into is the fact that the fitter you get, the harder it becomes to use HR as anything more than a ceiling. So I will in fact benefit quite a bit from learning what approaching LT2 "feels" like. (I think I actually already know, but would be nice to confirm!)
Do you have any resources on power meter reading? I have one in my watch and have been logging that data this whole time, but ignored it as I figured it was unusable for running.
If you already have power, you really should sign up for a free intervals.icu account and then learn Golden Cheetah. Based on my comps between Apple power and Stryd, they're basically the same for day-to-day things, like tracking average power for a run, workout scoring, etc. But, Stryd is way more responsive and just provides better quality data.
You probably already have a bunch of great data...you just don't know how to use it :)
I already have the latest version. My problem as I've mentioned before is my body height and weight don't seem to match up to the algorithm. The pod doesn't measure actually any force, so it's relying on effectively most people to fit into how to calculates power used going into the wind. I do not. A couple of other people have pointed to the same. Others seem to be having success with it. Unfortunately, just shows how far behind running power is still. We will get there in the end though, I'm sure. Just running seems to be way behind cycling in this area.
Sirpoc and the other guy: i already told you the solution: change height setting, but keep weight setting to change AirPower.
Example you have now: 66kg, 170cm, you change that to 66kg, 100cm and see how it behaves. If that was too much height reduction, adjust accordingly.
I mean, I've been doing 3 and 4 minute reps mostly.
I mean I don't want to be rude, but you might want it start at the begining. 3-4 mins is fine, but the pace will be quicker. 8-10 mins is also fine, but the pace is slower. Check the rough guide for pace versus time recommendations. If you can't do that or understand that, this training is absolutely not for you. That's honestly not be being purposely trolly.
I've been using this with some masters runners that I coach. It's been working very, very well. One thing I have noticed is that how consistent and lack of cardiac drift they are now getting on their easy runs. Even that now seems much more under control. They weren't receptive to these methods initially, I think it's very difficult to get into a runners mindset to train like this.
Sirpoc and the other guy: i already told you the solution: change height setting, but keep weight setting to change AirPower.
Example you have now: 66kg, 170cm, you change that to 66kg, 100cm and see how it behaves. If that was too much height reduction, adjust accordingly.
Lexel I've literally told you this before. This doesn't work. It then just creates problems with the tailwind and then what it thinks your power is going the other way. What do you want me to do, stop and change my user details each time I turn into a different wind direction? 🤣
Sirpoc and the other guy: i already told you the solution: change height setting, but keep weight setting to change AirPower.
Example you have now: 66kg, 170cm, you change that to 66kg, 100cm and see how it behaves. If that was too much height reduction, adjust accordingly.
Lexel, you are an idiot. This will mess up all data you have then collected on the treadmill for example with no wind etc. Not only that, because guesses you ability into wind versus tail section, that also will not sort itself out and all your figures will be off from if it was windless day. Thank you for trying to make the problem worse.
You are clown. You come on this forum all time with idiotic ideas and pure nonsense. Worse troll in LetRun Worse than JS. I think you eat the papers you read and regurgitation out of your ass. What you contribution to this thread I could fit all information onto back of one euro coin I have in my wallet.
For note, I actually think the Stryd is nice piece of kit. I use, especially on treadmill. But for any kind of serious business wind, for my small frame etc the whole thing goes to rubbish . I'm sure sometime soon someone invent force pad. Bike only use algorithm and maths to measure and implement force, it's why different meters different power. But wind etc isn't factor to it's much more consistent across all users.
You are clearly way behind the times if you think that mathematical formula is somehow revolutionary. The concept that endurance performance rests on a "three-legged stool" of VO2max (cardiovascular fitness), threshold (muscular metabolic fitness), and economy or efficiency of movement emerged in the late 1970s/early 1980s. For running specific references, see the classic papers from Londeree, Farrell, Sjodin, etc.
Obviously the fitter you are the less trainable anything and everything becomes. It's ludicrous, however, to conclude that threshold isn't trainable *at all* in already trained runners based on a cross-sectional study. That's doubly-true when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, such as that paper I cited previously.
So there seems to be some evidence, that after years of training LT% is hardly trainable at all. The experienced athlete should then focus on VO2max and CR.
This comment right up there in the ‘No S Sherlock’ hall of fame
Again, you concede the point by pointing out something that everyone else already knows and wax poetic about the conclusion ‘you’ supposedly came to, despite the fact it was being told to you all along.
You would expect to see higher LT% depending on periodization. In general, yes, elite will likely have an avg lt% baseline thats higher than none elites. Within elites as a population time of the season or what they did in the current or previous period will be very instructive for where their lt% is going to land
If they are coming off an intervention like Coggan explains, where they were moving their ceiling higher and higher to give themselves some growth, if you take a snapshot after that point lt% is likely low. As they approach their goal event you are going to see that frac utilization move up quite a bit approaching their peak
Lexel, I almost feel sorry for him. He's being exposed as a moron from all angles. I was going to defend him, but not much to defend at this point. Hopefully he's just trolling us all. At least that would be funny!
Lexel, I almost feel sorry for him. He's being exposed as a moron from all angles. I was going to defend him, but not much to defend at this point. Hopefully he's just trolling us all. At least that would be funny!
He KOed everyone in this thread already dont you remember?
its at the level of conspiracy theorist for him at this point where every new bit of information only confirms and strengthens his previous claim somehow even though the entire premise its built on is obviously S
just odd postulating and absurd speculation that gets extemporaneously tossed around like it symbolizes some sort of fully completed experiment.
this is why the internet and the access to all the information known to man has broken more minds than it has opened on a myriad of subjects
He KOed everyone in this thread already dont you remember?
its at the level of conspiracy theorist for him at this point where every new bit of information only confirms and strengthens his previous claim somehow even though the entire premise its built on is obviously S
just odd postulating and absurd speculation that gets extemporaneously tossed around like it symbolizes some sort of fully completed experiment.
this is why the internet and the access to all the information known to man has broken more minds than it has opened on a myriad of subjects
Bro, Lexel put you to bed quicker than Seiler made Coggan redundant.
He KOed everyone in this thread already dont you remember?
its at the level of conspiracy theorist for him at this point where every new bit of information only confirms and strengthens his previous claim somehow even though the entire premise its built on is obviously S
just odd postulating and absurd speculation that gets extemporaneously tossed around like it symbolizes some sort of fully completed experiment.
this is why the internet and the access to all the information known to man has broken more minds than it has opened on a myriad of subjects
Bro, Lexel put you to bed quicker than Seiler made Coggan redundant.
Bra,
Seiler made Coggan redundant?
im not sure you understand the meaning of redundant
Like Coggans take or not its consistent and to my mind virtually nothing like Seilers. Seilers genius is in his flexibility. Hard to pin him down when hes vaguely defining things.
Just ask him whats constitutes Z2 in his model.
But if AC wants to riff on Seiler hes at least be teed up now