He Andrew, in cylcling they use FTP, and percentage values of it, a lot.
Do you think CP is better or not and why??
-
03
-
Andrew Coggan wrote:
I don't "ignore" motor control, I just know that once you account for metabolic energy production and biophysical determinants of running economy, there's not much room left for it in trying to understand why some people can run faster than others.
(That said, later this year - i.e., once the FOA is released - a colleague and I are planning to apply to NIA for a grant to study walking economy in postmenopausal women, because there is growing belief that an increased energy cost of movement contributes to greater fatigability in older individuals. But, it's a different population than athletes.)
But you are ignoring the fact that motor control largely determines efficiency of movement and the endurance factor of sustainability of that efficiency.
I learned this 47 years ago. I was 14 years old and ever since then I have been baffled by the failure of mainstream 'exercise physiology' to include this fact of basic science in their explanations of Bioenergetics.
62 -
You say "largely", but in fact, what is the evidence?
310 -
Conceptually, CP and FTP are essentially the same thing.
Operationally, they are either interchangeable, or CP will overestimate true metabolic steady state (which it supposedly represents), depending on how it is calculated (FTP is more of an overarching pedagogical construct).
36 -
This method is good but does jot work for everyone. I tried it and went from a 16 min to an 18 min 5k.
424 -
sirpoc84 wrote:
parkerjohn wrote:
Sirpoc, it’s not super clear to me from your last post, but I think you’re suggesting that sub-LT every other day would be too much / not sustainable. I think you’re probably right.
In my case, anything over 60 min breaks me down but I’ve got a lot of miles in my legs over 20+ years of competitive running. It sounds like, for you, the 90 min run on Sunday isn’t something you dread doing every week.
I know you used Daniels training before your current training, but what I may have missed is how long you tried Daniels? Was it 1 year? 2 years or more before plateauing? Did your mileage go up or down when you initially made the switch to sweetspot and broke through?
I just ran (and sucked really bad) for the first 2-3 months. Then I bought a Daniel's book and pretty much trained that way for a good year or so. Progressed nicely really quicky at first, but just got to the point where the hard stuff was meaning I could never actually increase time on feet/ load. I just felt so beat up. I actually got a bit worse at the back end of 2022 as i was needing days off and was actually being able to run less. Absolutely just hit a brick wall. Nothing I could do would improve me. Running just because a chore. Didn't really think much into it, other than "why don't I just try and train how I used to on the bike?" With some of the obvious adaptations to running. I used to dread the long run, the easy runs, everything. A lot of it was just too fast looking back, comical in fact. No wonder I was so tired.
When I switched to this, almost instantly I could increase my minutes slowly week by week, absolutely straight away. The brick wall I hit was knocked down. I then started to improve after about 6-8 weeks of the new regime and it's been a pretty steady increase chipping away month my month since. I was pretty annoyed with myself that I didn't go with my gut and just train this way from day 1. I wouldn't say I love running now, but it's no problem to get out there. I'm never so tired I think "wow I can't run today" as often happened, especially after the really hard days Daniels sometimes prescribes. There's always something in the tank for the next day now. I'm never running on fumes. IMO a Daniel's plan, if you have 6-10 weeks to get fit for something is a fantastic way to roll the dice and it'll likely work out, not worrying about what comes after. Past that or longer term goals, I don't think it's sustainable in the way that I have trained. Again, I'm not saying this is the only way to train or even the best. But it's probably the most likely way to get most people the consistency they need with enough work on limited hours, without falling apart, especially say if you have a goal 6+ months out. Most of the thread is filled with the same range of comments, not a lot happened then progressively after a couple of months they started to really build into some good fitness, a lot they haven't seen before. I might have improved and found a way to adapt Daniels, but there is no way I would be sitting at 15:40/32:23 at 40 years old. This consistency has absolutely scraped every ounce of the average talent I have out. Much as it did on the bike. I was also way over achieving there for the average talent I had. But found a way to squeeze every last drop. But, as easy as it sounds, it's been a long, long grind and quite boring at times.
The feedback I can give and the feedback so many others have told me, is that you can sustain this. No peaks, no ups and downs, just a slow burn in a pretty safe and manageable manner. The other thing, whilst injury's obviously still occur but the general feeling is this reduces the risk of injury to the lower end of the spectrum for runners. I think that's also a big factor in why this is a good idea, especially for us older runners.
I forgot to ask, and maybe you already answered, but did you randomly stumble on Bakken's paper and then apply it to the bike, or were you on the bike and heard about the plan from someone else, did research and go from there?
111 -
Running is a skill. Therefore the brain matters. The brain is responsible for anything we do.
Bad running form might lead to more breaking forces, and a higher energy waste. E.g. if i do boxing during running, the oxygen consumption goes up at the same pace.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.74 -
rudedog wrote:
I think AC provides good input, even if it comes with a bit of chide. A scientist who reflexively doesn't want to let falsehoods go unchallenged
Honestly not sure what you are reading. These are the posts of a man who knows he has a captive audience here (due to the sheer popularity of the thread) and chooses to use that audience to talk absolute drivel. I can't emphasise that enough. It's like he's used a random word generator to write most of his posts. He uses his academic background to fool you into thinking you are beneath him or dumb for not understanding the point he is ramming down your throat when you disagree with him. He can't be proven wrong. It's not possible. He can't allow it. Which is so weird and makes him an absolute terrible scientist as he's never striving for the truth, but for adulation.
The truth of the matter he's been exposed as being very, very out of date for a while now, quite often just makes stuff up and is banned by just about every reputable forum on the internet.
I know this forum often claims Coach JS is mentally ill etc, but for real AC has some sort of serious personality disorder that has played out for years and years, seemingly gotten worse online. I used to be on slowtwitch and this isn't new, we are going back a good decade or so now.
311 -
Stockholm syndrome wrote:
I know this forum often claims Coach JS is mentally ill etc, but for real AC has some sort of serious personality disorder that has played out for years and years, seemingly gotten worse online. I used to be on slowtwitch and this isn't new, we are going back a good decade or so now.yeah, imagine being Andrew Coggan, it sucks
51 -
That study only demonstrates that differences in how people run are associated with differences in how much energy they need to do so (as you would expect). It does not show that these differences are due to differences in motor control ("skill").
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.213 -
Andrew Coggan wrote:
You say "largely", but in fact, what is the evidence?
All movement is controlled by the nervous system. This is basic Biology. Why doesn't mainstream 'exercise physiology' recognise this? Why don't you? Were you never taught this? Or were. You daydreaming. during those lectures?
42 -
lexel wrote:
Running is a skill. Therefore the brain matters. The brain is responsible for anything we do.
Bad running form might lead to more breaking forces, and a higher energy waste. E.g. if i do boxing during running, the oxygen consumption goes up at the same pace.
Yes, but I don't often see "bad running form" although we all see different levels of biomechanical efficiency when we compare athletes of different fitness levels. The nervous system controls power output at all levels of intensity and all durations.
I don't know of Coggan is trolling or if he really is unaware of basic biology?
73 -
#2853
This post was removed.
-
no magic in this thread wrote:
yeah, imagine being Andrew Coggan, it sucks
The dude can be whoever he wants academically. But whatever the case facts are this:
Nobody likes him.
He's probably got some sort of mental disorder.
He's out of date, out of touch and pretty much got everything wrong that he's posted, up to this point.
161 -
broski94 wrote:
no magic in this thread wrote:
yeah, imagine being Andrew Coggan, it sucks
The dude can be whoever he wants academically. But whatever the case facts are this:
Nobody likes him.
He's probably got some sort of mental disorder.
He's out of date, out of touch and pretty much got everything wrong that he's posted, up to this point.
yeah he's basically out of everything
60 -
#2856
This post was removed.
-
jecht wrote:
sirpoc84 wrote:
I just ran (and sucked really bad) for the first 2-3 months. Then I bought a Daniel's book and pretty much trained that way for a good year or so. Progressed nicely really quicky at first, but just got to the point where the hard stuff was meaning I could never actually increase time on feet/ load. I just felt so beat up. I actually got a bit worse at the back end of 2022 as i was needing days off and was actually being able to run less. Absolutely just hit a brick wall. Nothing I could do would improve me. Running just because a chore. Didn't really think much into it, other than "why don't I just try and train how I used to on the bike?" With some of the obvious adaptations to running. I used to dread the long run, the easy runs, everything. A lot of it was just too fast looking back, comical in fact. No wonder I was so tired.
When I switched to this, almost instantly I could increase my minutes slowly week by week, absolutely straight away. The brick wall I hit was knocked down. I then started to improve after about 6-8 weeks of the new regime and it's been a pretty steady increase chipping away month my month since. I was pretty annoyed with myself that I didn't go with my gut and just train this way from day 1. I wouldn't say I love running now, but it's no problem to get out there. I'm never so tired I think "wow I can't run today" as often happened, especially after the really hard days Daniels sometimes prescribes. There's always something in the tank for the next day now. I'm never running on fumes. IMO a Daniel's plan, if you have 6-10 weeks to get fit for something is a fantastic way to roll the dice and it'll likely work out, not worrying about what comes after. Past that or longer term goals, I don't think it's sustainable in the way that I have trained. Again, I'm not saying this is the only way to train or even the best. But it's probably the most likely way to get most people the consistency they need with enough work on limited hours, without falling apart, especially say if you have a goal 6+ months out. Most of the thread is filled with the same range of comments, not a lot happened then progressively after a couple of months they started to really build into some good fitness, a lot they haven't seen before. I might have improved and found a way to adapt Daniels, but there is no way I would be sitting at 15:40/32:23 at 40 years old. This consistency has absolutely scraped every ounce of the average talent I have out. Much as it did on the bike. I was also way over achieving there for the average talent I had. But found a way to squeeze every last drop. But, as easy as it sounds, it's been a long, long grind and quite boring at times.
The feedback I can give and the feedback so many others have told me, is that you can sustain this. No peaks, no ups and downs, just a slow burn in a pretty safe and manageable manner. The other thing, whilst injury's obviously still occur but the general feeling is this reduces the risk of injury to the lower end of the spectrum for runners. I think that's also a big factor in why this is a good idea, especially for us older runners.
I forgot to ask, and maybe you already answered, but did you randomly stumble on Bakken's paper and then apply it to the bike, or were you on the bike and heard about the plan from someone else, did research and go from there?
Answer in bold.
80 -
This quoted post has been removed.
And the ppl said AC didn’t have a sense of humour!
A Coggan, quick question:
You outlined your previous training week but did you used to build cutback weeks into your schedule like 3/4/5 weeks on, 1 week lighter schedule? Or did you simply keep the weeks mostly the same?
Also, is there any support for the 3/4/5 week on/1 week off in the literature for progressive overload/recovery? Or is this mostly for folks that are trying to ‘ Block periodize’ their training cycles?
43 -
No, I have never built in any pre-planned reductions in training load. For me at least, life gets in the way enough naturally as it is.
There is also no real scientific support for the practice.
93 -
Charlesvdw wrote:
jecht wrote:
I forgot to ask, and maybe you already answered, but did you randomly stumble on Bakken's paper and then apply it to the bike, or were you on the bike and heard about the plan from someone else, did research and go from there?
Answer in bold.
Thanks, I missed that obviously....lol
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.