I totally agree with this. Amazing thread BTW. I followed the link to Jacobs brothers Strava, Kristoffer. There is also no real pattern to the fact that rep pace is relevant to the lactate. It's all usually around 2-4 mmol on last rep. But it not like if he does 20x500 if you look at fastest paces that this will generate on any given day more lactate than 5x2k or 3-4x3k at a slower pace. We know this as it's amazing he shows us all his training:)
SPOC84. If I read this thread correct, you pick these distances and paces based on Kristoffer and made it work the same for you? In terms of not complicate situation , set up paces that you know with confidence will get you under desired threshold in mmol and test if you need to? I guess Kristoffer has easy access to family tasting and money not a problem so he can test every day. But he never seems to go over anyway. So they have the paces dialled in.
Oh for sure, I make no secret that I copied KI quite a bit. For me, it made sense and brought me full circle in how doing cycling sweetspot training 3-4 days a week in my experience also got me insanely fit. So I just put it all together, made it simple, easily followed, boring in a way so I can't go off track and stuck to it. Clearly, for me, it's pushed me through my stagnation and clearly for KI it's worked wonders. It's not a magic pill. It's still hard work and takes a lot of discipline. But if you can stick to it, even though this thread is god knows how long now, the overarching theme is you'll likely improve . Oh and yes, I agree about the paces and mmol of Lactate. As I posted above. As I said. I really am not that precise. I'm not a pro. I don't care as long as it's probably over 2 and under 4. Anywhere in that I'm probably getting 95% of the load at the bottom end as the top end. That's fine for me ☺️
Glad I happened to visit LRC when this thread first popped up and have been following since.
I've been reading more and more lately emphasising the importance of LT-pace training, and taking serious interest in the Bakken/Ingebrigtsen approach. This discussion has generated some great lightbulb moments for me.
The talk of CTL, heart rate zones, maximising time at LT pace etc. has got me wanting to properly monitor changes in my own performance and fatigue metrics. Has anyone got any tips for how to get the most out of tools like Runalyze for this? I think it was sirpoc early on that mentioned he uses it.
Hi data nerd, your username suggests you have come to the correct thread 😂. I think there's quite a few people here who can help with different things, but I can definitely help with this.
I don't use runalyze, but I hugely recommend either Golden Cheetah for the PC version or use intervals icu for mobile (it's browser based, but works fantastic in mobile brave on my android).
This IMO will open things up to what is happening in your training. You'll start to see patterns and understand why you stagnate or when it's time to just do things like I suggested, like time to add on 5 mins here and there to easy runs before you add more reps. Intervals will also give you a visualisation and breakdown each week of your time in zone breakdown. This is hugely valuable. You can customise that breakdown in a number of ways.
I would suggest using time in zone, pace as the main metric, with heart rate as back up and also if you have a reliable and more modern watch, select in the pace settings in intervals icu , gradient adjusted pace.
You can use HR, I don't think it matters too much, you will see slightly different numbers. For me, it evens out (roughly) But the TSS per session seems slightly less for me in the easy runs by HR and slightly more in the workout sessions, than by pace. Overall, I mentioned the other day I have re evaluated the last few hundred runs and basically it ended up the same. Just stick to one though. Once you have picked , just stay with it.
Obviously pace isn't as good as a power meter in cycling, which is the ultimate tool , but I can still use the PMC (it's under the fitness tab in intervals, but the same thing) to index my current fitness) roughly to my training load. The main takeaway in basic terms for me, I could only make it to maybe around a CTL (FITNESS score in intervals icu) of 50, training a more traditional running approach, on around 6.5-7 hours a week. It was only as I started to train like this for the same hours, which made my CTL increase, for no more hours. So obviously I could experiment with how to push the envelope and understand why I have gotten faster.
You mention fatigue, FWIW, the fatigue/tsb score in general I've found quite accurate over the years. I once was cycling and really felt terrible from a training block, had a TSB of like -50. Over the years in cycling it gave me a pretty good idea of where I was at. I could train hard still on about -15 to -20 ish. So for me it was a good metric to use, as again I could index that score and use it for patterns over time. It was as good as telling me when I needed a break as my body. My issue was always I didn't want to believe my body, I was weak and could just push through. The numbers reigned me in. One more thing, training like this for running, you don't need to worry about this too much. I've never accumulated a fatigue score over -10, in intervals icu. That's primarily because this is so controlled, it's basically the same thing every week or at worst ramp it up a tiny bit. Cycling is a bit more variable, you might do some crazy 7 hours ride , it feels easy, but actually that load is huge under the hood and has trashed you in retrospect, more than your body initially tells you. You'd probably find this to be the case in running. That I could easy go out and run 75% of MHR for my long run, it might feel OK as an individual run in isolation, but actually if that becomes the easy standard over time, it will then grind you down (not horrifically I guess) but more than you realise.
Just make sure you are 100% sure you know your threshold pace to begin with and that you know your LTHR. Also, keep those updated the second you clearly know you have improved, through a face or time trial or whatever you benchmarks are likely to be.
Right, I was going to also post and bore everyone with what happened yesterday , as I got my wallet, bought some more lactate strips . Can't believe how expensive they have gotten 😭😂😂.
Thanks for the reply mate and for your info throughout the thread. I will check out those recommendations for data tracking.
Questions/discussion for the wider group:
It seems to me that to maximise the potential of this training, one needs to have a very accurate estimation of lactate threshold. Has anyone gotten lab testing done for this? I think you would burn through a lot of lactate pro strips trying to accurately derive the lactate curve yourself - I guess the lactate meter is best used for spot checking to keep your workouts at the correct pace (but the actual target is largely determined by the lab test). Perhaps an occasional LT lab test is worth it for a hobby jogger using this training system?
Secondly, how do you know how far below LT is optimal to train at? Can one train at any pace between LT1 and LT2 and derive a training stimulus for 5k-marathon (adjusting volume accordingly)? For example, could you simply run intervals at marathon pace 5-6 days a week and never go above that pace outside races (seen some discussion on this already)? I would guess that is taking it too far? Interested to hear anyone's thoughts. I am not being sceptical, just trying to understand!
Thanks for the reply mate and for your info throughout the thread. I will check out those recommendations for data tracking.
Questions/discussion for the wider group:
It seems to me that to maximise the potential of this training, one needs to have a very accurate estimation of lactate threshold. Has anyone gotten lab testing done for this? I think you would burn through a lot of lactate pro strips trying to accurately derive the lactate curve yourself - I guess the lactate meter is best used for spot checking to keep your workouts at the correct pace (but the actual target is largely determined by the lab test). Perhaps an occasional LT lab test is worth it for a hobby jogger using this training system?
Secondly, how do you know how far below LT is optimal to train at? Can one train at any pace between LT1 and LT2 and derive a training stimulus for 5k-marathon (adjusting volume accordingly)? For example, could you simply run intervals at marathon pace 5-6 days a week and never go above that pace outside races (seen some discussion on this already)? I would guess that is taking it too far? Interested to hear anyone's thoughts. I am not being sceptical, just trying to understand!
Caught this just before I am about to go out for a run myself. It's funny, we all seem to be on very different time zones . I always wake up to loads of posts in this thread ha ha
To answer you question a couple of ways, firstly in terms of HR, MOST of my runs when I analyse the data, falls into the Joe Friel "sub threshold" range. I would say 2/3rds of it if you go on time in zone. Maybe a little more, less depending on day. But say there's going to be 36 mins of work, usually 24-25 of it will fall somewhere in that Friel sub threshold range in terms of HR. The rest will be lower, the first minute of each rep and maybe most of rep 1. This isn't by design, this is just how it tends to be. I don't target this, it's just what happens when targeting that mmol range I mentioned before and setting target paces, based on the length of reps.
I would imagine you would get quite fast still if you just did marathon pace everyday, broken into reps. The training load (TSS) when you play around with it, will actually be quite high. I doubt it's much different if you went by pace to the TSS weekly I generate from the system I laid out.
Way back I did go back to an example on the bike where I just rode easy/steady for like 6 weeks for 2.5 hours on a turbo trainer, when injured. Like that's literally all I did, nothing else as I could only pedal upright as I had a broken shoulder blade an collarbone. Then I looked back at my CTL and it was really high, hadn't even bothered looking in weeks as I thought I was just pedalling for something to do and keep weight off. Went back outside ,first ride outside in like 6 weeks I set my 10 mile TT PB and won a bunch of Open races in that period just after. This brings it full circle again, to the pages of discussion about TSS, CTL and performance. Again, it wasn't me who spotted it, guys racing with a scientific background on the time trailing forum, that realised they could index their FTP to their CTL and find definite patterns there.
As I said. I really am not that precise. I'm not a pro. I don't care as long as it's probably over 2 and under 4. Anywhere in that I'm probably getting 95% of the load at the bottom end as the top end. That's fine for me ☺️
And that is exactly the point. You copied the paces/effort from KI to fit it to you. After that you checked/controlled lactate. Not vice versa. Nothing against that, but it has to be mentioned that the outcome of your pace is a lactate range which are you happy with.
We all have to accept that there are people outside which are not willing to do lactate testing for whatever reason. So the question, 'can we do the 'norwege' stuff without using a lactate meter', makes a lot of sense to me. And it seems to be possible by checking the avg HF of the last min of the last rep. Not 100% accurate, but good enough for any non-professional. i have seen others mentioned that idea too.
There is still not even one intervention study which shows that training by lactate is better than training by HR. Since decades! Therefore counter arguments have their place and i have the feeling that any counter argument from others are now not welcome. That should be not the case we should be still (very) open for counter arguments. At least i am.
Race distance, muscle fiber distribution, vlamax (ability to produce lactate) and others, they all play a role and should be considered. It's individual.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Thanks for the reply mate and for your info throughout the thread. I will check out those recommendations for data tracking.
Questions/discussion for the wider group:
It seems to me that to maximise the potential of this training, one needs to have a very accurate estimation of lactate threshold. Has anyone gotten lab testing done for this? I think you would burn through a lot of lactate pro strips trying to accurately derive the lactate curve yourself - I guess the lactate meter is best used for spot checking to keep your workouts at the correct pace (but the actual target is largely determined by the lab test). Perhaps an occasional LT lab test is worth it for a hobby jogger using this training system?
Secondly, how do you know how far below LT is optimal to train at? Can one train at any pace between LT1 and LT2 and derive a training stimulus for 5k-marathon (adjusting volume accordingly)? For example, could you simply run intervals at marathon pace 5-6 days a week and never go above that pace outside races (seen some discussion on this already)? I would guess that is taking it too far? Interested to hear anyone's thoughts. I am not being sceptical, just trying to understand!
Caught this just before I am about to go out for a run myself. It's funny, we all seem to be on very different time zones . I always wake up to loads of posts in this thread ha ha
To answer you question a couple of ways, firstly in terms of HR, MOST of my runs when I analyse the data, falls into the Joe Friel "sub threshold" range. I would say 2/3rds of it if you go on time in zone. Maybe a little more, less depending on day. But say there's going to be 36 mins of work, usually 24-25 of it will fall somewhere in that Friel sub threshold range in terms of HR. The rest will be lower, the first minute of each rep and maybe most of rep 1. This isn't by design, this is just how it tends to be. I don't target this, it's just what happens when targeting that mmol range I mentioned before and setting target paces, based on the length of reps.
I would imagine you would get quite fast still if you just did marathon pace everyday, broken into reps. The training load (TSS) when you play around with it, will actually be quite high. I doubt it's much different if you went by pace to the TSS weekly I generate from the system I laid out.
Way back I did go back to an example on the bike where I just rode easy/steady for like 6 weeks for 2.5 hours on a turbo trainer, when injured. Like that's literally all I did, nothing else as I could only pedal upright as I had a broken shoulder blade a collarbone. Then I looked back at my CTL and it was really high, hadn't even bothered looking in weeks as I thought I was just pedalling for something to do and keep weight off. Went back outside ,first ride outside in like 6 weeks I set my 10 mile TT PB and won a bunch of Open races in that period just after. This brings it full circle again, to the pages of discussion about TSS, CTL and performance. Again, it wasn't me who spotted it, guys racing with a scientific background on the time trailing forum, that realised they could index their FTP to their CTL and find definite patterns there.
Haha, I'm in Australia - I think the sun never sets on this thread.
You may have covered this already then. But why didn't you just continue riding easy every day, if it led to results? I'm guessing because it's a less efficient use of time?
Haha, I'm in Australia - I think the sun never sets on this thread.
You may have covered this already then. But why didn't you just continue riding easy every day, if it led to results? I'm guessing because it's a less efficient use of time?
Exactly that mate. I was training like twice as much in terms of time. I was off work with my broken bones so it was possible . But we were talking like 17-18 hours a week. For Time Trialling I only really had 8-9 hours spare alongside life and work. Basically, I then went about over the next couple of years trying to recreate that CTL and TSS, in as little as time possible. Which I managed, even crept it up a bit. Each time I did, my 10 and 25 mile TTs improved and finally I reached what I believe to be almost my maximum potential for an amateur. I don't think there was anyone faster than me on the limited hours I did. I'm clearly way worse a runner than cyclist (many reasons for this) but I still enjoy the training and improving as much as I can.
And that is exactly the point. You copied the paces/effort from KI to fit it to you. After that you checked/controlled lactate. Not vice versa. Nothing against that, but it has to be mentioned that the outcome of your pace is a lactate range which are you happy with.
We all have to accept that there are people outside which are not willing to do lactate testing for whatever reason. So the question, 'can we do the 'norwege' stuff without using a lactate meter', makes a lot of sense to me. And it seems to be possible by checking the avg HF of the last min of the last rep. Not 100% accurate, but good enough for any non-professional. i have seen others mentioned that idea too.
There is still not even one intervention study which shows that training by lactate is better than training by HR. Since decades! Therefore counter arguments have their place and i have the feeling that any counter argument from others are now not welcome. That should be not the case we should be still (very) open for counter arguments. At least i am.
Race distance, muscle fiber distribution, vlamax (ability to produce lactate) and others, they all play a role and should be considered. It's individual.
This is where we agree Lexel. I totally agree you can do it without a lactate meter. Most of my recent training is without, after the initial boxes of strips I had ran out. But for me, it just gave me the confidence to know I'm not fumbling around in the dark. Or investing months in a process I guestimated wrong. At this point the lactate meter for me is only a look to double check every now and again (like I did today and only really because this thread had me reinvigorated) , that I've not strayed off the path. Rather than to redesign my program.
I'm a case study of one, with crossover to KI. Will my pace guides work for everyone? Probably not. But I would be surprised that for most people if it doesn't get them somewhere in the sub threshold range. Assuming they actually know where they are at, in terms of fitness levels when they start the training. If they don't, then you are really just stabbing in the dark.
What the testing really shoots home is how that different paces, for different durations can illicit the same or very closely, levels of lactate. I guess most of us here understand that? I've said before, I'm totally not opposed to making things standard and a % of CV. I'm all for standardisation. But each rep length in terms of either time, or distance , would have its own % of CV based on the desired mmol.
As let's just use the 3 distances, on a really basic level. Let's go on the safest side, say 15k pace for 10x1k , let's say smack between 10 mile pace and what threshold velocity pace would be considered for 6x1600 and HM pace or a hair slower for 5x2k. You can definitely look back at HR and find patterns. I've had a look at random runs over the past 4-5 months. Peak HR, time in zone, % of LTHR, average HR at the end of each rep, all roughly the same. It would within the margin or error for the amateur for all of those combos. There's a ton more metrics I could look at in the PMC, in all honesty I haven't really played around in too much depth. This all matches up with what I've tested with the lactate meter, all of those average to about the same levels of lactate, on the last rep, even at the different paces and distances. (this is an average, obviously can vary day to day in single session isolation).
What the testing really shoots home is how that different paces, for different durations can illicit the same or very closely, levels of lactate. I guess most of us here understand that? I've said before, I'm totally not opposed to making things standard and a % of CV. I'm all for standardisation. But each rep length in terms of either time, or distance , would have its own % of CV based on the desired mmol.
Absolutely, made the same experience with the lactate.
We are still talking about the 'Norwegian system'. They have two staple workouts: 10x3min (1k) and 5x6min (6x5min). I like to write the first one with a duration value because this is the relevant pysiological variable not the km. In both cases we have 30min of total volume. So we have the total volume, we have the duration of the reps and we have the 60sec rest interval. That limits the number of combinations dramatically. If 30min of volume is enough for pros, maybe 20-25minutes as total volume is enough for the amateurs, by keeping the duration of the reps. The intensities i described in detail above.
At the end of the day, we all have a very good ballpark to start with, if we want to try that system.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Finally finished the thread just now on my lunch break! Boy was I glad I started it. I think I fully commited on page 3 and was glad I did. Bar JS as usual trying to mess it up and Lexels weird infatuation with CV, it was really, really good. Btw Lexel, I actually kind of understand what you mean. I think you just don't communicate very well maybe, or maybe you are a bit too married and anchored to CV. But I actually kind of see your point, I'm just not entirely convinced it's an improvement on anything offered here. In fact this thread was very simple to understand, which is the point. Bringing % of CV complicates it more I think for your average Joe than just saying run the 1ks at 15k pace or using the HRM solution offered. I stopped to Google and familiar myself with stuff like TSS, CTL and the PMC which didn't take long, then all that stuff made sense as well - I really learned something there and I am going to back catalogue my own data myself.
I think what sets this thread apart is anyone can do it. We often have ex sub elites or current saying "this is how you must train to run sub 15" . But they are talented, have only trained one way (usually not like this) and we have NO IDEA what they could have run, had they trained like this, arguably more optimally. Here we have spoc84 in particular, as well as others - who have COMPARISONS to other ways they have trained. That is the key difference. We have something to base this off. As often we have natural runners who say "this is how you must train" when actually, often, even being sub 15, I think "you could have done more". Lets not forget, spoc isn't slow. He's just run 35.50 or something like that. That's not slow. That's way above average, even for letsrun. The key takeaway is that it's been compared, to another way to train - we don't often get that and solid rationale for why this way is better via the overall training load talk. I have no idea where he sits in terms of being fast, for cycling, but seems faster to me than his running? So that's two sports he's trained to make him way above average, relatively the same way. That makes me sit up and notice.
Also I always enjoy shirtboys posts. Also very informative. Would love more little links like that , if possible. Hard2find, also really enjoyed your posts from the scientific point of view. What's great is you are all roughly on the same page - sharing ideas in real time and it makes a really awesome thread to read through. There's a book in it somewhere, for someone - or the main people involved in this thread. I've read much, much worse collaborations that have sold many copies by much less knowledgeable on the science or application of training.
Anyway, my 2 cents and I hope there is more to come, but even if not, someone already said it I think but this will be included down the line in the "must read" and HOF LRC threads.
Absolutely, made the same experience with the lactate.
We are still talking about the 'Norwegian system'. They have two staple workouts: 10x3min (1k) and 5x6min (6x5min). I like to write the first one with a duration value because this is the relevant pysiological variable not the km. In both cases we have 30min of total volume. So we have the total volume, we have the duration of the reps and we have the 60sec rest interval. That limits the number of combinations dramatically. If 30min of volume is enough for pros, maybe 20-25minutes as total volume is enough for the amateurs, by keeping the duration of the reps. The intensities i described in detail above.
At the end of the day, we all have a very good ballpark to start with, if we want to try that system.
I already just name dropped you in my previous post Lexel, then there you pop up. 10x3 min or 5x6 are staples in the double system for Norwegians , of course. But that's an hour + a day, twice a week plus a sick hill or 300m repeats on the track.
I prefer what spoc or KI does on singles, squeeze as much as you can. Into a week. In fact KI is doing even more , than spoc - he's probably doing 120 mins a week sub threshold and spoc more like 105. He is being trained by Henrik, who is coaching Jacob. You you can't get a bigger green light than this that if you are on singles, you push the envelope on that single session just a bit more, in terms of total time.
I hope you find my post in good spirits Lexel, I'm not trying on purpose to pick on you.
Finally finished the thread just now on my lunch break! Boy was I glad I started it. I think I fully commited on page 3 and was glad I did. Bar JS as usual trying to mess it up and Lexels weird infatuation with CV, it was really, really good. Btw Lexel, I actually kind of understand what you mean. I think you just don't communicate very well maybe, or maybe you are a bit too married and anchored to CV. But I actually kind of see your point, I'm just not entirely convinced it's an improvement on anything offered here. In fact this thread was very simple to understand, which is the point. Bringing % of CV complicates it more I think for your average Joe than just saying run the 1ks at 15k pace or using the HRM solution offered. I stopped to Google and familiar myself with stuff like TSS, CTL and the PMC which didn't take long, then all that stuff made sense as well - I really learned something there and I am going to back catalogue my own data myself.
I think what sets this thread apart is anyone can do it. We often have ex sub elites or current saying "this is how you must train to run sub 15" . But they are talented, have only trained one way (usually not like this) and we have NO IDEA what they could have run, had they trained like this, arguably more optimally. Here we have spoc84 in particular, as well as others - who have COMPARISONS to other ways they have trained. That is the key difference. We have something to base this off. As often we have natural runners who say "this is how you must train" when actually, often, even being sub 15, I think "you could have done more". Lets not forget, spoc isn't slow. He's just run 35.50 or something like that. That's not slow. That's way above average, even for letsrun. The key takeaway is that it's been compared, to another way to train - we don't often get that and solid rationale for why this way is better via the overall training load talk. I have no idea where he sits in terms of being fast, for cycling, but seems faster to me than his running? So that's two sports he's trained to make him way above average, relatively the same way. That makes me sit up and notice.
Also I always enjoy shirtboys posts. Also very informative. Would love more little links like that , if possible. Hard2find, also really enjoyed your posts from the scientific point of view. What's great is you are all roughly on the same page - sharing ideas in real time and it makes a really awesome thread to read through. There's a book in it somewhere, for someone - or the main people involved in this thread. I've read much, much worse collaborations that have sold many copies by much less knowledgeable on the science or application of training.
Anyway, my 2 cents and I hope there is more to come, but even if not, someone already said it I think but this will be included down the line in the "must read" and HOF LRC threads.
Yeah i think fundamentally what everyone tried to stress and underline is this is how to read and identify things yourself and within yourself rather than just blindly following a schedule.
I think we have all done that at some point for whatever reason and all have regretted it.
The takeaway, dont be us. Dont F around with your development until you are trying to train correctly as a master's athlete.
Stress your body intelligently and recover. And do it as often as you can. We get caught up way too much doing workouts that are withdrawals from our bank of fitness instead of deposits.
Absolutely, made the same experience with the lactate.
We are still talking about the 'Norwegian system'. They have two staple workouts: 10x3min (1k) and 5x6min (6x5min). I like to write the first one with a duration value because this is the relevant pysiological variable not the km. In both cases we have 30min of total volume. So we have the total volume, we have the duration of the reps and we have the 60sec rest interval. That limits the number of combinations dramatically. If 30min of volume is enough for pros, maybe 20-25minutes as total volume is enough for the amateurs, by keeping the duration of the reps. The intensities i described in detail above.
At the end of the day, we all have a very good ballpark to start with, if we want to try that system.
I already just name dropped you in my previous post Lexel, then there you pop up. 10x3 min or 5x6 are staples in the double system for Norwegians , of course. But that's an hour + a day, twice a week plus a sick hill or 300m repeats on the track.
I prefer what spoc or KI does on singles, squeeze as much as you can. Into a week. In fact KI is doing even more , than spoc - he's probably doing 120 mins a week sub threshold and spoc more like 105. He is being trained by Henrik, who is coaching Jacob. You you can't get a bigger green light than this that if you are on singles, you push the envelope on that single session just a bit more, in terms of total time.
I hope you find my post in good spirits Lexel, I'm not trying on purpose to pick on you.
Exactly and the 5x6min is on the low end or 'basic' threshold for them <2.5 mmol, so just some stress, and a little lactate production, but just turning the nervous system on where the PM session you are primed from the AM session now and chasing the adaptations from both a metabolic and efficiency standpoint.
I already just name dropped you in my previous post Lexel, then there you pop up. 10x3 min or 5x6 are staples in the double system for Norwegians , of course. But that's an hour + a day, twice a week plus a sick hill or 300m repeats on the track.
I prefer what spoc or KI does on singles, squeeze as much as you can. Into a week. In fact KI is doing even more , than spoc - he's probably doing 120 mins a week sub threshold and spoc more like 105. He is being trained by Henrik, who is coaching Jacob. You you can't get a bigger green light than this that if you are on singles, you push the envelope on that single session just a bit more, in terms of total time.
I hope you find my post in good spirits Lexel, I'm not trying on purpose to pick on you.
Exactly and the 5x6min is on the low end or 'basic' threshold for them <2.5 mmol, so just some stress, and a little lactate production, but just turning the nervous system on where the PM session you are primed from the AM session now and chasing the adaptations from both a metabolic and efficiency standpoint.
And to your point, if you want to push it as singles, volume has to go up slightly. Could start at 24 minutes total work per session, then extend to 30, then extend to 36 minutes, and further if youd like as long as you can handle the volume and the stress inside the session without tipping over.
That's the harder part when you start going over 30-36 minutes, you're turning over a lot of carbs and calories at that point and you better be sure you are properly fueled/fueling inside that session
Yeah i think fundamentally what everyone tried to stress and underline is this is how to read and identify things yourself and within yourself rather than just blindly following a schedule.
I think we have all done that at some point for whatever reason and all have regretted it.
The takeaway, dont be us. Dont F around with your development until you are trying to train correctly as a master's athlete.
Stress your body intelligently and recover. And do it as often as you can. We get caught up way too much doing workouts that are withdrawals from our bank of fitness instead of deposits.
You've nailed it. Even people running quick times, I see them making withdrawals they've previously deposited, before race day. It's insane. I always think the same as the other poster. You might be fast, congrats on your 16:xx but if you hadn't been an idiot you would have a high 15. That happens on the training threads here all the time. I think with the system yourself and the others have outlined is that you aren't spending in training . In fact it leaves you with a huge bank to cash in on race day. You might not have deposited in very big chunks, but it's all their in the bank ready to go.
I must be in the minority but I find Stryd to be very accurate for me. My estimated power usually marries up almost identical to my hr and pace zones. I have been using it for over a year so maybe it’s about being consistent with so it can learn your body more accurately. Just my 2 cents but i understand it has its limitations as well.
Now I feel like I'm spamming the thread , with so many replies. But I'm interested in this. Being a cyclist who always has used a power meter. I've tried a Stryd, maybe a couple years ago? Can't remember. But it was a while ago. Maybe they have improved? My issue was I could tell it was no good straight away. I ran out into a headwind and then back the other way - made sure I kept the pace the same in terms of actual speed. Can't remember what it was , let's just say 5:00/km both ways , but that doesn't matter. The point being it was really windy, it had me with the tailwind at like 300w I think and into the headwind for like 310w lol I sent it back there and then and just assumed running power was trash.
If you have any data to share would be really grateful and happy to give it another go and play around a bit with it.
For sure and let me know if what I’m about to share is not what you’re looking for. First to your point, power is very touchy, so you will see big increases going uphill and into a headwind. Second, you really have to commit to wearing it for a few months before the data will be useful. It’s very inaccurate at first when it’s learning about you. I use it every run, workout, warm up etc. and I noticed after about 3 months it was very accurate. For example, as a slow hobby jogger my LT pace is about 6:50 per mile and the corresponding power was 288 watts. I did a workout a few days ago and ran slightly faster than my usual LT pace and both my watches estimated threshold pace and my power increased accordingly. I also noticed that when it updated it was almost bang on my LTHR Hr of 164 when doing intervals. The critical power it estimates is essentially LT2. I find it useful to focus on a single metric rather than pace and hr at the same time. And of course is less invasive than the finger prick. Key takeaway is that it takes awhile of consistent use before you can expect good data.
For sure and let me know if what I’m about to share is not what you’re looking for. First to your point, power is very touchy, so you will see big increases going uphill and into a headwind. Second, you really have to commit to wearing it for a few months before the data will be useful. It’s very inaccurate at first when it’s learning about you. I use it every run, workout, warm up etc. and I noticed after about 3 months it was very accurate. For example, as a slow hobby jogger my LT pace is about 6:50 per mile and the corresponding power was 288 watts. I did a workout a few days ago and ran slightly faster than my usual LT pace and both my watches estimated threshold pace and my power increased accordingly. I also noticed that when it updated it was almost bang on my LTHR Hr of 164 when doing intervals. The critical power it estimates is essentially LT2. I find it useful to focus on a single metric rather than pace and hr at the same time. And of course is less invasive than the finger prick. Key takeaway is that it takes awhile of consistent use before you can expect good data.
Thanks for the detailed reply. This is what I can't get my head around, how it has any learning to do. Power is power, having come from a cycling background. It's literally plug and play. The only issue you have is variation between different power meters, but the one you plan to use for all your training works on the first day, the same it works on the last day. I'm guessing it must use stuff like heart rate and estimation in its "power" calculation .There was a Cyclops power meter maybe 7-8 years ago, that was aimed for cycling - which was basically a soft strap heart rate band - that did something similar, guesstimated power based on an algorithm they claimed to have made from thousands of users data. This sounds similar I guess .
Maybe I'll get one again, pop it on my shoe for a few months, forget about it and look it later. I'm very lucky though, I live in a flat area and can also run laps if I want to even out on the road, so that's another reason why pace was my first choice .