In 2021 his first recorded park run was on 14th August at 21:34 (which I think he discusses on the pod cast and on this thread) and within 7 weeks he was down to 19:32
First broke 19 mins on 9th July 2022 (40 weeks after first sub 20) First broke 18 mins on 11th Feb 2023 (31 weeks after first sub 19) First broke 17 mins on 23rd Sept 2023(32 weeks after first sub 18) First broke 16 mins on 9th March 2024 (24 weeks after first sub 17)
Last 5 park run times, in order have been 15:54, 15:56, 15:26, 15:41, 15:16 (last park run was Feb 2025)
Just to compare this to the mileage machine Nick Bester. Who runs every day way too fast and turns up at park run for a "full send" very often
It’s funny to me, but while others are amazed at this progression, it looked normal to me… my first ever 5k was 22:xx and I progressed as follows…
(exact times lost to the years)
1997 - 19:5x
1998 - 17:5x
1999 - 16:4x
2000 - 15:3x
First year running in college I ran 14:5x
Very different thing for a teenager to have this progression vs an adult pushing 40
I’m not trying to be facetious, but why? I was an untrained 14 year old when I started with a couple seasons of rec league baseball under my belt. I wasn’t a particularly active kid but I was skinny, so maybe that helped?
He was, from what I can tell, a pretty serious cyclist who took up running later in life. He had a pretty solid head start on me. Maybe one would expect his initial times to be better, but it does take time to develop running mechanics/economy.
Sure, you will probably develop a good sense of RPE throughout the process but thats a byproduct of doing the work correctly first and foremost
RPE is king. I don’t care what your target paces are, RPE will control your actual paces.
Doing the work correctly entails having RPE reflect the work. If you can’t feel the work properly, you have no idea if it’s correct. I know thats a little abstract, but it’s the reality.
So, how do you know the work you are doing is correct? Some arbitrary pace chart you guys came up with?
you keep oscillating between precision and vibes here
ask anyone in cycling why FTP works — every anchor point is arbitrary
you keep oscillating between precision and vibes here
ask anyone in cycling why FTP works — every anchor point is arbitrary
Well, that’s the crux of the issue. We are balancing feeling with targeting work rate. It’s an art. And it’s a skill to be able to identify where you are in relationship to your failure limit or other threshold.
Ask anyone in cycling what FTP is and they’ll tell you some wrong answer. FTP is a concept and not a value. You feel FTP, you dont calculate it. Go over to Trainerroad forum. Most are lost in the sauce. Most hobby cyclists are bad at training too.
But max metabolic steady state isn’t arbitrary. It’s a thing you can observe and feel. However, that’s the part nearly everyone has trouble with. They use poor correlation or bad estimates for mmss and then wonder why pages are wonky.
you keep oscillating between precision and vibes here
ask anyone in cycling why FTP works — every anchor point is arbitrary
Well, that’s the crux of the issue. We are balancing feeling with targeting work rate. It’s an art. And it’s a skill to be able to identify where you are in relationship to your failure limit or other threshold.
Ask anyone in cycling what FTP is and they’ll tell you some wrong answer. FTP is a concept and not a value. You feel FTP, you dont calculate it. Go over to Trainerroad forum. Most are lost in the sauce. Most hobby cyclists are bad at training too.
But max metabolic steady state isn’t arbitrary. It’s a thing you can observe and feel. However, that’s the part nearly everyone has trouble with. They use poor correlation or bad estimates for mmss and then wonder why pages are wonky.
And here I thought that you actually had a good grasp on things . . .
FTP is a power-based estimate of maximal metabolic steady state. Like other such estimates (e.g., MLSS), it is subject to both biological and technological variability (mostly the former), but that doesn't make it any less "real". More importantly, it isn't something determined simply by "feel".
This is where you are missing my point. If you dont understand feeling FTP vs calculation or estimate, then we have issues.
I can give you 20 different calculations for FTP that fit your data. I can have you perform 10 different field tests. Which value is the correct value?
This is the part where most people get lost. The map is not the territory (thanks, Andy).
you keep oscillating between precision and vibes here
ask anyone in cycling why FTP works — every anchor point is arbitrary
Well, that’s the crux of the issue. We are balancing feeling with targeting work rate. It’s an art. And it’s a skill to be able to identify where you are in relationship to your failure limit or other threshold.
Ask anyone in cycling what FTP is and they’ll tell you some wrong answer. FTP is a concept and not a value. You feel FTP, you dont calculate it. Go over to Trainerroad forum. Most are lost in the sauce. Most hobby cyclists are bad at training too.
But max metabolic steady state isn’t arbitrary. It’s a thing you can observe and feel. However, that’s the part nearly everyone has trouble with. They use poor correlation or bad estimates for mmss and then wonder why pages are wonky.
OK, so lets just level set here:
You think the concept of MMSS or MLSS or whatever is not arbitrary but 'observable' even though there's about i dont know how many definitions (im sure A Coggan will be letting you know momentarily), but FTP is not a value?
And you think there's confusion about what FTP is but not about Metabolic Steady State?
And here I thought that you actually had a good grasp on things . . .
FTP is a power-based estimate of maximal metabolic steady state. Like other such estimates (e.g., MLSS), it is subject to both biological and technological variability (mostly the former), but that doesn't make it any less "real". More importantly, it isn't something determined simply by "feel".
I do, actually.
FTP is most definitely a feeling. Your 7 deadly sins demonstrate that. Sure, it’s a field testing concept, too.
You admonish people who use lactate to determine mmss. MMP modeling is fraught with error. So if you dont try to feel (RPE), how are you determining it?
This is where you are missing my point. If you dont understand feeling FTP vs calculation or estimate, then we have issues.
I can give you 20 different calculations for FTP that fit your data. I can have you perform 10 different field tests. Which value is the correct value?
This is the part where most people get lost. The map is not the territory (thanks, Andy).
youve buried the lead long ago here
its FUNCTIONAL threshold power not FEELING threshold power
And here I thought that you actually had a good grasp on things . . .
FTP is a power-based estimate of maximal metabolic steady state. Like other such estimates (e.g., MLSS), it is subject to both biological and technological variability (mostly the former), but that doesn't make it any less "real". More importantly, it isn't something determined simply by "feel".
I do, actually.
FTP is most definitely a feeling. Your 7 deadly sins demonstrate that. Sure, it’s a field testing concept, too.
You admonish people who use lactate to determine mmss. MMP modeling is fraught with error. So if you dont try to feel (RPE), how are you determining it?
ok Yoda
seems like you are either losing the plot completely or not reading your own posts back to yourself for logical editing at this point
You think the concept of MMSS or MLSS or whatever is not arbitrary but 'observable' even though there's about i dont know how many definitions (im sure A Coggan will be letting you know momentarily), but FTP is not a value?
And you think there's confusion about what FTP is but not about Metabolic Steady State?
You're really not making a logical argument here
Let me try to clarify.
MMSS/MLSS is observable and is correlated with a work rate (which in the field can be called FTP). FTP is not a single value. It’s a transition phase. It’s a feeling. Just because bunch of academics make a bunch of geometry (Dmax, etc) to analyze a lactate curve doesn’t mean those constructions are any good at identify real phase changes.
And yes, there’s extreme confusion on both FTP and MMSS.
You think the concept of MMSS or MLSS or whatever is not arbitrary but 'observable' even though there's about i dont know how many definitions (im sure A Coggan will be letting you know momentarily), but FTP is not a value?
And you think there's confusion about what FTP is but not about Metabolic Steady State?
You're really not making a logical argument here
Let me try to clarify.
MMSS/MLSS is observable and is correlated with a work rate (which in the field can be called FTP). FTP is not a single value. It’s a transition phase. It’s a feeling. Just because bunch of academics make a bunch of geometry (Dmax, etc) to analyze a lactate curve doesn’t mean those constructions are any good at identify real phase changes.
And yes, there’s extreme confusion on both FTP and MMSS.
MMSS/MLSS is observable and is correlated with a work rate (which in the field can be called FTP). FTP is not a single value. It’s a transition phase. It’s a feeling. Just because bunch of academics make a bunch of geometry (Dmax, etc) to analyze a lactate curve doesn’t mean those constructions are any good at identify real phase changes.
And yes, there’s extreme confusion on both FTP and MMSS.
then its not 'Functional' its something else
youve just described exactly what FTP is not
It's 'observable' how? With a protocol. How do we get FTP? with a protocol.
Coggan has a book out, which a lot of us own -- feel free to point to any page in there as a reference to support anything you just said
You are describing a different model for exercise intensity distribution, obviously.
It's 'observable' how? With a protocol. How do we get FTP? with a protocol.
Coggan has a book out, which a lot of us own -- feel free to point to any page in there as a reference to support anything you just said
You are describing a different model for exercise intensity distribution, obviously.
I use Andy’s 7 deadly sins often in power analysis. Are those strict protocols?
I’m using threshold as my intensity anchor, just like a majority of those here.
Andy Coggan wrote: ..er, ways of determining your functional threshold power (roughly in order of increasing certainty):
1) from inspection of a ride file. 2) from power distribution profile from multiple rides. 3) from blood lactate measurements (better or worse, depending on how it is done). 4) based on normalized power from a hard ~1 h race. 5) using critical power testing and analysis. 6) from the power that you can routinely generate during long intervals done in training. 7) from the average power during a ~1 h TT (the best predictor of performance is performance itself)
So again, i think no ones quite sure the loose connection between your comments and the comments of others