Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Yeah, it's not standardized. Stryd can pick whatever they want to display as your CP and they are obviously running it through their own algo. From my experience, CP is close to 10k pace/power, somewhere around 35 minutes. LT2 is maybe 93-95% of that.

This title should be renamed "Modifying the slow runner's approach to lowr mileage"

Hello, Nick!

Seems like as good a time as any to post this.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Critical power: How different protocols and models affect its determination - PubMed

Estimations from CP3-hyp were found to be the most accurate, independently of TTE range. Models that include two trials between 12 and 20min provide good agreement with the criterion method (for both CP and W').

Open link

Stryd copied Golden Cheetahs ExtendedCP model from the git.

In my experience, with long enough efforts, CP from several models and mlss will align nearly exactly for me based on lactate testing. And I’ve raced several races of almost an hour at CP.

This is one of the problem using performance-based/math metrics (CP) to perform training that’s trying to aim for a specific metabolic state (sub-threshold).

I like this paper. The author has multiple papers discussing CP and testing.

It should illustrate that CP can be meaningful if used in context. However, if you just calculate some random CP value and then don’t verify it as reasonable, its just as bad as using some race time +xx seconds to determine paces.

You can also hop on instagram, look up "Runstrong Coach". Has some reels with REALLY solid information on training at different points in builds/periodization phases as well as general RT for distance runners.

Depending on the runner and their needs, typically I would include:

Heavy compund (squat; trap dead), unilateral strength (split squat; lunge; step up var), high-impact plyo (box jump; depth drop var), corrective accessory (hip flexor pulls, iso hold variations, depends on prev. injury), low impact plyo (pogo variation, skips).

Problem?

So where are you confused exactly?

Wait until Coggan finds out this guy thinks there are many ways to estimate FTP. He will be back quicker than lexel now CP has come up.

Say each of their names 2 more times....and the battle of the articles and geolocation access to those articles can be reborn

All this time he didnt realize FTP is really like a stream of consciousness, man!

Doesn't the man himself think that there are least 7 ways?

Perhaps he was being ambiguous?

I think he'd point you to the 'functional' part of the FTP acronym and likely say

'there's no threshold, its a continuum -- the best predictor of performance is performance itself. despite all the other methods for 'estimation' the best way is understanding it from the repeatability of your training'

So no hard line, but within the day to day variations his approach keeps you in the 'continuum' more often than not for effectively training a maximum metabolic steady state

But that's just conjecture

Functional I think is key, if you use FTP in a way that works for you, great. As long as it provides a function for you.

I have always though, hoped Coggan would draw a line in the sand and define what FTP is, in his mind, for posterity. Is it a hour effort? Is it a 40km time trial? Suddenly that in itself is ambiguous.

For me, that's an hour probably, maybe 1:02-03 and I'm not the worst cyclist ever. For non humans like sirpoc84, he can cover that distance in almost sub 48 mins. OK, sure, is it worth fretting over? Maybe, maybe not. But, I've always wanted to know, as a keen Tri guy.

Maybe Coggan will return one day and finally give an answer. Someone did ask, way back when he was posting. But I got the impression he didn't like being put on the spot. He likes to dictate the narrative.

Do you mean sarcastic?

I have a question for people using % of MHR to determine easy or other paces. What is your 5% of MHR and in which scenario do you have 5% of MHR?

If I'm at 5% MHR I'm probably bleeding out and about to die...

I'm not sure if its possible to have 5% MHR to be honest, which is why it makes absolutely no sense for me to use % of MHR. Isn't Heart rate reserves (HRR), where its actually possible to have 0% HRR more accurate to use? Where did this 70% of MHR come from? Because its definitely not 70% of my heart's capacity, if we assume that my HR can't be lower than my resting heart rate unless I'm dead?

Looking at my easy pace, I average 72% of MHR which is equivalent of 64% of HRR. Not that it matters as my view on easy is as slow are required to recover and be ready for the rest of the week. But I am not sure I like the 65 of 70% of MHR being prescribed for easy runs in this thread.