if both velocities are above or both velocities are below CV not much difference.
So why did you say it makes a huge difference? At some point you are close enough and worrying about a couple seconds doesn't matter. You do the workout and adjust based on how it goes
if both velocities are above or both velocities are below CV not much difference.
So why did you say it makes a huge difference? At some point you are close enough and worrying about a couple seconds doesn't matter. You do the workout and adjust based on how it goes
i try it different:
6-8 x 1000m @102% CV pace is a complete different training load as 6-8 x 1000m @98% CV if we agree to this critical pace theory. In the first case you are in the severe training zone and in the other case you are in the heavy training zone. That is a hudge difference as above CV your VO2 increases continuously heading toward VO2max which is not the case below CV pace.
There is no training @CV! You are crossing the boarder or not. Thats the reason why a training description like 6-8 x 1000m @CV (=100%CV) is a bad training intensity description, because how do you consider the supercompensation time if you don't know at which intensity your athlete has trained? That can lead to an overload.
So why did you say it makes a huge difference? At some point you are close enough and worrying about a couple seconds doesn't matter. You do the workout and adjust based on how it goes
i try it different:
6-8 x 1000m @102% CV pace is a complete different training load as 6-8 x 1000m @98% CV if we agree to this critical pace theory. In the first case you are in the severe training zone and in the other case you are in the heavy training zone. That is a hudge difference as above CV your VO2 increases continuously heading toward VO2max which is not the case below CV pace.
There is no training @CV! You are crossing the boarder or not. Thats the reason why a training description like 6-8 x 1000m @CV (=100%CV) is a bad training intensity description, because how do you consider the supercompensation time if you don't know at which intensity your athlete has trained? That can lead to an overload.
So why did you say it makes a huge difference? At some point you are close enough and worrying about a couple seconds doesn't matter. You do the workout and adjust based on how it goes
i try it different:
6-8 x 1000m @102% CV pace is a complete different training load as 6-8 x 1000m @98% CV if we agree to this critical pace theory. In the first case you are in the severe training zone and in the other case you are in the heavy training zone. That is a hudge difference as above CV your VO2 increases continuously heading toward VO2max which is not the case below CV pace.
There is no training @CV! You are crossing the boarder or not. Thats the reason why a training description like 6-8 x 1000m @CV (=100%CV) is a bad training intensity description, because how do you consider the supercompensation time if you don't know at which intensity your athlete has trained? That can lead to an overload.
Newt and I agree with fkkf above. As the difference gets smaller, yer theory approaches being disproved.
So why did you say it makes a huge difference? At some point you are close enough and worrying about a couple seconds doesn't matter. You do the workout and adjust based on how it goes
i try it different:
6-8 x 1000m @102% CV pace is a complete different training load as 6-8 x 1000m @98% CV if we agree to this critical pace theory. In the first case you are in the severe training zone and in the other case you are in the heavy training zone. That is a hudge difference as above CV your VO2 increases continuously heading toward VO2max which is not the case below CV pace.
There is no training @CV! You are crossing the boarder or not. Thats the reason why a trainin description like 6-8 x 1000m @CV (=100%CV) is a bad training intensity description, because how do you consider the supercompensation time if you don't know at which intensity your athlete has trained? That can lead to an overload.
Again what is the training effect difference? Giving something a different name doesn't change much. In the real world yeah there is a slight stress difference. But it is also down at the level or weather, prior days training and lunch. Worrying about if you are running +-5s a mile is a level of precision that you just can get without blood tests and direct vo2 measurement.
Again what is the training effect difference? Giving something a different name doesn't change much. In the real world yeah there is a slight stress difference. But it is also down at the level or weather, prior days training and lunch. Worrying about if you are running +-5s a mile is a level of precision that you just can get without blood tests and direct vo2 measurement.
At least we agree that there is a different stress load.
I guess you mean 'Worrying about if you are running +-5s a mile is a level of precision that you just can't get without blood tests and direct vo2 measurement.'. That is exactly my point: leave a small gap around CV pace, that is the solution to this problem.
The question is does a training at 98% CV generate more training stimulation as 95%CV a little longer?? Interestingly 95% CV is about the classical LT60 (60minutes). Maybe most of us do it right already.