Good luck pacing a race to Garmin power. You are missing the key points. The numbers are NOT an even representation for most people or consistent.
Go run 300w into 25km/h winds on a Garmin or a Stryd and then turn around and try running 300w. The effort will be nowhere near the same, for most people. Go cycle 300w both ways and you will have paced a race perfectly. I do hope people actually understand this, because this is incredibly important and you will only really understand this is you have experienced both the good snd the bad.
There is really some poor advice in this thread from real maths boffins who have absorbed all of the theory, have confirmation bias on themselves as some people for neatly into being a test subject, but forget that for the majority of people it's trash.
You can tell the people who have used and understood what power actually is in a practical sense in other environments, versus runners who have picked up "power" and think it works.
That's actually not quite true because speed does not have a linear relationship to drag. The best pacing for a headwind/tailwind is generally higher wattage into the wind and then lower wattage with a tailwind. That being said, you can do some simple modeling with websites like bestbikesplit and use power to pace the race perfectly.
How come it's better to put more power going into the headwind than tailwind? I would've thought that putting more power into the headwind is less effective given the cost is non linear with velocity and you're going even further into the extreme. On the other hand, since you're going a little faster you'll reduce your time exposed to the headwind. It's not clear to me which effect is more important or if I'm missing something else.
You and I have a similar max HR and fitness. For reference I'm close to turning 52 and my max HR is 181. I would be pretty close to those paces at the same HR. I think you ran it near perfect for your first attempt. I've been doing this method for 3.5 months and I would say my "ideal" HR for the 3*10 is around 148, 153 and 156 (+/- 3 bpm per rep).
So I think you'll have some wiggle room to run them a bit faster, but of course doing 3 of these types of workouts per week is a totally different beast than 1, so better to start off on the conservative side. I think you'll find that you can occasionally dip over 160 bpm and recover just fine, but ideally you will not hit that until the final rep(s).
As many others have said throughout this thread, running the easy runs very easy is critical. For reference, my sweet spot easy pace HR tends to average in the 113-115 range (62-63% of max)...usually around 8:50-9:10 pace.
Good luck!
Good to hear confirmation I'm not messing this up as I have been with my training for the last two years. I have a habit of going a little harder than I intended and this go around I'm going to make a concerted effort to be slightly under target. I live in a very hilly area on the edge of the jungle so track running isn't an option. Be using HR during the run and power after the run which is precise (avg HR not real time ) when looked at over a 5+ minute interval.
I noticed on reddit and other places that this takes time. 6-8 weeks to see results. Been at this long enough to know that isn't the case or at least for me. I'll see results within a month if not sooner is my bet.
I could repeat yesterdays workout today with no problem. Think that is the how I should feel?
What do you mean by "relatively controlled conditions"? I live in a valley next to mountains and have both sections of flats and hilly terrain. I've taken it on the track, road, and trails, in both wind and calm conditions. It's always been 100% predictable for me. I've never been surprised by the number on my watch. Unfortunate it's been farcical for you, but it's been reliable for me.
Regarding wind at the foot, it's a problem I guess if you're running in areas with tall grass or obstacles that buffer wind effects at your feet. From what I understand, Stryd tested with a anemometer across different body types and took this into account. Agreed it's an estimation, but from my experience, the wind power it reports matches my exertion in the run. Again, I'm not surprised by the number. Here's their white paper on the subject (PDF):
Also, there is no standard to hold running power up to, so I'm not sure what you mean by "how accurate power can be". Running power can't and shouldn't be compared to cycling power IMO. Running is a 3-dimensional (horizontal, lateral, vertical) high-impact activity, where cycling is 1-dimensional (horizontal only) and low-impact. Running economy plays a large role into the reported power numbers and changes in your form during your run will be amplified.
It's just a neat gadget, but it's not power. That's probably the point. It's very good marketing from Stryd. You are, I think, arguing with one of the people who most understands what "real" power could bring to running (former hour record holder?) rather than this bastardization of it. Cycling power is the standard it should be held to. In that, if can replicate readings for any person, in all conditions, without anything ludicrous like having to account for the wind. That's just insane, really and why anyone thinks something with a little wind sensor is going to work on the foot is pure lol. Even if running and cycling are different, in should be applicable to all people, in any situation and read the same, but it does not do that and the way it works never will.
People keep linking papers but forget the incredible amount of people who have bought one and found it not to be anywhere near as good as any research suggests.
Stryd seems to fit a narrow range of people, which is great for them. But the algorithm sucks for a lot of us. I think most people's annoyance is the fact Stryd call it "power", which is obviously a joke to call it that. It's a fancy foot pod. Although, this is why they sell, "power" sounds better than "overpriced foot pod".
glad ppl are engaging on this with the main takeaway: the worst pedal or crank based power meter is way ahead of this ‘sensor’ that has issues if it rains or a hummingbird farts within a quarter of a mile
but yes, its decent on a treadmill, but of course needs user intervention even there to ‘tell’ it there’s an incline
Please provide a link to your Strava or Garmin account so we can look at your power numbers. How about a screen shot of your runs 1/7-1/9 so we know you didn't select runs that showed consistent power. My experience with power is that is perfect post run. If I run a route a few seconds faster the power is slightly higher. During the run HR is 10x better and less stressful to monitor vs power IMO. I wish power was an option during runs but it isn't for me but have hopes it has improved. Maybe your data would show how consistent it is now.
bottom line if youre on a treadmill and the environment is relatively controlled, use HR
you don’t need power or another sensor, you have the controlled environment variable and that is pretty easy at that point to figure out your effort or reverse engineer whether or not your treadmill is ‘hot’ or ‘cold’, assuming your switching them regularly
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
How did you determine those Reps? Do you know your threshold heart rate, have a recent race time or just go off RPE? I would have thought the heart rates could be a bit higher based on your max.
15% incline on a treadmill??? Is that a typo or are you deliberately trying to offload specific mechanical load?
I based the reps off my recent slowest HM that I listed above of 1:23. I want to be conservative and figured I could increase the paces in the coming months. The last couple of years I've been basing my TH runs off of the 1:16:30 HMs I was running five years ago at 53 and, as you would expect, hasn't produced good results. Not too bright. Todays reps my HR at the end was 159 which is close to my estimate of my LT2 HR (162). I listed average during each interval. Maybe my ending would have been better. Ending HR 150,156, and 159 for the last interval. As for the 15% TM, that is how I train on the treadmill. It works for me and almost eliminates injury risk. I actually walk and run depending on my mood and usually around 5-6 kph. I'm just getting volume doing something that closely resembles running.
Just started NSM and this is useful. My LTHR is around 178 (based on Friel test using last 20 minutes of the 30-minute test), but when I run my final rep is around 170, hoping I'm doing it right. Am doing 5x5 to build up with (1 day, then 2 days, then eventually 3 days) at ST. EZ days to fill in, around 135-140 bpm (10:00/mi.).
My reps start around 155-160 but by the end of the 5th set they were 170. I need to re-calibrate my Garmin zones too once I get more familiar with this training.
I based the reps off my recent slowest HM that I listed above of 1:23. I want to be conservative and figured I could increase the paces in the coming months. The last couple of years I've been basing my TH runs off of the 1:16:30 HMs I was running five years ago at 53 and, as you would expect, hasn't produced good results. Not too bright. Todays reps my HR at the end was 159 which is close to my estimate of my LT2 HR (162). I listed average during each interval. Maybe my ending would have been better. Ending HR 150,156, and 159 for the last interval. As for the 15% TM, that is how I train on the treadmill. It works for me and almost eliminates injury risk. I actually walk and run depending on my mood and usually around 5-6 kph. I'm just getting volume doing something that closely resembles running.
Just started NSM and this is useful. My LTHR is around 178 (based on Friel test using last 20 minutes of the 30-minute test), but when I run my final rep is around 170, hoping I'm doing it right. Am doing 5x5 to build up with (1 day, then 2 days, then eventually 3 days) at ST. EZ days to fill in, around 135-140 bpm (10:00/mi.).
My reps start around 155-160 but by the end of the 5th set they were 170. I need to re-calibrate my Garmin zones too once I get more familiar with this training.
Even after 6 months, I’m not trying to get up to close to threshold. Maybe I’ll be a little more determined to collect more time closer to threshold after 12 months, but honestly, I don’t think I need to be greedy.
I’m confident my max is 185 and LT is 170. I soft-cap the sessions to 165 but don’t freak if it nudges over. Typically a 30 minute session may have 30-60 seconds at 166/167 at the most. Still plenty of room, but again, I’m not greedy.
I aim for my first Rep topping out at about 155, when half of the session is done I should be ending the Reps at 160-165. I also don’t chase down those numbers at the beginning of each Rep, maybe after 90-120 seconds I’m getting close, so my average heart rate for the Rep is not particularly close to the max.
Looks good to me. You are running your easier days harder than me ( 60% vs 70% of maxHR ) and your TH sessions are further from LT2 than me. Might want to consider running 10:30-11:00/mi on easy days so you can quickly ramp up from one TH run to three.
Just finished the book. Really excellent, chapters on pacing and racing.
Question: As a UK expat I have to make do with sh**e US “candy”. No access to the Mars bars or choccie digestives that fuel Sirpoc’s amazing performances. Will this hold me back?
Just have a snickers and eat it upside down. Remember though, the di*k vein texture needs to be on your tongue.
I could repeat yesterdays workout today with no problem. Think that is the how I should feel?
It’s like that for me and I enjoy feeling fresh all the time. (Overload hoping for huge supercompensation never worked for me). Will be giving this at least 2 more months.
If you feel way underchallenged can always sneak in a parkrun or even time trial.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
I feel like this wasn't working and I bought into the hype. Have been at this 14 weeks and nothing. No race progress. Having down a boxing day parkrun and also one in mid December, all on the same course.
Just did a parkrun and ran 16:55. New PB down from 17:22. No indication this was even on the cards 😳
Almost feels like I cheated to do this. This is the most balanced I've felt in training, was going to take that as a win even if I didn't get better. But then, boooooooom sub 17 which has been a lifetime of work for me. The 7 days balanced over a week, month etc just feels the most doable combo of training I've ever done.
Also, used the incredible racing and pacing guide in the book. I feel like that was the most optimal run I could have done, given it's very windy here in the UK and used to to plan the race. Excellent stuff. Think how fast I'll be when i add in the mars bars?!
P.s I ran with a Stryd. I find it depends what shoes i use, also drastically changes things. So I wouldn't want to use it for pacing a good race like I just did. You will likely be all over the place. Not sure if others have found the shoe issue, to add to the king list of problems. But I'll echo it's great for winter treamills in generic gyms!
Thanks thread, thanks sirpoc but also all the people who drop in testimonials. Really helped to hold my nerves training this way, as clearly there's a period for a lot of us where not much happens. It's easy to just move onto something else if you don't have patience.
Christmas break was really good to me recovery-wise, with 10 hours sleep a day (8 hours at night + a mid morning nap) I felt unbelievably fresh on every run. I saw big gains in my easy and ST paces in just two weeks. Going back to work and hanging on for dear life with 5-6 hours of sleep has definitely caused a mini fitness setback. It's not the end of the world, but a noticeable increase in my easy and ST paces since returning to fulltime work. This has opened my eyes up to how big of an advantage the pros have over the amateur hobbyjogger. If you can get 12 hours of sleep a day you'll be feeling so fresh that recovery and progression will be off the scale.
So if anything, this highlights to me that a top-down approach to training for the amateur by copying elite athlete training plans and workouts is completely inappropriate. If you're getting half the recovery time as the pros, but still trying to squeeze in the key components of their training plans without the aerobic base to back it up you're going to be cooked.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
Christmas break was really good to me recovery-wise, with 10 hours sleep a day (8 hours at night + a mid morning nap) I felt unbelievably fresh on every run. I saw big gains in my easy and ST paces in just two weeks. Going back to work and hanging on for dear life with 5-6 hours of sleep has definitely caused a mini fitness setback. It's not the end of the world, but a noticeable increase in my easy and ST paces since returning to fulltime work. This has opened my eyes up to how big of an advantage the pros have over the amateur hobbyjogger. If you can get 12 hours of sleep a day you'll be feeling so fresh that recovery and progression will be off the scale.
So if anything, this highlights to me that a top-down approach to training for the amateur by copying elite athlete training plans and workouts is completely inappropriate. If you're getting half the recovery time as the pros, but still trying to squeeze in the key components of their training plans without the aerobic base to back it up you're going to be cooked.
Great post. Honestly, this can't be emphasized enough.
I see amateurs copying pro plans on half the sleep, let alone fitting on a work shift and then they seem surprised when they are fried.
I think this is why this all works so well. I've read the excellent book and basically it's stripped down to work from the bottom up. As in, a man who has a job, a life, a limited amount of time - what would be the best balanced training but also with the most amount of progress. It was designed for one person, but that person is basically an average hobby jogger in terms of what can be commited to running. Not a jot of care to what elites do and IMO rightly so. It's almost not the same sport, when you consider the handicaps hobby guys have in place.
It's also why a lot of the full time YouTubers are a terrible advert. They get good results, but when you think they have most of the benefits of a pro runner is taken into account, some of it is distinctly average.
Christmas break was really good to me recovery-wise, with 10 hours sleep a day (8 hours at night + a mid morning nap) I felt unbelievably fresh on every run. I saw big gains in my easy and ST paces in just two weeks. Going back to work and hanging on for dear life with 5-6 hours of sleep has definitely caused a mini fitness setback. It's not the end of the world, but a noticeable increase in my easy and ST paces since returning to fulltime work. This has opened my eyes up to how big of an advantage the pros have over the amateur hobbyjogger. If you can get 12 hours of sleep a day you'll be feeling so fresh that recovery and progression will be off the scale.
So if anything, this highlights to me that a top-down approach to training for the amateur by copying elite athlete training plans and workouts is completely inappropriate. If you're getting half the recovery time as the pros, but still trying to squeeze in the key components of their training plans without the aerobic base to back it up you're going to be cooked.
Yeah .... it's insane what a difference a week of work does, isn't it
Off course there are those that get up naturally at 5 am and get their running done going to work, but in general most people are sleep deprived on a continuous basis
Be as you say .. Many do like to pretend that we don't have any load on our bodies just from daily life and can just do what the pro's do :D
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.