Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Re: the power discussion

Have never used Stryd, but

runningwithpower.com

Running with Power - RunPowerModel

RunPowerModel is a wrist-based running power meter for Garmin watches, in the form of a data field that integrates seamlessly into your existing activity profiles. And before you start wondering, it is for free! RunPowerModel...

Open link

seems fairly usable and repeatable for me running outdoors over varied terrain, particularly when combined with a Garmin chest strap with integrated run pod, and nobody has mentioned it yet so I figured I'd throw it out there. Noticeably more responsive than heart rate and therefore useful for not overcooking it on smaller hills, for instance. Garmin native power seems much spikier and also consistently higher, and both RunPowerModel and Garmin power seem quite a bit more prone to weird spikes when using wrist only. I heard Markus's podcast with Scott Johnston and was reasonably convinced that he'd thought about some things the other players hadn't.

It seems consistently offset by 50w or so compared to my cycling power for a given effort, but I'm also probably more developed as a runner than a cyclist, and in any event I can work with a consistent offset without too much trouble.

What are the opinions on reducing the rest period on the 6 min and 10 min reps to 60 secs, and dropping the paces to keep heart rate in check?

I understand that this has worked for some.

Link reader makes this read somewhat ambiguously, but I meant "Have never used Stryd, but Run Power Model (link) has been reasonably usable and repeatable, etc"

As the guy who kept asking about Garmin wrist-based power, I can say after trying to run with it as my primary metric for 6 workouts, I'm done with it. The first 3 workouts I had wind data enabled, and it worked fine, as long as there was no wind. The second 3 workouts I had wind data disabled, and it worked fine, as long as there was no wind! It's too much of a black box to be predictable, and I stand corrected - using the charts in the book is simpler. I wanted it to just be something that could wrap up pace and elevation into a more responsive metric than GAP, but it also takes things like GCT and vertical oscillation into account. On today's run, my GCT dropped by about 9 ms due to a strong tailwind. This resulted in a lower power calculation, which would have had me running close to 5K pace to hit my power target.

My main concern was hills, which I encounter frequently in races and think that I run sub-optimally (too fast uphill, too slow downhill). I plan to just go with the lap pace and switch to a screen with GAP if I encounter a significant hill.

Garmin is probably the worst, Stryd in the middle and the coros newer models probably the best for power outside in my experience.

Having said all that, the reason I saw sirpoc post on Reddit for using pace is the most convincing.

You may as well train to pace, as that really is the only way you can pace a race, due to the erratic nature of power for most of us in various situations. So you can use pace in training, to practice pacing for races. It's really quite simple, logical and makes sense.

I travel for work, so my Stryd is decent at jumping from treadmill to treadmill. Different shoes can affect it though I have found, as I know others have too. It's very useful for this though. But obviously just about nobody in their right mind is going to trust it to pace an A race.

The whole Stryd thing is a shame. As I agree with some of the stuff on the Reddit group. Instead of debating why it doesn't work for a large proportion of people consistently, it would be nice to have open discussion about % of race paces etc. But the fact nobody in the real world can even agree it works in even slightly complex situations for it to handle, shows that it's still just a fancy but useful foot pod.

I start each Rep after my heart rate has dropped to a certain level rather than wait a certain period of time. Not essential or better, I just like comparing each Rep through the session. I chose 120BP which is lower than my Easy run heart rate. I walk my recoveries so my 6 minute Reps would be less than 60 seconds recovery. 3 minute Rep are mostly around 50 seconds. I’m not suggesting this to others.

My hr drops less after each rep. if using a set hr, each rest interval would be longer than the one before.

If you want to calculate running power, placing the accelerometer on the foot will always be most precise. Wrist-based approaches such as this one therefore really shouldn't be compared to Stryd.

if we're modeling the runner as a mass on a spring, why not put the accelerometer at the runner's approximate center of mass (as with the garmin run dynamics pods or chest straps with integrated accelerometry, that both run power model and garmin wrist power can use if you have them)?

You can suggest it to others to test it . It's great!

Cheeto dust with a 4:27 mile at altitude. No strides. Not even 1k reps, shortest he goes is mile reps. Insanely impressive at his age.

I would not label it as a beginner method. It might even be an advanced method for some. Most elites need other training stimulus but some may not. Honestly, I'm not sure but for AG runners,most here, it can produce great results for obvious reasons.

It is simple and hits the areas that get you 98% ready to race. Throw in some sharpening a few weeks before a race or not. Sirpoc's story doesn't add up but his plan makes sense and really don't care. He was a good/great cyclist that would have been a good/great runner without NSM. His story sells and I just shrug off this aspect and giving it an honest try because it eliminates some of my failure points.

Agreed, crazy to use it for pacing a race or any run IMO but incredibly accurate for segments of a run over 5 minutes. Great gauge for me to see where I'm at because the power numbers are so consistent and if I'm holding 325 without blowing up, I know I'm fit. I have a lake dam that is flat and a college track but hose are over 1 hour round trips. Looking back 4 years, my power precisely matches my fitness and can be seen every run regardless of pace. Wish it worked on treadmills at inclines which is all my treadmill running.

So you have basically described power working in situations that pace probably would. (Hey guess what, I got fitter and in that time my pace I could hold on flat ground at faster paces, it's a miracle!)

And then describing power not working, in situations where you might actually need it. If ever there was an advert for a Stryd being trash, this is it.

What do you mean story sells? He randomly turned up on a forum and make a few posts about his struggles with running. It's hardly the long con. The thread basically bullied him into writing a book, rather than vice versa.

The most interesting thing to me about the whole thing, is that he simply applied the same principles that got him fit before in another sport. Sure, he was breaking 19 in a 5k off Daniels training. But that's hardly spectacular. So something was sub optimal and he problem solved his way out of it.

I fall myself into that category, I was running around low 19s for years and years. Mixture of different classic programs. I'm down to a high 16. Does my story not add up? It's probably for many of us just a result of really, really sub optimal training and swapping it for something much more optimal, long term and with a proper balance in mind to fit into a working dad's lifestyle.

There's absolutely no conceivable way I could have ever broken 17 another way. Not in a million years. Why? Because I tried just about everything else. Does that make it the best training ever. Of course not. But it absolutely is for me.

Insanely impressive. Also, great race bait for the wizard, Magness and co. BuT WhAt AbOuT SpEeD.

If I’m doing 10 x 3, half those recoveries will be closer to 50 seconds the others closer to 60 seconds. The only reason I do this is so I can later compare the heart rate profile of each Rep as they will all start from the point. There is absolutely no reason to do this, I’m only doing it for my own satisfaction.

Because the damping effect of soft tissues between the sole of the foot and the location of the sensor make it more challenging to determine what's happening with respect to contact with the ground.

Logic isn't your strong suit, is it?