For example, what if you like to explore new places via running when you travel?
The bottom line is that pace works fine on flattish terrain on consistent surfaces (and shoes) when it isn't horribly, horribly windy. Going by power improves on the first part, but surface and wind can still be problematic.
No. Accelerometers and other sensors are used to determine the power required to create motion.
This is incorrect. Accelerometers measure acceleration, which is the change rate of speed, i.e. pace.
Speed in turn is the change rate of location. So for example by using integration of vertical acceleration data, you can calculate the gradient you're on.
Semantics. When people say "pace", they're thinking distance over ground.
Try this: jog in place while wearing a Stryd and tell me that it is really only just measuring "pace".
I know what he has told us and seems like a good guy. With his ability, you really think he was stuck at 19 minutes? He was 38 yo at the time with a great endurance base If he went directly from cycling to running. At 51 I was easily running 5ks under 17 in a year and that was after a terrible cycling accident that thrashed my lungs and lots of broken bones.
Where are all his Strava runs before appearing on LetsRun in July of 2023? Maybe there are only the few he posted and that would explain not being able to lower his PR.
I do think he would be close to his current PR using traditional training. It isn't magic and he would tell you as much. It is a solid plan that focuses on what matters most and is simple. I've been doing almost what he is doing for the last 2 years and it has destroyed my performance. I run my TH runs slightly too fast and I got a tiny bit slower each month. His plan if done correctly eliminates that imperfection.
To be honest, you ignored the comment. You are holding people to the standards you expect, based on your own experience. The fact that you can run a 17 at 51 is absolutely irrelevant to where sirpoc was. I agree with the other poster by the way about responders. A pattern seems to emerge. As I'm also I think a low initial responder but have a high ceiling that this training seems to tap into.
I think for an above-average adult with enough base to step into NSM, going from 18 to 15 in 2 years is, in fact, a miracle. Something like 21 to 18 or 20 to 17 is probably a better argument for realistic improvement over 2 years, particularly for people moving from 5 day per week boom/bust training cycles with seasonal dips to steady year-round training.
I posted many moons ago. I went from 20 to 18 in a year, another 9 months on training exactly the same as vanilla, I've gone from 18 to 16:20. No miracles. Just hard work and A LOT of consistency.
This is incorrect. Accelerometers measure acceleration, which is the change rate of speed, i.e. pace.
Speed in turn is the change rate of location. So for example by using integration of vertical acceleration data, you can calculate the gradient you're on.
Semantics. When people say "pace", they're thinking distance over ground.
Try this: jog in place while wearing a Stryd and tell me that it is really only just measuring "pace".
I made no statement about what a Stryd does or doesn't.
(Almost) everyone here understands the difference between an accelerometer (a measurement device), and stryd (a product) as well as the difference and dependency between position, speed, and acceleration.
don’t worry about running power and just use pace for training.
What if it is hilly where you live?
Seriously you chose to quote that part only? Missing the part about random number generator as it’s not consistent.
I used power for 5 years (along with HR, pace and SMO2) attempting to get it to work but there is zero consistency on hills, either up or down over routes that I ran almost every day does pace, when compared to heart rate, SMO2 or even effort, the power numbers where wildly different each time.
we all agree that if there was something better we would, likely cycling where I could go 50mph downhill without peddling for running if I stop moving my legs my pace is 0.
Therefore pace is king still, using GAP was move accurate on hills even though that’s floored than power.
(Almost) everyone here understands the difference between an accelerometer (a measurement device), and stryd (a product) as well as the difference and dependency between position, speed, and acceleration.
Obviously nomore4s doesn't, as he thinks that power is calculated from pace (measured how? GPS I guess).
You (and others) claim that it's a "random number generator", but science disagrees.
Of course, science also disagrees with the belief that ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19, that vaccines cause autism, that wind turbines cause cancer, that contrails are chemtrails, etc., etc., etc., but here we are.
You (and others) claim that it's a "random number generator", but science disagrees.
Of course, science also disagrees with the belief that ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19, that vaccines cause autism, that wind turbines cause cancer, that contrails are chemtrails, etc., etc., etc., but here we are.
Good luck with that. You can’t convince these people.
I actually enjoy the YouTube scene. But I'm always surprised by how slow they are, many basically have unlimited time to train. Fenton still not breaking 30 on 16 hours a week split between running and cycling in recent times? It's the sort of load just about nobody with a normal job can manage. Let alone the recovery. Same with Bester.
This isn't a criticism. I'm just curious as to how some of these "full time" guys aren't better, considering the advantages they have.
But then again, I guess these days you get less and less sub elites like the old days, doing normal jobs. Maybe life is just busier or these guys don't shout about it? There's nobody really out there in hobby land where I think "wow, that's impressive considering they also do X as a living and in those hours". In the old days, this just seemed more of a regular thing.
You (and others) claim that it's a "random number generator", but science disagrees.
Of course, science also disagrees with the belief that ivermectin can be used to treat COVID-19, that vaccines cause autism, that wind turbines cause cancer, that contrails are chemtrails, etc., etc., etc., but here we are.
What are you talking about? I’ve had 3 versions of Stryd pods and replacements of each due to failures, yet you think only your opinions are valid? I can say that each pod of the same version operates differently, I can say that for the same conditions in real life (outside of a lab) that values are 5%+/- different on any given day in real operation on non flat terrain.
i can disagree with you and you can disagree with me, but this was my findings for power, pace via the pods were rock solid consistency even if each pod had a different offset and within each pod it varied per shoe.
i even spoke to the team when they were at the London marathon expo pre covid which led them pushing a beta before race day.
I love the entitlement that because you must be right I’m a conspiracy theorist, how wrong you, you have no idea of my field of expertise but that the point isn’t it with anonymous forum handles
I'm talking about the fact that your personal anecdotes mean nothing to anyone who understands science.
And yes, of course, power and pace generally parallel each other very closely (except, of course, when you run uphill or downhill, on differing surfaces, or in really strong winds). That's just the way the physics works. It doesn't mean that Stryd (or anyone else) calculates power from pace.
I'm talking about the fact that your personal anecdotes mean nothing to anyone who understands science.
And yes, of course, power and pace generally parallel each other very closely (except, of course, when you run uphill or downhill, on differing surfaces, or in really strong winds). That's just the way the physics works. It doesn't mean that Stryd (or anyone else) calculates power from pace.
Wrong. Sweetspot training in cycling is defined something in the area around 88-94%FTP. As FTP sits around 90% of CP (critical power), traditional cycling sweetspot training happens around 80%-85% CP, give or take. Sirpocs training is above 90%CV and has therefore not much to do with traditional cycling sweetspot training
Usual estimate is FTP = 96% of CP. Sirpoc's training is exactly sweet spot in cycling sense. Running power is well approximated by speed in m/s = power in W/kg equation. Look at the book or people training with NSM and you will see it's sweet spot.
I mean it's in the name "sub-threshold". It's not rocket science.
I'm talking about the fact that your personal anecdotes mean nothing to anyone who understands science.
And yes, of course, power and pace generally parallel each other very closely (except, of course, when you run uphill or downhill, on differing surfaces, or in really strong winds). That's just the way the physics works. It doesn't mean that Stryd (or anyone else) calculates power from pace.
I never said i didn’t understand the science and I do perfectly well, the science also says to get fast you should only do vo2max workouts because it’s easily measure and no one does this training.
There can be a difference in practice application than science and theory and this is why so many medicines never see the light of day.
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.