Took some time off from the Marathon but realize I need to build my speed. I'm not that good at the marathon yet and it may take years to realize my potential. But a coach told me to focus on building speed and starting over at the bottom (5k) before working my way up.
Fascinated to see if the threshold training (even the singles) can work over time...Every other day EZ and the long run on Saturday should be good enough to start.
1K reps (usually 8-12 x 1K) with 60" rest at 10mi to 15K pace (7:23 to 7:09/7:16 average), 4:26-4:35 range/4:30 average total time 2K reps (usually 4-6 x 2K) with 60" rest at HM pace (7:31), 9:20 total time 3K reps (usually 3 x 3K) with 60" rest at 30K pace (7:41), 14:19 total time
This should be 10mi to 15k pace (7:23 to 7:20), 4:33-4:35 total time. I had put 10k pace in there (7:09) by accident and can't edit it.
Yeah, I suppose if you have info from a coach, you're probably working from a reasonable plan, especially if it's a very knowledgeable, experienced coach. As you work in speed, I hope you're able to at least maintain where you got your mileage during marathon training and that you're able to ease back before jumping into speed. I usually follow a pretty standard 4-week recovery plan after a marathon (resume running 3-5 days out, depending, with the first two weeks very light), and start strides again around 18-20 days out, light progression runs ending shy of MP around 24 days out -- with the 5th or 6th week out basically back to my average mileage for the 16-week cycle. Then depending on what I have coming up and whether I'm trying to increase mileage, I usually have at least a few weeks where workouts don't get faster than HMP, and I'm ready to start another cycle of harder training around 8-12 weeks after the marathon. I doubt you'd be detrained enough after 3 weeks to really delay a recovery return schedule by much (and obviously extra rest and recovery can be very good, especially if you need a mental break or have to take care of some relatively minor aches and pains), but I hope you're ramping up at a good rate. Good luck.
Yeah i have a Stryd and i would probably take RPE over it 9/10 days.
Cute gadget, but got a long long way to go to rival a cycling power metric
This is a great post. The dude clearly doesn't understand power in running is not actually measuring anything. Whereas cycling it's actually measuring a force. He probably doesn't understand this. Whilst a running Stryd is cool, it's no better or worse at this point than hr or pace. This isn't cycling levels of accuracy yet. It's cute the dude thinks he's so on the money with this though.
Nice thread though , I've learned a bit myself. Nice to see you post again here shirtboy, along with sirpoc and a few of the others early on, really enjoyed your contributions.
This is a great post. The dude clearly doesn't understand power in running is not actually measuring anything. Whereas cycling it's actually measuring a force. He probably doesn't understand this. Whilst a running Stryd is cool, it's no better or worse at this point than hr or pace. This isn't cycling levels of accuracy yet. It's cute the dude thinks he's so on the money with this though.
Nice thread though , I've learned a bit myself. Nice to see you post again here shirtboy, along with sirpoc and a few of the others early on, really enjoyed your contributions.
In my experience, Stryd is far better than HR for effort. Running power is getting there and Stryd is better than all others.
You obviously don’t understand basic physics. Stryd uses acceleration and velocity to calculate power. While it’s not measuring what YOU think is important, its measurements are repeatable and correlates over 0.9 R-square with VO2 (from my own data).
For the point of this thread, Stryd would be my primary tool to control intensity. But I’ve been using Stryd and cycling power for a while and understand things conceptually.
You've spent all this time trashing anything else anyone proposes then you literally suggest running power as more valuable than HR. Running power is literally a pure algorithm guesswork at this point, even mentioning the watch wrist power is so ridiculous you have totally exposed yourself as having zero idea what you are talking about. Literally time to bow out of the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
Running power is measurably more consistent than HR and it has been demonstrated that some wrist watches, like the COROS models, track almost exactly with Stryd. You can call it guess work yet their estimated CP/CS matches almost exactly with 'real' CP/CS, regardless of if specific time trials are done.
Results Running at the calculated CS3TT speed (3.88 [0.44] m·s-1) elicited an average Stryd running power (271 [28] W) not different from the calculated CP3TT (270 [28]; p=0.940; d=0.02), with excellent agreement between the two values (ICC=0.980). The CS2TT (3.97 [0.42] m·s-1) was not significantly higher than CS3TT (3.89 [0.44] m·s-1; p=0.178; d=0.46); however, CP2TT (278 [29] W) was significantly greater than CP3TT (p=0.041; d=0.75).
Purpose Although running traditionally relies on critical speed (CS) as an indicator of critical intensity, portable inertial measurement units (IMUs) offer a potential solution for estimating running mechanical power to asse...
CPSTRYD 302 ± 58 W was not different (p = 0.34) compared with CPCALC 305 ± 60 W (Figure 1a). No bias was evident (Figure 1b). The TOST procedure (CPCALC – CPSTRYD, p = 0.34, Cohen’s d = 0.09 and CPSTRYD – CPCALC, p = 0.66, Cohen’s d = 0.09) confirmed that the two critical power estimates can be considered statistically equivalent
In conclusion, CPSTRYD generated from outdoor running is equivalent to that calculated using an established CP model. CPSTRYD appears to most similar in intensity to VT2 or OBLA and may offer a useful guide for training intensity distribution or polarised training. CPSTRYD is highly predictive of running performance although laboratory-based data are superior predictors.
Stryd is a foot pod that reliably estimates running power. Our objectives were to examine the efficacy of the website-generated Stryd critical power (CP[STRYD] ) as a meaningful parameter for runners. 20 runners performed the...
Your anecdotal experience doesn't change this fact and it's irrelevant that it's not a cycling power meter. Even if you were right, which you're not, no one at any point presented evidence against the claim that LTHR isn't valid and it was the other party that moved the goal post to the point of derailment while feigning confusion.
You've spent all this time trashing anything else anyone proposes then you literally suggest running power as more valuable than HR. Running power is literally a pure algorithm guesswork at this point, even mentioning the watch wrist power is so ridiculous you have totally exposed yourself as having zero idea what you are talking about. Literally time to bow out of the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
Running power is measurably more consistent than HR and it has been demonstrated that some wrist watches, like the COROS models, track almost exactly with Stryd. You can call it guess work yet their estimated CP/CS matches almost exactly with 'real' CP/CS, regardless of if specific time trials are done.
Results Running at the calculated CS3TT speed (3.88 [0.44] m·s-1) elicited an average Stryd running power (271 [28] W) not different from the calculated CP3TT (270 [28]; p=0.940; d=0.02), with excellent agreement between the two values (ICC=0.980). The CS2TT (3.97 [0.42] m·s-1) was not significantly higher than CS3TT (3.89 [0.44] m·s-1; p=0.178; d=0.46); however, CP2TT (278 [29] W) was significantly greater than CP3TT (p=0.041; d=0.75).
CPSTRYD 302 ± 58 W was not different (p = 0.34) compared with CPCALC 305 ± 60 W (Figure 1a). No bias was evident (Figure 1b). The TOST procedure (CPCALC – CPSTRYD, p = 0.34, Cohen’s d = 0.09 and CPSTRYD – CPCALC, p = 0.66, Cohen’s d = 0.09) confirmed that the two critical power estimates can be considered statistically equivalent
In conclusion, CPSTRYD generated from outdoor running is equivalent to that calculated using an established CP model. CPSTRYD appears to most similar in intensity to VT2 or OBLA and may offer a useful guide for training intensity distribution or polarised training. CPSTRYD is highly predictive of running performance although laboratory-based data are superior predictors.
Your anecdotal experience doesn't change this fact and it's irrelevant that it's not a cycling power meter. Even if you were right, which you're not, no one at any point presented evidence against the claim that LTHR isn't valid and it was the other party that moved the goal post to the point of derailment while feigning confusion.
Use what you want, boss. I've used it. Im not blown away by it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it.
HR is easier, more reliable, and has spot on alignment for what I use it for -- I really never thought this was a controversy.
You really should let the endurance community know that 95% of them are wasting their time wearing straps and collecting all of this useless data.
Are you a Stryd Rep or something? Because you are literally screaming into the wind with these pieces of trivia that no one gives an S about
Running power is measurably more consistent than HR and it has been demonstrated that some wrist watches, like the COROS models, track almost exactly with Stryd. You can call it guess work yet their estimated CP/CS matches almost exactly with 'real' CP/CS, regardless of if specific time trials are done.
Your anecdotal experience doesn't change this fact and it's irrelevant that it's not a cycling power meter. Even if you were right, which you're not, no one at any point presented evidence against the claim that LTHR isn't valid and it was the other party that moved the goal post to the point of derailment while feigning confusion.
Use what you want, boss. I've used it. Im not blown away by it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it.
HR is easier, more reliable, and has spot on alignment for what I use it for -- I really never thought this was a controversy.
You really should let the endurance community know that 95% of them are wasting their time wearing straps and collecting all of this useless data.
Are you a Stryd Rep or something? Because you are literally screaming into the wind with these pieces of trivia that no one gives an S about
Running power is measurably more consistent than HR and it has been demonstrated that some wrist watches, like the COROS models, track almost exactly with Stryd. You can call it guess work yet their estimated CP/CS matches almost exactly with 'real' CP/CS, regardless of if specific time trials are done.
Your anecdotal experience doesn't change this fact and it's irrelevant that it's not a cycling power meter. Even if you were right, which you're not, no one at any point presented evidence against the claim that LTHR isn't valid and it was the other party that moved the goal post to the point of derailment while feigning confusion.
Use what you want, boss. I've used it. Im not blown away by it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it.
HR is easier, more reliable, and has spot on alignment for what I use it for -- I really never thought this was a controversy.
You really should let the endurance community know that 95% of them are wasting their time wearing straps and collecting all of this useless data.
Are you a Stryd Rep or something? Because you are literally screaming into the wind with these pieces of trivia that no one gives an S about
Actually just found my Friel test from 2020 -- my LTHR was actually very accurate.
I'd use that HR as a nice ceiling all day for threshold efforts.
Use what you want, boss. I've used it. Im not blown away by it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it.
HR is easier, more reliable, and has spot on alignment for what I use it for -- I really never thought this was a controversy.
You really should let the endurance community know that 95% of them are wasting their time wearing straps and collecting all of this useless data.
Are you a Stryd Rep or something? Because you are literally screaming into the wind with these pieces of trivia that no one gives an S about
Your opinion has no bearing on reality and does not refute anything I have posted. You may have your own ideas for determining your training intensity using heart rate to the point where you think it's superior to a demonstrable very close estimation of the boundary of the heavy-severe domain but that isn't the case and you shouldn't cry for simplicity while using something more confusing and inaccurate.
Curious that not one person here posted their specific protocol for their tea leaf reading and said at what point they would take HR over another metric like RPE assuming conflicting information. If they wouldn't, then it is "useless data" in the sense that it's not being used to inform their training decisions and they are wasting their time monitoring it in real time. You would rather further move the goal posts than address this inconvenient idea.
Use what you want, boss. I've used it. Im not blown away by it. And I wouldn't recommend anyone to use it.
HR is easier, more reliable, and has spot on alignment for what I use it for -- I really never thought this was a controversy.
You really should let the endurance community know that 95% of them are wasting their time wearing straps and collecting all of this useless data.
Are you a Stryd Rep or something? Because you are literally screaming into the wind with these pieces of trivia that no one gives an S about
Your opinion has no bearing on reality and does not refute anything I have posted. You may have your own ideas for determining your training intensity using heart rate to the point where you think it's superior to a demonstrable very close estimation of the boundary of the heavy-severe domain but that isn't the case and you shouldn't cry for simplicity while using something more confusing and inaccurate.
Curious that not one person here posted their specific protocol for their tea leaf reading and said at what point they would take HR over another metric like RPE assuming conflicting information. If they wouldn't, then it is "useless data" in the sense that it's not being used to inform their training decisions and they are wasting their time monitoring it in real time. You would rather further move the goal posts than address this inconvenient idea.
well that's very sweet of you to say!
i do have my own ideas.
I didnt know this was a debate between you and I, but since you insist on rules lawyering and berating ppl and demanding ppl do X and Y to prove or disprove X,Y,Z, you clearly think this is some debate.
If that is really adding logs to your fire, cool.
As if what someone posts is going to satisfy your desperate need for attention here.
what im using is neither confusing or inaccurate, but believe whatever you would like.
I have a mountain of data on myself, with multiple different modalities, so im really not concerned if you think i know or not know what you are talking about. No one else does either.
What it is actually measuring is of no consequence, it's statistically equivalent to real CP/CS and it does not require doing time trials. What don't you get?
What it is actually measuring is of no consequence, it's statistically equivalent to real CP/CS and it does not require doing time trials. What don't you get?
What it’s measuring is of no consequence
wow, taking the award for dumbest contribution to this thread
’yes, id like to do this complicated experiment. what are we measuring? well thats just F ing magic!’
I didnt know this was a debate between you and I, but since you insist on rules lawyering and berating ppl and demanding ppl do X and Y to prove or disprove X,Y,Z, you clearly think this is some debate.
If that is really adding logs to your fire, cool.
As if what someone posts is going to satisfy your desperate need for attention here.
what im using is neither confusing or inaccurate, but believe whatever you would like.
I have a mountain of data on myself, with multiple different modalities, so im really not concerned if you think i know or not know what you are talking about. No one else does either.
So you have exactly zero evidence for your claim that HR is superior to any other metric and you aren't even brave enough to post your "protocol", likely because it doesn't exist. Now if you and the other cultists would simmer down, I'm sure there is something more interesting that someone else could talk about.
You've spent all this time trashing anything else anyone proposes then you literally suggest running power as more valuable than HR. Running power is literally a pure algorithm guesswork at this point, even mentioning the watch wrist power is so ridiculous you have totally exposed yourself as having zero idea what you are talking about. Literally time to bow out of the thread before you embarrass yourself further.
Running power is measurably more consistent than HR and it has been demonstrated that some wrist watches, like the COROS models, track almost exactly with Stryd. You can call it guess work yet their estimated CP/CS matches almost exactly with 'real' CP/CS, regardless of if specific time trials are done.
Results Running at the calculated CS3TT speed (3.88 [0.44] m·s-1) elicited an average Stryd running power (271 [28] W) not different from the calculated CP3TT (270 [28]; p=0.940; d=0.02), with excellent agreement between the two values (ICC=0.980). The CS2TT (3.97 [0.42] m·s-1) was not significantly higher than CS3TT (3.89 [0.44] m·s-1; p=0.178; d=0.46); however, CP2TT (278 [29] W) was significantly greater than CP3TT (p=0.041; d=0.75).
CPSTRYD 302 ± 58 W was not different (p = 0.34) compared with CPCALC 305 ± 60 W (Figure 1a). No bias was evident (Figure 1b). The TOST procedure (CPCALC – CPSTRYD, p = 0.34, Cohen’s d = 0.09 and CPSTRYD – CPCALC, p = 0.66, Cohen’s d = 0.09) confirmed that the two critical power estimates can be considered statistically equivalent
In conclusion, CPSTRYD generated from outdoor running is equivalent to that calculated using an established CP model. CPSTRYD appears to most similar in intensity to VT2 or OBLA and may offer a useful guide for training intensity distribution or polarised training. CPSTRYD is highly predictive of running performance although laboratory-based data are superior predictors.
Your anecdotal experience doesn't change this fact and it's irrelevant that it's not a cycling power meter. Even if you were right, which you're not, no one at any point presented evidence against the claim that LTHR isn't valid and it was the other party that moved the goal post to the point of derailment while feigning confusion.
These two studies had a total of 30 participants. one had 10 one had 20.
Of the one that had 20, they could not even do all the tests because of COVID, but still made conclusions nonetheless.
From the second article:
"A major limitation from our study was that COVID restrictions prevented a single time trial. Thus, for our outdoor trials, participants encountered varying running conditions that we are unable to control for such as different weather, temperature and courses. Nevertheless, even with this limitation, CPSTRYD was highly predictive of outdoor performance. It must also be noted that our runners could not have feasibility raced one another in any meaningful way. Even a 1500 m track based time trail would result in some participants being lapped more than once. We believe this heterogeneity of our population can also be considered a strength as runners are not a homogenous group and running power will appeal to many runners of different abilities. Predictive measures such as VO2peak are more predictive of performance in heterogenous populations [33]. A homogenous group such as elite runners would be likely to generate weaker relationships with Stryd than we have found. This also warrants further research. One possible limitation is that we did not determine MLSS and this also would be one area for further research. Also, a possible limitation is that while CPSTRYD was statistically equivalent to CPCALC, some participants recorded differences between the two estimates. Coaches and runners need to remain aware that CP estimates are highly influenced by both trial protocols and the mathematical models employed [15]. Even when using the same protocol and model a ~5% day to day variance should be expected"
So a 5% variation day to day is expected between a normal CP estimate and the Stryd algo, but you think HR is very unreliable?
I didnt know this was a debate between you and I, but since you insist on rules lawyering and berating ppl and demanding ppl do X and Y to prove or disprove X,Y,Z, you clearly think this is some debate.
If that is really adding logs to your fire, cool.
As if what someone posts is going to satisfy your desperate need for attention here.
what im using is neither confusing or inaccurate, but believe whatever you would like.
I have a mountain of data on myself, with multiple different modalities, so im really not concerned if you think i know or not know what you are talking about. No one else does either.
So you have exactly zero evidence for your claim that HR is superior to any other metric and you aren't even brave enough to post your "protocol", likely because it doesn't exist. Now if you and the other cultists would simmer down, I'm sure there is something more interesting that someone else could talk about.
LOL
wow read the most recent post you silly silly troll
I didnt know this was a debate between you and I, but since you insist on rules lawyering and berating ppl and demanding ppl do X and Y to prove or disprove X,Y,Z, you clearly think this is some debate.
If that is really adding logs to your fire, cool.
As if what someone posts is going to satisfy your desperate need for attention here.
what im using is neither confusing or inaccurate, but believe whatever you would like.
I have a mountain of data on myself, with multiple different modalities, so im really not concerned if you think i know or not know what you are talking about. No one else does either.
So you have exactly zero evidence for your claim that HR is superior to any other metric and you aren't even brave enough to post your "protocol", likely because it doesn't exist. Now if you and the other cultists would simmer down, I'm sure there is something more interesting that someone else could talk about.
again, you are just all over the place to try to prove a point no one cares about.
Protocol for what? How I put the strap on before my run?
The problem with the Stryd seems to be it assumes or has programmed in what your CDA likely is, based on your height and weight. Whilst I'm sure, there's less varied frontal dynamics in running over cycling, it still poses a huge issue. For me, when I'm running into the wind at pretty much the same effort as with the tailwind, the reading is different. Say 275w versus 325w. Whereas on a bike it would obviously read 300w both ways. The issue being, you can't say it averages out, as you will be running into the wind, for longer than the tailwind, so even over say 1k in each direction, your data is flawed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any way to change this.
Whereas with a cycling power meter, this isn't an issue. It has no idea or anything other than the force going through the cranks or pedals (depending on what meter you have). In fact, you can actually then do the opposite, which is calculate your CDA based on power, versus conditions , wind, crr, etc. so it's actually really useful and obviously repeatable.
The issue with my wrist power, is ironically it seems to be better at into the wind versus out of the wind. But it's incredibly reliable on the watches elevation data. My Garmin, sometimes spikes in elevation. Which obviously is a huge issue, as suddenly you are doing 500w. You can smooth the data out in golden cheetah after (which I've done) but ultimately, on the go it makes the readings useless, or at best no better than HR or pace.
It's unfortunate, nothing is ideal and I wish power is better. This is coming from someone who used exclusively power for cycling, to the point I didn't use any heart rate data for about 5 years. But the usability for it for running, that whilst fun and interesting to play with (I've collected so much data), I wouldn't be making it my primary tool, as much as I want to. HR for me is a decent tool, as the conditions I run in are neither too extreme either way. Whilst pace is great, as I live in a totally flat area.
What exactly is your argument and how does that support your claim that HR is more valid?
You even read that wrong "when using the same protocol and model a ~5% day to day variance should be expected". This means it's almost impossible to do the same test twice at maximal effort and get the exact same result, a shocking conclusion.
What exactly is your argument and how does that support your claim that HR is more valid?
You even read that wrong "when using the same protocol and model a ~5% day to day variance should be expected". This means it's almost impossible to do the same test twice at maximal effort and get the exact same result, a shocking conclusion.
Cute, that you think that saves your cheerleading here.
30 ppl in two experiments and you think me thinking HR is 'valid' is n=1
HR is a physiological parameter. Stryd pod is not.
If you dont understand how to use HR, i guess you just dont understand that parameter -- totally fine.
move along please
8
1
The man who's name stars with a K and rhymes with Friday
