I use the reported power as a data point along with speed and RPE during the interval. Looks at summarized lap data during rests as well. I’m just trying to avoid overcooking but most sessions don’t have winds strong/gusty enough to give a big issue for the Stryd.
So is there a situation where Stryd shows you power you know you shouldn't be able to hold but you feel good by RPE and speed is expected but you still slow down?
I am serious here, we had this debate in cycling many times. People swear by various metrics, be it HR, HRV or some new cool thing and the questions at the end are: "if you feel good but HRV says you are cooked, do you skip the session?" or "If you feel good, power is good but HR is higher than usual do you slow down?".
It's nice to have all the data and measurements but they are only useful if there exists a scenario where you would act differently without this exact data point available. If your power meter isn't 100% reliable imo you can't use it for those situations as you will always be second guessing yourself. "I feel good, everything is normal but this thing shows I am overdoing it". You need a lot of confidence in the thing to trust it as otherwise you will always be second guessing: "maybe there is wind today, maybe it acts out today" and you will overrule the decision based on other factors making the new thing useless.
In cycling PM is very useful for pacing. If you somehow feel very good and started your 10 minutes climb at 350W but you know your 10 minutes power is 320W you know you will not hold it no matter what your body tells you. If you feel like sh.t you know you will most likely hold at least 300W because the body has ways to deceive you and you were there many times.
To use the PM like that though it needs to be very reliable as otherwise you will never be able to overrule your feelings/RPE. If it acts out even once in 100 rides then it's useless (as in you will never use it when it matters).
For me it’s a too high reported power in gusty headwinds and too low in tail wind when doing interval. In rolling hills. It’s a “feel” as that all I have and no way to actually verify.
I wish Stryd was as a cycling power meter, but here we are.
For me it’s a too high reported power in gusty headwinds and too low in tail wind when doing interval. In rolling hills. It’s a “feel” as that all I have and no way to actually verify.
I wish Stryd was as a cycling power meter, but here we are.
I am a lurker who has used info/ideas from this thread as I slowly rebuild from injury. One of my complaints about an otherwise awesome approach is that it's overly technical. (As a former cyclist myself, I can't blame the OG for trying to figure out a system for running that is so easy to do in cycling thanks to power meters.)
The last couple of pages shows the problem with this approach. It is easy to get WAY too far into the weeds as someone tries to figure out the right way to run these workouts (whether for NSM or for double-T or for once-per-week "tempo" runs.)
I haven't yet read Bakken's book, but I have devoured everything he has written prior to the book, and I keep coming back to what I think is the single best piece of advice he offers about how to run these workouts correctly.
From one of his articles: "Few runners have access to lactate testing in training. Heart rate is the most practical substitute, but it should not be used alone. The talk test is a useful cross-check: at correct threshold intensity you should be able to speak in short sentences but not hold a comfortable conversation. Perceived effort tells you something too, though it is the least reliable of the three on its own."
It's really pretty simple. Pick a song lyric you like. If you can speak the entire thing, you are at the low end of threshold. If you can speak four or five words at a time, you are in the mid range of threshold. If you can speak a few words at a time, you are at the top of threshold. And if you can only speak one or two words at a time you are going to hard.
I suspect SirPoc and Bakken would agree: Stop worrying so much about specific numbers, and "feel the kung fu."
(Side note: This has the added benefit of allowing you to run your workouts pretty much anywhere you want, without a GPS watch. Maybe I'll call it the "Generation X Approach to NSM" or the "Timex Model for NSM.")
"Generation X Approach to NSM" or the "Timex Model for NSM"...
Agreed. There's a sweetspot between guessing/making it up and classic cyclist-type aggressive nerd. These last two pages stressed me out. I skimmed through r/strydrunning as someone mentioned it here and came out in hives. Wtf are people doing?
Someone on that sub put it nicely: the fastest you can run without straining. Flowing, not pressing. Yeah, validate that with HR and check paces against the book but, really, is it worth all that hassle to chase the last 5% if you're not a pro?
Someone here said Timex is being discontinued. I'd better stock up with 1 or 2 to cover the next 20-30 years, lol.
I've been doing NSM for 5 months, worked my way up to 111 minutes of sub T per week (3 x 37' Sessions). I came down with a bad illness and had to miss a handful of workouts. Coming back, part of me was wondering if I pushed it too much with the SubT.
I'm healthy again now, but considering doing straight vanilla NSM (10x3 / 5 x 6 / 3 x 10), a reduction of just about 20 minutes of Sub T per week. How much fitness should I expect to lose if I go this route? Any insight is appreciated!
For me it’s a too high reported power in gusty headwinds and too low in tail wind when doing interval. In rolling hills. It’s a “feel” as that all I have and no way to actually verify.
I wish Stryd was as a cycling power meter, but here we are.
I am a lurker who has used info/ideas from this thread as I slowly rebuild from injury. One of my complaints about an otherwise awesome approach is that it's overly technical. (As a former cyclist myself, I can't blame the OG for trying to figure out a system for running that is so easy to do in cycling thanks to power meters.)
The last couple of pages shows the problem with this approach. It is easy to get WAY too far into the weeds as someone tries to figure out the right way to run these workouts (whether for NSM or for double-T or for once-per-week "tempo" runs.)
I haven't yet read Bakken's book, but I have devoured everything he has written prior to the book, and I keep coming back to what I think is the single best piece of advice he offers about how to run these workouts correctly.
From one of his articles: "Few runners have access to lactate testing in training. Heart rate is the most practical substitute, but it should not be used alone. The talk test is a useful cross-check: at correct threshold intensity you should be able to speak in short sentences but not hold a comfortable conversation. Perceived effort tells you something too, though it is the least reliable of the three on its own."
It's really pretty simple. Pick a song lyric you like. If you can speak the entire thing, you are at the low end of threshold. If you can speak four or five words at a time, you are in the mid range of threshold. If you can speak a few words at a time, you are at the top of threshold. And if you can only speak one or two words at a time you are going to hard.
I suspect SirPoc and Bakken would agree: Stop worrying so much about specific numbers, and "feel the kung fu."
(Side note: This has the added benefit of allowing you to run your workouts pretty much anywhere you want, without a GPS watch. Maybe I'll call it the "Generation X Approach to NSM" or the "Timex Model for NSM.")
So you read the book but did not in your otherwise hard to understand post.
In the last 20 seconds of intervals I can count out loud to 15-18 seconds. This also takes into the account of counting to fast, so counting too fast is hopefully taken care of.
"Feel the Kung-Fu" sounds great in principle and it falls apart in practice when weather conditions get really bad. Here's an example: I am running a 10 minute interval and start out with a 15 mph tailwind. After I settle into the proper perceived pace, I start to do a talk test and find it's pretty close to feeling correct. But by then I'm in a crosswind, so I back off by an amount that should be correct. Unfortunately, there's a lag time in response to effort so I'm already turning into the wind by the time I realize I was going too hard. Now I really back off, but given the gusty nature of the wind my effort is waffling from too high to too low. In my part of the country, it's darn near impossible to reliably pace decently by feel in these conditions. And before you start recommending the treadmill, my garage is almost 90⁰ today... That's a non-starter. I understand others are frustrated by the issues they have experienced with Stryd. I get it as I REALLY wish the product delivered 100% on it's promises. But for me, on days like today, it provides me with a pretty darn reliable way of staying in the proper effort range during my workout. Most of my workouts will continue to be run with pace alone (I still measure power for data after the workout). Today, my average pace during 12 minute intervals was 23 seconds a mile slower than on a calm day. That's right about where it should be and my heart rate rose smoothly on each interval, finishing at 3 beats below my LtHR on the 3rd rep. Perfect? No. Good enough for some situations? Yes.
I've been doing NSM for 5 months, worked my way up to 111 minutes of sub T per week (3 x 37' Sessions). I came down with a bad illness and had to miss a handful of workouts. Coming back, part of me was wondering if I pushed it too much with the SubT.
I'm healthy again now, but considering doing straight vanilla NSM (10x3 / 5 x 6 / 3 x 10), a reduction of just about 20 minutes of Sub T per week. How much fitness should I expect to lose if I go this route? Any insight is appreciated!
30 mins a session is plenty for anyone (Ingebrigtsens, Bakken, Sirpoc) but obviously you know better
I've been doing NSM for 5 months, worked my way up to 111 minutes of sub T per week (3 x 37' Sessions). I came down with a bad illness and had to miss a handful of workouts. Coming back, part of me was wondering if I pushed it too much with the SubT.
I'm healthy again now, but considering doing straight vanilla NSM (10x3 / 5 x 6 / 3 x 10), a reduction of just about 20 minutes of Sub T per week. How much fitness should I expect to lose if I go this route? Any insight is appreciated!
30 mins a session is plenty for anyone (Ingebrigtsens, Bakken, Sirpoc) but obviously you know better
Of you read the books you would know that is not what they wrote.
"Feel the Kung-Fu" sounds great in principle and it falls apart in practice when weather conditions get really bad. Here's an example: I am running a 10 minute interval and start out with a 15 mph tailwind. After I settle into the proper perceived pace, I start to do a talk test and find it's pretty close to feeling correct. But by then I'm in a crosswind, so I back off by an amount that should be correct. Unfortunately, there's a lag time in response to effort so I'm already turning into the wind by the time I realize I was going too hard. Now I really back off, but given the gusty nature of the wind my effort is waffling from too high to too low. In my part of the country, it's darn near impossible to reliably pace decently by feel in these conditions. And before you start recommending the treadmill, my garage is almost 90⁰ today... That's a non-starter. I understand others are frustrated by the issues they have experienced with Stryd. I get it as I REALLY wish the product delivered 100% on it's promises. But for me, on days like today, it provides me with a pretty darn reliable way of staying in the proper effort range during my workout. Most of my workouts will continue to be run with pace alone (I still measure power for data after the workout). Today, my average pace during 12 minute intervals was 23 seconds a mile slower than on a calm day. That's right about where it should be and my heart rate rose smoothly on each interval, finishing at 3 beats below my LtHR on the 3rd rep. Perfect? No. Good enough for some situations? Yes.
We literally have people using whatever this method is, using a Timex and counting pulses apparently and still being successful.
As a Timex guy, the most obvious reason that this approach has worked for me is that I have the luxury of doing my workouts on either a track that is well sheltered from the wind, or on a completely flat loop that is also pretty sheltered from the wind. On top of that, I live in a part of the world that rarely gets humid, and I run at 7am, so heat is never a huge factor for me. This means that most of my running takes place in ideal conditions, and those conditions are replicable from week to week. I also like to race, so I'm never in the dark for very long about what my actual fitness looks like.
A big part of my curiosity about how far I can take this training without introducing extra technology is that I don't believe there should be much of a barrier of entry for a method that is at heart so simple. (Tell a casual runner about lactate testing and they will *never* think that this kind of training could possibly be for them.) So I guess I'm conducting an experiment on myself to see how fast I can get while keeping things simple. As a former HS runner who got chewed up by V02 max workouts in the 90s, I'd love to see some high school programs adopt this training, and the cost of outfitting entire cross country teams with heart rate monitors doesn't seem at all realistic.
(Full disclosure, I actually wear a decade-old Garmin w/o a heart rate sensor, not a Timex.)
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
"Feel the Kung-Fu" sounds great in principle and it falls apart in practice when weather conditions get really bad. Here's an example: I am running a 10 minute interval and start out with a 15 mph tailwind. After I settle into the proper perceived pace, I start to do a talk test and find it's pretty close to feeling correct. But by then I'm in a crosswind, so I back off by an amount that should be correct. Unfortunately, there's a lag time in response to effort so I'm already turning into the wind by the time I realize I was going too hard. Now I really back off, but given the gusty nature of the wind my effort is waffling from too high to too low. In my part of the country, it's darn near impossible to reliably pace decently by feel in these conditions. And before you start recommending the treadmill, my garage is almost 90⁰ today... That's a non-starter. I understand others are frustrated by the issues they have experienced with Stryd. I get it as I REALLY wish the product delivered 100% on it's promises. But for me, on days like today, it provides me with a pretty darn reliable way of staying in the proper effort range during my workout. Most of my workouts will continue to be run with pace alone (I still measure power for data after the workout). Today, my average pace during 12 minute intervals was 23 seconds a mile slower than on a calm day. That's right about where it should be and my heart rate rose smoothly on each interval, finishing at 3 beats below my LtHR on the 3rd rep. Perfect? No. Good enough for some situations? Yes.
Good grief! Who want to read that wall of text?
Read it or don't, I'm not concerned either way. And, I think the word you were looking for was "wants."
How do you guys control easy run intensity when it gets really hot? I'm not sure if heart rate is the same across conditions, especially since I get a ton of cardiac drift, and any heat and dewpoint conversions seem to underestimate the difference. I also struggle with RPE because any running outside at a certain temperature feels harder than all other running at lower temperatures because my body just can't cool itself off.
How do you guys control easy run intensity when it gets really hot? I'm not sure if heart rate is the same across conditions, especially since I get a ton of cardiac drift, and any heat and dewpoint conversions seem to underestimate the difference. I also struggle with RPE because any running outside at a certain temperature feels harder than all other running at lower temperatures because my body just can't cool itself off.
For easy runs in hot weather, I have a route that has up to 8 water stops in 7 miles. I run slow and take all the stops and don't worry too much about my watch on those days.
How do you guys control easy run intensity when it gets really hot? I'm not sure if heart rate is the same across conditions, especially since I get a ton of cardiac drift, and any heat and dewpoint conversions seem to underestimate the difference. I also struggle with RPE because any running outside at a certain temperature feels harder than all other running at lower temperatures because my body just can't cool itself off.
Soak the head and body with plenty of water regularly during the easy run. During an easy run that's not very long, that's more important than drinking during the run. (But of course, start really well hydrated.) Much of the cardiac drift comes from the blood flow getting redirected to the skin trying to cool it.
And skip any kind of tempo ambitions. The heat is a stressor on the body that must be accounted for.