You mean Coggan? How can I be both Andy and Lexel, as well as everyone else you disagree with online? I would suggest you and Drexel try anti-psychotics but knowing the age of some of the posters here I suspect what we're seeing is dementia.
You posted a silly article about cardiac drift of sub elite marathoners. marathoners. no way! you get cardiac drift in steady state exercise after 2 hours?!?! who would know that but you!
Again that made the point, somehow, that power is more reliable than HR/lactate. How? cardiac drift.
Who were the subjects 2h30-3h40 marathoners
”the main limitations of this study concern” try reading that area
What a strange hill to die on, what was found in the study i.e. the constant increase in heart rate throughout the race despite the constant or declining marathon effort pace, including the beginning, is entirely consistent with what is known about cardiac drift. Again, it's typical to see it approximately 10 minutes after the onset of moderate intensity exercise, especially in warm weather and >VT1 intensity. This isn't my opinion, it's the scientific consensus, and not something that you would be seriously questioning outside a desperate attempt to grasp at straws after you made a series dumb posts in an increasingly garbage thread. Literally read the Wikipedia article on it if nothing else because it confirms everything I've said about it and links to sources you will never attempt to read, because you don't care that you're wrong, you care that I'm right.
Cardiovascular drift (CVD, CVdrift) is the phenomenon where some cardiovascular responses begin a time-dependent change, or "drift", after around 5–10 minutes of exercise in a warm or neutral environment 32 °C (90 °F)+ withou...
ffs man, how many times in this thread has it been pointed out about controlling variables. everyone knows this. you IGNORE because you think that strengthens your ‘point’
read that section. about as bogus as it gets for a scientific paper. two groups of ppl, two separate marathons, from Strava files, no idea what the HRMs were, then the kicker:
“
The main limitations of this study concern the inability to control the physical conditions of the race (slope of the land, wind speed, etc.) and of the subjects (integration, supplementation, hydration, caffeine, cardiotonic substances, etc.).”
The question of cardiac strain arises when considering the emerging class of recreational runners whose running strategy could be a non-optimal running pace. Heart rate (HR) monitoring, which reflects exercise intensity and e...
let me know of any other strava comparisons you want to sponsor. i think this thread spun off a whole group. but you’d probably just S on all that data because, you know, cardiac drift
ffs man, how many times in this thread has it been pointed out about controlling variables. everyone knows this. you IGNORE because you think that strengthens your ‘point’
read that section. about as bogus as it gets for a scientific paper. two groups of ppl, two separate marathons, from Strava files, no idea what the HRMs were, then the kicker:
“
The main limitations of this study concern the inability to control the physical conditions of the race (slope of the land, wind speed, etc.) and of the subjects (integration, supplementation, hydration, caffeine, cardiotonic substances, etc.).”
Stunning terrible argument, you outdone yourself. It's a limit of the study itself(spoilers: they all have them), it doesn't at all disprove decoupling over both short and long durations and in both neutral or warm conditions, which is a known and undisputed phenomena you implied didn't exist and couldn't possibly be a factor. The fact that they're from different races in different conditions means it's harder for you point to any one thing, like grade or a heat wave, and use it an excuse to deny what any serious runner already knows exists and can impact their HR.
You're actually making a case against using heart rate, because you cannot in the real world control for all the different variables that greatly impact it, more so than the other metrics. Baka.
let me know of any other strava comparisons you want to sponsor. i think this thread spun off a whole group. but you’d probably just S on all that data because, you know, cardiac drift
You mean the Strava group that includes the runners here who told you first hand they experience it over short durations and that they don't use HR to prescribe intensity, instead preferring other metrics? lmao
ffs man, how many times in this thread has it been pointed out about controlling variables. everyone knows this. you IGNORE because you think that strengthens your ‘point’
read that section. about as bogus as it gets for a scientific paper. two groups of ppl, two separate marathons, from Strava files, no idea what the HRMs were, then the kicker:
“
The main limitations of this study concern the inability to control the physical conditions of the race (slope of the land, wind speed, etc.) and of the subjects (integration, supplementation, hydration, caffeine, cardiotonic substances, etc.).”
Stunning terrible argument, you outdone yourself. It's a limit of the study itself(spoilers: they all have them), it doesn't at all disprove decoupling over both short and long durations and in both neutral or warm conditions, which is a known and undisputed phenomena you implied didn't exist and couldn't possibly be a factor. The fact that they're from different races in different conditions means it's harder for you point to any one thing, like grade or a heat wave, and use it an excuse to deny what any serious runner already knows exists and can impact their HR.
You're actually making a case against using heart rate, because you cannot in the real world control for all the different variables that greatly impact it, more so than the other metrics. Baka.
right. all studies have limits. limits are one thing. this is an answer to a question that surprises no one about a uncontrolled group of ppl you know nothing about other than
1. than ran one of two race
2. posted it on strava
3. i guess have HR data
This is not a case against HR this is a case of idiots seeing a ‘paper’ and thinking they have some special knowledge.
let me know of any other strava comparisons you want to sponsor. i think this thread spun off a whole group. but you’d probably just S on all that data because, you know, cardiac drift
You mean the Strava group that includes the runners here who told you first hand they experience it over short durations and that they don't use HR to prescribe intensity, instead preferring other metrics? lmao
yes. run 1 hr easy at a fixed HR. you should be able to do that if you are running easy. just a almost flatline
if you cant do that you dont know what an easy run is. and, again, you’re confusing ‘drift’ with ‘stress’
right. all studies have limits. limits are one thing. this is an answer to a question that surprises no one about a uncontrolled group of ppl you know nothing about other than
1. than ran one of two race
2. posted it on strava
3. i guess have HR data
This is not a case against HR this is a case of idiots seeing a ‘paper’ and thinking they have some special knowledge.
4. the mean had almost immediate decoupling that you have not refuted and instead have implied it's due to external factors impacting HR that couldn't be controlled for so you're no longer even arguing a coherent point.
yes. run 1 hr easy at a fixed HR. you should be able to do that if you are running easy. just a almost flatline
Another failed attempt at moving the goal posts. We were talking about maximal effort time trials and the impact of decoupling on the mean value for LTHR and then how that could impact a subthreshold effort of a longer duration if using it to prescribe intensity i.e. you would have to slow down over the course of many runs vs. you wouldn't if prescribing using another metric. Yes it is possible to run at an intensity low enough that decoupling isn't even a confounder, assuming more mild conditions, yet it's irrelevant.
You may not agree with me, that's fine, but you should save everyone else from your inane attempt at denying a physiological reality and go about your life. If you continue to sh!t up this thread, it will only be to my amusement.
right. all studies have limits. limits are one thing. this is an answer to a question that surprises no one about a uncontrolled group of ppl you know nothing about other than
1. than ran one of two race
2. posted it on strava
3. i guess have HR data
This is not a case against HR this is a case of idiots seeing a ‘paper’ and thinking they have some special knowledge.
4. the mean had almost immediate decoupling that you have not refuted and instead have implied it's due to external factors impacting HR that couldn't be controlled for so you're no longer even arguing a coherent point.
yes. run 1 hr easy at a fixed HR. you should be able to do that if you are running easy. just a almost flatline
Another failed attempt at moving the goal posts. We were talking about maximal effort time trials and the impact of decoupling on the mean value for LTHR and then how that could impact a subthreshold effort of a longer duration if using it to prescribe intensity i.e. you would have to slow down over the course of many runs vs. you wouldn't if prescribing using another metric. Yes it is possible to run at an intensity low enough that decoupling isn't even a confounder, assuming more mild conditions, yet it's irrelevant.
You may not agree with me, that's fine, but you should save everyone else from your inane attempt at denying a physiological reality and go about your life. If you continue to sh!t up this thread, it will only be to my amusement.
(Probably a useless bump that will be buried in the futile arguments going on over nothing).
Perhaps we can instead argue over if it's wise to pay $60 for four servings of baking soda and some marketing? I'm sure you can guess what camp I'm in.
Anyway 0.3 g/kg of sodium bicarbonate taken 60 - 180 min before intense exercise in capsule or powder form is an acceptable protocol.
(Probably a useless bump that will be buried in the futile arguments going on over nothing).
Perhaps we can instead argue over if it's wise to pay $60 for four servings of baking soda and some marketing? I'm sure you can guess what camp I'm in.
Anyway 0.3 g/kg of sodium bicarbonate taken 60 - 180 min before intense exercise in capsule or powder form is an acceptable protocol.
Price is indeed expensive, but that is beyond the point of discussion.
Also, Maurten Bicarb System is supposedly more than just "baking soda" which would likely lead a runner to the nearest toilet (if lucky enough).
The hydrogel coating is said to significantly decrease the chance of GI issues.
Okay, now that has fizzled out a bit talk a bit about training to power.
i know nothing about it, its something i have never done.
I'm not willing to spend on a stryd currently but do have a Forerunner with a HRM pro plus so am willing to assume that for most purposes this is good enough.
By that i mean using a combination of Mass inputted by user, velocity from GPS/Accelerometer, vertical oscillation from the strap, elevation from maps and Barometer and wind direction and speed taken from local weather stations a suitable calculation could be made to approximate true power in a way that will be repeatable enough to allow for training using it as a primary metric.
How do you set your power zones?
Do you need to establish critical power? if so is it same as crititical speed?
What about estimating lactate threshold power? does such a concept exist? again i mean that Lactate testing is not an option so is there a suitable power derived threshold test?
How does my assumed power provide more useful information than a combination of Pace/HR and RPE?
These are all genuine questions. I know close to zero about training to power
Thanks
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
Price is indeed expensive, but that is beyond the point of discussion.
Also, Maurten Bicarb System is supposedly more than just "baking soda" which would likely lead a runner to the nearest toilet (if lucky enough).
The hydrogel coating is said to significantly decrease the chance of GI issues.
If you look at the amounts of sodium bicarbonate in their system (either 15g, 19g, 22g, 25g), then compare them to the protocol I posted, you will find that the dose is essentially the same and they're actually not using "hydrogel" to increase it.
0.3 g/kg has been shown to be quite tolerable for most people and it's easy enough to find out if it works for you. I would recommend you consume some carbohydrates with it and take it in capsule form vs. powder but most likely you will have few if any GI side effects regardless.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
Price is indeed expensive, but that is beyond the point of discussion.
Also, Maurten Bicarb System is supposedly more than just "baking soda" which would likely lead a runner to the nearest toilet (if lucky enough).
The hydrogel coating is said to significantly decrease the chance of GI issues.
If you look at the amounts of sodium bicarbonate in their system (either 15g, 19g, 22g, 25g), then compare them to the protocol I posted, you will find that the dose is essentially the same and they're actually not using "hydrogel" to increase it.
0.3 g/kg has been shown to be quite tolerable for most people and it's easy enough to find out if it works for you. I would recommend you consume some carbohydrates with it and take it in capsule form vs. powder but most likely you will have few if any GI side effects regardless.
Yeah except that the hyrdogel is not supposed to increase the dose, but rather, make it easier for you to absorb and digest the product without GI distress.
