Universal intensity description for runners (%CV)

Training Advice/Discussion

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 1 of 7

1 2 7

2 years ago 08/07/2023 5:06am EDT

Any forum for runners is full of threads where it’s unclear which intensity or which threshold is meant. There are several definitions of a threshold LT1, LT2, VT1, VT2, LTH, Aet, AnT, 2mmol, 4mmol, MLSS etc. and every person has a different meaning or understanding of it. This is subpar for any communication.
Cycling had the same problem and they came up with the FTP (functional threshold power which is defined as the power output an athlete can sustain for 60min). Cyclists now talk in % of FTP (however a problem with that is that 60min is arbitrary). Something similar is missing or not commonly used for running. In this respect running is 10-20 year behind in communication.

A possible solution for this communication problem can be the introduction of a real metabolic
threshold as a reference point. This reference point should be not arbitrary.

My suggestion is to use the critical velocity (CV) and the % of it (%CV) to describe intensities in running.
Examples: 30min@85%CV; 6x5min@95%CV; 60min easy@70%CV …

Critical velocity is a real metabolic threshold and has its scientific value. It’s about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30minutes. See below papers and videos for more details. To use CV seems to be even better as MLSS (maximum lactate steady state). Also, not all people use a lactate meter. For professional runners 10k pace is almost CV, for hobby jogger 10k pace is a little bit slower than CV, as they need a longer time for that distance (>30 min).
Introduction videos:

YouTube.com

Thresholds and intensity domains

All-Out Physiology

A quick tutorial on the identification of intensity domains and training zones using metabolic thresholds. Some useful references for this can be found in th...

Watch on YouTube

YouTube.com

What is critical power?

All-Out Physiology

A brief historical sketch of the critical power concept, with a few things you might not know about its development. I also cover the basics of fitting data...

Watch on YouTube

Papers:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283651849_Critical_Power_Implications_for_the_Determination_of_VO2max_and_Exercise_Tolerance

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Steady-state [... formula ...] above MLSS: evidence that critical speed better represents maximal metabolic steady state in well-trained runners

The metabolic boundary separating the heavy-intensity and severe-intensity exercise domains is of scientific and practical interest but there is controversy concerning whether the maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) or critic...

Open link

2 years ago 08/07/2023 5:13am EDT

re: lexel

How are LT1 and LT2 more arbitrary than "about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30 minutes."

About, about 25-30?

Or "a little bit slower than CV". How little is that bit?

You say Critical Velocity is a real metabolical theshold. Well, so is LT1 or LT2.

You really have a weird obsession with CV.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 6:23am EDT

re: lexel

Open image

I congratulate you on coming up with the perfect, universal way to describe pace. Surely everyone can see how CV is a better starting point for the scale than the other intensities you mentioned (and you also definitely didn't repeat the same intensities with different names to make things seem more confusing). CV is also much clearer than 30 minute pace or 10k pace since it's obvious what the most critical of velocities is.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 6:38am EDT

re: Bleh

If it was 15 standards, it would be great. Unfortunately it seems every f*cking PhD student in Ex Phys comes up with his own definition for "threshold."

2 years ago 08/07/2023 8:21am EDT

re: lexel

Some points, because you seem to need help:

1. Please use critical speed (CS) not velocity. When you say velocity it demonstrates lack of understanding of the literature.

2. Why are you using FTP as the cycling example, when Critical Power would be the direct comparison? That makes no sense.

In general, feeling the need to have these exact percentages of some value is a good example of losing the forest for the trees.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 8:40am EDT

re: lexel

Let’s review a bit, shall we? You are familiar with the point of maximum oxygen consumption, VO2max? Well, there is a ‘state of running velocity (speed)’, below which VO2max is not reached, and running faster than that state does not engender more oxygen consumption than VO2max. That ‘state of running velocity’ is termed the velocity at VO2max, vVO2max.

And when running at vVO2max, the body is functioning at a particular Heart Rate.

I suggest you research how we could describe various running paces relative to vVO2max (and Heart Rate at vVO2max), rather than relative to the nebulous ‘Critical Velocity’, okay?

2 years ago 08/07/2023 9:25am EDT

re: lexel

lexel wrote:
Critical velocity is a real metabolic threshold and has its scientific value. It’s about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30minutes.

Go on then, tell us the biochemistry?

I know you can't answer that question meaningfully because any explanation is vague and inaccurate.

So isn't it better to use definitions such as 10 minute power, 20 minute power etc. Thus avoiding all the pseudoscience?

2 years ago 08/07/2023 9:46am EDT

re: peekay

peekay wrote:
2. Why are you using FTP as the cycling example, when Critical Power would be the direct comparison? That makes no sense.

Exactly. Not to mention that there are about 3 papers that use FTP (a deeply flawed metric).

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:04am EDT

re: lexel

lexel wrote:
Any forum for runners is full of threads where it’s unclear which intensity or which threshold is meant. There are several definitions of a threshold LT1, LT2, VT1, VT2, LTH, Aet, AnT, 2mmol, 4mmol, MLSS etc. and every person has a different meaning or understanding of it. This is subpar for any communication.
Cycling had the same problem and they came up with the FTP (functional threshold power which is defined as the power output an athlete can sustain for 60min). Cyclists now talk in % of FTP (however a problem with that is that 60min is arbitrary). Something similar is missing or not commonly used for running. In this respect running is 10-20 year behind in communication.
A possible solution for this communication problem can be the introduction of a real metabolic
threshold as a reference point. This reference point should be not arbitrary.
My suggestion is to use the critical velocity (CV) and the % of it (%CV) to describe intensities in running.
Examples: 30min@85%CV; 6x5min@95%CV; 60min easy@70%CV …
Critical velocity is a real metabolic threshold and has its scientific value. It’s about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30minutes. See below papers and videos for more details. To use CV seems to be even better as MLSS (maximum lactate steady state). Also, not all people use a lactate meter. For professional runners 10k pace is almost CV, for hobby jogger 10k pace is a little bit slower than CV, as they need a longer time for that distance (>30 min).
Introduction videos:
Papers:
Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vozusxuUbY
Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9FSi5HWTiw
Link:www.researchgate.net/publication/28365...
Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8...

Your post has a lot of words.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:15am EDT

re: kh

kh wrote:
How are LT1 and LT2 more arbitrary than "about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30 minutes."
About, about 25-30?
Or "a little bit slower than CV". How little is that bit?
You say Critical Velocity is a real metabolical theshold. Well, so is LT1 or LT2.
You really have a weird obsession with CV.

25-30 minutes is about the range were CV lands, i wrote that to provide a feeling for it, for those not familiar with it. CV sperates the heavy from the severe domain as outlined in detail in the videos i provide.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:19am EDT

re: your next assignment

your next assignment wrote:
Let’s review a bit, shall we? You are familiar with the point of maximum oxygen consumption, VO2max? Well, there is a ‘state of running velocity (speed)’, below which VO2max is not reached, and running faster than that state does not engender more oxygen consumption than VO2max. That ‘state of running velocity’ is termed the velocity at VO2max, vVO2max.
And when running at vVO2max, the body is functioning at a particular Heart Rate.
I suggest you research how we could describe various running paces relative to vVO2max (and Heart Rate at vVO2max), rather than relative to the nebulous ‘Critical Velocity’, okay?

It is a good counter argument to use %vVO2max.

However, CV is more specific, as CV is in the area of 88-92%vVO2max and more individual. CV can be derived from 3-4 time trials between 3 to 23 minutes.

So %CV is more individual as %vVO2max and therefore a better speed description.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:23am EDT

re: LT3 training is the wayy

LT3 training is the wayy wrote:
peekay wrote:
2. Why are you using FTP as the cycling example, when Critical Power would be the direct comparison? That makes no sense.
Exactly. Not to mention that there are about 3 papers that use FTP (a deeply flawed metric).

I was talking about a common communication a common language. %FTP is more common and more often used in cycling as %CP. But there are more and mored discussion to use %CP and some are using it.

The mayority uses %FTP, e.g. the whole ZWift platform is based on it.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:26am EDT

re: lexel

lexel wrote:
your next assignment wrote:
Let’s review a bit, shall we? You are familiar with the point of maximum oxygen consumption, VO2max? Well, there is a ‘state of running velocity (speed)’, below which VO2max is not reached, and running faster than that state does not engender more oxygen consumption than VO2max. That ‘state of running velocity’ is termed the velocity at VO2max, vVO2max.
And when running at vVO2max, the body is functioning at a particular Heart Rate.
I suggest you research how we could describe various running paces relative to vVO2max (and Heart Rate at vVO2max), rather than relative to the nebulous ‘Critical Velocity’, okay?
It is a good counter argument to use %vVO2max.
However, CV is more specific, as CV is in the area of 88-92%vVO2max and more individual. CV can be derived from 3-4 time trials between 3 to 23 minutes.
So %CV is more individual as %vVO2max and therefore a better speed description.

So what is "critical" about it and what is it a "threshold" of?

At any pace you have glycogen depletion, fluid and sodium depletion, heat accumulation and exponential fatigue.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:33am EDT

re: your next assignment

your next assignment wrote:
Let’s review a bit, shall we? You are familiar with the point of maximum oxygen consumption, VO2max? Well, there is a ‘state of running velocity (speed)’, below which VO2max is not reached, and running faster than that state does not engender more oxygen consumption than VO2max. That ‘state of running velocity’ is termed the velocity at VO2max, vVO2max.
And when running at vVO2max, the body is functioning at a particular Heart Rate.
I suggest you research how we could describe various running paces relative to vVO2max (and Heart Rate at vVO2max), rather than relative to the nebulous ‘Critical Velocity’, okay?

I think vvo2 might have a better physical definition than CV (or whatever threshold you make up). But I also think CV might also be better for picking aerobic training paces because it is more closely linked to the activity you are doing. If I am looking to do 20-40 mins of quality aerobic work, the pace I can do for say 30mins or 60mins is a bit more correlated than something like a 8min time trial. Think about these 2 athletes

4:00 mile/8:00 3k/14:20 5k/30:20 10k

4:08mile/8:05 3k/ 14:00 5k/29:00 10k

They are going to have basically the same vv02 pace. If they are going to be doing 6*1mile with 60s rest, should they be at the same pace or should the guy with better endurance run faster? I would vote for the second guy running faster...

Same thing happens with mmol where everyone talks about being at 4 but that is an average. You need to test to figure out if you are up at 4.5 or down at 3.5.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:44am EDT

re: lexel

lexel wrote:
It is a good counter argument to use %vVO2max.
However, CV is more specific, as CV is in the area of 88-92%vVO2max and more individual. CV can be derived from 3-4 time trials between 3 to 23 minutes.
So %CV is more individual as %vVO2max and therefore a better speed description.

You seem to already know the heart-rate approximations (and paces) relative to VO2max, so why not get directly to the objective, and train via heart rate? For an example of training in the ballpark of threshold (or what you are terming CV), look here:

LetsRun.com Forum Thread

Training sub-threshold

that 60s boomer dude08/07/2023 9:01am EDT2 years ago

I wish to make a few comments on a recent installment from my training log, presented below:*******Day 48, Aug 5, ‘23 PM: 9x400m, ~2min rest Ran near sunset. Temp: ~81degF. Dew point: 72degF. Rep Time|Pace|AvgHR/MaxHR|SPM/Lng...

View thread

What is the problem? And why call it CV instead of threshold?

2 years ago 08/07/2023 10:50am EDT

re: fkkfkfkfkf

fkkfkfkfkf wrote:
your next assignment wrote:
Let’s review a bit, shall we? You are familiar with the point of maximum oxygen consumption, VO2max? Well, there is a ‘state of running velocity (speed)’, below which VO2max is not reached, and running faster than that state does not engender more oxygen consumption than VO2max. That ‘state of running velocity’ is termed the velocity at VO2max, vVO2max.
And when running at vVO2max, the body is functioning at a particular Heart Rate.
I suggest you research how we could describe various running paces relative to vVO2max (and Heart Rate at vVO2max), rather than relative to the nebulous ‘Critical Velocity’, okay?
I think vvo2 might have a better physical definition than CV (or whatever threshold you make up). But I also think CV might also be better for picking aerobic training paces because it is more closely linked to the activity you are doing. If I am looking to do 20-40 mins of quality aerobic work, the pace I can do for say 30mins or 60mins is a bit more correlated than something like a 8min time trial. Think about these 2 athletes
4:00 mile/8:00 3k/14:20 5k/30:20 10k
4:08mile/8:05 3k/ 14:00 5k/29:00 10k
They are going to have basically the same vv02 pace. If they are going to be doing 6*1mile with 60s rest, should they be at the same pace or should the guy with better endurance run faster? I would vote for the second guy running faster...
Same thing happens with mmol where everyone talks about being at 4 but that is an average. You need to test to figure out if you are up at 4.5 or down at 3.5.

No, no, no. Just strap on a Heart Rate monitor. For the vast majority (probably all) reading this forum, there is no need to be drawing blood, and littering the landscape with lactate strips!

If you wish to run easy aerobic, cap the HR at 70% HRmax. If you wish ‘quality aerobic’, you can go up to 85% HRmax; easy-peasy.

2 years ago 08/07/2023 11:53am EDT

re: your next assignment

No, no, no. Just strap on a Heart Rate monitor. For the vast majority (probably all) reading this forum, there is no need to be drawing blood, and littering the landscape with lactate strips!
If you wish to run easy aerobic, cap the HR at 70% HRmax. If you wish ‘quality aerobic’, you can go up to 85% HRmax; easy-peasy.

Do you mean 70% for recovery, and 85% for steady?

2 years ago 08/07/2023 12:04pm EDT

re: Alfie

Alfie wrote:
Do you mean 70% for recovery, and 85% for steady?

Potato, po-tah-to?

2 years ago 08/07/2023 12:16pm EDT

re: lexel

lexel wrote:
Any forum for runners is full of threads where it’s unclear which intensity or which threshold is meant. There are several definitions of a threshold LT1, LT2, VT1, VT2, LTH, Aet, AnT, 2mmol, 4mmol, MLSS etc. and every person has a different meaning or understanding of it. This is subpar for any communication.
Cycling had the same problem and they came up with the FTP (functional threshold power which is defined as the power output an athlete can sustain for 60min). Cyclists now talk in % of FTP (however a problem with that is that 60min is arbitrary). Something similar is missing or not commonly used for running. In this respect running is 10-20 year behind in communication.
A possible solution for this communication problem can be the introduction of a real metabolic
threshold as a reference point. This reference point should be not arbitrary.
My suggestion is to use the critical velocity (CV) and the % of it (%CV) to describe intensities in running.
Examples: 30min@85%CV; 6x5min@95%CV; 60min easy@70%CV …
Critical velocity is a real metabolic threshold and has its scientific value. It’s about the speed someone can hold for about 25-30minutes. See below papers and videos for more details. To use CV seems to be even better as MLSS (maximum lactate steady state). Also, not all people use a lactate meter. For professional runners 10k pace is almost CV, for hobby jogger 10k pace is a little bit slower than CV, as they need a longer time for that distance (>30 min).
Introduction videos:
Papers:
Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vozusxuUbY
Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9FSi5HWTiw
Link:www.researchgate.net/publication/28365...
Link:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8...

It’s silly to be pontificating on this topic without first formally articulating the desired properties you want your ideal metric to have and defending the intrinsic value of those properties.

Here’s an example: a metric should 1) be predictive of one’s competitive ability in the sport; 2) be comparable across athletes; 3) be accurately measurable; 4) be relatively easily measurable, e.g., without invasive procedures; — four properties whose intrinsic value should be self-evident — so based on these goals, I’d say for the sport of 10k, your achievable 10k time is the near-perfect metric (“near” only because measurement conditions can never be perfectly standardized).

Page 1 of 7

1 2 7

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

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.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

Universal intensity description for runners (%CV)

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Universal intensity description for runners (%CV)

Jump To A Page

Follow lexel

Block lexel

Follow Bleh

Block Bleh

Follow peekay

Block peekay

Follow lexel

Block lexel

Follow lexel

Block lexel

Follow lexel

Block lexel

Follow Alfie

Block Alfie

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Real Runners, Real Reviews