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.
Why 85%. Why not at the LT of 80% or the LT or 90%? Obviously you need to do a lab test to figure out if you are 80 or 90%. And of course do that max heart rate. And then adjust for drift.
It all comes down to how accurate you want to be. Want to just say do easy runs at 2mins slower than 5k pace? Close enough for training.ui Do tempo runs 15s slower than your 35min 10k? Close enough for training.
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...
Yes i agree, the second guy should run a little bit faster as his CV is a little bit faster. I would also bet that his VO2max is a little bit higher as the other guy, if measured in the labor.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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).
Thank you, so my suggestion ticks all of your boxes. Thats fine.
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...
Yes i agree, the second guy should run a little bit faster as his CV is a little bit faster. I would also bet that his VO2max is a little bit higher as the other guy, if measured in the labor.
What are each runner's CV? And how did you calculate them?
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).
Thank you, so my suggestion ticks all of your boxes. Thats fine.
Do this first and then we can talk: try predicting runners’ 10k time using your critical schmitical blah metric, and then do the same using their 10k PB, and report your findings.
It’s tough to correct someone who’s too vague to even be wrong.
It’s tough to correct someone who’s too vague to even be wrong.
That's how I feel about Mark Burnley. He lectures in vague generalisations about supposedly specific values. He is a Bioenergeticist who can't explain his numbers relative to Biochemistry or Cardiology or Hematology or Endocrinology or Neuroscience. So his explanations of sustained effort get dumbed down vague descriptors like "Critical Value".
Sports Science literature is full of reductive jibberish. Athletes and coaches deserve so much better.
Yes i agree, the second guy should run a little bit faster as his CV is a little bit faster. I would also bet that his VO2max is a little bit higher as the other guy, if measured in the labor.
What are each runner's CV? And how did you calculate them?
You can use e.g Excel, you put the time in seconds on the x -scale and the distance in meter on the y-scale. You put a linear regression to those points and the slope of it is the CV in [m/s]. It is also described in the paper i attached. Better 4 than 3 different time trials.
4:00 mile/8:00 3k/14:20 5k/30:20 10k: 5,5 m/s 4:08mile/8:05 3k/ 14:00 5k/29:00 10k: 5,7 m/s
I excluded the 10k values, as they are not inside 3 to 23 minutes. This is a so called 2-parameter approach as the real curve is a hyperbolic function.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
CV/CP has zero basis in physiology. It's a completely performance-based estimate. The assumption that CP/CS is the speed/power that can be maintained indefinite shows that CS/CP is wrong in assumption. It's still a good method to track performance though.
I use CS/CP, but I understand that my mlss is below CP/CS. Because I measure lactate and breath data.
Do this first and then we can talk: try predicting runners’ 10k time using your critical schmitical blah metric, and then do the same using their 10k PB, and report your findings.
It’s tough to correct someone who’s too vague to even be wrong.
Bro,
I can estimate most of your race times, with a good degree of precision, based on 2-3 all-out time trials. It's just science.
As much as we all give Lexel grief, this stuff does work.
That's how I feel about Mark Burnley. He lectures in vague generalisations about supposedly specific values. He is a Bioenergeticist who can't explain his numbers relative to Biochemistry or Cardiology or Hematology or Endocrinology or Neuroscience. So his explanations of sustained effort get dumbed down vague descriptors like "Critical Value".
Sports Science literature is full of reductive jibberish. Athletes and coaches deserve so much better.
You should try to read Scientific Training for Endurance Athletes.
A number of professions rely on exercise prescription to improve health or athletic performance, including coaching, fitness/personal training, rehabilitation, and exercise physiology. It is therefore advisable that the profe...
You can use e.g Excel, you put the time in seconds on the x -scale and the distance in meter on the y-scale. You put a linear regression to those points and the slope of it is the CV in [m/s]. It is also described in the paper i attached. Better 4 than 3 different time trials.
4:00 mile/8:00 3k/14:20 5k/30:20 10k: 5,5 m/s 4:08mile/8:05 3k/ 14:00 5k/29:00 10k: 5,7 m/s
I excluded the 10k values, as they are not inside 3 to 23 minutes. This is a so called 2-parameter approach as the real curve is a hyperbolic function.
Lexel,
Use 2 parameter, 3 parameter, and extend CP models to estimate CP/CS. You need a D' value if you're going to use critical speed. Or W' for power.
Golden Cheetah is perfect for the modeling. WKO does this too. I use both for all of my data.
Do this first and then we can talk: try predicting runners’ 10k time using your critical schmitical blah metric, and then do the same using their 10k PB, and report your findings.
It’s tough to correct someone who’s too vague to even be wrong.
Bro,
I can estimate most of your race times, with a good degree of precision, based on 2-3 all-out time trials. It's just science.
As much as we all give Lexel grief, this stuff does work.
Works for what exactly? Your first para suggests it’s unnecessary.
Works for what exactly? Your first para suggests it’s unnecessary.
It works for helping to characterize the athlete and track changes in fitness over time.
Race results add just a single data point. Ideally you want several maximum efforts over long and short distances to build out your performance curve. The performance curve can be used for myriad other calculations and estimates. Analogous to engineering, the power/speed vs. duration curve is essentially a failure envelope, similar to Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope.
Having critical power/speed gives you an anchor for your training to keep track of stress.
Using critical power/speed with W'/D' can be used to estimate race times to a good degree of precision.
Interval workouts can be designed using W'/D' for supra-threshold efforts.
Using Bannister modeling with regular time trials, you can estimate your performance in the future.
Xert is the best online platform for this, in my experience. I use it for cycling, but have been using it to analyze my running and it works surprisingly well.
All that said, critical power/speed is not a physiological marker in the classic sense. It is performance only. Whether critical power/speed corresponds to your own metabolic threshold is another discussion altogether.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain the metabolic change that takes place at CV.
LT 1 is a real threshold - it's the point at which your glycolitic system kicks in and lactate levels rise above their resting state.
I understand that LT 2 (the most commonly referred to threshold) has been somewhat debunked, in terms of it being a threshold. Lactate levels rise in an exponential curve with intensity, rather than dog-legging up at the point of LT 2 - as old graphs used to suggest.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain the metabolic change that takes place at CV.
LT 1 is a real threshold - it's the point at which your glycolitic system kicks in and lactate levels rise above their resting state.
I understand that LT 2 (the most commonly referred to threshold) has been somewhat debunked, in terms of it being a threshold. Lactate levels rise in an exponential curve with intensity, rather than dog-legging up at the point of LT 2 - as old graphs used to suggest.
Explain how CV is any different.
LT2 is mlss. You can determine mlss from a series of constant rate tests. It’s a thing that exists. You can’t really see it from a ramp or graded exercise test.
So CV is a performance threshold. It should occur around metabolic mlss. For me, through, I can only hold CP for about 30 minutes. Mathematically, that’s a correct duration based on the models. So CP/CV has a time to exhaustion attached to it.
For fun, go to the track and do a 3 lap and 6 lap max effort (with 30 mins rest in between) and do the math to get CV. Then the next day, go run at CV until you quit. Add the CV time trial to your CV estimate and boom, you have a strong model to base intervals from.
Works for what exactly? Your first para suggests it’s unnecessary.
It works for helping to characterize the athlete and track changes in fitness over time.
Race results add just a single data point. Ideally you want several maximum efforts over long and short distances to build out your performance curve. The performance curve can be used for myriad other calculations and estimates. Analogous to engineering, the power/speed vs. duration curve is essentially a failure envelope, similar to Mohr-Coulomb failure envelope.
Having critical power/speed gives you an anchor for your training to keep track of stress.
Using critical power/speed with W'/D' can be used to estimate race times to a good degree of precision.
Interval workouts can be designed using W'/D' for supra-threshold efforts.
Using Bannister modeling with regular time trials, you can estimate your performance in the future.
Xert is the best online platform for this, in my experience. I use it for cycling, but have been using it to analyze my running and it works surprisingly well.
All that said, critical power/speed is not a physiological marker in the classic sense. It is performance only. Whether critical power/speed corresponds to your own metabolic threshold is another discussion altogether.
Pick a race distance and argue, like I illustrated in post #20, by what quantifiable metric(s) all the mumbo jumbo modeling is superior to just a recent PB for that distance (or half that distance or double that distance).
Agree it is entirely a performance-driven marker, so you might as well use race or race-like performance instead instead of making the athlete run for “30 minutes at as fast a steady pace as possible”, a goal that is poorly defined and for which they never explicitly train.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain the metabolic change that takes place at CV.
LT 1 is a real threshold - it's the point at which your glycolitic system kicks in and lactate levels rise above their resting state.
I understand that LT 2 (the most commonly referred to threshold) has been somewhat debunked, in terms of it being a threshold. Lactate levels rise in an exponential curve with intensity, rather than dog-legging up at the point of LT 2 - as old graphs used to suggest.
Explain how CV is any different.
CV represents the maximal metabolic steady state in trained athletes. If you are under CV your VO2 consumption stays about the same value (after a short rising phase) and if you tip over CV (=faster) your VO2 consumption rises and rises to Vo2max. You have no stable condition (steady state) any more. Explained also in the videos i shared.
I'm still waiting to hear you explain the metabolic change that takes place at CV.
LT 1 is a real threshold - it's the point at which your glycolitic system kicks in and lactate levels rise above their resting state.
I understand that LT 2 (the most commonly referred to threshold) has been somewhat debunked, in terms of it being a threshold. Lactate levels rise in an exponential curve with intensity, rather than dog-legging up at the point of LT 2 - as old graphs used to suggest.
Explain how CV is any different.
CV represents the maximal metabolic steady state in trained athletes. If you are under CV your VO2 consumption stays about the same value (after a short rising phase) and if you tip over CV (=faster) your VO2 consumption rises and rises to Vo2max. You have no stable condition (steady state) any more. Explained also in the videos i shared.
Nonsense. You just keep repeating the same reductive garbage. Why can't you just admit you can't answer the question?
LT2 is mlss. You can determine mlss from a series of constant rate tests. It’s a thing that exists. You can’t really see it from a ramp or graded exercise test.
So CV is a performance threshold. It should occur around metabolic mlss. For me, through, I can only hold CP for about 30 minutes. Mathematically, that’s a correct duration based on the models. So CP/CV has a time to exhaustion attached to it.
The problem with MLSS is that it has an arbitrary definition, i.e. less than a 1 mM increment in blood lactate between 10 and 30 min. In the paper below it is outlined in very detail that CV is a) higher as MLSS and b) it is better suited as there is no arbitrary definition.
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...
