Universal intensity description for runners (%CV)

Do you know the "biochemical pathways"?

I posted a thread here a while back explaining them, but it was of no practical use for well thought out training purposes, apart from debunking a few myths that go around.

We absolutely have a common running language, it just happens to not be CV.

I'm not asking why someone would care about training theory, I'm asking about why they would care about CV specifically. I'm not against CV, I actually am interested, that's why I'm here. it's just that it's acolytes haven't clearly said why it should matter.

I've been trying not to put words in the mouth of the CV truthers, but as far as I can tell the big advantage is that you can codify to what extent someone is a speed based (higher D') or endurance based (higher CV). And use that to design your training. We already do that imprecisely, we train speed-based athletes slightly different than endurance-based athletes, this just puts specific numbers to it.

There are a few common languages many people already train by.

Race pace/effort based ie. 400 reps at 10k pace/effort.

Lactate/Threshold Based ie 10x1k at threshold/ below threshold etc.

Heart Rate Based ie 60' at x% of max HR or y% of marathon HR etc.

Jack Daniels ie 200s at R pace Ks at i pace, 20' at T pace etc.

What does CV and D' do better than all of these?

CV and %CV offers:

- an universal intensity language, which is transferable from athlete to athlete

- an index better as MLSS (maximum lactate steady state) as no lactate meter is needed

- an index better as %vVO2max, as it is more individual

- way better as a certain race pace description from athlete to athlete: e.g. marathon, 1/2 marathon and 10k race pace descriptions are not universal transferable from athlete to athlete as athletes need different durations to cover that distances (you can easily identify weak coaches who gave such descriptions here)

- it has its scientific meaning, as it is a real threshold. It is a hot topic.

- a great performance marker (any half decent runner should be interested in such an marker)

- you do athlete profiling by using it (athletic profiling is not even discusses here in the whole forum board)

So it is objectively a great marker and gives you an edge over your opponent.

You don't have much running experience or knowledge of physiology do you lexel?

If you did, you would understand what people are trying to tell you.

Right now I'm coaching 2 sub 14 5k runners and if I told them that they needed to do 3 time trials so I could do a graph to determine their interval pace, they would probably think I had gone completely nuts.

Yup, they would.

Iexel is a hobbyjogger, completely fixated on one thing, trying to lecture very experienced runners and coaches on how they should train and discuss training, whilst ignoring every valid point they make.

So you are calling Renato Canova a weak coach? Cool. Tell us about coach lexel's great results.

I never have a difficulty talking about intensities with other coaches. Critical "Velocity" is never mentioned.

Or any coach or athlete who uses race pace as a guide.

For example:

Runner A is aiming for a 30 minute 10k

Runner B 40 minutes

Runner C 50 minutes

Runner A does specific training efforts at 3 minutes per k

Runner B 4 minutes

Runner C 5 minutes

But according do lexel all three should be describing their pace as a percentage of "CV" to avoid vagueness and confusion.

This is one of the most bizarre threads I've ever read on here. Lexel for some reason in love with CV, everyone points out to him it's flaws, he ignores everyone and continues to dig himself a bigger hole post after post .

I coach and I agree you are just confusing athletes here. If I go out and tell my guys to run 7x4 at 98% of CV they will look at me absolute blank. If I tell them, go out and run just a tiny bit dialled back from 10k pace they would totally know what to do. Lexel you are making things more difficult for everyone, including yourself as now you are totally confused - when you claim you are trying to make things easier.

This insufferable fool has been clogging up these boards with his latest philosophy for years. For a while he was obsessed with training like the ingebregtsens. As a 21min 5k runner, measuring lactate during track sessions was obviously the path forward for him…. not intervals or a tempo run at any of the time tested, classic paces or actually running more than 30 miles a week.

One day he will crack the code and show the running world what they’ve been doing wrong all this time!

If you have just set large PRs why would you go and change the training? It's literally working, change nothing. Change the training when you've stagnated, not before.

Is national champion in something, somewhere, sometime good enough ? You make me
smile, really.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Imagine you communicate something to 1 person. Image you communicate it to 100 persons. And then imagine you communicate it to 1 000 000 persons.
It is clear that only a very clear language and communication, leads to no confusion as more people are involved. And that brings something forward, not the confusion.
Some guys here have to think bigger, out of the box, out of their nutshell.

What nation are you from where your 21min 5k made you national champ and how many double thresholds and lactate tests did it take you to get there?

Thank you! I'd say even in hot weather the 5k was 20:58 split as it was. So say 20:30 purely running a 5k and not with 10 miles on top of that and then I'd just use that as my CV and go from there.

That said I know what we are doing with the Jakob stuff isn't really CV so I'd need to convert that CV pace to these new thresholds.