again, you are just all over the place to try to prove a point no one cares about.
Protocol for what? How I put the strap on before my run?
Your protocol for determining the correct intensity when HR conflicts with RPE, power, etc. Be specific.
Im using everything in running, save power. Not reliable.
On a normal day where i 1. Dont feel fatigued (RPE) 2. HR is trending normally depending on am/pm 3. i can almost tell you within .5 mmol where my lactate is based on HR achieved, with a secondary check to my subjective feeling RPE.
Many, many times RPE is not in sync with what is going on metabolically.
HR is almost never not in sync with what is going on metabolically. When it is then it's time to start working backwards to analyze CTL and whether or not that has produced excess fatigue.
As Sirpoc said, in cycling, Power is in the trinity of metrics to use. Then i know if i have 2 of 3 (HR, Power, Lactate) you are assured to be dialed in.
Cute, that you think that saves your cheerleading here.
30 ppl in two experiments and you think me thinking HR is 'valid' is n=1
HR is a physiological parameter. Stryd pod is not.
If you dont understand how to use HR, i guess you just dont understand that parameter -- totally fine.
move along please
It's a "physiological parameter" that cannot accurately represent the intensity domains, hence why it's not typically used for that purpose by actual professionals and the literature supporting the validity of LTHR is literally nonexistent from what I can tell. You can gatekeep about the number of people in two entirely valid studies but you still have the onus to prove your claim that HR is more accurate than anything else including Stryd power, for informing intensity, and no your anecdotal experience doesn't count. At the very least you could post your protocol but you clearly don't have one and you're lying through your teeth.
Cute, that you think that saves your cheerleading here.
30 ppl in two experiments and you think me thinking HR is 'valid' is n=1
HR is a physiological parameter. Stryd pod is not.
If you dont understand how to use HR, i guess you just dont understand that parameter -- totally fine.
move along please
It's a "physiological parameter" that cannot accurately represent the intensity domains, hence why it's not typically used for that purpose by actual professionals and the literature supporting the validity of LTHR is literally nonexistent from what I can tell. You can gatekeep about the number of people in two entirely valid studies but you still have the onus to prove your claim that HR is more accurate than anything else including Stryd power, for informing intensity, and no your anecdotal experience doesn't count. At the very least you could post your protocol but you clearly don't have one and you're lying through your teeth.
That's not gatekeeping.
You think the onus is on others to change your mind.
Not wasting any more time or words on you, troll, just dont have the time, sorry.
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold?
I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, , 3Q + a long run seems to be a bit much at lower mileage (40mpw). Is it needed? Would another easy run work instad? How should the model be adjusted for that mileage?
Im using everything in running, save power. Not reliable.
On a normal day where i 1. Dont feel fatigued (RPE) 2. HR is trending normally depending on am/pm 3. i can almost tell you within .5 mmol where my lactate is based on HR achieved, with a secondary check to my subjective feeling RPE.
Many, many times RPE is not in sync with what is going on metabolically.
HR is almost never not in sync with what is going on metabolically. When it is then it's time to start working backwards to analyze CTL and whether or not that has produced excess fatigue.
As Sirpoc said, in cycling, Power is in the trinity of metrics to use. Then i know if i have 2 of 3 (HR, Power, Lactate) you are assured to be dialed in.
You have no idea "what is going on metabolically". Lactate is prone to much higher day-to-day variation, HR doesn't actually measure that, and in any case you're still not using it to inform your intensity decisions on the fly over other metrics. You have conceded the point and are now agreeing with me that other metrics should be used and that HR isn't superior to them.
Im using everything in running, save power. Not reliable.
On a normal day where i 1. Dont feel fatigued (RPE) 2. HR is trending normally depending on am/pm 3. i can almost tell you within .5 mmol where my lactate is based on HR achieved, with a secondary check to my subjective feeling RPE.
Many, many times RPE is not in sync with what is going on metabolically.
HR is almost never not in sync with what is going on metabolically. When it is then it's time to start working backwards to analyze CTL and whether or not that has produced excess fatigue.
As Sirpoc said, in cycling, Power is in the trinity of metrics to use. Then i know if i have 2 of 3 (HR, Power, Lactate) you are assured to be dialed in.
You have no idea "what is going on metabolically". Lactate is prone to much higher day-to-day variation, HR doesn't actually measure that, and in any case you're still not using it to inform your intensity decisions on the fly over other metrics. You have conceded the point and are now agreeing with me that other metrics should be used and that HR isn't superior to them.
Sirpoc speaks, the flock listens.
The whole world of endurance sports is wrong but you got it
Guys like a scorned wife at this point ignore this troll
Im using everything in running, save power. Not reliable.
On a normal day where i 1. Dont feel fatigued (RPE) 2. HR is trending normally depending on am/pm 3. i can almost tell you within .5 mmol where my lactate is based on HR achieved, with a secondary check to my subjective feeling RPE.
Many, many times RPE is not in sync with what is going on metabolically.
HR is almost never not in sync with what is going on metabolically. When it is then it's time to start working backwards to analyze CTL and whether or not that has produced excess fatigue.
As Sirpoc said, in cycling, Power is in the trinity of metrics to use. Then i know if i have 2 of 3 (HR, Power, Lactate) you are assured to be dialed in.
You have no idea "what is going on metabolically". Lactate is prone to much higher day-to-day variation, HR doesn't actually measure that, and in any case you're still not using it to inform your intensity decisions on the fly over other metrics. You have conceded the point and are now agreeing with me that other metrics should be used and that HR isn't superior to them.
Sirpoc speaks, the flock listens.
How would you know what I am and am not doing you egomaniac?
How would you know what I am and am not doing you egomaniac?
You said as much in your post. HR may save you lactate test strips but it's not informing your training over lactate and RPE, you're just too stubborn/ignorant to use GAP, or power, or just 100% RPE. If it was actually higher accuracy and a better measure of what is going on metabolically, as per your assertion, then shouldn't you trust your HR monitor over them rather than it being meaningless "confirmation" of something you already know?
You built a straw plane to attract John Frum. No good were delivered but you're still insistent that it works.
How would you know what I am and am not doing you egomaniac?
You said as much in your post. HR may save you lactate test strips but it's not informing your training over lactate and RPE, you're just too stubborn/ignorant to use GAP, or power, or just 100% RPE. If it was actually higher accuracy and a better measure of what is going on metabolically, as per your assertion, then shouldn't you trust your HR monitor over them rather than it being meaningless "confirmation" of something you already know?
You built a straw plane to attract John Frum. No good were delivered but you're still insistent that it works.
Good one. You got a book of this quips coming out sometime soon? I might preorder on Amazon.
I told you i 'could' guess, which does not mean i dont still test, but thats a little game im playing with myself.
So, again, your assumptions about what im testing/how im training are based mostly on your silly assumptions and lack of reading comprehension.
I fail to see how covering all your bases proves anything you are saying. But that's kind of the motif of all of your 'contributions' here
I think you might actually have something to add if you were posts were even just slightly less eccentric
The whole world of endurance sports is wrong but you got it
Guys like a scorned wife at this point ignore this troll
Terrible appeal to popularity fallacy, you ignore all the things the "the whole world of endurance sports" was objectively wrong about and all the dead fads, as well as the many persistent myths that are still around today like static stretching reducing injury risk or the myth that easy runs are "active recovery". I may or may not be right but quality research does beat your anecdotal N=1 experience and I will change my mind based on any actual evidence I find.
Call me what you want but I'm not taking any sh!t before then and I don't care how upset it makes you. The only value this thread provides is what should be put into practice, what metrics to use are paramount to that so you shouldn't cry foul when there's nothing stop you blog posting about something else and just ignoring me.
May I suggest that we all start selling t-shirts with "the modified Norwegian method" on them or start providing "coaching" services? We're in on the ground floor of this, there is opportunity beyond all the sub-elite times people are getting that are likely not much better than if they consistently trained with another method...
The whole world of endurance sports is wrong but you got it
Guys like a scorned wife at this point ignore this troll
Terrible appeal to popularity fallacy, you ignore all the things the "the whole world of endurance sports" was objectively wrong about and all the dead fads, as well as the many persistent myths that are still around today like static stretching reducing injury risk or the myth that easy runs are "active recovery". I may or may not be right but quality research does beat your anecdotal N=1 experience and I will change my mind based on any actual evidence I find.
Call me what you want but I'm not taking any sh!t before then and I don't care how upset it makes you. The only value this thread provides is what should be put into practice, what metrics to use are paramount to that so you shouldn't cry foul when there's nothing stop you blog posting about something else and just ignoring me.
May I suggest that we all start selling t-shirts with "the modified Norwegian method" on them or start providing "coaching" services? We're in on the ground floor of this, there is opportunity beyond all the sub-elite times people are getting that are likely not much better than if they consistently trained with another method...
That’s the point: these things are very alive.
You mention two things no one else did to dismiss them. That’s pretty much on brand for you.
Oh very very strong language. I hope you dont trigger anyone, cupcake.
Yes i am very upset.
And Yes, obviously I am the one crying.
Youve demonstrated to us a master class in histrionics from the first post when you imploded.
You mention two things no one else did to dismiss them. That’s pretty much on brand for you.
Oh very very strong language. I hope you dont trigger anyone, cupcake.
Yes i am very upset.
And Yes, obviously I am the one crying.
Youve demonstrated to us a master class in histrionics from the first post when you imploded.
It has come full circle now.
Interesting attempt at gaslighting me when my point was abundantly clear from the start, you and others took offense to it, and it wasn't before our lord and savior stepped in that you changed your tune and started to agree with me in principle, seeing as none of you actually prescribe intensity based on "LTHR" and instead use other methods. I can only wonder why.
Now are you going to take your own advice and ignore me or prove that you are a hypocrite in multiple ways? I think I know the answer, I can't wait to read your essay about me when you get around to writing it, certainty no histrionics there, nothing but a great contribution to a quality thread... oh I can't even be that sarcastic without it turning my stomach. It has provided me great entertainment value if nothing else.
You mention two things no one else did to dismiss them. That’s pretty much on brand for you.
Oh very very strong language. I hope you dont trigger anyone, cupcake.
Yes i am very upset.
And Yes, obviously I am the one crying.
Youve demonstrated to us a master class in histrionics from the first post when you imploded.
It has come full circle now.
Interesting attempt at gaslighting me when my point was abundantly clear from the start, you and others took offense to it, and it wasn't before our lord and savior stepped in that you changed your tune and started to agree with me in principle, seeing as none of you actually prescribe intensity based on "LTHR" and instead use other methods. I can only wonder why.
Now are you going to take your own advice and ignore me or prove that you are a hypocrite in multiple ways? I think I know the answer, I can't wait to read your essay about me when you get around to writing it, certainty no histrionics there, nothing but a great contribution to a quality thread... oh I can't even be that sarcastic without it turning my stomach. It has provided me great entertainment value if nothing else.
You really have almost no command of the language or terminology, do you?
Gaslighting you? You really should look up these terms before you parrot them.
But you do seem to have some sort of complex, ill give you that.
I think you would be find with cult behavior as long as it formed around you.
Again you mention random S just to dismiss it (which btw no one mentioned or argued about) just to flex, i guess?
Who ever made the point that the training prescription was or should br based on LTHR?
Again, your usual straw man you keep assembling here to beat down and then act like you made a good point and need to be respected.
You really have almost no command of the language or terminology, do you?
Gaslighting you? You really should look up these terms before you parrot them.
But you do seem to have some sort of complex, ill give you that.
I think you would be find with cult behavior as long as it formed around you.
Again you mention random S just to dismiss it (which btw no one mentioned or argued about) just to flex, i guess?
Who ever made the point that the training prescription was or should br based on LTHR?
Again, your usual straw man you keep assembling here to beat down and then act like you made a good point and need to be respected.
Yes, you are attempting to gaslight me but you foolishly forgot there is a record of the very conversation. You were the first person to argue that LTHR was correlated enough to still be as valid as anything else, that we should be prioritizing HR over power and RPE since it has higher accuracy, that it's a valid stand in for lactate, that it doesn't vary much day-to-day, and that cardiac drift isn't a factor.
All of which are wrong and you have no evidence supporting them, instead you pretend that I'm strawmanning, despite the irony of you trying and failing to do exactly that after my original post offended you. Respect me or not, I could not care less, but you have no argument so you resort to pure fallacies and continuously move the goal posts.
I also wouldn't get too caught up in saying I don't understand language or terminology when you don't even understand basic paragraphs. Now finally take your own advice and stop derailing the thread further. It's not my problem : )
You really have almost no command of the language or terminology, do you?
Gaslighting you? You really should look up these terms before you parrot them.
But you do seem to have some sort of complex, ill give you that.
I think you would be find with cult behavior as long as it formed around you.
Again you mention random S just to dismiss it (which btw no one mentioned or argued about) just to flex, i guess?
Who ever made the point that the training prescription was or should br based on LTHR?
Again, your usual straw man you keep assembling here to beat down and then act like you made a good point and need to be respected.
Yes, you are attempting to gaslight me but you foolishly forgot there is a record of the very conversation. You were the first person to argue that LTHR was correlated enough to still be as valid as anything else, that we should be prioritizing HR over power and RPE since it has higher accuracy, that it's a valid stand in for lactate, that it doesn't vary much day-to-day, and that cardiac drift isn't a factor.
All of which are wrong and you have no evidence supporting them, instead you pretend that I'm strawmanning, despite the irony of you trying and failing to do exactly that after my original post offended you. Respect me or not, I could not care less, but you have no argument so you resort to pure fallacies and continuously move the goal posts.
I also wouldn't get too caught up in saying I don't understand language or terminology when you don't even understand basic paragraphs. Now finally take your own advice and stop derailing the thread further. It's not my problem : )
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 really have almost no command of the language or terminology, do you?
Gaslighting you? You really should look up these terms before you parrot them.
But you do seem to have some sort of complex, ill give you that.
I think you would be find with cult behavior as long as it formed around you.
Again you mention random S just to dismiss it (which btw no one mentioned or argued about) just to flex, i guess?
Who ever made the point that the training prescription was or should br based on LTHR?
Again, your usual straw man you keep assembling here to beat down and then act like you made a good point and need to be respected.
Yes, you are attempting to gaslight me but you foolishly forgot there is a record of the very conversation. You were the first person to argue that LTHR was correlated enough to still be as valid as anything else, that we should be prioritizing HR over power and RPE since it has higher accuracy, that it's a valid stand in for lactate, that it doesn't vary much day-to-day, and that cardiac drift isn't a factor.
All of which are wrong and you have no evidence supporting them, instead you pretend that I'm strawmanning, despite the irony of you trying and failing to do exactly that after my original post offended you. Respect me or not, I could not care less, but you have no argument so you resort to pure fallacies and continuously move the goal posts.
I also wouldn't get too caught up in saying I don't understand language or terminology when you don't even understand basic paragraphs. Now finally take your own advice and stop derailing the thread further. It's not my problem : )
Yeah not what i said.
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