Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

ex_cyclist wrote:

If you read sirpoc post a page or so back, that will roughly give you the answers. The Stryd just isn't a power meter, despite being a nice tool. He used the example that is quite right, it doesn't measure force, so it's guessing. The two power examples he mentioned don't work. The Stryd has his cda way off which you can't change so will never work accurately for him and the watch based power, as said, totally relies on elevation. The troll is arguing about case studies of 1, yet based all this junk he's posted on the fact he like Stryd.

It's absolutely mad that we have wasted a nice thread on this. The Stryd or wrist based power could be useful, but it's literally no more useful to person A than heartate would be to person B. If we talk about a power meter that applies actual force, different story. The fact that these things have to account for wind, tells you are are peeing into the wind. The unknown troll posting, all credible lost.

If power meters worked like cycling meters, different story.

I enjoy this thread, shame what has happened with the troll. Real shame.

ex_cyclist wrote:

If you read sirpoc post a page or so back, that will roughly give you the answers. The Stryd just isn't a power meter, despite being a nice tool. He used the example that is quite right, it doesn't measure force, so it's guessing. The two power examples he mentioned don't work. The Stryd has his cda way off which you can't change so will never work accurately for him and the watch based power, as said, totally relies on elevation. The troll is arguing about case studies of 1, yet based all this junk he's posted on the fact he like Stryd.

It's absolutely mad that we have wasted a nice thread on this. The Stryd or wrist based power could be useful, but it's literally no more useful to person A than heartate would be to person B. If we talk about a power meter that applies actual force, different story. The fact that these things have to account for wind, tells you are are peeing into the wind. The unknown troll posting, all credible lost.

If power meters worked like cycling meters, different story.

I enjoy this thread, shame what has happened with the troll. Real shame.

sirpoc84 wrote:

That's probably a decent summary of what I said. I will state again, I ONLY used a power meter for 5+ years at the end of my life as a cyclist, so I didn't even bother with a heart rate monitor or even own one at that point after it broke.

This is the best way to think of it. The Stryd is pretty much useless for me, compared to pace or HR. I choose pace, as it's probably the best to replicate my running, which is all outside in an absolutely pan flat area. Some weeks I can do 90km and only 200m of elevation over the whole week. They won't mind me mentioning them I hope, but Shirtboy for example, probably for him the best metric he knows and can guage based on his circumstances is HR. For Jiggy, based on his circumstances actually lactate testing is probably best to shape or spot check sessions, due to his extreme climate (then to pick one of the other metrics, to shape TSS per session to compliment). There's nothing wrong with that, we literally can work with that. That's 3 people, in different parts of the world, but we are all roughly doing the same thing who feel this is working.

If, we were all riding our bikes, we could probably all do our riding inside (or most of it, it's obviously more efficient use of time) and almost certainly, power would be the best metric for us all to use, simply because across the board, it's going to be totally consistent. We could all use 3 different power meters in this pretend world, which would potentially all read different (250w isn't necessarily 250 actual watts) but the principle stands, that individual power meter is highly repeatable for us and you can really dial it in. I just cannot do that with a Stryd. It might work with some, but it just won't for me. So it's not the blanket solution here . Yet. I hope that changes. As it would make things way easier for me to apply basically what I have done for all those years on the bike, to running.

(-_-) wrote:

It could be used to increase the dose without GI issues if it actually worked, that was my point, but to give them the benefit of they doubt, they might be worried about with exceeding the tolerable upper intake level for sodium and I doubt they've run performance studies to find what is optimal in that sense. 0.3 g/kg is considered the sweet spot is because the side-effects increase linearly with the dose of sodium bicarbonate ingested and ~0.2 g/kg has been shown as the minimum amount for performance benefits. You can also do a multi day protocol if side-effects are a concern.

What I disagree with is that price is beyond the point of discussion when there is opportunity cost compared to trying regular ass baking soda. If you used less of it because of the absurd price, there would obviously be less benefit and in any case the money could be better spent on something else that may improve your running like super shoes.

sirpoc84 wrote:

For me, when I'm running into the wind at pretty much the same effort as with the tailwind, the reading is different. Say 275w versus 325w. Whereas on a bike it would obviously read 300w both ways. The issue being, you can't say it averages out, as you will be running into the wind, for longer than the tailwind, so even over say 1k in each direction, your data is flawed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any way to change this.

It's unfortunate, nothing is ideal and I wish power is better. This is coming from someone who used exclusively power for cycling, to the point I didn't use any heart rate data for about 5 years. But the usability for it for running, that whilst fun and interesting to play with (I've collected so much data), I wouldn't be making it my primary tool, as much as I want to. HR for me is a decent tool, as the conditions I run in are neither too extreme either way. Whilst pace is great, as I live in a totally flat area.

sirpoc84 wrote:

Togher wrote:

According to Garmin they do

Link:www.garmin.com/en-US/garmin-technology...

at least in the lastest forerunners.

i checked my power graph from my LTHR test the other night and saw what Sirpoc saw also.

i was 465W in one direction and did an about face to avoid a big hill and was 501W in the other direction, at same pace and HR for what i assume should be my threshold power. so should i base my power zones off 465W or 501W or the average of the two.

and is a 30min test valid for threshold power?

I honestly wouldn't worry about power so much. As I said, we are just not where yet that I would use it as my only tool, as per the bike.

FWIW, I used to use the same protocol everytime for estimating ftp. Either 94% of my 10 mile TTs or 99% of a 25 mile TT. I used to drop 1% off each from 95% and 100% to account for the extra motivation and boost you get from a race opposed to training (a bit like the friel test). This always worked out. You could also just do 20 mins or an hour . That also works. It doesn't really matter, as long as you stick to the same way you calculate FTP each time. It's only useful to you anyway, not anyone else. This is despite the many arguments people have gotten into with coggan over the years. Where he insists FTP is only valid as a 40km/25 mile time trial. But any of the above in my experience works, just stick to one. The other issue with the 25 mile TT, is for me I can do one in 48 mins, for someone else an hour. It's all really digging into the weeds too much though, like I say, pick a repeatable testing protocol that is reasonable and stick with it.

(-_-) wrote:

ex_cyclist wrote:

If you read sirpoc post a page or so back, that will roughly give you the answers. The Stryd just isn't a power meter, despite being a nice tool. He used the example that is quite right, it doesn't measure force, so it's guessing. The two power examples he mentioned don't work. The Stryd has his cda way off which you can't change so will never work accurately for him and the watch based power, as said, totally relies on elevation. The troll is arguing about case studies of 1, yet based all this junk he's posted on the fact he like Stryd.

It's absolutely mad that we have wasted a nice thread on this. The Stryd or wrist based power could be useful, but it's literally no more useful to person A than heartate would be to person B. If we talk about a power meter that applies actual force, different story. The fact that these things have to account for wind, tells you are are peeing into the wind. The unknown troll posting, all credible lost.

If power meters worked like cycling meters, different story.

I enjoy this thread, shame what has happened with the troll. Real shame.

This is incorrect, did you read the two studies I linked? They weren't at all case studies of 1 as you asserted and again it was shown to be a very accurate estimation of real power despite outdoor conditions and no specific time trial protocol.

You are also mistaking me for someone else, I didn't try to explain how Stryd measures power and I specifically stated you don't have to use Styrd because wrist based power is almost equally consistent.

It's especially ironic because cycling power meters don't take into account wind force so claiming it's necessary for running power to be accurate is complete nonsense and it shows your ignorance.

sirpoc84 wrote:

Lexel, maybe I explained it not great myself, that's not the issue. I can run at the same effort (power) but the power displayed isn't the same. That's because the Stryd in the wind, doesn't calculate my CDA correctly. If there was zero wind, it works fine. If my cda fitted into the algorithm, it would work fine. My frontal area is obviously less, than it predicts for my height versus weight. My effort is the same both ways , it should be 300w both ways (just to use an example), no matter what my speed is, but it just doeskt work out like that. I can run at HM effort which I have dialed in, and it'll widely vary both ways, even though the effort (not pace) is basically the same.

This is easily replicated with force, like a cycling power meter of course. But the Stryd isn't measuring any force. It's using velocity, acceleration , terrain, wind to estimate what the force would be. But the issue is, it needs an extra calculation that a cycling power meter doesn't, it requires to guess or estimate what the users frontal area will be or is. I simply don't fit into this. I would guess I have narrow shoulders for my size, as my cda recorded on a bike is incredibly low, like 0.14 with crr taking into consideration. I've used aerolab in golden cheetah to test this on the bike, so my assumption is reasonable I think that I'm also more narrow than what stryd thinks the average person for my weight and height is. (again, this is a huge advantage of a power meter on the bike, you can actually use it to test aerodynamics and which equipment is faster, but that's just an aside, not the issue here, but another example of why measuring force through the cranks or pedals, is superior).

This isn't a massive issue, it's just another tool anyway for now running power. Obviously having 10 years of cycling power data, running to power would be great. But we just aren't there yet. The wrist sensor on the Garmin seems better, in the sense I think it's probably estimating a lower cda, that works better for me for the same HM pace effort both ways (although it reads 400w, who cares about the actual numbers). The main issue being, the elevation spikes wreck the data when running live. But that's now the power algorithms fault, it's the actual watched elevation data.

sirpoc84 wrote:

Togher wrote:

According to Garmin they do

Link:www.garmin.com/en-US/garmin-technology...

at least in the lastest forerunners.

i checked my power graph from my LTHR test the other night and saw what Sirpoc saw also.

i was 465W in one direction and did an about face to avoid a big hill and was 501W in the other direction, at same pace and HR for what i assume should be my threshold power. so should i base my power zones off 465W or 501W or the average of the two.

and is a 30min test valid for threshold power?

I honestly wouldn't worry about power so much. As I said, we are just not where yet that I would use it as my only tool, as per the bike.

FWIW, I used to use the same protocol everytime for estimating ftp. Either 94% of my 10 mile TTs or 99% of a 25 mile TT. I used to drop 1% off each from 95% and 100% to account for the extra motivation and boost you get from a race opposed to training (a bit like the friel test). This always worked out. You could also just do 20 mins or an hour . That also works. It doesn't really matter, as long as you stick to the same way you calculate FTP each time. It's only useful to you anyway, not anyone else. This is despite the many arguments people have gotten into with coggan over the years. Where he insists FTP is only valid as a 40km/25 mile time trial. But any of the above in my experience works, just stick to one. The other issue with the 25 mile TT, is for me I can do one in 48 mins, for someone else an hour. It's all really digging into the weeds too much though, like I say, pick a repeatable testing protocol that is reasonable and stick with it.

sirpoc84 wrote:

Lexel, maybe I explained it not great myself, that's not the issue. I can run at the same effort (power) but the power displayed isn't the same. That's because the Stryd in the wind, doesn't calculate my CDA correctly. If there was zero wind, it works fine. If my cda fitted into the algorithm, it would work fine. My frontal area is obviously less, than it predicts for my height versus weight. My effort is the same both ways , it should be 300w both ways (just to use an example), no matter what my speed is, but it just doeskt work out like that. I can run at HM effort which I have dialed in, and it'll widely vary both ways, even though the effort (not pace) is basically the same.

This is easily replicated with force, like a cycling power meter of course. But the Stryd isn't measuring any force. It's using velocity, acceleration , terrain, wind to estimate what the force would be. But the issue is, it needs an extra calculation that a cycling power meter doesn't, it requires to guess or estimate what the users frontal area will be or is. I simply don't fit into this. I would guess I have narrow shoulders for my size, as my cda recorded on a bike is incredibly low, like 0.14 with crr taking into consideration. I've used aerolab in golden cheetah to test this on the bike, so my assumption is reasonable I think that I'm also more narrow than what stryd thinks the average person for my weight and height is. (again, this is a huge advantage of a power meter on the bike, you can actually use it to test aerodynamics and which equipment is faster, but that's just an aside, not the issue here, but another example of why measuring force through the cranks or pedals, is superior).

This isn't a massive issue, it's just another tool anyway for now running power. Obviously having 10 years of cycling power data, running to power would be great. But we just aren't there yet. The wrist sensor on the Garmin seems better, in the sense I think it's probably estimating a lower cda, that works better for me for the same HM pace effort both ways (although it reads 400w, who cares about the actual numbers). The main issue being, the elevation spikes wreck the data when running live. But that's now the power algorithms fault, it's the actual watched elevation data.

(-_-) wrote:

jiggymeister wrote:

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.

I still haven't tried it though.

It could be used to increase the dose without GI issues if it actually worked, that was my point, but to give them the benefit of they doubt, they might be worried about with exceeding the tolerable upper intake level for sodium and I doubt they've run performance studies to find what is optimal in that sense. 0.3 g/kg is considered the sweet spot is because the side-effects increase linearly with the dose of sodium bicarbonate ingested and ~0.2 g/kg has been shown as the minimum amount for performance benefits. You can also do a multi day protocol if side-effects are a concern.

What I disagree with is that price is beyond the point of discussion when there is opportunity cost compared to trying regular ass baking soda. If you used less of it because of the absurd price, there would obviously be less benefit and in any case the money could be better spent on something else that may improve your running like super shoes.