Universal intensity description for runners (%CV)

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...

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.

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.

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...