 Poster: A snowHead
|
That is some seriously heavy training- it's amazing that they didn't injure the entire cohort. There's no way I could run 6x1 mile intervals at VO2 max pace on alternate days with tempo runs on the "recovery" days and be uninjured within 2 weeks let alone 10, and I'm a reasonable recreational runner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| kitenski wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| kitenski wrote: |
@DB, What model is your tacx trainer?
@boarder2020, are you a coach or trainer in any of this stuff? You seem very knowledgeable! |
It‘s a tacx flow (not smart), must be around 15 to 20 years old but has had very little use. Looks like this.
https://images.app.goo.gl/24jWcXA6Gho93pbu7 |
Sadly that won’t be working with any modern apps |
www.wattzap.com and www.goldencheetah.org should work fine with that, among others, but they are both free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@weathercam it's hard to say without knowing them or their training history. Are they overtraining putting themselves at risk of injury? Would they be performing better with a polarised training approach? Difficult to answer these questions for a single person. What I would say is the science is overwhelmingly pointing towards a polarised training approach (around 80% low intensity, and 20% very high intensity) for performance. Not only does the science support polarised training producing better performance even at lower training volumes than threshold based training, but it's what we consistently see the top elite endurance athletes using for their training. Going out and doing temp/time trials everyday will certainly improve your cycling performance, but it looks to be inferior to polarised training for optimum performance benefits.
@snowdave yes it's an extremely aggressive approach. From what I heard the researchers kept expecting improvements in vo2 to plateau, but even at the last testing it was still increasing linearly. Because of this they asked the participants if they would continue in order to establish where vo2 would eventually plateau. Unsurprisingly, the participants refused to continue because it was too hard.
Most coaches suggest 1-2 high intensity sessions per week for us regular people. Provides enough stimulus for adaptation, while not too much that we struggle to recover and risk overtraining/injury. Of course if you are a pro athlete with amazingly high lifetime training load, perfect diet, massage after every workout, drugs to help you recover you may manage more, but even then it's usually just saved for "peaking" before competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@davidof, neither of those tools help training, they just analyse what you have done imho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@davidof,
Don‘t think my old tacx flow monitors or displays power output.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The past three weeks I've been testing the new Honor (Huawei) Watch GS Pro - the watch is crammed with so much functionality it's a little bewildering.
The reason I was sent it was because of the ski mode functionality, though as we explained to Huawei we will not really be able to test that just yet!
Anyway, the watch is a superb bit of kit, especially when linked to the Huawei Health App, and within that, you can analyse your Stress levels, sleep patterns/performance (quite addictive), measure blood oxygen levels (SpO2) and much more.
I've been comparing it on numerous bike rides against my Wahoo bike computer and data is pretty similar, HR a tad out at times but that is probably due to the wrist HR measuring vs a chest strap.
Yesterday I went for a run wearing it and when running it purports to measure your Vo2 Max levels, it does measure blood oxygen levels (SpO2) at rest so presume this is just an extension of those sensors, but the big question is how accurate can those truly be?
Been doing some Googling on this and found this from Runners World from 2017 so would suspect technology has moved on?
https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a20856601/can-your-watch-estimate-your-vo2-max/
And this more recently
https://www.androidauthority.com/pulse-oximeter-1068982/
So after seeing these readings I obviously doubt its accuracy 
Like I said a great watch and here's my detailed review
https://stylealtitude.com/honor-watch-gs-pro-test-review.html
However, for me one big negative is that it does not sync to Strava, though Huawei do say that they are working on that, but they've been saying that for a while.
However if you're not bothered about lack of Strava integration then I know that after the launch on Amazon on the 6th - for two days from 13th to 14th October for Amazon Prime Day the offers below will be available
HONOR Watch GS Pro: promoted from 249.99 to 199.99
HONOR Magic Earbuds: promoted from 89.99 to 59.99
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Sat 3-10-20 9:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Weathercam,
I am bewildered by all the info available on watches etc nowadays. I basically just use pace, distance, HR, time.
What is surprising about your post is 68hrs recovery on what looks like an steady run. Would be good to see the stats when you increase the pace
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@stewart woodward, yes those recovery times are always questionable 
The beauty of a smart-watch such as this is the ability to not only see who is calling which most watches do, but actually answer & speak using it rather then having to stop when cycling and pull the phone out the back pocket and bag etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@Weathercam, watch out. They’ll be cloning mini-weathercams in Chinese labs in an attempt to build a Chinese elite seniors ski-touring team...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top.country skier. 90
Husky 240.
I once saw a husky do a bottom to top sprint ascent at Whistler (1600m) ascent
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Yesterday I went for a run wearing it and when running it purports to measure your Vo2 Max levels, it does measure blood oxygen levels (SpO2) at rest so presume this is just an extension of those sensors, but the big question is how accurate can those truly be?
|
Vo2 max is an estimate based on algorithms using heart rate at different running speeds. I wouldn't read much into it it's not the most accurate. Anything that claims to measure vo2 max without measuring what you are breathing out is pretty questionable. Spo2 is not particularly useful, as it will just stay around 95-100% for a normal healthy person at sea level regardless of what you do. There is some evidence for it in terms of predicting altitude sickness but I question how necessary that is (proper acclimatisation plan with modifications depending on how you feel should be more than adequate and is more tried and tested than watch spo2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Anything that claims to measure vo2 max without measuring what you are breathing out is pretty questionable. |
There are actually few researches out, proving at least Polar isn't far off real values. Polar has "fitness test" included in their HRMs for some 20 years or so now, and values that came out of that are pretty accurate when compared to real lab VO2max test. No idea about other smart watches, but as I wrote, at least for Polar it's been proven they are quite accurate. But let's face it, VO2max numbers don't tell much... if they would be any real measure, I would have Olympic medal in xc skiing, but in reality, I sucked big time never came close to that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
There are actually few researches out, proving at least Polar isn't far off real values. Polar has "fitness test" included in their HRMs for some 20 years or so now, and values that came out of that are pretty accurate when compared to real lab VO2max test.
|
Would be interested to see the papers.
The esco 2012 paper suggests that polar Is not accurate predictor of vo2 max. Granted it's a bit old and they may have improved the algorithm a bit by now.
There is a recent paper by cooper published in 2019 that suggests polar does a great job estimating vo2. If you actually read the paper though you quickly realise there is a huge flaw in the study design. The researchers didn't actually measure vo2 max! They compared polar vo2 max estimation to Bruce test vo2 max estimation. Bruce test is a flawed test - I've seen correlation coefficient values values of 0.49-0.59 when comparing it to directly measured vo2 max.
(My first thought was the study is extremely shady and was expecting to see it was funded by polar. However, it's actually an undergrad student as the leading author meaning he was probably doing the study as his dissertation and didn't have enough lab time or access to do the study properly i.e. compare the polar with actual measured vo2 max.)
The watch companies like you to think they have it worked out, but they haven't. It's too hard to accurately predict vo2 max from non direct testing. If there was a test out there that worked well coaches would much prefer to use it over lab testing (cost, limited access, travel). The fact is coaches are still sending athletes to labs because they know it's the only way.
We go back to the question posed earlier in the thread though, why even worry about vo2 max? For the standard recreational athlete it's a fairly useless number. You can't use it as a training tool like other lab measured variables (e.g. lactate threshold). There are much easier, cheaper, and more simple measures to quantify improvements in fitness.
It's fun to see what your watch predicts. Increases in watch vo2 max probably more often that not correspond with overall fitness improving (and vice versa). But the idea that your watch can accurately calculate vo2 max is more marketing ploy than science!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@boarder2020, I honestly don't care much about this nowadays, so I don't follow all that scientific part much anymore, or at least I follow it way less then I did when I was still involved into pro endurance sport. It was a while since I saw those researches, and friend of mine was part of group who did one at our Sports university some 10 years or so ago, with proper vo2max measurements to compare results, and at that time Polar was somewhere in range of +/-3-4% compared to real tests.
But as we both obviously agree, vo2max is pretty useless thing, and there are way better and more important values that are essential for training and for measuring improvements in training. But vo2max is obvously cool thing to put into watches to help sale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Since starting this thread over a month ago we have a fitness challenge at work (virgin pulse) and I've been doing 20 to 30 hours of exercise a week (most of it low intensity). My fitness looks to have improved e.g. First up the hill during a 1000m climb with my MTB mates, achieving higher bike speeds for the same heart rate, being able to cycle on my touring bike for over 10 hours at a time.
According to my watch, my VO2max has remained pretty much the same (48.). Once the challenge is over in a month I will start reducing the exercise hours while increasing the percentage of higher intensity workouts and strength training.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Tue 6-10-20 18:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@DB, you'll be tearing the legs off the snappers ski touring too next season at this rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boarder2020, IIRC The original tabata studies gave similar results but when asked none of the athletes wanted to volunteer for another round of testing because it was so exhausting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
IIRC The original tabata studies gave similar results but when asked none of the athletes wanted to volunteer for another round of testing because it was so exhausting.
|
The original Tabata study (I'm assuming this is the 1996 one) found vo2 max improved 7 ml·kg-1·min-1 over 6 weeks, which interestingly was only 2 more than the steady state group. The performance improvements were mainly due to anaerobic capacity which increased by 28%, rather than vo2 max. The conclusion wasn't tabata is great for improving vo2 max, it was tabata increases anaerobic capacity (unlike steady state exercise) while also producing similar (possibly even better) aerobic adaptations than steady state exercise.
After 6 week the Hickson protocol group improved vo2 max about 10ml·kg-1·min-1, compared to Tabata groups 7.
We are talking single studies with small participant numbers though. So while more research is needed it looks like Hickson is better option for vo2 max improvements. Most of the top endurance running coachs are using 3-5min intervals for vo2 max work, and there is plenty of evidence to support this.
Tabata has been kind of bastardised though by many. It's pretty much impossible to do precisely on anything but a stationary bike.
The uphill athlete guys are fantastic, their training is based on science and they have the real world results to validate their methods. The link is very interesting, but it's perhaps a little off topic, as it's really focusing on high altitude which I think most of us are not spending much time at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
The uphill athlete guys are fantastic, their training is based on science and they have the real world results to validate their methods. The link is very interesting, but it's perhaps a little off topic, as it's really focusing on high altitude which I think most of us are not spending much time at. |
Went up to 4554m / almost 15000 ft last year and was toying with going higher. Certainly hope to do more 4000'ers and maybe a 5000er or 6000er sometime.
It's either that or I buy myself an old-timer motorbike and bask my family jewels in vicks vapour rub just like Masque.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Go to Nepal, lots of nice hiking up to 5600m.
My issue with the link is that it's very specific to high altitude. The conclusion - "NO amount of high-intensity training can provide the needed metabolic or structural adaptations for optimal performance at altitude" - is probably correct. But for most of us that are not solely high altitude climbers, some high intensity work is very beneficial. I don't think Scott Johnson (author of the linked article) would disagree, here is a quote from him in reply to someone asking about interval work (2 mile repeats on a track) - "These workouts will positively benefit you in your uphill pursuits. They’ll build aerobic power, specific leg muscular endurance and maximally work the ventilatory muscles."
If your goal is Everest without supplemental oxygen it's worth thinking about. For most of us that will maybe go up to 6000m once a year an 80:20 style polarised training method with most training being low intensity seems to be optimal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that - really interesting. 300W LT. Wow!
Looks like all I need to do is lose 25kg without impacting my aerobic fitness and I'll equal his w/kg 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Bit of a thread resurrection, but since this thread was linked from another one, and contains lots of useful stuff, I thought' I'd reboot it with some personal experience from the last 12 months where I've taken my 10k time from c.43mins to sub 39mins.
Over that time, my watch-measured (Garmin Fenix 6 pro) VO2max has _dropped_ from 56 to 53, suggesting watch-measured VO2 max is irrelevant for 10k purposes.
My speed/heart rate relationship is _unchanged_ over a year, i.e. speed divided by heart rate is constant. Put another way, a year ago, a 135HR gave me an 8:30 paced run, and it does exactly the same today.
The _only_ measurable change amongst all my stats is my ability to sustain higher % max HR for longer periods.
- The highest level I've achieved all year (including 800m intervals "to destruction" with uphill ending) is 173.
- I averaged 167 for 10k, with 172 for the final 5k, and 173 as I crossed the line.
Request for assistance: Now I'm trying to work out how to transfer my running fitness over to cycling; apparently the rule-of-thumb is that 10k pace in m/s should be close to FTP in W/kg and I'm nowhere close (4.3m/s vs 2.9 W/kg!). Does anybody have any pointers for good "cycling from running" training programs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@snowdave, not seen any cycling from running programs, you’ll have completely different muscles. What you do have is a good aerobic engine so that should transfer over.
I’d just pick a cycling plan, do a ramp test to ascertain ftp and crack on! I’ve a free months trial of TrainerRoad if that would be of interest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@kitenski, Thanks - I've seen the "different muscles" comment in a few places, and what I've been wondering is if it's really "different usage" of the same muscles - after all, very simplistically, I'm still pressing down through my feet, via my legs, just more steadily/for longer duration, rather than a shorter "explosion" of power each stride.
If this is the case, I was trying to figure out if I should train differently to reconfigure the muscles I've got, which would enable me to focus the training on areas that would yield maximum result. Given all the different cycling training approaches that seem to exist (sweet spot, highly polarised etc.) I figured there might be some that were more/less suitable for a runner. Sadly, most of the stuff I could find on triathlete forums seemed to be cyclists trying to improve their running. My quest may be a futile (or pointless) one.
It would be good to try Trainerroad, I'd like to take you up on that please! But can I defer it about 6 weeks till after I've completed my final running task of a sub-90 half? I've got an FTP from Zwift's ramp test (208/2.9 w/kg) but haven't done much with the training on there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@snowdave, I think the biggest cycling gains that you'll get will be getting your muscles accustomed to cycling, which essentially means doing a lot of cycling. With your existing aerobic base, I don't think you'll get much difference between different training approaches.
My recommendation would be whatever gets you cycling the most (based on total duration). All things being equal, that would probably be most steady pace than HIIT. Also, if you've done very little cycling in the past, I suggest doing most at steady state to begin with to get a reasonable technique; if you dive straight into high-intensity work you'd be more likely to develop bad habits.
Do you have any particular targets for cycling - e.g. completing long sportives, or being competitive on certain climbs, or racing with a lot of explosivity (e.g. crits or cyclocross) ? If so, that would affect the training you'd do (broadly to make the harder sessions roughly approximate your target), but I'd leave that specificity for now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@snowdave, sounds complex. I’m with Viv, get out on the bike, find some hills and smash it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@snowdave, yeah just ping me a PM when you are ready to start!
I can tell you the other way around on the "different" muscles. I didn't run for about 6 months due to an injury, but cycled loads. Then ran a very steady 3km and my legs were very stiff the next day!
The main reason I like TR is that it just tells me what to do on what days, I do a Low Volume plan that allocates 3 days a week cycling (2x1 hour and 1 x 90 mins sessions), so I add 2 runs, one Pilates session and a day off! In summer I'll probably add in a weekend outside ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@viv, thanks - I'm targeting distance (i.e. would like to do audax and maybe London-Edinburgh-London - I used to run ultra so I'm familiar with what long events entail). However, in targeting distance I need to work on speed, otherwise it takes too long! I bought a bike in September (had cycled a bit before including some touring trips, but 20+ yrs ago), and am able to ride 100k comfortably in <4hrs.
I'd like to get to the stage where 50 miles is a sub 2.5hr ride, and 100 miles is a 5 hr ride.
If a fit cyclist said to me "I want to get to decent half marathon performance as fast as possible", my running suggestion wouldn't be "just get out and run". It would be quite specific - identify achievable target pace, do intervals above/below, tempo, long run etc. Maybe this doesn't hold true for cycling, but if there is a shortcut (which there would be in running- the performance difference between "get out and run" and "do these exercises" would be HUGE) then I'd like to try it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@kitenski, thanks, will do. Trainerroad sounds ideal; I love running so don't want to drop that entirely, just mix it up with cycling.
AFAICT the bike -> run transition is tricky for most people, due to the extra pounding from running. I also find that running ability fades very fast; every time I dropped off my training program (about 6x in the last 5 years!) I've had to go back to the start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
My speed/heart rate relationship is _unchanged_ over a year, i.e. speed divided by heart rate is constant. Put another way, a year ago, a 135HR gave me an 8:30 paced run, and it does exactly the same today...The _only_ measurable change amongst all my stats is my ability to sustain higher % max HR for longer periods.
|
Thread drift, but that seems like you've actually just improved your anaerobic system, which is fine for 10km, but perhaps not so good for longer multiple hour events. This combined with the rather large difference between your speed and heart rate during 10km Vs speed at 135bpm, suggests you might have aerobic deficiency syndrome. Probably worth testing this prior to starting a program as may influence your training and show you where improvements need to be made.
As for running to cycling, there is a lot less crossover than people perceive. Simply getting out and cycling will improve your economy which will result in lots of easy short term gains as your body adapts to the new movement.
Personally I am a firm believer in polarised training method for endurance sports. It's what we consistently see the top pros doing and the science backs it up. This issue with this for cycling is that you need many more hours than for running. So with a polarised approach you are going to need lots of time.
Perhaps that's why shorter interval sessions during the week, with a long ride at the weekend are preferred by many amateur cyclists. The use of power also helps in this regard as it is great for controlling interval style work. This training can certainly increase FTP which is going to increase speed. However, if you do have aerobic deficiency syndrome at some point that's going to hold you back from ultimately reaching your potential, so I would say fix that first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@boarder2020, thanks, interesting observation, I've looked up aerobic deficiency syndrome and I don't _think_ it should be an issue. Out of c. 40miles/week (30-70 range), I do around 10 at high intensity on average. I also do 90%+ of my running fasted (not because I want to train fasted, but because I like to run early in the morning) including 15mile + runs, which by their nature are highly aerobic.
Part of the reason I switched focus to 10k pace was that I felt I'd spent over a decade doing way too much aerobic training - I could run 100k ultras, but couldn't break 22mins for a 5k. Incorporating intervals has had a huge benefit - consistent with your polarised training recommendation.
Your conclusion around my anaerobic system makes sense in that it may be that I'd maxed out (within reason) where I could take my aerobic performance so maybe all the 10k has done is alter a different part of my performance curve, although I'm expecting to knock 10% off my half-marathon PB in a few weeks so it seems to have improved that part as well.
Maybe there are no shortcuts - I've put 2,000 miles on the bike since Sept, so will keep plugging away, and I'll try @kitenski, 's recommendation of Trainerroad for a month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Out of c. 40miles/week (30-70 range), I do around 10 at high intensity on average
|
14-33%, which is high. Remember most polarised approaches say max 20% at high intensity, and that is time not miles! So once you convert your miles to times those percentages are going to increase.
| Quote: |
including 15mile + runs, which by their nature are highly aerobic.
|
Not necessarily. Plenty of people run 15 miles predominantly in zone 3. What kind of heart rate and pace are you running them at?
Based on your 10km result we can estimate your AnT is around 170bpm 3:54min/km. So your AeT should be 153bpm 4:29secs per km. I.e. you should be able to run an hour at this pace pretty comfortably with your heart rate drift over an hour being less than 5%. If you can't do that you have ads and could definitely get improvements from focusing on aerobic training more.
A nice overview here
https://www.uphillathlete.com/aerobic-deficiency-syndrome/#:~:text=Aerobic%20Deficiency%20Syndrome%20(ADS)%20is,Athlete%20for%20coaching%20and%20training.&text=They%20feel%20fit%2C%20fast%2C%20and,woefully%20underdeveloped%E2%80%94sometimes%20virtually%20nonexistent.
I'm sure there is an example online of an athlete that was running very respectable 10km times with full blown ADS. Once they took that one step back and worked on their aerobic base they produced much better results improving all their old pb's. So I would definitely considered testing it as there just seems to be a huge difference between some of your numbers that point towards it and it could really help your performance long term.
| Quote: |
Maybe there are no shortcuts
|
True. There is a reason none of the pro cyclists can challenge the top runners and vice versa.
| Quote: |
However, in targeting distance I need to work on speed, otherwise it takes too long!
|
Top end speed doesn't matter. What matters is the speed you can maintain for hours and hours. Increase your aerobic threshold and you increase that speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
