What are your thoughts on the new algorithm for estimating thresholds, namely what was released recently by Suunto, using a dynamic DFA with HRV? You have shown that hard values don't work (eg. 0.75 for everyone), but this new approach seems promising. There's a video on YT from Suunto that goes into some detail in case you haven't heard about it yet (I doubt it 😃).
hey Pedro, thank you for your message. Indeed at the moment I feel like we have what we need in terms of exercise data, looking at metabolic load via lactate at different - prolonged - intensities, and then using heart rate for internal load, which tracks really well also with environmental temperature, humidity, fatigue, etc. DFA might be something to explore out of curiosity, but at the moment I think it still lacks actionability or added value with respect to other parameters (I ask myself, what would I do differently in training?). Happy to look at it again in the future, I do understand the interest, and again, sometimes I also track or look at data just because I find it interesting, not necessarily useful, but at the moment I am not looking at this method or exercise HRV. Feel free to share your experience if you are using it, always happy to see how the data is used by others as well. All the best in the meantime!
I'm looking at it with interest because lactate measurement is still not a user friendly option to try to set your zones (don't have a lactate meter and would prefer a non invasive option). I've had good results with Garmin Lactate Threshold test, seems to be in the ballpark enough to be useful.
Also during a race this could be a good option to check if your self check aligns with your real physiological state (eg. Do I have what it takes to keep this pace?).
Don't have a Suunto right now, but I'll look around to see if I can figure out some sort of manual analysis with captured data.
Hello Marco, Regarding nutrition, I was quite surprised by the news that some gel manufacturers declare a certain amount of carbohydrates that in reality are not there. Thanks for your post, very interesting!
Thanks for your report. 3 week training to do a 50k it's quite impressive ;-) I guess you still had the base from your 100k so not to reproduce for most runners. Couple of questions:
1/ Lactate monitoring: with constant innovation on wearables do you think plausible that in some time we could have have lactate monitors (non intrustive) on watches? I have also read technically it can be achieved through sweat sensor or have I misunderstood?
2/ Nutrition: I capsule of sodium with every gel is that your common practice? Why not taking gel with sodium already included? And with 10C ambiant temp how did you adjust based on sweating?
3/ Running with power sensor instead of HR/pace: I'm Stryd user for almost couple of years now and I was curious to know if you ever tried this approach? On my side I display HR bpm value on watch screen during my workout but as secondary metric as I'm training with power zones. Pace I don't display at all.
Thanks a lot in advance for your feedback and all the best for your next challenges and fall/winter season.
1. it is possible that we get to a stage where data from sweat is somewhat usable. This would probably be a less accurate approximation, and might also follow different patterns with respect to blood data, meaning that we might need to collect data and re-define what to expect, what are meaningful changes, etc. - unfortunately at the moment lactate remains not very practical.
2. there is some sodium in gels, but too little. I have found that sodium loading in greater quantities helps my performance, maybe because of how much I sweat (you cannot imagine, it's like I went for a swim instead of running, already after 10 minutes at low intensity), or maybe for other reasons that we do not understand well, but at the moment I prefer to keep the same protocol. I drink by thirst, so if it is hot (like in the second part of the race) I will tend to drink more, but I tend to maintain the same protocol for sodium, mainly to keep things simple (I can't really change hydration much anyways when trying to drink a few sips here and there from paper cups while running!)
3. Power cannot be measured in running, so it is estimated in ways that are similar to what you get when looking at grade adjusted pace on Strava or effort pace in Coros watches. On flat roads, it doesnt make a difference to look at 'power' or pace or speed, it's all the same. On hills, it might help you get a sense of intensity, just like grade adjusted pace. I think the important bit is always to use external load (pace or 'power') in relation to internal load (heart rate), and not as the only useful parameter (as unfortunatley Stryd marketing has claimed for way too long). By looking at internal vs external load you can capture progress in training, adjust pacing, etc. - you can do this with power or with pace (or grade adjusted pace), eventually it's more a personal preference than anything else. On my end I prefer to use pace or grade adjusted pace (or effort pace in Coros, which I can see in real time while running), so that I can relate the effort to something I am used to (a translation of that pace on hills in terms of what it would be like if I was running on flat terrain), as opposed to making up a new metric with different units (watts). But again, just personal preference, nothing wrong with your approach.
Am I right in thinking that in spite of all the testing you did prior to your 50k race the results were unable show your body (legs) hadn’t fully recovered from the 100km at Passatore?
thank you Clive. I think the data showed that I was indeed not overtrained, which made it easier to train lots on the bike without risks. However, the way my legs felt when running, was not something that could be captured by data other than my subjective feel. The combination of the two (objective data + feel) allowed to plan training accordingly, and eventually be in a better shape when I could pick up running training again (without the data, it could have made sense to just rest - and detrain - for weeks, which wasn't the solution to this problem, I believe.
What are your thoughts on the new algorithm for estimating thresholds, namely what was released recently by Suunto, using a dynamic DFA with HRV? You have shown that hard values don't work (eg. 0.75 for everyone), but this new approach seems promising. There's a video on YT from Suunto that goes into some detail in case you haven't heard about it yet (I doubt it 😃).
hey Pedro, thank you for your message. Indeed at the moment I feel like we have what we need in terms of exercise data, looking at metabolic load via lactate at different - prolonged - intensities, and then using heart rate for internal load, which tracks really well also with environmental temperature, humidity, fatigue, etc. DFA might be something to explore out of curiosity, but at the moment I think it still lacks actionability or added value with respect to other parameters (I ask myself, what would I do differently in training?). Happy to look at it again in the future, I do understand the interest, and again, sometimes I also track or look at data just because I find it interesting, not necessarily useful, but at the moment I am not looking at this method or exercise HRV. Feel free to share your experience if you are using it, always happy to see how the data is used by others as well. All the best in the meantime!
I'm looking at it with interest because lactate measurement is still not a user friendly option to try to set your zones (don't have a lactate meter and would prefer a non invasive option). I've had good results with Garmin Lactate Threshold test, seems to be in the ballpark enough to be useful.
Also during a race this could be a good option to check if your self check aligns with your real physiological state (eg. Do I have what it takes to keep this pace?).
Don't have a Suunto right now, but I'll look around to see if I can figure out some sort of manual analysis with captured data.
Hello Marco, Regarding nutrition, I was quite surprised by the news that some gel manufacturers declare a certain amount of carbohydrates that in reality are not there. Thanks for your post, very interesting!
https://www.irunfar.com/spring-energy-awesome-sauce-gel-controversy-lab-results
thanks Leonardo! Indeed I had seen the news from Koop .. crazy story
Thanks for your report. 3 week training to do a 50k it's quite impressive ;-) I guess you still had the base from your 100k so not to reproduce for most runners. Couple of questions:
1/ Lactate monitoring: with constant innovation on wearables do you think plausible that in some time we could have have lactate monitors (non intrustive) on watches? I have also read technically it can be achieved through sweat sensor or have I misunderstood?
2/ Nutrition: I capsule of sodium with every gel is that your common practice? Why not taking gel with sodium already included? And with 10C ambiant temp how did you adjust based on sweating?
3/ Running with power sensor instead of HR/pace: I'm Stryd user for almost couple of years now and I was curious to know if you ever tried this approach? On my side I display HR bpm value on watch screen during my workout but as secondary metric as I'm training with power zones. Pace I don't display at all.
Thanks a lot in advance for your feedback and all the best for your next challenges and fall/winter season.
thank you Max.
1. it is possible that we get to a stage where data from sweat is somewhat usable. This would probably be a less accurate approximation, and might also follow different patterns with respect to blood data, meaning that we might need to collect data and re-define what to expect, what are meaningful changes, etc. - unfortunately at the moment lactate remains not very practical.
2. there is some sodium in gels, but too little. I have found that sodium loading in greater quantities helps my performance, maybe because of how much I sweat (you cannot imagine, it's like I went for a swim instead of running, already after 10 minutes at low intensity), or maybe for other reasons that we do not understand well, but at the moment I prefer to keep the same protocol. I drink by thirst, so if it is hot (like in the second part of the race) I will tend to drink more, but I tend to maintain the same protocol for sodium, mainly to keep things simple (I can't really change hydration much anyways when trying to drink a few sips here and there from paper cups while running!)
3. Power cannot be measured in running, so it is estimated in ways that are similar to what you get when looking at grade adjusted pace on Strava or effort pace in Coros watches. On flat roads, it doesnt make a difference to look at 'power' or pace or speed, it's all the same. On hills, it might help you get a sense of intensity, just like grade adjusted pace. I think the important bit is always to use external load (pace or 'power') in relation to internal load (heart rate), and not as the only useful parameter (as unfortunatley Stryd marketing has claimed for way too long). By looking at internal vs external load you can capture progress in training, adjust pacing, etc. - you can do this with power or with pace (or grade adjusted pace), eventually it's more a personal preference than anything else. On my end I prefer to use pace or grade adjusted pace (or effort pace in Coros, which I can see in real time while running), so that I can relate the effort to something I am used to (a translation of that pace on hills in terms of what it would be like if I was running on flat terrain), as opposed to making up a new metric with different units (watts). But again, just personal preference, nothing wrong with your approach.
All the best to you as well!
Marco 👋
What an interesting and informative read 👌
Am I right in thinking that in spite of all the testing you did prior to your 50k race the results were unable show your body (legs) hadn’t fully recovered from the 100km at Passatore?
thank you Clive. I think the data showed that I was indeed not overtrained, which made it easier to train lots on the bike without risks. However, the way my legs felt when running, was not something that could be captured by data other than my subjective feel. The combination of the two (objective data + feel) allowed to plan training accordingly, and eventually be in a better shape when I could pick up running training again (without the data, it could have made sense to just rest - and detrain - for weeks, which wasn't the solution to this problem, I believe.
Now that makes sense. Thank you.