Runners Don't Use This (But They REALLY Should)

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 дек 2024

Комментарии • 40

  • @CoachParry
    @CoachParry  Год назад +19

    Just a quick correction on the calculation in example number 2:
    The total training load for the 4 weeks is as follows:
    Week 1 50k
    Week 2 40k
    Week 3 50k
    Week 4 80k
    Total load = 220km / 4 weeks = 55k average per week.
    The ACWR would then be 80k / 55k = 1.45

    • @bejayde1977
      @bejayde1977 Год назад +4

      Ha, I was just going to ask about that. Glad you clarified. Interesting video, thanks.

  • @DWNY358
    @DWNY358 Год назад +7

    Great video! I was actually a subject in that study and now track ACWR as another input. Fortunately, I was in the uninjured group and successfully ran the NYC marathon.

    • @CoachParry
      @CoachParry  Год назад

      That is so cool! Thanks for letting us know and congratulations on your NYC Marathon.

  • @tnan123
    @tnan123 Год назад +5

    The workload used in these calculations is best measured by TRIMP or HRSS or something similar rather than time or distance. A 10 mile week of hard intervals is much different than a 10 mile week of recovery runs.

    • @Catcrumbs
      @Catcrumbs Год назад

      It shouldn't make much of a difference if you have a similar proportion of effort levels from week to week.

  • @AdrianTregoning
    @AdrianTregoning 6 месяцев назад

    I wish I had watched all your videos before I started running in 2016. I think I've made most of the rookie errors, especially the big jumps of "panic training", and paid the price.

  • @andrewfehrsen
    @andrewfehrsen Год назад +1

    Such great insight guys! How often we (I) have a bad week and lower mileage and then seriously up the next week and then... bang! Injury / niggle / sickness

  • @hvallejog
    @hvallejog Год назад +3

    Thank you for your consistently great work. Minor point: 80/50=1.6. There seems to be an endogeneity problem when the acute load changes the chronic load, meaning, 80 should be part of the chronic load, or the chronic load should be calculated with the previous 4 weeks, so that the acute load does not change the chronic load? Thanks again for your great work.

  • @sebjak76
    @sebjak76 Год назад

    Excellent material !!! Best from Poland !!!

  • @darylparonicastelo311
    @darylparonicastelo311 Год назад

    Spot on! Exactly why I got injured now. I attest to that.

  • @jasperverkroost
    @jasperverkroost Год назад

    My Polar Vantage M watch does calculate this ratio from all recorded acivities. Very helpful to check if you're not training to much or to little.

  • @stefandewet2414
    @stefandewet2414 Год назад +1

    Hi Coach Parry,
    I started running in September 2021. I do trail and road running. I'm in my mid-30s, male, and weigh about 63kg. I do regular strength and condition exercises for runners, my average running volume per week is about 50kms. I don't do more than that for now. I've been consistent with my training program for a few months now, when I'm not off with an injury.
    I started with track speed workout sessions lately, and my shins and feet are very prone to injury. Right now, my left foot is badly injured and walking is painful.
    Every 3 months or so, I develop an injury and then I'm off to recover before slowly building up again. My body is coping well with running, but not my lower legs. I'm a neutral runner, I wear proper shoes (the right shoes for the right running surfaces), but I really battle with ongoing injuries.
    I want to become a strong fast runner, I do one track session per week to build speed endurance, I do 1 hill repeat session per week, and the rest is slow and easy runs.
    All the injuries I developed occurred during speed training. How can I then train for speed and speed endurance without getting injured? Any advice will be appreciated if you can make a video about it.
    Thank you.

  • @marigengelbrecht7627
    @marigengelbrecht7627 Год назад

    Very interesting concept. Definitely going to implement

  • @alanbrown9179
    @alanbrown9179 Год назад

    Very useful and interesting video. Thanks so much for sharing. I just plugged in this formula and found that my ratio is 1.06, despite increasing my weekly mileage by 3 miles this week. Thanks for the reassurance!

  • @jefejeffwell1113
    @jefejeffwell1113 Год назад

    Really great info, thank you!

  • @jaynadler4136
    @jaynadler4136 Год назад +3

    Thanks for this. Great info and it lines up with my experience. The only question is what about the cut back weeks to allow for adaptation? Those likely will calculate to 0.8 or 0.9 on that scale. From my experience, when training for any event, you can't always be increasing mileage week over week.

  • @TadeuszCantwell
    @TadeuszCantwell Год назад +4

    Two hosts in the same shot and different camera angles, what magic is this? 😜
    An interesting formula to take into consideration.

  • @potblack7951
    @potblack7951 Год назад +3

    As a runner I love your videos and I ‘Like’ every one..appreciate the effort ye put in and good luck to ye and yer future endeavours..great content..thank you👊..not sure about yer maths on this one though 🤔🙂

    • @peadarr
      @peadarr Год назад +1

      Yeah, it should be 80/55 to account for the increase in chronic load

  • @gerardoh5365
    @gerardoh5365 Год назад +1

    Good info. Confused about 80/50 = ??

  • @bilalzuby1907
    @bilalzuby1907 Год назад +2

    Is it the mileage or the load that’s more important when making the calculation of the ratio? Load takes into account the mileage and the intensity.

  • @uMsubathi
    @uMsubathi Год назад

    Coach this is very scientific 🤣🤣🤣. Love your video, keep em coming 🙌🏼

  • @HennieLacock
    @HennieLacock Год назад +2

    Being a Garmin user, it also indicates your training status / acute load whether it is optimal, under or over. How accurate do you deem Garmin metrics to be?

    • @aslam7952
      @aslam7952 Год назад +1

      Garmin uses your heart rate readings over time instead of km or just time, so it should be more accurate? If the 80km was run at recovery pace, the formula in the video will still score it same as if it was run at tempo.

  • @allancollie2823
    @allancollie2823 Год назад

    The one thing the survey of runners missed was those runners who were injured in training and failed to complete their training and did not attend the race. It only looked at those who competed. A whole block of injured runners were missed.

  • @shayhalpenny8826
    @shayhalpenny8826 Год назад

    Great video, well delivered and helpful. The paper is 45€, so I skipped it. I have a question, have you looked at how training intensity fits in? Using your example of 50, 40, 50, 60, would that hold if it was say HITT, intervals, hills and tempo v’s 50, 40, 50, 60 of MAF or Zone 2 with say just 10 - 20% of above threshold training? I’m currently using Polar flow and it gives a cardio load rating from under training to overreaching. I must look into the calculation method behind it. I found similar on Strava, Fitness & Freshness but not as prescriptive as Polar.

  • @christopher9503
    @christopher9503 Год назад +3

    Does training intensity matter at all? Would an Easy run vs. Threshold run vs. 1 mile repeats all simply be tallied and added to the acute mileage (with no adjustment for intensity)? Thanks!!!

    • @dave3gan
      @dave3gan Год назад

      Yeah, training stress score like in Training Peaks

  • @richardgongaware5061
    @richardgongaware5061 Год назад +8

    IF you change your week 4 load to 80 km, the average of the 4 weeks is NOT 200, but 230. This will change your calculated ratio of week 4/4 week average to 80/57.5 or 1.39. Still overtraining, but shouldn't you use the correct 4-week basis?

    • @EmileKleinhans
      @EmileKleinhans Год назад

      I agree. I would use average of previous 4 weeks and week 5 determining the acute load.

  • @ashleyspencer3664
    @ashleyspencer3664 Год назад

    Be interested to know how you factor in deload weeks which have a positive impact on recovery but would mess up the averages.

  • @morrisg5060
    @morrisg5060 Год назад

    I approve this video 🙂

  • @johnrobinson4445
    @johnrobinson4445 Год назад +1

    Not 10% each week but 10% AT MOST from one week to the next and then stay at that level for a few weeks. So, same level for a few weeks then increase up to 10% and stay at that new level for a few weeks.
    You cannot possibly increase by 10% each week continuously. It would guarantee injuries.

    • @defeqel6537
      @defeqel6537 Год назад +3

      The rules-of-thumb like that are by necessity simplistic and extremely lacking. The "at most 10%" part is good though, as it holds beginners back from hurting themselves.
      - beginner
      P.S. people need to learn to listen to their bodies instead of looking at numbers, though it is difficult to be patient when your motivation is the highest, but training capacity the lowest

  • @aslam7952
    @aslam7952 Год назад +2

    Love the lesson in the park, but your math is inconsistent sir. 👀
    Should be 80/55=1.45

  • @PBlaik
    @PBlaik Год назад +1

    This makes sense, however following a marathon, inserting 1-2 weeks with relatively no running, the equation doesn't seem to work... however modelling it over my typical training, it seems to work well.... thanks!

  • @cindyduvel881
    @cindyduvel881 Год назад

    Gosh Shona, after you sorted Lindsey's strength session, shame did you see his repentant face.

  • @hamidkhoudli4998
    @hamidkhoudli4998 Год назад +1

    80/50=1.6 not 1.45!!!!!