My proposal isn't proprietary, it is just stripped down physics.
Energy point (E) = (100/t)^3*t for meters
or E = (91.44/t)^3*t for yards
50s are half the points on the lookup table for half the time, and 200s are twice the points for twice the time on the look up table. A spreadsheet would do everything for you.
t is time. If I was doing 100 repeats on 1:20, and I was hold 1:10, t=70.
Energy points should be a fair reflection of practice intensity on the individual level. If you are practicing at a 4000 points/hour, and then jump up a few hundred points, you have increased your intensity by stepping up your program somewhere.
What does this measure - total effort over time, intensity of effort over time, total intensity? Disregarding speed in races, do you think that an energy equivalent short, sprint workout would produce the same conditioning as a longer, slower more conventional workout?
My proposal isn't proprietary, it is just stripped down physics.
Energy point (E) = (100/t)^3*t for meters
or E = (91.44/t)^3*t for yards
50s are half the points on the lookup table for half the time, and 200s are twice the points for twice the time on the look up table. A spreadsheet would do everything for you.
t is time. If I was doing 100 repeats on 1:20, and I was hold 1:10, t=70.
Energy points should be a fair reflection of practice intensity on the individual level. If you are practicing at a 4000 points/hour, and then jump up a few hundred points, you have increased your intensity by stepping up your program somewhere.
What does this measure - total effort over time, intensity of effort over time, total intensity? Disregarding speed in races, do you think that an energy equivalent short, sprint workout would produce the same conditioning as a longer, slower more conventional workout?
