Q, two things if you don't mind.
First, I'd like to challenge you a bit on the physiology side. I do not think that sprint can be considered as a substitute for aerobic work. Not with performance in mind. To a very narrow extent, it does for untrained subjects, as the study quoted earlier by Linsday tried to demonstrate, but that's about it. Not sure if it's what you meant in your previous statement though. I may have read it wrong (as usual).
Then, would you mind providing me (total dumb in physics) a practical example on how to apply your point system? It'd help me building my excel spreadsheet. I think I understand how to build the core function, but I have no clue on how to use your lookup table :confused:
*edit*
Ran a few calculations. Well done. It's holding the road in a lot of circumstances. I still do not know how to use the table though. That probably explains the following issue that I am getting. How would you input a single 1500 bout done in 20min? I tried 1*(91.44/1200)^3*1200, which doesn't work obviously. I am probably getting this 91.44 constant wrong? Is this where the lookup table comes in?
Solar, I will read up on the physiology. It is a softer science than physics, and it is not as clear cut if what I am saying is valid. But to be clear, I am saying that 10x100s holding 1:01s on 2:00 will result in about the same aerobic benefit as 15x100s holding 1:15s on 1:20. Like I said, I will read up more on the aerobic and anaerobic systems to see if I am missing something obvious. There is still a good chance that science and reality are not quite in sync on the topic as well and someone could easily prove me wrong with empirical evidence.
91.44 is the constant for yards. You are in meters, right? The constant would be 100 for meters. But more explanation to come.
The look up table is for people not using a spreadsheet. :) The lookup table assumes you are doing 100s, and if you want to use it for 50s, you would divide the points and times in half. To scale up to 200s, you would multiple the points and times by 2. So you want to use the table for 1500s, multiple the points and times by 15. Obviously, we you start multiplying by large numbers, the times become less accurate
If you setup your spreadsheet like this:
A1: Distance in Meters, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1500, B2: 1200, C3: =(A2/B2)^3*B2
If you were yards
A1: Distance in Yards, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1650, B2: 1200, C3: =(.9144*A2/B2)^3*B2
I didn't realize what I was saying mathematically was so unclear. I will upload some example spreadsheets to play with.
Q, two things if you don't mind.
First, I'd like to challenge you a bit on the physiology side. I do not think that sprint can be considered as a substitute for aerobic work. Not with performance in mind. To a very narrow extent, it does for untrained subjects, as the study quoted earlier by Linsday tried to demonstrate, but that's about it. Not sure if it's what you meant in your previous statement though. I may have read it wrong (as usual).
Then, would you mind providing me (total dumb in physics) a practical example on how to apply your point system? It'd help me building my excel spreadsheet. I think I understand how to build the core function, but I have no clue on how to use your lookup table :confused:
*edit*
Ran a few calculations. Well done. It's holding the road in a lot of circumstances. I still do not know how to use the table though. That probably explains the following issue that I am getting. How would you input a single 1500 bout done in 20min? I tried 1*(91.44/1200)^3*1200, which doesn't work obviously. I am probably getting this 91.44 constant wrong? Is this where the lookup table comes in?
Solar, I will read up on the physiology. It is a softer science than physics, and it is not as clear cut if what I am saying is valid. But to be clear, I am saying that 10x100s holding 1:01s on 2:00 will result in about the same aerobic benefit as 15x100s holding 1:15s on 1:20. Like I said, I will read up more on the aerobic and anaerobic systems to see if I am missing something obvious. There is still a good chance that science and reality are not quite in sync on the topic as well and someone could easily prove me wrong with empirical evidence.
91.44 is the constant for yards. You are in meters, right? The constant would be 100 for meters. But more explanation to come.
The look up table is for people not using a spreadsheet. :) The lookup table assumes you are doing 100s, and if you want to use it for 50s, you would divide the points and times in half. To scale up to 200s, you would multiple the points and times by 2. So you want to use the table for 1500s, multiple the points and times by 15. Obviously, we you start multiplying by large numbers, the times become less accurate
If you setup your spreadsheet like this:
A1: Distance in Meters, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1500, B2: 1200, C3: =(A2/B2)^3*B2
If you were yards
A1: Distance in Yards, B1: Time in Seconds, C1: Energy Points
A2: 1650, B2: 1200, C3: =(.9144*A2/B2)^3*B2
I didn't realize what I was saying mathematically was so unclear. I will upload some example spreadsheets to play with.
