A quote from the paper you cite: "Improvements were 5.0% vs 3.6%, ~41 s difference at post-training-intervention. This difference was not significant." The thing you highlight from this quote is that there is a difference between the training methods. However, according to the authors themselves, there is NOT a difference, when they look at the statistical significance. I do believe there is a truth to what you are saying, this paper is just not the one to cite.
Also if you want to do science based explanations I would recommend you to reference your sources for these claims.
I was so happy to see the list of 180 bpm songs flash by (to add some songs to my 180 bpm playlist) until I actually checked their actual bpms:
Hey ya: 159 bpm NY State of mind: 170 bpm Runnin': 168 bpm Izzo: 175 bpm (ok, not too bad...) Dead presidents: 176 bpm (getting better...) Git up, git out: 169 bpm (ok, I'm fed up, none of these are 180 bpm)
That 3.6% vs 5% difference was quoted without an error bar or standard deviation figure. Therefore we don’t know how statistically meaningful the difference is.
The common mistake with runners is trying to muscle each run. They try to use strength when they run. It’s all about utilizing the stretch reflex and being relaxed and loose and letting your tendons do the work. Land under your center of mass, bend at the ankles, land with a mid/forefoot strike and have a full hip extension and think heel to butt on the backside mechanics. And try to run with less muscular effort
Really good videos on this channel Nicklas. Very helpful and informative. Good length I'd say, on the topic long enough to explain but not regurgitate the same thing over and over (like some do).
These science-based tips are super helpful! Thanks for sharing your methods, Nicklas. Can't wait to try them out and improve my running. #Running#Fitness#HeartRate