I mean, I've been doing 3 and 4 minute reps mostly.
I mean I don't want to be rude, but you might want it start at the begining. 3-4 mins is fine, but the pace will be quicker. 8-10 mins is also fine, but the pace is slower. Check the rough guide for pace versus time recommendations. If you can't do that or understand that, this training is absolutely not for you. That's honestly not be being purposely trolly.
I've been using this with some masters runners that I coach. It's been working very, very well. One thing I have noticed is that how consistent and lack of cardiac drift they are now getting on their easy runs. Even that now seems much more under control. They weren't receptive to these methods initially, I think it's very difficult to get into a runners mindset to train like this.
There is an issue that I don't know if it has been discussed, but the relative intensity at half marathon pace is not the same for a 1:15 person as for a 1:50 person, for example. While the first will be very close to LT2, the second will be far away, so to match, this one would have to do it at a pace of 15K.
Can someone lay out the weekly schedule for marathon training using this approach? Ive seen a couple posts about it on the strava group but the people who posted see, very fast and are also experienced so they were able to get away with shorter long runs. I’m looking to run my first marathon this fall and will be aiming around 3:05-3:15. Any help is much appreciated
I understand that you guys are discussing some deep, physiological stuff. But can you please start a new thread for that? Nothing against your discussion, I have actually learnt a few things today, but this thread is about keeping things simple. Thank you.
I think this thread can be what it wants to be. Right from I think everyone hugely enjoying and following sirpoc success, down to the absolute nuts and bolts of probably why he has made such remarkable progress. It all links in. Even sirpoc himself probably keeps it on the side of simple, despite going in quite deep of how the regular guy in the street can apply it to themselves, without being in any way self diagnosed as a scientist, which he has never claimed to be. His skill I think is communication and working out what works when applied to running versus cycling. This is someone who has had elite hobby jogger/ cyclist level in two sports now. The why is to other people scientifically.
However, I don't think that needs be to ditract from guys like Coggan, unbelief, Hard2find really drilling down. I think most people probably can get their heads round what they are saying. If not, it's interesting to learn, as you point out.
If you don't have a taste for that, again as someone else mentioned. The basic spreadsheet and following that in terms of time, paces etc for an extended period will also do the job. Virtually everyone come to this thread and stuck to this for 3+ months has found success . Some greater than others. But there is a huge running theme. Feel fresher, maybe don't feel fast but then suddenly their aerobic engine takes them to a pb.
Even the trolls in this thread, are quiet funny. Maybe lexel is just a troll? That's the one I can't work out myself! But still, this whole thread is a breathe of fresh air for LRC and personally I hope it goes on for another year. The fact there is 350+ guys who have come to this forum and signed up to the Strava group is testimony for it's success!
It makes sense for the longer runs--1/2 and up. Those are 90% aerobic to begin with!
I mean, I've been doing 3 and 4 minute reps mostly.
I mean I don't want to be rude, but you might want it start at the begining. 3-4 mins is fine, but the pace will be quicker. 8-10 mins is also fine, but the pace is slower. Check the rough guide for pace versus time recommendations. If you can't do that or understand that, this training is absolutely not for you. That's honestly not be being purposely trolly.
I've been using this with some masters runners that I coach. It's been working very, very well. One thing I have noticed is that how consistent and lack of cardiac drift they are now getting on their easy runs. Even that now seems much more under control. They weren't receptive to these methods initially, I think it's very difficult to get into a runners mindset to train like this.
Far better than Maffetone! It also does not sound like it is HR-obsessive either, taking into account variability of HR on every single workout. Even EZ workouts.
Unrelated post, but does anyone have any tips for fueling? My legs are shot everyday other day due to nutritional issues. It feels like I'm eating every second of the day, but still not getting enough food. My easy runs are very easy and my workouts are more than controlled (by RPE and HR).
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Unrelated post, but does anyone have any tips for fueling? My legs are shot everyday other day due to nutritional issues. It feels like I'm eating every second of the day, but still not getting enough food. My easy runs are very easy and my workouts are more than controlled (by RPE and HR).
id be fueling well before your sub T sessions and specifically in the 2 hours right after.
Your going to be burning through a lot of carbs and you really need to be fueled for these sessions, especially since your are trying to repeat them 3x a week
Can someone lay out the weekly schedule for marathon training using this approach? Ive seen a couple posts about it on the strava group but the people who posted see, very fast and are also experienced so they were able to get away with shorter long runs. I’m looking to run my first marathon this fall and will be aiming around 3:05-3:15. Any help is much appreciated
You could stick with the m/w/f subT workouts and make the LR a bit longer in terms of duration. Once you get closer to your race, you could chop the friday workout and then add some quality into the LR.
Unrelated post, but does anyone have any tips for fueling? My legs are shot everyday other day due to nutritional issues. It feels like I'm eating every second of the day, but still not getting enough food. My easy runs are very easy and my workouts are more than controlled (by RPE and HR).
id be fueling well before your sub T sessions and specifically in the 2 hours right after.
Your going to be burning through a lot of carbs and you really need to be fueled for these sessions, especially since your are trying to repeat them 3x a week
Thanks for the response. I suspect my glycogen is often depleted due to lack of carbs.
For true beginners, 3 sessions of 10x3 (w/1m jog) at sub-thresh sound right, with 3 EZ days and 1 LR day. That way you run 7 days a week but are not overcooked, yet not doing too much volume. I know the sub-thresh has to be 25% of total weekly volume but no more...
I’d say 90 min of work per week is high for a beginner. I’d start with 20-24 minutes twice a week, work gradually to a 3rd session, then gradually up to 30 minutes per session.
Thank you! 60-72 mins. week (3x24) sound a little easier (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off).
EZ runs the rest of the time, and 1 LR.
Mon--6 EZ
Tuesday (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Wed--6 EZ
Thurs--(8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Fri--4 EZ
Sat--10-15 LR EZ
Sun--3 EZ
38-44 mpw to start.
(At some point I'd then do the subT on Sat, and then EZ LR on Sun).
I mean, I've been doing 3 and 4 minute reps mostly.
I mean I don't want to be rude, but you might want it start at the begining. 3-4 mins is fine, but the pace will be quicker. 8-10 mins is also fine, but the pace is slower. Check the rough guide for pace versus time recommendations. If you can't do that or understand that, this training is absolutely not for you. That's honestly not be being purposely trolly.
I've been using this with some masters runners that I coach. It's been working very, very well. One thing I have noticed is that how consistent and lack of cardiac drift they are now getting on their easy runs. Even that now seems much more under control. They weren't receptive to these methods initially, I think it's very difficult to get into a runners mindset to train like this.
At the moment I ran 16:33 last Friday on 30-35 mpw. Been doing some 3-4 min reps but still doing speedwork as well. Age 36.
Direct from the study, “Due to the large number of runners, we were not able to arrange a test-run over, e.g., 5000 m or 3000 m for all the runners. However, by collection of race results the same year as the physiological tests were performed, the range of performance was found to be from 8.05 to 13.30 min in 3000 m.” Seems reasonable then that the 1500m-5000m would fit the researchers definition of “long distance runners” and your definition of “highly aerobic events”?
Great, so back to %LT and vLT… it’s not simply a shorter race distance I’m talking about, it’s the metabolic profile (meaning both VO2max and Lamax) and muscle fiber profile! Take two runners with the same VO2max but differing lactate max values. To get to the arbitrarily defined LT that this study proposed (baseline lactate plus a constant), the runner with the lower lactate max will be working at a higher percent of their VO2max thus faster relative vLT, than the runner with the higher lactate max. Since, for the runner with the higher lactate max, the intensity (% VO2max) doesn’t need to be as high to generate the arbitrary lactate value.
Now, tying that in with the range of athletes in this study and based on the mathematical model of the lactate threshold that Alois Mader defined (which frames the process in terms of the underlying generative mechanism based on ATP, ADP, and AMP production), the variation seen in this study would be well explained, simply, by relatively small differences in Lamax. That would mean %LT and vLT are not actually independent from performance level, as you stated. Rather, vLT is not explained well by %VO2max alone. However, add Lamax to the mix, and both a relationship and explanation appears. This could be referred to as a eureka moment.
There is a lot of science about race time in correlation with LTv or VO2max but also CR, have a look. For shorter race durations, e.g. 3k, VO2max seems more important than LTv and the boarders are fluid. LTv seems to correlate well with a 10k race time, as an example.
I like your comment about LT%, and if we want to bring back A. Mader et al into the game, this seems to be the variable. Muscle fiber topology seems to play a role but also athletes age as indicated in the paper Coggan shared in post #2331.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
?? Do you mean LT% or LTv? There is a difference :) Never said LTv is not trainable.
Either, really, but I was thinking of LT%.
So again, how do you draw the conclusion from that study that LT% isn't trainable for running?
Don't be jealous of the Norwegian scientists :) Considering the measurement tolerances and other stuff, the correlations and conclusions they found are remarkeable and that brings the sport science further.
1) LTv is for sure trainable. As also indicated in the papers i shared. LTv is higher for Elite.
2) LT% is the discussion variable. See also my recent answer to H2find.
Based on the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, the logic assumption is as better the athlete is (LTv is higher), as higher also LT% should be. Same with VO2max and CR (which gets lower if better). Based on that, the hypothesis was that LT% might improve with training too. And more for Elites as the train more. But this was not found for running. Your paper shared in post #2331, seems to indicate that training age might play a role, as well as muscle fiber topology. I may quote Storen, 2013: 'There are, however, several reports of no adaptations in LT in %VO2max (LT%) after training interventions'. Together this seems to indicate, that at least short term adaptation for LT%, for well trained athletes, are unlikely.
Now questions to you:
1) Why do you think Vla max is a bogus concept? Please explain in more detail.
2) What is level 2 and level 3 for you? (you shared your training)
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
I’d say 90 min of work per week is high for a beginner. I’d start with 20-24 minutes twice a week, work gradually to a 3rd session, then gradually up to 30 minutes per session.
Thank you! 60-72 mins. week (3x24) sound a little easier (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off).
EZ runs the rest of the time, and 1 LR.
Mon--6 EZ
Tuesday (8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Wed--6 EZ
Thurs--(8 sets of 3 on, 1 off) 24 mins at subT (about 3, but w/ w/u and c/d, 5 on day)
Fri--4 EZ
Sat--10-15 LR EZ
Sun--3 EZ
38-44 mpw to start.
(At some point I'd then do the subT on Sat, and then EZ LR on Sun).
The main downside to this approach is that it can get kind of boring. Mixing up the length of the reps makes it a bit more interesting, if nothing else. Probably helps with running economy too given the slightly different paces. Anyway, I wouldn't do 8x3 minutes for every single session. You can repeat workouts on a 1-2 week cycle and still get good at dialing in the right pace for each.
15 mile long run is probably overdoing it at this mileage. 10 would be OK. Get the third quick workout in there first, unless you're racing much longer distances.
There is an issue that I don't know if it has been discussed, but the relative intensity at half marathon pace is not the same for a 1:15 person as for a 1:50 person, for example. While the first will be very close to LT2, the second will be far away, so to match, this one would have to do it at a pace of 15K.
Any thoughts on this?
I add, I understand that if Sirpoc continues to adjust the rhythms as he improves, there will come a time when they stop being a subthreshold intensity and will become a threshold.
There is an issue that I don't know if it has been discussed, but the relative intensity at half marathon pace is not the same for a 1:15 person as for a 1:50 person, for example. While the first will be very close to LT2, the second will be far away, so to match, this one would have to do it at a pace of 15K.
Any thoughts on this?
I add, I understand that if Sirpoc continues to adjust the rhythms as he improves, there will come a time when they stop being a subthreshold intensity and will become a threshold.
So again, how do you draw the conclusion from that study that LT% isn't trainable for running?
Don't be jealous of the Norwegian scientists :) Considering the measurement tolerances and other stuff, the correlations and conclusions they found are remarkeable and that brings the sport science further.
1) LTv is for sure trainable. As also indicated in the papers i shared. LTv is higher for Elite.
2) LT% is the discussion variable. See also my recent answer to H2find.
Based on the formula LTv=LT%*VO2max/CR, the logic assumption is as better the athlete is (LTv is higher), as higher also LT% should be. Same with VO2max and CR (which gets lower if better). Based on that, the hypothesis was that LT% might improve with training too. And more for Elites as the train more. But this was not found for running. Your paper shared in post #2331, seems to indicate that training age might play a role, as well as muscle fiber topology. I may quote Storen, 2013: 'There are, however, several reports of no adaptations in LT in %VO2max (LT%) after training interventions'. Together this seems to indicate, that at least short term adaptation for LT%, for well trained athletes, are unlikely.
Now questions to you:
1) Why do you think Vla max is a bogus concept? Please explain in more detail.
2) What is level 2 and level 3 for you? (you shared your training)
Why would you think LTv would be lower for Elites? is there anyone that would think that was even a likely conclusion to draw?
LT% is the discussion variable here? Then you should really be engaging with the facts already laid out which you cant help but ignore seemingly by design to make some other strained pts about some formula you cant put down.
“several reports of of no adaptations “
Whats the end of that quote scientist?
”in any intervention studies on already well-trained endurance athletes”
So despite the fact we dont know wtf they are referencing here exactly we have no idea what the characteristics of these ‘well trained’ athletes. But you could and probably should assume they already have a LT% of Vo2 that has been highly trained (approaching 90%)
I add, I understand that if Sirpoc continues to adjust the rhythms as he improves, there will come a time when they stop being a subthreshold intensity and will become a threshold.
How is that?
By definition, the intensity equivalent to the lactate threshold can be maintained for approximately one hour. This duration may be longer in higher level athletes and shorter in runners of low physical condition.
Based on the above, the intensity will not be the same for 5x6' @HM pace if, for example, you start at 1:30 in HM and with the passage of time you get closer to a PB of 1:00, according to As you improve, you will get closer and closer to the threshold. That's the point.