Thank you again. It seems to good to be true but more and more comments/posts in the singles thread are showing it works! I think runners are naturally hesitant b/c it goes against JD and Pfitz, et al. to a degree. (To be fair those guys recommend intervals and LT at some point).
TBH I think "us vs. them" framing like you're doing here is part of the reason this thread is going off the rails. This system isn't about challenging or discrediting any one approach or another.
This approach appears different on its surface because it's not as obviously rooted in the idea that more is more and faster makes you faster, which is very comfortable thinking for a lot of runners.
To anyone who actually reads this thread and makes an effort to understand the science of this approach, it's apparent that both maxims can remain true, and the system can simultaneously still function as intended.
For various reasons, mostly ego, finances, and a desire to distill things down into TikTokish "this vs. that" soundbytes, people are having extreme knee-jerk reactions to what sirpoc has presented, and are failing to appreciate that this is basically a study in efficiency and maximizing returns, nothing more, nothing less.
No one who actually understands this plan says it's the one to rule them all outside of the specific life circumstances for which it was created. (But there are a ton of people who insist that their approach is the one to rule them all, because of ego/money/TikTok).
Don't get caught up in that. Just figure out what's happening and you can either follow this wholesale and improve, or, if you know what you're doing enough to understand how to do this, you can apply certain concepts to your own training, and also improve. But just understand the latter is harder than it looks and requires more than a copy paste of a Q day into your other training.
I believe Marius Bakken did the periodized version of this training.
Funny thing is, thread has had me digging for stuff about threshold and read both JG article on double T and Bakken's long post. Found both very helpful. Linking Bakken below, as haven't seen it posted this thread, though may be buried pages deep. Bakken more concerned with high volume but seems easily adaptable to singles and found his info on including "X element" work plus T very interesting, along with advice for plyos and more ancillary stuff. Sirpoc wins for simplicity but found Bakken good read with lots of nuggets!
mariusbakken.com
The Norwegian model of lactate threshold training and lactate controlled approach to training. A look at some of the concepts, history, and keys to improvement. I wrote most of the articles found…
It is recommended to be 90 mins, i.e. not 120 mins or longer. This is only 30 mins longer than the easy run. The Q days will likely be longer than the easy days, once warm up and cool down miles are included, so the long run will be less than 30 mins longer than a Q day.
The long run will still be capped at 70% of max hr, but may have more cardiac drift, so may average out slower per mile than an easy day.
For an 18 min 5ker, a 90 minute vs 60 minute run at the slowest recommended easy pace is a difference of 25.82 TSS (77.45 vs 51.63), and 33.2 at the fastest. (99.59 vs 66.39).
Is that 30% difference in daily load significant to most people? The system suggests not. But to someone with a stated need to manage weekly load? I'd run a few weeks without it first and then see how the person is feeling.
I also don't know how much I agree with the idea of adding volume to Q days. To me, the purpose of the Q days is the Q. Not sure how necessary long warmups and cool downs really are with respect to adding weekly TSS (the cooldown in particular is going to be pretty inefficient.)
If I recall correctly Sirpoc's stated theoretical preference for building volume in the form of doubles would be to add mileage to easy days to. That makes sense to me (supportive volume first, ultimately use that to increase Q) but perhaps he can weigh in and correct if I'm misremembering.
For an 18 min 5ker, a 90 minute vs 60 minute run at the slowest recommended easy pace is a difference of 25.82 TSS (77.45 vs 51.63), and 33.2 at the fastest. (99.59 vs 66.39).
Is that 30% difference in daily load significant to most people? The system suggests not. But to someone with a stated need to manage weekly load? I'd run a few weeks without it first and then see how the person is feeling.
I also don't know how much I agree with the idea of adding volume to Q days. To me, the purpose of the Q days is the Q. Not sure how necessary long warmups and cool downs really are with respect to adding weekly TSS (the cooldown in particular is going to be pretty inefficient.)
If I recall correctly Sirpoc's stated theoretical preference for building volume in the form of doubles would be to add mileage to easy days to. That makes sense to me (supportive volume first, ultimately use that to increase Q) but perhaps he can weigh in and correct if I'm misremembering.
I think the recommendation is to do as much easy mileage as you can.
Is the more optimal way to maximise this, by buffering the Q days with easy mileage, increase easy day mileage, or do one easy run up to 30 mins longer, I don't know.
There may be people who want to rest one day a week, I think the logical modification would be: Q, E, Q, E, Q, LR.
I'm not so sure. A long run increases the day's load by ~20+ points of TSS over a regular E run, and that's following a peak-stress Q day, and will be followed by another peak-stress Q day, so I think if load management/resting is truly a requirement, I'd probably err on the side of keeping it E and trying to distribute that load over 3 days, over time, to more safely build the load into the week, and make sure the runner continues to feel like they can handle it.
And then I think, over time, they'll probably find themselves feeling strong enough to train on that 7th day anyway, which would be the optimal outcome because it represents a more significant increase in weekly TSS.
If cutting the day is just for time or convenience and the athlete is reasonably trained then yeah, I think that's a scenario where I'd default to keeping the LR in there and cutting the E.
Maybe this is an overcautious approach, but to me the devilish thing about this system is that it's extremely simple as long as you follow the rules exactly, but that means understanding exactly how the rules apply to your body, and it also means that you're flirting with the edge pretty much the whole time by design.
Sirpoc performs the long run on the Sunday after the subthreshold Saturday, it is the same case, but reducing a short easy training day to have it free.
To give a proper answer to this question I'd want more information about your reasoning for wanting to make the change, your short/long term goals, your weekly schedule, and your training/injury histories, because all of those things factor when tweaking elements of this system.
But my personal opinion is to avoid tweaking, at least at first, because so much of the beauty/point of the Sirpoc method comes from applying the tested structure: E Q E Q E Q E(LR), which is designed to maximize weekly load within a time constrained period in an infinitely repeatable way, while minimizing injury risk.
If you want to deviate from this structure by condensing the schedule, then you're necessarily going to end up doing one of two things:
1. Increasing your load for a given day above what is recommended and introducing risk; or
2. Sacrificing weekly load by cutting back on either the LR or the Q or both
Neither is optimal, so if you have the logistical ability to run 7 days a week, my advice is to just run the 7 days a week as prescribed. It's a great bang for your buck / value approach, which again is the entire point of this training.
If you're scared about running 7 days because you've historically gotten hurt without a rest day, consider trying this system within prescribed paces for a week or two and see how you feel -- my prediction is you won't have any desire to rest on the seventh day.
If you logistically can't run 7 days and need to chop something, in the absence of more info I'd probably cut out the long run and keep a full third Q session as programmed. Eventually once you know the system and your limits you can try to work in more volume onto the E days to open up more intervals on the Q days.
But again, the long run is part of this method's special sauce, both in terms of benefits produced in isolation and also in terms of its supportive ability to unlock additional intervals. So if you can keep it, I'd do that.
This is a great post and one that most people should take on board. I tried this training and to tweak a few things and it just didn't work out over 2-3 months. I started again as laid out, after another 3 months really started to get the benefit. If you look at sirpoc, he has basically changed nothing in terms of weekly make up, only some increased time. That tells you all you need to know and has stuck to the 7 day schedule and he's STILL improving.
I'm in the Strava group myself, it's actually great, fantastic adult discussions like the old days of LR. One thing I notice, the people who have not had success of which there are some , or the few people who have dug themselves into big holes, are the ones who have changed a lot, to the point you couldn't even say it resembles this method. I won't pick on anyone, but there was even a guy with a lactate meter who managed to dig themselves a big hole.
The only thing anyone might need to change, is the paces sirpoc put up. Especially if you are starting out and it feels too hard, it probably is. Even if you are within the guide. I've seen sirpoc post, the guide and paces applied to him and we're only a rough area. Although they seem to fit decent for most people, if you are really in aerobically developed, start off slower. I did this, within a month or so I almost now sit absolutely smack bang in the middle of the guide paced.
Even then, this post I am replying to hits the nail on the head. Stick to the 7 day schedule unless you absolutely can't, for some reason. I always thought I couldn't run 7 days, now after 3 months of this I can't imagine not running all 7 days.
Hey! That was me in the big hole :). I actually did not tweak anything except for run my longrun to 120 mins only because I can't run on Mondays for work reasons, but I run that LR extremely easily.
My hole was more caused by running the paces sirpoc described, and also using 4.0-4.5mmol as a rough LT2 without doing a step test.
Turns out for me, even after running this program for 6 months, sirpoc's paces are WAY too fast for me. I ended up doing a step test, and found my LT2 is closer to 2.8-3.0mmol. I've been trying to run under that for the last month and once again feel amazing and very fast.
My paces for Q days are really more like:
12x3 mins @ HM pace + 5 sec 6x6 mins @ MP + 8 sec 3x12 mins @ MP + 30sec
This might feel slow but I get decent TSS and my CTL is back on the climb. And I can tell I am gaining a lot of fitness.
Over the last 7 months of starting this program, I have made considerable progress, going from a 20 min 5K to mid 18s, or maybe faster. I did lose 1-2 months from getting into too big of a hole. Have another 5K soon and am excited to see where I'm at.
There may be people who want to rest one day a week, I think the logical modification would be: Q, E, Q, E, Q, LR.
and that's following a peak-stress Q day, and will be followed by another peak-stress Q day
And then I think, over time, they'll probably find themselves feeling strong enough to train on that 7th day anyway, which would be the optimal outcome because it represents a more significant increase in weekly TSS.
If cutting the day is just for time or convenience and the athlete is reasonably trained then yeah, I think that's a scenario where I'd default to keeping the LR in there and cutting the E.
Maybe this is an overcautious approach, but to me the devilish thing about this system is that it's extremely simple as long as you follow the rules exactly, but that means understanding exactly how the rules apply to your body, and it also means that you're flirting with the edge pretty much the whole time by design.
They only list six runs so, presumably, the day following LR is a rest day as they prefaced. So the LR would not be followed by a stress day.
For an 18 min 5ker, a 90 minute vs 60 minute run at the slowest recommended easy pace is a difference of 25.82 TSS (77.45 vs 51.63), and 33.2 at the fastest. (99.59 vs 66.39).
Is that 30% difference in daily load significant to most people? The system suggests not. But to someone with a stated need to manage weekly load? I'd run a few weeks without it first and then see how the person is feeling.
I also don't know how much I agree with the idea of adding volume to Q days. To me, the purpose of the Q days is the Q. Not sure how necessary long warmups and cool downs really are with respect to adding weekly TSS (the cooldown in particular is going to be pretty inefficient.)
If I recall correctly Sirpoc's stated theoretical preference for building volume in the form of doubles would be to add mileage to easy days to. That makes sense to me (supportive volume first, ultimately use that to increase Q) but perhaps he can weigh in and correct if I'm misremembering.
You seem to have a very good grasp of what's going on, I really won't bother adding much more to what you've said as you've made some superb posts. Hopefully you are in the Strava group, there's often some pretty good chat there.
Personally I would only be adding stuff on to the easy days once you get up to 30-35 mins work in the sub threshold sessions. Since I reached that, I've g one from 40 mins to 1 hour easy run and have done the same from 75 up to 90 mins long run. It doesn't seem like a lot, but over time keeps the grind in an upward curve.
I will say right now, I'm a bit stuck as to where to add stuff on. But, the absolute last resort would be to do anything to the Q days. As you have said, the whole thing is pretty much a tightrope as it is. That's probably where the most can go wrong, IMO. If I was going to double, I would start with maybe on a Monday , Wednesday or Friday doing two 35-40 min runs on one of those days, once a week. I've probably gotten to a level beyond what I expected and have become half decent it appears at masters level, so maybe I'll make that commitment when I final reach the limit I can grow my training (which is close).
But I don't know, running is just a hobby to me and something to do and keep fit to replace cycling. I sort of agreed with myself I would commit an hour a day and 90 mins on a Sunday maximum. But we will see......
I'm also glad, although I think I've said it before, that you point out this isn't like a magic system. It's still very hard to do. Mentally and sometimes physically just to be bothered to do the same thing over and over again. I'll sound like a broken record, but if I had 3-4 hours a week, I wouldn't train like this. If I had 12 hours a week, I also wouldn't train like this. I still think this is pretty specific to around the 4.5-8 hour range to give it it's full of broadest scope. That just happens to be the majority of people 35+ with busy working lives. I'm glad people are having success, it's a it embarrassing sometimes that people have made me as some sort of guardian for this training, but if it's helped people I'm glad. I think my non running background is probably to my benefit, as I have never ran before this or had engrain in me you must do X Y and Z to be successful.
For an 18 min 5ker, a 90 minute vs 60 minute run at the slowest recommended easy pace is a difference of 25.82 TSS (77.45 vs 51.63), and 33.2 at the fastest. (99.59 vs 66.39).
Is that 30% difference in daily load significant to most people? The system suggests not. But to someone with a stated need to manage weekly load? I'd run a few weeks without it first and then see how the person is feeling.
I also don't know how much I agree with the idea of adding volume to Q days. To me, the purpose of the Q days is the Q. Not sure how necessary long warmups and cool downs really are with respect to adding weekly TSS (the cooldown in particular is going to be pretty inefficient.)
If I recall correctly Sirpoc's stated theoretical preference for building volume in the form of doubles would be to add mileage to easy days to. That makes sense to me (supportive volume first, ultimately use that to increase Q) but perhaps he can weigh in and correct if I'm misremembering.
You seem to have a very good grasp of what's going on, I really won't bother adding much more to what you've said as you've made some superb posts. Hopefully you are in the Strava group, there's often some pretty good chat there.
Personally I would only be adding stuff on to the easy days once you get up to 30-35 mins work in the sub threshold sessions. Since I reached that, I've g one from 40 mins to 1 hour easy run and have done the same from 75 up to 90 mins long run. It doesn't seem like a lot, but over time keeps the grind in an upward curve.
I will say right now, I'm a bit stuck as to where to add stuff on. But, the absolute last resort would be to do anything to the Q days. As you have said, the whole thing is pretty much a tightrope as it is. That's probably where the most can go wrong, IMO. If I was going to double, I would start with maybe on a Monday , Wednesday or Friday doing two 35-40 min runs on one of those days, once a week. I've probably gotten to a level beyond what I expected and have become half decent it appears at masters level, so maybe I'll make that commitment when I final reach the limit I can grow my training (which is close).
But I don't know, running is just a hobby to me and something to do and keep fit to replace cycling. I sort of agreed with myself I would commit an hour a day and 90 mins on a Sunday maximum. But we will see......
I'm also glad, although I think I've said it before, that you point out this isn't like a magic system. It's still very hard to do. Mentally and sometimes physically just to be bothered to do the same thing over and over again. I'll sound like a broken record, but if I had 3-4 hours a week, I wouldn't train like this. If I had 12 hours a week, I also wouldn't train like this. I still think this is pretty specific to around the 4.5-8 hour range to give it it's full of broadest scope. That just happens to be the majority of people 35+ with busy working lives. I'm glad people are having success, it's a it embarrassing sometimes that people have made me as some sort of guardian for this training, but if it's helped people I'm glad. I think my non running background is probably to my benefit, as I have never ran before this or had engrain in me you must do X Y and Z to be successful.
Sirpoc - if you did have 10-12 hours a week, what would you do differently? Just add the doubles?
TBH I think "us vs. them" framing like you're doing here is part of the reason this thread is going off the rails. This system isn't about challenging or discrediting any one approach or another.
This approach appears different on its surface because it's not as obviously rooted in the idea that more is more and faster makes you faster, which is very comfortable thinking for a lot of runners.
To anyone who actually reads this thread and makes an effort to understand the science of this approach, it's apparent that both maxims can remain true, and the system can simultaneously still function as intended.
For various reasons, mostly ego, finances, and a desire to distill things down into TikTokish "this vs. that" soundbytes, people are having extreme knee-jerk reactions to what sirpoc has presented, and are failing to appreciate that this is basically a study in efficiency and maximizing returns, nothing more, nothing less.
No one who actually understands this plan says it's the one to rule them all outside of the specific life circumstances for which it was created. (But there are a ton of people who insist that their approach is the one to rule them all, because of ego/money/TikTok).
Don't get caught up in that. Just figure out what's happening and you can either follow this wholesale and improve, or, if you know what you're doing enough to understand how to do this, you can apply certain concepts to your own training, and also improve. But just understand the latter is harder than it looks and requires more than a copy paste of a Q day into your other training.
That was not my intent to insult those who did JD or Pfitz; I've used Pfitz before myself. Sorry if it came off like that!
Hey! That was me in the big hole :). I actually did not tweak anything except for run my longrun to 120 mins only because I can't run on Mondays for work reasons, but I run that LR extremely easily.
My hole was more caused by running the paces sirpoc described, and also using 4.0-4.5mmol as a rough LT2 without doing a step test.
Turns out for me, even after running this program for 6 months, sirpoc's paces are WAY too fast for me. I ended up doing a step test, and found my LT2 is closer to 2.8-3.0mmol. I've been trying to run under that for the last month and once again feel amazing and very fast.
My paces for Q days are really more like:
12x3 mins @ HM pace + 5 sec 6x6 mins @ MP + 8 sec 3x12 mins @ MP + 30sec
This might feel slow but I get decent TSS and my CTL is back on the climb. And I can tell I am gaining a lot of fitness.
Over the last 7 months of starting this program, I have made considerable progress, going from a 20 min 5K to mid 18s, or maybe faster. I did lose 1-2 months from getting into too big of a hole. Have another 5K soon and am excited to see where I'm at.
Not a troll comment. Please don't think it is. But why da f**k would you run those paces if you are getting 4+ mmol readings? You just carried on? Damn. I thought it was pretty clear the paces were a good guide, but if you are burying yourself. Just ease off. OK you hadn't done a step test, but how did you not think something was up? This is a case of what Coggan was talking about and why Lactate testing is just fumbling around in the dark. This is crazy man.
Btw, this isn't a personal attack in genuinely curious. Your summary posts have been useful so im not trying to dump all over it.
Hey! That was me in the big hole :). I actually did not tweak anything except for run my longrun to 120 mins only because I can't run on Mondays for work reasons, but I run that LR extremely easily.
My hole was more caused by running the paces sirpoc described, and also using 4.0-4.5mmol as a rough LT2 without doing a step test.
Turns out for me, even after running this program for 6 months, sirpoc's paces are WAY too fast for me. I ended up doing a step test, and found my LT2 is closer to 2.8-3.0mmol. I've been trying to run under that for the last month and once again feel amazing and very fast.
My paces for Q days are really more like:
12x3 mins @ HM pace + 5 sec 6x6 mins @ MP + 8 sec 3x12 mins @ MP + 30sec
This might feel slow but I get decent TSS and my CTL is back on the climb. And I can tell I am gaining a lot of fitness.
Over the last 7 months of starting this program, I have made considerable progress, going from a 20 min 5K to mid 18s, or maybe faster. I did lose 1-2 months from getting into too big of a hole. Have another 5K soon and am excited to see where I'm at.
Not a troll comment. Please don't think it is. But why da f**k would you run those paces if you are getting 4+ mmol readings? You just carried on? Damn. I thought it was pretty clear the paces were a good guide, but if you are burying yourself. Just ease off. OK you hadn't done a step test, but how did you not think something was up? This is a case of what Coggan was talking about and why Lactate testing is just fumbling around in the dark. This is crazy man.
Btw, this isn't a personal attack in genuinely curious. Your summary posts have been useful so im not trying to dump all over it.
No offense taken. The strange thing was that running 3x12mins at 30K pace consistently gave me 2.5-3.5mmol readings, but the equivalent 12x3 mins and 6x6mins were giving me 4-4.5mmol. I was also making very fast progress in my lactate overall, so I figured after a couple of weeks, my lactate would come down. I also felt completely fine and was just curious as to what would happen if I pushed it. It wasn't until the 4th week that I began to feel tired / unmotivated. But I never felt overly sore or close to injured. It was more a lack of motivation and a feeling of dread from running in general.
No offense taken. The strange thing was that running 3x12mins at 30K pace consistently gave me 2.5-3.5mmol readings, but the equivalent 12x3 mins and 6x6mins were giving me 4-4.5mmol. I was also making very fast progress in my lactate overall, so I figured after a couple of weeks, my lactate would come down. I also felt completely fine and was just curious as to what would happen if I pushed it. It wasn't until the 4th week that I began to feel tired / unmotivated. But I never felt overly sore or close to injured. It was more a lack of motivation and a feeling of dread from running in general.
Was going to ask what a "big hole" looks like with this training! Appreciate addressing it. Personally someone who has trouble keeping a lid on certain workouts and don't have lactate tester/HR monitor to gauge efforts, just watch pace and perceived effort. Still very interested by training but could see myself also ending up in hole, though glad to know there wasn't stress reaction or more serious injury because of it.
Also appreciate Sirpoc addressing main use case of training: most bang for buck with HIS training time. Think most in thread have similar time limitations but good to look over available training time to make sure can implement consistently.
Interesting Stephen scullion video recently about running too much threshold and advocates for some more vo2. Interesting for sure but not sure I agree
Are we sure he doesn't overdo his threshold runs i.e. run them too fast ?
I think he is frustrated after his recent race and is doing a post mortem on his training. There was an interesting reply to his video in the comments:-
"@stephenscullion262 I disagree with you that the saturday workout is the key session in the week for the double threshhold high mileage model. I am a norwegian distance runner and 'our' model is specifically tailored for 1500m to 10km. The double threshhold tuesday and thursday + 2x10x200m hillsprints on saturday is only what you do from october to may, then you lower your mileage slightly and start to train harder closer to the racedays in the spring and summer (around 7-8 mmol for example in may). VO2max is great for running fast, but it is NOT the single most important thing. We have plenty of sub 29 min 10km runners with VO2 max well below 70. Having a control over your lactate and speed in training is the key to consistency (besides eating enough food and sleeping of course). THIS IS NOT A MARATHON MODEL. You can always find a good reason for running faster than threshold, but the reason you find will never be more important than your total volume of threshold training (for 1500m -> 10km/half marathon). It is all about assigning a weight to the good arguments when you have multiple good arguments. Of course you need 'harder' training but, the harder stuff should NEVER be prioritized over mileage when you are not racing during the winter. Of course there is not a one solution that fits every runner, but this is our philosophy. Your ability to not accumulate lactate is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than your ability to push hard while already having a high amount of lactate in your body, if you run 1500m or longer races. Threshold is a level of intensity, not one specific pace. So how do we solve the ''problem'' of not running fast enough? We use lactate as an INTENSITY LEVEL. Your threshold pace is something that is session-specific. You can obviously run faster at 2.5mmol lactate in a 400m x25 session than you can in a 2000m x6 session. The fastest runner in a distance race is USUALLY the man who has the least stiff legs before the last laps, not the guy who fights for his life while having already stiff legs. Feel free to ask any questions! We still try to find a good model for the marathon in Norway, but we haven't gotten close to anything as good as our 1500m->10000m/half marathon model yet. The norwegian model is also something that will not work for just a couple of months of training. It is a long term model that works best over a few years of measuring and comparing your lactate levels from previous years and increasing your volume every year."
I don’t follow Svullion closely, but my impression from a couple vids and podcasts in the last couple years is that Scullion is quick to jump on different trends and will definitively blame 1 aspect of training instead of looking at the whole picture.
