This is interesting. I was a multi eventer back in my university days and definitely on the faster twitcher side (jumping events were my strongest point, nowadays my legs are still twice the size of most on the start line for distance races), in my older age (nearly 40), the past couple of years I've been trying to convert to distance (now 36min 10k PB - hobby jogger territory but improving). I've tried the sub threshold method for a couple of months last fall but found it more draining than it should (compared to traditional training weeks, ie one faster interval session, one tempo) and was going backwards whilst also dealing with niggles so gave up. Didn't really match many people's experience here. I wonder if this could be the reason, ie need to slow it down far more than specified by the spreadsheets. I was always conservative, but perhaps not enough.
For a faster twitch athlete should the easy/long runs be slower too? I guess sub 70% HR max is already very slow (8 min mile) though so maybe not. I guess lactate testing would probably be the only way of truly finding out for the ST intervals. Keen to give it another go but hesitant after the last attempt.
Thanks for bringing up the muscle fibre type point, one of my training partners who is definitely slow twitch has really thrived with a SubT approach using the same pace guide, whilst I struggled. Feels like this could be the reason why.
Have you tried or looked into EIM (Easy Interval or Verhuel Method)? As a fast twitch runner you might need to run faster reps, longer recoveries between reps, and less easy/steady/continuous running. Just a thought.
A FT runner will find that easier, but will it build the endurance as well? I don’t know?
Have you tried or looked into EIM (Easy Interval or Verhuel Method)? As a fast twitch runner you might need to run faster reps, longer recoveries between reps, and less easy/steady/continuous running. Just a thought.
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have the EIM book but haven't tried implementing it, I've a long history of achilles tendinopathy and it looked like a recipe for aggravating that...Not convinced heavy loading daily is conducive to tendon health. Partly why this approach appeals as its a bit more gentle than EIM by having the de-loading days between efforts. Tempted to consider trying something of a hybrid approach though as long continuous efforts definitely hurt me more than they should (eg feel better after a short/fast session than say a 8 mile upper Z2).
I think a point of confusion for me is whether fast twitch athletes should play to their strengths by going faster/shorter and recruiting more FT fibres, or doing subT even slower to strengthen weaknesses (more ST). Probably depends on race target, 5-10k is my preference. I'm absolutely not a physiologist and stabbing blindly in the dark. Great that there's so many knowledgeable people on here (and a few trolls)!
Yes! One thing noticed from now paying attention to it was how highly individual HR is. Don't follow many people but still have a huge range when I look at people's runs. Obviously most don't care and just go by effort but noticed Sirpoc and K Ingebirgtsen (hobby jogger brother) both have super consistent HR on easy days. Discipline to do this is impressive but also assume it gets much easier once it becomes more natural to run this easy on the off days and can tune yourself into the corrected efforts.
MoVB
It's not that hard. If it's easy and below lt1 you won't see any significant cardiac drift and a pretty even plot. If you don't, you likely are going too hard. The discipline is actually physically slowing yourself down and trained to that. Then maybe you get the pace locked in. But I think honestly it's fair to say it's relatively simple. Everyone HR spread especially for easy is different, but unless you in really extreme weather like some people are, a huge amount of cardiac drift is the biggest signal you messed up.
That's an interesting data point--cardiac drift is normal but at what point of "too much" shows you didn't do it right?
It's not that hard. If it's easy and below lt1 you won't see any significant cardiac drift and a pretty even plot. If you don't, you likely are going too hard. The discipline is actually physically slowing yourself down and trained to that. Then maybe you get the pace locked in. But I think honestly it's fair to say it's relatively simple. Everyone HR spread especially for easy is different, but unless you in really extreme weather like some people are, a huge amount of cardiac drift is the biggest signal you messed up.
That's an interesting data point--cardiac drift is normal but at what point of "too much" shows you didn't do it right?
Aerobic decoupling is something that runalyze.com calculates for me (paid version), and it is very informative (though mostly confirmative... I usually know it before I look at it). On easy runs, my decoupling is usually 4% or lower. That tells me I'm not crossing any thresholds... I'm staying easy.
For an illustration of of aerobic decoupling during a sub-T session, click the image below. The top was "6 x 4 mins" last week at RealFeel 72 degrees. I felt good start to finish. The bottom was this morning's "5 x 4 mins" with the RealFeel at 99 degrees. Exactly the same paces, but the aerobic decoupling was over 12%. Yuck.
That's an interesting data point--cardiac drift is normal but at what point of "too much" shows you didn't do it right?
Aerobic decoupling is something that runalyze.com calculates for me (paid version), and it is very informative (though mostly confirmative... I usually know it before I look at it). On easy runs, my decoupling is usually 4% or lower. That tells me I'm not crossing any thresholds... I'm staying easy.
For an illustration of of aerobic decoupling during a sub-T session, click the image below. The top was "6 x 4 mins" last week at RealFeel 72 degrees. I felt good start to finish. The bottom was this morning's "5 x 4 mins" with the RealFeel at 99 degrees. Exactly the same paces, but the aerobic decoupling was over 12%. Yuck.
Did a Friel 30-minute HR test today and determined my LTHR was 175. I was lucky--I had time to do it on a track and the weather was cool-ish but not cold.
This post was edited 28 seconds after it was posted.
Have you tried or looked into EIM (Easy Interval or Verhuel Method)? As a fast twitch runner you might need to run faster reps, longer recoveries between reps, and less easy/steady/continuous running. Just a thought.
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have the EIM book but haven't tried implementing it, I've a long history of achilles tendinopathy and it looked like a recipe for aggravating that...Not convinced heavy loading daily is conducive to tendon health. Partly why this approach appeals as its a bit more gentle than EIM by having the de-loading days between efforts. Tempted to consider trying something of a hybrid approach though as long continuous efforts definitely hurt me more than they should (eg feel better after a short/fast session than say a 8 mile upper Z2).
I think a point of confusion for me is whether fast twitch athletes should play to their strengths by going faster/shorter and recruiting more FT fibres, or doing subT even slower to strengthen weaknesses (more ST). Probably depends on race target, 5-10k is my preference. I'm absolutely not a physiologist and stabbing blindly in the dark. Great that there's so many knowledgeable people on here (and a few trolls)!
Let me kick off with a question for Antonio CabralThe title (theme) of a major thread I led (way back in 2003) was, [Hadd's] Approach to Distance Training. You and I have talked training over the years back and forth, and you...
Aerobic decoupling is something that runalyze.com calculates for me (paid version), and it is very informative (though mostly confirmative... I usually know it before I look at it). On easy runs, my decoupling is usually 4% or lower. That tells me I'm not crossing any thresholds... I'm staying easy.
For an illustration of of aerobic decoupling during a sub-T session, click the image below. The top was "6 x 4 mins" last week at RealFeel 72 degrees. I felt good start to finish. The bottom was this morning's "5 x 4 mins" with the RealFeel at 99 degrees. Exactly the same paces, but the aerobic decoupling was over 12%. Yuck.
Did a Friel 30-minute HR test today and determined my LTHR was 175. I was lucky--I had time to do it on a track and the weather was cool-ish but not cold.
You said your HR max is 200-215, that's too wide a range, it can't be right. If your LTHR is 175, your HR max should be around 190. To clarify, you can do an incremental test later, consisting of consecutive repetitions of 400 meters, lowering the pace 5" per km on each lap until the failure. You must start with an easy running pace and you must keep in mind that you do not have to stop the clock at the last moment you stop, since the maximum HR point will be displayed several seconds later.
Lexel, I think the rub with you on this thread is that is seems like you're a theoretician and not a practitioner-- is that correct? Are you using this method?
I think if you were, you'd notice how silly it is to try to get everyone to adopt a certain standard when you have no personal experience to share (maybe I'm forgetting, it's been a long thread). I don't remember you saying, I've tried Sirpoc's paces for x time and they get me x Mlm but going by %CV I get better readings.
Like others have mentioned, folks here are interested in getting results. We're primarily practitioners and make only as many theories as necessary. The main thing, is that there is a very solid blueprint for what success with this method looks like. Sirpoc didn't want the thread to be about him, but he's the baseline for the model and I think that's a good thing.
I have over 40+ years of experience as an athlete and funnily enough, i would consider myself more practical as theoretical. Interestingly, Coggan was the first guy who seriously challenged something i wrote.
I understand and respect that some people want to get a simple and easy advice to get better. Please also respect and understand that there are other people around (likely with more experience) who want to discuss and talk about training methologies and other stuff.
This is a discussion board, where we can discuss all things related to a topic. If someone can't stand a discussion or a counter opinion, i do not care and a forum is the wrong place to go.
I'm yet another one of the annoying people who messaged sirpoc on Strava. Maybe by now he's fed up with us all! But the post you replied to also stuck a chord with me, in the sense what always catches my eye is how easy his HR is on easy runs as i also asked him about this. I asked him how he does it and he simply said run slow and check your watch lol sounds simple. I think we overlook how disciplined he is. I think that is truly part of the success. Maybe being a slave to the metrics is truly the best way for best results? Hard for some of us to get heads round as experienced runners.
His pace can vary a bit / got faster as he's got faster. But that HR average is always below that 70% mark mentioned, as we know and have seen his max HR somewhere in the low to mid 190s. So 125-33 average what we see for him is truly easy. Remember, it's not about pace. Your body does not have a measuring guage in it. It has no idea how far you run. Just knows how long and for what effort. Easy run I think in this thread hugely overlook. Very hard to do the workouts 3 times a week if you are running even steady rather than truly easy.
Thank you for this post. I went back and had a look at the star hobby joggers for this method sirpoc and KI , it really is noticeable how controlled the easy run is. With very little cardiac drift and flat HR. It has made me think that I am probably going too hard on my easy runs. It's probably around 76% HR max but I just admit I am getting a little tired. But surely that isn't hard? That really is an easy run to me. But then again by the end by HR is maybe 15-20 BPM higher than the start?
Other thing I noticed. Did anyone else notice the difference between sirpoc and KI? Very similar apart from sirpoc probably being a hair faster. No, their cadence. Absolutely crazy difference in cadence. They do so much similar and yet their cadence is polar opposite. Maybe another sign to add to many that cadence does not matter one bit.
Lexel, I think the rub with you on this thread is that is seems like you're a theoretician and not a practitioner-- is that correct? Are you using this method?
I think if you were, you'd notice how silly it is to try to get everyone to adopt a certain standard when you have no personal experience to share (maybe I'm forgetting, it's been a long thread). I don't remember you saying, I've tried Sirpoc's paces for x time and they get me x Mlm but going by %CV I get better readings.
Like others have mentioned, folks here are interested in getting results. We're primarily practitioners and make only as many theories as necessary. The main thing, is that there is a very solid blueprint for what success with this method looks like. Sirpoc didn't want the thread to be about him, but he's the baseline for the model and I think that's a good thing.
I have over 40+ years of experience as an athlete and funnily enough, i would consider myself more practical as theoretical. Interestingly, Coggan was the first guy who seriously challenged something i wrote.
I understand and respect that some people want to get a simple and easy advice to get better. Please also respect and understand that there are other people around (likely with more experience) who want to discuss and talk about training methologies and other stuff.
This is a discussion board, where we can discuss all things related to a topic. If someone can't stand a discussion or a counter opinion, i do not care and a forum is the wrong place to go.
Well said Lexel. I'm with you and your free opinions.
Have you tried or looked into EIM (Easy Interval or Verhuel Method)? As a fast twitch runner you might need to run faster reps, longer recoveries between reps, and less easy/steady/continuous running. Just a thought.
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have the EIM book but haven't tried implementing it, I've a long history of achilles tendinopathy and it looked like a recipe for aggravating that...Not convinced heavy loading daily is conducive to tendon health. Partly why this approach appeals as its a bit more gentle than EIM by having the de-loading days between efforts. Tempted to consider trying something of a hybrid approach though as long continuous efforts definitely hurt me more than they should (eg feel better after a short/fast session than say a 8 mile upper Z2).
I think a point of confusion for me is whether fast twitch athletes should play to their strengths by going faster/shorter and recruiting more FT fibres, or doing subT even slower to strengthen weaknesses (more ST). Probably depends on race target, 5-10k is my preference. I'm absolutely not a physiologist and stabbing blindly in the dark. Great that there's so many knowledgeable people on here (and a few trolls)!
I have the EIM book and did it for a few months a couple of years ago. I also am prone to calf/achilles injuries and had the same concern, so when I started it I switched from almost exclusively road to almost exclusively grass, and had no problems at all. I can't tell the affect on performance as I had to break from running for several months for other reasons, but I didn't feel an obvious difference from before (a half-cocked version of Daniels). It never quite felt like proper training though, like I wasn't really doing enough even though at similar overall mileage.
I'm also more FT and usually feel much fresher after intervals than continuous runs. Shortly after, say, 8x1K T pace or an EIM session, I can easily forget that I've run that day. It almost feels like I really haven't run. Whereas something like 12-15K easy can feel truly easy (effortless, breathing 4/4 (at 160 cadence), although HR usually around 80%), but I'm going to be aware of it all day, even if in a pleasant way.
So I'd also like to know what's better for FT types: faster/shorter intervals and easier easy runs?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have the EIM book but haven't tried implementing it, I've a long history of achilles tendinopathy and it looked like a recipe for aggravating that...Not convinced heavy loading daily is conducive to tendon health. Partly why this approach appeals as its a bit more gentle than EIM by having the de-loading days between efforts. Tempted to consider trying something of a hybrid approach though as long continuous efforts definitely hurt me more than they should (eg feel better after a short/fast session than say a 8 mile upper Z2).
I think a point of confusion for me is whether fast twitch athletes should play to their strengths by going faster/shorter and recruiting more FT fibres, or doing subT even slower to strengthen weaknesses (more ST). Probably depends on race target, 5-10k is my preference. I'm absolutely not a physiologist and stabbing blindly in the dark. Great that there's so many knowledgeable people on here (and a few trolls)!
I have the EIM book and did it for a few months a couple of years ago. I also am prone to calf/achilles injuries and had the same concern, so when I started it I switched from almost exclusively road to almost exclusively grass, and had no problems at all. I can't tell the affect on performance as I had to break from running for several months for other reasons, but I didn't feel an obvious difference from before (a half-cocked version of Daniels). It never quite felt like proper training though, like I wasn't really doing enough even though at similar overall mileage.
I'm also more FT and usually feel much fresher after intervals than continuous runs. Shortly after, say, 8x1K T pace or an EIM session, I can easily forget that I've run that day. It almost feels like I really haven't run. Whereas something like 12-15K easy can feel truly easy (effortless, breathing 4/4 (at 160 cadence), although HR usually around 80%), but I'm going to be aware of it all day, even if in a pleasant way.
So I'd also like to know what's better for FT types: faster/shorter intervals and easier easy runs?
Let me kick off with a question for Antonio CabralThe title (theme) of a major thread I led (way back in 2003) was, [Hadd's] Approach to Distance Training. You and I have talked training over the years back and forth, and you...
Have you tried or looked into EIM (Easy Interval or Verhuel Method)? As a fast twitch runner you might need to run faster reps, longer recoveries between reps, and less easy/steady/continuous running. Just a thought.
Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have the EIM book but haven't tried implementing it, I've a long history of achilles tendinopathy and it looked like a recipe for aggravating that...Not convinced heavy loading daily is conducive to tendon health. Partly why this approach appeals as its a bit more gentle than EIM by having the de-loading days between efforts. Tempted to consider trying something of a hybrid approach though as long continuous efforts definitely hurt me more than they should (eg feel better after a short/fast session than say a 8 mile upper Z2).
I think a point of confusion for me is whether fast twitch athletes should play to their strengths by going faster/shorter and recruiting more FT fibres, or doing subT even slower to strengthen weaknesses (more ST). Probably depends on race target, 5-10k is my preference. I'm absolutely not a physiologist and stabbing blindly in the dark. Great that there's so many knowledgeable people on here (and a few trolls)!
I am similar to you, and these are the questions I keep asking myself.
You will get answers from people who are not FT, and these usually confirm that they don't understand the issues.