I have noticed this, to the point I wondered if I was missing something that I asked sirpoc direct. It's usually on 10*1k you are talking about but with a tailwind, for last rep. You can notice when it windy with his 10*1k on non track as average pace seem to deviate maybe +-5 seconds sometimes more on alternate laps. He confirm this.
I also ask him about race at weekend. No wind almost at all he said, calm day which is why he did race last minute choice. I think he senses pace probably going to be lower by maybe 10 seconds at least on a looped 5k. I think more. If you look at Strava, 4 points in race where he had almost gone down to zero pace. 3+ turns + another moment you can see in run where he almost had to come to stop and accelerate again due to lap traffic. Official dead turns at 0.6, 1.2 and around 3.1km I think .
I urge him to maybe do a proper 5k course so we can find out if he can break 15. Last 3k where mostly clear run and only 1 dead turn and no traffic, 9:00 dead.
Come on guys. He's in his 40s. So much make belief in this thread. I actually think some of it might all be made up. Sub 15 in your 40s is pretty much only going to happen if you are training at the elite level. Not hobby jogger thread with some random dude on the internet. People are so gullible here to this nonsense.
I have noticed this, to the point I wondered if I was missing something that I asked sirpoc direct. It's usually on 10*1k you are talking about but with a tailwind, for last rep. You can notice when it windy with his 10*1k on non track as average pace seem to deviate maybe +-5 seconds sometimes more on alternate laps. He confirm this.
I also ask him about race at weekend. No wind almost at all he said, calm day which is why he did race last minute choice. I think he senses pace probably going to be lower by maybe 10 seconds at least on a looped 5k. I think more. If you look at Strava, 4 points in race where he had almost gone down to zero pace. 3+ turns + another moment you can see in run where he almost had to come to stop and accelerate again due to lap traffic. Official dead turns at 0.6, 1.2 and around 3.1km I think .
I urge him to maybe do a proper 5k course so we can find out if he can break 15. Last 3k where mostly clear run and only 1 dead turn and no traffic, 9:00 dead.
Come on guys. He's in his 40s. So much make belief in this thread. I actually think some of it might all be made up. Sub 15 in your 40s is pretty much only going to happen if you are training at the elite level. Not hobby jogger thread with some random dude on the internet. People are so gullible here to this nonsense.
You are right. Sirpoc is an evil puppeteer who is orchestrating the most hideous scam. Little do we know that he uploads only half of his training to make us “belief” that all you need is three sub-T and 4 easy runs, while in fact he is smashing VO2max session every week. He is also hiding the secret hill in his pancake flat town so that nobody else can benefit from the numerous hill repeats that he does once a week. Thank you for opening our eyes, you saved us!
Is the method as effective for fast-twitchers as for slow-twitchers? That's my biggest question.
Magness in Science of running posts a chart that recommends the following for 5k races: Fast Twitch "responds better to 5k-10k type pace works instead of lots of LT", while Slow Twitch should have a "Heavy emphasis on work done just below and right at lactate threshold."
Are the fast twitchers getting as much out of this as Sirpoc, who seems to be a prototypical slow twitch athlete?
FWIW, I see this claim/recommendation a lot across various endurance sports. However, I can't really think of any valid physiological reason why it should be true.
FWIW, I see this claim/recommendation a lot across various endurance sports. However, I can't really think of any valid physiological reason why it should be true.
Thanks Andy, would you be willing to expand on that? I've seen the claim before (have Magness's book) but I've never seen anyone push back on it before and would like to hear more. Thanks
Is the method as effective for fast-twitchers as for slow-twitchers? That's my biggest question.
Magness in Science of running posts a chart that recommends the following for 5k races: Fast Twitch "responds better to 5k-10k type pace works instead of lots of LT", while Slow Twitch should have a "Heavy emphasis on work done just below and right at lactate threshold."
Are the fast twitchers getting as much out of this as Sirpoc, who seems to be a prototypical slow twitch athlete?
Sirpoc is without doubt ST, and is therefore an excellent responder. Also, this explains why he doesn’t need strides or hill sprints.
Magness is correct about FT and LT, however, I think he means unbroken LT runs. The FT type will respond better to LT work broken into reps, as in this method.
Is the method as effective for fast-twitchers as for slow-twitchers? That's my biggest question.
Magness in Science of running posts a chart that recommends the following for 5k races: Fast Twitch "responds better to 5k-10k type pace works instead of lots of LT", while Slow Twitch should have a "Heavy emphasis on work done just below and right at lactate threshold."
Are the fast twitchers getting as much out of this as Sirpoc, who seems to be a prototypical slow twitch athlete?
Sirpoc is without doubt ST, and is therefore an excellent responder. Also, this explains why he doesn’t need strides or hill sprints.
Magness is correct about FT and LT, however, I think he means unbroken LT runs. The FT type will respond better to LT work broken into reps, as in this method.
The question is whether these recommendations are based on anything more than some anecdotal experience?
There is a good summary of the methodology on page 60 so go back and read there to find the specifics of typical sessions and paces. Define the number of hours available for training, allocate max 25% of time to sub-treshold sessions. Establish your starting fitness and define workout paces based on that. The goal is introduce consistency and move away from the build and bust cycles (no more hiatus going forward). Get to a baseline structure that works for you and gradually increase it. Learn how to track your training load metrics if you want to be able to quantify your consistency (i.e. learn about CTL and plan to increase it gradually over time).
You are not going to listen to my next point because you haven't read through the thread and you are not going to, but the key point of this methodology is that you don't need hill sprints or strides to get faster. I've read through the entire discussing over a couple of weeks and it put a smile on my face reading all the haters literally pooping on Sirpoc for how he is training, and yet, week after week, month after month he is still smashing PBs in the 5K up to the HM distance. This works because most of us are aerobically underdeveloped and speed is not the limiting factor until you hit very fast paces. Even the mile is 80% Aerobic, so working on the aerobic engine is what will give you the most time-efficient training load. ALso, easy day should be extremely easy, and there is no "i felt good in this sub-T session so i converted it into VO2 session". It is extremely boring, same thing, week in week out. Will you get faster results using a traditional Daniles plan? Possibly. But you are also way more likely to hit a brick-wall, injure yourself, lose motivation from feeling exhausted. So are you in for the long term? Stick with this plan until you plateu (and sploiler, still no sign of plateuing from Sirpoc, now approching the sub-15 5K in his forties)
I personally don't think it's optimal to not do any hill sessions, stride work, even 5k pace stuff. I would always recommend people adapt for this. You will thank me at the end of a 5k. Don't forget, sirpoc isn't from a running background and hasn't been coached by a proper coach. Any real coach would have optimised his ability. You could say he's managed to run a low 15 in spite of this, rather that because of this. Just looking at it from a running coach point of view.
I've made a long career out of coaching and I'm reasonably insulted that suddenly people are latching onto the next training fad and forgetting that something like a Daniel's inspired method has worked time and time again for decades.
If you think you can buy into Coggan's fantasy world of being able to quantify load, it's been proven time and time again there is no actual way to do this. Feel, day to day, session to session and providing feedback to a professional coach will ALWAYS be a better way of accounting for load than this. Runners aren't robot cyclists and won't ever be. You can't treat them as such.
I hope that message can get through to some people. Rather than this sudden idea this is going to solve everyone's problems and is some sort of miracle pill.
‘respected coach’ equal to ‘full of S@$&’
Again, running as some mysticism you have to head out into the woods with some mushrooms to figure out when cycling is just a bunch of robots slavishly following #s is the raison d’etre of the online and running coach these days
the athlete picks the coach (in many cases themselves) not the other way around. the smart ones learn this sooner than later
How do people determine if they're fast twitch or slow twitch? Are you all going to a lab or something?
Magness recommends finding max lactate by a series of lactate tests every few minutes after an all out 600, or comparing best efforts at different speeds, but the latter is more susceptible to training history/bias.
I'm curious because I would clearly categorize myself as fast twitch--I used to be a sprinter/long jumper/400 runner, and I tested 22.5 on the lactate meter after a recent 1600. I have been trying the norwegian singles method for a few months, and have modified it to do more 400m subthreshold repeats, but I'm curious if expectations -- or interval types -- should be different for different types of runners.
"It is slow. Very slow. The rest of the sessions are from 25x400 to 3x3k. 25x400 is probably around 98-99% of Tinman’s CV. 10x1k is around 12-15k pace. 5x2k is around HM pace. 6x1600 is around 10-mile pace."
OK so for me, 6x1600 would be at 5:55-6:00 as that *IS* my 10 mile race pace, but my 5k is only 17:32 (roughly 5:35-5:40 pace). So for me this training is not slow.... it's actually quite hard.
5x2k around HM pace for me would be 5x2k in 6:05 pace. Again pretty hard.
"It is slow. Very slow. The rest of the sessions are from 25x400 to 3x3k. 25x400 is probably around 98-99% of Tinman’s CV. 10x1k is around 12-15k pace. 5x2k is around HM pace. 6x1600 is around 10-mile pace."
OK so for me, 6x1600 would be at 5:55-6:00 as that *IS* my 10 mile race pace, but my 5k is only 17:32 (roughly 5:35-5:40 pace). So for me this training is not slow.... it's actually quite hard.
5x2k around HM pace for me would be 5x2k in 6:05 pace. Again pretty hard.
I think you chopped off part about what “it is slow” is referencing, I thought that was progress/progression.
Regardless, I have agreed with you - I’ve always thought that people saying you don’t run hard are crazy. Since when is 30k per week of HM pace or faster not hard training.
I personally, and many others, have found those paces unsustainable. I think the point is to find the paces that work for you. It could be that sirpoc’s ability to run close to 5k pace in “easy” workouts is why he keeps improving (more than any other user of the method I’ve seen). Interestingly he seems to think a 5k race is less load than a workout, while for me even a 5k (let alone 10k or HM) will wreck my legs for several days and require no hard efforts.
"It is slow. Very slow. The rest of the sessions are from 25x400 to 3x3k. 25x400 is probably around 98-99% of Tinman’s CV. 10x1k is around 12-15k pace. 5x2k is around HM pace. 6x1600 is around 10-mile pace."
OK so for me, 6x1600 would be at 5:55-6:00 as that *IS* my 10 mile race pace, but my 5k is only 17:32 (roughly 5:35-5:40 pace). So for me this training is not slow.... it's actually quite hard.
5x2k around HM pace for me would be 5x2k in 6:05 pace. Again pretty hard.
I think you chopped off part about what “it is slow” is referencing, I thought that was progress/progression.
Regardless, I have agreed with you - I’ve always thought that people saying you don’t run hard are crazy. Since when is 30k per week of HM pace or faster not hard training.
I personally, and many others, have found those paces unsustainable. I think the point is to find the paces that work for you. It could be that sirpoc’s ability to run close to 5k pace in “easy” workouts is why he keeps improving (more than any other user of the method I’ve seen). Interestingly he seems to think a 5k race is less load than a workout, while for me even a 5k (let alone 10k or HM) will wreck my legs for several days and require no hard efforts.
It's confusing. I think sirpoc is simply at a higher level than most because he used to be a top level cyclist. I wouldn't be able to do 3, or even 2 of those sessions each week without slowly breaking down.
Amazing thread! Thank you Sirpoc84 and all the rest for the great insights and entertaining discussion. I've spent a few days reading through all of it.
Some things that caught my attention. Sirpoc said:
All easy runs then fitted neatly into between 76-79% of FTP. All 1k repeats were within 102- 103% of FTP. All 1600 repeats were within 99- 100% of actual FTP . And 3200 repeats were within 96- 97% of FTP.
76%-79% of FTP seems quite high for an "easy" run to me. I think most people do easy rides (cycling is my main sport) at lower intensity than that. Those sounds like decent workouts maybe on lighter side to me rather than easy days. Is it because those runs are limited to an hour/75 minutes while cycling easy rides are often multiple hours long? I feel those being not exactly jogging pace might be something important in the system.
As to TSS discussion: I feel TSS might be even better for running than it is for cycling. In cycling there are people who do more hours than pros and are still mediocre. They ride all day long at snail pace almost every day and accumulate crazy hours (for some it's work as a bike guide, for others it's clueless training and a lot of free time). I am yet to see someone doing 2-3 hours of sub-threshold intervals every week stuck at mediocre level though.
You can't do that in running as there are limits to how many kms per week the body can take. This means you can't cheat the system to the degree it's possible in cycling by accumulating tens of junk miles per week. In running you need to do actual intensity to increase your CTL and then it's a question of how to do it smartly.
Question for Sirpoc84: you mentioned many times you took inspirations from cycling, mainly UK Time Trialing scene. Would you mind pointing to some resources about the kind of training you have done? Cycling is my main sport these days (I tried running and even finished one HM but I was never serious about it) and I find your approach very appealing. I would love to learn more about what shaped your mindset on it.
It's confusing. I think sirpoc is simply at a higher level than most because he used to be a top level cyclist. I wouldn't be able to do 3, or even 2 of those sessions each week without slowly breaking down.
What you're missing is that nobody runs 10 x 1k at 12-15k pace right away. You have to build it up, either with shorter reps or fewer reps at this pace.