I'm not the guy who went from 5 to 6, but I am a 40 year old master who switched from more traditional training to this style in the middle of training for a sub 5 mile. For the two months before racing, I did not paces faster than 1:30 400s; no strides or anything. I also stopped doing the long run. Ended up with 4:59 mile.
Now I don't have a good prior and don't know what I would have got had I continued more traditional training, but at the very least I don't think it hurt. I think if I had a 6 month or so timeline to do it again, I would go full this method for 5 months, then substitute one workout per week during the late month with some 200s-400s at race pace or faster. But I have very low certainty that would help.
Thanks for chiming in. Great job on snagging sub. I'm leaning this way but, at 58, I'm also wondering if there's just not improvement to be had. I ran a 1500 time trial today in 6:17 which is...not good. I don't feel like I should be this slow, but maybe this is just it. I guess nothing ventured, nothing gained though, so maybe I'll jump in and see what happens.
For those thinking about the mile. Here's just my experience. I had always wanted to break 5:30. I was always on the cusp of it and then it just never worked out. Followed quite a few classic mile programs , all resulted in around that.
Decided to focus on other things. Found this thread around 14 months ago now, to train mostly for 5k, 10k. Before this, was training in the classic cycles, 5-6 hours a week for probably a good decade. Limited success, knew my place in the hierarchy of hobby joggers. You get the drift! Didn't really think about the mile. Anyway, pretty much went down the 1:1 route as seems to be the next success of copying the sirpoc method. I call it that, as there are other ways to dial this up but I think mostly 1:1 is the best option rather than the more catchy NSM which is broader.
So no hills, no strides, no 200m track repeats, just get into the meat of the routine and tick off the 3 sessions a week and otherwise just easy running.
Summary, low 17 5k, mid 35 for a 10 and ran a low 1:18 HM. All absolutely blew apart my PBs. Scroll ahead to January this year, jumped in a local mile with no other thought than being annoyed it would break up my winning weekly schedule, ran 4:57.
OK maybe you could make an argument for dialling in something short like the mile to really tease out a few more seconds? By what's the point. It's neglible probably compared to the absolutely huge jump I've made due to the nature of the aerobic gains across the board. And hey, it's a whole lot of fun suddenly beating people comfortably who have beaten you in all distances in the past!
Also note, couldn't imagine running any other training method, where for the most part you can go day in, day out and no breaks between the seasons of cycles.
Congrats on the massive progress and thanks for your input. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "1:1". So were your sessions 1K/2K/3K throughout the week or did you switch up occasionally? I'm also up against age a bit, at 58, but after running a 6:17 1500 time trial today, I just don't buy that I can't improve. I've got Houston summer rapidly approaching, so I should probably switch up now before things are set to BROIL.
What is your current mileage? Are you able to support 30 minutes of Sub-T work with 5 hours of easy running on top? if so I can give you some suggestions based on a VDOT value of 42 (6:17min for 1500). I recommend to run by time instead of distance. Become a slave of your watch (pace or power). Here are the three workouts: 4min Reps @ 10k pace (7 reps and one 1min rest in between): 7:44min/mile or 4:48min/km 6min reps (5 reps and 60-90sec rest): 7:50min/mile or 4:52min/km 8min reps (4 reps and 90sec rest): 7:56min/mile or 4:56min/km Give it a go and adjust if it feels too hard or too easy, but this should be roughly right for your current fitness. do the same every week. Run the easy day super easy (no faster than 10:12min/mile or 6:20min/km). Re-test fitness after 4-6 weeks or whenever you feel like the sub-T gets too easy (i.e. you are not reaching your threshold heart rate by the end of the last rep). Hope this helps
What is your current mileage? Are you able to support 30 minutes of Sub-T work with 5 hours of easy running on top? if so I can give you some suggestions based on a VDOT value of 42 (6:17min for 1500). I recommend to run by time instead of distance. Become a slave of your watch (pace or power). Here are the three workouts: 4min Reps @ 10k pace (7 reps and one 1min rest in between): 7:44min/mile or 4:48min/km 6min reps (5 reps and 60-90sec rest): 7:50min/mile or 4:52min/km 8min reps (4 reps and 90sec rest): 7:56min/mile or 4:56min/km Give it a go and adjust if it feels too hard or too easy, but this should be roughly right for your current fitness. do the same every week. Run the easy day super easy (no faster than 10:12min/mile or 6:20min/km). Re-test fitness after 4-6 weeks or whenever you feel like the sub-T gets too easy (i.e. you are not reaching your threshold heart rate by the end of the last rep). Hope this helps
Thanks for this. I have the Excel sheet that H2F created, but I appreciate the legwork here. Current mileage is 30/week, having shifted down after coming off of a half marathon cycle since last fall. Right now I'm running five days per week, with two strength days. Unfortunately, I do not have availability to strength train on a running day, so running six days would mean giving up a strength day. I'll have to achieve some sort of a balance here. If I were 30 or 40-something, I may not be as concerned, but approaching 60 strength is also an important-for-life kind of thing. Unfortunately, I don't train by HR, but will have track meets over the next few months to gauge progress. That said, I understand, too, that it would be a many months to year long process.
I'm not the guy who went from 5 to 6, but I am a 40 year old master who switched from more traditional training to this style in the middle of training for a sub 5 mile. For the two months before racing, I did not paces faster than 1:30 400s; no strides or anything. I also stopped doing the long run. Ended up with 4:59 mile.
Now I don't have a good prior and don't know what I would have got had I continued more traditional training, but at the very least I don't think it hurt. I think if I had a 6 month or so timeline to do it again, I would go full this method for 5 months, then substitute one workout per week during the late month with some 200s-400s at race pace or faster. But I have very low certainty that would help.
Thanks for chiming in. Great job on snagging sub. I'm leaning this way but, at 58, I'm also wondering if there's just not improvement to be had. I ran a 1500 time trial today in 6:17 which is...not good. I don't feel like I should be this slow, but maybe this is just it. I guess nothing ventured, nothing gained though, so maybe I'll jump in and see what happens.
So you went the recommended 3 easy and 3 ST days?
Yes, I did 3 ST per week, and 3-5 easy runs (sometimes short doubles). Total volume was about 40 miles per week. Before that, I had been doing a 13 - 15 mile long run before that, plus a faster interval day and a faster unbroken tempo, usually 3-4 miles, and was feeling really drained of energy. With this setup, plus eliminating the long run, I definitely feel fresher.
For the workouts, I would typically do one day of 400m repeats with 30s standing rest, 1-2 days in the 800 - 1600 range, and zero or one day in the 2400 - 3200 range. The fastest reps were the 400s, which I did in ~1:32 each. Although Sirpoc stopped doing the 400s, I like them a lot.
Sirpoc with 3x5000m (about 3x15min) lately. Those were run at 3:17 pace which must be pretty close to his FTP!. Even assuming his 5k pace is 3:00 already then FTP would be 3:11 (Sirpoc mentioned he uses 94% of 5k power as FTP) so 3:17 is 97% of FTP. He used to run 3200s at this intensity. It's slowly becoming more threshold than subthreshold it seems to me!
How do people determine if they're fast twitch or slow twitch? Are you all going to a lab or something?
You are born that way. As a kid you played around with others, were quicker than others, your reaction time was faster, you select faster sports, but you have no interest or are not so good in longer races. That's an indication.
Then there is the possibility to use the IAAF score table and do some time trials and see whats your profil looks like.
You have still not a 100% proof but kind of. Be aware of yourself.
How do people determine if they're fast twitch or slow twitch? Are you all going to a lab or something?
You are born that way. As a kid you played around with others, were quicker than others, your reaction time was faster, you select faster sports, but you have no interest or are not so good in longer races. That's an indication.
This. It's not that complicated. I'm sure some nerd will come on here & say "well actually".
What sports or track events did you naturally excel at as a kid? Did the little league coach do everything he could to get you on base so could steal your way to 3rd? Then you're probably fast twitch. Were you outrunning kids in the 4th quarter in 6th grade basketball when everyone else was gassed? You're probably a combo or ST? What events did your junior high & high school coach put you in for track?
I remember in field day way back in 3rd grade where we participated in everything from throws, to long jump to sprints, 1 lap around the field race, & finally a 2 lap race. Even then I was middle distance doing best in the 1 lap race. I was always OK in sprints & distance but not great. Went to state in the 800. Same thing today distance wise, & I'm in my mid 40s.
I think this training leads to more advantages for FT or a combo (yes I know everyone is a combo). ST runners will benefit too obviously & they could likely afford to run closer to threshold for workouts. If FT are careful & keep it at Sub T (or a little slower) & keep their easy runs truly easy, I could see them really flourishing with this training. As my fitness has improved as a FT runner I've decreased recovery time from 60 sec to 45 sec instead of increasing pace. I do that for a couple weeks then cautiously go back to 60 sec recoveries with increased paces for the Sub T workouts. Similar to the method Hadd training used for FT runners. (I also make myself keep jogging at a decent pace between reps to make sure I'm not tempted to run the sub T reps too hard & dip into anaerobic.)
Sirpoc with 3x5000m (about 3x15min) lately. Those were run at 3:17 pace which must be pretty close to his FTP!. Even assuming his 5k pace is 3:00 already then FTP would be 3:11 (Sirpoc mentioned he uses 94% of 5k power as FTP) so 3:17 is 97% of FTP. He used to run 3200s at this intensity. It's slowly becoming more threshold than subthreshold it seems to me!
I saw someone mention the power stuff I posted from ages ago. I would ignore that, by the middle of the thread I had given up on power (sadly) as it doesn't work how I need or would like it to. Or more to the point it is the absolute worst metric I had after I had 6+ months of data. Now I'm a couple of years in, I'm definitely confident power is useless, in my scenario. I'm not saying people won't find it useful, but it's not consistent enough across the board for me to be invested in it.
As for the longer workouts, they have been carefully designed so like the other workouts I am sitting a decent amount under LTHR for the majority and maybe finishing up around (but just under) LTHR.
First big session of these I dug the lactate meter back out, to give myself an idea of where I am at on these and I am pretty happy with the plan I have in place.
The pace or % of a race pace is largely irrelevant, it's the actual state I'm interested in. I'll probably never do enough of these for me to be confident of giving out a general guide for these extra long reps. But, it's a tad faster marathon pace. I also, suspect, because of my aerobic engine, it's probably tricky for people to replicate these sessions themselves like for like. I can definitely complete this at a paces faster to race paces, than I could even a year ago. I certainly wouldn't recommend or jump in on these.
It was difficult, thank you for telling me to slow down. My mindset also changed quickly: previously, I was keeping my easy days easy just to keep it under 70%, but now I'm also trying to keep it easy so I can be able to do 3 quality sessions for the week.
Quick question: Do you care about sub threshold effort relative to total volume? I've read that most of you keep a 1:3 ratio, but I'm a bit confused on how do you count the sub threshold, e.g. for a 5 x 6 min ON, 2 min OFF, do you count it as 30 min or 40 min of quality?
Magness dropped full half hour essay on double threshold today. Worth a listen for sure. Even though he talks about the doubling aspect; there's great conversation about the benefits of high-volume well-managed threshold sessions for peak muscle recruitment, fatigue reduction, and aerobic (mitochondrion) development that would apply to T-based singles training as well.
I saw someone mention the power stuff I posted from ages ago. I would ignore that, by the middle of the thread I had given up on power (sadly) as it doesn't work how I need or would like it to. Or more to the point it is the absolute worst metric I had after I had 6+ months of data. Now I'm a couple of years in, I'm definitely confident power is useless, in my scenario. I'm not saying people won't find it useful, but it's not consistent enough across the board for me to be invested in it.
Running power is proportional to pace though, right? There was a paper comparing power in W/kg to running speed in m/s and it was pretty close. I estimated your % of FTP for the repeats based on that, not on Stryd or w/e device available for measuring running power.
Btw, I have a question about lactate: do you have any experience or knowledge what happens when you go to too high lactate state too regularly? Is it going to be building fatigue of muscles making workouts difficult/impossible? If so can it last for days or is it easy to correct?
Running power is proportional to pace though, right? There was a paper comparing power in W/kg to running speed in m/s and it was pretty close. I estimated your % of FTP for the repeats based on that, not on Stryd or w/e device available for measuring running power.
Btw, I have a question about lactate: do you have any experience or knowledge what happens when you go to too high lactate state too regularly? Is it going to be building fatigue of muscles making workouts difficult/impossible? If so can it last for days or is it easy to correct?
Power and pace don't really have much relationship, in my experience. It's good in the flat, with no wind. But the Garmin wrist power is a mess and in the wind and the stryd doesn't make any sense. I can run in the wind and it'll give me 20-30w more for say a 10 min block because of how it overestimates power into the wind on the track (depite basically a total even effort). Nobody wants power to work probably more than me, but it's just too much of a headache for me to care about at this point.
It doesn't measure force. Until it does, it's just an algorithm really that is guesstimating a lot of things. If you run on a treadmill or in completely controlled conditions, it might work way better. I've never run on a treadmill in my life, so can't comment. I think a big issue is how windy it is where I am right on the sea and flat open spaces. The stryd really is comical with some of the stuff it comes up with.
In the early days I played around a lot with going right up to LT2 (if it exists, there's one to apart some debate lol) and beyond, testing on the meter to see what I could get away with. I spent a good number of weeks and months playing around with all combos before I settled on the amount of lactate I could generate and the pace proxys in place to replicate that (roughly) - and then feel OK to go again in 48 hours. None of this was done on a whim and a prayer, it was carefully planned out. But the big note, I only intended this for myself. I didn't intend, at any point to it blow up like this. Having said that, whilst some people have had to tweak things or start off with the paces slower, it's actually held up very well as a general one size fits all approach (obviously it's impossible to have a blanket approach for everyone).
In a microcosm, if I went deep past sub threshold the main impact was how much harder the next day easy run was and then carried over into the next workout day. Quite quickly, the hole gets dug and in simplistic terms it becomes unrealistic to then workout 3 times a week, for 2 years straight (not saying that is everyone's end goal , but that is pretty much what I have done). The Strava group has had a few people who have gone well beyond probably where they should on workout days , for whatever reason (deliberately or just making a mistake) and it never, ever ends well.
There's obviously a million ways to train. There might be a better one on 7 days a week and only an hour or so to dedicate to training in a day. But if there is, i'm yet to have tried it. I'm absolutely not the guardian of this system, despite what the internet seems to think. If there is another or better way to train and someone could show me that, I'll jump all over for it. After all I basically just stole this idea from my own training in another life as a cyclist, of which I just stole from others. All I've done really is lay it out or I guess communicate what I've done in a way people can interpret or understand. There's far smarter people than me in this thread who pick the bones out of the science of it.
What I really want to see is if sirpoc takes a different approach to tapering or recovery for the marathon. And I hope he comments about his approach to marathon fueling at some point, since that won't make it on to Strava.
Hey Sirpoc84, thank you very much for sharing your perspective. You might not be the guardian of this system or whatever but the way you approach it and continue to execute is really inspiring. Keep it up!
It was difficult, thank you for telling me to slow down. My mindset also changed quickly: previously, I was keeping my easy days easy just to keep it under 70%, but now I'm also trying to keep it easy so I can be able to do 3 quality sessions for the week.
Quick question: Do you care about sub threshold effort relative to total volume? I've read that most of you keep a 1:3 ratio, but I'm a bit confused on how do you count the sub threshold, e.g. for a 5 x 6 min ON, 2 min OFF, do you count it as 30 min or 40 min of quality?
You do want to watch quality : easy volume, as that gives you a proxy for the level of strain that your body can safely handle. I do it based on time at pace, not volume, and not including the rests even if they’re jogged.
I‘m a bit confused by your focus on very short intervals. Because they’re so short, your margin of error for pacing correctly becomes razor thin… and your HR data suggests to me you’re erring here. Your avg HR on your rests should be noticeably lower than your ON intervals! Instead it’s effectively the same or even higher. For comparison, when I do 1km repeats with 60 sec jogging rest, I’ll still see an avg >=10bpm lower, and my HR will come down to ~70% MHR before the next interval starts.
You might be eliciting a sub-threshold state on these workouts, but the design makes me think more of tightly controlled fartlek and I suspect your lactate levels are bouncing and rising throughout. It’s sustainable at the moment because you’re not doing very much quality volume — just under 10% of total weekly volume (36min of 375min). That’s just not very much stimulus. I‘m not suggesting jumping into 20-25% of your total volume right away, but I think you will really benefit more from longer intervals and larger workout volume. Try 6 x 3min (60sec rest) and 3 x 6min (90sec rest) to start. That’ll give you 18min of quality in each session, which is still on the low end for the time volume you’re doing per week. You can add more in coming weeks to get up to 20%, then assess from there.
It‘s not that shorter intervals can‘t have their place in a system like this, but maintaining a pace for longer periods requires training mechanical efficiency too, and with 60sec/30sec you’re changing gears an awful lot. That’s why most everyone here is doing 3-4min as their shortest interval.
I'm also curious about the tapering, I imagine he'll do what he normally does with a reduced session on Thursday and two shorter easy sessions Fri/Sat. I'm curious what his last long session will be a week out though.
He has talked about nutrition on Strava a bit. He uses gels and likes high 5 aqua but is trying to adapt to sis beta fuel for the marathon I believe. Probably doesn't matter how much, just as much as you can stomach.
It was difficult, thank you for telling me to slow down. My mindset also changed quickly: previously, I was keeping my easy days easy just to keep it under 70%, but now I'm also trying to keep it easy so I can be able to do 3 quality sessions for the week.
Quick question: Do you care about sub threshold effort relative to total volume? I've read that most of you keep a 1:3 ratio, but I'm a bit confused on how do you count the sub threshold, e.g. for a 5 x 6 min ON, 2 min OFF, do you count it as 30 min or 40 min of quality?
You do want to watch quality : easy volume, as that gives you a proxy for the level of strain that your body can safely handle. I do it based on time at pace, not volume, and not including the rests even if they’re jogged.
I‘m a bit confused by your focus on very short intervals. Because they’re so short, your margin of error for pacing correctly becomes razor thin… and your HR data suggests to me you’re erring here. Your avg HR on your rests should be noticeably lower than your ON intervals! Instead it’s effectively the same or even higher. For comparison, when I do 1km repeats with 60 sec jogging rest, I’ll still see an avg >=10bpm lower, and my HR will come down to ~70% MHR before the next interval starts.
You might be eliciting a sub-threshold state on these workouts, but the design makes me think more of tightly controlled fartlek and I suspect your lactate levels are bouncing and rising throughout. It’s sustainable at the moment because you’re not doing very much quality volume — just under 10% of total weekly volume (36min of 375min). That’s just not very much stimulus. I‘m not suggesting jumping into 20-25% of your total volume right away, but I think you will really benefit more from longer intervals and larger workout volume. Try 6 x 3min (60sec rest) and 3 x 6min (90sec rest) to start. That’ll give you 18min of quality in each session, which is still on the low end for the time volume you’re doing per week. You can add more in coming weeks to get up to 20%, then assess from there.
It‘s not that shorter intervals can‘t have their place in a system like this, but maintaining a pace for longer periods requires training mechanical efficiency too, and with 60sec/30sec you’re changing gears an awful lot. That’s why most everyone here is doing 3-4min as their shortest interval.
I love 400s on the track with 30s standing rest. Drop my water bottle at the start line, do a loop, stop and take a drink, then right back at it. 90s run, 30s standing rest. My heart rate drops about 15 percent by the end of the standing rest, but it's so short that my average HR during rest is always higher than while running.
I may be misunderstanding what the OP is doing, but I don't find it that difficult to dial in 400s; if anything, due to flat surface and ability more reps, it's easier to make adjustments.
r/advancedrunning folks seem fairly inflexible in their regimens. r/artc is basically on life support as a sub.
thanks for the clarification. I try to post things on r/advancedrunning and even if they are on target the mods go crazy. And every post is basically a race recap.
r/artc seems cool and full of fast people but more an inside joke-thing with local runners in Ohio I think.