I think messing around with hills would be a good wrinkle for the reasons you mentioned. The purists would argue that you can't get as much aerobic load in the same amount of time (assuming you have to job down the hill) and even if you could, the mechanical load would make it a lot harder to recover from.
60' Sub T Session 10' warmup, 10 x 3' @ subT / 1' recovery , 10 cooldown = 30' Sub T, 30' EZ
60' Hills sub T session 10' WU, 9 x 2' uphill @ subT / 2.5' downhill, 10' CD = 20' SubT. 40' EZ
I've wondered about doing a subT session alternating up and down hill. Running downhill quickly is a pretty common technique for ultra trail runners to improve muscle durability, which would be beneficial for most in the marathon. But it also comes with increased risks. I might try incorporating it one day a month or something.
I think the hills are the "X factor" workouts once a week Jakob's brother mentioned, he alternates the hills with other workouts. I may be wrong though.
I follow sirpocs training and was blown away by his marathon time, mainly because I know really good runners who put in a lot of time training and got nowhere near it.
Which leads me onto my main question. I understand that all things equal, if you only have a certain range of time available then NSA is brutally efficient and effective. However I'm stumped as to whether it may also be more effective than someone running say 80-100mpw and doing a more traditional approach of 2 hard sessions and probably running the other days a touch too fast rather than true recovery pace?
Is there something about the traditional approach whereby you may be doing more work/harder sessions but not absorbing it all? It can't just be about aerobic development because as I said, the people I know have years of 80-100mpw behind them. It's not as if sirpoc has a beautifully fluent stride that he can leverage to his advantage either.
And that's not getting into the pints and mars bars.
So to summarise, is say 60 miles a week with 3 sub T sessions likely to bring about better gains than 80 miles a week with 2 anaerobic sessions?
This is my take whilst I'm here. If you can sustain the mileage and not feel beat up, runs around 90-95% M pace are probably the ticket to an even better marathon on a regular basis. The downside for me is two guys a little slower than me who did almost double the mileage just seemed so beat up and tired and drained. Talking to them, they said this is how you are meant to feel. To me this can't be right. You don't need to run yourself into the ground to do a marathon in my opinion. I don't really see the point in implementing a strategy like that on lets just say 8 hours a week, for arguments sake.
If you have time to slowly increase your mileage, more mileage will help. But it still needs to be sustainable and slowly built up. You have guys jumping from nothing into unbelievablely steep marathon builds from boom and bust cycles.
The "special block" I did. If you see the 24km progressive I did with a 10 min warm up and down, was like 92-93-100 MP. It felt really, really hard. Like really hard. I can't imagine doing stuff like this regular and still being able to train properly in the following week other than easy miles for at least 3-4 days. Which then leads to the question, is it worth it? The load you absorb in that session you could have done more across Tuesday - Thursday - Saturday with something like my schedule.
I wouldn't want to say my 70 miles is worth more than someone else's 90 miles. That's too hard to say. I do think some people who are running more mileage than me though, aren't getting their best bang for buck. Ultimately, that's all anyone should be asking. "Is this the best use of my time?"
I will say, I don't think there was another way that for myself, I could have done enough work to run a 2:24 any other way in the time I had.
Anyway I'm posting way too much this week, the beauty of having somewhat of a down week is the time I have been able to waste on here ha ha back to normal from tomorrow.
to follow onto this post, this calc helps w/% of paces, etc.
Hey, thanks! I do lurk on Strava, and I'm already working my way through that group in parallel to this thread. Very informative.
And to ningkaiyang I'll have to admit to looking ahead. It was someone on Strava that alerted to me sirpoc's London race that prompted me to start looking at this thread in the first place. It's almost surreal reading those posts with paces and all. I guess that if the proof is in the pudding, it was the pudding that made me a convert to sirpoc's church!
I've no illusions about following a similar trajectory myself, of course, but it's always great to glean inspiration from super-responders like him. And great to know that he's still not a fan of running 😂
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Some weird linking and formatting going on when mentioning a user.
Refuse to watch a Bester video, even if sirpoc is in it. Won't give him the clicks. Don't mind some of the YouTubers, route for FOD runner but Bester is a piece of work.
How much did sirpoc beat him by. I see the thread is running again I assume he did? Did he beat Felton as well? Harris Fry? I wondered before how he would fair against the YouTubers and shoetubers. Thought he might take scalps even though it's his first marathon. Felton even said something pretty dismissive about sirpoc training inadvertently I seem to remember from one of his videos about there is no such thing as NSM.
Can someone find the Felton clip? Interesting how that works--Bester ran 2:27, Felton ran 2:35 and sirpoc84 ran 2:24.
Where about’s in the Bester video does Sirpoc make an appearance?
Sirpoc I think posted a while back about how it you started from a CTL of 0 and ran 100 TSS a day, it would actually only be about 67 after the 42 days. And take a couple hundred I think to reach the 100 rounded.
The temporal response of CTL of a hypothetical leap from 0 to 100 TSS/d is shown in Fig. 2 of my original article:
Looking at sirpocs strava page, he was running low 17 on 20ish miles per week, sometimes less, and then improved quickly with around 12mpw of threshold reps.
Unless you're talented don't expect similar improvement.
Looking at sirpocs strava page, he was running low 17 on 20ish miles per week, sometimes less, and then improved quickly with around 12mpw of threshold reps.
Unless you're talented don't expect similar improvement.
I can assure you I never ran 17 anything on 20 miles a week 😂 I probably just didn't upload it to Strava. I've only started really uploading everything since the thread became interested. I was running 45+ mile weeks just to break 19.
I was doing about 35 mile weeks and I was around a 20-21 runner.
This didn't just happen overnight. I wish it did, I could take time off and just build it back up again.
After about 3 weeks of running I did my first "self timed" 5k and I wasn't fat or anything and ran a low 28.
I wouldn't say I am inherently talented, but I would say I can probably asorb training load and that is probably just as much a kick of the genetics as guys being able to do virtually nothing and then run a sub 20 like it's nothing.
Looking at sirpocs strava page, he was running low 17 on 20ish miles per week, sometimes less, and then improved quickly with around 12mpw of threshold reps.
Unless you're talented don't expect similar improvement.
I can assure you I never ran 17 anything on 20 miles a week 😂 I probably just didn't upload it to Strava. I've only started really uploading everything since the thread became interested. I was running 45+ mile weeks just to break 19.
I was doing about 35 mile weeks and I was around a 20-21 runner.
This didn't just happen overnight. I wish it did, I could take time off and just build it back up again.
After about 3 weeks of running I did my first "self timed" 5k and I wasn't fat or anything and ran a low 28.
I wouldn't say I am inherently talented, but I would say I can probably asorb training load and that is probably just as much a kick of the genetics as guys being able to do virtually nothing and then run a sub 20 like it's nothing.
Interesting backstory, I'm at 35-40 mpw and around 20-21 min for the 5k. You said you started running around 2021, that's insane.
Looking at sirpocs strava page, he was running low 17 on 20ish miles per week, sometimes less, and then improved quickly with around 12mpw of threshold reps.
Unless you're talented don't expect similar improvement.
I can assure you I never ran 17 anything on 20 miles a week 😂 I probably just didn't upload it to Strava. I've only started really uploading everything since the thread became interested. I was running 45+ mile weeks just to break 19.
I was doing about 35 mile weeks and I was around a 20-21 runner.
This didn't just happen overnight. I wish it did, I could take time off and just build it back up again.
After about 3 weeks of running I did my first "self timed" 5k and I wasn't fat or anything and ran a low 28.
I wouldn't say I am inherently talented, but I would say I can probably asorb training load and that is probably just as much a kick of the genetics as guys being able to do virtually nothing and then run a sub 20 like it's nothing.
Hi Sirpoc,
In the continuity of this reply of yours, after checking your "old" stravas uploads (sorry for being creepy, but i was too interested), what stood out to me was the evolution of your heartrate.
You were running 7 min/km at around 150 heartate (if i recall, I am pretty lazy to go back to your first strava runs uploads since it demands to scroll to infinity haha), back in 2021, and I guess your heart rate drasticaly lowered weeks after weeks, until it reached the actual state maybe only 1 year later (if i recal correctly I saw runs from you in late 2022 that were already at 135 bpm ish at 4.40/km.... That's an insane evolution very fast imo).
Why dit it stand out to me ? Because, in the same lapse of time, if I take my case (27 years old, 79kg), i started running mid 2023 (without real goals in mind, and without using the single norwegian approach), and heartrate does not show the same kind of evolution as yours.
I started this "method" if we can call it that way 2 months ago, and, obviously we all are different, but, with this in our heads, what do you think helped the most for your heartrate to drop that low (132 hr at 4.24/km or so..) ? The subthreshold or the very easy runs ? Or both ?
What I mean is, maybe, this information could be something that shows your body is very strong to adapt, and might mean you're what some others called " more talented than average".
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
I can assure you I never ran 17 anything on 20 miles a week 😂 I probably just didn't upload it to Strava. I've only started really uploading everything since the thread became interested. I was running 45+ mile weeks just to break 19.
I was doing about 35 mile weeks and I was around a 20-21 runner.
This didn't just happen overnight. I wish it did, I could take time off and just build it back up again.
After about 3 weeks of running I did my first "self timed" 5k and I wasn't fat or anything and ran a low 28.
I wouldn't say I am inherently talented, but I would say I can probably asorb training load and that is probably just as much a kick of the genetics as guys being able to do virtually nothing and then run a sub 20 like it's nothing.
This is something I'm very interested in. Natural talent versus responders to training. You clearly fit into the second category. Not to knock your talent, but you clearly need big stimulation to unlock your ability.
What you have done that is bleeding one genius and what you don't give yourself enough credit for, it's to use a number of metrics and resources to work out how to maximise the stimulus to training and still be able to recover and just incrementally build layer upon layer.
Would be interested to hear more about how you are using the subT workout paces to get realistic race pace targets and how you then think is the best way to pace the various distances. Would love to hear Sirpocs thoughts on this too now that he has raced all the distances.
Yeah I've been considering doing this if I have to switch to a 5 day/week schedule. If I only have 50ish minutes a day except for a 90 minute long run on the weekend, I could do 3x10 around M pace plus warmup/down 4 times a week plus a 90 minute long easy run. It works out to be almost the same CTL as 3xsubT, 50E, 90E if I calculated correctly, maybe like 1 point more (I may have screwed up how to calculate though idk). I assume it's getting too greedy to incorporate a fifth M pace workout in the long run. I do wonder though, if it gives pretty much the same CTL is it still better to do the three sub T workouts instead because you can figure out your race pace targets better? Or does it work the same for M pace workouts only, just figure out the VDOT equivalent race targets for your desired distance.
Would be interested to hear more about how you are using the subT workout paces to get realistic race pace targets and how you then think is the best way to pace the various distances. Would love to hear Sirpocs thoughts on this too now that he has raced all the distances.
I can assure you I never ran 17 anything on 20 miles a week 😂 I probably just didn't upload it to Strava. I've only started really uploading everything since the thread became interested. I was running 45+ mile weeks just to break 19.
I was doing about 35 mile weeks and I was around a 20-21 runner.
This didn't just happen overnight. I wish it did, I could take time off and just build it back up again.
After about 3 weeks of running I did my first "self timed" 5k and I wasn't fat or anything and ran a low 28.
I wouldn't say I am inherently talented, but I would say I can probably absorb training load and that is probably just as much a kick of the genetics as guys being able to do virtually nothing and then run a sub 20 like it's nothing.
I don't know if this makes me feel better or worse. On the one hand I've been a low 20 runner on 20-25 mpw the last year or two. Due to COVID and a litany of petty injuries over that time I was never able to really build up for more than 8-10 weeks in a row without having to cut back for at least a couple of weeks. Now I'm finally up to the 30-35mpw average and really expecting to go sub 20. But what discourages me is how far off my interval paces are from yours. I've only been attempting the NSM for a couple of months, so maybe I'll see some jumps similar to yours (although I'm a fair bit older). Thanks for the example and the engagement.
Back when he seemed like a good coach at the University of Texas, Mack Brown once said something to the effect that being great most often boils down to being good every day. I've really come to appreciate in middle age how that consistent application of effort is so much more impactful than bursts of intense effort punctuating periods of sloth in just about every endeavor. Beyond the physiology experiment, what I think sirpoc has demonstrated is exactly that. Consistent application of effort towards a goal gets results. Consistency is a super power for some.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
My question - does marathon pace have a place in this training? For example, if I am running 5k in 17:40s (5:40 pace), are workouts at marathon pace (6:40 pace) too slow? Reading through this thread the answer seems to be it is far too slow? It looks like my slowest reps should be 3200m around 6:15-6:20?
My question - does marathon pace have a place in this training? For example, if I am running 5k in 17:40s (5:40 pace), are workouts at marathon pace (6:40 pace) too slow? Reading through this thread the answer seems to be it is far too slow? It looks like my slowest reps should be 3200m around 6:15-6:20?
Marathon pace has a place if you are doing doubles. For example, that might be your first workout of the day on a double day.
As sirpoc has pointed out, you are looking to get the most out of a single session and still recover. You are only running once that day so you can probably afford to push the boat out a bit more. But understanding how much faster and horny intensity control applies is really still the key. You are looking to pick every piece of low hanging fruit you can but without getting too greedy.
I don't know if this makes me feel better or worse. On the one hand I've been a low 20 runner on 20-25 mpw the last year or two. Due to COVID and a litany of petty injuries over that time I was never able to really build up for more than 8-10 weeks in a row without having to cut back for at least a couple of weeks. Now I'm finally up to the 30-35mpw average and really expecting to go sub 20. But what discourages me is how far off my interval paces are from yours. I've only been attempting the NSM for a couple of months, so maybe I'll see some jumps similar to yours (although I'm a fair bit older). Thanks for the example and the engagement.
Back when he seemed like a good coach at the University of Texas, Mack Brown once said something to the effect that being great most often boils down to being good every day. I've really come to appreciate in middle age how that consistent application of effort is so much more impactful than bursts of intense effort punctuating periods of sloth in just about every endeavor. Beyond the physiology experiment, what I think sirpoc has demonstrated is exactly that. Consistent application of effort towards a goal gets results. Consistency is a super power for some.
The consistency comes with the intensity control, the performance comes with the consistency. The improvement comes with knowing and understanding how much extra load you can do and still remain consistent and healthy. In my mind want sirpoc has done has cleverly put together a way of runners to have the combo of all of this. I must admit the 2:24 threw me off, I actually thought the limit for this was the HM.
But this also goes to show if you have an understanding of how to run a race and pace, you can do a fraction of M specific work of 99% else of other runners.
This is something I'm very interested in. Natural talent versus responders to training. You clearly fit into the second category. Not to knock your talent, but you clearly need big stimulation to unlock your ability.
What you have done that is bleeding one genius and what you don't give yourself enough credit for, it's to use a number of metrics and resources to work out how to maximise the stimulus to training and still be able to recover and just incrementally build layer upon layer.
I think this all gives us room to sit back and think what talent really is? Is it doing 10 miles a week and running 17 flat? Or is it the trainable ceiling or an athlete? Is the perfect combo somewhere in between?
One thing you can't say is sirpoc would naturally stand out. In fact I would argue that if he only ran 28 after 3 weeks in a time trial and not fat, that doesn't stand out to me as anything special. In fact, I think if we take a random 100 guys with a healthy BMI , maybe he doesn't even beat half of them.
But that shows you the volume and potential of someone under the hood is mixed up with this idea of the volume and capacity for an athlete to grow versus their starting point.
One thing that stands out to me when looking at what sirpoc has been doing is what he HASN'T been doing, which is the pre-race tapering and post-race recovering from races that most people would do multiple times a year. Sirpoc is racing a lot, but apart from London, he's training through the races, at least as far as I can tell. Whereas I just counted that since Dec 1, 22 weeks ago, I've had 6 weeks that were either tapering for a race, recovering from a race, or a planned easy week. Maybe I'm on the far end of the scale for inconsistency, but I would bet that most runners are closer to that than to sirpoc in consistency terms.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.