Totally get the method isn’t for you. It isn’t for me sometimes either. I think for most runners it would be no fun, and doesn’t jive with the way they want to do their daily running.
That said, the best way to “win” is to finish the race in the fastest time possible. So contrary to what you think, feeling like you are pushing yourself hard is less important than correct pacing or simply being more fit. So whatever method of training, all that matters is being as fit as possible at the starting line and measuring your effort correctly in the race.
While I understand what you're saying re: fitness, there's more to it than that, and programs like this completely ignore it. Call it the X factor, call it racing mentality, call it whatever. Because if races were simply a test of fitness and metering effort during the race, the same people would always win, and the order would always be the same. Because, like others have said earlier, it's impossible to significantly improve fitness in a short amount of time.
And in principle I agree with the sentiment of having X number of hours to train, so maximizing that for performance. But these programs ignore that muscle between the ears. They outsource the processing power of our brain to external data devices/formulas. They provide consistent training, which, over time, is going to lead to improvement. But if you only stay in the little box provided, they'll get you 80% of the way there. The last bit can't be taught, it can only be learned.
I'll add: races are uncomfortable. These training plans try and maximize comfort and minimize discomfort, for the benefit of consistency. And yes, consistent training will lead to improvement. That's the basis for my general running philosophy, even if it's much more zen than a lactate meter. So if backing off and doing something like SirPoc's plan is the only way for you to be consistent over time, awesome! Go for it! But you're going to miss the last piece of the puzzle.
You're going to have to get used, one way or another, to managing discomfort. That feeling on the ninth lap of a 5000 when you feel like you're at your absolute limit, but because you've "seen God" in a workout or two, some little voice at the back of your head is telling you you'll be fine, even as your nervous system screams you won't be.
While I understand what you're saying re: fitness, there's more to it than that, and programs like this completely ignore it. Call it the X factor, call it racing mentality, call it whatever. Because if races were simply a test of fitness and metering effort during the race, the same people would always win, and the order would always be the same. Because, like others have said earlier, it's impossible to significantly improve fitness in a short amount of time.
And in principle I agree with the sentiment of having X number of hours to train, so maximizing that for performance. But these programs ignore that muscle between the ears. They outsource the processing power of our brain to external data devices/formulas. They provide consistent training, which, over time, is going to lead to improvement. But if you only stay in the little box provided, they'll get you 80% of the way there. The last bit can't be taught, it can only be learned.
First, I should say I think one of the most important factors in any training plan is belief. So of course you should go with what you believe in. But my problem with what you were saying is that I think it is easy to focus far too much on that “last bit” and not enough on the main thing that impacts winning - fitness.
I'm going to sound like a real obsessive here but, page 237, post #4735 for the full 15 weeks of sirpoc's marathon build.
Thank you! That is a bit higher mileage than I could handle. currently maxed at 46 mpw and 6.5 hours. I will aim for matching his time, 7-7.5 hours. Would it be beneficial to copy his plan, but scale it back 25% of miles? Or does that not seem feasible for a marathon?
Forget about mileage and concentrate on time. If sirpoc ran 9 hours in a week you run what you can handle and scale the sessions to suit.
Don't try and copy the session with distance and he is fast so his 10x1k ends up only being about 30 mins of subT
While I understand what you're saying re: fitness, there's more to it than that, and programs like this completely ignore it. Call it the X factor, call it racing mentality, call it whatever. Because if races were simply a test of fitness and metering effort during the race, the same people would always win, and the order would always be the same. Because, like others have said earlier, it's impossible to significantly improve fitness in a short amount of time.
And in principle I agree with the sentiment of having X number of hours to train, so maximizing that for performance. But these programs ignore that muscle between the ears. They outsource the processing power of our brain to external data devices/formulas. They provide consistent training, which, over time, is going to lead to improvement. But if you only stay in the little box provided, they'll get you 80% of the way there. The last bit can't be taught, it can only be learned.
I'll add: races are uncomfortable. These training plans try and maximize comfort and minimize discomfort, for the benefit of consistency. And yes, consistent training will lead to improvement. That's the basis for my general running philosophy, even if it's much more zen than a lactate meter. So if backing off and doing something like SirPoc's plan is the only way for you to be consistent over time, awesome! Go for it! But you're going to miss the last piece of the puzzle.
You're going to have to get used, one way or another, to managing discomfort. That feeling on the ninth lap of a 5000 when you feel like you're at your absolute limit, but because you've "seen God" in a workout or two, some little voice at the back of your head is telling you you'll be fine, even as your nervous system screams you won't be.
So you’re attributing the last 20% of potential to seeing god in a workout or two? Alright buddy.
I know many people here advocate for racing 5k’s or parkruns with some frequency as a way to recalibrate pacing and fitness level. I’m sure those can be good opportunities to sharpen their race mentality and workout the muscle between the ears as you put it.
Congrats on winning a bunch of races btw, please feel free to post your training here as I’m sure we’d all like to see how we can unlock all this potential!
For most of us, fitness, not mental state, is limiting our ability to win races. As in, you could train me mentally all day long, and I'll still lose badly. What I need is aerobic fitness to improve my speed.
I'm sure if you're at the elite level, then mentality, desire, and ability to run through the pain matters quite a lot. For us mere mortals, we need to get a lot fitter before worrying about our mental fortitude.
While I understand what you're saying re: fitness, there's more to it than that, and programs like this completely ignore it. Call it the X factor, call it racing mentality, call it whatever. Because if races were simply a test of fitness and metering effort during the race, the same people would always win, and the order would always be the same. Because, like others have said earlier, it's impossible to significantly improve fitness in a short amount of time.
And in principle I agree with the sentiment of having X number of hours to train, so maximizing that for performance. But these programs ignore that muscle between the ears. They outsource the processing power of our brain to external data devices/formulas. They provide consistent training, which, over time, is going to lead to improvement. But if you only stay in the little box provided, they'll get you 80% of the way there. The last bit can't be taught, it can only be learned.
80% of the way there? Are you genuinely suggesting by hurting yourself in workouts makes you race 20% better? Just so we are clear, before we all roll around on the floor laughing.
Are you suggesting the faster guys who have trained like this, can possibly break the world record? There's multiple 15 mins guys training like this, that with getting your final 20% would put them in close to sub 12 shape.
I'd love you to lay out the training plan for this! You have the floor.
I'll add: races are uncomfortable. These training plans try and maximize comfort and minimize discomfort, for the benefit of consistency. And yes, consistent training will lead to improvement. That's the basis for my general running philosophy, even if it's much more zen than a lactate meter. So if backing off and doing something like SirPoc's plan is the only way for you to be consistent over time, awesome! Go for it! But you're going to miss the last piece of the puzzle.
You're going to have to get used, one way or another, to managing discomfort. That feeling on the ninth lap of a 5000 when you feel like you're at your absolute limit, but because you've "seen God" in a workout or two, some little voice at the back of your head is telling you you'll be fine, even as your nervous system screams you won't be.
So you’re attributing the last 20% of potential to seeing god in a workout or two? Alright buddy.
I know many people here advocate for racing 5k’s or parkruns with some frequency as a way to recalibrate pacing and fitness level. I’m sure those can be good opportunities to sharpen their race mentality and workout the muscle between the ears as you put it.
Congrats on winning a bunch of races btw, please feel free to post your training here as I’m sure we’d all like to see how we can unlock all this potential!
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
I'll add: races are uncomfortable. These training plans try and maximize comfort and minimize discomfort, for the benefit of consistency. And yes, consistent training will lead to improvement. That's the basis for my general running philosophy, even if it's much more zen than a lactate meter. So if backing off and doing something like SirPoc's plan is the only way for you to be consistent over time, awesome! Go for it! But you're going to miss the last piece of the puzzle.
You're going to have to get used, one way or another, to managing discomfort. That feeling on the ninth lap of a 5000 when you feel like you're at your absolute limit, but because you've "seen God" in a workout or two, some little voice at the back of your head is telling you you'll be fine, even as your nervous system screams you won't be.
The last piece of the puzzle? 99% of runners here don't even have half the puzzle. The sheer aerobic gains that are easy to get training like this, are going to make an 19 minute runner a 18 minute runner, way before they see god in any workout. What you are saying is so laughable, it's beyond comprehension. Yet I don't think you are trolling.
I don't think once anyone has claimed this would be a way to train as an elite runner, such as yourself. In fact I've seen sirpoc and others say obviously there comes a point if you are competitive scratching a living racing, then obviously the x factor is the difference between winning and losing, potentially, as just about everyone is on the same level , or much closer than hobby races.
As I said, you have the floor to outline exactly how we can get this extra 20%. Because if it exists and can lay it out for us, I can assure you , you'll become a millionaire overnight as it's probably the biggest claim I've ever heard.
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
Never have I seen someone roll back on a claim so fast, as you just have. If nothing else, at least you aren't wasting any more of anyone's times on something you knew was hyperbole and pure nonsense. For that, I at least give you credit.
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
Never have I seen someone roll back on a claim so fast, as you just have. If nothing else, at least you aren't wasting any more of anyone's times on something you knew was hyperbole and pure nonsense. For that, I at least give you credit.
You're welcome. I apologize for coming into the temple of Single Norwegians and positing that there might be people out there for whom such training isn't THE SECRET and that there might be some components that, from my experience of 25+ years of running and racing, might be missing.
You're welcome. I apologize for coming into the temple of Single Norwegians and positing that there might be people out there for whom such training isn't THE SECRET and that there might be some components that, from my experience of 25+ years of running and racing, might be missing.
This is the thread that tolerates lexel and Coggan. You can come here and say what you want. But most of what you said was pure drivel, on absolutely spectacular level.
Start over again. Don't make any hyperbole claims and let us know what your training looks like and how it impacts on your racing and the times you produce. This is something people might be interested in.
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
This I agree with fully. Not sure why all these people have jumped on you here.
Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof The guy made a quite ridiculous claim, got called out , couldn't provide any evidence for such claim and now has zero credibility.
This is Letsrun. Once your credibility is in the dumpster like this guy, you may as well just quit posting, you can't come back.
What he should have done, is actually just outline with facts, his training program and examples of what he meant. Rather than deliberately trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to make himself look clever.
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
This I agree with fully. Not sure why all these people have jumped on you here.
I only took issue with the obviously hyperbolic statements and word salads across multiple posts.
Why not just say that there’s an upper limit to every training system, this included, and finding ways to sharpen your race mentality would benefit anyone who find themselves in, and trying to win, tactical races? Maybe I’m still mischaracterizing him, idk
Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof The guy made a quite ridiculous claim, got called out , couldn't provide any evidence for such claim and now has zero credibility.
This is Letsrun. Once your credibility is in the dumpster like this guy, you may as well just quit posting, you can't come back.
What he should have done, is actually just outline with facts, his training program and examples of what he meant. Rather than deliberately trying to pull the wool over people's eyes to make himself look clever.
What extraordinary claims did I make? I made an observation this type of training wouldn't work for me and shared what does: consistency, being able to judge how I feel and respond accordingly, something I think (again, I think, not making some definitive statement) these programs lack, and the observation that there is a connection between the work we put in and the mental side of the sport that, again, I think these programs ignore.
I'm not trying to win anyone to my side or act as a training guru. Not one of you should care about my training/results, because I'm not you. What I do works for me, but it may not work for another person on earth.
If this thread can't handle opinions without requiring a notarized five year training log, I don't know what to tell you.
All numbers used in my posts are for hyperbole only. Please don't think 20% of winning is because of a single hard VO2 max workout.
I'm pretty sure I've said 1) consistency is key and 2) everyone is different. This program works for some. I would struggle with it, but I've figured out my own thing over time that works for me. But remember the lesson from Once a Runner: there is no secret. Since I've been running everyone started doing Daniels, then Hansons, then Canova special sessions, then Tinman, the double thresholds, and now it's single thresholds. Those that it works for praise it to high heaven. Those it doesn't you never hear from.
But the message is the same for all: hit these numbers and you'll have success. And that might be true, but only up to a point. What I'm trying to get at in all of these haphazard posts made while my documents are compiling is that you need to be able to feel/read your body instead of listening to what others tell you or what gadgets say. Otherwise it's all for naught.
This I agree with fully. Not sure why all these people have jumped on you here.
It's because they're looking for The Secret. They think they've found it here (just like those myriad plans that came before). And they're disappointed when they hear differing opinions for whatever reason. Fundamentally, all training plans are the same: run as much as you can handle but don't run more than you can handle, run these paces for these workouts, don't overrun your easy days. It's really not a hard sport.
This I agree with fully. Not sure why all these people have jumped on you here.
It's because they're looking for The Secret. They think they've found it here (just like those myriad plans that came before). And they're disappointed when they hear differing opinions for whatever reason. Fundamentally, all training plans are the same: run as much as you can handle but don't run more than you can handle, run these paces for these workouts, don't overrun your easy days. It's really not a hard sport.
I agree, you are being jumped on a lot but....
Not once has (St) SirPoc said that he is targetting the lasy piece of the puzzle, quite the opposite infact, he is purposefully ignoring it as he knows (for him) that if he seaches and finds it, it will fatigue him too much and will then take a step back.
Instead he is constahtly progressing and in 6 months (say) will be beyond the "peak" he could have reached in 6 weeks of targetting the last piece of the puzzle if attempted prior.
That is essentially what this whole thread is actually about, the "how" is kind of moot, he has chosen and gets amazing benefit from 3 Sub T workout's a week. Others may be able handle more or likely less (especially time wise), but the whole point is there is no peak (searching for the last piece as you defined it), just growth
I'm not adding to the recent conversation here. This is something that reading about this method that I'm curious about.
At the beginning of the thread Sirpoc mentions his belief that he's overweight for a runner but isn't losing or gaining weight anymore. Has this changed at all? Obviously this method is very effective, but I'm wondering his gains of this method could have been amplified by steady weight loss. I'm not in any way trying to discredit the method and I think that it works. Also, to clarify, I don't think that weight necessarily impacts performance that much.
I'm not adding to the recent conversation here. This is something that reading about this method that I'm curious about.
At the beginning of the thread Sirpoc mentions his belief that he's overweight for a runner but isn't losing or gaining weight anymore. Has this changed at all? Obviously this method is very effective, but I'm wondering his gains of this method could have been amplified by steady weight loss. I'm not in any way trying to discredit the method and I think that it works. Also, to clarify, I don't think that weight necessarily impacts performance that much.
A hundred pages ago or so back, someone was throwing shade at sirpoc by implying that his racing improvement was really due to losing weight - at that point he had lost 20 pounds or so. I didn't say anything at the time, but what I felt like saying was: Dude, have you ever tried to lose weight after 40? It's really difficult to get there just with exercise.
Now that I'm in my mid 50s, it takes a lot longer for winter/holiday weight gain to come off. Even in last year's spring marathon build, I didn't lose any weight. After a while on NSA, though, I started seeing numbers on the scale that I thought I'd never see again. It's not huge, just 2-3 pounds lighter, but it's still pretty remarkable at my age compared to what I saw in my marathon build.
And it makes sense. Now that I'm in my 50s, my body thinks that a nice layer of fat is just the insurance it needs against some future famine. If I throw the stress of a huge lung run or the calorie deficit of a heroic marathon workout at it, then my body reacts by insisting on more protection for the future. Compare that to NSA, where my body is getting a firm but regular signal that I need to be able to run faster, but stress levels will stay manageable.
So my experience is that NSA is conducive to weight loss in old hobby joggers (I've even needed to increase my carb intake a bit), and that's another point in its favor.
I'm not adding to the recent conversation here. This is something that reading about this method that I'm curious about.
At the beginning of the thread Sirpoc mentions his belief that he's overweight for a runner but isn't losing or gaining weight anymore. Has this changed at all? Obviously this method is very effective, but I'm wondering his gains of this method could have been amplified by steady weight loss. I'm not in any way trying to discredit the method and I think that it works. Also, to clarify, I don't think that weight necessarily impacts performance that much.
Keep in mind that Sirpoc has a massive aerobic engine from his cycling days. Couple that with consistent run training leading to increased fitness (both running-specific and general metabolic fitness) and of course he’s going to run fast. I will be the first to admit I missed many dozens of the middle pages of this thread, but from what I’ve seen I really think the runners here discount the cycling numbers Sirpoc put up and chalk up his run times solely to his “program.” Compare him to a high school Alan Webb; comparatively new to running but with a background in endurance sports that seriously primed the pump, so to speak. Just keep that in mind when evaluating his improvement.
(And weight impacts running a huge amount. It’s all about power to weight or strength to weight, spending on your philosophy.)