cute turn from your small language model AI search
the premise here is you don’t know what elite Norwegian runners think, not really important what AC thinks about this;the point in invoking him is you’ve idiots have run a number of physiological concepts at him and been taken to the woodshed
this is Bakken not Thor Hushov
I asked you what 'flushing' was. Thanks for the link. I read some of Bakken s literature 20 years ago. I read a lot of other stuff over the past 45 years.
He's refering to the Cori cycle, where lactate is returned to the liver to be reconverted to liver Glycogen.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
i hope the point has been made to you now but knowing your lack of understanding and inability to be economical in your posts, im sure you’re going to ramble on and on to prove to yourself you have A LOT to contribute to the conversation
you and Xel possess this same shortcoming, unfortunately
I asked you what 'flushing' was. Thanks for the link. I read some of Bakken s literature 20 years ago. I read a lot of other stuff over the past 45 years.
He's refering to the Cori cycle, where lactate is returned to the liver to be reconverted to liver Glycogen.
I don't know what point you're trying to make.
i hope the point has been made to you now but knowing your lack of understanding and inability to be economical in your posts, im sure you’re going to ramble on and on to prove to yourself you have A LOT to contribute to the conversation
you and Xel possess this same shortcoming, unfortunately
I keep it brief. I get to the point. You're trying too hard whilst being vague. A strange mix.
FWIW, I raced duathlons for a couple of years in my early 30s (finishing one step off the podium at age-group Worlds). My experience was that trying to combine training for cycling and running at the same time meant compromising both.
IOW, there was no such thing as "balance", it was all just a matter of choice: did I want to be a fast cyclist, a fast runner*, or a fast duathlete?
*So-so, actually... probably my best performance was a 2 h flat 30 km.
well you will be a faster something youre just making a bargain on where you can moonlight and the faustian nature of that bargain
if you know what i mean and i think you already do
the equation is a lot of trial and error, but if you’re honest and really know your strengths you know where you can bleed more
i hope the point has been made to you now but knowing your lack of understanding and inability to be economical in your posts, im sure you’re going to ramble on and on to prove to yourself you have A LOT to contribute to the conversation
you and Xel possess this same shortcoming, unfortunately
I keep it brief. I get to the point. You're trying too hard whilst being vague. A strange mix.
‘vague’ to the man who can’t operate his own Google search
Probably asked before but the thread is so huge it's hard to search.
Where are we on cross training under this method? Given that the easy runs are super easy so that you are recovered for the next subT session, could you safely replace with bike/elliptical?
Weekly schedule -> 10x3min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Zwift Bike, 5 x 6min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Elliptical, 3 x 10min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Bike, Long Run.
Obviously it's only 4 runs overall but given that the easy runs in this method are so slow and kind of useless, surely an equivalent HR zone x-training method could work?
What are the downsides to this concept?
Let's use sirpoc as an example. Do you think if we suddenly took all his easy days away for a year he would still be as fast? No, obviously not. Now you realise what you said is silly, hopefully.
100% agree that cross training can be a great option. But, if you think the easy days are slow and useless, no matter what you do, I really don't think this method is for you.
This is a classic case of changing a proven training program into something you want, based on your beliefs of what makes good or bad training. It's just never going to work.
Probably asked before but the thread is so huge it's hard to search.
Where are we on cross training under this method? Given that the easy runs are super easy so that you are recovered for the next subT session, could you safely replace with bike/elliptical?
Weekly schedule -> 10x3min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Zwift Bike, 5 x 6min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Elliptical, 3 x 10min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Bike, Long Run.
Obviously it's only 4 runs overall but given that the easy runs in this method are so slow and kind of useless, surely an equivalent HR zone x-training method could work?
What are the downsides to this concept?
Let's use sirpoc as an example. Do you think if we suddenly took all his easy days away for a year he would still be as fast? No, obviously not. Now you realise what you said is silly, hopefully.
100% agree that cross training can be a great option. But, if you think the easy days are slow and useless, no matter what you do, I really don't think this method is for you.
This is a classic case of changing a proven training program into something you want, based on your beliefs of what makes good or bad training. It's just never going to work.
Yeah i think youre right on the easy runs
the more youre cheating on the cross training angle, the MORE important the easy runs become to help glue any fitness gains you’re getting from the non running
What he did was a ‘steady state effort at the same avg intensity’ after a hard effort in the AM
The point is he’s doing it as a ‘flush’ from the previous hard session in the AM
Well if that's the case then I misunderstood something somewhere. "Over-unders" in cycling are a self-contained workout - except for trackies, not many cyclists do two-a-days.
Probably asked before but the thread is so huge it's hard to search.
Where are we on cross training under this method? Given that the easy runs are super easy so that you are recovered for the next subT session, could you safely replace with bike/elliptical?
Weekly schedule -> 10x3min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Zwift Bike, 5 x 6min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Elliptical, 3 x 10min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Bike, Long Run.
Obviously it's only 4 runs overall but given that the easy runs in this method are so slow and kind of useless, surely an equivalent HR zone x-training method could work?
What are the downsides to this concept?
Let's use sirpoc as an example. Do you think if we suddenly took all his easy days away for a year he would still be as fast? No, obviously not. Now you realise what you said is silly, hopefully.
100% agree that cross training can be a great option. But, if you think the easy days are slow and useless, no matter what you do, I really don't think this method is for you.
This is a classic case of changing a proven training program into something you want, based on your beliefs of what makes good or bad training. It's just never going to work.
I accept that I'm not following the 'classic' NSM but still don't understand why it won't work.
Surely 3 x 1 hour aerobic Crosstraining sessions to replace 3 x super slow easy runs, will give the same cardio benefits but will lead to even greater recovery for the following days SubT run session due to less impact.
I get knee pain when running too slowly as my form/cadence drops away, but feel fine running SubT or faster paces when I move more efficiently.....hence why I'm trying to modify the Sirpoc plan while still getting (most of) the benefits.
My understanding of it is that you will actually get more cardio benefits overall cause it’s higher intensity but not in a way that’s as beneficial to running. Steve Magness speaks about this much more clearly and in depth in a video. If you think about it it’s pretty obvious doing something other than running is less efficient (which is what this method is about) for improving at running. I’ve also seen Jingy quoted as saying he finds runners in shape cross training as “very strange” because they could be running instead.
I also used to have issues with pain at slower paces. No matter what, it would hurt when going slow but it would feel fine going fast. This doesn’t really make sense though; going quicker should cause way more pain with increased impact force. I wasn’t a scientific marvel and it was actually kind of stupid what the issue was. I was spending 2-3 times more on the ground when I ran slowly. My cadence was way too slow and I was running with horrible form. I fixed my form and the issue immediately went away. You might want to check your form.
Edit: apparently you say that it’s your form in your post. This is really stupid. If you know the issues is your form then just fix your form. You’re an idiot.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I would tell them to go back to school and study exercise physiology.
Cop out. If you can't answer the question, it just looks like a provocative statement.
I can answer the question, I just can't do a good job of it in just 50 words.
FWIW, my wife often asks that I just give her the Reader's Digest condensed version of things.
My students, OTOH, know that the most dangerous four (or is it five?) words to come out of my mouth are, "So I've been thinking . . .", as they are inevitably followed by an extensive brain dump.
Probably asked before but the thread is so huge it's hard to search.
Where are we on cross training under this method? Given that the easy runs are super easy so that you are recovered for the next subT session, could you safely replace with bike/elliptical?
Weekly schedule -> 10x3min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Zwift Bike, 5 x 6min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Elliptical, 3 x 10min SubT, 1 Hour Z2 Bike, Long Run.
Obviously it's only 4 runs overall but given that the easy runs in this method are so slow and kind of useless, surely an equivalent HR zone x-training method could work?
What are the downsides to this concept?
Let's use sirpoc as an example. Do you think if we suddenly took all his easy days away for a year he would still be as fast? No, obviously not. Now you realise what you said is silly, hopefully.
100% agree that cross training can be a great option. But, if you think the easy days are slow and useless, no matter what you do, I really don't think this method is for you.
This is a classic case of changing a proven training program into something you want, based on your beliefs of what makes good or bad training. It's just never going to work.
A big reason why so many hobby joggers fail is the need to run too fast. Is this for Strava or their own personal satisfaction? Who knows?
The fact is that even looking at the training of someone like Emile Cairessy you see most runs are at a snails pace for him.
Sirpoc himself is running easy runs at 50% of this 5k time, this would put your average 20 mins 5k runner at 6 mins for an easy run. How many are doing this?
Most runners would be more consistent with their running, and get niggles less if they just slowed down
This post was edited 18 seconds after it was posted.
Cop out. If you can't answer the question, it just looks like a provocative statement.
I can answer the question, I just can't do a good job of it in just 50 words.
FWIW, my wife often asks that I just give her the Reader's Digest condensed version of things.
My students, OTOH, know that the most dangerous four (or is it five?) words to come out of my mouth are, "So I've been thinking . . .", as they are inevitably followed by an extensive brain dump.
An abstract will let me know if the full text might be worth reading.