Sure mate,if you want to remain at mediocre 16min 5K level then sure do run your easy days 70%+ MHR..I do not have problem with that approach.
At what % of MHR do you think world class level runners run? Idiot.
I asked articifial stupidity about this. Answer:
" World-class distance runners typically run their easy miles at about 60% to 75% of their maximum heart rate. This range allows them to maintain a pace that is comfortable and sustainable for longer durations, promoting recovery while still building aerobic endurance.
hes not even a good conduit, sorry, 'just okay' is the highest praise, not the lowest.
sure, journalism is work. Regurgitating talking points and slogans and slapping your name on it falls slightly short of that
that last sentence applies as much to Fitz as anyone on any message board, but i wouldnt hold a random idiot and this author to nearly the same standards, obviously
I've read multiple books by Matt Fitzgerald, and 'regurgitating talking points and slogans' is not what he does. He hasn't claimed to be the inventor of 80/20 or anything else. He hasn't 'slapped his name' on anything. (That being said, I don't love the combination of coaching and journalism roles, since it creates a potential conflict of interest when writing about training plans.) Running the Dream and How Bad Do You Want It were excellent. The New Rules of Marathon and Half Marathon Nutrition was good and worth keeping around for reference. Run Like a Pro and How to Run the Perfect Race both felt kind of incomplete.
Point the first: Matt Fitzgerald is as good a journalist for running as you're going to find. He's a runner himself with a ton of experience and knowledge about a lot of aspects of the sport. He can write about running from the inside, as a runner. Also, he can get published in big outlets.
Point the second: If you want sirpoc to get some payoff from all his work, it's going to require the contribution of journalists like Matt Fitzgerald. How many copies of a self-published book could sirpoc sell to people who only know of it from LRC/reddit/Strava? Actually quite a few, enough to get at least a niche fitness publisher interested. Enough for a mainstream publisher with a fitness line? Maybe. But any publisher - especially one who might cut a big check to sirpoc for an advance - is going to have a publicity plan that will aim to get articles published in RW and Men's Health and Outside and any other outlet that will reach a much wider audience than LRC/reddit/Strava. Or if sirpoc self-publishes and keeps all the net sales for himself (after paying off one more more editors, illustrators, and book designers), he'll generate a lot more sales if journalists with the reach and reputation of Matt Fitzgerald are writing about it.
I don't want running journalists to think of NSA as a cult-like group who can't tolerate outsiders invading their fief. I do want sirpoc to get a nice payday out of this to make it worth his effort.
RW may suck at times, but it's still running-based and still useful IMO...flame away! I don't like most of their articles but they do have a role.
Conner Mantz just ran a 27:26 10K. Almost all of his easy runs are between 4:00–4:25/km, which is 60–65% of his 10K pace. His heart rate is between 110–115 bpm, which is 60% of his max HR. It’s the same trend with all the other elite runners. I’ve been using NSA for 7 months now, and it wasn’t until I started running my easy runs below 70% of my max HR that I began to see bigger improvements.
I can't seem to get my paces to align with HR. My easy pace according to this method is 8:20ish, which does feel easy (about 18:15 shape for 5k right now), but at that pace I am currently at 140-145 bpm, which is roughly 73-75% max.
I can't seem to get my paces to align with HR. My easy pace according to this method is 8:20ish, which does feel easy (about 18:15 shape for 5k right now), but at that pace I am currently at 140-145 bpm, which is roughly 73-75% max.
So your easy pace according to this method is not 8:20ish, you mean
Maybe it just isn’t your easy pace right now? It could definitely also be the heat making it harder to keep your heart rate low. I have to run around 5:45–6:00/km to stay at 127–130 bpm. But it just takes time to get used to.
I can't seem to get my paces to align with HR. My easy pace according to this method is 8:20ish, which does feel easy (about 18:15 shape for 5k right now), but at that pace I am currently at 140-145 bpm, which is roughly 73-75% max.
I've run 15:5x a few times recently and I do most of my easy runs around 8:45 pace to keep my HR under 70%. There's some hills, so maybe on a flat route I run 8:15. So 8:20 for you sounds way too fast in my opinion. You should probably be running 9:00 or slower.
Conner Mantz just ran a 27:26 10K. Almost all of his easy runs are between 4:00–4:25/km, which is 60–65% of his 10K pace. His heart rate is between 110–115 bpm, which is 60% of his max HR. It’s the same trend with all the other elite runners. I’ve been using NSA for 7 months now, and it wasn’t until I started running my easy runs below 70% of my max HR that I began to see bigger improvements.
I can't seem to get my paces to align with HR. My easy pace according to this method is 8:20ish, which does feel easy (about 18:15 shape for 5k right now), but at that pace I am currently at 140-145 bpm, which is roughly 73-75% max.
Your 18:15 converts to a 38:00 10k, which is 6:08 per mile. Paul Luttrell looked into easy run pacing for elites, and found they run around 63-70% of their 10k pace. Applying those percentages to your 10k pace, your easy runs would be in range of 8:45 to 9:43 per mile.
You're going too fast right now, and your heart rate reflects that.
I'll add that the calculator says my easy pace using the 65% of MAS should be 7:14. That would have me way above 70%, probably 75-80%. I don't know how sirpoc runs his easy runs so fast while keeping his HR so low. His race paces from 5k-Marathon are about 20s faster than mine, and yet his easy pace is 1.5-2 minutes faster. I think he usually runs flat routes in super trainers, but that doesn't explain that large of a difference.
I'll add that the calculator says my easy pace using the 65% of MAS should be 7:14. That would have me way above 70%, probably 75-80%. I don't know how sirpoc runs his easy runs so fast while keeping his HR so low. His race paces from 5k-Marathon are about 20s faster than mine, and yet his easy pace is 1.5-2 minutes faster. I think he usually runs flat routes in super trainers, but that doesn't explain that large of a difference.
Like anything, your body needs to get used to <70% HR. You've not ran at these efforts before so they will feel unusual for your body and it won't have the most efficient "running economy" at these speeds. Over time it gets better and more efficient, allowing you to run faster on the same effort, as with any other speed e.g. 5K race effort or sub threshold interval workouts.
I'm coming back into running after a year off and I was initially running my easy runs at 10:00 and it was impossible to keep it under 70% without walking. Now I'm closer to 8:45 at ~66% MHR with a 2025 5K PR of 19:14, which is significantly slower than you. This isn't because I'm fitter than you, but because my body is more adapted to running under 70% MHR than yours.
I'll add that the calculator says my easy pace using the 65% of MAS should be 7:14. That would have me way above 70%, probably 75-80%. I don't know how sirpoc runs his easy runs so fast while keeping his HR so low. His race paces from 5k-Marathon are about 20s faster than mine, and yet his easy pace is 1.5-2 minutes faster. I think he usually runs flat routes in super trainers, but that doesn't explain that large of a difference.
It's probably years of building his aerobic base using NSA helping him
I'll add that the calculator says my easy pace using the 65% of MAS should be 7:14. That would have me way above 70%, probably 75-80%. I don't know how sirpoc runs his easy runs so fast while keeping his HR so low. His race paces from 5k-Marathon are about 20s faster than mine, and yet his easy pace is 1.5-2 minutes faster. I think he usually runs flat routes in super trainers, but that doesn't explain that large of a difference.
I mean we all poke fun at his shuffling ( I think he even does himself so I take it he won't be offended ) but I actually think this is part of why his easy running is so efficient. He's doing way less work and physical movement.
But others have said, he is just also incredibly aerobically efficient. You only have to look how he has picked up cycling again after 8 years in the last 2 weeks and his FTP I would guess is already approaching 5w/kg.
Some people are just insanely strong and efficient in and around LT1. all in all it just means your easy 70% MHR effort and his are different. And that is fine. I assume as these things have played out over time it's where he's admitted now on a few occasions he wishes he had left pace off the original instructions to the method. You are still running sub 16 I don't see why It matters or should bother you.
I think a big part of the trolling and negativity coming on here and Reddit is that people don't want to believe someone ran a 15:01 5k and a 2:24 marathon at 41 while running just 8 or 9 hours a week. They don't want to believe because it makes them and their training look bad.
Many people are struggling to hit the times they want and will say "I don't have the time to run 100 miles a week. That is the reason I'm not fast enough" or "I have a full time job, I can't be competing with these kids" - Sirpoc and this method challenge that thinking and it is scaring some people. The excuses are gone. You don't need to be superman to hit a fast time. You don't need to run stupid mileage for 12/14 hours a week. You just need to run WISELY and manage your fatigue. Get the most out of your runs. You don't need to run yourself into the ground.
I think some people probably don't think these times are "earned" because of the limited training mileage.
This is a great point. I've had good success myself training this way, but it took a while to get into the mentality of thinking long term for the first 6 months and not expecting miracles. But knowing I'm absolutely suddenly making the most of my 6-7 a week I have to train. Starting to really feel the benefit now and quite quickly I realised everything I was doing before was pretty bad. Or at least I wasn't spending my precious hours wisely.
That was quite hard to stomach, as I have been training for years now and it stings a bit to know I was going through the motions for half a decade up until now.
I'm sure some guys are trolls, but some I think legit want to bury their head in the sands and justify their own training by dismissing all of this. Despite all the evidence, beyond just sirpoc, that tells us really at this point whilst this isn't a golden ticket, it's as good as you will find.
I've been following this thread for months now even though I don't employ the NSA method. While I understand and appreciate the concept behind it (maximizing your efforts within a limited amount of time in order to more consistently train and build aerobic capacity) and can recognize the thought/experimentation that went into it, I think what turns most people off is the rigidity of the training.
When someone "fails" you see the apostles come out of the woodwork: "He ran his Wednesday easy run pace :30/km too fast." "He tried to push the pace on 1k in July." etc. It's never the fault of the program, it's always because the athlete didn't follow it properly. Even if they used the calculators and followed it to the letter, there's always something to nitpick.
Life, especially for us middle age hobby joggers, is never perfect. And every athlete is different. One of the biggest complaints about coaching in Letsrun threads is that it's never individualized enough. And now here's a program that throws all individuality out the window. And again, I get that certain basic concepts are universal. I really do. But this adherence to the belief of "this is the plan, and if you're not able to follow it verbatim, you're doomed to failure" is almost a matter of faith within the NSA community. At least it appears so from a longtime lurker.
Finally, and this is more a personal preference/observation, it just doesn't seem fun. Running is supposed to be a fun activity. Shuffling along on easy runs and running precise sessions three times a week isn't my idea of fun. What happens when your running buddies want to meet up? "Sorry guys, my easy pace is :15/km slower than yours, I'll see you at the parking lot later!"
I liken it to cooking. NSA is using and scale and a spreadsheet to measure out all of your food during a week, making sure that your marco proportions are perfect, your vitamin consumption is ideal, and your caloric intake is precisely aligned to your output. Metabolically it might be correct, but it takes all the fun and passion out of it. But again, I recognize everyone is different, and this might be the journey some enjoy. But when you read critiques of the NSA program, just remember we're all different.
I've been following this thread for months now even though I don't employ the NSA method. While I understand and appreciate the concept behind it (maximizing your efforts within a limited amount of time in order to more consistently train and build aerobic capacity) and can recognize the thought/experimentation that went into it, I think what turns most people off is the rigidity of the training.
When someone "fails" you see the apostles come out of the woodwork: "He ran his Wednesday easy run pace :30/km too fast." "He tried to push the pace on 1k in July." etc. It's never the fault of the program, it's always because the athlete didn't follow it properly. Even if they used the calculators and followed it to the letter, there's always something to nitpick.
Life, especially for us middle age hobby joggers, is never perfect. And every athlete is different. One of the biggest complaints about coaching in Letsrun threads is that it's never individualized enough. And now here's a program that throws all individuality out the window. And again, I get that certain basic concepts are universal. I really do. But this adherence to the belief of "this is the plan, and if you're not able to follow it verbatim, you're doomed to failure" is almost a matter of faith within the NSA community. At least it appears so from a longtime lurker.
Finally, and this is more a personal preference/observation, it just doesn't seem fun. Running is supposed to be a fun activity. Shuffling along on easy runs and running precise sessions three times a week isn't my idea of fun. What happens when your running buddies want to meet up? "Sorry guys, my easy pace is :15/km slower than yours, I'll see you at the parking lot later!"
I liken it to cooking. NSA is using and scale and a spreadsheet to measure out all of your food during a week, making sure that your marco proportions are perfect, your vitamin consumption is ideal, and your caloric intake is precisely aligned to your output. Metabolically it might be correct, but it takes all the fun and passion out of it. But again, I recognize everyone is different, and this might be the journey some enjoy. But when you read critiques of the NSA program, just remember we're all different.
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.