I’m not sure what lactate meter Jiggy is using but it seems like his intervals at around 4:00 - 4:10 pace would be right above LT1. I can’t remember off the top of my head but one of the meters reads 0.5 lower than the other, so Jiggy’s 1.7 reading from the nostril event post would be like 2.2 or eight above LT1. Which is more to the point of my post.
Can training at or just above LT1 illicit a similar training response to training just below LT2?
Anon1, we may be getting terms mixed-up but I don’t think this thread is talking about Z2. My understanding of Z2 is that it is the zone right below LT1. This thread is talking more about the zone below LT2.
I'm using the Lactate Plus Meter (Nova Biomedical).
How is that one reads lower than the other? How to know which one is more accurate?
So while I was out slogging through the 49.4 degrees Celsius feels-like run today, I had a few thoughts.
Let's assume we run 6 minute reps in three different situations and all illicit a 2.0 mmol/L reading afterwards:
Scenario A) Outdoors in hot and humid weather (think 32 degrees celsius with 75% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:30/km for the 6 minutes rep.
Scenario B) Indoors, in cool conditions (think 22 degrees celsius with 45% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:00/km for the 6 minute rep.
Scenario C) Outdoor, in fair conditions (think 25-26 degrees celsius with 52% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:07/km for the 6 minute rep
Now remember, all three scenarios end up with a 2.0 mmol/L reading. The question is: Would one of the scenarios yield a superior training response? Specifically for someone training for 5K-HM.
In the US, get yourself a Lactate Plus, do your thresholds at 2.5-3.5.
In Europe, get yourself a Lactate Pro 2, do your threshold at 3.0-4.0.
Jiggy, I quoted a post from shirtboy from the beginning pages of the thread that lists the differences on the lactate readings. Maybe shirtboy would have more insight into this?
Zone 2 in a 3 zone system, i.e. between LT1 and LT2. Everything in this zone is by definition sub-T, and Sirpoc and others have given their opinion that it is likely you get a lot of the same benefits/adaptations by training at the bottom end of Z2 as at the top end. I thought that with mention of sub-sub-T you were referring to sub-LT1.
In the US, get yourself a Lactate Plus, do your thresholds at 2.5-3.5.
In Europe, get yourself a Lactate Pro 2, do your threshold at 3.0-4.0.
Jiggy, I quoted a post from shirtboy from the beginning pages of the thread that lists the differences on the lactate readings. Maybe shirtboy would have more insight into this?
Not sure why the reactions are different, but for the same samples, the Lactate Pro 2 will be about .5-.7mmol higher than the Lactate Plus.
I usually just assume the Lactate Plus is the baseline based on control solutions ive used, and just look at my LP2 readings as assumed to be a little bit high per sample.
Your baseline was pretty solidly low, 1.0 until you hit 1.5 at 15k/m, so i would say your LT1 is somewhere in that 14.4-15.0 km/h range, between 147-154 heart rate.
1.7 mmol might be slightly above LT1 for you based on your ramp test
also your lt2 is probably 2.5-2.8 on the lactate plus probably right around 164-165 bpm
I plotted three different point systems (Daniels, Tinman, and Training Peaks). You can see how they quantify training load per minute based on the intensity. I also calculated TSS if, instead of using FTP for the basis, you use vVO2Max (as defined by Daniels). Admittedly, I don’t use these, but find them interesting to learn about. It does give a good approximation for quantifying duration and intensity and the relative stimulus it will have, which can certainly be insightful if you use it regularly like sirpoc.
I can add the equations and provide more detail if that's what people are most interested in? I just assumed pictures get the point across without the complication haha
Shirtboy, thanks so much for that. Very interesting regarding the different meters and how you interpret the data jiggy has shared. Obviously thanks to jiggy for sharing. Really awesome. I'm intending on competing in the worlds next year and I think I have a very good chance in my age group. I'm actually going to take the plunge and train like this and buy a meter to kind of get a feel for it. So shirtboy, many thanks again your post has helped me decide which one to buy.
Hard2find. This is also awesome. I would love to see more please, if that's possible. Huge credit to sirpoc. I feel having been in this sport for 40 years I've absolutely learned something from reading his stuff about training loads, TSS and CTL to name just a few things. Yes, maybe it's geeky and nerdy as people or trolls have pointed out. However, I'm a firm believer that just because I've been successful in the sport for 40 years and competed just an an elite international level, it doesn't mean I know everything. In fact in all honesty, reading some of the sports crossover here and how things could have been done, I'm actually kicking myself that maybe I didn't reach my full potential looking back at things I did, or didn't do. Someone else mentioned it before pages back, but in my opinion it's not necessarily the guys who are fastest you want to copy. Fast is fast. I know guys who could run sub 14 on almost any cobbled together plan. It's the guys with limited time or ability who perform above themselves, when you are looking at it as a hobbyist activity. This thread has really weeded out those who know what they are talking about and those who don't, I feel.
At 40mpw the Norwegian method isn't going to benefit you because you won't have the base to sustain it.
You need to build your base and get mileage up a bit, then you can make use of their method. Here's a good way to do it:
On Tuesday, do a single thresh session. Making this a continuous session like a fartlek is wise. Thursday, run a tempo or progression run. It'll be a tick easier than thresh but still a good quality day. Saturday, do another thresh session, perhaps some track reps this time.
After some time maintaining this model, you can increase mileage by introducing doubles on your easy days. Doing a 6-7 mile run in the morning and a 5-6 mile run in the evening is a great approach. At some point (when you feel ready for it) you can switch the Thursday progression run/tempo a progression long run. Once you're sustaining 65 miles per week or so on this model, you can start throwing in a second threshold session on Tuesday, and if you want, an easy long run on Sunday. That training model will come in at 65-75 miles per week. About six months past that point, provided you've stayed healthy, you'll be ready to implement the full Norwegian model at 85-95 miles per week and you'll be a completely different runner than you are today.
At 40mpw the Norwegian method isn't going to benefit you because you won't have the base to sustain it.
You need to build your base and get mileage up a bit, then you can make use of their method. Here's a good way to do it:
On Tuesday, do a single thresh session. Making this a continuous session like a fartlek is wise. Thursday, run a tempo or progression run. It'll be a tick easier than thresh but still a good quality day. Saturday, do another thresh session, perhaps some track reps this time.
After some time maintaining this model, you can increase mileage by introducing doubles on your easy days. Doing a 6-7 mile run in the morning and a 5-6 mile run in the evening is a great approach. At some point (when you feel ready for it) you can switch the Thursday progression run/tempo a progression long run. Once you're sustaining 65 miles per week or so on this model, you can start throwing in a second threshold session on Tuesday, and if you want, an easy long run on Sunday. That training model will come in at 65-75 miles per week. About six months past that point, provided you've stayed healthy, you'll be ready to implement the full Norwegian model at 85-95 miles per week and you'll be a completely different runner than you are today.
Have you even read this thread? We have pages and pages and literally more pages of amazing analysis. Nobody is doing doubles. That's not even what the 35+ pages are about? Not even Kristoffer and he's way above 65 a week at this point, is doing doubles. But the guys here have given plenty of ways you can probably fit this into 5-9 hours a week. With the same hobby jogger sub t system.
Stop thinking about miles per week and think about training hours. One person could run 65 miles over 7 hours whereas another 45miles.
It’s a long thread with feedback from runners on this approach of maximising the load (or rather the ability to recover so I can train tomorrow/week/month/quarter/year) for the available hours, it’s moneyball training rather than boom and bust training or Seth easy daily longggggg run.
I don’t need vo2max sessions if that gets me less overall effort if I can get more quality work my doing a slightly easier session with that nets me a higher load. The graphs above show % higher effort has a disproportionate % recovery.
Or look it another way, I’m not base training or peak training and needing a taper as I’m race ready all year round. I maybe favour slightly shorter faster reps for an upcoming shorter distance race and longer slightly slower reps for the longer races but overall the training load is the same and is the consistent.
No, 'fantasy thread' is not me. Running maxVO2 training pace is needed frequently in a linear system and just a part of the factors that lead to maximum reached individual O2 capacity.I have discussed this with the Ingebrigtsens Ph. Leif - Inge Tjelta and he agreed with me the maxVO2 pace @ 5 k race pace mainly make the runners biomechanics and energy consumption much more efficient at the pace and it helps all the other paces/ factors needed. Then of course one can have periods only running threshold intervals @ half marathon pace or a little bit faster.🧙♂️👋🇸🇪
Concept 2 would get higher TRIMP points/week if Q2>Q1. That is the question, because less total volume can be handled at 5k reps.
TRIMP uses an exponential approach and is considered one of the best training load system we know.
Lexel I haven't looked at TRIMP in a while actually, mainly because I've just gotten used to TSS in its various forms over so many years now. I'm not sure if this means anything, but my last 5k was a TSS of 35-37 range, depending on if you go by pace, power or hrTSS. TRIMP was 60.
My last 10x1k session the week after that, TSS for the entire session was 75 based on Pace, 79 based on power or 76 based on HR. TRIMP was 120.
So any form of TSS is just over double for an average training session for me, compared to a 5k . Whereas TRIMP is exactly double comparing the two. So long term there's probably not much difference in using any of these. I'm just all in favour of picking any metric you like and just collecting the data accurately. As in, making sure you update paces, HR zones, power etc to your latest fitness, on a regular basis. I think if you do this, whether it be TSS in all 3 forms we have talked about here, or TRIMP, you will learn something from your own training and fitness. As I've said before, it's only really useful for yourself. Just because my training load metric is higher than someone else, doesn't mean anything. It's worth nothing. But as long as you are collecting your own data accurately, over months and years - I have a very good idea of what my "60" or whatever it is, is worth, to my own fitness. My PBs in both sports I've spoken about, all sit at the absolute top end of my highest CTL training value, no matter how I got there. I'm only proposing this training as I believe it's the quickest, safest way to get to that highest training load point, for a hobby jogger. There are guys like yourself and hard2find who clearly know way more than my scientifically, or even mathematically you could argue , about why this might be.
Just my anecdotal opinion btw, but option 2 you have used in your example, I don't think I could complete for more than maybe few weeks in a row before I would be really beat up and the fatigue starts to set in. I think there's a really good argument if we are talking about a short term fix and rolling the dice, say you only have 6 weeks to just do the most you can for a race and you've gotten really unfit for some reason ,option 2 or some variant of it might be worth a gamble. It if we are talking long term, or being sensible, or looking at things for development down the line, option 1 is a no brainer and likely almost definitely the best approach for a hobby jogger who wants long term sustainability and improvement. The rate at which I've been "racing" parkruns , seems to be more than enough 5k paced work. I definitely don't think it's something I would do weekly. If I didn't do a park run every 3rd or 4th week, that's the point in which I would probably consider sprinkling something slightly harder than the sub threshold being proposed here.
Another point regarding TRIMP. I do 8x1000, 5x1500, and 3x10 minutes every week, in addition to a long run of 18 to 22 km. I've noticed that the TRIMP is always highest during the long run. Consequently, the CTL also increases the most there. I always keep the long run at around 70 to 72% of maximum heart rate. I enjoy doing long runs, and they don't stress my system any more than the faster training sessions. I believe this is another reason why Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen extended the long run on Sundays – it enhances fitness even further.
Concept 2 would get higher TRIMP points/week if Q2>Q1. That is the question, because less total volume can be handled at 5k reps.
TRIMP uses an exponential approach and is considered one of the best training load system we know.
Lexel I haven't looked at TRIMP in a while actually, mainly because I've just gotten used to TSS in its various forms over so many years now. I'm not sure if this means anything, but my last 5k was a TSS of 35-37 range, depending on if you go by pace, power or hrTSS. TRIMP was 60.
My last 10x1k session the week after that, TSS for the entire session was 75 based on Pace, 79 based on power or 76 based on HR. TRIMP was 120.
So any form of TSS is just over double for an average training session for me, compared to a 5k . Whereas TRIMP is exactly double comparing the two. So long term there's probably not much difference in using any of these. I'm just all in favour of picking any metric you like and just collecting the data accurately. As in, making sure you update paces, HR zones, power etc to your latest fitness, on a regular basis. I think if you do this, whether it be TSS in all 3 forms we have talked about here, or TRIMP, you will learn something from your own training and fitness. As I've said before, it's only really useful for yourself. Just because my training load metric is higher than someone else, doesn't mean anything. It's worth nothing. But as long as you are collecting your own data accurately, over months and years - I have a very good idea of what my "60" or whatever it is, is worth, to my own fitness. My PBs in both sports I've spoken about, all sit at the absolute top end of my highest CTL training value, no matter how I got there. I'm only proposing this training as I believe it's the quickest, safest way to get to that highest training load point, for a hobby jogger. There are guys like yourself and hard2find who clearly know way more than my scientifically, or even mathematically you could argue , about why this might be.
Just my anecdotal opinion btw, but option 2 you have used in your example, I don't think I could complete for more than maybe few weeks in a row before I would be really beat up and the fatigue starts to set in. I think there's a really good argument if we are talking about a short term fix and rolling the dice, say you only have 6 weeks to just do the most you can for a race and you've gotten really unfit for some reason ,option 2 or some variant of it might be worth a gamble. It if we are talking long term, or being sensible, or looking at things for development down the line, option 1 is a no brainer and likely almost definitely the best approach for a hobby jogger who wants long term sustainability and improvement. The rate at which I've been "racing" parkruns , seems to be more than enough 5k paced work. I definitely don't think it's something I would do weekly. If I didn't do a park run every 3rd or 4th week, that's the point in which I would probably consider sprinkling something slightly harder than the sub threshold being proposed here.
I agree Sirpoc, that a higher stress score (independent which score system someone uses) can bring a higher reward long term, for a hobby jogger.
With your examples and stress score provided for 5k vs sub-CV units, it is clear that concept 1 is the clear winner. Also the risk of overtraining or injury is reduced i would assume. This is in line with the critical torque paper i provided in this thread and again everything fits together for me and is backed with science and own experience.
A great journey this thread was so far.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Sirpoc - I am curious with your consistent training over the years. How much does your CTL change week over week? Do you have a certain level of Form (TSB) that you aim for daily/weekly?
At 40mpw the Norwegian method isn't going to benefit you because you won't have the base to sustain it.
You need to build your base and get mileage up a bit, then you can make use of their method. Here's a good way to do it:
On Tuesday, do a single thresh session. Making this a continuous session like a fartlek is wise. Thursday, run a tempo or progression run. It'll be a tick easier than thresh but still a good quality day. Saturday, do another thresh session, perhaps some track reps this time.
After some time maintaining this model, you can increase mileage by introducing doubles on your easy days. Doing a 6-7 mile run in the morning and a 5-6 mile run in the evening is a great approach. At some point (when you feel ready for it) you can switch the Thursday progression run/tempo a progression long run. Once you're sustaining 65 miles per week or so on this model, you can start throwing in a second threshold session on Tuesday, and if you want, an easy long run on Sunday. That training model will come in at 65-75 miles per week. About six months past that point, provided you've stayed healthy, you'll be ready to implement the full Norwegian model at 85-95 miles per week and you'll be a completely different runner than you are today.
It's a good thing you showed up just in time with the insights
Shirtboy, thanks so much for that. Very interesting regarding the different meters and how you interpret the data jiggy has shared. Obviously thanks to jiggy for sharing. Really awesome. I'm intending on competing in the worlds next year and I think I have a very good chance in my age group. I'm actually going to take the plunge and train like this and buy a meter to kind of get a feel for it. So shirtboy, many thanks again your post has helped me decide which one to buy.
Hard2find. This is also awesome. I would love to see more please, if that's possible. Huge credit to sirpoc. I feel having been in this sport for 40 years I've absolutely learned something from reading his stuff about training loads, TSS and CTL to name just a few things. Yes, maybe it's geeky and nerdy as people or trolls have pointed out. However, I'm a firm believer that just because I've been successful in the sport for 40 years and competed just an an elite international level, it doesn't mean I know everything. In fact in all honesty, reading some of the sports crossover here and how things could have been done, I'm actually kicking myself that maybe I didn't reach my full potential looking back at things I did, or didn't do. Someone else mentioned it before pages back, but in my opinion it's not necessarily the guys who are fastest you want to copy. Fast is fast. I know guys who could run sub 14 on almost any cobbled together plan. It's the guys with limited time or ability who perform above themselves, when you are looking at it as a hobbyist activity. This thread has really weeded out those who know what they are talking about and those who don't, I feel.
Yeah id say the biggest consideration for the meters is how you want to handle the strips.
The LP2 strips are nice because they are individually wrapped. They are a bit more prone to sweat contamination than the Lactate Plus, but if you are outside, trying to get a single strip out of the container for the Plus is a pain.
Typically either save the Plus strips for inside only, or break the strips up into smaller bundles with old tubes.
The initial investment for the Plus is probably cheaper than for the Pro 2 as well, depending on location, but certainly if you are in the US
At 40mpw the Norwegian method isn't going to benefit you because you won't have the base to sustain it.
You need to build your base and get mileage up a bit, then you can make use of their method. Here's a good way to do it:
On Tuesday, do a single thresh session. Making this a continuous session like a fartlek is wise. Thursday, run a tempo or progression run. It'll be a tick easier than thresh but still a good quality day. Saturday, do another thresh session, perhaps some track reps this time.
After some time maintaining this model, you can increase mileage by introducing doubles on your easy days. Doing a 6-7 mile run in the morning and a 5-6 mile run in the evening is a great approach. At some point (when you feel ready for it) you can switch the Thursday progression run/tempo a progression long run. Once you're sustaining 65 miles per week or so on this model, you can start throwing in a second threshold session on Tuesday, and if you want, an easy long run on Sunday. That training model will come in at 65-75 miles per week. About six months past that point, provided you've stayed healthy, you'll be ready to implement the full Norwegian model at 85-95 miles per week and you'll be a completely different runner than you are today.
Have you even read this thread? We have pages and pages and literally more pages of amazing analysis. Nobody is doing doubles. That's not even what the 35+ pages are about? Not even Kristoffer and he's way above 65 a week at this point, is doing doubles. But the guys here have given plenty of ways you can probably fit this into 5-9 hours a week. With the same hobby jogger sub t system.
Sirpoc - I am curious with your consistent training over the years. How much does your CTL change week over week? Do you have a certain level of Form (TSB) that you aim for daily/weekly?
Well to give you an idea, 8 weeks ago my CTL was 56, now it's 62. It's been ramped up slowly but almost in a totally linear fashion when you plot it on a graph. 62 is the highest I've ever reached running and within the last few weeks have set PBs. TSB in that period ranges from -1 to about -8. Obviously you have to do more, to ramp up your CTL. One thing I've been very good over the years is how to increase the load very slowly, almost so it's unnoticeable in terms of impact on the body, but as the weeks and months go on you will see small performance increases. I was always good at that on the bike and really feel like this experience is paying off now running, hence this system working perfectly for me as it's so easy just to ramp it up here and there. For example I had a few weeks where I went from 425 TSS for the week, the next week I'll aim for 428, maybe 432 the week after and so on. Broken record incoming again, but these numbers only mean something to yourself and are then only useful to yourself if you are constantly updating zones etc to current fitness.
Complete side note. I raced the national 25 time trial champs in 2016, with the idea of going in fresh and targeting top 10 overall which was incredibly realistic based on my results. Tried to get my TSB/form into the green and fresh which I did. I can't even remember why I did this in retrospect. Probably the most horrible ride I ever did, thought the power meter was broken . Realised it wasn't when I saw the results and came about 37th. Honestly, probably the worst I've ever done in either sport, based on what I should have done. Ever since then I've totally not worried about or really paid much attention to my TSB. I did get it to -30 or maybe more I think once and did feel pretty terrible but it passed, as an extreme. I think that was in a January after I had taken my usual winter off and had got fat .
