2. I'd argue that SOME of those novices do need to worry about the speed/anaerobic side because novices are often way more FT orientated. Not always, depending on the event. But it's why you see some novices respond really well to Igloi style/Easy Interval Method. Because they are much more FT orientated, so you run "easy" intervals.
do you have evidence (empirical or published studies) that back this up?
I’ve never been tested for FT vs ST but I’ve run over 20+ years and done all kinds of training and racing from sprints to mid distance to marathons and using performance tables I know I drop way off for distance racing. I’ve found that not much affects my speed, ie I can do sprint training or easy jogging and my 100-400m times stay the same. If I want to run a decent mile-5k I need to do a lot of miles even if they are easy. I don’t need much else and there have been times when I did NSA type training and also times when I overtrained with too much anaerobic work. I’m giving NSA a try since it fits where I’ve had success in the past and it’s low risk for overtraining. The main adjustment I’m currently making are short sprints with lots of rest to keep speed up.
It's not that novices are more fast twitch, but that elite distance runners are more slow twitch than the average population.
I would argue that NSA may actually benefit some fast twitch runners MORE than a traditional 2 workouts + long run system as it actually has a higher focus on quality. Yes there is less running at race paces, but there is also less running at easy paces so your average weekly pace would be HIGHER. The biggest difference is the long run being replaced. The system can of course be modified and tailored while keeping the bases.
Following the 1968 best-selling publication of “Aerobics” by Dr. Kenneth Cooper, the number of runners and joggers increased exponentially through the 1970s. Frank Shorter’s gold and silver medals in the 1972 and 1976 Olympic...
I don’t think Steve was being disingenuous, but I believe he’s fallen into the trap of viewing training from a top-down, elite perspective. It’s an easy mistake to make when analyzing running programs. However, I think this approach is flawed for hobby joggers.
To me, the genius of Sirpoc’s approach lies in three key aspects:
He had no preconceived notions about how runners train.
He drew on his success from another sport, that wasn't a mainstream approach at the time either.
Most importantly, he approached the problem from the bottom up, focusing on the needs of everyday runners.
This bottom-up perspective is what many overlook. It’s why Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is best followed closely, or at least with its core principles in mind. For hobby joggers, our primary limitation is almost certainly aerobic capacity. Other factors matter far less and don’t need to be isolated for improvement.
Easier said than done, of course. It’s tempting to tweak the program with old habits or ideas picked up elsewhere, but I believe adding the elements Steve suggests—even for runners in the 15–16-minute 5K range—misses the forest for the trees. While I agree with Steve that certain factors become limiters at the sub-elite or elite level, for most of us in this thread, focusing on Sirpoc’s principles and making the best use of our limited training time is the way to go. There's just far too many testimonials to ignore and far too many who have tried to get clever with it or add in more traditional work and have messed the balance up.
This focus on aerobic capacity, combined with Sirpoc’s finer details, is what makes his approach so unique and eye-opening for hobby joggers. It’s not easy—sticking to the plan is challenging, and the urge to revert to old habits is easy, I've make this mistake myself.
While I agree with Steve that we’ll eventually need to identify when to do more, I disagree that simply adding intensity, pushing the boat out, or getting greedy fast—as we’ve seen people want to do in this thread—is the answer. The answer is to carefully understand what is going on and add in more volume whilst finely balancing it. Again, I think I've seen enough from others to know if you get this right, you can basically keep getting faster without rocking the boat.
I’m excited about the book. Based on Chillruns’ glowing review, I hope and assume it’s designed to address the challenges of hobby jogging, rather than scaling down elite training methods. That’s the secret sauce here and a trap many coaches fall into when working with hobby clients.
Sorry, Steve, if this feels like I’m singling you out—I don’t mean it as criticism. I just think the bottom-up approach is a hugely overlooked factor. Before I trained like this, I was obsessed with how Jakob’s methods could apply to me. In retrospect, what elites like Jakob do is almost irrelevant to my life as a hobby jogger. Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is far more relevant. Most of us could replicate it 1:1 if we prioritized our time. But it’s so finely tuned that tweaking it too much can lead to problems.
Just my thoughts. Great to see this thread still going strong!
Thanks Steve for replying to my post. It's good to have someone with your experience and credentials contributing to the discussion.
I still think the point around eroding the anaerobic capacity is missing context, which is that this matters for podium contenders but is never going to be the limiting factor for a runner who can't get under 40 mins for a 10k. These are, by far and away, the runners who follow plans in books and watch running videos on YouTube.
I don't think it's lacking context. It's basically saying: this is a tradeoff. One acknowledged by the originator of this method (Bakken). For some that tradeoff is big. For others, it's small.
My counter would be: Easy feel good fast work is low risk, low injury, and often big bang for your buck for novices. Because their anaerobic capacity might not be a limiting factor, but they often have god awful running economy, especially at specific speeds. And their fatigue resistance to economy changes also sucks...
What's the best way to improve that (again, going back to something Bakken pointed out): A variety of faster work.
I think most of the issues come down to this. Most people suck at interval training, especially if it's controlled. Instead of just brushing it off, why not teach people how to run intervals that aren't nuts and they'll benefit from for low cost. If you can't teach someone, sure avoid it. But as a coach, who got his start teaching a bunch of HS kids, my approach is always: I'm going to teach you how to do this well.
And I'd argue that most doing NWS would greatly benefit from doing some easy hill charges, or rhythm 200s, or the Webb/Razcko 200-150-120....which the Ingebritsens utilized as well!
Again, to each their own. I've done a variation of the high LT work. My HS teams in the 2008 era used to build to 2 sub LT sessions + HS a week for our late base phase work. But to me, it's a bit silly to neglect a very low cost, high return, and potentially something that improves injury resistance. Maybe not every week, but every once in a while.
Again, that may not be the case if you're running 3-4 days per week. I get it. But that's my two cents. Nothing wrong with overloading with sub LT. I think it's a great bridge for late base phase training. But if that's all your doing...I'd adjust, even if I was a serious amateur. Because there are very simple low cost, larger reward stimuli you can introduce.
I largely agree with Magness but here's how I'd express the key reasons for success with this method:
1. Going from 25min 5k and 4:00 marathon down to Boston Qualifier and much faster (essentially sub elite level), takes nothing more than aerobic development. This method is building a surprisingly convincing body of evidence of how little other things matter. "Pulling from above" whether in the sense of running above threshold or improving top speed are both unnecessary, at least until the elite level. Strength training, plyos, sprinting, for the sake of tendon stiffness and RE, etc, are at best ONE TIME gains that can be developed and then maintained, or completely ignored. Runners are not getting increasingly stronger or increasingly stiff tendons over years like they are aerobically developing over years. Ultimately these additions are a drop in the bucket that one can implement when the aerobic gains stop coming in. Or do them if they sound fun.
2. Finding the optimal training load for yourself is essential for maximizing improvements. By periodizing and having a variety of workouts targeting different systems, it becomes incredibly difficult to dial this in. The Norwegian Singles structure is much more foolproof. You're supposed to feel relatively fresh all the time. None of the workouts are supposed to be that hard. No workouts are forced. There's no "running on tired legs" or "peak weeks" where no one (even pros) really has any idea if they're optimizing it or overdoing it. It's the same week over and over. The same three workouts, all three of the same nature, over and over. This repetition and these guidelines are the best way for a runner to get in touch with the proper "stimulus, recovery, stimulus, recovery, etc" cycle.
You combine one and two and you get the magic: optimal gains of the attribute that matters most. An attribute which amateurs need YEARS of development before they'll stop seeing significant gains.
When you're coming from the competitive HS/NCAA/Pro angle of the sport, where you're peaking multiple times a year and running in championship-style races, this method seems extremely odd.
But for a beginner runner and for hobby jogger glory, I think it can't be beat. The entire approach to training adult amateur runners should revolve around this approach. Periodization murders consistency. A variety of workouts murders consistency. Prioritizing anything other than aerobic gains for 5k-Marathon hobby joggers, even temporarily in the name of specificity or peaking, undermines maximal long-term development.
There certainly could be SOME tweaks that, a long time from now, have emerged as clear optimizations. I believe that. But to me this is about the death of periodization for amateurs. And the death of giving undue attention to anything that's not aerobic development for amateur 5k-Marathon road runners. If you want to reach your absolute potential, yes you'll eventually abandon this method. But for the goals most amateur runners have, they don't need to do anything more than this method. And I think that's true whether they're FT or ST or however else you want to categorize their genetics or training history. Furthermore, if their goals change, this method would not have been a waste of time. It's a great jumping off point to explore other types of training safely and effectively.
I don’t think Steve was being disingenuous, but I believe he’s fallen into the trap of viewing training from a top-down, elite perspective. It’s an easy mistake to make when analyzing running programs. However, I think this approach is flawed for hobby joggers.
To me, the genius of Sirpoc’s approach lies in three key aspects:
He had no preconceived notions about how runners train.
He drew on his success from another sport, that wasn't a mainstream approach at the time either.
Most importantly, he approached the problem from the bottom up, focusing on the needs of everyday runners.
This bottom-up perspective is what many overlook. It’s why Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is best followed closely, or at least with its core principles in mind. For hobby joggers, our primary limitation is almost certainly aerobic capacity. Other factors matter far less and don’t need to be isolated for improvement.
Easier said than done, of course. It’s tempting to tweak the program with old habits or ideas picked up elsewhere, but I believe adding the elements Steve suggests—even for runners in the 15–16-minute 5K range—misses the forest for the trees. While I agree with Steve that certain factors become limiters at the sub-elite or elite level, for most of us in this thread, focusing on Sirpoc’s principles and making the best use of our limited training time is the way to go. There's just far too many testimonials to ignore and far too many who have tried to get clever with it or add in more traditional work and have messed the balance up.
This focus on aerobic capacity, combined with Sirpoc’s finer details, is what makes his approach so unique and eye-opening for hobby joggers. It’s not easy—sticking to the plan is challenging, and the urge to revert to old habits is easy, I've make this mistake myself.
While I agree with Steve that we’ll eventually need to identify when to do more, I disagree that simply adding intensity, pushing the boat out, or getting greedy fast—as we’ve seen people want to do in this thread—is the answer. The answer is to carefully understand what is going on and add in more volume whilst finely balancing it. Again, I think I've seen enough from others to know if you get this right, you can basically keep getting faster without rocking the boat.
I’m excited about the book. Based on Chillruns’ glowing review, I hope and assume it’s designed to address the challenges of hobby jogging, rather than scaling down elite training methods. That’s the secret sauce here and a trap many coaches fall into when working with hobby clients.
Sorry, Steve, if this feels like I’m singling you out—I don’t mean it as criticism. I just think the bottom-up approach is a hugely overlooked factor. Before I trained like this, I was obsessed with how Jakob’s methods could apply to me. In retrospect, what elites like Jakob do is almost irrelevant to my life as a hobby jogger. Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is far more relevant. Most of us could replicate it 1:1 if we prioritized our time. But it’s so finely tuned that tweaking it too much can lead to problems.
Just my thoughts. Great to see this thread still going strong!
Just trying to pin this down a bit more. For those arguing that extra speedwork is not needed. How do you see the monthly all out 5K TT? Simply to confirm training paces, otherwise not necessary? Or is the TT a necessary training component?
Agree with all of this. The final factor that sirpoc takes into account is time spent training. It's basically about maximizing load/hr spent. And this method is a way to do that.
Just trying to pin this down a bit more. For those arguing that extra speedwork is not needed. How do you see the monthly all out 5K TT? Simply to confirm training paces, otherwise not necessary? Or is the TT a necessary training component?
Personally I think this is a good question. If you look at sirpoc results, I think racing regular is overblown. Sometimes he went a few months without a race, sometimes a couple in the space of a month.
For me, I haven't raced anymore or less than ever before. But my performances have gotten better. I feel if I go a long while without racing (3 months or more) maybe the edge is slightly gone? But then is no different really to totally other different training systems that tell you to "race yourself into shape" and that also have the added benefit of racing, still providing extra training stimulus for further down the line.
It's probably a factor that can be played around with. But I've been around this running game for a long time now and it's certainly not something I see at the list as overly important. I do think it's a question worth asking though.
In general I think the thread is actually open minded. But, ultimately it comes down to as I said before, the more you play around with it the worse the system gets. I think racing probably comes down to if you race every 4-6 weeks for a 5k, maybe 8. You seem to have the balance pretty decent. I haven't seen anyone say that's unmanageable, who has done it. For me I find it more of a good guage to just see where I'm at.
Agree with all of this. The final factor that sirpoc takes into account is time spent training. It's basically about maximizing load/hr spent. And this method is a way to do that.
Steve has a coaching business to protect. Same with guys like Fitzgerald who also tried to get involved. As a former coach myself, it would be hard to admit that for your client base, a middle aged British dude who seemingly doesn't even like running, has come up with something more relatable. So they have no choice but to add their own take on it to sell you coaching. It's obviously too hard to just ignore, as I've seen their social media and the like asking for NSM plans.
Let alone to add in the guy will finally lay it all out in a neat format book by the sounds of it, for probably the cost of a few beers we all owe the guy, rather than 100 bucks a month to get some plan that probably has no relevance to a guy who can't break 19 in a 5k.
I just want to add one thing. I think sometimes when we talk training, we get defensive. We want to PROVE our system is the best. And I think you see that in this thread, and elsewhere.
I've got no dog in the fight. My only point and what I try to do is to share context and knowledge with others. I'm not trying to sell a training plan or even coaching. It's why I've got videos and discussions on ALL intervals (Igloi), as well as nearly all endurance (Van Aaken) and everything in between.
I don't think it's coming from the bottom up or top down. It's just understanding training. As I'll point out, I've trained people pretty much this exact way before (for a shorter period). Did I get there through bottom up or top down? I think it's a kind of meaningless distinction. Because any good coach is going to look at who is sitting in front of you and figure out: how do I train them well. Not, how do I shove them into some preconceived system.
I think what's missed in here is that: NWS is just a very very very simple program designed to keep people from doing dumb things. ANd that's great. We have a lot of runners who do dumb things. It's essentially the restricted diet way of training. The way restrictive diets work is they simplify decisions for folks so they don't do dumb things. So they say "Never eat sugar!" even though the truth is some sugar can be fine, and even great (if you're training).
I tend to want to teach folks how to train and periodize better. Instead of overly constrain to make sure people don't mess up. But I also understand we need both sides.
The last thing I'll add... twenty years ago we simply called this approach: 6 weeks out from being able to run fast at most races. It was to jack up LT, which gave you the ability to be in good enough shape to run fast, especially if you had a few weeks to sharpen up. Literally, it was 2 sub T (sometimes 3) sessions a week, hill sprints, everything else easy. And the hill sprints were done the right way, non-fatiguing. I've got a few old training logs of kids I coached and that was it for months...
I'll now take credit for developing the Houston Single Threshold Training system. (All in jest...).
Is it anything special? No. It's just a good way to boost high end aerobic system. One of many ways.
Again, take it or leave it. I'm just adding context and nuance. I still think most of the problems arise from people not understanding training intensity or workout design....which is why I'll continue to put out resources to help people learn.
All the best with whatever training you decide to do.
Lots of good nuggets in this post! Looking from the outside it’s easy to find things you can add to the system. But when you’re in it month over month, you realize how much of a tightrope act it is and any deviation like adding strides can throw things off. I know that seems dramatic, but I came to this thread 100% believing the importance of top end speed, running economy etc. I added hill strides to my Monday easy run and over the next 4 weeks the fatigue began to slowly tip into the other sessions and I wasn’t recovering as well. I dropped it, and was able to be more consistent and eventually up the volume. Now I have a 1600 PB to show for it, at no point in that TT was top end speed my limiter, so why bother?
Lots of respect to Magness! I’m just saying if folks experiment on themselves they may come to similar conclusions.
This post was edited 25 minutes after it was posted.
Agree with all of this. The final factor that sirpoc takes into account is time spent training. It's basically about maximizing load/hr spent. And this method is a way to do that.
Steve has a coaching business to protect. Same with guys like Fitzgerald who also tried to get involved. As a former coach myself, it would be hard to admit that for your client base, a middle aged British dude who seemingly doesn't even like running, has come up with something more relatable. So they have no choice but to add their own take on it to sell you coaching. It's obviously too hard to just ignore, as I've seen their social media and the like asking for NSM plans.
Let alone to add in the guy will finally lay it all out in a neat format book by the sounds of it, for probably the cost of a few beers we all owe the guy, rather than 100 bucks a month to get some plan that probably has no relevance to a guy who can't break 19 in a 5k.
I just want to correct something. I have ZERO coaching business to protect.
I am a writer first. And I don't write books on training. I make all my money through writing and working with teams and organizations that have nothing to do with running
My coaching for the last 5 years? A small number of elite runners, because I enjoy coaching. It fills that itch, without too much time consumed. I also don't charge.
So I know this is the hellhole of the internet, but I really try to engage in good faith, and contribute my knowledge and expertise.
As I said, I have no dog in this fight. I'm a running nerd who loves understanding all training. It's why I've got Jack Lovelock's training log sitting on my desk from 1932. And why I spent months reading and interviewing everyone I could about Igloi.
So take it or leave it. But I could care less if this training takes off, or if this book sells a billion copies or not. It has zero impact on me or my finances. In fact, I hope this guy sells a billion copies of his book. The more people reading about running and training the better.
What Magness seemed to miss... 1. the important matter of sustainability 2. most athletes and runners are aerobically under developed 3. this aerobic development takes much longer than the scholastic 'seasons' that seem to limit so many people's thinking
do you have evidence (empirical or published studies) that back this up?
I’ve never been tested for FT vs ST but I’ve run over 20+ years and done all kinds of training and racing from sprints to mid distance to marathons and using performance tables I know I drop way off for distance racing. I’ve found that not much affects my speed, ie I can do sprint training or easy jogging and my 100-400m times stay the same. If I want to run a decent mile-5k I need to do a lot of miles even if they are easy. I don’t need much else and there have been times when I did NSA type training and also times when I overtrained with too much anaerobic work. I’m giving NSA a try since it fits where I’ve had success in the past and it’s low risk for overtraining. The main adjustment I’m currently making are short sprints with lots of rest to keep speed up.
It's not that novices are more fast twitch, but that elite distance runners are more slow twitch than the average population.
I would argue that NSA may actually benefit some fast twitch runners MORE than a traditional 2 workouts + long run system as it actually has a higher focus on quality. Yes there is less running at race paces, but there is also less running at easy paces so your average weekly pace would be HIGHER. The biggest difference is the long run being replaced. The system can of course be modified and tailored while keeping the bases.
Yeah I get that some people are genetically more FT or ST at birth, but training shifts the fiber type. Like this study of twins showed that the endurance-trained twin had 55% more type 1 (slow twitch) muscle fibers:
Several measured differences are the largest reported between MZ twins (TT expressed 55% more MHC I fibers, 12.4 ml/kg/min greater VO2max, and 8.6% lower body fat% vs. UT). These data collectively (a) support utilizing chroni...
This method is good for FT runners because it's much easier for FT runners to overtrain, since the FT fibers take longer to recover. By making the paces as easy as necessary to repeat the training week infinitely, FT runners can safely embark on the project of becoming more ST over years of training, which will both increase their capacity to train and improve race performance.
I think the only tricky thing is finding the right volume. There is a choice between doing a higher volume version of NSA and running the intervals closer to LT1, out of necessity to avoid overtraining (the faster you run, the more FT fibers are recruited, and they take longer to recover), versus doing a lower volume version of NSA and running the intervals closer to LT2. But a lot of the advice given here (and I've said the same thing) is to stick to the slower end of the lactrace pace range, or go even slower if necessary. That may be getting a bit far from the sweet spot. But then again, volume is really important.
It also occurs to me that even though the goal is perfect consistency, the reality is people will naturally polarize a little bit: run one session a little too hard because they were feeling great that day, and then find the next session has to be run on the slower side. Is it good to have these micro-polarizations or not? Because then you, to a small extent, inadvertently did a "two workouts a week" schedule.
I just want to add one thing. I think sometimes when we talk training, we get defensive. We want to PROVE our system is the best. And I think you see that in this thread, and elsewhere.
I've got no dog in the fight. My only point and what I try to do is to share context and knowledge with others. I'm not trying to sell a training plan or even coaching. It's why I've got videos and discussions on ALL intervals (Igloi), as well as nearly all endurance (Van Aaken) and everything in between.
I don't think it's coming from the bottom up or top down. It's just understanding training. As I'll point out, I've trained people pretty much this exact way before (for a shorter period). Did I get there through bottom up or top down? I think it's a kind of meaningless distinction. Because any good coach is going to look at who is sitting in front of you and figure out: how do I train them well. Not, how do I shove them into some preconceived system.
I think what's missed in here is that: NWS is just a very very very simple program designed to keep people from doing dumb things. ANd that's great. We have a lot of runners who do dumb things. It's essentially the restricted diet way of training. The way restrictive diets work is they simplify decisions for folks so they don't do dumb things. So they say "Never eat sugar!" even though the truth is some sugar can be fine, and even great (if you're training).
I tend to want to teach folks how to train and periodize better. Instead of overly constrain to make sure people don't mess up. But I also understand we need both sides.
The last thing I'll add... twenty years ago we simply called this approach: 6 weeks out from being able to run fast at most races. It was to jack up LT, which gave you the ability to be in good enough shape to run fast, especially if you had a few weeks to sharpen up. Literally, it was 2 sub T (sometimes 3) sessions a week, hill sprints, everything else easy. And the hill sprints were done the right way, non-fatiguing. I've got a few old training logs of kids I coached and that was it for months...
I'll now take credit for developing the Houston Single Threshold Training system. (All in jest...).
Is it anything special? No. It's just a good way to boost high end aerobic system. One of many ways.
Again, take it or leave it. I'm just adding context and nuance. I still think most of the problems arise from people not understanding training intensity or workout design....which is why I'll continue to put out resources to help people learn.
All the best with whatever training you decide to do.
Most training is the same. There's actually not much difference. But, I do disagree on your point about top down, bottom up.
I wholeheartedly agree with the guy who posted this and I think it's an excellent point. I would say the vast majority of hobby joggers at some point have fallen into the trap of copying elites. It's almost the thing I hate the most about coaching. No matter what you say, coaches who take on hobby jogger clients for the most part just scale down plans they are familiar with at elite level, which are doomed to failure. OK, doomed to failure is probably unfair, but it almost certainly makes a lot of coaching sub optimal and certainly not the best bang for buck that said hobby joggers client paid for.
You have to remember, coaching for the most part is 90% used by just guys who have money to spare, can't be bothered to look into it themselves or hire a coach. That's where I would also agree the charm of this thread is, it's effectively the working mans free pass to success (I will also add the the price of a 6-8 pack, we owe him a book purchase!). Like the other guy said, he hasn't fallen into this cycle. Or more to the point, did with his original running training but broke it before it was too late thankfully, hence we have this wonderful thread.
I also don't think people are protective of this training. I do think a lot of people have been here for a couple of years at this point and seen just about everyone on a hobby level trying to get cute with it and the wheels start to come off, so are exhausted with trying to warm people off the well trodden path for no reason.
You aren't trying to ice the cake here and shouldn't be. Even KI in my opinion made a mess of it for a good year or so. Again, I think that is because Henrik was coaching him and the confusion of what worked for Jakob wasn't necessary in the slightest for KI at that point.
I think Steve brings up a lot of good points in his video.
A lot of us on this forum have a tendency to laud this method for being "the best method for hobbyjoggers on 5-8 hrs/week" but I think what makes this method stand out from others is how hard it is to mess things up. Sure there are low-cost gains to be had from employing work other than sub-T but the average hobbyjogger without a solid understanding of training is liable to screw things up when they start adding their own uninformed twist to this established method. We see this all the time in the form of Greek Singles or people who run their easy runs at 80%MHR and call it easy.
Personally I've had great success with this method after returning from a multi-year break but have recently stalled in my progression. Steve mentions in his video how after doing so much of one kind of training your limiting factor will change. I could just keep spamming sub-T only and hope for more progress but at this point I'd just be experiencing diminishing returns in race performance from continuing to focus solely on pushing my lactate curve to the right. This isn't to say that people wouldn't experience continuous improvement from focusing only on sub-t sessions but perhaps I would benefit more from dropping a sub-t session to more specifically target my other deficiencies, whether it be in the form of hill sprints or 200m repeats.
Of course at this point it'd no longer be the NSM and I wouldn't be able to blame the method for my lack of improvement (I'll just blame Steve and his Houston Single Threshold Training system haha) but I don't think there's anything wrong with experimenting to see what works best for the individual, so long as we avoid bad training.
Thanks Steve for replying to my post. It's good to have someone with your experience and credentials contributing to the discussion.
I still think the point around eroding the anaerobic capacity is missing context, which is that this matters for podium contenders but is never going to be the limiting factor for a runner who can't get under 40 mins for a 10k. These are, by far and away, the runners who follow plans in books and watch running videos on YouTube.
I don't think it's lacking context. It's basically saying: this is a tradeoff. One acknowledged by the originator of this method (Bakken). For some that tradeoff is big. For others, it's small.
My counter would be: Easy feel good fast work is low risk, low injury, and often big bang for your buck for novices. Because their anaerobic capacity might not be a limiting factor, but they often have god awful running economy, especially at specific speeds. And their fatigue resistance to economy changes also sucks...
What's the best way to improve that (again, going back to something Bakken pointed out): A variety of faster work.
I think most of the issues come down to this. Most people suck at interval training, especially if it's controlled. Instead of just brushing it off, why not teach people how to run intervals that aren't nuts and they'll benefit from for low cost. If you can't teach someone, sure avoid it. But as a coach, who got his start teaching a bunch of HS kids, my approach is always: I'm going to teach you how to do this well.
And I'd argue that most doing NWS would greatly benefit from doing some easy hill charges, or rhythm 200s, or the Webb/Razcko 200-150-120....which the Ingebritsens utilized as well!
Again, to each their own. I've done a variation of the high LT work. My HS teams in the 2008 era used to build to 2 sub LT sessions + HS a week for our late base phase work. But to me, it's a bit silly to neglect a very low cost, high return, and potentially something that improves injury resistance. Maybe not every week, but every once in a while.
Again, that may not be the case if you're running 3-4 days per week. I get it. But that's my two cents. Nothing wrong with overloading with sub LT. I think it's a great bridge for late base phase training. But if that's all your doing...I'd adjust, even if I was a serious amateur. Because there are very simple low cost, larger reward stimuli you can introduce.
I agree with the low cost high reward idea. Some pages back I got a lot of flack for suggesting that doing strides every week was worth it, why? Because of time constraints apparently.
Like, I just don't buy it that you have the time to do a 90 min easy long run on the weekend but you can't fit 4-6 x 100m off of a 2 min cycle a few times a week before workouts or after easy runs.
I don't think it's lacking context. It's basically saying: this is a tradeoff. One acknowledged by the originator of this method (Bakken). For some that tradeoff is big. For others, it's small.
My counter would be: Easy feel good fast work is low risk, low injury, and often big bang for your buck for novices. Because their anaerobic capacity might not be a limiting factor, but they often have god awful running economy, especially at specific speeds. And their fatigue resistance to economy changes also sucks...
What's the best way to improve that (again, going back to something Bakken pointed out): A variety of faster work.
I think most of the issues come down to this. Most people suck at interval training, especially if it's controlled. Instead of just brushing it off, why not teach people how to run intervals that aren't nuts and they'll benefit from for low cost. If you can't teach someone, sure avoid it. But as a coach, who got his start teaching a bunch of HS kids, my approach is always: I'm going to teach you how to do this well.
And I'd argue that most doing NWS would greatly benefit from doing some easy hill charges, or rhythm 200s, or the Webb/Razcko 200-150-120....which the Ingebritsens utilized as well!
Again, to each their own. I've done a variation of the high LT work. My HS teams in the 2008 era used to build to 2 sub LT sessions + HS a week for our late base phase work. But to me, it's a bit silly to neglect a very low cost, high return, and potentially something that improves injury resistance. Maybe not every week, but every once in a while.
Again, that may not be the case if you're running 3-4 days per week. I get it. But that's my two cents. Nothing wrong with overloading with sub LT. I think it's a great bridge for late base phase training. But if that's all your doing...I'd adjust, even if I was a serious amateur. Because there are very simple low cost, larger reward stimuli you can introduce.
I agree with the low cost high reward idea. Some pages back I got a lot of flack for suggesting that doing strides every week was worth it, why? Because of time constraints apparently.
Like, I just don't buy it that you have the time to do a 90 min easy long run on the weekend but you can't fit 4-6 x 100m off of a 2 min cycle a few times a week before workouts or after easy runs.
I found it interesting that Steve Magness said that strides wouldn’t do, it needed to be something longer, and by definition harder.
Unlike Sirpoc, some of us are running the easy runs at incredibly slow paces, to stay under 70% of hr max. I think the neuromuscular benefit of strides is not to be ignored.
I found it interesting that Steve Magness said that strides wouldn’t do, it needed to be something longer, and by definition harder.
Unlike Sirpoc, some of us are running the easy runs at incredibly slow paces, to stay under 70% of hr max. I think the neuromuscular benefit of strides is not to be ignored.
Is it though? I've dropped down my easy days to 10 min miling. I used to do 8:30s with strides and think that was easy.
Now I do 10 min miling by 3 sirpoc style workouts a week I am faster than I have been in 14 years. I'm 45 now.
I think a lot of people want to add things in, because they feel like they need to. They genuinely believe like that must or because they watch a YouTube video telling them they must. I was very much in this category until I just knuckled down for 8 months and to be honest I'm shocked at how good the results are.
Lots of good nuggets in this post! Looking from the outside it’s easy to find things you can add to the system. But when you’re in it month over month, you realize how much of a tightrope act it is and any deviation like adding strides can throw things off. I know that seems dramatic, but I came to this thread 100% believing the importance of top end speed, running economy etc. I added hill strides to my Monday easy run and over the next 4 weeks the fatigue began to slowly tip into the other sessions and I wasn’t recovering as well. I dropped it, and was able to be more consistent and eventually up the volume. Now I have a 1600 PB to show for it, at no point in that TT was top end speed my limiter, so why bother?
Lots of respect to Magness! I’m just saying if folks experiment on themselves they may come to similar conclusions.
Exactly this. The balance and margins for error is really much tighter than people realise. I've had similar experience adding in nothing more than glorified strides on some hills. Ultimately, to keep that up I would have to had significantly cut back a workout day long term. Really what is the cost reward ratio of that? It's surely not in favour of anything that develops speed that is unlikely to help me more than the third workout.
Lots of good nuggets in this post! Looking from the outside it’s easy to find things you can add to the system. But when you’re in it month over month, you realize how much of a tightrope act it is and any deviation like adding strides can throw things off. I know that seems dramatic, but I came to this thread 100% believing the importance of top end speed, running economy etc. I added hill strides to my Monday easy run and over the next 4 weeks the fatigue began to slowly tip into the other sessions and I wasn’t recovering as well. I dropped it, and was able to be more consistent and eventually up the volume. Now I have a 1600 PB to show for it, at no point in that TT was top end speed my limiter, so why bother?
Lots of respect to Magness! I’m just saying if folks experiment on themselves they may come to similar conclusions.
Exactly this. The balance and margins for error is really much tighter than people realise. I've had similar experience adding in nothing more than glorified strides on some hills. Ultimately, to keep that up I would have to had significantly cut back a workout day long term. Really what is the cost reward ratio of that? It's surely not in favour of anything that develops speed that is unlikely to help me more than the third workout.
In the same vein, how important is it to limit the length of the long run. This hasn’t had a great deal of discussion, but could be more fatiguing than strides. Not everyone following this method is time restricted, particularly at the weekend.
I thought Steve's video was somewhat disingenuous when talking about the limitations of the method, because he seemed to be saying that at some point you need to introduce some speed work to balance out the reduction in the anaerobic capacity, using the example of Ron Clarke never winning gold, and that eventually you need to think about pulling threshold up from above rather than just pushing up from below.
Is using Ron Clarke even a good example? He was a promising young athlete in Australia and was trained mainly by interval style training before stopping for a few years. He restarted in his mid 20s this time doing mainly fast aerobic (subT?) running. He then completely demolished the track distance running world records multiple times in the 1960s and won medals in the Olympics and Commonwealth Games which were the only 2 major championships he could compete in during his era. You could argue that he did not win "gold" but maybe the stars did not quite align, with the 1968 Olympics being held at altitude. Clarke also had long career for his era and he was winning championship medals into his thirties. Overall, the argument could easily be that Clarke got his training to be mostly right and far better than most as who else had a better distance running career during his era?
