Well said, I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree on what would work best for an 18 min 5k runner.
Where a lot of the contention is for the 14-15 min 5k types because I've seen a lot of anecdotes shared here around that range of ability in favor of it (sirpoc himself included of course).
For a 14:30 5k guy at 75 mpw who also wants to run sub 4:10 in the mile, does it make sense to follow the NSA strictly? A lot on this thread might say yes.
I don't know where or if the old dude chillruns mentions posts here, but he falls into this category. As far as I know, he follows this on a basic level and has consistently got good results and is around the range you mention. Someone might correct me on that though?
The jist though, is we are talking about tweaking things for 99% of people that are absolutely not needed. As much as we would all like to be facing the problems sub 15 min runners face, that's a fraction of us.
It's obviously worth a debate, but for the most part largely irrelevant and I think unfortunately starts to muddy the waters to those who's brains really don't even need to think about this, or yet be influenced or tempting into doing something about it.
It’s me the old guy mentioned. I’m coming up on almost two years of doing the plain vanilla method. I’ve had a week or two with small injuries but mostly healthy. Answer a few of the questions. Since adopting this method, (now 43y) I’ve dropped 4:35->4:20 mile, 15:45->14:55 5k, and ran 2:00. In the 800, plus better xc results. These are all times I figured were well beyond in my rear view. Unlike many in the thread, I raced at a pretty high level, topping out around 30 years old, trials all that. But I stagnated big time in my late 30’s early 40’s. I still ran every day. I used to love speed work but it tore me up physically and honestly this method showed how poor my aerobic abilities were. i tried the x-factor stuff, did hills the first summer, got no change in effect besides more lower limb stiffness. So I just went back to the original 3 workouts.
i have a full time job, kids, busy schedule. Understanding that it’s just load helped me realize I could just knock out time based sessions on the treadmill at night when life was busy with the same results, if not better. I am extreme in how much I don’t care about the details. I love the set it and forget aspect, my true love being racing itself. I’ve gotten way better at racing after 30 years of running, been invigorating. I use HR and essentially rpe since I barely look at my watch during reps at this point. The things I’ve had to dial in actually is I was feeling stale when the gun went off for races, and found a 800-1k at LT in my warmup was super effective on race day. Beyond that, I don’t even taper besides chopping my closest workout down to 60% if it’s a big race. i could do any number of things bigger and better but nothing would I be able to sustain like this.
It’s me the old guy mentioned. I’m coming up on almost two years of doing the plain vanilla method. I’ve had a week or two with small injuries but mostly healthy. Answer a few of the questions. Since adopting this method, (now 43y) I’ve dropped 4:35->4:20 mile, 15:45->14:55 5k, and ran 2:00. In the 800, plus better xc results. These are all times I figured were well beyond in my rear view. Unlike many in the thread, I raced at a pretty high level, topping out around 30 years old, trials all that. But I stagnated big time in my late 30’s early 40’s. I still ran every day. I used to love speed work but it tore me up physically and honestly this method showed how poor my aerobic abilities were. i tried the x-factor stuff, did hills the first summer, got no change in effect besides more lower limb stiffness. So I just went back to the original 3 workouts.
i have a full time job, kids, busy schedule. Understanding that it’s just load helped me realize I could just knock out time based sessions on the treadmill at night when life was busy with the same results, if not better. I am extreme in how much I don’t care about the details. I love the set it and forget aspect, my true love being racing itself. I’ve gotten way better at racing after 30 years of running, been invigorating. I use HR and essentially rpe since I barely look at my watch during reps at this point. The things I’ve had to dial in actually is I was feeling stale when the gun went off for races, and found a 800-1k at LT in my warmup was super effective on race day. Beyond that, I don’t even taper besides chopping my closest workout down to 60% if it’s a big race. i could do any number of things bigger and better but nothing would I be able to sustain like this.
Damn dude, you are legit rolling and your Strava titles are epic. It's funny as I sometimes see your runs and I truly believe attitudes like yours and patience are THE way to do this.
We only need Grandma's guy now. It's funny, because I think a lot of people still think these people aren't legit and it's ironic the really fast guys who train like this are the ones that absolutely ignore all the noise and totally forget about pushing the boat out or speedwork. I think the ever excellent John Whelan touched on that in his post.
Thread is bringing out everyone lately. It's cool, even when everyone doesn't agree I always feel this is a nice space of LRC.
I think Steve has brought up 2 or 3 points that actually haven't been made before in this thread.
He's probably right about individualization - even time-constrained hobby joggers might find a more optimal plan if they were working with a highly experienced coach. But I think the experience on this thread has shown that most self-coached runners are terrible coaches. Vanilla NSA may hold people back, but for a lot of people that's a good thing.
A lot of people looking for an X-factor have thrown in a whole session of hills or 5K pace intervals. Steve's suggestion to cut back a few minutes of sub-T and try 5 x 30 seconds at 5K pace in the workout is a lot more sensible. He's probably right that 6-8 weeks of race-specific training following a long block of NSA is good race prep, and it's more or less what sirpoc did for marathon prep. But is there a downside to introducing that kind of periodization in terms of recovery or injury risk or continued aerobic development at the hobby jogger level? That's an open question.
Steve's argument about fragility is new and probably needs to be addressed. People have pointed out before that NSA involves riding a thin line between stimulus and recovery - that's just what maximizing CTL means. If the system breaks down if minor variations are introduced, that's a problem. How robust is the approach? NSA comes with some built-in mechanisms to keep people from overtraining; are they sufficient?
This has actually been some of the most interesting discussion on the whole thread and I hope it continues.
I think Steve has brought up 2 or 3 points that actually haven't been made before in this thread.
He's probably right about individualization - even time-constrained hobby joggers might find a more optimal plan if they were working with a highly experienced coach. But I think the experience on this thread has shown that most self-coached runners are terrible coaches. Vanilla NSA may hold people back, but for a lot of people that's a good thing.
A lot of people looking for an X-factor have thrown in a whole session of hills or 5K pace intervals. Steve's suggestion to cut back a few minutes of sub-T and try 5 x 30 seconds at 5K pace in the workout is a lot more sensible. He's probably right that 6-8 weeks of race-specific training following a long block of NSA is good race prep, and it's more or less what sirpoc did for marathon prep. But is there a downside to introducing that kind of periodization in terms of recovery or injury risk or continued aerobic development at the hobby jogger level? That's an open question.
Steve's argument about fragility is new and probably needs to be addressed. People have pointed out before that NSA involves riding a thin line between stimulus and recovery - that's just what maximizing CTL means. If the system breaks down if minor variations are introduced, that's a problem. How robust is the approach? NSA comes with some built-in mechanisms to keep people from overtraining; are they sufficient?
This has actually been some of the most interesting discussion on the whole thread and I hope it continues.
My two cents on the fragility... we often think about training load as I've got 100 units of stress, and as long as I do training that spends less than that in totality, I'll bounce back and recover.
Another way to think of it is this: novelty and predictability. If you are doing the same two types of training for months, your body gets really good at doing the same two types of training. It's predictable. The stress load is predictable. Your bodies stress response is predictable. Your muscle recruitment is predictable.
You introduce strides? Catastrophic failure. Why? Let's be real. It's not that a few strides increased the total stress load. It's that you've just introduced something that recruits different muscle fibers, is unpredictable, etc.
Think of it in the opposite way. Why do so many people get sick during tapers? You are reducing the load. You should be your freshest. Your body responds to changes of consistency/predictability.
Now sometimes we can get too predictable and mundane, same run every day, which increases injury risk. But I think NS gets around this by hard/easy alternation. So there is variability, just on/off essentially.
It's why in research: sudden changes in single runs are a better predictor of injury risk than total amount or volume change per week. (See most recent Garmin Runsafe study).
So you're left with two options: Avoid big changes by eliminating things. Or go really gradually on adding in novel stimuli.
My preferred approach is to introduce small spices of work to make people more robust. Just like you would if you did strength training. NS approach is to just eliminate as much variability except for alternating easy and LT.
You could argue either way. As I said, I'm totally fine and open to that. If you aren't hurt, don't change it.
But I think most of the problems occur when we shove stuff into the system we aren't used to and prepared for. It's why if you look at injury risk in HS and college kids when is it generally highest? The transition from summer training to team practice. Why? Yes you added school stress, but often training abruptly changes.
It's why I think as someone else mentioned, more blend and combo workouts.
Whether that's doing 18min LT + some 200s. Or something that Alan Webb used to do is 4 mile tempo workout, then a mile cool down, then 2x 200-150-120, gradually working through the gears, as much recovery as needed. Or even Igloi's staple part of the cooldown 10x100, alternating 2 easy, 1 good stride as part of the the cool down.
Again, lots and lots of options. Start very small.
It may come down to a couple simple questions, which are individual-dependent: Is there time, or recovery capacity, for you to add a mini-X factor session to Vanilla NSA? If not, then Is it worth the tradeoff to be doing slightly less Sub-T to make room for that mini-X?
A follow on question might be: The next time you have adapted and are ready to level up your volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces, are you willing to instead add in some mini-X?
The consensus for purists is that, no, I break down when I exceed my capacity (fragility); or no, getting a bit more high-end aerobic work is more valuable than some mini-X; and no, I would rather increase my volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces.
Thanks for your input Steve. While you may not change the minds of some, you are providing valuable insight and ideas for those of us who aren't completely satisfied with the method as-written and want to make small, individualized adjustments
I think Steve has brought up 2 or 3 points that actually haven't been made before in this thread.
He's probably right about individualization - even time-constrained hobby joggers might find a more optimal plan if they were working with a highly experienced coach. But I think the experience on this thread has shown that most self-coached runners are terrible coaches. Vanilla NSA may hold people back, but for a lot of people that's a good thing.
A lot of people looking for an X-factor have thrown in a whole session of hills or 5K pace intervals. Steve's suggestion to cut back a few minutes of sub-T and try 5 x 30 seconds at 5K pace in the workout is a lot more sensible. He's probably right that 6-8 weeks of race-specific training following a long block of NSA is good race prep, and it's more or less what sirpoc did for marathon prep. But is there a downside to introducing that kind of periodization in terms of recovery or injury risk or continued aerobic development at the hobby jogger level? That's an open question.
Steve's argument about fragility is new and probably needs to be addressed. People have pointed out before that NSA involves riding a thin line between stimulus and recovery - that's just what maximizing CTL means. If the system breaks down if minor variations are introduced, that's a problem. How robust is the approach? NSA comes with some built-in mechanisms to keep people from overtraining; are they sufficient?
This has actually been some of the most interesting discussion on the whole thread and I hope it continues.
Most good systems have a fine line. Canova and Tinman come straight to mind, on that they have both been shown to be very rigid and much variation from the crafted plan is an issue.
I actually do think a lot of what Steve has said has been covered a lot. I don't think he's disingenuous, I just think he needs to put his own spin on it to appeal to his audience. Someone else pointed out, YouTube laps up just about anything he says. Probably this thread was and is never going to be as kind. Look at Coggan when he started flip flapping on stuff and I feel Steve is a bit wavy in a lot of what he is saying in my opinion.
I certainly think once you start to think about periodization of any sort when training like this, it's no longer this training and don't bother. The whole enteral build, being able to just plug and play into races and know you are probably most of the way there, is part of the appeal. The whole boom and bust cycle comes into play when especially you start deviating away from the workouts. I know myself I have tried to get greedy and add in some what I considered basic 200s. Even after a few weeks, I was looking into territory I was trying to avoid. A down day here and there was soon going to be required. That mounts up and the cycle begins.
This is probably why most of us are here in the first place. We finally come to the realisation you can't keep that up and down cycle going forever and it gets harder and harder, especially as a lower volume hobby joggers.
I agree the marathon was different, but as obsessed as people were with it and making it work, that's an add on and not part of the focus. I don't inherently think there is anything wrong with 5x30 and cutting back on some sub t. But where do you draw the line? You do that, you get greedy. You do that, your coach tells you to do some more. Here has to be a cut off point, or you just keep going and pushing more. We are all pretty stupid. All runners.
I actually think the massive upside of what a lot of us have followed has stopped us from doing anything stupid. Plus if we are getting better, who cares? Like a poster earlier, he's well over a year in and still improving? It just seems a bit unnecessary to even think about him changing anything up. If you finally stagnate, that's a totally different conversation. It's definitely the KI trap as has been already brought up.
Steve I'm not 100% sure where you are coming from on this to be honest. Your posts aren't really that consistent and making sense. Whilst I think there is definitely room for someone to do some long term experimentation with a target group, you seem to be doubling down on points I'm not convinced are relevant here or getting a bit fixated on small details I'm not even sure you are being challenged on. A lot of stuff needs to be stripped down and clarified. For example, are you saying these things should be added in early? Down the line? Even when you are already improving? Because I think most would struggle to understand why you would change something or even add minimal risk to something that shows gradual, long term and steady progress for a large proportion of people.
Sure, if you take the ones this doesn't work for , although that's seemingly a small minority, you could certainly start making some tweaks. But the progress some of these guys are making is already barely believable over a long period, it just seems a flawed starting point to change anything really until the brakes go on and there's no longer progress.
It may come down to a couple simple questions, which are individual-dependent: Is there time, or recovery capacity, for you to add a mini-X factor session to Vanilla NSA? If not, then Is it worth the tradeoff to be doing slightly less Sub-T to make room for that mini-X?
A follow on question might be: The next time you have adapted and are ready to level up your volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces, are you willing to instead add in some mini-X?
The consensus for purists is that, no, I break down when I exceed my capacity (fragility); or no, getting a bit more high-end aerobic work is more valuable than some mini-X; and no, I would rather increase my volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces.
a decision matrix would be preferable to simply sprinkling stuff in randomly:
It may come down to a couple simple questions, which are individual-dependent: Is there time, or recovery capacity, for you to add a mini-X factor session to Vanilla NSA? If not, then Is it worth the tradeoff to be doing slightly less Sub-T to make room for that mini-X?
A follow on question might be: The next time you have adapted and are ready to level up your volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces, are you willing to instead add in some mini-X?
The consensus for purists is that, no, I break down when I exceed my capacity (fragility); or no, getting a bit more high-end aerobic work is more valuable than some mini-X; and no, I would rather increase my volume/Sub-T volume/Sub-T paces.
a decision matrix would be preferable to simply sprinkling stuff in randomly:
WHAT do i want to add?
WHEN do i want to add it?
WHY am i adding this?
HOW often am i trying to do this?
endurance sports are chess not checkers, but think about when and why youre bringing your Queen out at least
a decision matrix would be preferable to simply sprinkling stuff in randomly:
WHAT do i want to add?
WHEN do i want to add it?
WHY am i adding this?
HOW often am i trying to do this?
I agree with this. But I also think the first point probably needs to be "am I improving on vanilla?" if yes. Put the matrix away. You are likely going to send yourself in a tail spin. Be that you, a coach, whoever. Look at the absolute mess some folks have gotten into.
I feel bad for Steve, but the thread as pointed out, isn't YouTube comments. You are going to need to come with substance and this what you have suggested is starting to get to the root of the issue. He has credit in the bank because he is Madness. But plenty of people have come to the thread with similar ideas with no answers to the questions you provided and been annihilated to hell.
Absolutely it would be great for Steve to talk the thread through any runner in the number of examples and answer your matrix for the what/when/why's of a runner who is still improving after 3, 6, 12 months. Hell we have seen 2+ years improvement. Now that would be a really useful addition, discussion and would be great to see him maybe coach some runners for his own interest, learning and for the wider community. I truly think that would be great.
a decision matrix would be preferable to simply sprinkling stuff in randomly:
WHAT do i want to add?
WHEN do i want to add it?
WHY am i adding this?
HOW often am i trying to do this?
Great discussion by all. I think I'm probably of the opinion Magness probably does fall into the category of wanting to make this into something 'more familiar'. But without really drilling down into this method we probably have all done that at this point.
But I probably come up on the side of the argument that it's probably pretty naive to change anything , whilst you are still improving. It's so tempting to sprinkle things in. I get it. But for me I come down on the side where I agree runners can't be trusted to manage where to draw the line.
All the real world evidence I think points to keep it pretty narrow to the parameters set out, doing anything with it until you have to is just not worth it. The whole method is risk reward. I just don't see the reward.
If vanilla doesn't work, I'm all for it. Or maybe you stagnate over more than just a few month period that some people seem to run into, then also I'm all for it.
I could be convinced , as I was a massive skeptic of this thread to begin with and was won round. But I would need pretty big evidence, convincing and probably some case studies to swing me. Ultimately, that's why I was swung round from skeptic to using this method myself to finally break 16, because all the evidence it would work became overwhelming. I'm not convinced I could have broken 16 another way, I have had many coaches try and reputable ones as well, all leaving me well short and some of it they assured me was the "key" and really I never got close to running under 16 at 16:49. 13 months of this I ran 15:53.
If Steve wants to play around, I am happy to put myself forward and he can coach me for 6 months and see if he can take the basics, make some individual tweaks and push me on some more. If there is a way to reach out to you direct Steve, let me know if you are interested and happy to work a plan.
a decision matrix would be preferable to simply sprinkling stuff in randomly:
WHAT do i want to add?
WHEN do i want to add it?
WHY am i adding this?
HOW often am i trying to do this?
I agree with this. But I also think the first point probably needs to be "am I improving on vanilla?" if yes. Put the matrix away. You are likely going to send yourself in a tail spin. Be that you, a coach, whoever. Look at the absolute mess some folks have gotten into.
I feel bad for Steve, but the thread as pointed out, isn't YouTube comments. You are going to need to come with substance and this what you have suggested is starting to get to the root of the issue. He has credit in the bank because he is Madness. But plenty of people have come to the thread with similar ideas with no answers to the questions you provided and been annihilated to hell.
Absolutely it would be great for Steve to talk the thread through any runner in the number of examples and answer your matrix for the what/when/why's of a runner who is still improving after 3, 6, 12 months. Hell we have seen 2+ years improvement. Now that would be a really useful addition, discussion and would be great to see him maybe coach some runners for his own interest, learning and for the wider community. I truly think that would be great.
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.
Can I ask just in the pulling from above isn’t needed aspect. My half marathon is stronger than my 5k, in fact I run about a minute slower per 5k repeatedly through my half marathons. I feel mechanically I can’t run much faster, I don’t feel I have a lot of power off the ground either. Only running <3 years, I train about 15 hours a week aerobically (cycle and run), 60-80k running. I had my threshold tested in a lab and LT2 is very close to my max. Surely at this point I need to pull from above?
I agree with your overall sentiment Steve. One thing I'll say is that the discussion of what's "optimal" in this context gets bogged down pretty quickly, for a couple reasons. This method assumes the runner is dealing with a pretty severe time/energy constraints so it's inherently not going to be optimal but rather trying to make the best use of training given limitations. If we remove that assumption the relative value of adding additional training stimuli changes, but then that's also ignoring the reality of the real-life runner doing the training. I think where people are disagreeing with you is the lack of addressing the practical tradeoffs, which is kinda the crux of this whole thing.
Also should point out that people are often arguing here from positions of different constraints and preferences, not really trying to get to the ground truth of training. That's not a bad thing per say -meeting people's life constraints and training preferences is an essential part of good training, but its not going to be hypothetically "optimal" in the broader sense and maybe we shouldn't try to make it that. There's also a lot of trolls, zealots, and other assorted morons here that inhibit honest informed discussion.
I think it's interesting (and would love your perspective) to look at this through the lens of these anecdotes of people running fairly fast with this training (i.e. low/sub-15:00 km), and seeing what's in there that might improve our knowledge of training in general. It's somewhat surprising the gap these guys are able to cover between workout paces and race paces. Sure they might be faster with different training, but instead of arguing that can we pull some insights out of their experience that will help us train better even if we aren't going to do strict Norwegian Singles?
Can the neuromuscular/musculoskeletal aspects we assume require high speeds/force output (i.e. strides/hill sprints) also be developed with sub-T paces?
Are supershoes helping bridge that gap of running economy that would otherwise require more intensity?
Are we overestimating the need for more standalone anaerobic stimulus (at least down to 5k)? Is it possible that the glycolytic activity happening at baseline up to during sub-T work is enough to provide the muscle fibers with enough glycolytic capacity to run those fast 5k paces?
What can do with load tracking models like TSS and CTL? How to best apply those to running? Could we make better models for running?
Just to answer. Because I think this is a great question. Why do people run 15min off this program?
Let's look at this through a different lens, where we have a far longer history of knowledge: high school runners.
When do big breakthroughs occur? Generally after a sustained summer base of consistent aerobic work. Now, some programs include some tempo, strides, fartlek, others mostly mileage. But how many times as a HS coach do you see a big jump in fitness and times after a solid summer base? All the time.
Then you say "just wait until I start the 'speedwork'!" Well, some kids get a lot sharper, some kids get hurt, some kids mess up the balance.
Do we then say, forget it no 'speed work' for the latter groups? No, we make adjustments.
So again for the 50th time, why do people run 15min or kinda fast off this? For the same reason that every year HS kids run 15-16 something at the local 4th of July fun run or the first practice XC meet of the year despite doing mostly easy running. Aerobic development matters a lot. And consistent aerobic work is king.
It goes back to a point I made in the video and this thread. This training is really good at getting you to be 6-8 weeks from running pretty dang fast at a variety of distances.
My only argument is that: That's great. We need to build a base/foundation. But if you want to go a touch faster, and minimize some of the risks, especially with aging (FT fibers erode at a quicker rate, we lose speed/power faster, VO2max declines faster without propping it up with at least a touch of intensity), it makes sense to prepare your body for some of the demands.
How much? Depends on your situation.
I think in this case, the simplicity of the program gets in the way. Because everyone (including most of the 100pg of thread) see it as: 3 sub LT + lots of easy. So whenever someone says: Oh change something, it's okay, I'll replace 1 sub LT with X workout.
Instead, I'd zoom out and look at over the month, what are you doing. What's the minimum effective dose you could insert. Maybe that's 1-2x in the month, taking that 25min of LT, cutting it to 18min total and adding 5x30sec at 5k pace at the end as a start. And then progressing from there. Depending on the goals, this could include moving to faster work, or extending that mini workout.
Again, there's lots of ways to do this. Again, maybe I'm reading it all completely wrong. But most of the arguments on "adjustments" "I've seen have been: I took 1 sub LT session and made it a VO2max workout. And I blew up..."
I'm not here to create a program. I'm just here to educate. If it's helpful to see progressions, I'm happy to show simple progressions.
And I totally get the constraints. I have 2 kids at 2 or under. I only get 45min a day to run or so, all pushing a stroller. While working full time at a bunch of stuff. Yet, still this year I ran 4:45 for a mile pushing my toddler in a stroller. Not too long ago I ran a 5min mile pushing two kids in a double stroller. There's always tradeoffs in the real world. Maybe I'll create my masters stroller mile program: 35mpw, 1 split tempo, 1 faster rhythm workout a week...no workouts anywhere close to going to the well. Repeat for months. Run kinda fast. There's my program. I just need a catchy name.
I was an early contributor to this thread a few hundred posts ago, but I lost interest when the thread became a bit of a cult to a certain formulaic orthodoxy. I think what Sirpoc has laid out is great, and I think this program is great for people who are at similar stages of development. But there are lots of people claiming this is THE best program for 800 meters to marathon for all athletes regardless of their stage of development, and that is where this thread's most rabid adherents lose me.
For me, I was really interested to hear recent interviews with Andreas Almgren, because he's been publicly discussing Norwegian in-season training with a candor that no one has done in years (maybe ever?). Jakob's base phase is well known, but his in-season training has not been well documented apart from some very dated journal articles, which I don't think reflect the current reality of his training.
Almgren's in-season method is essentially: One double threshold every other week, five specific sessions at race pace, likely with mmol at or around 8-10, and then the rest easy running (doubles almost every day, where total volume still stays around 160 km/week). Zero long runs. He did one monster session that was all over the internet like 12 days before Stockholm. That's it.
And Almgren is very candid about the purpose of the Norwegian method (at least in his mind) is to build a monster base of aerobic endurance so that you can handle massive amounts of specificity relative to your peers when the time comes to run your key races. That's obviously a pretty different approach compared to the NSA standard orthodoxy.
But I think it is very reasonable for NSA adherents to consider adapting at least some Almgren-like components to their training before their major races (particularly if their focus is < 10k). I mean, it's less formulaic than the strict NSA orthodoxy, but it would reflect more accurately reflect the actual Norwegian method that serves as the foundation for this training philosophy.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Just to answer. Because I think this is a great question. Why do people run 15min off this program?
Let's look at this through a different lens, where we have a far longer history of knowledge: high school runners.
When do big breakthroughs occur? Generally after a sustained summer base of consistent aerobic work. Now, some programs include some tempo, strides, fartlek, others mostly mileage. But how many times as a HS coach do you see a big jump in fitness and times after a solid summer base? All the time.
Then you say "just wait until I start the 'speedwork'!" Well, some kids get a lot sharper, some kids get hurt, some kids mess up the balance.
Do we then say, forget it no 'speed work' for the latter groups? No, we make adjustments.
So again for the 50th time, why do people run 15min or kinda fast off this? For the same reason that every year HS kids run 15-16 something at the local 4th of July fun run or the first practice XC meet of the year despite doing mostly easy running. Aerobic development matters a lot. And consistent aerobic work is king.
It goes back to a point I made in the video and this thread. This training is really good at getting you to be 6-8 weeks from running pretty dang fast at a variety of distances.
My only argument is that: That's great. We need to build a base/foundation. But if you want to go a touch faster, and minimize some of the risks, especially with aging (FT fibers erode at a quicker rate, we lose speed/power faster, VO2max declines faster without propping it up with at least a touch of intensity), it makes sense to prepare your body for some of the demands.
How much? Depends on your situation.
I think in this case, the simplicity of the program gets in the way. Because everyone (including most of the 100pg of thread) see it as: 3 sub LT + lots of easy. So whenever someone says: Oh change something, it's okay, I'll replace 1 sub LT with X workout.
Instead, I'd zoom out and look at over the month, what are you doing. What's the minimum effective dose you could insert. Maybe that's 1-2x in the month, taking that 25min of LT, cutting it to 18min total and adding 5x30sec at 5k pace at the end as a start. And then progressing from there. Depending on the goals, this could include moving to faster work, or extending that mini workout.
Again, there's lots of ways to do this. Again, maybe I'm reading it all completely wrong. But most of the arguments on "adjustments" "I've seen have been: I took 1 sub LT session and made it a VO2max workout. And I blew up..."
I'm not here to create a program. I'm just here to educate. If it's helpful to see progressions, I'm happy to show simple progressions.
And I totally get the constraints. I have 2 kids at 2 or under. I only get 45min a day to run or so, all pushing a stroller. While working full time at a bunch of stuff. Yet, still this year I ran 4:45 for a mile pushing my toddler in a stroller. Not too long ago I ran a 5min mile pushing two kids in a double stroller. There's always tradeoffs in the real world. Maybe I'll create my masters stroller mile program: 35mpw, 1 split tempo, 1 faster rhythm workout a week...no workouts anywhere close to going to the well. Repeat for months. Run kinda fast. There's my program. I just need a catchy name.
I was an early contributor to this thread a few hundred posts ago, but I lost interest when the thread became a bit of a cult to a certain formulaic orthodoxy. I think what Sirpoc has laid out is great, and I think this program is great for people who are at similar stages of development. But there are lots of people claiming this is THE best program for 800 meters to marathon for all athletes regardless of their stage of development, and that is where this thread's most rabid adherents lose me.
For me, I was really interested to hear recent interviews with Andreas Almgren, because he's been publicly discussing Norwegian in-season training with a candor that no one has done in years (maybe ever?). Jakob's base phase is well known, but his in-season training has not been well documented apart from some very dated journal articles, which I don't think reflect the current reality of his training.
Almgren's in-season method is essentially: One double threshold every other week, five specific sessions at race pace, likely with mmol at or around 8-10, and then the rest easy running (doubles almost every day, where total volume still stays around 160 km/week). Zero long runs. He did one monster session that was all over the internet like 12 days before Stockholm. That's it.
And Almgren is very candid about the purpose of the Norwegian method (at least in his mind) is to build a monster base of aerobic endurance so that you can handle massive amounts of specificity relative to your peers when the time comes to run your key races. That's obviously a pretty different approach compared to the NSA standard orthodoxy.
But I think it is very reasonable for NSA adherents to consider adapting at least some Almgren-like components to their training before their major races (particularly if their focus is < 10k). I mean, it's less formulaic than the strict NSA orthodoxy, but it would reflect more accurately reflect the actual Norwegian method that serves as the foundation for this training philosophy.
check the reddit thread where Bakken. goes over ‘in-season’
Also, Almgren isnt dropping that easy AM Threshold, so hes getting to the point where he’s doubling every other day inside of the race window, but the AM is that easy LT1 threshold 4x6:00, with a specific PM session.
Also, before that 10k he said he did 25x400 for the last 3/4 workouts before because of how specific the stimulus was.
I think the 400 Thresholds are solid but i do think they beat ppl up. It depends also whether youre trying to do these on the road vs a track
Almgren has been a great window into the more Bakken esqe, original side of the double threshold origins, but check out that Reddit thread with Bakken — very very enlightening from the man himself
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.