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.
This thread is classic LRC, back around 2000-2004, when it was mainly serious training and less BS.
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'm surprised Tinman hasn't shown up. Back in the late '00s and early '10s he was big here, promoting CV pace, and it'd be neat to see how NSM interfaces or contrasts with his CV training ("Keep the Ball Rolling"), etc.
I made a video to answer a simple question asked by viewers: how would I evaluate the training program as a whole. So I did that. It's positives, what it does well, what it lacks, what to watch out for. And overall I said: It's a great way to build aerobically. It's drawbacks are it's one dimensional and neglects speed.
What you all are asking in this thread is a different question, which is: I've been doing this training for X months, should I adjust.
And I've been criticized for not giving substance, which I don't know what that means exactly. But part of that is because the answer to the above question is always contextual, and always...don't change much and do so gradually.
Like, if you came to me doing 200m repeats every single day and you were PRing, I wouldn't immediately drastically alter that. I'd say okay. Let's evaluate what is missing from your program. Let's evaluate where you are at relative to your goals. Let's weigh the costs and benefits. And then make gradual changes.
The first step is always looking at what is there and what's missing.
I've seen it all. I've got world class 5k runners who didn't have a single threshold or tempo run in their training. Some without any strength/power/pure speed. Some with no long runs. Others with no long repeats. And on and on. It doesn't mean you instantly say "Ah, no tempo runs, let's load them up." You say...okay how is this impacting you, is it worth it.
How do you evaluate that? You look at their goals and their physiology. With elites, I often do a lactate test that includes a threshold step test + a max 400. Or sometimes you do a speed reserve test. Or sometimes you simply compare race results. How does their 800-1500-5k, or their 5k-10k-half marathon line up? Or where do they line up in terms of workout strengths (do they kill tempos but struggle on 200s, or long runs.)
That gives you an idea on where the weak link in the chain is. Is your 5k at 4:50 pace, but your 10k is at 5:00 pace...well we can't get the 10k any closer. So we have to investigate why your 5k is stuck at 4:50. Sometimes that answer is way down the chain, sometimes its closer by.
Then you look....hmm is this reflected in training? Do you have that weak link because you never do anything faster than 5k pace? Or whatever the reason may be.
Now, with amateurs, you've got more weak links everywhere. So the truth is you just do something pretty good for a long while and you've got room to grow. But again, you make that evaluation on an individual basis.
Once you've got all that sorted, then you start looking at what's the easiest, risk free way to introduce a solution. And then you get to workout progressions, blends, combos, etc.
So again, maybe this all comes down to, oh Steve isn't giving us exacting answers. That's because there are none. There is no formula for training or coaching.
For the guy who said he's happy, injury free, and running well. Well, don't change much. To the guy who says his shorter distance is blocked, a weak link, well...gradually change something. And no, don't just run more 5ks.... Be systematic about it. I don't think a 5k race is less risky stimulus than a well-crafted progression of 200s, 300s, or 400s, in a controlled fashion. Or adding in some short work in a combo workout. Again, the exact workouts...depends on what the weak link is (is it rhythm/mechanical, physiology (able to tap into speed/FT fibers), etc.).
I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I think a lot of the issues in this group (and amateurs) in general is you suck at running workouts. Everything becomes an X factor workout. A test. A proving ground. So you associate speed work with risk.
Instead of seeing that Bob Schul built world class endurance and a very high threshold doing the vast majority of his workouts at distances of less than 300 meters. Again, not suggesting you try that. But just suggesting you expand your definition of intervals to see more controlled, aerobic, etc. style.
And to the guy who asked about coaching. I'd love to, but life is way too hectic to commit to any other coaching folks. I coach a handful of elites because of the challenge of it.
Anyways, I'm really no trying to pump content for contents sake on youtube or elsewhere. I made a video because I had a bunch of people ask. So I gave my honest thoughts based on physiology, history, and my experience. I've done the same for many programs. Every program has it's flaws, including my own training preferences.
right, I see the Hadd clock time relationship thing in there, that's useful too! Fascinating thread
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.
How are they hilarious? Can't find him in the NSM group, maybe I'm looking at the wrong person...
For those of you who have trained using NSA for a substantial time and use the paid version of Strava: do you feel that Strava is good at predicting the race speeds (for 5k, 10k, HM) for this form of training?
Yes strava was very accurate, garmin a bit slower than actual times. I did better by running on the slowest range of intervals times, then I got greedy and ran on the quicker end and got sick
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'm surprised Tinman hasn't shown up. Back in the late '00s and early '10s he was big here, promoting CV pace, and it'd be neat to see how NSM interfaces or contrasts with his CV training ("Keep the Ball Rolling"), etc.
A bit like JS's " The never ending story" where the runner basically do the same training all year round but at faster speeds than NSA.
I cant think of any better way to fuse two of the greatest internet contributors to running thought and knowledge than to have you interview the man who’s spurred this newest paradigm.
I for one would pay to hear the conversation.
I think it would be an incredible conversation and an amazing way to bridge a lot of elements of what you’ve discussed, what’s been discussed here, and the general zeitgeist of training today
If you need some assistance we have kind of a line to him in another channel.
I hope Steve does reach out to you, for maybe access to Bakken or sirpoc.
I know Steve said he read the thread, but I can only imagine he skim read as he said 100 pages but still seemed to be suggesting this method as it's become known uses 400m repeats as standard. So I would guess he's probably just going off a very vague summary. As you point out shirtboy, there is a huge difference in Bakken Pro and Bakken hobby. Bakken hobby seems to fully endorse what sirpoc has done. Steve I think is struggling not to think about the elite runners he has worked with. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's also worth taking all the time i think to read all people's struggles and perhaps people who have strayed away from the basics, are a lesson in why everyone is so cautious about the addition of anything else, especially when you are already improving massively. I'm not sure Steve has quite answered that part. I would largely agree tinkering whilst improving is nonsensical. But if he's not suggesting that, then really this has all been covered many times. It's good there was some nice discussion on it though.
I was on the fence 18 months ago, but you can't really ignore the vast amount of evidence in this thread. People would be better spending their time looking into the hundreds, if not thousands of people who have had success here going "vanilla" as the term seems to have become, rather than trying to mess around with it on a hobby level. Much like the FT and ST stuff, there's enough first hand feedback now to just put that in the "don't worry about it" pot.
I would also be of course worth looking at the why it hasn't worked for some. Obviously the success rate here is ridiculously good, but nothing works for everyone.
Just a few thoughts now things have settled back down from a period of huge activity in the thread.
Oh, and great to see sirpoc back running. I hope he really finds a space and love for it. I don't care about if that sounds lame, the dude is one of the good ones. I like to play a game on Strava, he's doing something most days, so I play a game of "run or cycle" and try to guess what's next. Hopefully more running! Again sounds lame, but there's some sort of good feeling about him being out there doing this all alongside us. Practice want you preach and all that.
I'm surprised Tinman hasn't shown up. Back in the late '00s and early '10s he was big here, promoting CV pace, and it'd be neat to see how NSM interfaces or contrasts with his CV training ("Keep the Ball Rolling"), etc.
I am glad you brought CV up again (haha).
So far there was relatively little discussion about 'training zones'. Let zone 3 be between (Turnpoint1 and TP2) and zone 4 above TP2. There was and is always the question, is more volume below TP2 (in zone 3) better to increase speed at TP2 or is less volume above TP2 better. And for aerobic development the answer seems to be more volume in zone 3. Zone 3 is less injury prone and more volume can be done. More volume is likely also better for running economy, an underestimated and overlooked parameter.
That's funny you mention Steve might struggle with really adapting to the point of view of a real hobby jogger who isn't in addition a training theory nerd or is more focused on 5H-HM distances and see this more through the lense of a elite or ex-elite, training theory nerd focusing on mid distances.
I believe it's true, but at the over end of the spectrum, youd have hobby jogger who's constraints are fully not compatible with vanilla NSM but still prefer longer distances and wouldn't mind actually understanding or even nerding a bit about physiology and training principles.
Maybe I shouldn't post it here and maybe start my own thread, but several things are not gonna happen for me:
- training 6 days+ a week (never managed to do that, and the reason isn't that I physically can't, it's that I logistically couldn't without sacrificing a lot of my actual life)
- training the same amount of days every week or with a consistent running load (I even can't do that on the most favourable seasons, and that complely goes out the window during winter or part of the summer due to over sports)
- training on a track or even a flat surface (If I take the car for having a different elevation profile than what is available close to home, that would be for more steepness or longer hills)
- having a consistantly <90 min long run. Sorry, but there is a direct correlation in my experience between not hitting the wall in a long race and having already done decent efforts at very hilly long enough runs in the previous 30 days or so. 90 minutes won't cut it for a 3hr trail race. You also got to train your aerobic fibers resistance to fatigue on the downhills if you want to survive any mountain race. That being said, my philosophy is that the very long runs with a lot of elevation difference must stay at easy pace to allow specific adaptations and still be easilly recoverable from.
So not gonna do the vanilla NSM thing. I still improved a lot thanks to some concepts I got directly from this thread and I love also reading about people's ideas to tweak the system, which includes Steve's contribution even if most of what he has to tweak might not apply to my own case (I still do some shorter reps faster than threshold pace but staying into threshold "effort" manipulating rests because speed is clearly a weakness for me and I believe I do need the neuro-muscular stimulus without over-loading on the lactate side).
I cant think of any better way to fuse two of the greatest internet contributors to running thought and knowledge than to have you interview the man who’s spurred this newest paradigm.
I for one would pay to hear the conversation.
I think it would be an incredible conversation and an amazing way to bridge a lot of elements of what you’ve discussed, what’s been discussed here, and the general zeitgeist of training today
If you need some assistance we have kind of a line to him in another channel.
I hope Steve does reach out to you, for maybe access to Bakken or sirpoc.
I know Steve said he read the thread, but I can only imagine he skim read as he said 100 pages but still seemed to be suggesting this method as it's become known uses 400m repeats as standard. So I would guess he's probably just going off a very vague summary. As you point out shirtboy, there is a huge difference in Bakken Pro and Bakken hobby. Bakken hobby seems to fully endorse what sirpoc has done. Steve I think is struggling not to think about the elite runners he has worked with. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's also worth taking all the time i think to read all people's struggles and perhaps people who have strayed away from the basics, are a lesson in why everyone is so cautious about the addition of anything else, especially when you are already improving massively. I'm not sure Steve has quite answered that part. I would largely agree tinkering whilst improving is nonsensical. But if he's not suggesting that, then really this has all been covered many times. It's good there was some nice discussion on it though.
I was on the fence 18 months ago, but you can't really ignore the vast amount of evidence in this thread. People would be better spending their time looking into the hundreds, if not thousands of people who have had success here going "vanilla" as the term seems to have become, rather than trying to mess around with it on a hobby level. Much like the FT and ST stuff, there's enough first hand feedback now to just put that in the "don't worry about it" pot.
I would also be of course worth looking at the why it hasn't worked for some. Obviously the success rate here is ridiculously good, but nothing works for everyone.
Just a few thoughts now things have settled back down from a period of huge activity in the thread.
Oh, and great to see sirpoc back running. I hope he really finds a space and love for it. I don't care about if that sounds lame, the dude is one of the good ones. I like to play a game on Strava, he's doing something most days, so I play a game of "run or cycle" and try to guess what's next. Hopefully more running! Again sounds lame, but there's some sort of good feeling about him being out there doing this all alongside us. Practice want you preach and all that.
Yeah i think the conversation would be a great one!
Two people i certainly was obsessed with knowing everything they were up to for many years and obviously went separate directions in their careers but i think that's always great for bringing new and different insights to the game
I think the 400s are standard for some and if youre trying to really get specific/jam some fitness on a very non traditional schedule, you definitely want to pick the biggest bang for your buck workouts. But again, i think its the hardest range of threshold speed to keep it 'threshold' intensity. The guys running double threshold even admit to that -- its a rhythm workout youre trying to put the governor on because once you start slightly too fast, you almost get locked into that pace for the rest of the 400s (obviously if youre doing it on a treadmill a little different also even more boring). This is all to say its probably the hardest one to copy from the Pros unless you can monitor lactate and can be super disciplined and honest about where you are at (like if you are only running 20 second per 100 pace, you could do 300s with 30s rest or 400s with 40s rest, but you really need to hold that 2:1 work to rest ration.
The argument always goes back to, if you can do stock, and youre not at the very poles of the distance range, the vanilla schedule and formula is the least risk biggest reward.
But yeah, the FT/ST, specific workout setup/lengths etc, mostly rabbit holes that will probably distract you more than help you
Re coaches prescribing based on HS/Sub elite/elites experience.
This reminds me of the Maffetone 180 minus age formula.
Phil Maffetone developed this formula when working with younger athletes, and has freely admitted that he never worked with older athletes. Yet he promotes the formula as being accurate for all age groups. So the MAF zealots have older runners training at ridiculously low HRs, regardless of their max hr.
That's funny you mention Steve might struggle with really adapting to the point of view of a real hobby jogger who isn't in addition a training theory nerd or is more focused on 5H-HM distances and see this more through the lense of a elite or ex-elite, training theory nerd focusing on mid distances.
I believe it's true, but at the over end of the spectrum, youd have hobby jogger who's constraints are fully not compatible with vanilla NSM but still prefer longer distances and wouldn't mind actually understanding or even nerding a bit about physiology and training principles.
Maybe I shouldn't post it here and maybe start my own thread, but several things are not gonna happen for me:
- training 6 days+ a week (never managed to do that, and the reason isn't that I physically can't, it's that I logistically couldn't without sacrificing a lot of my actual life)
- training the same amount of days every week or with a consistent running load (I even can't do that on the most favourable seasons, and that complely goes out the window during winter or part of the summer due to over sports)
- training on a track or even a flat surface (If I take the car for having a different elevation profile than what is available close to home, that would be for more steepness or longer hills)
- having a consistantly <90 min long run. Sorry, but there is a direct correlation in my experience between not hitting the wall in a long race and having already done decent efforts at very hilly long enough runs in the previous 30 days or so. 90 minutes won't cut it for a 3hr trail race. You also got to train your aerobic fibers resistance to fatigue on the downhills if you want to survive any mountain race. That being said, my philosophy is that the very long runs with a lot of elevation difference must stay at easy pace to allow specific adaptations and still be easilly recoverable from.
So not gonna do the vanilla NSM thing. I still improved a lot thanks to some concepts I got directly from this thread and I love also reading about people's ideas to tweak the system, which includes Steve's contribution even if most of what he has to tweak might not apply to my own case (I still do some shorter reps faster than threshold pace but staying into threshold "effort" manipulating rests because speed is clearly a weakness for me and I believe I do need the neuro-muscular stimulus without over-loading on the lactate side).
Well of course no one is promulgating application of NSM to terrain-specific adaptations such as those encountered in trail running. That should go without saying. Similarly for runs exceeding 3 hours or more without moving into special block territory.
- training on a track or even a flat surface (If I take the car for having a different elevation profile than what is available close to home, that would be for more steepness or longer hills)
1) Do the people who follow the NSM religiously do their sub T runs on flat surfaces or do some adapt it to hills?
2) Have those who stuck with flat surfaces found that they were still able to race well on hilly courses?
1) Do the people who follow the NSM religiously do their sub T runs on flat surfaces or do some adapt it to hills?
2) Have those who stuck with flat surfaces found that they were still able to race well on hilly courses?
I used to run hills, to train for hilly races. I stopped doing this when I started NSM. Mainly because I personally feel pace is the best way to control things, so flat roads and track make my life much easier :) I have raced a hilly 10k and hilly HM lately with no training on any inclines whatsoever and crushed my PBs. I would say if it's hills and trials + uneven ground, you might want to prepare a little. But just some elevation on a road course, I don't even worry. Now and again I might do a leisurely easy day run on some hills, but I'm so slow up them I'm almost walking that it is hardly specific training.
Sirpoc himself I believe beat 2 hilly HM course records. It's very rare you see him do much other than on the flat and certainly didn't prep for it. I think I have seen him on holiday now and again on hills, but it's very rare he does any kind of elevation whatsoever. Purely anecdotal evidence, but the good thing about this thread is most people have tried and covered most things by this point, so you can learn from others mistakes or others who have learned what to worry about, or not. Much like the issues Steve has brought up that has already widely been covered (no offence Steve) many times before.
Yeah i think the conversation would be a great one!
Two people i certainly was obsessed with knowing everything they were up to for many years and obviously went separate directions in their careers but i think that's always great for bringing new and different insights to the game
I think the 400s are standard for some and if youre trying to really get specific/jam some fitness on a very non traditional schedule, you definitely want to pick the biggest bang for your buck workouts. But again, i think its the hardest range of threshold speed to keep it 'threshold' intensity. The guys running double threshold even admit to that -- its a rhythm workout youre trying to put the governor on because once you start slightly too fast, you almost get locked into that pace for the rest of the 400s (obviously if youre doing it on a treadmill a little different also even more boring). This is all to say its probably the hardest one to copy from the Pros unless you can monitor lactate and can be super disciplined and honest about where you are at (like if you are only running 20 second per 100 pace, you could do 300s with 30s rest or 400s with 40s rest, but you really need to hold that 2:1 work to rest ration.
The argument always goes back to, if you can do stock, and youre not at the very poles of the distance range, the vanilla schedule and formula is the least risk biggest reward.
But yeah, the FT/ST, specific workout setup/lengths etc, mostly rabbit holes that will probably distract you more than help you
I must admit the first time some of the FT/ST talk came up I probably thought about it too much as a former 800 guy who is definitely more towards the 400 guy end. I played around a bit too much with some stuff people said and had a bit of a NSM. Wish I had just listened to all the others who had been through it as more speed orientated guys and just stuck with the vanilla. But you definitely live and learn training like this that when you f**k around, you find out quick. You don't have much margin for error, it's almost certainly why the vanilla guys have had the most success, added to the fact they see that this is 6+ months thinking, not 6 weeks into the future.
Yeah i think the conversation would be a great one!
Two people i certainly was obsessed with knowing everything they were up to for many years and obviously went separate directions in their careers but i think that's always great for bringing new and different insights to the game
I think the 400s are standard for some and if youre trying to really get specific/jam some fitness on a very non traditional schedule, you definitely want to pick the biggest bang for your buck workouts. But again, i think its the hardest range of threshold speed to keep it 'threshold' intensity. The guys running double threshold even admit to that -- its a rhythm workout youre trying to put the governor on because once you start slightly too fast, you almost get locked into that pace for the rest of the 400s (obviously if youre doing it on a treadmill a little different also even more boring). This is all to say its probably the hardest one to copy from the Pros unless you can monitor lactate and can be super disciplined and honest about where you are at (like if you are only running 20 second per 100 pace, you could do 300s with 30s rest or 400s with 40s rest, but you really need to hold that 2:1 work to rest ration.
The argument always goes back to, if you can do stock, and youre not at the very poles of the distance range, the vanilla schedule and formula is the least risk biggest reward.
But yeah, the FT/ST, specific workout setup/lengths etc, mostly rabbit holes that will probably distract you more than help you
I must admit the first time some of the FT/ST talk came up I probably thought about it too much as a former 800 guy who is definitely more towards the 400 guy end. I played around a bit too much with some stuff people said and had a bit of a NSM. Wish I had just listened to all the others who had been through it as more speed orientated guys and just stuck with the vanilla. But you definitely live and learn training like this that when you f**k around, you find out quick. You don't have much margin for error, it's almost certainly why the vanilla guys have had the most success, added to the fact they see that this is 6+ months thinking, not 6 weeks into the future.
There has been some excellent discussion on the FT/ST subject.
Are the FT runners managing to maintain 7 days/week endlessly, or are the odd rest days being sprinkled in?
Are the FT runners able to jump into races, without any dial back in the preceding days?
is it now part of the nsm rules that you can’t do sub t on hills? If you’re running up a hill after a flat part, just keep the same effort - its not rocket science.
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.