Yeah i mean dont we all remember the many examples of those who challenged the cult leader and lived to tell the tale? And consistently were allowed to engage openly and fairly with a decentralized community of ppl?
Convergence to a general agreement is quite the opposite of a cult, a term you are turning on it’s head because psychologically you are desperate for validation or to have your ideas exalted here
the internet is going to be a rough ride for someone for that mentality
maybe most ppl on this thread have higher hopes that the avg person showing up here isnt a snowflake
If anything I think this thread and Strava boards, Reddit are TOO tolerant of idiots who come along and ask the same questions time and time again. Or come and say "but you need speedwork, you can't race a 5k without it" or "this will make it better" without providing any evidence or ignoring the hundreds of guys who have really tried this long term and still improve despite going vanilla.
People go out of their way to try help people like this, or greek ultra and guys like that to try and help them learn from mistakes. Nobody has ever said this is the only way to train, or the best. But it's hard to ignore that it's likely as packaged the best starting point you can find.
I look forward to the day someone makes it better, improves it, comes up with new idea. Lots have tried, but usually we just come back to the start. For some reason that seems to trigger a small minority of people and they try act like you are brainwashed or something. No dude, I just like to know I'm getting best bang for my buck. By the way, add me to the list of people who have tried to get to cute with this and found out quite quickly the balance is thrown off.
but im running 1000 miles a week using this approach and im not seeing results?!
Is this part of a gradual comeback, or further experimentation?
The dude has been cycling for the back end of the summer. He's hardly gonna be jumping back into 10x1k. The one thing I think is interesting is how he handled a break being injured. Just seemed to embrace it and if not, did more in terms of what could be handled cross training.
Plus what looks like an incredibly disciplined last month gradually doing more running. I'm probably not alone in this, but would be interesting to hear some feedback on it at some point. I think I'm really guilty of making a mess of not only injury recovery, but doing far too much early. Even in that 4-6 week range I have never found quite the right balance.
One of the most open minded posters on here, is Sirpoc himself.
The best part of this to me is that is someone came and said can I do 10x600m. The average NSA regurgitator would say No No No. that’s getting cute. it’s not on the T-shirt. It’s not on the NSA mug!
I make videos and write articles and everything else to educate people. To give them options. And in every one of those videos, you pointed out, I try to do just that.
So it's not a contradiction. It's that there is no single way to train that fits everyone. Even at the elite level. Go compare how Hocker and Nuguse train....it's very very different. Despite both having similar 800/1500/5k abilities.
Even the quote you use... the point is...most people should "train, not strain." Leave one rep in the tank. We can argue whether it's one or two or three. That's fine. I'd argue, as I have in that video and in writings, that it depends on the situation and the program. If you do 2 intervals a week, it's closer to 1 rep. If it's 3 workouts, then some of those are going to be moderate (Go read my article I wrote for Runners World 15 years ago on: it's not just hard/easy, the value of the in-between days). But most of the "X factor" workouts people do, aren't leaving a rep in the tank. They are going to the well. They are struggling to hang on. THey are not fast and smooth. So repeatedly emphasizing that is very important to folks.
So to counter:
It's why I had a video on all aerobic intervals, and did a massive course on Igloi training, and a decade ago showed how I trained a HS kid to a state championship after mono on all "easy" intervals and easy running.
All of that falls in line with: lots of moderate frequency.
But at the same time, I also do videos on traditional 2 workouts and a long run, where the individual workouts often need to be harder. Why? Because this is the setup for the vast majority of HS and college coaches/runners, which make up a large part of the audience. So, they need to understand how to manipulate variables and so forth given that system and constraints.
So there, leaving one rep in the tank is much more important for most workouts than doing lots of moderate workouts, because it doesn't fit in that program.
And it's why I spent several articles and videos outlining how I coached an elite marathoner top 6th at worlds as a full time nurse and mom...which meant we had to back to back hard workout/long run on the weekend to get in training often...because we couldn't fit many hard workouts into the middle of the week when she was working.
And on and on. So my problem with folks is you can cherry pick any video or article and say, well "Steve said do back to back long workout and long run in the weekend, that will kill somebody!" But as I try to point out over and over again...training is all contextual.
It's not fit an athlete into your training program. It's create a program out of Athlete characteristics/constraints. + Event demands.
So what I try to do in every video, article, etc. for the last literally 20 years is teach people the tools. How and when to utilize them, what their downfalls are, what to watch out for, etc.
So you might think "save one rep in the tank" is poor advice. But the reality for a LOT of HS and college coaches out there, it's the exact advice they need! Because what so often happens in teams settings is that last rep becomes a race.
You, on this message board, might need other advice. That's fine.
But I'm never going to be everything for everyone, and if I tried, I'd end up being a formula, paint by numbers type guy. And that's not who I am as a coach. And I think too often when it comes to podcasts, youtube videos, tweets....to many folks reads them as: This is directly applying to me. And it's often not. And that's okay.
I think what I find frustrating with some in this group (definitely not a majority) is that coaching is about exploration. It's about figuring out what works for the individual. And it does come across as some folks believe they've found the holy grail. And that's great for yourself. Keep on doing it.
But everyone is different. And for every person you say "Look they ran a 15min 5k or a 2:25 marathon" off NS...I can point to many guys who did the same off Lydiard, Daniels, Easy Interval Method, the PAAVO method, and on and on.
I mean look at HS teams. Some of the most consistent HS teams in the country use PAAVO training which is basically racing your "tempos" going well past LT every single week for months... Yet they succeed, and remain pretty injury free...
It's basically the antithesis of NS...but it works and for a long time... And I'm not a big fan of it...but it works. So we can't just dismiss it entirely.
That doesn't mean that some of those programs are better or worse on average. But what it teaches you as a coach is you've got to have a lot of different tools in the toolbag. Because some day you're going to need to go in the completely different direction than you normally would because of Jack or Jill sitting across from you.
And my goal in educating coaches is to teach them as many tools as they can. Sometimes that means a very deep dive, other times its surface level and simplifying. Someimtes that means content for elite and sub-elite coaches and athletes, sometimes that means content for beginners.
I make videos and write articles and everything else to educate people. To give them options. And in every one of those videos, you pointed out, I try to do just that.
So it's not a contradiction. It's that there is no single way to train that fits everyone. Even at the elite level. Go compare how Hocker and Nuguse train....it's very very different. Despite both having similar 800/1500/5k abilities.
Even the quote you use... the point is...most people should "train, not strain." Leave one rep in the tank. We can argue whether it's one or two or three. That's fine. I'd argue, as I have in that video and in writings, that it depends on the situation and the program. If you do 2 intervals a week, it's closer to 1 rep. If it's 3 workouts, then some of those are going to be moderate (Go read my article I wrote for Runners World 15 years ago on: it's not just hard/easy, the value of the in-between days). But most of the "X factor" workouts people do, aren't leaving a rep in the tank. They are going to the well. They are struggling to hang on. THey are not fast and smooth. So repeatedly emphasizing that is very important to folks.
So to counter:
It's why I had a video on all aerobic intervals, and did a massive course on Igloi training, and a decade ago showed how I trained a HS kid to a state championship after mono on all "easy" intervals and easy running.
All of that falls in line with: lots of moderate frequency.
But at the same time, I also do videos on traditional 2 workouts and a long run, where the individual workouts often need to be harder. Why? Because this is the setup for the vast majority of HS and college coaches/runners, which make up a large part of the audience. So, they need to understand how to manipulate variables and so forth given that system and constraints.
So there, leaving one rep in the tank is much more important for most workouts than doing lots of moderate workouts, because it doesn't fit in that program.
And it's why I spent several articles and videos outlining how I coached an elite marathoner top 6th at worlds as a full time nurse and mom...which meant we had to back to back hard workout/long run on the weekend to get in training often...because we couldn't fit many hard workouts into the middle of the week when she was working.
And on and on. So my problem with folks is you can cherry pick any video or article and say, well "Steve said do back to back long workout and long run in the weekend, that will kill somebody!" But as I try to point out over and over again...training is all contextual.
It's not fit an athlete into your training program. It's create a program out of Athlete characteristics/constraints. + Event demands.
So what I try to do in every video, article, etc. for the last literally 20 years is teach people the tools. How and when to utilize them, what their downfalls are, what to watch out for, etc.
So you might think "save one rep in the tank" is poor advice. But the reality for a LOT of HS and college coaches out there, it's the exact advice they need! Because what so often happens in teams settings is that last rep becomes a race.
You, on this message board, might need other advice. That's fine.
But I'm never going to be everything for everyone, and if I tried, I'd end up being a formula, paint by numbers type guy. And that's not who I am as a coach. And I think too often when it comes to podcasts, youtube videos, tweets....to many folks reads them as: This is directly applying to me. And it's often not. And that's okay.
I think what I find frustrating with some in this group (definitely not a majority) is that coaching is about exploration. It's about figuring out what works for the individual. And it does come across as some folks believe they've found the holy grail. And that's great for yourself. Keep on doing it.
But everyone is different. And for every person you say "Look they ran a 15min 5k or a 2:25 marathon" off NS...I can point to many guys who did the same off Lydiard, Daniels, Easy Interval Method, the PAAVO method, and on and on.
I mean look at HS teams. Some of the most consistent HS teams in the country use PAAVO training which is basically racing your "tempos" going well past LT every single week for months... Yet they succeed, and remain pretty injury free...
It's basically the antithesis of NS...but it works and for a long time... And I'm not a big fan of it...but it works. So we can't just dismiss it entirely.
That doesn't mean that some of those programs are better or worse on average. But what it teaches you as a coach is you've got to have a lot of different tools in the toolbag. Because some day you're going to need to go in the completely different direction than you normally would because of Jack or Jill sitting across from you.
And my goal in educating coaches is to teach them as many tools as they can. Sometimes that means a very deep dive, other times its surface level and simplifying. Someimtes that means content for elite and sub-elite coaches and athletes, sometimes that means content for beginners.
Good point on Nuguse vs. Hocker, I think years ago the great rivalry between Lopes and Fernando Mamede was like that, they were very competitive but had drastically different training approaches.
I make videos and write articles and everything else to educate people. To give them options. And in every one of those videos, you pointed out, I try to do just that.
So it's not a contradiction. It's that there is no single way to train that fits everyone. Even at the elite level. Go compare how Hocker and Nuguse train....it's very very different. Despite both having similar 800/1500/5k abilities.
Even the quote you use... the point is...most people should "train, not strain." Leave one rep in the tank. We can argue whether it's one or two or three. That's fine. I'd argue, as I have in that video and in writings, that it depends on the situation and the program. If you do 2 intervals a week, it's closer to 1 rep. If it's 3 workouts, then some of those are going to be moderate (Go read my article I wrote for Runners World 15 years ago on: it's not just hard/easy, the value of the in-between days). But most of the "X factor" workouts people do, aren't leaving a rep in the tank. They are going to the well. They are struggling to hang on. THey are not fast and smooth. So repeatedly emphasizing that is very important to folks.
So to counter:
It's why I had a video on all aerobic intervals, and did a massive course on Igloi training, and a decade ago showed how I trained a HS kid to a state championship after mono on all "easy" intervals and easy running.
All of that falls in line with: lots of moderate frequency.
But at the same time, I also do videos on traditional 2 workouts and a long run, where the individual workouts often need to be harder. Why? Because this is the setup for the vast majority of HS and college coaches/runners, which make up a large part of the audience. So, they need to understand how to manipulate variables and so forth given that system and constraints.
So there, leaving one rep in the tank is much more important for most workouts than doing lots of moderate workouts, because it doesn't fit in that program.
And it's why I spent several articles and videos outlining how I coached an elite marathoner top 6th at worlds as a full time nurse and mom...which meant we had to back to back hard workout/long run on the weekend to get in training often...because we couldn't fit many hard workouts into the middle of the week when she was working.
And on and on. So my problem with folks is you can cherry pick any video or article and say, well "Steve said do back to back long workout and long run in the weekend, that will kill somebody!" But as I try to point out over and over again...training is all contextual.
It's not fit an athlete into your training program. It's create a program out of Athlete characteristics/constraints. + Event demands.
So what I try to do in every video, article, etc. for the last literally 20 years is teach people the tools. How and when to utilize them, what their downfalls are, what to watch out for, etc.
So you might think "save one rep in the tank" is poor advice. But the reality for a LOT of HS and college coaches out there, it's the exact advice they need! Because what so often happens in teams settings is that last rep becomes a race.
You, on this message board, might need other advice. That's fine.
But I'm never going to be everything for everyone, and if I tried, I'd end up being a formula, paint by numbers type guy. And that's not who I am as a coach. And I think too often when it comes to podcasts, youtube videos, tweets....to many folks reads them as: This is directly applying to me. And it's often not. And that's okay.
I think what I find frustrating with some in this group (definitely not a majority) is that coaching is about exploration. It's about figuring out what works for the individual. And it does come across as some folks believe they've found the holy grail. And that's great for yourself. Keep on doing it.
But everyone is different. And for every person you say "Look they ran a 15min 5k or a 2:25 marathon" off NS...I can point to many guys who did the same off Lydiard, Daniels, Easy Interval Method, the PAAVO method, and on and on.
I mean look at HS teams. Some of the most consistent HS teams in the country use PAAVO training which is basically racing your "tempos" going well past LT every single week for months... Yet they succeed, and remain pretty injury free...
It's basically the antithesis of NS...but it works and for a long time... And I'm not a big fan of it...but it works. So we can't just dismiss it entirely.
That doesn't mean that some of those programs are better or worse on average. But what it teaches you as a coach is you've got to have a lot of different tools in the toolbag. Because some day you're going to need to go in the completely different direction than you normally would because of Jack or Jill sitting across from you.
And my goal in educating coaches is to teach them as many tools as they can. Sometimes that means a very deep dive, other times its surface level and simplifying. Someimtes that means content for elite and sub-elite coaches and athletes, sometimes that means content for beginners.
good point on everyone being different and each method being individual specific. One of the influencers I follow ran into to the same issue where she posted about taking fewer gels than normal on her FB and it went somewhat viral in the running space. She had to keep repeating that "what works for her may not work for others" but people didn't stop and listen to that point. I get where you are coming from Steve.
And I want to just reitterate one last thing. I'm not anti-NS. In fact, as I said in the video, I think it's a great way to build a base or develop high end aerobic work.
Would I modify it? Most likely. Why? Because I experimented with this A LOT 15+ years ago. Maybe not with amateurs, but with HS kids, which have similar constraints around mileage, time commitment, etc. And what I found, both through lactate tests on myself and others, is that a nice counterbalance mattered for building a base. And if I was worried about maximizing 5k performance I'd include some other competition phase work.
Does that mean everyone should do that? Nope. But again, we did really well and it worked. We sent like 9 or 10 guys to D1 schools over the few years I helped out and had a team that got 2nd at state, just 10 points behind a team that went on to get 3rd at NXN. Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
As I said, I'm a fan of LT/sub-LT running to build high end aerobic abilities. Been doing it for nearly 20 years.
So to each their own. But I think that's often the missing piece. You gotta find what works for you, in your environment, given your constraints. And part of that is understanding how to manipulate workouts, use different tools, identify the signs you're missing something, etc.
Yes, different things work for different people. But a lot of the commonly accepted practices are things that are likeliest to work for the highest number of people.
And when you find people who depart from that, they usually follow some systematic approach to finding out what works for them. Many of the best instances of that involve a very knowledgeable and experienced coach trying things with athletes and adjusting plans based on their assessment of individual response. And they arrive at something that is not at all cookie-cutter. The tailored approach works.
The issue for many runners is, even when they’ve read books, articles, and running message boards, when they’ve watched videos or whatever else: they may not be particularly systematic in their approach (and “may not be” is probably an understatement). They are not necessarily careful in their assessment of what is working, and they have precious little understanding of why different approaches might work.
So they’ll delude themselves into thinking that there must just be something that works for them no matter how much other people caution them against it, and they’ll leave tons of progress on the table.
And I want to just reitterate one last thing. I'm not anti-NS. In fact, as I said in the video, I think it's a great way to build a base or develop high end aerobic work.
Would I modify it? Most likely. Why? Because I experimented with this A LOT 15+ years ago. Maybe not with amateurs, but with HS kids, which have similar constraints around mileage, time commitment, etc. And what I found, both through lactate tests on myself and others, is that a nice counterbalance mattered for building a base. And if I was worried about maximizing 5k performance I'd include some other competition phase work.
Does that mean everyone should do that? Nope. But again, we did really well and it worked. We sent like 9 or 10 guys to D1 schools over the few years I helped out and had a team that got 2nd at state, just 10 points behind a team that went on to get 3rd at NXN. Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
As I said, I'm a fan of LT/sub-LT running to build high end aerobic abilities. Been doing it for nearly 20 years.
So to each their own. But I think that's often the missing piece. You gotta find what works for you, in your environment, given your constraints. And part of that is understanding how to manipulate workouts, use different tools, identify the signs you're missing something, etc.
GOod luck to all on that journey
okay, you finally said something indefensible. The idea that the average HS kid has the same time constraints as the middle-aged hobby jogger working 40-50hrs/wk and doing laundry, shopping, cooking, and cleaning for a family is pretty wild.
If anything I think this thread and Strava boards, Reddit are TOO tolerant of idiots who come along and ask the same questions time and time again. Or come and say "but you need speedwork, you can't race a 5k without it" or "this will make it better" without providing any evidence or ignoring the hundreds of guys who have really tried this long term and still improve despite going vanilla.
People go out of their way to try help people like this, or greek ultra and guys like that to try and help them learn from mistakes. Nobody has ever said this is the only way to train, or the best. But it's hard to ignore that it's likely as packaged the best starting point you can find.
I look forward to the day someone makes it better, improves it, comes up with new idea. Lots have tried, but usually we just come back to the start. For some reason that seems to trigger a small minority of people and they try act like you are brainwashed or something. No dude, I just like to know I'm getting best bang for my buck. By the way, add me to the list of people who have tried to get to cute with this and found out quite quickly the balance is thrown off.
I am about 3.5 months in to this training style. With former success via moderate mileage and more Canova-like training, I am tempted to add more pieces or otherwise "mix it up." Especially as I used to see results quicker than I seem to be now. I can't necessarily claim that this program has been lifechanging, but I don't hate it either, and it is definitely infinitely repeatable.
What convinced you to keep going, and what did your progress look like the first half year or so?
Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
And I want to just reitterate one last thing. I'm not anti-NS. In fact, as I said in the video, I think it's a great way to build a base or develop high end aerobic work.
Would I modify it? Most likely. Why? Because I experimented with this A LOT 15+ years ago. Maybe not with amateurs, but with HS kids, which have similar constraints around mileage, time commitment, etc. And what I found, both through lactate tests on myself and others, is that a nice counterbalance mattered for building a base. And if I was worried about maximizing 5k performance I'd include some other competition phase work.
Does that mean everyone should do that? Nope. But again, we did really well and it worked. We sent like 9 or 10 guys to D1 schools over the few years I helped out and had a team that got 2nd at state, just 10 points behind a team that went on to get 3rd at NXN. Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
As I said, I'm a fan of LT/sub-LT running to build high end aerobic abilities. Been doing it for nearly 20 years.
So to each their own. But I think that's often the missing piece. You gotta find what works for you, in your environment, given your constraints. And part of that is understanding how to manipulate workouts, use different tools, identify the signs you're missing something, etc.
GOod luck to all on that journey
okay, you finally said something indefensible. The idea that the average HS kid has the same time constraints as the middle-aged hobby jogger working 40-50hrs/wk and doing laundry, shopping, cooking, and cleaning for a family is pretty wild.
Average HS kid, probably not. I was above average committed to HS (4 AP classes, a few clubs with my friends) but I still had a lot of free time every day which I mostly burnt on video games.
I did however know plenty of friends who didn't have so much free time. Think 6 AP classes, zero period, studying to make it into Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc. alongside extracurriculars (multiple sports, clubs, community service, internships, etc.), and helping the family out with a home business, or working part time on their own. Probably still a bit less to balance as an adult ultimately, but HS definitely can be quite a busy time in your life, if you want it to be.
You could also interpret what Steve said as HS kids have more free time than adults but aren't necessarily willing to commit as much of it to training. Limited practice time, or just don't view it as a big of a part of their lives. Everyone's situation is different.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
I believe the answer that myself and others have settled upon is only swapping out the third sub T session for that speed dev day every 2 to 3 weeks.
For those who think this is too frequent I think it would work quite nicely to simply replace the monthly-bimonthly 5k TT / race with that day.
Personally I don't mind lowering the overall training load for that one week because I've found that treating every 2 to 3 weeks as a "down week" allows me to absorb the training better, even if I don't necessarily find myself needing to decrease.
I think the biggest question we keep coming back to is, how much does a variety of stimulus really matter concerning adaptation? Conventional training programs have always emphasized varying stimuli every so often to avoid stagnation. NSA seems to suggest that variety isn't as important as we thought.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
I believe the answer that myself and others have settled upon is only swapping out the third sub T session for that speed dev day every 2 to 3 weeks.
For those who think this is too frequent I think it would work quite nicely to simply replace the monthly-bimonthly 5k TT / race with that day.
Personally I don't mind lowering the overall training load for that one week because I've found that treating every 2 to 3 weeks as a "down week" allows me to absorb the training better, even if I don't necessarily find myself needing to decrease.
I think the biggest question we keep coming back to is, how much does a variety of stimulus really matter concerning adaptation? Conventional training programs have always emphasized varying stimuli every so often to avoid stagnation. NSA seems to suggest that variety isn't as important as we thought.
The reason I asked the question is because it’s still unclear. I get that this is getting into the weeds and comes down to how people use different terminology but you mentioned swapping out the third sub-t day for “that speed dev day.” The way I define speed development is something like would be described in the “5 x 60m all out” thread or short 6-8s hill sprints with full recovery. That’s very different from what Jakob does, the 20 x 200m hills where you are really pushing it. That’s also different from Steve’s previously described 16 x 200m rhythm workout (meant to be not as hard the 200m hills). My point is, others have already said that this day really hasn’t helped them and they revert back to the third sub-t session. I mean, a 43 year old dude ran a 4:20 mile and 2:00 800 off the vanilla approach, presumably with no strides, weight lifting or race specific work at all.
Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
So first (to others)- Let's not do the thing we always do on the internet and get lost from the paint point. The point on constraints was simple. MOST HS kids are constrained to ~50mpw for a variety of reasons. MOST serious amateurs are constrained to 50mpw for a variety of reasons. There are outliers, but that's what we see in the data. And time use data pretty much says teenagers have about 4hours of leisure time. Adults 5-6. During weekdays. I get it's different. I get the demands of an adult. As I said, 2 young kids here...But the point is HS and serious amateurs tend to run similar MPW. So they give us a good, not perfect, comparison.
Second, how would I improve the method? Depends on the individual and their goals.
But I think your example gets at a problem that has also been identified by others on this thread. The simplicity is great for some things. But it also creates a trap. We tend to think only in 7 day cycles, 3 sub LT, etc. But if we zoom out, like others mentioned, we can see that doesn't have to be the case. You could insert a rhythm section once every 4, 5, 6, 7, or any number of sessions.
Second, the simplicity also makes it where we make a similar mistake that we do with traditional Daniels. We label a workout sub LT, rhythm, VO2max....and not realizing we can combine stimuli. So if you subscribe to the total load theory, which I don't entirely for a number of reasons but let's assume you do, you could do a combo, blend, etc. workout and still keep total load very high while introducing a spice of a new stimulus to aid in another direction.
This could be: -15min split LT, 3-4min rest, 6x200 at 3k pace -20min split @ MP, 5min rest, 4-6xHS -10min LT, 4x30sec hill charges, 10min LT - 4x45sec @ 8k pace, 15min @ sub LT, 4x30sec @ 5k -4 sets of (5min @ LT, 45sec rest, 1min @ 10k) -Any number of alternations -Or any number of creative workout depending on the individual goal.
You could also progress these in any number of ways to modify that amount of high end aerobic vs. 10k/8k/5k/3k/ or whatever pace you need for specificity, speed endurance, rhythm, etc.
Again get as creative as you want. Which way we go depends on the race we're training for AND the individual strengths/weaknesses of the athlete in front of us.
So step one is if you were married to the sub-LT idea, I'd introduce a combo workout like the above heavily balanced towards sub LT with a spice of other intensities that I thought were worthwhile given my race goals. Over time, I'd shift that balance, depending on my goals
How often? Depends on goal, progression, time in periodization, etc.
Second change: I'd periodize things. Again, if we care about racing to our near max performance, then everything points towards slightly sharpening up in a safe way. History tells us that, elites tell us that, physiology tells us that.
Some folks need mild periodization, meaning just introduce some spices of work, maybe taking the above combo workout and moving towards one full rhythm work of 16x200 at race pace every 2 weeks. Others might work towards a more traditional workout. Just depends on goals.
But what we know, again from elites, to physiology to history, is that it's easier to maintain something than build it up. It's why even in traditional programs, athletes ditch the long run for a number of weeks when sharpening. So if you really wanted to go wild, then during the last 4-6 weeks, I'd drop the sub LT a bit, and emphasize more rhythm work or specificity, depending on the goal. You could even work towards a more traditional system the last 6 weeks, dropping one of the 3 workouts and going 1 LT + 1 workout. I get this is sacriligeous, but for some this would be beneficial for topping up the system with a harder workout while maintaining aerobic abilities. Not for all, but for some. Again, this is what we see from folks like Almgren, Jakob, etc. Yes, there are differences, but it's generally just enough to maintain LT + some more intensity.
If I was doing a marathon: I'd make some changes towards understanding that the 3 sub LT work gets us in great half-marathon shape, but doesn't help that much with our physiological resilience (i.e. how much or economy, LT, etc. degrade under fatigue), or fuel utilization. It's why as an elite runner if you throw down a crazy fast half-marathon 3-4 weeks before a marathon, you're probably going to struggle a bit on the marathon because your fuel system is running too hot. You want that fast half to be 8 weeks out, not 4.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
But I think we get trapped into 7 day cycles. And I think we get trapped into single type workouts. Especially for amateurs. But there's a reason that many many elites have moved towards combo workouts to maintain and shift the stimulus over the last 20 years or so.
Most of their late base was 2 high end aerobic workouts a week (generally mon and friday, with wednesday being hill sprints or speed variations or rhythm work). It worked well.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
I’ll have a first try at looking at the pros/cons of dropping the 3rd S/T session, and replacing it with a hill sprint or 200s type session.
let’s leave out the greater risk of injury and fatigue, although they are likely factors?
1) dropping the S/T session is a loss of an aerobic development session, and many feel the 3rd session is crucial to making the NSM work.
2)what are the benefits of the “speed session” as recommended.
it is not about mental strengthening.
it is not about lactate management.
it will not give a better aerobic stimulus.
it is largely about the neuromuscular effects, that the S/T may lack.
An elite will have a top end speed under 4 mpm, but their race pace will be 4:xx. So, they have a relatively small anaerobic speed reserve. A competive HS/College student will have a larger speed reserve, but it will still be relatively close.
A recreational hobby jogger, may be able to a run 400m in 60 secs, but struggle to hold 7 mpm pace for 10k. in other words, they have a massive anaerobic speed reserve, due to aerobic under development.
Does the amateur really need this neuromuscular work, particularly when it is at the expense of an aerobic session, which is their weakness?
Does others have this same discrepancy between their top end pace and their aerobic pace?
Finally, thanks to Steve Magness, for taking the time to make really comprehensive contributions to this thread.
Steve, I was going to ask what changes you would make to “improve” the method. Perhaps you mentioned in the video as well, I haven’t watched it yet (been spending my free time catching-up on this thread) but it sounds like that above quoted post is it. The argument against swapping the Wednesday sub-T for hill sprints, speed variations or rhythm work is that hill sprints, rhythm work or speed variations would have a lower training load than a sub-t session. I understand that you don’t look at training through the same load lens that this thread does. That third session seems to be the real difference maker for the method. I’d be curious to hear you elaborate on this a bit more. That Wednesday session is obviously way less stressful than any VO2 work. But it’s also way less stress than a sub-t session and that is part of the issue.
I’ll have a first try at looking at the pros/cons of dropping the 3rd S/T session, and replacing it with a hill sprint or 200s type session.
let’s leave out the greater risk of injury and fatigue, although they are likely factors?
1) dropping the S/T session is a loss of an aerobic development session, and many feel the 3rd session is crucial to making the NSM work.
2)what are the benefits of the “speed session” as recommended.
it is not about mental strengthening.
it is not about lactate management.
it will not give a better aerobic stimulus.
it is largely about the neuromuscular effects, that the S/T may lack.
An elite will have a top end speed under 4 mpm, but their race pace will be 4:xx. So, they have a relatively small anaerobic speed reserve. A competive HS/College student will have a larger speed reserve, but it will still be relatively close.
A recreational hobby jogger, may be able to a run 400m in 60 secs, but struggle to hold 7 mpm pace for 10k. in other words, they have a massive anaerobic speed reserve, due to aerobic under development.
Does the amateur really need this neuromuscular work, particularly when it is at the expense of an aerobic session, which is their weakness?
Does others have this same discrepancy between their top end pace and their aerobic pace?
Finally, thanks to Steve Magness, for taking the time to make really comprehensive contributions to this thread.
Plebs, the Magness has spoken and told you good day 5 pages ago. Please, no more autographs
no one is ‘trapped’ by the concept of a week. that’s how they find their lives organized. again, ppl working M-F normal hours, normal commitments.
to someone else’s previous point, when you’re creating a job aid it’s KISS method here. others have already presented how to periodize in both the longer and shorter directions. the ‘godfather’ of this thing seemed to have no prob doing a HM 3 weeks out from his marathon, metabolic flexibility/resiliency seemed to be totally fine