I don't even view the speedwork variants as optimal. As someone with a probability/statistics background I see NSA as the more optimal way to build fitness from an expected value lens.
I don't think altitude is your problem. For 450m, you'd be talking about a few seconds per km of difference over 5k (this calculator puts it at 12 seconds total difference if running a 5k in the 19 mins range, ), so this is barely going to be noticeable in the overall pace of your workout intervals.
Maybe you are or were very mildly sick, potentially even without symptoms? Even a super mild illness can have a lasting effect on HR.
I moved to altitude (7200 ft) three months ago and am trying to figure it out. My HR is similar to sea level on easy workouts. On Sub-T workouts, it's all messed up. My LT2 at sea level was 162; here, it's almost impossible for me to reach that level, both because RPE becomes impossibly difficult before then, and because my HR is lower here at the same paces. I've recently started doing lactate readings, and my lactate is much higher at the same HR level; essentially lactate has been consistent with RPE, while HR and RPR have diverged.
This is not what I was expecting before moving here; I thought HR would be significantly higher at the same paces, similar to heat training. This is unfortunate because it was much easier to use HR as a gauge at sea level, but now I'll have to use RPE and more lactate testing. I'm curious about others' experiences.
That's really interesting and good info to have. Oddly, I went up to 6000 feet for a couple of months this summer and my experience was totally different--I had to run quite a bit slower on easy days to keep my HR at 65% of max, my HR was higher for the same paces at subT, and I ended up dropping the pace and running all the subT workouts by HR for what felt like similar RPE to workouts at home (moderate altitude, 3000 feet).
One thing I'm curious about, do you eat before you run? I always run fasted. If you're eating beforehand, I wonder if our different experiences are to do with fat oxidation being impaired more than carbohydrate oxidation at altitude, which I've seen research on relatively recently. I would guess that the extra oxygen cost of fat oxidation is the issue there.
I don't think altitude is your problem. For 450m, you'd be talking about a few seconds per km of difference over 5k (this calculator puts it at 12 seconds total difference if running a 5k in the 19 mins range, ), so this is barely going to be noticeable in the overall pace of your workout intervals.
Maybe you are or were very mildly sick, potentially even without symptoms? Even a super mild illness can have a lasting effect on HR.
Thanks for the answer. I thought it couldn't be a factor but had to make sure because my recent performance tracked so well with being at sea level vs at home. Obviously it also means being on vacation vs daily life, so lots of cofactors there. Something weird is going on because sometimes, on easy days, I reach 70% MHR a minute after starting.
Funny that you mention being sick, some of those great workouts were while actually being mildly sick with symptoms, which I don't have now. I have a 1 year old though so I'll keep an eye on that.
In any case, the eternal question: would you go by pace or stick to HR in a case like this? Yesterday I ran (4x8 min) only slightly slower than the slower pace recommended at lactrace and I was really close or at LTHR very soon, staying there but dipping above occasionally. It feels like playing with fire, but going back to the "controlled" range I was running at before requires me to slow down a lot.
I would stick to HR for sure in that situation. If you go by pace, you're going to end up doing three moderately high intensity workouts per week, which is a recipe for disaster.
For what it's worth, I've been doing my NSA workouts by lactate and HR (for me they're very tightly related to each other) ever since I started NSA 4.5 months ago. That makes my interval paces slower than the paces suggested by sirpoc at the beginning of this thread, usually around 15-20 seconds per mile, but I'm still improving at a consistent, solid rate.
Interesting that this analysis found that pyramidal training (more training between LT1 and LT2), as opposed to polarized training (more training above LT2) was found to be more effective for athletes with vo2max in the 50's, and less effective for athletes with vo2max in the 60's
IMO, details matter a ton so I don't love to draw big conclusions from things like this. But at first glance it seems like it supports the idea that NSA is good for the "competitive hobby jogger" but not optimal for elites, which is what the premise has been all along. Notably, pyramidal training does include some suprathreshold, so regular 5k races or time trials could be a key part of the training method, and that doesn't seem to get emphasized enough.
Though we do have examples of people using the method to improve throughout the performance range of vo2max in the 60's. So imo it really comes down to the details mattering
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Because, for many of us, we do not need/want to be at fully optimal all of the time. Sometimes, good enough is...good enough. For most of us a few seconds isn't the difference in anything. When it becomes so - if it ever does - then we can look to optimize. But day-in-and-day-out consistency and less injury-prone running is a major goal. The progress that comes with it is a nice benefit.
I don't even view the speedwork variants as optimal. As someone with a probability/statistics background I see NSA as the more optimal way to build fitness from an expected value lens.
Suppose over a 6 month period you're trying to build fitness, and we can quantify that with a number (call it load or VDOT gained or whatever you like). And suppose the absolute best possible number you can reach is 100.
Let's say doing NSA allows you to reach 90% of your potential in this period, i.e. 90 points
Now let's say a hybrid approach with speedwork, rhythm 200s, hills and x-factor workouts lets you reach 100% of your potential, i.e. 100 points
If the chance that you get injured with NSA in this period is 5%, then your expected points is 90*0.95 (the points you gain in the 95% of scenarios you don't get injured) + 0*0.05 (you gain no points in the 5% of scenarios where you get injured) = 85.5
For the hybrid approach to beat this it would need to have less than a 14.5% chance of injury/setback over a six month period, which drops as low as 10% as you decrease the injury risk of NSA to 0%. I find this extremely unlikely for your average hobbyjogger just based on the strava feed of the ~300 people I follow in my local area. So many people take a down week or pick up an injury that I can count on one hand the number of people who have consistently logged big mileage weeks over the last 6 months.
Even then, this assumes that the hybrid approach is better than NSA at all, which is already debatable. If it's worse, and poses a greater injury risk then it's simply busted by all accounts.
Upon further thought, I realised I didn't punish injury enough in the original post.
If you get injured, you're likely going to lose a lot of fitness. It's hard to say how much as injuries vary in severity, but on average let's say it costs you 100 points over the 6 month period (the entire amount you could have gained with perfect optimal training). In some situations it will be a lot more e.g. stress fractures, while others less so e.g. minor niggles that force you to run easy for a week.
The expected points with NSA at 5% injury risk is now:
90*0.95 - 100*0.05 = 80.05
Now if we assume the hybrid approach only has a 10% chance of getting you sidelined, it has an expected points of
100*0.9 - 100*0.1 = 80
So the marginal 5% increase in injury risk completely erases all the theoretical gains it has over NSA.
With a 20% injury risk it gets worse:
100*0.8 - 100*0.2 = 60
And for your local workout warrior who can't control paces and has a 50% chance of getting injured in a 6 month period, any gains at all are completely erased:
And that's exactly why I'm starting to convince myself to try this training method. After years of stagnant performances between 2h30 and 2h35, it's time to try a different path.
This post was edited 28 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
error
Thank you! It was really a blast. Since my first marathon was such a disaster and left me feeling scared of the event, it was so fulfilling feeling like I "conquered" the marathon and actually had a good one.
Absolutely I'm doing another marathon. I'm hooked. I'm currently training for Houston on January 11th. As for the block itself, I'm not completely sure yet. I will be trying to push the mileage up a little and see what I can handle. But with Grandma's conditions being as tough as they were, I imagine if I replicate the build exactly I'll still see a jump in time.
Everything I'm doing with training now is thinking about long term progression and NSA highlights that so well. The NCAA left me feeling so burnt out so I'm thankful to have found a training method that is sustainable and fun. Vanilla NSA really did help me find the love again. It truly feels like something I could do for years. It's been such a joy reading through all the success stories. Keep it up everyone!
Thank you! It was really a blast. Since my first marathon was such a disaster and left me feeling scared of the event, it was so fulfilling feeling like I "conquered" the marathon and actually had a good one.
Absolutely I'm doing another marathon. I'm hooked. I'm currently training for Houston on January 11th. As for the block itself, I'm not completely sure yet. I will be trying to push the mileage up a little and see what I can handle. But with Grandma's conditions being as tough as they were, I imagine if I replicate the build exactly I'll still see a jump in time.
Everything I'm doing with training now is thinking about long term progression and NSA highlights that so well. The NCAA left me feeling so burnt out so I'm thankful to have found a training method that is sustainable and fun. Vanilla NSA really did help me find the love again. It truly feels like something I could do for years. It's been such a joy reading through all the success stories. Keep it up everyone!
great take, even if if your 26.2 was not a disaster it is very normal to be scared of the marathon lol...it is very daunting! NSM is like God mode in a video game.
Even with the BS numbers this still might undersell how important it is to avoid injuries. Certain injuries can permanently affect your mechanical abilities, and you'll run slower even at the same level of fitness. Similarly many injuries leave you more injury prone even after you've healed. I know both from experience. If I could go back I would've trained way more smartly and conservatively and not been trapped in 10 years of injury cycles.
Since starting this, my appetite has increased. I am always hungry.
Also, I don’t find it as easy as some are making out. My HR has dropped around 4 bpm across the 3 sessions. I expect improvement on my next TT, but I don’t think I could increase the pace on the sessions. I will probably hold the current paces for a bit longer.
I moved to altitude (7200 ft) three months ago and am trying to figure it out. My HR is similar to sea level on easy workouts. On Sub-T workouts, it's all messed up. My LT2 at sea level was 162; here, it's almost impossible for me to reach that level, both because RPE becomes impossibly difficult before then, and because my HR is lower here at the same paces. I've recently started doing lactate readings, and my lactate is much higher at the same HR level; essentially lactate has been consistent with RPE, while HR and RPR have diverged.
This is not what I was expecting before moving here; I thought HR would be significantly higher at the same paces, similar to heat training. This is unfortunate because it was much easier to use HR as a gauge at sea level, but now I'll have to use RPE and more lactate testing. I'm curious about others' experiences.
That's really interesting and good info to have. Oddly, I went up to 6000 feet for a couple of months this summer and my experience was totally different--I had to run quite a bit slower on easy days to keep my HR at 65% of max, my HR was higher for the same paces at subT, and I ended up dropping the pace and running all the subT workouts by HR for what felt like similar RPE to workouts at home (moderate altitude, 3000 feet).
One thing I'm curious about, do you eat before you run? I always run fasted. If you're eating beforehand, I wonder if our different experiences are to do with fat oxidation being impaired more than carbohydrate oxidation at altitude, which I've seen research on relatively recently. I would guess that the extra oxygen cost of fat oxidation is the issue there.
Yeah, I eat the exact same thing every day and have been for months before moving to elevation: about 60 grams of bread, a tablespoon of almond butter, and a banana. Plus coffee. I've been more crunched for time here, so doing a shorter warmup and running within about 30 minutes of eating. I run early in the morning, but did that at sea level as well. Could you explain your reasoning more about fasted vs unfasted and the difference in heartrate?
My last sub-T workouts is just a ridiclous examples of what I'm talking about. My max HR is ~184, and I found LT2 to be around 162 at sea level. I looked back at my old training when I was at a similar level of fitness, and I would hit 150 by usually about 2-3 minutes of Sub-T training, so the 3rd rep if doing 400s or the end of the first rep if 800s.
Did 5*2000 today, a bit over 40 minutes at Sub-T pace, 1:30 rest between reps. This is the big workout for the week for the marathon block. For the last quarter mile of the first rep, so after I had already run 1600m, my HR actually fell by about 15 bpm, down to 118, which is 64 below my max. bIt fell so low I actually got concerned, stopped, and did a manual pulse check, which confirmed my watch was accurate. Never got above 145 for any rep. The RPE and lack of breath felt as harder or harder than at seal level.
Another data point: I tried bicarb to practice for a race, waited about two hours after eating, and ran at 9am, about 2 hours later than normal. My HR was pretty normal, spiked to 159 on third rep when doing 400s.
I'm going to get labs done, not just specifically for this, but also to test iron and other levels after moving to altitude, but I'm just so confused by this.
The expected points with NSA at 5% injury risk is now:
90*0.95 - 100*0.05 = 80.05
Now if we assume the hybrid approach only has a 10% chance of getting you sidelined, it has an expected points of
100*0.9 - 100*0.1 = 80
So the marginal 5% increase in injury risk completely erases all the theoretical gains it has over NSA.
Not to be too nitpicky (and I agree that NSA is probably the most +EV method), but an increase in injury risk from 5% to 10% is not a "marginal 5%". It is a whopping 100%.
That's really interesting and good info to have. Oddly, I went up to 6000 feet for a couple of months this summer and my experience was totally different--I had to run quite a bit slower on easy days to keep my HR at 65% of max, my HR was higher for the same paces at subT, and I ended up dropping the pace and running all the subT workouts by HR for what felt like similar RPE to workouts at home (moderate altitude, 3000 feet).
One thing I'm curious about, do you eat before you run? I always run fasted. If you're eating beforehand, I wonder if our different experiences are to do with fat oxidation being impaired more than carbohydrate oxidation at altitude, which I've seen research on relatively recently. I would guess that the extra oxygen cost of fat oxidation is the issue there.
Yeah, I eat the exact same thing every day and have been for months before moving to elevation: about 60 grams of bread, a tablespoon of almond butter, and a banana. Plus coffee. I've been more crunched for time here, so doing a shorter warmup and running within about 30 minutes of eating. I run early in the morning, but did that at sea level as well. Could you explain your reasoning more about fasted vs unfasted and the difference in heartrate?
My last sub-T workouts is just a ridiclous examples of what I'm talking about. My max HR is ~184, and I found LT2 to be around 162 at sea level. I looked back at my old training when I was at a similar level of fitness, and I would hit 150 by usually about 2-3 minutes of Sub-T training, so the 3rd rep if doing 400s or the end of the first rep if 800s.
Did 5*2000 today, a bit over 40 minutes at Sub-T pace, 1:30 rest between reps. This is the big workout for the week for the marathon block. For the last quarter mile of the first rep, so after I had already run 1600m, my HR actually fell by about 15 bpm, down to 118, which is 64 below my max. bIt fell so low I actually got concerned, stopped, and did a manual pulse check, which confirmed my watch was accurate. Never got above 145 for any rep. The RPE and lack of breath felt as harder or harder than at seal level.
Another data point: I tried bicarb to practice for a race, waited about two hours after eating, and ran at 9am, about 2 hours later than normal. My HR was pretty normal, spiked to 159 on third rep when doing 400s.
I'm going to get labs done, not just specifically for this, but also to test iron and other levels after moving to altitude, but I'm just so confused by this.
That is really strange. Perhaps you've been accidentally overtraining by not reducing your workout paces enough since moving to altitude, or by not sleeping as well given the altitude, and as a result you're now seeing some sort of issue with parasympathetic activity not decreasing to the extent it's supposed to during exercise?
As far as why the fed v fasted could make a difference in our experiences, if you eat before your run, your insulin levels are going to be much higher so your substrate use will naturally shift towards carbs. Whereas for me, my insulin levels will be super low when I start running and my substrate use will naturally shift towards fat. At altitude, when it's apparently harder to burn fat because of the higher oxygen cost, that would suggest that my body would struggle relatively more than yours and that I'd therefore see my HR go up, while you wouldn't see an HR increase on that front anyway--but I would think you should still see at least some HR increase from reduced oxygen. And your issue seems fairly extreme, so I don't think the differences in what we saw are likely to be anything to do with the fed/fasted thing.
Is this true? Genuinely interested but seems unlikely? I followed him recently on Strava and today he ran around 4:45/km for 45 mins but based on data that would be around 60% MHR? This seems incredibly low for what is a pretty steady pace (even for a faster hobby runner).
Is this true? Genuinely interested but seems unlikely? I followed him recently on Strava and today he ran around 4:45/km for 45 mins but based on data that would be around 60% MHR? This seems incredibly low for what is a pretty steady pace (even for a faster hobby runner).
He hits just over 190 bpm on his 5k efforts. 194 sounds about right.
Is this true? Genuinely interested but seems unlikely? I followed him recently on Strava and today he ran around 4:45/km for 45 mins but based on data that would be around 60% MHR? This seems incredibly low for what is a pretty steady pace (even for a faster hobby runner).
Yeah something seems off. Especially considering he was mainly just cycling recently. No way is that correct and he's running well under 7:30 min miles at 60% MHR.
Is this true? Genuinely interested but seems unlikely? I followed him recently on Strava and today he ran around 4:45/km for 45 mins but based on data that would be around 60% MHR? This seems incredibly low for what is a pretty steady pace (even for a faster hobby runner).
Yeah something seems off. Especially considering he was mainly just cycling recently. No way is that correct and he's running well under 7:30 min miles at 60% MHR.
Prior to his injury, he was running easy at 7 min/mile at an average 65% of max hr. He has lost some running fitness as his easy pace is now slower.
For his 10k Race end of March his average heart rate was 178, in the middle of his marathon build with a taper of 2 days. I am hitting 178-180 in a 10k (depends on heat and taper), and my max heart rate is 195. The most i had messured with my h10 at the end of a mountain race. The impressive thing about sirpoc is his patience, now running with 60% heart rate to slowly build up his mileage again.
For his 10k Race end of March his average heart rate was 178, in the middle of his marathon build with a taper of 2 days. I am hitting 178-180 in a 10k (depends on heat and taper), and my max heart rate is 195. The most i had messured with my h10 at the end of a mountain race. The impressive thing about sirpoc is his patience, now running with 60% heart rate to slowly build up his mileage again.
I actually think this is overlooked and his superpower as a hobby jogger. I think this is as important to follow , the patience and discipline as the rest of the amazing information in the thread. I'm sure he could run 65-70% MHR still at 420-30/km , but why bother? It's about long term getting back to once you were. Same with the workouts he's done. Pretty controlled and massively under running LTHR. All these things that seem little I think add up to the best bang for buck or marginal gains, or the taking as much risk off the table as you can. Or any other way you view this through the prizm of a methodology.
I actually think this is overlooked and his superpower as a hobby jogger. I think this is as important to follow , the patience and discipline as the rest of the amazing information in the thread. I'm sure he could run 65-70% MHR still at 420-30/km , but why bother? It's about long term getting back to once you were. Same with the workouts he's done. Pretty controlled and massively under running LTHR. All these things that seem little I think add up to the best bang for buck or marginal gains, or the taking as much risk off the table as you can. Or any other way you view this through the prizm of a methodology.
Totally agree with this. Obviously most people will take away from the sub threshold reps and just that from this thread, but it's well down the list for me of all the things sirpoc has been kind enough to share. There's so much that goes into making this work, outside of just "do sub threshold". This comeback has been interesting and hasn't fallen into the normal hobby trap, do too much too soon.
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.