No it's not. The point was to monitor your lactate levels with a monitor.
Lol, missing the forest for the trees, buddy. The point is to achieve the maximum sustainable training load, measuring your lactate is just one tool that helps you with that.
See above post.
This thread is just a place for nerds to spend their weekends. Nothing groundbreaking here at all.
Might as well toss all the fancy terminology out of the window.
If it's as simple as running as many fast miles as you can each week, then there's no need to overthink things.
Truely groundbreaking.
Despite this being an obvious troll attempt, you actually aren’t far from the truth.
Jakob described his training goals: to run as much as I can, as fast as I can.
I doubt they are getting fancy with the terminology, as it’s always called “threshold”. That’s just some people on here. The point is to just track what you are doing so that you know how you can consistently do as much as possible. Lactate, HR, pace are all tools. You won’t be able “to run as many fast miles as you can each week” without paying attention to anything.
A very inspiring episode and interview with Jakob Ingebrigtsen, one of the best runners in the world. What does it take to become the best? Is there a secret...
Lol, missing the forest for the trees, buddy. The point is to achieve the maximum sustainable training load, measuring your lactate is just one tool that helps you with that.
See above post.
This thread is just a place for nerds to spend their weekends. Nothing groundbreaking here at all.
You said somewhere you aim for around 100 minutes of quality each week. How much were you doing before? I was thinking about it and it's quite a lot. Is it possible it's simply the large volume of faster running you're doing that has led to improvement?
This week I did 46 minutes of sub threshold and an 18:32 parkrun... so about 65 minutes total of "quality". It's going to take some doing for me to reach 100 minutes.
I got about 80-90 seconds faster, training like this for the same hours a week, versus what I did before. Now I probably have added on another half an hour or so a week up to 7 hours . But my initial success, I was exactly the same amount of time on feet, going 3x sub threshold versus the classic training approach. As in some vo2 work, tempo and some straight threshold. You know the usual. The sub threshold way creates a greater training load a week, hence why I believe it works. You can simply do more in the quality zone. I spoke about this right near the start I think, will be on an early page. But basically, my CTL was capped on the previous approach, I just couldn't get it any higher in the time I had. Until I started pushing the envelope to as much load as I could handle every other day, whilst still recovering. FWIW yes, there's more minutes of quality making the difference. But that's only because there is no vo2 max to recovery from, apart from the parkruns. That's the whole point of those you train in a sub threshold zone that gives you pretty good training benefits, versus not going over it where the recovery time seems to ramp up, totally unproportionally compared to the training benefit gain.
When you are a low mileage runner it's most important to have optimal quality in every session you run, even your steady easy runs. It's not enough to run 1,5-3 mmol thresholds to get the best bang for your bucks. You need to go 3-4 mmol every lactate threshold and to teach your body to extend the total length of distance runned. You are time limited and need to do the best out of it and therefore need high quality without higher risk of injury. A low mileage runner never have to be afraid of overtraining as long as not going too fast in sessions. Individual perfect pace is the way to go....
I got about 80-90 seconds faster, training like this for the same hours a week, versus what I did before. Now I probably have added on another half an hour or so a week up to 7 hours . But my initial success, I was exactly the same amount of time on feet, going 3x sub threshold versus the classic training approach. As in some vo2 work, tempo and some straight threshold. You know the usual. The sub threshold way creates a greater training load a week, hence why I believe it works. You can simply do more in the quality zone. I spoke about this right near the start I think, will be on an early page. But basically, my CTL was capped on the previous approach, I just couldn't get it any higher in the time I had. Until I started pushing the envelope to as much load as I could handle every other day, whilst still recovering. FWIW yes, there's more minutes of quality making the difference. But that's only because there is no vo2 max to recovery from, apart from the parkruns. That's the whole point of those you train in a sub threshold zone that gives you pretty good training benefits, versus not going over it where the recovery time seems to ramp up, totally unproportionally compared to the training benefit gain.
I have been interested in comparing performance to CTL in individuals for a while. I've seen some links in case studies of Tri guys I know, but never just running. So this is interesting to me.
To clarify a few of your other posts, are you saying when you hit a new high point in CTL you expect to PB? Are you predicting it? And then you can also look back in historical data and plot previous PBs and what your CTL was? I believe you got the nail on head when you say before most people issue, I would guess 90% + can't detail anything from the PMC as they probably don't have correct zones or even know them.
I have been interested in comparing performance to CTL in individuals for a while. I've seen some links in case studies of Tri guys I know, but never just running. So this is interesting to me.
To clarify a few of your other posts, are you saying when you hit a new high point in CTL you expect to PB? Are you predicting it? And then you can also look back in historical data and plot previous PBs and what your CTL was? I believe you got the nail on head when you say before most people issue, I would guess 90% + can't detail anything from the PMC as they probably don't have correct zones or even know them.
Yes. So basically, when I see a new high point or CTL peak, I know there's a very good chance I'll probably PB. Example, I was talking about my CTL a day or so ago. I noticed last night it had crept up to 63. New highest point. I had been speaking to shirtboy over email and said I was feeling good lately (although not that feeling in my experience can tell you much, I can feel good and go not so great - or vice versa), so might do a parkrun this week; I saw that 63 and thought definitely will have a very good chance at a PB to actually back up feeling good, so got up and went out this morning. I ran 17:15 today, so I am very happy with that, another solid PB and earned my beers tonight.
This again matches up to a new high running CTL. For what it's worth, when I was stagnating, my CTL was stuck around the same number and it wasn't until I really made a dramatic shift in the sessions I was doing (the shift from a more standard running approach to this) that I could raise it some more and then get back to taking some time off my PB again. Hopefully people see it's the mixture of the subthreshold sessions making it much easier to raise my training load, it's not that I'm claiming subthreshold are miracle sessions. They most likely will just get everyone to a higher training load quicker, or more importantly, higher for the same amount of time dedicated.
Also, yes. I can plot just about any PB back over time , to high CTL peaks. Again, in reverse, most downturns in performance and be traced back to a lowering CTL, for a number of reasons, based on crashes on the bike or just reduced time to train and life getting in the way, or even just being bored and or life taking my eye of the focus of training. Or the third point of indexing, the point of stagnation, where I had basically maxed out the training load I could do on the hours I was doing in running originally, with the more classic training approach, and my CTL was basically staying the same. This is where you have to understand how it works, to manage it and to incrementally increase it, to improve performance again.
As to your third point, I agree. Most people probably aren't understanding how fine tuned it all is and broadly entering their zones or not updating them correctly, so it's hard for them to see or understand these patterns in their own data and training. As I have a decided to use pace (as it works best for me living in a pan flat area)when you get a new PB, you obviously must update your zones etc. As now to create the new TSS, you'll obviously have to work a little bit harder than previously. For example, your estimated 15k pace to use for the 10x1k session, will now be faster. If I didn't make sure everything was updated, I'd either be given a higher TSS score for running faster, or the same TSS score for running the same speed, but in relative terms it was actually easier. This is a basic example, but where , believe it or not, a lot of people mess up.
This thread is pretty funny, I'm kind of shocked it's still going and being active. I think on the whole most people have found it of good use? I also love the fact that other runners , take the time to come onto the internet and anonymously call the people who to contribute to this thread geeks 🤣 for a start, all runners are pretty geeky. I mean none of this puts us in the cool club, right? Whether it be that we train like this and look at the fine details, or just run. It's all pretty niche and nerdy either way. Here in the UK running is pretty much as un cool a a hobby you can get. So if I'm going to do something already on the nerd spectrum, I may as well get the best out of it.
So while I was out slogging through the 49.4 degrees Celsius feels-like run today, I had a few thoughts.
Let's assume we run 6 minute reps in three different situations and all illicit a 2.0 mmol/L reading afterwards:
Scenario A) Outdoors in hot and humid weather (think 32 degrees celsius with 75% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:30/km for the 6 minutes rep.
Scenario B) Indoors, in cool conditions (think 22 degrees celsius with 45% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:00/km for the 6 minute rep.
Scenario C) Outdoor, in fair conditions (think 25-26 degrees celsius with 52% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:07/km for the 6 minute rep
Now remember, all three scenarios end up with a 2.0 mmol/L reading. The question is: Would one of the scenarios yield a superior training response? Specifically for someone training for 5K-HM.
I'd love to see some thoughts on this.
(Sorry if I have actually missed any relevant replies to the topic.)
Probably the best thing to come out of this Norweign approach will be the spike in lactate meters and test strip sales from all the 17 min 5kers thinking they're the next Ingebrigsten.
VDOT, Velocity at VDOT, and Race Duration For those interested in better understanding how Jack Daniels’ VDOT system works, I put together this document. Hopefully, you’ll also see how adaptable the information Daniels provid...
Comparing Training Stress Systems To start, a simple comparison of the three training point systems that have been referenced in the thread. Note that Tinman’s points per minute are scaled down by a multiple of 0.10 (so you’d...
Probably the best thing to come out of this Norweign approach will be the spike in lactate meters and test strip sales from all the 17 min 5kers thinking they're the next Ingebrigsten.
To engage with the Training Peaks metrics and demonstrate how two different training distributions can achieve the same CTL value, I put together this simulation. This could be taken to show it doesn’t matter how you train, b...
Probably the best thing to come out of this Norweign approach will be the spike in lactate meters and test strip sales from all the 17 min 5kers thinking they're the next Ingebrigsten.
Not sure about that. I think it could be the mainstream adoption of speed suits on race day haha
So while I was out slogging through the 49.4 degrees Celsius feels-like run today, I had a few thoughts.
Let's assume we run 6 minute reps in three different situations and all illicit a 2.0 mmol/L reading afterwards:
Scenario A) Outdoors in hot and humid weather (think 32 degrees celsius with 75% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:30/km for the 6 minutes rep.
Scenario B) Indoors, in cool conditions (think 22 degrees celsius with 45% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:00/km for the 6 minute rep.
Scenario C) Outdoor, in fair conditions (think 25-26 degrees celsius with 52% relative humidity) = average pace of 4:07/km for the 6 minute rep
Now remember, all three scenarios end up with a 2.0 mmol/L reading. The question is: Would one of the scenarios yield a superior training response? Specifically for someone training for 5K-HM.
I'd love to see some thoughts on this.
(Sorry if I have actually missed any relevant replies to the topic.)
For reference, I'm 72in/183cm and 150lbs/68kg. My experience living in a warm climate is that during summer, when temps are around 80F/27C, that slows my pace by roughly 16 seconds per mile or 10 seconds per km (probably even more if it's a long effort), compared to when temps are about 60F/16C. This totally depends on the workout though. If it's short repeats like 200m-400m, the impact is minimal versus a tempo run (which I don't even attempt during the summer).
There are models which estimate the impact of temperature on performance. Also ones for weight loss/gain. My experience running my numbers through those is that they are similar to using 220 minus age for calculating your max heart rate... not very accurate haha
I'll state the obvious and say, in general, if you can run in a good climate and run faster, that's preferable to running slower, in a less ideal climate. Heat impacts fatigue a lot more too than equations estimate, I think. Less volume at a slower pace in a less ideal environment leaves me more fatigued overall than more volume at a faster pace in a more ideal environment.
As for your other point, exactly that. I'm adding bits on here and there. For example, I've added some time onto my easy runs. This has got me over by a few minutes the 7 hour mark. That has allowed me to do the full compliment then of the sub threshold sessions. One I limited to 30 minutes in total. But now all are around 35-36 minutes. It doesn't sound like much, but over time, weeks, it slowly ramps things up. This is another reason I train everyday and rarely take a day off. I'm limited to about 7 hours really in my life and honestly this is just about the best way to fit it in. A 75 mins "long " run and now hovering around 55-60 mins on all the other days. Either easy or Sub threshold.
Some comments here:
- 75min is not a long run based on the definition of literally all running books. A long run is typically longer than 90min (but again a matter of definition). So for me you do 3Q+ 4E/week.
- 35minutes sub CV is most likely more than enough, because you are close below CV (pace you can hold for about 25-30minutes). For a higher volume, the intensity should be possible reduced. However this would trigger different muscle fibers and result in different lactate levels and adaptation. Therefore, for a higher volume, a double threshold might be possible a better solution.
A rest day/week and a really long run might bring an even better result. (?)
I also agree with others that with your 7day-3Q/week training, an overtraining/overuse is likely in the future, because the body can't handle an increase and increase and increase all the time. But i wish you i am wrong, but my 40 years of athletic experience tells me otherwise.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Probably the best thing to come out of this Norweign approach will be the spike in lactate meters and test strip sales from all the 17 min 5kers thinking they're the next Ingebrigsten.
lol 10 down votes bring the hate.. you just hate it because you know it's true... same doofuses were buying altitude tents years ago, now they'll be cluttering up the track and trails with lactate strips
Probably the best thing to come out of this Norweign approach will be the spike in lactate meters and test strip sales from all the 17 min 5kers thinking they're the next Ingebrigsten.
lol 10 down votes bring the hate.. you just hate it because you know it's true... same doofuses were buying altitude tents years ago, now they'll be cluttering up the track and trails with lactate strips
a trolls gotta eat
im sure you have an online coaching service we could purchase instead though right?
dont buy a lactate meter because you’re ‘wasting your time and money’ pay me XX$$ a month to give you a schedule that is likely to fail from a book you can buy yourself for $20 on Amazon
