peekay wrote:
I've played around with this since copying KI even before this thread started.
Recently, I've come to have the opinion that this is probably a big challenge for people who have run higher mileage on other programs. Even if the individual ST workouts aren't hard, many of us have defaulted to easy days that leave us ready for 2 workouts (maybe lower volume than 30 minutes ST) and a long run. So 1 hour + of easy running feels like it should be fine and sustainable -- and on the individual runs, it isn't hard. But then you don't improve.
Then you look at Jakob, who runs a heck of a lot more than any of us. What does he do on easy days? 2 runs of 40 minutes! So maybe to do this type of training - 3x per week of reasonable threshold work, we actually have to control not only the pace (serious runners have already been running fairly easy) but duration. Maybe some of us need to split to doubles. Interestingly, KI has not progressed all that much with increases in easy day duration beyond 1 hour. Sirpoc has transitioned to doubles rather than have easy runs over 1 hour.
For those of us much slower, maybe our "limit" is actually well under an hour? Do we really think we should be running longer on our "easy" days than the best runner in the world? Is that going to be beneficial or just cause fatigue?
Anyway, I don't have the answers. But that is where my mind has gone recently.
It's all about balance. I asked sirpoc this on Strava, he knows he needs to do more volume to break 2:20, which seems to be his goal? Or maybe a fraction more. But definitely feels playing around with more than an hour on daily running is probably not a good idea. Although, as ever, he's probably playing around to get one step ahead. Whilst what works for him might not work for everyone else, in general that seems to be how it's played out and it would be foolish to doubt him at this point. As humble as he is, he seems to have as good a handle on this game we call training as anyone I've ever seen.
He's been either doing 2x easy, or a 70 min run on a Monday, but the easy running intensity has come down. It looks like he's lost some fitness, but I don't think he has, the easy runs are now around low 60% MHR. He will probably jump in at some point. He's at that gateway point between the maximum on singles, versus not at double threshold level yet. In many ways he's completed his own training system and graduated.
KI I find quite odd. Of course training like this you can do more or the same, but he hasn't really ever seemed to increase load overall, if you look at probably his training over a period of time. It's much more periodized in a build to something, usually. Then he panics and does too much in a short space. I've always thought his easy runs look too hard for his level, HR data of course can't tell us everything but it does look a little high generally and I think is a major factor in him not being as consisten. Just an observation. It's interesting as on paper it looks similar, but I don't think it is. Sirpoc has been very focused on clear and linear progress over a long period of time, with the understanding of generating more load = faster. KI really has struggled with consistency and it shows, of the two of them sirpoc is in a different league now and I think just over time the really cautious approach has won out.
For me, personally, I am pretty sold on vanilla here. I totally understand why people want to play around with it, that's human nature. But I think ultimately, the philosophy here has locked onto the key aspect. Training load drives performance, especially even more so at hobby level where there's so much ceiling for growth. It's difficult to make sense of a lot of the changes I've seen people make, as if you buy into this philosophy you are effectively making it worse. That's not to mean it definitely won't work, but the whole idea here is grounded in that more is more, until it's either not or you cannot conceivably recover from it. I was reading sirpocs early posts someone has archived the other day and he's said the more is more part, until it's not many times. I didn't really understand it as first but I think as soon as I had the first breakthrough simply due to the consistency versus anything spectacular that the lightbulb went off for me.
As a previous poster and sirpoc has pointed out many times. Sub threshold is a byproduct or just a tool of more being more, rather than some sort of magic. A big IF. But you probably can do it in other intensity distributions, but time is going to be the main constraint.
Purely anncedotal and a case study of me and a running friend, but we are in our 50s now and are running times we did 10 years ago. I've trained 30 years and really this is the first time in my life I have actually understood really the training I'm doing and finally seeing a purpose to it. Until you have really commited to a good long period of this, I can't grasp why anyone would change much at all. From Reddit, it's even pretty much full Bakken hobby jogger approved, in that he has said as much (seems like him and sirpoc are communicating from what has been said, which is really cool. Maybe a pod could get them BOTH on together?).
Anyway, really cool so see the thread STILL going and sharing some great information. This is also the first time I have chimed in. Just my random collection of thoughts from someone who wished something as detailed as this had been around 25 years ago, rather than the era of hero workouts when I was in my peak. That's my main frustration!