As someone who has read the thread from day one, interested in how Jiggymeister got on at the GSR? as it seems like he was there with sirpoc.
-
30
-
The GSR was very windy, so not a PB event this year.
20 -
Alfie wrote:
The GSR was very windy, so not a PB event this year.
If the great Nick "The Beast" Bester can't PB, no one can
11 -
#7724
This post was removed.
-
WTF are some of this posts lately.
180 -
Okay clanker.
50 -
r0zina wrote:
WTF are some of this posts lately.
so you're not going to purchase a 'personalized' AI coaching plan?
80 -
ews1982 wrote:
Started doing easy at 70% max about a year ago. Had to run walk for about 2 months. Everytime I hit 137 (70%) walk till it dropped to 120. Just kept on going. Now im running 6.30/6.40 a km with an average hartbeat of 132 for an hour running and never over 137 anymore. Im actually really happy and proud of this.
As with a lot in this program: people just need to put there ego to the side.
I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.
Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.
If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?
And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)
141 -
Here Hadd, here wrote:
ews1982 wrote:
Started doing easy at 70% max about a year ago. Had to run walk for about 2 months. Everytime I hit 137 (70%) walk till it dropped to 120. Just kept on going. Now im running 6.30/6.40 a km with an average hartbeat of 132 for an hour running and never over 137 anymore. Im actually really happy and proud of this.
As with a lot in this program: people just need to put there ego to the side.
I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.
Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.
If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?
And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)
median HR? you mean some ‘easy’ runs are over 83% max hr?
also, would like to know what this ~10 bpm difference equates to pace wise
10 -
Here Hadd, here wrote:
I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.
Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.
If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?
And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)
What paces are your easy runs and races? Most people who ask are running their easy runs too hard, but there does genuinely seem to be a fair amount of variation in "easy" HR. I can't find the runningwriting's article on it, but here is a similar one about variation in LT1 HR:
For your original question, yes, there does seem to be a lot's of evidence of the benefits to volume, not just for it's ability to make more subthreshold work possible. It's an integral part of NSA.
31 -
Would welcome any advice on an issue I'm having, namely my HR has gone way down on workouts, but not simply in a way that indicates high fitness.
My LT2 HR, measured in a lab and basically confirmed anecdotally through many workouts, was about 160 - 162, max HR 180-184. Then I moved to high altitude 4 months ago and boosted my mileage, from about 40 mpw, to now about 55 mpw.
My most recent workout was 6 x .85 miles on one minute rest (that's the road segment I have between stop lights). My average heartrate on those segments was 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134. My max heartrate was 143 on the last rap, and my HR actually went down over the course of the rep to 134. My lactate level, measured just after the run, was 4.9 mmol. Based on previous measurements, ~3.5 mmol is a better measure of Sub-T for me. By RPE, the workout felt hard, above Sub-T, but I keep looking at my watch and thinking I should be going faster. (I've measured my HR by chest strap on several runs; it showed the same pattern.)
I don't know how to separate and evalutate the cause of this. There's the altitude change. The mileage change. My job is more stressful. I am feeling more fatigued than before, but my paces have improved, particularly on the shorter intervals.
The one chance I had to do a business trip at sea level, I got in one workout: my pace was fast, it felt incredibly easy, and my heard rate got into the high 160s. Sometimes when I workout later in the day, my heartrate is somewhat higher, and the two long runs I've done where I've added some quality, my heartrate gets to the expected range.
Is this what altitude does? Is this a sign of fatigue and I need to dial things back? Have I gotten a lot fitter, and I just can't access that fitness because I can't get enough oxygen at altitude? Since I can't depend on biomarkers to judge how fast I should be going, do I run a 5k timetrial at altitude and base paces on that?
My HR on easy runs has also gotten much lower, but the RPE also feels low, so I'm not as concerned there. But my workouts are driving me crazy.
02 -
Nothing personal, just your running jesus claiming he did not recognize Bester has obviously rubbed some people the wrong way, who would have thought. Maybe give credit where credit is due next time.
Anyway, on with the book tour! We all need something to entertain ourselves with while waiting at the finish line at London next year, yeah?
025 -
Confused about low HR wrote:
Would welcome any advice on an issue I'm having, namely my HR has gone way down on workouts, but not simply in a way that indicates high fitness.
My LT2 HR, measured in a lab and basically confirmed anecdotally through many workouts, was about 160 - 162, max HR 180-184. Then I moved to high altitude 4 months ago and boosted my mileage, from about 40 mpw, to now about 55 mpw.
My most recent workout was 6 x .85 miles on one minute rest (that's the road segment I have between stop lights). My average heartrate on those segments was 124, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134. My max heartrate was 143 on the last rap, and my HR actually went down over the course of the rep to 134. My lactate level, measured just after the run, was 4.9 mmol. Based on previous measurements, ~3.5 mmol is a better measure of Sub-T for me. By RPE, the workout felt hard, above Sub-T, but I keep looking at my watch and thinking I should be going faster. (I've measured my HR by chest strap on several runs; it showed the same pattern.)
I don't know how to separate and evalutate the cause of this. There's the altitude change. The mileage change. My job is more stressful. I am feeling more fatigued than before, but my paces have improved, particularly on the shorter intervals.
The one chance I had to do a business trip at sea level, I got in one workout: my pace was fast, it felt incredibly easy, and my heard rate got into the high 160s. Sometimes when I workout later in the day, my heartrate is somewhat higher, and the two long runs I've done where I've added some quality, my heartrate gets to the expected range.
Is this what altitude does? Is this a sign of fatigue and I need to dial things back? Have I gotten a lot fitter, and I just can't access that fitness because I can't get enough oxygen at altitude? Since I can't depend on biomarkers to judge how fast I should be going, do I run a 5k timetrial at altitude and base paces on that?
My HR on easy runs has also gotten much lower, but the RPE also feels low, so I'm not as concerned there. But my workouts are driving me crazy.
are you the poster in the strava group who posts these long-winded posts stressing about every aspect of your training? female and uk-based?
we just need greek ultra man in this thread now.
143 -
At least my boy doesn’t give up running after one bad race.
016 -
Wash your mouth to talk about the inventor of LT1.5 training. Ground breaking for the FT community.
110 -
Here Hadd, here wrote:
ews1982 wrote:
Started doing easy at 70% max about a year ago. Had to run walk for about 2 months. Everytime I hit 137 (70%) walk till it dropped to 120. Just kept on going. Now im running 6.30/6.40 a km with an average hartbeat of 132 for an hour running and never over 137 anymore. Im actually really happy and proud of this.
As with a lot in this program: people just need to put there ego to the side.
I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.
Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.
If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?
And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)
If your Easy HR is 83% of max and it's that close to your sub-T HR, then you simply don't know what easy feels like.
And I don't mean for that to come across as an insult. It just means that you've conditioned yourself (or been conditioned) to perceive what's actually a moderate intensity as an easy one.
This is why RPE is largely garbage, because it's mostly made up nonsense built on unreliable and incomplete information from the start. Each person can have completely different reference points and/or scales.
Ultimately it's just a number that you associate with a level of effort, but if you never run truly easy, then your 3 is probably my 6, and your 6 is probably my 8, etc.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.281 -
Guy looks tired as hell all the time. Nice city to run in though.
120 -
LT1.5 rocks baby wrote:
Wash your mouth to talk about the inventor of LT1.5 training. Ground breaking for the FT community.
Well the 0.85 mile repeats align with lt1.5 talk
50 -
Here Hadd, here wrote:
ews1982 wrote:
Started doing easy at 70% max about a year ago. Had to run walk for about 2 months. Everytime I hit 137 (70%) walk till it dropped to 120. Just kept on going. Now im running 6.30/6.40 a km with an average hartbeat of 132 for an hour running and never over 137 anymore. Im actually really happy and proud of this.
As with a lot in this program: people just need to put there ego to the side.
I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.
Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.
If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?
And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)
What do you mean by "Hadd easy days"? He was a proponent of running under 70% max HR himself for truly easy days. He mentioned 75% on his messages here because he didn't think people would run that slow.
The point of running at a super low intensity on easy days isn't just about recovery, it is about "squeezing the toothpaste from the very bottom" as Hadd himself once said. You are pushing the paces you can run at that super, super easy effort and making every effort above that quicker. When running the subT runs, you're pulling that LT1 up, as well as pushing the LT2 up at the same time. Ultimately your marathon time will be dependent as much on your LT1 as LT2.
The major reason people don't run easy at under 70% max HR is because they can't. If people are as fit as they think they should be able to run at 70% max HR for 2 hours at least and see zero drift. Most can't. Run easy and your form will improve and you'll make absolutely absurd gains.
120 -
confuzi wrote:
Guy looks tired as hell all the time. Nice city to run in though.
He is carrying the weight of being an Ingebrigtsen around on his shoulders all the time.
Also the kids and lack of sunlight don't help
160
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.