kind of an old subject around ‘easy’ day intensity but it always goes back to the same thing:
you do more frequent sub T workouts with a greater spread between the workouts and the non workout days
or
you flatten things out and you are running every day Z2/just under LT1 with intensity added on to those days somewhere (assuming smaller volume of intensity bolted on after
but you cant do both
its no different than the cycling paradigms: if you’ve got the time and appetite to do massive volume maybe its more beneficial and safer for you to do insane amounts of Z2 work for development vs sweetspot
sweetspot is just trying to increase the signal frequency. you shouldnt be then trying to create more noise in your training response by INCREASING the intensity of your non workout days. You are intentionally and knowingly creating a signal which will be accompanied with some fatigue that needs to be cleared.
it’s deceiving if your used to Vo2 workouts but its still there and needs to be respected
Great post. I think this is where sirpoc and Bakken seem to be really on the same page? Basically they both seem to agree, you have to draw a line somewhere. For Bakken and elite running, the parameters are different, for hobby jogging, it's different again.
I see it as not being greedy, something sirpoc brought up in the thread previously. The approach is going to depend on how much time, you have to invest.
I sort of think that hobby joggers should stick with this approach even if they have more time available. Vanilla NSM is for circa 7 hours per week. if you have more time, simply increase the volume of easy running. The only debate is whether to increase the 1 hour easy runs or move to doubles. Run time can go up to circa 10 hours per week. If you want more volume than 10 hours per week, time to think about adding in cycling/elliptical/hill walking etc.
Great post. I think this is where sirpoc and Bakken seem to be really on the same page? Basically they both seem to agree, you have to draw a line somewhere. For Bakken and elite running, the parameters are different, for hobby jogging, it's different again.
I see it as not being greedy, something sirpoc brought up in the thread previously. The approach is going to depend on how much time, you have to invest.
I sort of think that hobby joggers should stick with this approach even if they have more time available. Vanilla NSM is for circa 7 hours per week. if you have more time, simply increase the volume of easy running. The only debate is whether to increase the 1 hour easy runs or move to doubles. Run time can go up to circa 10 hours per week. If you want more volume than 10 hours per week, time to think about adding in cycling/elliptical/hill walking etc.
agree with you both
the principles are the same, the point of departure is what you do with/where do you put the ‘extra’ potential stimulus?
i think its almost unanimous from everyone, bakken and sirpoopy included, it has to be chunked and block with more frequent signals not necessarily larger signals because you only have so much recovery bandwidth to do this safely
bakken is an incredibly conservative person in every way, even though his schedule looked crazy to many the way he’s using this intervention is incredibly conservative is almost every way, especially in the racing period
runners are motivated. that motivation can make you very optimistic. that optimism can make you think youre somewhere youre not — which is the trap when the intensity turns up
Most of our running issues are not in our stars or our constellations but with ourselves. i and many others have made this mistake many times in past, but this approach and Bakkens outlines both seek to save ourselves from our ourselves.
That's exactly what I'm doing. Double E (65-68% MHR) with a total of 80-90 mins (usually 45 AM and 40 PM), 40 mins of Q ST per session 3x per week (4x 10/75s, 10x 4/1, 7x 6/1), and a LR (65-70% MHR) of around 01:45 to 2 Hours.
Then adding in S&C, sweet spot bike sessions and weighted treadmill hill walks/Stair master here and there.
Currently trying to build as big a base as possible before moving over to SirPoc's marathon block mid to late Jan '26.
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.
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
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.
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
lower than normal HR is the fatigue from moving to altitude
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
lower than normal HR is the fatigue from moving to altitude
that will take a little time to sort out
you also bumped your volume 37%
i would take your recovery and adaptation to altitude pretty slowly here, maybe opting to dump some sessions in the short run or at least ramping the overall mileage a bit more slowly
if you haven’t been at altitude previously, you need to be eating and hydrating much more aggressively as well and make sure your iron and ferritin levels aren’t nosediving as your body is overreaching 24/7
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.
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
Dude you answered your own question already:
"I don't know how to separate and evaluate 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."
--
So your HR is very low. If this is associated with high RPE and higher lactate, then you are overextended. Yes, it is the altitude. Yes, it is a mileage jump. Yes, it is your work stress [I have experienced this, I can never get my HR up after a shift]. It is all of them.
You are maintaining performance on short intervals, which sounds like you are hiding from the reality you might be forced to face if you continued to longer intervals.
Bottom line -- dial it back, or you won't improve.
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.
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
Respectfully also no one here is qualified to give medical advice, which is what this question is. A severely low heart rate can be caused by many things - if it persists and concerns you, see a physician. Don’t rely on a letsrun thread.
1960s a professor called John Holloszy got some rats to run on a treadmill for various lengths of time up to 2hrs per day at around 50-75% of the rats' VO2max (easy running, therefore).
Improvements in mitochondria in fast twitch white fibres began while running at 80% VO2max (but not slower, presumably because they were not recruited) and increased exponentially as the pace climbed to 100% VO2max. However improvements in fast twitch red (intermediate) fibres maximised at sub-max paces (85% VO2max) and did not get better with increased speed. And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better.
Why was my 8.00m/m run so difficult? Well, all my training in the 3 months leading up to it had been relatively hard. I had not trained slow enough for my slow twitch fibres to become stimulated to build huge amounts of mitochondria. The intensity of each training run was too high for them to be stimulated optimally to best create mitochondria in themselves (and thus improve).
The more mitochondria, the less lactate at every running pace. But mitochondrial adaptation in each fibre type is training-intensity dependent. If you want to maximise the number of mitochondria in each fibre type, you must train at the correct pace for that type. (remember; the more mitochondria, the less lactate; the less lactate, the faster the racing pace and the more economical you are at any pace, meaning you can keep that pace up for longer.)
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
formatting
1960s a professor called John Holloszy got some rats to run on a treadmill for various lengths of time up to 2hrs per day at around 50-75% of the rats' VO2max (easy running, therefore).
Improvements in mitochondria in fast twitch white fibres began while running at 80% VO2max (but not slower, presumably because they were not recruited) and increased exponentially as the pace climbed to 100% VO2max. However improvements in fast twitch red (intermediate) fibres maximised at sub-max paces (85% VO2max) and did not get better with increased speed. And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better.
Why was my 8.00m/m run so difficult? Well, all my training in the 3 months leading up to it had been relatively hard. I had not trained slow enough for my slow twitch fibres to become stimulated to build huge amounts of mitochondria. The intensity of each training run was too high for them to be stimulated optimally to best create mitochondria in themselves (and thus improve).
The more mitochondria, the less lactate at every running pace. But mitochondrial adaptation in each fibre type is training-intensity dependent. If you want to maximise the number of mitochondria in each fibre type, you must train at the correct pace for that type. (remember; the more mitochondria, the less lactate; the less lactate, the faster the racing pace and the more economical you are at any pace, meaning you can keep that pace up for longer.)
funny, magness just did a video on this old study
coggan, on the other hand, has been taking about this study for over 20 years
This post was edited 50 seconds after it was posted.
1960s a professor called John Holloszy got some rats to run on a treadmill for various lengths of time up to 2hrs per day at around 50-75% of the rats' VO2max (easy running, therefore).
Improvements in mitochondria in fast twitch white fibres began while running at 80% VO2max (but not slower, presumably because they were not recruited) and increased exponentially as the pace climbed to 100% VO2max. However improvements in fast twitch red (intermediate) fibres maximised at sub-max paces (85% VO2max) and did not get better with increased speed. And the best way to cause improvements in slow-twitch fibres was to run long and slow at 70% VO2max (adaptation began from as low as 50% VO2max pace). Faster was not better.
Why was my 8.00m/m run so difficult? Well, all my training in the 3 months leading up to it had been relatively hard. I had not trained slow enough for my slow twitch fibres to become stimulated to build huge amounts of mitochondria. The intensity of each training run was too high for them to be stimulated optimally to best create mitochondria in themselves (and thus improve).
The study mentioned was done by Dudley, not Holloszy.
The influence of intensity and daily duration of exercise on cytochrome c concentration in the three muscle fiber types was assessed in rats that were treadmill trained for 8 wk (5 days/wk) by 1 of 19 protocols. The importanc...
Thanks for the replies. I will dial back all my paces and see how that goes. Also going to get ferritin/iron tested; it had been on the to-do list, but I need to push it up
I think the advice sounds obvious, but it wasn't feeling that way to me: those around me were calling low HR a good sign of improved fitness, and pretty much all of the info on this and other sites describes fatigue as associated with higher than normal HR, not lower. And of course you want to believe it's fitness. So the conflicting advice was driving me crazy.
I'll try this again with a TLDR: Please help me assess a HR that seems abnormally low during workouts.
During a recent 6*5 min workout, my max HR during the workout was 75% of Max, and average during reps was 70% of max. My lactate (4.9 mmol) and RPE indicate it was a much harder run. I am concerned both because 1) this method relies on HR to make adjustments, and 2) worried this is a sign of fatigue.
Other factors: this started after I moved to 7200 ft altitude and bumped mileage from 40 to 55/week.
Almost every thread I've encountered targets the opposite problem--training with HR too high. Any insight into possible causes or what I should do would be welcome.
PS: I am neither greek singles nor oversharing female singles. My main contribution on these threads is advocating for 25*400 reps, and training for the mile.
Probably fatigue. I would try to dial it a bit back, or just see if you can try to rest more outside training and see if it helps.
Furthermore, the largest improvement in the the type I soleus muscle was seen at 83-94% of VO2max, not 62-73%.
Yeah I agree, my understanding has always been that in general more/faster = more adaptations: for example, running at top of Z2 will activate more signaling pathways than jogging. The purpose of 'easy' in NSA however is to get 'some' training benefits whilst actively recovering and regenerating. The session days being where the real magic happens. Running the easy days too hard might get you more benefits in the short term but will likely compromise the hard days and recovery/regeneration over time.
Yeah I agree, my understanding has always been that in general more/faster = more adaptations: for example, running at top of Z2 will activate more signaling pathways than jogging. The purpose of 'easy' in NSA however is to get 'some' training benefits whilst actively recovering and regenerating. The session days being where the real magic happens. Running the easy days too hard might get you more benefits in the short term but will likely compromise the hard days and recovery/regeneration over time.
That's what I was wondering about in my post the other day (#7728) - are the easy days really primarily for recovery between ST sessions (plus a bit of extra load), or are they actually just as important as them?
If so, then you could think of NSA as being essentially Hadd-style (or whatever) low HR training as much as you could think of it as being essentially sub-threshold training. (A third view is that it really doesn't matter how you view it as load is load however it's produced and NSA is just a good way of optimising load versus fatigue/injury.)
I don't know where that puts people who for months on end can trot around slowly on easy days, often nose-breathing, complete all ST sessions with no problem at all, and don't ever feel fatigued. But ... whose HR at the end of easy runs is usually over 80%. They're told they're running easy days too hard and should slow down but - really?
(Thanks for replies to my post, I haven't had time to follow up yet with some numbers but will try to this evening.)
I don't know where that puts people who for months on end can trot around slowly on easy days, often nose-breathing, complete all ST sessions with no problem at all, and don't ever feel fatigued. But ... whose HR at the end of easy runs is usually over 80%. They're told they're running easy days too hard and should slow down but - really?
Regarding the above, if they're finding NSA that easy, i.e. don't feel any fatigue week on week, does that not mean they're not pushing hard enough during workouts? My understanding is that there should always be a small amount of fatigue from the sessions which is why you need to run your easy runs at less than 70% of MHR. To ensure that the fatigue mostly disappears allowing you to complete the next session 48h later. What you have described sounds like that person's load wouldn't be enough and they should be pushing sessions a little harder (in my opinion anyway).
During lockdown, all I did was very easy running everyday. No VO2max or Threshold, just very easy under 75% of max. Because of this I built up to 11 hours per week.
When racing started again, I was in very good shape after 12 months plus of just easy. Stupidly, I then reverted back to traditional training.
I don't know where that puts people who for months on end can trot around slowly on easy days, often nose-breathing, complete all ST sessions with no problem at all, and don't ever feel fatigued. But ... whose HR at the end of easy runs is usually over 80%. They're told they're running easy days too hard and should slow down but - really?
Regarding the above, if they're finding NSA that easy, i.e. don't feel any fatigue week on week, does that not mean they're not pushing hard enough during workouts? My understanding is that there should always be a small amount of fatigue from the sessions which is why you need to run your easy runs at less than 70% of MHR. To ensure that the fatigue mostly disappears allowing you to complete the next session 48h later. What you have described sounds like that person's load wouldn't be enough and they should be pushing sessions a little harder (in my opinion anyway).
Age is always going to be a factor with recovery, It is only when you get older that you appreciate how quickly you recovered when younger,
