Regarding sessions, has anyone ever played with the scheduling of session durations such as the following:
Week 1 Tuesday: 10-12 x 3 mins Thursday: 6-7 x 6 mins Saturday: 4-5 x 9 mins
Week 2 Tuesday: 3-4 x 12 mins Thursday: 3 x 15 mins Saturday: 2-3 x 18 mins (probably more towards LT1 effort rather than closer to LT2)
Week 3 then repeats as per Week 1, Week 4 as per Week 2 etc.. There would be no change to the recovery runs and long runs compared to vanilla NSA.
This would allow you to work across a wider range of paces and time spent at ST per rep, and also add a bit of variety in mixing up what is done week to week.
People focussing on longer distances (HM and M) could potentially drop the 3 min reps and replace with 2x 21 mins, as could those focussing on 5K/10K distances could drop the 18 min reps and do 20-24 x 60s / 400m (I know SirPoc has recently re-attempted these and still feels the mechanical load is too high, so there is a cost/benefit issue here).
I'm not proposing any changes to the way you run the session i.e. always run ST with a rest (static/walk/slow jog - your choice) of 60s to 3 mins, just interested in if anyone works across a broader range of rep durations?
A lot of people seem to want to push the SubT up further and further but if you look at Sirpoc's training he generally sticks at about 90 mins for the week.
No he's not. There's this perception that Sirpoc keeps it vanilla, but like someone pointed out early, he's one of the least vanilla people here.
Last week he did 3 x 5k, 25 x 400, 12 x 800. Plus 3 x 10 on the bike twice. Probably closer to 110 min on running alone.
Week before 3 x 3200, 3 x 4k, 10 x 1k plus 6 x 5, 3 x 10 on the bike.
So 6 different running workout rep lengths in 2 weeks, & above 90 min.
No he's not. There's this perception that Sirpoc keeps it vanilla, but like someone pointed out early, he's one of the least vanilla people here.
Last week he did 3 x 5k, 25 x 400, 12 x 800. Plus 3 x 10 on the bike twice. Probably closer to 110 min on running alone.
Week before 3 x 3200, 3 x 4k, 10 x 1k plus 6 x 5, 3 x 10 on the bike.
So 6 different running workout rep lengths in 2 weeks, & above 90 min.
I think you are probably both right. But you have to put into context how sirpoc basically did the same thing, every week more or less for two years. From his previous posts, he's even suggested himself he's completed vanilla NSM and looking for the final bit he can squeeze.
Most of the rest of us are way further back down the curve and that's fine. But you have to pitch it to yourself where you are. Maybe years of vanilla, you look to move outside. But from 2023 to early 2025 there was almost no variation. That's how long the base/maxing out vanilla was. An insane amount of time when you think about it in the context of other training. Until you are finally forced to try something else, to increase load.
Starting to feel like we need a Chinese shoe guide. Been following a couple of shoetubers (one Chinese, one Australian) but there's so many different versions out there... Expedition 6 looks nice though, gonna check them out.
Starting to feel like we need a Chinese shoe guide. Been following a couple of shoetubers (one Chinese, one Australian) but there's so many different versions out there... Expedition 6 looks nice though, gonna check them out.
Maybe Bester needs to abandon adidas and embrace Sirpoc by getting sponsored by Do-win?
Check out the Dynafish Big Fish 1.0. It's like a Superblast but uses TPEE as the midsole, similar the EVO SL.
A lot of people seem to want to push the SubT up further and further but if you look at Sirpoc's training he generally sticks at about 90 mins for the week.
No he's not. There's this perception that Sirpoc keeps it vanilla, but like someone pointed out early, he's one of the least vanilla people here.
Last week he did 3 x 5k, 25 x 400, 12 x 800. Plus 3 x 10 on the bike twice. Probably closer to 110 min on running alone.
Week before 3 x 3200, 3 x 4k, 10 x 1k plus 6 x 5, 3 x 10 on the bike.
So 6 different running workout rep lengths in 2 weeks, & above 90 min.
Maybe he is in another experimental phase? A vanilla for the more advanced runner?
Maybe worth noting that since the start of the thread, sirpoc is faster by enough that the time at sub-threshold is a bit shorter for the same session. 10x1k at the beginning of the thread when he ran ~17'27" 5k is gonna be a few minutes longer total than 10x1k before running around 15 flat.
Maybe worth noting that since the start of the thread, sirpoc is faster by enough that the time at sub-threshold is a bit shorter for the same session. 10x1k at the beginning of the thread when he ran ~17'27" 5k is gonna be a few minutes longer total than 10x1k before running around 15 flat.
How would this impact load?
If you run 8 hours a week every week, and keep to roughly the same 70% max HR for easy and 85% max for subT, after a year you'd be running more mileage but, in theory at a similar intensity for the same amount of time.
This post was edited 41 seconds after it was posted.
Could somebody explain why this method works so well even for distances of 5k and below, without doing any strides? To be clear, I’m fully bought in. As somebody who went through the collegiate NCAA system, the need for strides/hill sprints has been drilled into my soul. The fact that somebody several pages back mentioned that they’ve run 4:20 in the mile and 2:00 for 800 (I believe as a masters runner, too) without doing any strides doesn’t make sense to me. But the results clearly speak for themself. I’m not saying anybody should add them in. I’m just wondering why everybody can run so fast without them.
The fact that somebody several pages back mentioned that they’ve run 4:20 in the mile and 2:00 for 800 (I believe as a masters runner, too) without doing any strides doesn’t make sense to me. But the results clearly speak for themself. I’m not saying anybody should add them in. I’m just wondering why everybody can run so fast without them.
You need to keep in mind that a lot of these NSA runners, like sirpoc (or I suppose myself), were already decent runners when they got on NSA.
It is not that hard to think that even a former 1:5x or even ~2:0x 800 guy (or equivalent 1500/mile) could go on run a nice mile time with NSA alone.
But no, if you're starting as a 25-minute runner in the 5k with no faster background (or fast running in other sports), you aren't getting down to a 4:20 mile off of tempos.
I think the neuromuscular aspect is very important in running. I think that Strides should be included, but have bowed to the greater wisdom on this thread. The argument against them, AFAIU, is they increase injury risk as the training load is essentially maxed out.
Sirpoc obviously doesn’t need them, as his cadence is over 200, even at an easy pace.
To those who have had improvement without Strides, the question could be turned around. How faster would they have been with them?
With all due respect, if sirpoc says they are good that works for me. We had posts 2+ years ago saying if you trained like him, you'd go nowhere. Thank god I didn't listen to those "in the know" horror stories, or I wouldn't have set new PBs at every distance from 1500 to a marathon. I'm willing to stick my neck out and say if he speaks out publically about shoes, he's gonna be pretty sure he's right.
The guy is just always ahead of the curve. Being UK based and having rode some time trials, sirpoc is like an urban legend with a small group aeroheads as well. I don't think people quite realise just how crazy aerodynamic this guy was, self taught well over a decade ago before anyone even really cared. I spoke to someone who rode for his old club and he supposedly turned down offers financially from guys to aero upgrade them and just did it for free. Whether that is true or not, all adds to the legend.
Don't want to blow smoke up his rear end as he doesn't seem to like the attention (I don't know the guy on a personal level) but he probably has one of those really practical brains that just can problem solve, hence this whole thing has gotten to 400 pages, a book, a thriving Reddit community, 5k Strava users.
Add me to the list of wondering what shirtboy thinks if he's read a book draft. Also, wonder what happened to some of the old posters? Jiggy? Hard2find?. I'm more of a long time listener, I've maybe posted once before. Gone from 20:30 pb to 17:2x on this method in 18 months. Was running for 7.5 years previously, now in my late 30s. My running always sucked compared to my bike, even if I just did a year running as focus with token bike. Which I have done for over a year now and had the big breakthrough.
To round off my view on the Chinese shoes, I just went with what sirpoc said and got a pair of do-win PB 3 for £38 and a pair of challengers for £60 and for £98 + £7 postage I couldn't be happier. The pb 3 is nice foam, nice rocker, if not a little basic shoe. But super foam for £38. You can hardly complain! The challenger is probably worth double the price, if you consider it's probably faster than even the saucony Endorphin pro. I would probably say it even trumps the deviate nitro elite 3! Which in itself is an awesome shoe.
What was your mileage base? 20:30 to 17:2x in 1.5 years? That's insane...did you do pure vanilla NSM? Biking helped though probably.
Regarding sessions, has anyone ever played with the scheduling of session durations such as the following:
Week 1 Tuesday: 10-12 x 3 mins Thursday: 6-7 x 6 mins Saturday: 4-5 x 9 mins
Week 2 Tuesday: 3-4 x 12 mins Thursday: 3 x 15 mins Saturday: 2-3 x 18 mins (probably more towards LT1 effort rather than closer to LT2)
Week 3 then repeats as per Week 1, Week 4 as per Week 2 etc.. There would be no change to the recovery runs and long runs compared to vanilla NSA.
This would allow you to work across a wider range of paces and time spent at ST per rep, and also add a bit of variety in mixing up what is done week to week.
People focussing on longer distances (HM and M) could potentially drop the 3 min reps and replace with 2x 21 mins, as could those focussing on 5K/10K distances could drop the 18 min reps and do 20-24 x 60s / 400m (I know SirPoc has recently re-attempted these and still feels the mechanical load is too high, so there is a cost/benefit issue here).
I'm not proposing any changes to the way you run the session i.e. always run ST with a rest (static/walk/slow jog - your choice) of 60s to 3 mins, just interested in if anyone works across a broader range of rep durations?
I have done this. I think the issue is it started to get complicated. You have a wider range of places, intensities to dial in. It's totally possible with lactate testing etc, but then you also have the fact it becomes less plug and play where you just do your training and forget about it.
I also noticed no difference, going from vanilla, to playing around with it and back to vanilla. The amount of expected to improvement based on load and sirpoc guidelines, was the same anyway.
I think here's a clear pattern, the guys who have had best success like this have kept it vanilla. That isn't to say another approach can't work, but you risk changing stuff for the sake of it or hitting the wrong intensities by mistake and drifting away from the idea of the training. You then also have the fact of how long can you sustain it for, how much have we changed the mechanical stresses? That is a huge factor overlooked my some.
I actually firmly put myself in the camp of "I can make this better". Then quickly found out, I probably can't. Or at least there's not the body of evidence to say there's huge value in playing around with the balance. I think that's the incredible part of this. We haven't really shifted too much from the original goal posts, over two years ago. Just about everyone with an ego has come along, including me and said this is how you make it better. But, never actually provided hard evidence.
I really love the debate though, it's all quite interesting. But even you have Bakken basically saying for hobby joggers, sirpoc has basically cracked it.
I do however, change my views when you have probably maxed out what you can do on vanilla. That is a different scenario. Totally. But, other than sirpoc graduating his own system, there's barely anyone else who has reached that point. Seemingly, he's already working on the next level, or what to do next on hobby hours - as you have quite a jump I feel to basically training like Bakken. So he's at the grey area in-between.
Just my feelings, long time reader and felt I would just dish up my thoughts.
I'm glad Sirpoc was actually able to communicate with Bakken. When he first came onto the thread I don't think he had realized who he was at that point--I may be wrong, correct me!
The fact that somebody several pages back mentioned that they’ve run 4:20 in the mile and 2:00 for 800 (I believe as a masters runner, too) without doing any strides doesn’t make sense to me. But the results clearly speak for themself. I’m not saying anybody should add them in. I’m just wondering why everybody can run so fast without them.
You need to keep in mind that a lot of these NSA runners, like sirpoc (or I suppose myself), were already decent runners when they got on NSA.
It is not that hard to think that even a former 1:5x or even ~2:0x 800 guy (or equivalent 1500/mile) could go on run a nice mile time with NSA alone.
But no, if you're starting as a 25-minute runner in the 5k with no faster background (or fast running in other sports), you aren't getting down to a 4:20 mile off of tempos.
True! That said, a 25 5k runner can still use this. They are about a 52 10k, 1:55 13.1, 3:55-4-ish full runner at baseline before starting this program. I think they could get down to something like 22/46/1:43/3:40 in a year or so doing VANILLA NSM--3 ST, 3 EZ, 1 90-120 EZ LR (if it is a marathon build)
The fact that somebody several pages back mentioned that they’ve run 4:20 in the mile and 2:00 for 800 (I believe as a masters runner, too) without doing any strides doesn’t make sense to me. But the results clearly speak for themself. I’m not saying anybody should add them in. I’m just wondering why everybody can run so fast without them.
You need to keep in mind that a lot of these NSA runners, like sirpoc (or I suppose myself), were already decent runners when they got on NSA.
It is not that hard to think that even a former 1:5x or even ~2:0x 800 guy (or equivalent 1500/mile) could go on run a nice mile time with NSA alone.
But no, if you're starting as a 25-minute runner in the 5k with no faster background (or fast running in other sports), you aren't getting down to a 4:20 mile off of tempos.
I have read that book. Its nothing about the NSA. Its a lts a lot of history and stories about norwegian triathlon athletes. ANd a little about the double threshold thinking. I didn't like the book, didnt give me so much.
Could somebody explain why this method works so well even for distances of 5k and below, without doing any strides? To be clear, I’m fully bought in. As somebody who went through the collegiate NCAA system, the need for strides/hill sprints has been drilled into my soul. The fact that somebody several pages back mentioned that they’ve run 4:20 in the mile and 2:00 for 800 (I believe as a masters runner, too) without doing any strides doesn’t make sense to me. But the results clearly speak for themself. I’m not saying anybody should add them in. I’m just wondering why everybody can run so fast without them.
Because they aren't as important as you think they are. They are just much further down the list of things to worry about, or that'll make the biggest difference. Think of it in terms of they might make 1% difference, but add 2% risk, to make some figures up. But you can train like this, make more than 1% difference, minimise risk whilst worrying about other things.
As an older runner, one thing I have realised is most of the stuff I was taught as a younger runner, was either wrong or at worst outdated these days. It's hard to change ones thinking, though.
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.