As we are now in freezing weather in the UK I've noticed my max HR is around 10bpm lower than it is in normal 10-20 celsius weather.
For people who have ran to HR with this method in previous winters, have you found you have needed to run at an even lower percentage of HR max on easy runs in frosty weather or sub-threshold sessions? My easy run this morning was at 60% of HR max on the same pace as before, though I suspect this is closer to 65% of my "cold-weather HR max".
This weekend I plan to run a Friel test, ideally in close to sub-zero temperatures to find out my LTHR in colder weather, just to make sure I'm not overcooking it over the winter months, I was wondering if others had experienced this before.
From google search:
“Heart rate is typically higher in freezing temperatures because the body works harder to stay warm. Cold weather causes blood vessels in the skin to narrow (vasoconstriction), which increases blood pressure and forces the heart to pump faster to circulate blood and maintain body heat.”
As we are now in freezing weather in the UK I've noticed my max HR is around 10bpm lower than it is in normal 10-20 celsius weather.
For people who have ran to HR with this method in previous winters, have you found you have needed to run at an even lower percentage of HR max on easy runs in frosty weather or sub-threshold sessions? My easy run this morning was at 60% of HR max on the same pace as before, though I suspect this is closer to 65% of my "cold-weather HR max".
This weekend I plan to run a Friel test, ideally in close to sub-zero temperatures to find out my LTHR in colder weather, just to make sure I'm not overcooking it over the winter months, I was wondering if others had experienced this before.
From google search:
“Heart rate is typically higher in freezing temperatures because the body works harder to stay warm. Cold weather causes blood vessels in the skin to narrow (vasoconstriction), which increases blood pressure and forces the heart to pump faster to circulate blood and maintain body heat.”
I know in theory the heartrate should be higher, but that is not my experience, though maybe that's because I don't run in exceptionally cold conditions so don't experience as much vasoconstriction versus drop in body temperature (which would lower heartrate). As a very small and skinny person I wonder if my body temperature drops more in cold weather than a bigger person - larger people have much more volume to work with after all based on the square cube law.
Every time I run an all out 5k my heartrate maxes out at 200-210 bpm without fail, the only exception to this was when I ran in -2C and it peaked at 193. Similarly my easy runs have also been way lower on average for the same pace. If I ran to last week's HR I would have dropped nearly 30 seconds/km on the same HR, which would very quickly get me injured.
This post was edited 30 seconds after it was posted.
Can you recommend any good aliexpress running gear? Also if the book sells well would you consider a Bakken-led altitude camp for your next marathon, that could be all you need to dip under 2:20?
The 361 Degrees Flame Air singlets are pretty good.
Same cut and high end material as just about any kind of elite racing singlet.
Same for me, HR in summer is about 10 bpm higher than in winter for the same pace / effort, even if it's only 5 vs 15 °C or something.
When I tested bLa in different conditions, it didn't change much -- LTHR around 169 in winter and about 171 in summer, basically the same.
So for easy runs, I wouldn't overthink it. Stick to HR unless you actually feel your RPE getting higher than usual.
Do not overthink it guys. Typically between 10-20°C there is the sweetspot to get the lowest HR at the same power/speed. Below that temperature the body has to uphold the core temperature and above the body has to cool down. In both cases HR is increased. (excluding the humidity factor now for the sake of argument)
It depends also on clothing and is individual too, most people are more sensitive to warmer conditions .
Came to this after seeing the joint Jimmy and FOD video. Kind of surprised they would be taken in by this and even crazier than nobody is talking about how this has been done before and Easy Interval Method? Let's show Lok some love. This and whatever 'this' is are basically the same thing.
Came to this after seeing the joint Jimmy and FOD video. Kind of surprised they would be taken in by this and even crazier than nobody is talking about how this has been done before and Easy Interval Method? Let's show Lok some love. This and whatever 'this' is are basically the same thing.
Ah yes, you are the first person ever to point this out in 8000 pages!
OK, sarcasm aside, the two ideas couldn't be much further from each other. If you said this is EIM, you could get away with saying Daniel's is the same as 80/20. Now imagine how silly that sounds.
I've posted about EIM before. I've done it. It absolutely wrecked me. The intensity, especially the short reps, are way harder than anything this method has to offer. Also, there is a lot of steady running which this method doesn't do, that in my opinion, added to the EIMs problems. But also, don't confuse this sirpoc's method for classic polarised training either, because it's not that. In fact, the workout intensity here is what guys like Fitzgerald and Seiler (less these days) would tell you NOT to do and 80/20 also has a really high end on easy running, again way beyond what we are looking at here.
Also, nobody really knows what EIM is based on, Lok just kind of tells you "because it works". You certainly couldn't do that training forever, in theory, which is the whole point of this thresd. Or at least until it doesn't work anymore years down the line. Whereas the sirpoc method is grounded in actual phisiology as well as practicality, of which it sounds like from early reviews from people we trust, is totally covered in the book.
Someone made a great post on Strava yesterday, about how long it took sirpoc to go from mid 19 to 15:30 and then how long it then took to take another 30 seconds off that. The patience actually when you think about it is incredible and if people aren't prepared to dig in for the long haul, I wouldn't even bother with this thread. But, that's also it's strong suit. Others are years into this now, and showing you can keep improving, on an absolute simple level, by just staying healthy and increasing your load over time. But it's balancing a manageable load and intensity that do both of those things, keep you healthy AND enough stimulus to make a difference.
Maybe this is a troll post I'm replying to, but seems a lot of people are saying the same thing in the video comments. There is an argument for saying the majority of most training is the same to some extent, but even in that context, these methods are still very far apart.
Came to this after seeing the joint Jimmy and FOD video. Kind of surprised they would be taken in by this and even crazier than nobody is talking about how this has been done before and Easy Interval Method? Let's show Lok some love. This and whatever 'this' is are basically the same thing.
Ah yes, you are the first person ever to point this out in 8000 pages!
OK, sarcasm aside, the two ideas couldn't be much further from each other. If you said this is EIM, you could get away with saying Daniel's is the same as 80/20. Now imagine how silly that sounds.
I've posted about EIM before. I've done it. It absolutely wrecked me. The intensity, especially the short reps, are way harder than anything this method has to offer. Also, there is a lot of steady running which this method doesn't do, that in my opinion, added to the EIMs problems. But also, don't confuse this sirpoc's method for classic polarised training either, because it's not that. In fact, the workout intensity here is what guys like Fitzgerald and Seiler (less these days) would tell you NOT to do and 80/20 also has a really high end on easy running, again way beyond what we are looking at here.
Also, nobody really knows what EIM is based on, Lok just kind of tells you "because it works". You certainly couldn't do that training forever, in theory, which is the whole point of this thresd. Or at least until it doesn't work anymore years down the line. Whereas the sirpoc method is grounded in actual phisiology as well as practicality, of which it sounds like from early reviews from people we trust, is totally covered in the book.
Someone made a great post on Strava yesterday, about how long it took sirpoc to go from mid 19 to 15:30 and then how long it then took to take another 30 seconds off that. The patience actually when you think about it is incredible and if people aren't prepared to dig in for the long haul, I wouldn't even bother with this thread. But, that's also it's strong suit. Others are years into this now, and showing you can keep improving, on an absolute simple level, by just staying healthy and increasing your load over time. But it's balancing a manageable load and intensity that do both of those things, keep you healthy AND enough stimulus to make a difference.
Maybe this is a troll post I'm replying to, but seems a lot of people are saying the same thing in the video comments. There is an argument for saying the majority of most training is the same to some extent, but even in that context, these methods are still very far apart.
Yeah I'm 8 weeks in and I am just starting to notice my fitness slowly improve and being able to main paces with less laboured breathing.
I think some recreational runners can handle more than eight hours of training per week, with around ten hours probably being the upper limit. In that case, is a Threshold-in-Singles approach still appropriate?
I’m currently testing this myself and have extended my easy runs to about 80 minutes. To balance that out, I had to reduce the pace during threshold runs slightly.
Runner P. Lutrell seems to train at a very high volume (around 130–140 km per week?) but maintains roughly three threshold sessions of about 8 km each. His easy runs are done as double sessions. I’m still unsure how to apply the core principles of NSM to someone aiming to run ten hours per week exclusively in single sessions.
I’m not sure why anyone would really consider extending this method out to 10 hours unless they had to. For most, it is likely to be unnecessary and just load them with fatigue.
You would want to be confident that you have exhausted all the gains before adding that amount of extra volume. 80 minute “easy” runs will absolutely impact your week and not necessarily for the better.
When sirpoc mentioned possibly adding extra, like sessions on the bike, he stressed that was only after 2 years and having got as far and he can.
I quite like FOD, except the for inane thumbnails which make him look totally gormless.
But how on earth is anyone taken in by him doing this singles approach? He’s literally doing doubles, does his long runs too fast (always has done), and does lots of other things on top of vanilla NSA. Seems he’s jumped on the bandwagon, puts NSA in his video titles for the views…but is far from doing the approach. I don’t get it.
I just came off a marathon block doing double thresholds on Tu/Th. I was running about 10.5 hours per week. Now I'm back on singles, doing 3x1h easy, 3x48m sub-T, and 2.5h easy long. It's about 10 hours and my time in the mornings is almost identical to when I was doing doubles. Anything more than this though, and its back to doubles for me.
Personally, I think about what sirpoc has mentioned is around the limit. In the +9 hours range, doubles is probably the next step.
I think the beauty of this thread is basically we have 4.5 hours up to almost elite, with following a linear path from sirpoc, the cut off point around 9 hours give or take, then moving onto Bakken doubles. You could probably take half a decade of training to get from the bottom end of sirpoc, up to Bakken.
Can you recommend any good aliexpress running gear? Also if the book sells well would you consider a Bakken-led altitude camp for your next marathon, that could be all you need to dip under 2:20?
The 361 Degrees Flame Air singlets are pretty good.
Same cut and high end material as just about any kind of elite racing singlet.
How is the sizing for the 361 Degree clothing? I couldn't find a size chart anywhere, and some of the Chinese clothes can literally be EU M = China XXL. I saw one comment on Aliexpress that the sizing is the same as EU sizing, but I would rather prefer to have that confirmed.
I’m not sure why anyone would really consider extending this method out to 10 hours unless they had to. For most, it is likely to be unnecessary and just load them with fatigue.
You would want to be confident that you have exhausted all the gains before adding that amount of extra volume. 80 minute “easy” runs will absolutely impact your week and not necessarily for the better.
When sirpoc mentioned possibly adding extra, like sessions on the bike, he stressed that was only after 2 years and having got as far and he can.
I enjoy running and have a bit more time in the mornings than the usual 60 minutes. As long as my main workouts don’t suffer, I plan to extend my daily runs to about 80 to 90 minutes, plus the long run. The increased volume will be entirely in Zone 1 (65–70% of max HR), which should serve as low-hanging fruit for further aerobic improvements.
Came to this after seeing the joint Jimmy and FOD video. Kind of surprised they would be taken in by this and even crazier than nobody is talking about how this has been done before and Easy Interval Method? Let's show Lok some love. This and whatever 'this' is are basically the same thing.
Ah yes, you are the first person ever to point this out in 8000 pages!
OK, sarcasm aside, the two ideas couldn't be much further from each other. If you said this is EIM, you could get away with saying Daniel's is the same as 80/20. Now imagine how silly that sounds.
I've posted about EIM before. I've done it. It absolutely wrecked me. The intensity, especially the short reps, are way harder than anything this method has to offer. Also, there is a lot of steady running which this method doesn't do, that in my opinion, added to the EIMs problems. But also, don't confuse this sirpoc's method for classic polarised training either, because it's not that. In fact, the workout intensity here is what guys like Fitzgerald and Seiler (less these days) would tell you NOT to do and 80/20 also has a really high end on easy running, again way beyond what we are looking at here.
Also, nobody really knows what EIM is based on, Lok just kind of tells you "because it works". You certainly couldn't do that training forever, in theory, which is the whole point of this thresd. Or at least until it doesn't work anymore years down the line. Whereas the sirpoc method is grounded in actual phisiology as well as practicality, of which it sounds like from early reviews from people we trust, is totally covered in the book.
Someone made a great post on Strava yesterday, about how long it took sirpoc to go from mid 19 to 15:30 and then how long it then took to take another 30 seconds off that. The patience actually when you think about it is incredible and if people aren't prepared to dig in for the long haul, I wouldn't even bother with this thread. But, that's also it's strong suit. Others are years into this now, and showing you can keep improving, on an absolute simple level, by just staying healthy and increasing your load over time. But it's balancing a manageable load and intensity that do both of those things, keep you healthy AND enough stimulus to make a difference.
Maybe this is a troll post I'm replying to, but seems a lot of people are saying the same thing in the video comments. There is an argument for saying the majority of most training is the same to some extent, but even in that context, these methods are still very far apart.
Lok says in his book that a 30 minute 10k runner should do his 400m reps at 69-75 seconds. That certainly isn't fast for a 30 minute runner. Also he never has more than one steady run each week.
Lok says in his book that a 30 minute 10k runner should do his 400m reps at 69-75 seconds. That certainly isn't fast for a 30 minute runner. Also he never has more than one steady run each week.
The EIM is quite hard to follow, it's not very well explained in my opinion and a lot of the stuff Lok has contradicted elsewhere. For example, I've heard him say 400s around 5k pace or 200s around mile pace. That's obviously far too hard. To me, it's main flaw is not the intensity, but also the regularity. That's where the sirpoc layout is better. Another notch off the intensity mechanically, but also spread across the week to recover in-between. I just couldn't manage 5 times a week, even with less time per day. Condensing it into 3, but at an intensity manageable over time is the much smarter and less risky move, in my opinion.
You would want to be confident that you have exhausted all the gains before adding that amount of extra volume.
How would one be confident that all the gains are exhausted? Long time plateau?
I always see sirpoc also talking about this but I'm never clear about what criteria you can assess this on
I'd love a more detailed explanation to know that, not only on the years down the line (limit of singles) but also when it's time to increase easy mileage or Sub T duration (90 min+). Knowing when it's "normal stagnation" vs. time to increase
Andy did explain on the video that his circumstances don't allow him to follow the vanilla 7 days a week program. I think that's why he does double workout days. I think (without wishing to speak on his behalf) he tries to apply the principles of lots of subthreshold volume and genuine easy running into the time he has available each week.
Sorry for the thumbnails, its my only thing where I "play the game" on youtube because ultimately, you can produce the best content in the world but if nobody clicks on it because they cant find it, it will never get seen. Its my least favourite part of youtube, but needs must.
I dont want to plug my own video, but if you watch todays video, I address exactly the point you raised. I get lots of messages saying how I am following the NSA method and doing really well, so todays video clarifies this... I have broken my training into 2 blocks recently, a double t block and a single t block... the common theme is they both contain roughly 30/34k threshold a week, just structured slightly differently so that during a "base phase", I get hills in on a Saturday and when I move into a single t block (more like NSA) the hills get left behind but I do keep strides in.
Hopefully that clarifies things... if you do end up watching the video and have any questions, please ask as I am happy to answer! No clickbait intended and I appreciate that you "quite like me" :-D
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.