I'd say it's possible, in my experience it's easier to push HR to a high percentage of maximum even if out of shape as long as your legs are fresh. I'm curious to hear from others about how exact the 30 minute LTHR test is in respect to using that HR as a guide for sub threshold training?
Side note, first time I have "raced" ( park run) back to back weeks in a long time. Today was the first time I have felt a little tired in a while. I think it shows how much when you are above threshold, the amount it fatigues you is pretty unreasonable. I did PB, so it was worth it. A side note to the side note, has anyone ever actually tested lactate at the end of a 5k? I mean I doubt I could get the test strip out of the wrapper, to be honest. I'm just curious, that's all.
I can't imagine being able to, but I've read a study which evaluated a group of runners for their lactate numbers after 5K attempts both over-ground and on the treadmill. I'll try to find that one.
Meanwhile, here is another study that evaluated the effect of different warm ups (high intensity vs low intensity) on 5000m performance:
"For BLa, a significant increase was found when comparing the post warm-up vs. post 5000 m time trial (HIWU: 3.5 ± 1.0 mmol·L-1 vs. 13.7 ± 5.1 mmol·L-1; p < 0.001; LIWU: 2.3 ± 1.0 mmol·L-1 vs. 13.0 ± 4.8 mmol·L-1; p < 0.001). When comparing the two conditions, we identified a significant difference only in the post warm-up comparison (p = 0.02) (Figure 5)."
Regarding the Friel LTHR test where you run a 30 minute time trial, i.e. as hard as possible for 30 minutes, I don't think that's accurate. For example, yesterday KI ran 5 x 2000m at 16.7 kph or 3:35 per km with a lactate reading of 1.9. If he were to run a 30 minute time trial I predict he could run 3:30 per km or faster and his average HR for the last 20 minutes would be considerably higher than what it was for the 2000m intervals.
I think you confused what is happening here. Of course his last 20 mins of Friel test would be higher than is in the 2k interval. He is running 2k below threshold , so this is total normal. For 1.9 this is easy for him, is HR is going to be quite a bit under threshold.
KI can run 30 mins TT if he had to in 3:18-20 km. So much faster than you predict. Remember you finding our your true LTHR in training situation so know cap of what not go over in training.
People you must remember. The guys in this thread talk sub threshold. That is very key.
Regarding the Friel LTHR test where you run a 30 minute time trial, i.e. as hard as possible for 30 minutes, I don't think that's accurate. For example, yesterday KI ran 5 x 2000m at 16.7 kph or 3:35 per km with a lactate reading of 1.9. If he were to run a 30 minute time trial I predict he could run 3:30 per km or faster and his average HR for the last 20 minutes would be considerably higher than what it was for the 2000m intervals.
KI can run 30 mins TT if he had to in 3:18-20 km. So much faster than you predict. Remember you finding our your true LTHR in training situation so know cap of what not go over in training.
People you must remember. The guys in this thread talk sub threshold. That is very key.
Precisely. He averaged 3:29/km for a half marathon.
KI can run 30 mins TT if he had to in 3:18-20 km. So much faster than you predict. Remember you finding our your true LTHR in training situation so know cap of what not go over in training.
People you must remember. The guys in this thread talk sub threshold. That is very key.
Precisely. He averaged 3:29/km for a half marathon.
I agree, was being conservative saying 3:30/km. I'm saying that if using heart rate to guide the effort of sub threshold intervals you need to be way under the LTHR number from the Friel test to get 1.9 lactate at the end of the fifth 2000 that KI got. His peak HR at the end of a 3:35/km 2000 is going to be a lot lower than his last 20 minute average for a 30 minute run at 3:20/km. So what percentage HR of the Friel test number would I use to get 1.9 lactate at the end of sub threshold intervals?
This reminds me of a Toto Wolff quote. The biggest danger in high performance is doing things a certain way, because that's how you've always done them.
This has certainly made me think there is a different way, to have I've always done them as a runner.
To poster above, aim for Friel sub threshold HR zone for all your running if you are going to use HR.
Precisely. He averaged 3:29/km for a half marathon.
I agree, was being conservative saying 3:30/km. I'm saying that if using heart rate to guide the effort of sub threshold intervals you need to be way under the LTHR number from the Friel test to get 1.9 lactate at the end of the fifth 2000 that KI got. His peak HR at the end of a 3:35/km 2000 is going to be a lot lower than his last 20 minute average for a 30 minute run at 3:20/km. So what percentage HR of the Friel test number would I use to get 1.9 lactate at the end of sub threshold intervals?
It is very hard to say that this HR is equal to 1.9mmol and I follow, you must understand that it is varaible and every day different. You can study KI strava logs.
From own experience: every week -2s pace faster, mmol same target, and HR playing around, so how do you just follow only HR/pace in this case? Need device, at least in the beginning, than you will understand how it works by comparing and analysing data from all points: lactate, pace, HR, feeling in legs, and so on. Who evere tested yourself many times by device later may precisely predict lactate without device, but anyway it needed during a different phase of your training: early stages-on body reaction, middle stages-another body reaction, peak season-completely different reaction, everything is matter
I understand that we use "model" modification for low mileage hobby joggers and want to avoid using device, subthreshold workouts... in this case better to use normal training models, than halfway double thresholds without device.
I understand that we use "model" modification for low mileage hobby joggers and want to avoid using device, subthreshold workouts... in this case better to use normal training models, than halfway double thresholds without device.
Slava, this thread is NOT about double thresholds. Quiet the opposite actually.
It is about running as much safe sub threshold volume on limited time/mileage.
It's truly remarkable that we have guys like Slava, JS etc. to randomly add their expertise, as if this stuff hasn't been covered in the previous 40 pages.
Or guys who have no idea what sub threshold means. No wonder only the few with in depth understanding of the training process are finding the success with it.
As a side note, that workout from KI was much lighter than some or many of his recent workouts because he is recovering from illness.
I’ve been using HR for this because I’m using a treadmill to control pace. Rather than use a Friel test, if you have been running for a while you can probably estimate a ballpark of where your threshold is. Then just target a bit lower than that…and see if your training is repeatable. If it seems too easy after a week or 2…increase the pace just a little. If you focus on gradual, long-term progression of both pace and volume…you’ll get to where you want to be.
I understand that we use "model" modification for low mileage hobby joggers and want to avoid using device, subthreshold workouts... in this case better to use normal training models, than halfway double thresholds without device.
Slava, this thread is NOT about double thresholds. Quiet the opposite actually.
It is about running as much safe sub threshold volume on limited time/mileage.
Of course, but 1.0÷2.0 mmol all subthreshold, how to run? :). Just buy a device, test yourself and that's it. You have it, but many runners don't and everytime try to compare "magic numbers" with everything what is not. I just tell from my jogger experience, that there is no good correlation between those numbers and real lactate value, especially when we are joggers (underdeveloped, undertrained, beginning our journey, etc.), it is incorrect to say that sub-elite, elite runners have a good correlation and that is why me too must have. 👐
What's the point to run 5x6min or something similar by HRavg=158 (my threshold 165), when lactate that day says 2.5 mmol, but after 5 weeks says 1.7 mmol. In first case: overshoot, in the last case underperform? 😆 And calculator says that 158 should be ok. Somebody said here a "golden words": threshold is not a pace.
First my threshold sessions with lactate tests where shocked me, when you should run 10beats slower than what you expect even if you calculated more than less everything correctly...😏
This post was edited 17 minutes after it was posted.
Of course, but 1.0÷2.0 mmol all subthreshold, how to run? :). Just buy a device, test yourself and that's it. You have it, but many runners don't and everytime try to compare "magic numbers" with everything what is not. I just tell from my jogger experience, that there is no good correlation between those numbers and real lactate value, especially when we are joggers (underdeveloped, undertrained, beginning our journey, etc.), it is incorrect to say that sub-elite, elite runners have a good correlation and that is why me too must have. 👐
What's the point to run 5x6min or something similar by HRavg=158 (my threshold 165), when lactate that day says 2.5 mmol, but after 5 weeks says 1.7 mmol. In first case: overshoot, in the last case underperform? 😆 And calculator says that 158 should be ok. Somebody said here a "golden words": threshold is not a pace.
First my threshold sessions with lactate tests where shocked me, when you should run 10beats slower than what you expect even if you calculated more than less everything correctly...😏
Slava. This is where you continue to just not listen. Or learn. Just like your absolute car crash of a thread. You have no idea week to week, because you had no idea where your fitness was as you refused at every attempt to race or even time trial.
Real sirpoc posts in this thread. He tested a few times, sure. But then he raced. He adjusted his zones and the % of his new pb, guess what? His lactate was around the same again, for same % of the new pace. Obviously not perfect, but gets you within a good range. From that experience, plus a lot of others, the evidence suggests anywhere under LTHR is probably as good a guide a hobby jogger needs to start of this system. The Friel sub t zone will be as good as most hobby jogger needs. After 5 weeks of course your lactate could be less, for around the same pace. Obviously a number of factors. But you are too stubborn and clown shoes to realise your data is almost absolutely meaningless for context, you of course knew lactate readings but at virtually no point did you ever know your actual fitness to compare it to. Worthless.
This thread has gone into amazing in depth detail I would argue, that is 10x better approach than the pure trash and nonsense you were doing. We have consistent paces, with a decent window to increase or decrease paces if needed, we have a great system that was new to most of us runners ( maybe not the ex cyclist or Tri guys with ctl) that allows us to monitor training load. You, were basically , stabbing in that dark and now trying to turn this thread into garbage. What you actually know about training, I could write onto the back of a euro coin. You turn up late, when all of this has already been covered, much like your old coach and you add nothing. I think maybe his sociopath way and having to always be right and not listen to others has rubbed off on you. Both seriously weird dudes.
As a side note, that workout from KI was much lighter than some or many of his recent workouts because he is recovering from illness.
I’ve been using HR for this because I’m using a treadmill to control pace. Rather than use a Friel test, if you have been running for a while you can probably estimate a ballpark of where your threshold is. Then just target a bit lower than that…and see if your training is repeatable. If it seems too easy after a week or 2…increase the pace just a little. If you focus on gradual, long-term progression of both pace and volume…you’ll get to where you want to be.
+1
On that workout, 5 x 2000m, KI runs at 3:35/km for 1.9 lactate, so a lighter workout at closer to his possible marathon race pace. Would it not be better to use my marathon race pace as a guide for a similar sub threshold workout than to use heart rate?
It feels good to be back here! After taking a decade-long hiatus from running due to getting married, putting on some weight, and transitioning to a work-from-home lifestyle, I've finally laced up my shoes again.
Over the years, I've made multiple attempts to get back on track (pun intended!). But they were always short-lived due to recurring calf and Achilles issues. This year I shed some weight with a bicycle tour from Portugal to Germany, and am now in the 5th week of "training" -- if that even counts as such.
What always nagged me: ~15-10 years ago I ran my 1500m PB only about 2 weeks after my HM PB (with a "classic" HM buildup). (These PBs were <1:19 and <4:31), with previous 2-3 years of solid 4000k per year.
So when I consulted letsrun I was delighted to find this thread. Especially that I always told my wife that cyclists have so much better data to base their training on than runners.
Count me in!
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
It feels good to be back here! After taking a decade-long hiatus from running due to getting married, putting on some weight, and transitioning to a work-from-home lifestyle, I've finally laced up my shoes again.
Over the years, I've made multiple attempts to get back on track (pun intended!). But they were always short-lived due to recurring calf and Achilles issues. This year I shed some weight with a bicycle tour from Portugal to Germany, and am now in the 5th week of "training" -- if that even counts as such.
What always nagged me: ~15-10 years ago I ran my 1500m PB only about 2 weeks after my HM PB (with a "classic" HM buildup). (These PBs were <1:19 and <4:31), with previous 2-3 years of solid 4000k per year.
So when I consulted letsrun I was delighted to find this thread. Especially that I always told my wife that cyclists have so much better data to base their training on than runners.
Count me in!
Good luck. I have just started back out myself so very similar. I have learned a lot from this thread. It's very interesting that sirpoc clearly was a sub/ elite cyclist it seems but has now managed to transfer some of those metrics to running. I think it could be incredibly useful and I'm glad to have stumbled on this thread. I would recommend adding him on Strava , he's not hard to find if you also see his telegram name he shared here and find him on KI's page. It's very good to see these two guys in particular are basically doing the same thing. I was reassured to see this really was all they were doing and there's no secret tricks to the system. Just a lot of the same, week after week month after month with slow, but very consistent progress most hobby joggers would be delighted with!
@Sirpoc Out of curiosity, what were your debates (or points of contention) with Coggan about? Were they in relation to the rate of increase of the TSS function and how it doesn't impose more stress for workouts beyond LT? This is something I'd point out if really analyzing the system. The fact that TSS gives fairly equal weight to intensity factor values between 0.9 and 1.1, even though the stress and effort at greater than 1 really starts to build up quickly. This is what I would call the relative flatness of the equivalency curve of the TSS function haha
What's the point to run 5x6min or something similar by HRavg=158 (my threshold 165), when lactate that day says 2.5 mmol, but after 5 weeks says 1.7 mmol. In first case: overshoot, in the last case underperform? 😆 And calculator says that 158 should be ok. Somebody said here a "golden words": threshold is not a pace.
After 5 weeks, if the lactate drops that much, the pace at heart rate is going to increase, but I guess that’s too difficult for you to comprehend.
TSS assigning more points per minute at every intensity factor is not an issue. Point values are arbitrary, as long as you understand them in the context of the system you’re using. More important is the shape of the curve, i...
I understand that we use "model" modification for low mileage hobby joggers and want to avoid using device, subthreshold workouts... in this case better to use normal training models, than halfway double thresholds without device.
Slava, this thread is NOT about double thresholds. Quiet the opposite actually.
It is about running as much safe sub threshold volume on limited time/mileage.
Just a question after reading this thread.Why complicate things with measuring blood lactate and so on and running sub threshold when there is a faster way to improve? I think you 'amateur scientists' make a big mistake by overthinking the most effective way to improve on low mileage. Many former world top runners on low mileage didn't run sub thresholds.
Slava, this thread is NOT about double thresholds. Quiet the opposite actually.
It is about running as much safe sub threshold volume on limited time/mileage.
Just a question after reading this thread.Why complicate things with measuring blood lactate and so on and running sub threshold when there is a faster way to improve? I think you 'amateur scientists' make a big mistake by overthinking the most effective way to improve on low mileage. Many former world top runners on low mileage didn't run sub thresholds.
What is complicated about measuring blood lactate?
If one can afford it, does not mind it, and would benefit from it, why not?
The purpose here isn't to find "faster way to improve", but a fool-proof, sustainable approach that gives you the best bang for your back in the risk-reward spectrum of investments.
