Listened to the most recent The Physiology of Endurance Running Podcast. Sirpoc was a previous guest. The 3 hosts from the Road to Valencia series unpacked their training for the marathon build. For context, their goals were around 2:10 for one and around 2:30 for the other two.
I found it interesting (reassuring/understandable) that none of them did more than 1.5% of their training with their heart rate above LT2. In most cases it was explained by a shorter race during the build. I can’t remember the exact percentages but they were doing an incredible amount with their heart rate in Zone 1 (in 5 zone system). They were also confident that with the same build they could have instead run PBs in shorter races.
I’m not saying their training was the same as this method, but it does suggest there is little need for us to go above threshold to get where we want to be. (us = normal folks)
Owain I think really gets this sort of training, it's also a good podcast. They essentially would all probably agree, that like in the book (amazing by the way) essentially all you are trying to do is shift your lactate curve to the right. That's what makes you faster. You can push everything up from below or pull it up. Pushing it up is not only easier, but less risky.
Listened to the most recent The Physiology of Endurance Running Podcast. Sirpoc was a previous guest. The 3 hosts from the Road to Valencia series unpacked their training for the marathon build. For context, their goals were around 2:10 for one and around 2:30 for the other two.
I found it interesting (reassuring/understandable) that none of them did more than 1.5% of their training with their heart rate above LT2. In most cases it was explained by a shorter race during the build. I can’t remember the exact percentages but they were doing an incredible amount with their heart rate in Zone 1 (in 5 zone system). They were also confident that with the same build they could have instead run PBs in shorter races.
I’m not saying their training was the same as this method, but it does suggest there is little need for us to go above threshold to get where we want to be. (us = normal folks)
Do they say how they are calculating the 1.5%, is that total time off the block and calculates the total number of minutes at above LT2 based off something like intervals.icu or is it an individual sessions where they set out to go above LT2 but their HR was probably under LT2 for some of the session?
Do you have experience with lactate testing? You keep saying it's useless, but you don't provide any other information.
What makes it useless? Do you have personal experience, or is this just an idea you've based on what you've researched?
It's definitely not useless. If we didn't have it, sirpoc probably would have had to work a lot harder to find running sweet spot. But, I would wager of all the thousands of people across the internet trying like this with success, a tiny fraction are actually testing lactate.
It's useful in the right hands, downright dangerous in the wrong hands. A classic example for me was Ben Felton pre London marathon, who probably blew his whole race not understanding what his lactate meter was actually telling him.
By the way, I say this as someone who tests every session. Absolutely not necessary at this point. It serves no purpose other than data collection. If mine broke I doubt I would have any need to replace it. I actually think the way sirpoc used it was correct. Test lactate and create broad guidelines, so you don't need to bother testing lactate anymore and find ranges "that'll do", especially for hobby joggers. Probably a different conversation for elites.
Listened to the most recent The Physiology of Endurance Running Podcast. Sirpoc was a previous guest. The 3 hosts from the Road to Valencia series unpacked their training for the marathon build. For context, their goals were around 2:10 for one and around 2:30 for the other two.
I found it interesting (reassuring/understandable) that none of them did more than 1.5% of their training with their heart rate above LT2. In most cases it was explained by a shorter race during the build. I can’t remember the exact percentages but they were doing an incredible amount with their heart rate in Zone 1 (in 5 zone system). They were also confident that with the same build they could have instead run PBs in shorter races.
I’m not saying their training was the same as this method, but it does suggest there is little need for us to go above threshold to get where we want to be. (us = normal folks)
Do they say how they are calculating the 1.5%, is that total time off the block and calculates the total number of minutes at above LT2 based off something like intervals.icu or is it an individual sessions where they set out to go above LT2 but their HR was probably under LT2 for some of the session?
Simply the number of minutes above LT2 across the whole build. It’s the distribution of minutes across the heart rate zones you would see in intervals.icu. Owain posted his and it was 0.8% above LT2 or about 63 minutes from 126 hours. I get the impression if there were no races in the build, they would have expected close to zero above.
82.7% below LT1 (59.1% was the lower end in Z1) and 16.5% between LT1 and LT2.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Do you have experience with lactate testing? You keep saying it's useless, but you don't provide any other information.
What makes it useless? Do you have personal experience, or is this just an idea you've based on what you've researched?
Such testing is useless because 1) lactate values are highly variable (even more so that HR), 2) at best are only an indirect indicator of what's happening in exercising muscles, and 3) there are other, better ways of answering the same questions.
Do you have experience with lactate testing? You keep saying it's useless, but you don't provide any other information.
What makes it useless? Do you have personal experience, or is this just an idea you've based on what you've researched?
It's definitely not useless. If we didn't have it, sirpoc probably would have had to work a lot harder to find running sweet spot. But, I would wager of all the thousands of people across the internet trying like this with success, a tiny fraction are actually testing lactate.
It's useful in the right hands, downright dangerous in the wrong hands. A classic example for me was Ben Felton pre London marathon, who probably blew his whole race not understanding what his lactate meter was actually telling him.
By the way, I say this as someone who tests every session. Absolutely not necessary at this point. It serves no purpose other than data collection. If mine broke I doubt I would have any need to replace it. I actually think the way sirpoc used it was correct. Test lactate and create broad guidelines, so you don't need to bother testing lactate anymore and find ranges "that'll do", especially for hobby joggers. Probably a different conversation for elites.
For me, I would use lactate as confirmation that I'm hitting the right paces and threshold zones. It's basically scientifically checking your work. After, I would just aim for the same "feel" in workouts and if I'm doing it properly, my paces should progress over time.
It's essentially a more accurate representation of the raw physiological response your body is giving you to the effort you're running. The more lactate you're accumulating, the more acidic your blood levels, which lead to more fatigue in the legs. It is literally an indicator of whether you are staying below true threshold.
Absolutely not needed in the broad scale of things, but a good metric to use to create rough ranges for certain rep distances pace-wise, as well as a nice metric to check in with in the future to "validate" fitness improvement. Again, as long as you err on the side of caution and run on the slower side of sub-T, you should be able to be consistent and make progress. After all, consistency is what builds, and you would rather be 5% below the line of sustainability than 5% above.
I say the NSM is a good way to a hobby jogger to train 😃 . But is it the very best way? 🤔 I'm convinced it's not. To my longtime experience you need more than sub thresholds to reach individual optimum potential.But as I say, it's good many runners who don't masters how to best mix maxVO2 and LT2 intervals have found another way to atleast improve . 🙏🖐🧙♂️
There we have it. NSM is sub optimal. DANCAN is better. Fan Jan says so. End thread.
Well, if you are observant it's not only me saying this that you can never reach your individual best possible results with only sub thresholds. I think it was in another thread were no one less than mr Renato Canova discussed this and told there must be SPECIFIC faster paces than sub threshold to create this.
By the way you can stop your harassment with this " Fat Jan " now . I'm not obese anymore and now have normal weight, 86 kg on 189 cm height. 😉
For me, I would use lactate as confirmation that I'm hitting the right paces and threshold zones. It's basically scientifically checking your work. After, I would just aim for the same "feel" in workouts and if I'm doing it properly, my paces should progress over time.
It's essentially a more accurate representation of the raw physiological response your body is giving you to the effort you're running. The more lactate you're accumulating, the more acidic your blood levels, which lead to more fatigue in the legs. It is literally an indicator of whether you are staying below true threshold.
Absolutely not needed in the broad scale of things, but a good metric to use to create rough ranges for certain rep distances pace-wise, as well as a nice metric to check in with in the future to "validate" fitness improvement. Again, as long as you err on the side of caution and run on the slower side of sub-T, you should be able to be consistent and make progress. After all, consistency is what builds, and you would rather be 5% below the line of sustainability than 5% above.
Another punter overestimating the value of lactate data.
There we have it. NSM is sub optimal. DANCAN is better. Fan Jan says so. End thread.
Well, if you are observant it's not only me saying this that you can never reach your individual best possible results with only sub thresholds. I think it was in another thread were no one less than mr Renato Canova discussed this and told there must be SPECIFIC faster paces than sub threshold to create this.
By the way you can stop your harassment with this " Fat Jan " now . I'm not obese anymore and now have normal weight, 86 kg on 189 cm height. 😉
Canova is referring to elites, not recreational runners.
Well, if you are observant it's not only me saying this that you can never reach your individual best possible results with only sub thresholds. I think it was in another thread were no one less than mr Renato Canova discussed this and told there must be SPECIFIC faster paces than sub threshold to create this.
By the way you can stop your harassment with this " Fat Jan " now . I'm not obese anymore and now have normal weight, 86 kg on 189 cm height. 😉
Canova is referring to elites, not recreational runners.
No Alfie, he commented NSM and told never can reach optimal results on sub thresholds.
For me, I would use lactate as confirmation that I'm hitting the right paces and threshold zones. It's basically scientifically checking your work. After, I would just aim for the same "feel" in workouts and if I'm doing it properly, my paces should progress over time.
It's essentially a more accurate representation of the raw physiological response your body is giving you to the effort you're running. The more lactate you're accumulating, the more acidic your blood levels, which lead to more fatigue in the legs. It is literally an indicator of whether you are staying below true threshold.
Absolutely not needed in the broad scale of things, but a good metric to use to create rough ranges for certain rep distances pace-wise, as well as a nice metric to check in with in the future to "validate" fitness improvement. Again, as long as you err on the side of caution and run on the slower side of sub-T, you should be able to be consistent and make progress. After all, consistency is what builds, and you would rather be 5% below the line of sustainability than 5% above.
Another punter overestimating the value of lactate data.
In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?
Let’s not forget Don and Jeff’s wonderful secret that they shared that Donnie wrote about in that 50th birthday card. Releasing a bunch of heavily redacted files isn’t going to make this problem go away for Dementia Donnie.
Let’s not forget Don and Jeff’s wonderful secret that they shared that Donnie wrote about in that 50th birthday card. Releasing a bunch of heavily redacted files isn’t going to make this problem go away for Dementia Donnie.
Classic LRC - click reply in one thread, play roulette with which thread it actually gets posted in.
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.