3 weeks since introducing some NSA style workouts into my middle distance base training and seeing gains. Mostly just easy + strides/hillsprints before that coming back from injury… latest boom/bust.
46m lifelong jogger but nothing serious since school. Roughly 20:00 5k shape now so just beginning the journey.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Nobody said 6 months to make gains. Maybe after that point, if you don't, something isn't working or it might not work for you. The thread generally follows the same pattern. People say not a lot happens for a month, maybe 6-8 weeks a surprising performance comes along. Sometimes 10. I read the book, it said nothing about 6 months to find initial gains.
People are just making stuff up at this point. Or reciting like experts who actually don't have a clue.
Flash Gordon even gaslighting the thread about how you need a lactate meter, even though the whole idea of this entire thread, is you know, it works without a lactate meter and you find a sweet spot.
You are listening to Alfie as well btw on the 6 months, who may well be jecht at this point.
Nobody said 6 months to make gains. Maybe after that point, if you don't, something isn't working or it might not work for you. The thread generally follows the same pattern. People say not a lot happens for a month, maybe 6-8 weeks a surprising performance comes along. Sometimes 10. I read the book, it said nothing about 6 months to find initial gains.
People are just making stuff up at this point. Or reciting like experts who actually don't have a clue.
Flash Gordon even gaslighting the thread about how you need a lactate meter, even though the whole idea of this entire thread, is you know, it works without a lactate meter and you find a sweet spot.
You are listening to Alfie as well btw on the 6 months, who may well be jecht at this point.
6 months btw I would say is fair to give the whole thing a go and see what it takes you. That's very, very different to when you might see upturn in performance, feeling better etc. the whole idea is you will feel probably less fatigued in a very short amount of time, especially if you have been training and are in a bit of a hole.
Nobody said 6 months to make gains. Maybe after that point, if you don't, something isn't working or it might not work for you. The thread generally follows the same pattern. People say not a lot happens for a month, maybe 6-8 weeks a surprising performance comes along. Sometimes 10. I read the book, it said nothing about 6 months to find initial gains.
People are just making stuff up at this point. Or reciting like experts who actually don't have a clue.
Flash Gordon even gaslighting the thread about how you need a lactate meter, even though the whole idea of this entire thread, is you know, it works without a lactate meter and you find a sweet spot.
You are listening to Alfie as well btw on the 6 months, who may well be jecht at this point.
6 months btw I would say is fair to give the whole thing a go and see what it takes you. That's very, very different to when you might see upturn in performance, feeling better etc. the whole idea is you will feel probably less fatigued in a very short amount of time, especially if you have been training and are in a bit of a hole.
There are plenty of mistakes to be made with NSA
One is missing that at equal mileage NSA might well be less load than whatever you did before.
I did that myself going from Garmin's daily suggestion to NSA. Garmin had me running base runs that where not hard as such, but all ended above LT1 .. Add to that one or two thresholds runs and suddenly you're losing fitness by going to NSA, if you keep mileage the same.
-
The other thing that rarely is talked about is that you need 6-7 days a week or you might stagnate. If you physically can't handle that much mileage then you probably have to accept that you won't see gains for a long time until you've build up the proper tolerance.
That is easy to notice, if you nerd out with intervals.icu or similar, but if you just do as told without looking into what you're doing then you might well get frustrated.
-
So should I have stayed with more intense programs like .. Maybe .. But the unsung hero of this method is that it structured and thus becomes habit. You just do without much thought. It always the same period of time and it's never truly hard.
Traditional programs have you doing a zillion things of varying duration and effort and that uncertainty alone might well be enough to make it a lot harder to put on your running shoes
-
Ensuring consistency is something that is often undervalued in these kinds of discussions.
Just watched the Dr Will video on NSM. Now whether you agree with NSM or not being optimal (I probably am more and more sold on it as time goes on!), it's such a bad video it has to be satire, right?
Wtaf is going on lol the pens, the whiteboard. It HAS to be satire, surely?
Just watched the Dr Will video on NSM. Now whether you agree with NSM or not being optimal (I probably am more and more sold on it as time goes on!), it's such a bad video it has to be satire, right?
Wtaf is going on lol the pens, the whiteboard. It HAS to be satire, surely?
Absolute car crash. 100% negative comments. He's losing credibility every minute the video stays up (which won't be long I'd imagine)
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run see...
Nobody said 6 months to make gains. Maybe after that point, if you don't, something isn't working or it might not work for you. The thread generally follows the same pattern. People say not a lot happens for a month, maybe 6-8 weeks a surprising performance comes along. Sometimes 10. I read the book, it said nothing about 6 months to find initial gains.
People are just making stuff up at this point. Or reciting like experts who actually don't have a clue.
Flash Gordon even gaslighting the thread about how you need a lactate meter, even though the whole idea of this entire thread, is you know, it works without a lactate meter and you find a sweet spot.
You are listening to Alfie as well btw on the 6 months, who may well be jecht at this point.
Sirpoc mentioned 6 months on the Physiology of Endurance podcast. Go and have a listen.
Of course, it won’t be 6 months for everyone, because everyone is starting from a different place, and will be building up differently. Some are seeing quick gains, but everyone should expect gains after 6 months.
Gains would most likely be seen earlier, if some rest or taper was taken before a race/tt, but that is not this method. So fatigue will be carried, from the most recent workouts, into the race/tt.
If someone is older, like the poster who is questioning this, this fatigue is likely to be greater. Of course fatigue masks performance.
Just watched the Dr Will video on NSM. Now whether you agree with NSM or not being optimal (I probably am more and more sold on it as time goes on!), it's such a bad video it has to be satire, right?
Wtaf is going on lol the pens, the whiteboard. It HAS to be satire, surely?
Absolute car crash. 100% negative comments. He's losing credibility every minute the video stays up (which won't be long I'd imagine)
I've had talks with people about NSA and they have had similar criticisms as Dr Will. i.e. "you're base building indefinitely and never doing anything specific nor are you periodizing for a particular race."
And even if we take that at face value as 100% true (it's not, but let's roll with it), my response was "and if we're all aerobically under-developed, then what's the problem with that so long as we're seeing improvement?"
The idea that we have a slightly different approach and longer-term mindset on our training really messes with people who think there's a "right" or "traditional" way of doing it.
Essentially all endurance athletes are "aerobically underdeveloped". The only ones who aren't are those at the very top of their game, with nowhere to go but down.
IOW, "aerobically underdeveloped" is just a catchy phrase that doesn't really mean anything.
Nobody said 6 months to make gains. Maybe after that point, if you don't, something isn't working or it might not work for you. The thread generally follows the same pattern. People say not a lot happens for a month, maybe 6-8 weeks a surprising performance comes along. Sometimes 10. I read the book, it said nothing about 6 months to find initial gains.
People are just making stuff up at this point. Or reciting like experts who actually don't have a clue.
Flash Gordon even gaslighting the thread about how you need a lactate meter, even though the whole idea of this entire thread, is you know, it works without a lactate meter and you find a sweet spot.
You are listening to Alfie as well btw on the 6 months, who may well be jecht at this point.
Sirpoc mentioned 6 months on the Physiology of Endurance podcast. Go and have a listen.
Of course, it won’t be 6 months for everyone, because everyone is starting from a different place, and will be building up differently. Some are seeing quick gains, but everyone should expect gains after 6 months.
Gains would most likely be seen earlier, if some rest or taper was taken before a race/tt, but that is not this method. So fatigue will be carried, from the most recent workouts, into the race/tt.
If someone is older, like the poster who is questioning this, this fatigue is likely to be greater. Of course fatigue masks performance.
If the fatigue is so great that it takes 6 months to shed, I would argue that your ramp rate was too high.
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.