You're of course right in this.But this is not truths 'the sect' want to listen to. lol
Of course I am right.
I don't think it is a case of people rejecting the truth because they don't want to hear it, though. They're just not capable of thinking clearly enough to recognize the question for what it is.
Q: "How quickly does the body respond to training?"
I don't think it is a case of people rejecting the truth because they don't want to hear it, though. They're just not capable of thinking clearly enough to recognize the question for what it is.
Q: "How quickly does the body respond to training?"
A: "Within hours to days, not weeks to months."
It's as simple as you that.
The body responds with heart rate and breath within seconds.
A measurable response in bone density takes months.
Then there are lots of responses in between those durations. Lots of people myself included have been seeing form go up in weeks.
That's correct in some way! 👏 But to be 100% correct infact 400m is included in distances needing more % of the aerobic engine than most have a clue of.
Good luck with your come back. Going the NSM route?
This 7:30 pace is towards the very bottom end of “easy pace” for JD for this VDOT.
7:00 min/mile easy runs for 45 min give a TSS of 50.
Weekly TSS is then (5 easy) * (50 TSS) + (2 threshold) * (33) = 316
A little higher than NSM, but comparable.
This morning I ran 7 miles with 2 @ 7:30 and 5 @ 7:00, RPE feels closer to SubT than NSM easy 8:30 pace**. It’s not a hard run by any means, but I think it’s tougher to do 5 of these a week than vanilla NSM.
Guessing to sustainably follow “JD red plan” I’d have to do 1-2 runs/week at 8:30 pace. At this point, total TSS/week is lower than vanilla NSM. I don’t know the physiology, but I surmise that “touching” lactate with SubT 3x/week does something helpful for body’s running performance too.
Not to beat the drum again, but NSM seems to be best bang for buck. This thought exercise has helped with giving guidelines for the days/weeks I am bored with vanilla NSM lol. Sometimes I just want to run a little faster than 130 bpm heart rate
**Caveats: have done virtually 0 running at these “intermediate easy” paces past 10 months. Like with any training, it probably will be easier over time, but who knows.
Easy run for 1 hour feels like a 1 if you average about 66% of your HRMax. 1:40 at 66% HRMax feels perhaps like a 1.2 or 1.5 but not more. Running at these intensities feels like pure stress relief, so refreshing.
Magness does in fact have a very plausible answer, and it's grounded in the prevailing theory of endurance physiology. If I understand him correctly, he would say that even hobby joggers would benefit from small amounts of work at faster pace to improve things like running economy and lactate buffering capacity. Nudging the lactate threshold from the bottom up is great, but he would suggest adding a little work to nudge it from the top down as well. The goal is to build not just more pipes, but also wider pipes, or something like that. That doesn't mean doing a block of intense vO2max sessions, but it seems really sensible to switch from, say, 5 x 6 minutes to 4 x 6 minutes + 6 x 1 minute at 5K pace once a week when preparing for a 5K race.
Magness has spent over a decade researching the history of training and has taken a detailed look at dozens of training systems. He's not trying to sell anyone his own system. He doesn't need clicks. You can't dismiss his objections as uninformed, especially since it's similar to what Bakken said in a less direct way.
Which is why it's genuinely weird that vanilla NSM is working so well for so many people. We've seen a range of modifications to NSM at this point, and not every modification has failed (Andy R and Paul L have done well on modified NSM). But a lot of modifications have failed, and vanilla NSM seems to work even at a high level, and that's interesting.
Magness (or anyone, he was like the 5th person to come say the same thing), seemed to be missing the point. You can push up, or pull up your thresholds. There's a point, where pulling it up is the last move you have, but whilst you are improving and there's a huge amount of space to push it up, there's absolutely no point in a smaller pull, especially with the increased risk.
Absolutely, you need it at some point. But everyone is just vastly overestimating how soon a pull up, outweighs the value of the push up. This is probably in the realm of elite training, certainly not 17 min 5k hobby joggers.
That's why this is working on such a basic level, aside from the changing stuff around to suit lifestyle, small kids etc.
The fact is, nobody on hobby hours is getting to the point where there is more value in vo2 max work, than spamming Subthreshold some more all week instead.
Once you get your head around that, it makes total sense. As someone else said, whilst I'm not going to knock Magness or anyone, this is a great argument for the previous point, this is a giant case study. The explanation makes sense and the results are playing out like that. I see it as relatively simply explained.
If I was coaching again, there's absolutely no doubt I would put my athletes on NSM vanilla for a long period of time, before I even considered something else.
I think the main point we're trying to figure out is at what point exactly does NSM vanilla top out?
James has said he's starting to approach that point and is looking into adding more, but is still in that grey area / transitional space between NSM and Bakken double T.
So it seems at the bare minimum it would be sub 15 5k is the level, the turning point you could say at which you start to consider more.
Although it depends on your background and training history as well. I'm almost as fast as James at 5k but come from a mid distance background, so my threshold is comparatively much less developed and so I still have a lot more room to grow from this type of work.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
You're of course right in this.But this is not truths 'the sect' want to listen to. lol
Of course I am right.
I don't think it is a case of people rejecting the truth because they don't want to hear it, though. They're just not capable of thinking clearly enough to recognize the question for what it is.
Q: "How quickly does the body respond to training?"
A: "Within hours to days, not weeks to months."
It's as simple as you that.
And this is what I see in every coaching case of mine since I started 10 years ago. Have had really magical improvements on both high and low mileage . One of the most magic low mileage cases was an Irish guy then age 43 with busy life of family of 2 little kids and a wife and a fulltime shift job working nights every other week and daytime the other weeks. I coached him with my the original version of the Dancan system and only 5 sessions per week with 2 days off for 100% recovery. The week mostly looked like 2 days 50-60 min @ easy steady zone 3 , one specific long run 90min - 120 min @ zone 3 , one maxVO2 interval e.g 12-20 x 400m @ 5 k race pace or 8-13 x 600m @ 5 k race pace and one day lactate threshold interval of 10-16 k ( 6-10 miles) total @ LT2 pace . It was like a magic wizard had cooked a magic brew to him when he lowered his then masters pb 5000m 16:30 down to 15:37 in just 2 months ( !). With the very effective Dancan we don't talk about 6+ months to see very good results. Now you all have an example of a low mileage system that works more effective and fast than the NSM 😉🧙♂️ 🌲🧙♂️🌲🇰🇪😎🇸🇪
I think the main point we're trying to figure out is at what point exactly does NSM vanilla top out?
James has said he's starting to approach that point and is looking into adding more, but is still in that grey area / transitional space between NSM and Bakken double T.
So it seems at the bare minimum it would be sub 15 5k is the level, the turning point you could say at which you start to consider more.
Although it depends on your background and training history as well. I'm almost as fast as James at 5k but come from a mid distance background, so my threshold is comparatively much less developed and so I still have a lot more room to grow from this type of work.
From this sample size of 3 (Cheeto, grandmas guy, sirpoc)... guessing it tops out at 14:40-15:15 (depending on individual). And this is purely a GUESS. We’ll only know if either of them continues on with vanilla NSM for however many more months/years and either stagnates or improves. Exercise physiology is pretty muddled, so we’ll only have an inkling of an idea of what’s possible if these men continue on with their training (or others, like you 1500enthusiast, show what’s possible). Fortunately the vast majority of us have a while to get to 15:00 so I’m not worried about it. So this must be what bannister felt like trying to break 4. Who’ll be the first under 14:30 following vanilla NSM
From this sample size of 3 (Cheeto, grandmas guy, sirpoc)... guessing it tops out at 14:40-15:15 (depending on individual). And this is purely a GUESS. We’ll only know if either of them continues on with vanilla NSM for however many more months/years and either stagnates or improves. Exercise physiology is pretty muddled, so we’ll only have an inkling of an idea of what’s possible if these men continue on with their training (or others, like you 1500enthusiast, show what’s possible). Fortunately the vast majority of us have a while to get to 15:00 so I’m not worried about it. So this must be what bannister felt like trying to break 4. Who’ll be the first under 14:30 following vanilla NSM
Grandma's guy who is wigglewaffle here we now know, could probably break 14:30, looking at what he's doing. Sirpoc must have an idea, as it looks like he gave him the targets for the recent HM solo TT. Seems sirpoc set him 1:06:30 almost on the nose, so 14:30 seems incredibly likely with the boost of an actual race probably being worth at least another 30-60 seconds on top of the HM TT.
The thing we can learn, is not just it's still working (sirpoc seems to be back in great shape), but these three dudes are all doing vanilla NSM, still! No strides, no hills. Nothing. Yet you see guys who are absolutely miles away and running like 18-19 , wanting to rush into the harder stuff. I don't know what that says, but it must say something? Cheetodust has been running for decades (so you have to assume he has a handle on training) and Wigglewaffle is a college coach, who's letting himself he guided by this "random construction worker" as someone described him a few pages back lol
There's also another very fast guy from mainland Europe who is about 15:21 and in strava and still improving. No idea if he posts here. But again, he's completely basic NSM.
It also comes down to where your training reaches dimished returns, as touched on in the book. Also, someone mentioned earlier, when it becomes that you can't push threshold up from below much more and actually the higher gains comes from pulling it. I absolutely agree with the point it's way, way later in a runners development than just about all coaches tgink
There's probably no definite answer, but 15 mins 5k probably sounds a bit too slow still. Someone mentioned Canova a few pages talking about 13 minute runners, then come back to him with more complex training. I'm tempted to say a good number might be 14 flat. At that point, I think probably the last part might be made up with lack of speed. Split the difeence between what Canova mentioned and sirpocs 15 flat.
I don't know how old Wigglewaffle is, but sirpoc and cheetodust are pretty old as sh*t to be running these times on pretty modest mileage as well.
Easy run for 1 hour feels like a 1 if you average about 66% of your HRMax. 1:40 at 66% HRMax feels perhaps like a 1.2 or 1.5 but not more. Running at these intensities feels like pure stress relief, so refreshing.
of course it's refreshing, you're literally just jogging. lmao
Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by (Peter Coe), you get no benefit from running below 55% vo2max (63-70%) and barely any benefits at 60%. (70-75%)
Salazar (who was 16 mins faster than your godfather in old rubber shoes btw) said you're just burning calories running that slow. If I were you, I would keep it at 70% HR and gradually move up to 75%. If you are too tired, then you're either, unfit, or your workouts are too hard.
And this is what I see in every coaching case of mine since I started 10 years ago. Have had really magical improvements on both high and low mileage . One of the most magic low mileage cases was an Irish guy then age 43 with busy life of family of 2 little kids and a wife and a fulltime shift job working nights every other week and daytime the other weeks. I coached him with my the original version of the Dancan system and only 5 sessions per week with 2 days off for 100% recovery. The week mostly looked like 2 days 50-60 min @ easy steady zone 3 , one specific long run 90min - 120 min @ zone 3 , one maxVO2 interval e.g 12-20 x 400m @ 5 k race pace or 8-13 x 600m @ 5 k race pace and one day lactate threshold interval of 10-16 k ( 6-10 miles) total @ LT2 pace . It was like a magic wizard had cooked a magic brew to him when he lowered his then masters pb 5000m 16:30 down to 15:37 in just 2 months ( !). With the very effective Dancan we don't talk about 6+ months to see very good results. Now you all have an example of a low mileage system that works more effective and fast than the NSM 😉🧙♂️ 🌲🧙♂️🌲🇰🇪😎🇸🇪
Can't wait for your book to come out, Jan. Will be great for you to lay out. In sure it'll be a best seller. Oh wait, there's no basis or evidence to just about anything you've ever said and it'll expose you as a fraud.
Ok I'm messing with you. But considering the book for NSM has been a smash hit and your system is clearly better, why don't you release it to the world? Think of all the good you could do with your training plans , philosophy and opening it up to the running market. You'll have the respect of everyone. It's a win win situation for you.
(Waiting for your excuse about how you don't have time, desire, you just enjoy coaching keynans you make worse and stealing poor unsuspecting suckers on Facebook's money for private coaching they could just life from Daniel's second edition).
But anyway, thanks for dropping in Jan. In other news, I have a turd that won't flush. Totally unrelated.
Easy run for 1 hour feels like a 1 if you average about 66% of your HRMax. 1:40 at 66% HRMax feels perhaps like a 1.2 or 1.5 but not more. Running at these intensities feels like pure stress relief, so refreshing.
of course it's refreshing, you're literally just jogging. lmao
Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by (Peter Coe), you get no benefit from running below 55% vo2max (63-70%) and barely any benefits at 60%. (70-75%)
Salazar (who was 16 mins faster than your godfather in old rubber shoes btw) said you're just burning calories running that slow. If I were you, I would keep it at 70% HR and gradually move up to 75%. If you are too tired, then you're either, unfit, or your workouts are too hard.
Salazar certainly has his finger on the pulse when it comes to helping his athletes recover from hard workouts, I'm sure there's a lot we can learn from him there.
It also comes down to where your training reaches dimished returns, as touched on in the book. Also, someone mentioned earlier, when it becomes that you can't push threshold up from below much more and actually the higher gains comes from pulling it. I absolutely agree with the point it's way, way later in a runners development than just about all coaches tgink
There's probably no definite answer, but 15 mins 5k probably sounds a bit too slow still. Someone mentioned Canova a few pages talking about 13 minute runners, then come back to him with more complex training. I'm tempted to say a good number might be 14 flat. At that point, I think probably the last part might be made up with lack of speed. Split the difeence between what Canova mentioned and sirpocs 15 flat.
I don't know how old Wigglewaffle is, but sirpoc and cheetodust are pretty old as sh*t to be running these times on pretty modest mileage as well.
At 40 years of age, the Notts AC runner is thriving as a veteran and more than keeping up with the speedy youngsters. “My advice is to embrace the age groups.” That’s the counsel offered by Alastair Watson whose 29:56 PB at t...
Absolutely agree about diminished returns and no definite answer. We really have no clue on how to factor age into estimating times too; this uncertainty leads to too much noise in whatever models we create to predict a 5K time. Watson has the age 45 5K record at 14:25, so the natural guess for topping out is 14:25. One thing from article linked above is Watson says his times topped out for a few years then suddenly improved, so that could be the future case for runners following NSM. Seemingly “plateau” then sudden improvement. One thing is though that during this time you are “plateauing”, you could be improving relative to your age. At this point it’s “is NSM making you faster then how much getting older slows you down”
Easy run for 1 hour feels like a 1 if you average about 66% of your HRMax. 1:40 at 66% HRMax feels perhaps like a 1.2 or 1.5 but not more. Running at these intensities feels like pure stress relief, so refreshing.
of course it's refreshing, you're literally just jogging. lmao
Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by (Peter Coe), you get no benefit from running below 55% vo2max (63-70%) and barely any benefits at 60%. (70-75%)
Salazar (who was 16 mins faster than your godfather in old rubber shoes btw) said you're just burning calories running that slow. If I were you, I would keep it at 70% HR and gradually move up to 75%. If you are too tired, then you're either, unfit, or your workouts are too hard.
Most of us have been around long enough to know that there is a piece of research out there that will say anything you want it to say. Magness discussed such a paper in his most recent YouTube.
Seb Coe was an outstanding athlete, but trying to copy his (alleged) training has led so many down the wrong path.
Absolutely agree about diminished returns and no definite answer. We really have no clue on how to factor age into estimating times too; this uncertainty leads to too much noise in whatever models we create to predict a 5K time. Watson has the age 45 5K record at 14:25, so the natural guess for topping out is 14:25. One thing from article linked above is Watson says his times topped out for a few years then suddenly improved, so that could be the future case for runners following NSM. Seemingly “plateau” then sudden improvement. One thing is though that during this time you are “plateauing”, you could be improving relative to your age. At this point it’s “is NSM making you faster then how much getting older slows you down”
NSM has arrested my running decline. I'm 52 and have been getting worse, for 9 straight years. This last 12 months, I actually improved relative to that steady and linear decline. I'm faster in 2025 than I was in 2024. So, I very much fit into this category. Hopefully it can provide some more buffer to getting any worse. I showed no sign of decline, it just hit me one day and kept going year on year from 2016.
I think the main point we're trying to figure out is at what point exactly does NSM vanilla top out?
James has said he's starting to approach that point and is looking into adding more, but is still in that grey area / transitional space between NSM and Bakken double T.
So it seems at the bare minimum it would be sub 15 5k is the level, the turning point you could say at which you start to consider more.
Although it depends on your background and training history as well. I'm almost as fast as James at 5k but come from a mid distance background, so my threshold is comparatively much less developed and so I still have a lot more room to grow from this type of work.
Where NSM tops out is not a specific race time, just like running 80 mpw doesn't mean you'll run a 2:45 marathon or whatever. The limit of gains from aerobic development is going to differ from one athlete to the next. I'd guess it's measured not in terms of 5K time, but by years and/or training history. Someone coming in with many years of aerobic development will gain less than someone with limited training, or primarily training with a different focus.
Easy run for 1 hour feels like a 1 if you average about 66% of your HRMax. 1:40 at 66% HRMax feels perhaps like a 1.2 or 1.5 but not more. Running at these intensities feels like pure stress relief, so refreshing.
of course it's refreshing, you're literally just jogging. lmao
Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by (Peter Coe), you get no benefit from running below 55% vo2max (63-70%) and barely any benefits at 60%. (70-75%)
Salazar (who was 16 mins faster than your godfather in old rubber shoes btw) said you're just burning calories running that slow. If I were you, I would keep it at 70% HR and gradually move up to 75%. If you are too tired, then you're either, unfit, or your workouts are too hard.
hilarious full circle moment:
workouts ‘too hard’ now
system ‘too complicated’ now with 3x a week
what will they think of next?
im guessing next weeks trolls will be on the ‘too simple, too easy’ diet but that is just speculation
