I actually did do this, and I recommend against trying it. In 2019 I followed up a Pfitzinger marathon cycle with 18-weeks of 10-14 hours per week of almost entirely Z2 running, with incidental pushes into Z3 on climbs, in preparation for a mountain ultra. There's no question my CTL by a TP/intervals.icu model (square of relative intensity) was much higher then than on NSM. It worked poorly and I consider it a major training mistake. I certainly built durability and a good base to add intensity on afterwards, but I did not get any faster until I added intensity in my next training cycle.
Totally agree. I made a comeback to running in 2024 after ten years away. Got caught up in the hype train of zone 2 and did that for everything. Guess what? I was still slow as hell after six months, although I had built some endurance.
Wasnt the idea to be running at marathon pace/ low z3 for 30m a day while filling the rest of the day with easy running like nsm. And just like subt is not a pace but a state, isnt it more like marathon effort? So could be like 3x10 at mp - 5x6 a bit faster and 10x3 a bitter faster again but all slower than NSM? Or another way of mixing paces and durations.
Daily LT1 spamming may generate more weekly load than NSM, but I think we've all seen that most metrics used to track load overrate longer low-intensity runs. So this may not actually beat NSM in practice, at least not at the 800m - half marathon distances since you're not doing enough to push the lactate curve to the right. Again, no evidence to support this, someone should try it out, but throw in the additional fatigue and I suspect daily efforts would burn out most masters runners and even younger guns not on EPO lol.
I kind of did this for a season when I wasn't doing structured training, and let easy runs creep up in pace so that nearly every running day was 45-70 mins around LT1. It wasn't sustainable. I took quite a lot of days off with the excuse of feeling a bit tired, work deadline, etc. and the lack of structure meant I wasn't tracking things well. It was enjoyable but quite tiring and a bit aimless. I got faster but not very much. I couldn't imagine doing it 7 days a week and definitely wouldn't want to try.
I agree rTSS overrates easy runs and am experimenting with tweaking the formula. E.g. raising speed by more than ^2 (Coggan used power^4). Also looking at making duration non-linear but that's not obvious - how do you value early minutes vs. later minutes, and how should it weigh say 1x60min versus 2x30min (or 1x120min every other day). I suspect picking a central point like 1hr and exponentiating off that in either direction might be useful rather than counting from 0.
Sam wrote:
Obviously most of us hobby-joggers are stuck to some kind of 7 day week with work, family, etc., but if you're running every day anyway and not training with a group, why not go to a 14 day cycle and run ST every second day? Is the long run important enough to lose half a day of ST per week?
I did this in my first 2-3 months of NSM as I didn't do a long run. It generates similar load in terms of TSS but that's just a number on a screen. I found it quite wearing after a while. The long run really breaks things up nicely with the easy day after and gives you a mental break as well as different stimulus and recovery/compensation buffer. I found it made a big difference, and vastly prefer the standard 7 day cycle.
Again, with these things it comes back to vanilla NSM being an extremely good one-size-fits-nearly-all pattern. You can hang some baubles off it if it works for you, but the basic pattern is pretty much ideal for most people.
I kind of did this for a season when I wasn't doing structured training, and let easy runs creep up in pace so that nearly every running day was 45-70 mins around LT1. It wasn't sustainable. I took quite a lot of days off with the excuse of feeling a bit tired, work deadline, etc. and the lack of structure meant I wasn't tracking things well. It was enjoyable but quite tiring and a bit aimless. I got faster but not very much. I couldn't imagine doing it 7 days a week and definitely wouldn't want to try.
I agree rTSS overrates easy runs and am experimenting with tweaking the formula. E.g. raising speed by more than ^2 (Coggan used power^4). Also looking at making duration non-linear but that's not obvious - how do you value early minutes vs. later minutes, and how should it weigh say 1x60min versus 2x30min (or 1x120min every other day). I suspect picking a central point like 1hr and exponentiating off that in either direction might be useful rather than counting from 0.
I did this in my first 2-3 months of NSM as I didn't do a long run. It generates similar load in terms of TSS but that's just a number on a screen. I found it quite wearing after a while. The long run really breaks things up nicely with the easy day after and gives you a mental break as well as different stimulus and recovery/compensation buffer. I found it made a big difference, and vastly prefer the standard 7 day cycle.
Again, with these things it comes back to vanilla NSM being an extremely good one-size-fits-nearly-all pattern. You can hang some baubles off it if it works for you, but the basic pattern is pretty much ideal for most people.
And just went you think the thread might be cooked, a brilliant post pops up!
I think something that has come up in my head has always been rTSS actually works pretty well, for this kind of training, because of the repeatable nature. So, we can still tell when more is more. So it does surprisingly well. But I've always thought easy is overestimated, but again i don't think that matters a huge amount assuming you train the same way. All we are doing by tracking load is providing a snapshot of more, or less, or the same. It's relatively that simple whilst sticking to the same rough schedule of Subthreshold X3 and filling the rest in with easy all around the same intensity.
But i do think it would be great to tighten things up, it can only help and would be very interesting to hear more on it.
You also have that fatigue is non-linear and really the only way running is different, even though we think it is special, is the recovery cost of hard running is totally disproportionate compared to cycling which is what the model was originally designed for.
I also think that if you're at the point where you're having to add cross training to beat NSM then for a time crunched hobbyjogger you've already lost, as you need to train longer on the bike to get the equivalent running load.
Daily LT1 spamming may generate more weekly load than NSM, but I think we've all seen that most metrics used to track load overrate longer low-intensity runs. So this may not actually beat NSM in practice, at least not at the 800m - half marathon distances since you're not doing enough to push the lactate curve to the right. Again, no evidence to support this, someone should try it out, but throw in the additional fatigue and I suspect daily efforts would burn out most masters runners and even younger guns not on EPO lol.
This is probably it for now. It's doubles lite. A decent amount of the load probably translates to topping up what is already a good amount of running 7-8 hours a week. I posted a while back. I just don't think my lifestyle can handle doubles running. You have to remember it has taken me all the time (even before I ever posted here) up until late last summer, to really get to this point.
I'll run this experiment for a while and report back. I *think* I might have an idea of a rough equation we can use to put a value on cross training, and luckily guys like cheetodust are also trying it on top up a long time on just running and Wigglewaffle hopefully next as well. So it will give us an idea of it's use outside of just me, or if there is even a pattern, or if it even holds value for others. But im going to probably wait until mid next year to really draw any conclusions. But at worse, yes, I've said it's a free hit even if it doesn't do anything. There's no real measurable extra fatigue, the downside is finding the time to do it, especially when the spirit of what I initially intended, was an hour a day plus 90 minutes on a Sunday.
Takes me up to about 10 total. Which is a lot. I can't really imagine dedicating more of that to a hobby I don't love, especially when I already play other sports (depending on your view if they are sports!) for a good amount of time a week. It's more a curiosity if I can get a little bit better, for not a huge amount of extra time, but in all honesty, it's probably a fraction more than I would like to dedicate to training.
I'm sure if you are doing it, you are working on the assumption the value is there, based on your track record. Maybe it's something I'll keep an eye on myself. I'm over a year into NSM and feel I have at least until this time next year with potential to up the load, but maybe this is the crossroads everyone gets to. Double Bakken style if they can handle it or double lite/bike. It's crazy how long you can ride this out though on just running singles and still improve.
If you do manage to make the marathon, good luck. I can't imagine there's a single person who doesn't wish you well. Same goes for Wigglewaffle, if he still reads the thread, or pass on good luck. It would be great to see someone break 2:20 on what is still very, very limited mileage by marathon standards.
Oh and it's a bit of a stretch to call darts or snooker which I assume you are referring to a sport. But I guess the joke is on running as they will make you a lot richer in prize money at the elite level!
Isn't rTSS calculated exactly the same way as TSS except for a small inflation factor for duration and functional threshold pace is based on 10 or 15 km performance, depending on how slow/fast you are?
Isn't rTSS calculated exactly the same way as TSS except for a small inflation factor for duration and functional threshold pace is based on 10 or 15 km performance, depending on how slow/fast you are?
I've just been using the Training Peaks definition: duration*(speed/FTP)^2 where FTP is 1 hour speed. I stick to flat roads so don't bother normalising speed. And obviously pace gets converted to speed throughout.
Like being "aerobically underdeveloped", it actually isn't. Even the original use of the term in reference to glycogen storage has fallen into disfavour.
Alternatively, you could say that "super compensation" is a thing the way that, e.g., Friel's "decoupling" is a thing, i.e., it's just a buzzword used by coaches and athletes to talk about things that that really don't understand.
NSM noob here. Anyone else notice a steep pace ramp around LT1 HR? For me it's 140 at 5:30/km now. 2 bpm more and i'm 10s/km faster, trying to run a km at 137 cost me over 20s. Tested using km averages, not just current hr/pace at any given time.
Hi, I'm new here, though I'm active on Reddit and Strava, and I've also read sirpoc84's book twice. I started 3 months ago doing 40 minutes of SubT work per session, totaling 2 hours of SubT per week. Last week, I reduced it to 35 minutes per session, as several people on Reddit recommended that I might be overdoing it. Also, the book's guidelines are clear: 30 minutes per session. But I think what's important for now is that intervals.icu keeps me in the gray and blue zones all the time, and Garmin shows (Yellow - maintenance). I'll try sticking with 35 minutes for a few weeks and, depending on the results I see, I'll either drop to 30 minutes per session if necessary or if I feel tired or see no improvements, or I'll keep it at 35. Currently, I split my SubT sessions as follows: Tuesday 10*3'30", Thursday 5*7', and Saturday 3*11'40". Do you think cutting those 15 weekly minutes will make a big difference? PS: I've been running for about 4 years, and this December is when I'm achieving my best times in 5K and 10K. Thanks to everyone for your messages that help the community
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Hi, I'm new here, though I'm active on Reddit and Strava, and I've also read sirpoc84's book twice. I started 3 months ago doing 40 minutes of SubT work per session, totaling 2 hours of SubT per week. Last week, I reduced it to 35 minutes per session, as several people on Reddit recommended that I might be overdoing it. Also, the book's guidelines are clear: 30 minutes per session. But I think what's important for now is that intervals.icu keeps me in the gray and blue zones all the time, and Garmin shows (Yellow - maintenance). I'll try sticking with 35 minutes for a few weeks and, depending on the results I see, I'll either drop to 30 minutes per session if necessary or if I feel tired or see no improvements, or I'll keep it at 35. Currently, I split my SubT sessions as follows: Tuesday 10*3'30", Thursday 5*7', and Saturday 3*11'40". Do you think cutting those 15 weekly minutes will make a big difference? PS: I've been running for about 4 years, and this December is when I'm achieving my best times in 5K and 10K. Thanks to everyone for your messages that help the community
Are you getting at least 60 seconds rest between reps?
Hi, I'm new here, though I'm active on Reddit and Strava, and I've also read sirpoc84's book twice. I started 3 months ago doing 40 minutes of SubT work per session, totaling 2 hours of SubT per week. Last week, I reduced it to 35 minutes per session, as several people on Reddit recommended that I might be overdoing it. Also, the book's guidelines are clear: 30 minutes per session. But I think what's important for now is that intervals.icu keeps me in the gray and blue zones all the time, and Garmin shows (Yellow - maintenance). I'll try sticking with 35 minutes for a few weeks and, depending on the results I see, I'll either drop to 30 minutes per session if necessary or if I feel tired or see no improvements, or I'll keep it at 35. Currently, I split my SubT sessions as follows: Tuesday 10*3'30", Thursday 5*7', and Saturday 3*11'40". Do you think cutting those 15 weekly minutes will make a big difference? PS: I've been running for about 4 years, and this December is when I'm achieving my best times in 5K and 10K. Thanks to everyone for your messages that help the community
What sort of split does subthreshold to easy running look like?
Again, there seems to be a pretty consistent pattern for those who have huge success doing singles. It's around 75/25 for the most part, maybe even slightly more aggressive at the lower end of hours, but then nearer 7-8 hour range it's more like 80/20 split, maybe even 85/15 in terms of total minutes towards the real top end. This is explained in the book.
Why this is another thing that seems to hold up and be a pretty good guage, who knows. Like a lot of things with NSM, the tried and tested often comes back to how it was designed at the start. Either luck or genius. Probably the second of those.
Hi, I'm new here, though I'm active on Reddit and Strava, and I've also read sirpoc84's book twice. I started 3 months ago doing 40 minutes of SubT work per session, totaling 2 hours of SubT per week. Last week, I reduced it to 35 minutes per session, as several people on Reddit recommended that I might be overdoing it. Also, the book's guidelines are clear: 30 minutes per session. But I think what's important for now is that intervals.icu keeps me in the gray and blue zones all the time, and Garmin shows (Yellow - maintenance). I'll try sticking with 35 minutes for a few weeks and, depending on the results I see, I'll either drop to 30 minutes per session if necessary or if I feel tired or see no improvements, or I'll keep it at 35. Currently, I split my SubT sessions as follows: Tuesday 10*3'30", Thursday 5*7', and Saturday 3*11'40". Do you think cutting those 15 weekly minutes will make a big difference? PS: I've been running for about 4 years, and this December is when I'm achieving my best times in 5K and 10K. Thanks to everyone for your messages that help the community
What sort of split does subthreshold to easy running look like?
Again, there seems to be a pretty consistent pattern for those who have huge success doing singles. It's around 75/25 for the most part, maybe even slightly more aggressive at the lower end of hours, but then nearer 7-8 hour range it's more like 80/20 split, maybe even 85/15 in terms of total minutes towards the real top end. This is explained in the book.
Why this is another thing that seems to hold up and be a pretty good guage, who knows. Like a lot of things with NSM, the tried and tested often comes back to how it was designed at the start. Either luck or genius. Probably the second of those.
Ever since I started the method about 10-11 weeks ago, I was doing 40 minutes of SubT work. I've only been doing 35 minutes for one week (3 sessions). At first, it was also really hard for me to stay below 70% on easy days. After running most days in zone 2 for so long, the body has to get used to going at an even lower intensity. I finally managed it; my recent easy runs and long runs have all been in zone 1, below 70% of my Max HR. Just yesterday, I did 1 hour at 65% of my Max HR. Here are my intervals.icu data for the last 42 days: Z1: 27h9m (60.2%) Z2: 5h16m (11.7%) Z3: 3h55m (8.7%) Z4: 8h6m (18.0%) Z5: 31m27s (1.2%) Z6: 7m20s (0.3%) Z7: 12s And here's the data for the last 7 days: Heart Rate Zones Z1: 5h54m (79.1%) Z2: 12m25s (2.8%) Z3: 29m58s (6.7%) Z4: 50m26s (11.3%) Z5: 37s (0.1%) Z6: - Z7: - Thank you so much for responding, and sorry for my English—I have to use a translator.
I saw the "How to Train like a Pro Runner" video by Alfie Manthorpe recommended in the youtuber thread
Alfie does indeed include VO2max work and strides
I love how every critic here is saying "You can't reach y our best without VO2max work", while ignoring that someone like Alfie runs +200 km every week :D
I'm eagerly await someone to come and criticize NSM with a "You can't reach your personal best without running +200 km a week" statement
-
Just shows that any critique targeting hobby joggers is ridiculous in that every single critic here is choosing to ignore the high mileage part of running.
Just cherry picking the easy stuff pro's do like VO2max and strides that that everyone can copy and ignoring the rest.
Where it gets utterly criminal is when you see statements like "By adding VO2max you can lower mileage" :D
-
Oh well .. Enough internet for today. Gotta take advantage of not being at work while the sun is still up .. Time to go for a hobby jog with zero speed work :)
Maybe it has to do with the relative rates of glycogen utilization and resynthesis, which for a given carbohydrate intake determines what you can do over the longer haul?
I saw the "How to Train like a Pro Runner" video by Alfie Manthorpe recommended in the youtuber thread
Alfie does indeed include VO2max work and strides
I love how every critic here is saying "You can't reach y our best without VO2max work", while ignoring that someone like Alfie runs +200 km every week :D
I'm eagerly await someone to come and criticize NSM with a "You can't reach your personal best without running +200 km a week" statement
-
Just shows that any critique targeting hobby joggers is ridiculous in that every single critic here is choosing to ignore the high mileage part of running.
Just cherry picking the easy stuff pro's do like VO2max and strides that that everyone can copy and ignoring the rest.
Where it gets utterly criminal is when you see statements like "By adding VO2max you can lower mileage" :D
-
Oh well .. Enough internet for today. Gotta take advantage of not being at work while the sun is still up .. Time to go for a hobby jog with zero speed work :)
You are thinking the wrong way around mate. There is no way you need +200 km per week to run VO2max and strides work and get very good results out of them.
Best you keep on staying away from internet and change your hobbyjogging to include speed work as well.
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.