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.
It's funny how cryptic he is but I suppose he has to be if he doesn't want 500 of us weirdos turning up at the same race in Chinese shoes and vintage football tops, scarfing down Snickers bars while asking him if the 2K reps or the 1600's would work better to PB at a local 8.4K trail race.
It's funny how cryptic he is but I suppose he has to be if he doesn't want 500 of us weirdos turning up at the same race in Chinese shoes and vintage football tops, scarfing down Snickers bars while asking him if the 2K reps or the 1600's would work better to PB at a local 8.4K trail race.
Hang on. **Mars bars. As you were.
Snickers should change their name back to Marathon and sponsor Sirapoc's next race.
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.
On changing TSS formulas as they overvalue longer efforts...
Not sure if it is directly transferable and relavent, but if one assumes GH is part of the puzzle for how much benefit one gets from workouts, I find this to be an interesting study:
Longer exercise up to ~60mins does increase peak serum GH levels but then it somewhat plateaus after that. Exercise up to 120 mins no longer significantly impacts the peak, but it does increase how long serum GH stays in the system (area under the curve) especially in men. Minimal effects for women past 60mins.
Open questions for me:
- is this relevant to running? I think it is. I have heard some ppl suggest that the main benefits of easy running is for the GH boost.
- is peak serum GH or area under the curve more important? I would guess area is more important but that is a guess.
- how does age affect things? The mean age of test subjects was 27 (SD 4), so still relatively young. Does the drop in Testosterone as one ages change the GH response and make the men's profile more similar to the women's? or is Testosterone irrelevant? No idea.
Seperate from that, I do agree that TSS (or rTSS) overestimates the benefits of longer efforts for measuring Fitness/CTL, but I think the load is relevant Fatigue/ATL. Not sure if it would make sense use separate formulas to get calculate load of each activity for the Fitness vs Fatigue (aka have a Fitness Load vs Fatigue/Recovery Load), or if it's just more useful for measuring Fatigue than Fitness and that is just how it works.
On a similar note though, I personally think intensity might be a properly valued with regards to calculating Fitness Load but it maybe should have a greater impact on Fatigue Load (which is a separate problem that has been brought up before). Which maybe supports the idea of using 2 different load calculations for then getting Fitness and Fatigue.
If training with power, Intervals.icu also has "strain score". It's an interesting approach on the same concept, but the score is a three-parameter model that models the aerobic, glycolytic, and phosphocreatine systems. I don't know how it compares to TSS ("load" on ICU). Might be interesting to chart the two.
We have started implementing some of the ideas in this paper (Xert uses a similar model): Nothing is live yet but I like the first results. You get a trace with the relative contribution of each energy system (aerobic, glycol...
Not only is there no reason to believe that, there are multiple reasons not to believe it, and have been for half a century
So do you contend that cycling illicits serum GH but running doesn't or that serum GH is produced by the body post aerobic exercise for absolutely no good reason (bodies famously love to waste energy and do things for no reason). Or are you just a high effort troll that is trying your best to derail good conversations by throwing out baseless claims that you are unwilling or unable to provide?
If you actually have good information to share I would love it, but so far you just throw out comments saying others are wrong without providing any actual information to counter or educate.
I would contend that although normal endocrine function is important for good health and in modulating the responses to acute exercise, it has little to nothing to do with the adaptations to chronic exercise, i.e., training.
Source: the hundreds of hypophysectomized/adrenalectomized/castrated/ovarectomized rats that would agree with me. (Did I miss any endocrine glands?)
Would you run 45 mpw with 3 workouts to improve your 5k 1:30 (or 7.8%, if you like) in 6 months? That's what reddit OP did.
runners at that level would improve quickly regardless of their training. When I started running, I was at 23 mins 5k, after around 6 months, I got under 20, another 6 months I got to 18 flat and those were on 30-35mpw. For people with average talent, 30-35mpw with some high-end aerobic stuff here and there would get you to around 16-17 before you reach the first roadblock. Until then there's no need to run that much, never mind with 3 workouts. For a beginner, you would easily get burned out that way
I would contend that although normal endocrine function is important for good health and in modulating the responses to acute exercise, it has little to nothing to do with the adaptations to chronic exercise, i.e., training.
Source: the hundreds of hypophysectomized/adrenalectomized/castrated/ovarectomized rats that would agree with me. (Did I miss any endocrine glands?)
Muscles release myokines in response to exercise and GH modulates release of myokines… I’m guessing you’re a runner
Would you run 45 mpw with 3 workouts to improve your 5k 1:30 (or 7.8%, if you like) in 6 months? That's what reddit OP did.
runners at that level would improve quickly regardless of their training. When I started running, I was at 23 mins 5k, after around 6 months, I got under 20, another 6 months I got to 18 flat and those were on 30-35mpw. For people with average talent, 30-35mpw with some high-end aerobic stuff here and there would get you to around 16-17 before you reach the first roadblock. Until then there's no need to run that much, never mind with 3 workouts. For a beginner, you would easily get burned out that way
I think the term “average talent” is doing a lot of heavy lifting with your statement about getting to 16-17 minutes.
Would you run 45 mpw with 3 workouts to improve your 5k 1:30 (or 7.8%, if you like) in 6 months? That's what reddit OP did.
runners at that level would improve quickly regardless of their training. When I started running, I was at 23 mins 5k, after around 6 months, I got under 20, another 6 months I got to 18 flat and those were on 30-35mpw. For people with average talent, 30-35mpw with some high-end aerobic stuff here and there would get you to around 16-17 before you reach the first roadblock. Until then there's no need to run that much, never mind with 3 workouts. For a beginner, you would easily get burned out that way
23 from the start and sub 20m after 6 months is pretty impresive. Far more than average talent.
Not sure of your trolling or for real stating that
Thanks to guys who shared last week how to find Wigglewaffle on Strava. Just seen his 8+8+8 sirpoc special block workout. Really kind of wild. I can only imagine how fast he will potentially run and from sirpoc posts a few days back, he seems to think he is where he needs to be which I imagine is a crazy big PB. Really inspiring and a wake up call again for me to not be tempted to mess around with the format and the habit of trying to add quality into the long run earlier in the block.
runners at that level would improve quickly regardless of their training. When I started running, I was at 23 mins 5k, after around 6 months, I got under 20, another 6 months I got to 18 flat and those were on 30-35mpw. For people with average talent, 30-35mpw with some high-end aerobic stuff here and there would get you to around 16-17 before you reach the first roadblock. Until then there's no need to run that much, never mind with 3 workouts. For a beginner, you would easily get burned out that way
23 from the start and sub 20m after 6 months is pretty impresive. Far more than average talent.
Not sure of your trolling or for real stating that
Well, from me you will probably see 25 min now from the start and a sub 20min after 6 month or less!! And it will of course be confirmed and done with the Dancan system of mine and not the NSM. 🤣🤣🤣🇸🇪🧙♂️🇸🇪
Well, from me you will probably see 25 min now from the start and a sub 20min after 6 month or less!! And it will of course be confirmed and done with the Dancan system of mine and not the NSM. 🤣🤣🤣🇸🇪🧙♂️🇸🇪
