Yes and this has been said over and over and over again but the differences have also been said over and over and over again. Lots of hobby joggers are not disciplined to do this properly and the intervals are a way to prevent them over cooking. The intervals also allow more variety in paces. Why can’t you just accept that this method has been proven to be successful? Is it simply jealousy?
Ahh ... So we need to treat people as stupid and force them to do only easy :D
That was the context of my post !
The advice above that people should only do easy running advice only when they are high mileage should they add in a single subt workout.
I suspect that is the easiest way to kill all joy off running before anyone even gotten started!
-
Sure, if they are absolute beginners then giving then a system of running 6-7 days a week is silly, but if someone is already running say 30k a week then why no just go:
Listen .. !
3 times a week do a 5k at a pace that brings you to to your threshold heart rate at the end. If you ever reach heart rate that during the run then slow down,
Then do 3x5k at easy pace rest of week.
Slowly add easy mileage and with time add on a warm up and cool down to your 5k. Then you can start by doing intervals.
-
Intervals aren't there to prevent people from overcooking. Claiming that is just silly.
Intervals are there to extract the maximum load
You go repeatedly to the edge and then rest in order to not fall over the cliff after which you push hard again ...
The rests aren't there as a measure to prevent overcooking. They are there to allow you to spend more time close to the sun.
Yes and this has been said over and over and over again but the differences have also been said over and over and over again. Lots of hobby joggers are not disciplined to do this properly and the intervals are a way to prevent them over cooking. The intervals also allow more variety in paces. Why can’t you just accept that this method has been proven to be successful? Is it simply jealousy?
Ahh ... So we need to treat people as stupid and force them to do only easy :D
That was the context of my post !
The advice above that people should only do easy running advice only when they are high mileage should they add in a single subt workout.
I suspect that is the easiest way to kill all joy off running before anyone even gotten started!
-
Sure, if they are absolute beginners then giving then a system of running 6-7 days a week is silly, but if someone is already running say 30k a week then why no just go:
Listen .. !
3 times a week do a 5k at a pace that brings you to to your threshold heart rate at the end. If you ever reach heart rate that during the run then slow down,
Then do 3x5k at easy pace rest of week.
Slowly add easy mileage and with time add on a warm up and cool down to your 5k. Then you can start by doing intervals.
-
Intervals aren't there to prevent people from overcooking. Claiming that is just silly.
Intervals are there to extract the maximum load
You go repeatedly to the edge and then rest in order to not fall over the cliff after which you push hard again ...
The rests aren't there as a measure to prevent overcooking. They are there to allow you to spend more time close to the sun.
What would happen if you spent too much time close to the sun? You would overcook. I’d say you are a troll but I know too many retards like you in real life to be sure that’s the case. If you have a better system, great, start your own thread on it, write your own book on it, if it’s as good as or better than this one then even better, you will be a new hero to hobby joggers everywhere. If not, and you just want to re hash the same nonsense over and over again then please just go away, it’s incredibly tedious.
What would happen if you spent too much time close to the sun? You would overcook. I’d say you are a troll but I know too many retards like you in real life to be sure that’s the case. If you have a better system, great, start your own thread on it, write your own book on it, if it’s as good as or better than this one then even better, you will be a new hero to hobby joggers everywhere. If not, and you just want to re hash the same nonsense over and over again then please just go away, it’s incredibly tedious.
Yes and this has been said over and over and over again but the differences have also been said over and over and over again. Lots of hobby joggers are not disciplined to do this properly and the intervals are a way to prevent them over cooking. The intervals also allow more variety in paces. Why can’t you just accept that this method has been proven to be successful? Is it simply jealousy?
Ahh ... So we need to treat people as stupid and force them to do only easy :D
That was the context of my post !
The advice above that people should only do easy running advice only when they are high mileage should they add in a single subt workout.
I suspect that is the easiest way to kill all joy off running before anyone even gotten started!
-
Sure, if they are absolute beginners then giving then a system of running 6-7 days a week is silly, but if someone is already running say 30k a week then why no just go:
Listen .. !
3 times a week do a 5k at a pace that brings you to to your threshold heart rate at the end. If you ever reach heart rate that during the run then slow down,
Then do 3x5k at easy pace rest of week.
Slowly add easy mileage and with time add on a warm up and cool down to your 5k. Then you can start by doing intervals.
-
Intervals aren't there to prevent people from overcooking. Claiming that is just silly.
Intervals are there to extract the maximum load
You go repeatedly to the edge and then rest in order to not fall over the cliff after which you push hard again ...
The rests aren't there as a measure to prevent overcooking. They are there to allow you to spend more time close to the sun.
You make it seem like "preventing overcooking" and "spending more time close to the sun" are mutually exclusive. The whole point of this method is to maximize *manageable* load (i.e., load you can recover from day in, day out, indefinitely) without needing down days or down weeks. Naturally, with three sub-T workouts of sizable volume, you do maximize load for the time you have each week, consistently over months and years. If I were to calculate accumulated load over a year for true load-maximizing polarized training cycles (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), and compare that to a year's accumulated load with this method (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), I can guarantee that 8 hours of this method over time would be more substantial load-wise. Yet, it ALSO is sustainable enough that I never have to rest. I haven't needed to take a day off from fatigue in three years now. I also never have to think about my training. Just race or time trial, see where I'm at, adjust paces, then keep doing the same thing. Each year, I just do the same workouts over and over again, a tad faster, which stresses my muscles and aerobic system just right to keep improving without needing to stop.
Ahh ... So we need to treat people as stupid and force them to do only easy :D
That was the context of my post !
The advice above that people should only do easy running advice only when they are high mileage should they add in a single subt workout.
I suspect that is the easiest way to kill all joy off running before anyone even gotten started!
-
Sure, if they are absolute beginners then giving then a system of running 6-7 days a week is silly, but if someone is already running say 30k a week then why no just go:
Listen .. !
3 times a week do a 5k at a pace that brings you to to your threshold heart rate at the end. If you ever reach heart rate that during the run then slow down,
Then do 3x5k at easy pace rest of week.
Slowly add easy mileage and with time add on a warm up and cool down to your 5k. Then you can start by doing intervals.
-
Intervals aren't there to prevent people from overcooking. Claiming that is just silly.
Intervals are there to extract the maximum load
You go repeatedly to the edge and then rest in order to not fall over the cliff after which you push hard again ...
The rests aren't there as a measure to prevent overcooking. They are there to allow you to spend more time close to the sun.
You make it seem like "preventing overcooking" and "spending more time close to the sun" are mutually exclusive. The whole point of this method is to maximize *manageable* load (i.e., load you can recover from day in, day out, indefinitely) without needing down days or down weeks. Naturally, with three sub-T workouts of sizable volume, you do maximize load for the time you have each week, consistently over months and years. If I were to calculate accumulated load over a year for true load-maximizing polarized training cycles (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), and compare that to a year's accumulated load with this method (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), I can guarantee that 8 hours of this method over time would be more substantial load-wise. Yet, it ALSO is sustainable enough that I never have to rest. I haven't needed to take a day off from fatigue in three years now. I also never have to think about my training. Just race or time trial, see where I'm at, adjust paces, then keep doing the same thing. Each year, I just do the same workouts over and over again, a tad faster, which stresses my muscles and aerobic system just right to keep improving without needing to stop.
As soon as someone establishes a "system" the internet become religious in upholding it rather being interested in other people, eh?
-
My original comment here wasn't a critique of NSM, but of Wolfe suggesting that people fairly new to running should build up to five(!) hours of easy running, before adding their first subt workout.
I tried to explain this context to Again again and again only to be called a retard :D
You quote my answer to Again .. and yet go on a rant based on my comment about intervals.
-
I will now make two posts. First I will repeat what the stuff you quoted, but ignored and then I will comment directly on the intervals thing that is what especially seems to bug you.
-
Context:
I find a suggestion of working up to 5 hours of easy absolutely silly. Having people shuffling their feet around 40 km a week before being allowed to increase pace? That sounds like torture.
People have been running a brisk 30-60 minutes 3 times a week since forever
Not to mention .. If you go and join a running club as a hobby jogger usually what you will be offered is running group that runs 3 times a week for 30-60 minutes. You can pick the 6:30 km/min group if your slow or the 4:00/km, if you're not.
So basically same same ...
-
But ok .. We are married to our system .. Can't have any faster work unless it's structured in intervals and comes with both a warm up and cool down, so sure, if you insist on that then it becomes difficult to start people out on NSM because yes, a full blown SubT session is indeed demanding.
But c'mon ... you can run sub threshold without making a big deal out of it ..
As soon as someone is out of the couch-to-5k bracket then let them run a 3-5k a couple of times a week to get pulse up and enjoy a bit of running .. Just make sure that they don't go over their threshold heart rate and all is good
-
Sirpoc has written a zillion times "At the core you have your 3 workouts and then you fill in with easy running".
Let's keep that spirit alive and a bit of fun in running.
Forcing someone to run 40 km of easy before being allowed to have fun seems a bit sadistic in my very humble opinion.
Give them some fun runs appropriate to their level .. Fill in with easy running and sure .. Once their mileage is 40+ you can begin the intervals structure and so on.
In page 7 of his book, Sirpoc states "the overall training load is the dominant driver of fitness gains, far outweighing the specific composition of the workouts".
By the same reasoning you are providing, but taking it to the other extreme, why don't you then do the same training every day of the week yielding an even training load, which adds up to the same training load achieved with vanilla NSM?
You are essentially describing the Easy Interval Method (also known as the Verheul method; there is a book by Klaas Lok).
It's a legitimate approach which, just like NSM, accumulates a lot of time spent just below LT2 but EIM does it through an emphasis on (daily) faster running.
EIM is met by a lot of criticism and skepticism in this thread but I think they are actually not that different. Lots of sub-threshold volume, a lot of practicing to run fast (*as opposed to hard*), intensity control (very easy easy days in NSM, long easy recovery jogs in EIM).
I've done both EIM and NSM (a couple of years on both) and actually fared better with EIM. My thinking is that as someone who has always had more natural speed (one might say more FT-oriented I guess) my legs enjoy the microdosing of faster running each day.
Despite being very patient with NSM I just did not see those sudden jumps in fitness being reported by so many. I really wish I had though, since I've enjoyed the training.
You make it seem like "preventing overcooking" and "spending more time close to the sun" are mutually exclusive. The whole point of this method is to maximize *manageable* load (i.e., load you can recover from day in, day out, indefinitely) without needing down days or down weeks. Naturally, with three sub-T workouts of sizable volume, you do maximize load for the time you have each week, consistently over months and years. If I were to calculate accumulated load over a year for true load-maximizing polarized training cycles (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), and compare that to a year's accumulated load with this method (constrained to 8 hrs/wk), I can guarantee that 8 hours of this method over time would be more substantial load-wise. Yet, it ALSO is sustainable enough that I never have to rest. I haven't needed to take a day off from fatigue in three years now. I also never have to think about my training. Just race or time trial, see where I'm at, adjust paces, then keep doing the same thing. Each year, I just do the same workouts over and over again, a tad faster, which stresses my muscles and aerobic system just right to keep improving without needing to stop.
Now the thing about intervals:
Again .. wrote to me "Lots of hobby joggers are not disciplined to do this properly and the intervals are a way to prevent them over cooking."
Which I disagree with.
Intervals come from an elite setting and has absolute nothing to do with protecting hobby joggers.
Being allowed to fly close to the sun more comes with more bang for the buck, if you execute it correctly. But given that you are flying closer to the sun also means that, if you don't execute it correctly then you can f... yourself up even harder.
Plenty of post here and on Reddit from people that f... up their intervals and pay a price.
You are essentially describing the Easy Interval Method (also known as the Verheul method; there is a book by Klaas Lok).
It's a legitimate approach which, just like NSM, accumulates a lot of time spent just below LT2 but EIM does it through an emphasis on (daily) faster running.
EIM is met by a lot of criticism and skepticism in this thread but I think they are actually not that different. Lots of sub-threshold volume, a lot of practicing to run fast (*as opposed to hard*), intensity control (very easy easy days in NSM, long easy recovery jogs in EIM).
I've done both EIM and NSM (a couple of years on both) and actually fared better with EIM. My thinking is that as someone who has always had more natural speed (one might say more FT-oriented I guess) my legs enjoy the microdosing of faster running each day.
Despite being very patient with NSM I just did not see those sudden jumps in fitness being reported by so many. I really wish I had though, since I've enjoyed the training.
I posted about EIM a while back. I have seen it work for some people, but the approaches are drastically different and I have tried both for decent periods of time. The irony of EIM is it's not that easy, over time, in my opinion. But that is genuinely just my opinion and experience of it. I think in general, the EIM thread was a mixed bag. But considering it has morr frequent faster running snd NSM didnt work for you, EIM might be a nice starting point for the unfortunate that don't improve with NSM?
I mean they are both running, but that's it. I don't think really anyone knows truly what KL is basing a lot of it on. I have the book and actually went back and read it a couple of months ago and I'm still utterly baffled by a lot of it (maybe some stuff lost in translation?). It's certainly not really rooted in science of phisiology.
But considering it has morr frequent faster running snd NSM didnt work for you, EIM might be a nice starting point for the unfortunate that don't improve with NSM?
[..]
I mean they are both running, but that's it. I don't think really anyone knows truly what KL is basing a lot of it on. I have the book and actually went back and read it a couple of months ago and I'm still utterly baffled by a lot of it (maybe some stuff lost in translation?). It's certainly not really rooted in science of phisiology.
I think it might be worth trying if you don't seem to respond well to NSM (which most seem to do).
My take is that Klaas mostly basis it on coaching experience and practical results, which I think is 100% valid. That said I agree that the theoretical foundation is not the strongest part of the book.
So what is your solution exactly? Are you suggesting that runners do ~60min races multiple times per year to find their threshold?
Why do you need to formally test your threshold so frequently? What's wrong with just getting on with the training and letting the chips fall where they may?
I'm trying to understand your position. You suggested athletes use performance but now you are saying "Just feel it out bro." Both topics I covered in the original post but you refuse to read.
What is happening now by UD against Venezuela is terrorism. It would have been the same regardless of which country or organization did what US is doing now. If my country did the same then we would be terrorists
I use a similar scheme as Friel on TrainingPeaks. I'm not too concerned with what's considered standard. I go by what I can sustain.
The problem is one of communication. If everyone calculates ramp rate differently, the data lose all external meaning.
As for Friel . . .
Well, again, you have criticized, but have provided no alternatives. Give your references. I have 50+ books on training, and 150+ papers on a variety of training/exphys topics. Enlighten me.
I told you my ramp rate is 5/tss/week, and that ramp rate is CTL(today)- CTL(7 days ago). You are free to convert that number to your value of choice.
Well, again, you have criticized, but have provided no alternatives. Give your references. I have 50+ books on training, and 150+ papers on a variety of training/exphys topics. Enlighten me.
I told you my ramp rate is 5/tss/week, and that ramp rate is CTL(today)- CTL(7 days ago). You are free to convert that number to your value of choice.
No, actually, you just said 5 (r)TSS per day, without specifying the time span over which that slope was calculated. Only when I asked did you clarify that that is over the last week.
As for your references, pffft. I know this topic more intimately than you ever will.
I'm trying to understand your position. You suggested athletes use performance but now you are saying "Just feel it out bro." Both topics I covered in the original post but you refuse to read.
Have a nice day.
I'm saying that it is a waste of time and effort to try to nail things down to the nth degree.
As for your opinions, do you truly believe anyone here really cares?
Thank you for outlining your concept again in very detail.
Interestingly i had the same idea several weeks ago, trying to optimize the maximum training load/week, but i used the TRIMP system. Also here a longer duration around 60min threshold/week gave a better result = higher load per week. It seems to be better to have a higher duration below THR, as to have a shorter duration above it. I am more and more convinced that this is the better (and safer) concept , even there is still a lot of dicussion on this.
Yes for sure. Time crunched cyclists who Time Trial have done this for a long time. I just never tried it for running initially, to my mistake, because guys would tell me "how you gonna run a 5k if you never do 5k pace". I stupidly listened. I wish I had stuck to my guns initially, as my gut reaction to running was TSS was TSS, which creates CTL (to use the terms I'm familiar with from training peaks) which is what creates fitness. For the individual, you can create a training score and to within maybe 98% your fitness will be the same.
As an extreme, I could probably achieve similar with running twice as much a week, but all easy pace with maybe one tempo run. But that would take double the amount of hours. But in terms of training load/CTL, would be the same. Id probably still be the same in a 5k. This is why you hear stories of guys running insane hours a week, mostly all easy (training for an ultra maybe) but then setting PBS all over the place in shorter distances.
You can't compare other people's training loads, it's all individualised, as training score/CTL is just a number. But from what I know about myself in two sports + a lot of friends I have spoken to, that individuals score of say "60" (this is a random number) equates to roughly the same times for say a 5k-10k for that person. The only really issue is digging into the weeds and working out the fastest way, to get to that training score.
I come from a cycling background and actually found this post when I was researching “Sweet spot running” which strangely seemed to not really exist in basic running literature (oddly enough). This CTL and cycling based approach really resonates with me.
anyway, I’m a mediocre runner and I started using this methodology and it has proven extremely consistent, reliable, and predictable- much like cycling (I wish we had power meters for running!). I’ve started two months ago and I’m able to run about 5 hrs a week but I have 2-3 additional hours to train.
currently I’m running 30-35 min on easy days, 20 min sub threshold 3x a week for a total of 40-45 mins those days and a LR of 70-75 mins. if I were to add 2 or so hours this current structure what would be the best use of my time? My guess is 30min sweet spot (3x10, 2x15) and 1.5 hr z2
but I’m curious for those who have experimented with this to see what worked for you. I’m focusing on running now and want to build the mileage and time there, but I need to do it slowly so I want to maximize my fitness in the mean time.
