I’m going to attempt to redirect the conversation into something more productive. I’ve been running 5 x LT1 intervals, 90 min long, 30 min easy for the last 5.5 weeks.
A 7 hour week of vanilla NSM would yield a weekly load of ~370 on intervals.icu and I achieve around the same load on 6.5 hours training this way. It’s not a game changing optimisation, but it’s allowed me to be consistent during a very demanding time in my life and avoiding the paces I hit in the 6 and 3 minute reps has reduced my Achilles soreness.
It’s summer here and there’s been huge variance in temperature and humidity so I’ve run sessions anywhere between 10C to 26C and 50-95% humidity. I also have had to change the location of my sessions pretty frequently so it’s been difficult to draw like for like comparisons to accurately assess my progress. But I have three sessions performed on the same course in ~18-19C and ~85-90% humidity, pace and HR listed as averages below:
November 27: 4 x 8’ @ 4:11/km (146bpm)
December 18: 3 x 10’ @ 4:08/km (143bpm)
January 5: 3 x 10’ @ 3:58/km (144 bpm)
At this point I think the likelihood that my curve has shifted to the right is very high and I believe I will PB once the weather cools down. Obviously the big thing that remains to be seen is whether not touching anything remotely close to 5k pace will matter significantly.
Training this way does feel slightly less sustainable than vanilla NSM. More from a mental standpoint than physical. I am probably going to switch back to vanilla when I have more control over my work timetable in March, but I think I could comfortably switch back and forth when I need to and stay on the same trajectory.
How are you determining your LT1?
Oh God. Not this question again. “Runnersareclueless” is going to blow a gasket.
I’m not testing lactate and never have so I probably shouldn’t have used that language. Sirpoc never did either when he first floated the idea in this thread. It was MP everyday with no mention of LT1 so I regret my wording and don’t want to add any unnecessary complexity and confusion.
I’m running the reps slightly slower than marathon pace + adjusting for the conditions and don’t allow HR to get above 85% HRMax on the last rep. I’m basically using an estimated HR equivalent as a hard cap and staying a few beats below that on the earlier reps in the same way someone doing vanilla would use their estimated LTHR. Whether I am exceeding LT1 or not, staying ~10 beats under where I’d finish my sub T sessions allows me to repeat the workout the next day (often 5 and even 6 days in a row) pretty sustainably.
I’m not testing lactate and never have so I probably shouldn’t have used that language. Sirpoc never did either when he first floated the idea in this thread. It was MP everyday with no mention of LT1 so I regret my wording and don’t want to add any unnecessary complexity and confusion.
I’m running the reps slightly slower than marathon pace + adjusting for the conditions and don’t allow HR to get above 85% HRMax on the last rep. I’m basically using an estimated HR equivalent as a hard cap and staying a few beats below that on the earlier reps in the same way someone doing vanilla would use their estimated LTHR. Whether I am exceeding LT1 or not, staying ~10 beats under where I’d finish my sub T sessions allows me to repeat the workout the next day (often 5 and even 6 days in a row) pretty sustainably.
Thanks for the follow-up. I will be very interested to see how this turns out for you, I would like to try this method after a few more months of vanilla. Are you only doing 10min reps?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
clarification
4 x 8’/90”, 3 x 10’/90” and 2 x 15’/90” are the sessions I’m running. The paces don’t really vary much with the rep length but it adds a little variety (without which my life would be woefully unseasoned).
how else are you going to reverse engineer the power # then?
you need to know the mass for the force=mass x acceleration rather than just knowing force=torque x cadence
No, you don't.
F = ma. Therefore a = F/m. Furthermore, the 1st derivative of a is v. P/m is thus a x the 1st derivative of a. Multiplying by m is necessary only if you want to know P and not just P/m.
Following on, the 2nd derivative of a is d. Add up all the horizontal d values during a cycle and you have your stride length. Add up all the vertical d values and you know whether you're going uphill or downhill.
Etc.
The tricky part is dealing with noise in the measurements and in particular determining when the foot leaves the ground. This is why soft surfaces can cause issues.
Did you know that the original Stryd was a chest strap HR/power metre combo? And that before that it was a footpod not called Stryd that didn't calculate power?
What on earth is this attempt of doing math, shame on you.
I’m not testing lactate and never have so I probably shouldn’t have used that language. Sirpoc never did either when he first floated the idea in this thread. It was MP everyday with no mention of LT1 so I regret my wording and don’t want to add any unnecessary complexity and confusion.
I’m running the reps slightly slower than marathon pace + adjusting for the conditions and don’t allow HR to get above 85% HRMax on the last rep. I’m basically using an estimated HR equivalent as a hard cap and staying a few beats below that on the earlier reps in the same way someone doing vanilla would use their estimated LTHR. Whether I am exceeding LT1 or not, staying ~10 beats under where I’d finish my sub T sessions allows me to repeat the workout the next day (often 5 and even 6 days in a row) pretty sustainably.
How are you able to rep these workouts consecutively? Usually vanilla has you do one EZ day in between each workout.
Anyone tried doing a progression run instead of one of the sessions? There is no way I could do 3/6/10 minute intervals every week even if it is most effective - after all, running is supposed to be fun.
i think varying the stimulus and response, while still keeping the effort controlled would help the monotony aspect - maybe doing some short repeats of 400-500 at 10k pace would fit that boat too.
I think progression runs are a nice way to ease into doing the interval sessions if you're not yet in shape to be doing three structured workouts a week but are ready to do more than just easy runs. As a staple though I feel like they're better reserved for late stages in the marathon build.
In terms of variety, switching the 6 min repeats with 1 min repeats while keeping 3 and 10 to work the opposite ends every few weeks would be a good compromise to combat the monotony.
So is it dogma to stay at the orginal layout? Or is it that nobody is giving us an addition that actualy makes sence. But then are still telling us we need to do additional stuff anyway because the elites train like this, or the great choaches are saying so, or a study shows it, etc. But without making a senseble tweak to work with.
So can you give us an exemple of the "additional stuff" in a way that it fits the the system?
I honestly believe that if you can improve the system that loads of people would use it.
I'm not interested at all in 'improving the system" nor in telling people what they should or should not be doing in their own training. to each their own, what ever works.
I was interested in how the lessons learned from NS could be incorporated into a more balanced program. I like training variety so this is not the program for me or my athletes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something useful to learn from it.
But it's obvious that this thread is for pure converts only.
The lesson learned is that you can get great/optimal(?) results by arranging your training so that it's as hard as possible without being so hard that it compromises future hard training. That's kinda why it seems cultish - because it's designed to be the optimal distribution of training load, so changing anything much means that's no longer true. But you can use the same principles I'm sure and come up with something effective when if it's not the optimal arrangement that maximizes load. I do this myself, I don't really follow nsm default but if I do say 10k/5k pace one day, the next day is super easy recovery jog, then the day after might be a steady run. I would have got in more load doing a session of 15k intervals, an easy run, and then a session of HM pace intervals as per NSM but I'm still using the principle of carefully managing my training load and aiming for long term continuous gains, not just peaking for one event.
How are you able to rep these workouts consecutively? Usually vanilla has you do one EZ day in between each workout.
The reps are slower than marathon pace so I’m not carrying much excess fatigue into the following day and don’t really need a recovery run immediately. Eventually the fatigue does build and I don’t think I could do this 7 days per week indefinitely.
Interestingly, the 90 minute easy run feels like a recovery day but it’s the single biggest contributor to weekly load. Maybe one day I’ll have the time and patience to run the other extreme proposition (90 min easy every day) and see just how much further our understand of specificity can be challenged. Or the formula just sucks at evaluating the impact of easy running on fitness and fatigue.
How are you able to rep these workouts consecutively? Usually vanilla has you do one EZ day in between each workout.
The reps are slower than marathon pace so I’m not carrying much excess fatigue into the following day and don’t really need a recovery run immediately. Eventually the fatigue does build and I don’t think I could do this 7 days per week indefinitely.
Interestingly, the 90 minute easy run feels like a recovery day but it’s the single biggest contributor to weekly load. Maybe one day I’ll have the time and patience to run the other extreme proposition (90 min easy every day) and see just how much further our understand of specificity can be challenged. Or the formula just sucks at evaluating the impact of easy running on fitness and fatigue.
It's the running equivalent of the Sirpoc story of riding his bike easy for 2½ hours every day due to a fall injury leaving him too beat up to cycle properly.
Then PR'ing afterwards due to increased fitness
Transferring it to running might be tricky due to the mechanical stress of running, no?
The lesson learned is that you can get great/optimal(?) results by arranging your training so that it's as hard as possible without being so hard that it compromises future hard training. That's kinda why it seems cultish - because it's designed to be the optimal distribution of training load, so changing anything much means that's no longer true. But you can use the same principles I'm sure and come up with something effective when if it's not the optimal arrangement that maximizes load. I do this myself, I don't really follow nsm default but if I do say 10k/5k pace one day, the next day is super easy recovery jog, then the day after might be a steady run. I would have got in more load doing a session of 15k intervals, an easy run, and then a session of HM pace intervals as per NSM but I'm still using the principle of carefully managing my training load and aiming for long term continuous gains, not just peaking for one event.
The lesson I have learned, as a cyclist riding at the elite level and having been to Olympic games, is that coaches are often more arrogant than a lot of the athletes and their own sense of importance leads to overcomplicated training. They want to take bits here and there and get cute with things they don't need to.
I've just started running properly , but my wife has used this training successfully and it's been very familiar to me - in that NSM is just good, simple smart training using a lot of the tools and analytics that can help your training. A lot of the Subthreshold work, which I would be doing as a base before a traditional peak goal every couple of years. It's good to see an approach think long term, which is actually what elite athletes do.
But coaches are often over qualified and part of the problem. That isn't to say all coaches are overqualified and bad, but there are some I wouldn't trust to coach my worst enemies. There's also some guys with zero coaching qualifications, that know a hell of a lot more than even elite coaches. There are also some who not only have zero credentials, but also have no clue. I've seen it all, over the years with national teams and different domestic or continental cycling teams.
This thread is littered with people who have swallowed the textbook when it comes to training, but have absolutely no idea how implement it into the real world. These guys would last about 5 minutes in a real world before they are exposed.
Which brings me back on to the book. I got told about it through a friend as I did a little bit of running and wanted some structure to my training for some soft goals I have set myself. Honestly, it's one of the best laid out and simple and most effective training systems you can find. No suprise, given the authors background in cycling. A realisation that even down to the 4km pursuit in cycling, specificity if comically overrated by coaches or over complicated at times.
So it's no surprise to see this working well for 1500m runners.
It's the running equivalent of the Sirpoc story of riding his bike easy for 2½ hours every day due to a fall injury leaving him too beat up to cycle properly.
Then PR'ing afterwards due to increased fitness
Transferring it to running might be tricky due to the mechanical stress of running, no?
Volume with enough intensity, will get you most of the way there. But, the reason I think cycling has guys doing crazy w/kg now is they are properly balancing that with medium intensity. You don't need 25-30 hour weeks to create load, as we did when I was starting out. You can get away with less, with a large amount of sweet spot thrown in that accumulates a greater stimulus on 20 hour weeks. You probably also recover better from this
The problem with ~LT1 5 days a week on a light amount of volume running, is the fatigue will likely get you in the end due to the biomechanical demand of running. So I think you have probably identified the issue, versus the format paid out with gives you enough stimulus, but also the recovery balance on 48 (72) hour cycle.
I think progression runs are a nice way to ease into doing the interval sessions if you're not yet in shape to be doing three structured workouts a week but are ready to do more than just easy runs. As a staple though I feel like they're better reserved for late stages in the marathon build.
In terms of variety, switching the 6 min repeats with 1 min repeats while keeping 3 and 10 to work the opposite ends every few weeks would be a good compromise to combat the monotony.
Really liking this one, cheers! Any recommendation for the 1min? Would you go with 20x as been mentioned, or something else?
The lesson I have learned, as a cyclist riding at the elite level and having been to Olympic games, is that coaches are often more arrogant than a lot of the athletes and their own sense of importance leads to overcomplicated training. They want to take bits here and there and get cute with things they don't need to.
I've just started running properly , but my wife has used this training successfully and it's been very familiar to me - in that NSM is just good, simple smart training using a lot of the tools and analytics that can help your training. A lot of the Subthreshold work, which I would be doing as a base before a traditional peak goal every couple of years. It's good to see an approach think long term, which is actually what elite athletes do.
But coaches are often over qualified and part of the problem. That isn't to say all coaches are overqualified and bad, but there are some I wouldn't trust to coach my worst enemies. There's also some guys with zero coaching qualifications, that know a hell of a lot more than even elite coaches. There are also some who not only have zero credentials, but also have no clue. I've seen it all, over the years with national teams and different domestic or continental cycling teams.
This thread is littered with people who have swallowed the textbook when it comes to training, but have absolutely no idea how implement it into the real world. These guys would last about 5 minutes in a real world before they are exposed.
Which brings me back on to the book. I got told about it through a friend as I did a little bit of running and wanted some structure to my training for some soft goals I have set myself. Honestly, it's one of the best laid out and simple and most effective training systems you can find. No suprise, given the authors background in cycling. A realisation that even down to the 4km pursuit in cycling, specificity if comically overrated by coaches or over complicated at times.
So it's no surprise to see this working well for 1500m runners.
I'm pretty sure I know who is this. By saying you are just an Olympian is an understatement. The username also gives a big clue. I've enjoyed the cyclists coming to the thread, to me always highlights just how far behind the times the whole coaching, training industry still is in running. I've certainly learned from the left field or outside the running perspective takes from the thread
How do you plan to structure it time wise. Is it a big increase from what you're doing already?
not an increase in time
5 days a week totaling 6.5-7 hours
lt1 sessions on the bike doing no less than 50:00 up to 80:00
lt1 running sessions of at least 32:00 going up to 40s
doubling at least one day
Curious about this. Something is off for me, my ramp is flat and I'm only a few weeks into halfhheartedly toying with NSW after injury (even less training).
My week looked like this: half a "medium" session day before race, 5k race, 6x short session, combined longrun and "long" session + 2x 10k easy. All workouts were on pace and also matching the 20:00-ish 5k. Got 2 intervals.icu accounts running, one with HR and one just based on pace. Consistent results on both.
Both my watch/website and intervals.icu give me a flat ramp.
The reps are slower than marathon pace so I’m not carrying much excess fatigue into the following day and don’t really need a recovery run immediately. Eventually the fatigue does build and I don’t think I could do this 7 days per week indefinitely.
Interestingly, the 90 minute easy run feels like a recovery day but it’s the single biggest contributor to weekly load. Maybe one day I’ll have the time and patience to run the other extreme proposition (90 min easy every day) and see just how much further our understand of specificity can be challenged. Or the formula just sucks at evaluating the impact of easy running on fitness and fatigue.
It's the running equivalent of the Sirpoc story of riding his bike easy for 2½ hours every day due to a fall injury leaving him too beat up to cycle properly.
Then PR'ing afterwards due to increased fitness
Transferring it to running might be tricky due to the mechanical stress of running, no?
I did this back in college. I had a freak accident injury my junior year that caused me to miss outdoor track. I had a job during the summer and couldn’t double, so I ran 90 miles a week in singles. Previously I topped out at 80-85. Maybe because I was only 20 years old I could get away with it. I’d run 24:45 the fall of my junior year for 8k and 31:30 for 10k barely sneaking into our top 7. That fall after my 90 mpw singles in broke 24 minutes for 8k, 30 minutes for 10k cross country and was our 3rd man. I also knocked over 30 seconds off my 5k PB that following track season.
The lesson learned is that you can get great/optimal(?) results by arranging your training so that it's as hard as possible without being so hard that it compromises future hard training. That's kinda why it seems cultish - because it's designed to be the optimal distribution of training load, so changing anything much means that's no longer true. But you can use the same principles I'm sure and come up with something effective when if it's not the optimal arrangement that maximizes load. I do this myself, I don't really follow nsm default but if I do say 10k/5k pace one day, the next day is super easy recovery jog, then the day after might be a steady run. I would have got in more load doing a session of 15k intervals, an easy run, and then a session of HM pace intervals as per NSM but I'm still using the principle of carefully managing my training load and aiming for long term continuous gains, not just peaking for one event.
The lesson I have learned, as a cyclist riding at the elite level and having been to Olympic games, is that coaches are often more arrogant than a lot of the athletes and their own sense of importance leads to overcomplicated training. They want to take bits here and there and get cute with things they don't need to.
As a coach in the cycling world this can't be overstated. When I work with a new athlete it's always fascinating to read some of the workouts their old coaches prescribed. There are often compound workouts with 3-4 different interval types and multiple cadence ranges along with a 400 word essay describing workout. It's pretty easy to tell who is trying to create a veil of mysticism to justify their existence.
It's the running equivalent of the Sirpoc story of riding his bike easy for 2½ hours every day due to a fall injury leaving him too beat up to cycle properly.
Then PR'ing afterwards due to increased fitness
Transferring it to running might be tricky due to the mechanical stress of running, no?
Volume with enough intensity, will get you most of the way there. But, the reason I think cycling has guys doing crazy w/kg now is they are properly balancing that with medium intensity. You don't need 25-30 hour weeks to create load, as we did when I was starting out. You can get away with less, with a large amount of sweet spot thrown in that accumulates a greater stimulus on 20 hour weeks. You probably also recover better from this
The problem with ~LT1 5 days a week on a light amount of volume running, is the fatigue will likely get you in the end due to the biomechanical demand of running. So I think you have probably identified the issue, versus the format paid out with gives you enough stimulus, but also the recovery balance on 48 (72) hour cycle.
yeah i think youre correct even with newer shoes lt1 everyday for running is going to get you in the end mechanically, or the overuse of a higher end shoe will introduce other issues
weve talked about this many times for a ‘hypothetical’ schedule but it really seems the only way to make the risk/reward worth it and make the signal strong enough on LT1 alone is you have to modulate with cross training that way if your running days, which will send a smaller signal but will be more specific, can be coupled with a less specific but longer/larger signal from a big session on the bike/elliptical/etc
lt1 sessions on the bike doing no less than 50:00 up to 80:00
lt1 running sessions of at least 32:00 going up to 40s
doubling at least one day
Curious about this. Something is off for me, my ramp is flat and I'm only a few weeks into halfhheartedly toying with NSW after injury (even less training).
My week looked like this: half a "medium" session day before race, 5k race, 6x short session, combined longrun and "long" session + 2x 10k easy. All workouts were on pace and also matching the 20:00-ish 5k. Got 2 intervals.icu accounts running, one with HR and one just based on pace. Consistent results on both.
Both my watch/website and intervals.icu give me a flat ramp.
What am I doing wrong?
i actually dont use intervals.icu so someone else would no doubt be better to answer
could just be the yo-yo in consistency when coming back from injury? sometimes that period when you start back to normal training can have some deceptive highs and lows til things get consistent