I've seen his strava. When he was running high 17s like me he was doing his repetitions much faster than sub threshold. He certainly wasn't doing mile reps at 6:15 he was doing them more like 5:45. The data is right there on strava. Maybe that was before he changed things up. He is talented and I don't have that natural speed. I can run 17 or 18 minutes on 3 hours a week of running but have always struggled to do reps faster than 6:00 pace. I also don't have the durability to run 7 days a week every week like him, nor would I want to tbh. When I looked at his strava I didn't see much in the way of sub threshold training.
Ok, so its not just about wanting to see Sirpocs training log. You are actually arguing that he isn’t following the method he describes in his book?
I would definitely go by pace or power, not lactate or HR.
I would also design the training with the specific demands of the event in mind, as well as the characteristics of the athlete.
For a hobby jogger focused on 5+ km distance races, that would mean doing as much threshold-raising training as possible, while avoiding anything that might get in the way of that goal.
Volume would be primarily dictated by time available and what the person could tolerate, and only secondarily by race distance/duration (hard to run a good marathon without doing at least a few really long runs - anything shorter, though, and there really isn't much need).
Anything/everything else would just be a difference without a distinction.
Do you agree with threshold intervals, as per NSM? Or are you more in favour of JD type cruise intervals, or unbroken threshold?
What percentage should threshold be, if say training 8 hours/week?
It also sounds like what anyone who has a clue about endurance training would come up with.
Hobby jogger training is a far simpler nut to crack than practically anything else. About the only thing easier is time trialing, at least for those with typical constraints on their time and energy.
The only reason people find this approach novel is because they've been sent down too many primrose paths by so-called experts and/or they mistakenly believe that how younger, faster athletes train is what they should emulate.
I’m glad jack Daniels has passed as he would not buy you a drink would he. I’m sure almost the entire NCAA coaches would also be banging on your door as you throw their coaching out the window.
Why are you not head of UK Athletics ( I assume from your posting you are based in the UK) as only you know how people should train.
Guys, what are we even talking about with this getting on Good Morning America and starting some running boom? You have to be a crazy person to want to do this method. Aside from sub-elite types and the people on this thread/NSM Strava/NSM Reddit, I really don't know anybody that wants to run 7 days a week year-round with no down weeks. People want their days off, their months off when it's cold, etc.
That's why I love this method.
I get looked at like a psycho when I meet new people and I tell them I run “6 to 7 days per week”. Then, if we talk about running more, the deal is sealed when I tell them I found this Internet forum and follow this training methodology of a “random” guy
Guys, what are we even talking about with this getting on Good Morning America and starting some running boom? You have to be a crazy person to want to do this method. Aside from sub-elite types and the people on this thread/NSM Strava/NSM Reddit, I really don't know anybody that wants to run 7 days a week year-round with no down weeks. People want their days off, their months off when it's cold, etc.
That's why I love this method.
I get looked at like a psycho when I meet new people and I tell them I run “6 to 7 days per week”. Then, if we talk about running more, the deal is sealed when I tell them I found this Internet forum and follow this training methodology of a “random” guy
I've seen his strava. When he was running high 17s like me he was doing his repetitions much faster than sub threshold. He certainly wasn't doing mile reps at 6:15 he was doing them more like 5:45. The data is right there on strava. Maybe that was before he changed things up. He is talented and I don't have that natural speed. I can run 17 or 18 minutes on 3 hours a week of running but have always struggled to do reps faster than 6:00 pace. I also don't have the durability to run 7 days a week every week like him, nor would I want to tbh. When I looked at his strava I didn't see much in the way of sub threshold training.
17:30 parkrun. Found two random runs in the weeks before 4x2k @ 3:50/km in the leadup. 6x1600 3:46 /km. Both are almost totally in line with the original pace guidelines. Max HR looks like just below threshold. Although that will be hard to tell, some runs around this time it looks like he was using wrist only.
Became a 16:30 runner. Last workout before this was 3x3k. 3:37/km. Again, in line with guidelines.
Just to keep this on track and hope nobody is getting confused.
I think often people are getting confused between sub-threshold as a state and classic threshold pace at times.
I get looked at like a psycho when I meet new people and I tell them I run “6 to 7 days per week”. Then, if we talk about running more, the deal is sealed when I tell them I found this Internet forum and follow this training methodology of a “random” guy
I posted a long time ago now. But my entire track nights everyone thought I had gone mad. Zero rest days and as they were doing crazy workouts on track nights I was doing extra slower laps. Obviously I was just doing my NSM workouts. This was before the thread got crazy and it was pretty niche.
I had rows with team mates, accusing me of ruining our relay chances as i was our second best runner. They started thinking I was less mad when my times dropped significantly, but thought I was having a running mid life crisis when I said I was following the training of a guy who posts on a forum and isn't even a social influencer, when they asked about how it all worked.
Quite a bit of time on, we are absolutely crushing relay. Most of us train like this now I and honestly think it gives us an edge regionally.
The only salty person is this semi retired coach who still - despite some of us hitting PBs well into our 40s, including a guy who is 51 and almost just beat his 10k pb (ok some of that is shoes with 20 years difference) - still thinks the training sucks lol
I've seen his strava. When he was running high 17s like me he was doing his repetitions much faster than sub threshold. He certainly wasn't doing mile reps at 6:15 he was doing them more like 5:45. The data is right there on strava. Maybe that was before he changed things up. He is talented and I don't have that natural speed. I can run 17 or 18 minutes on 3 hours a week of running but have always struggled to do reps faster than 6:00 pace. I also don't have the durability to run 7 days a week every week like him, nor would I want to tbh. When I looked at his strava I didn't see much in the way of sub threshold training.
17:30 parkrun. Found two random runs in the weeks before 4x2k @ 3:50/km in the leadup. 6x1600 3:46 /km. Both are almost totally in line with the original pace guidelines. Max HR looks like just below threshold. Although that will be hard to tell, some runs around this time it looks like he was using wrist only.
Became a 16:30 runner. Last workout before this was 3x3k. 3:37/km. Again, in line with guidelines.
Just to keep this on track and hope nobody is getting confused.
I think often people are getting confused between sub-threshold as a state and classic threshold pace at times.
Tiny nitpick, 3x3k @3:37 is a bit faster than what you would get from most of the calculators for 16:30 fitness. 339-345 range
What does training young elite athletes racing against each other on the track have to do with training middle aged hobby joggers essentially running time trials?
Tiny nitpick, 3x3k @3:37 is a bit faster than what you would get from most of the calculators for 16:30 fitness. 339-345 range
Two things I forgot to add. We know from the book that half the surface of his local parkrun slows sirpoc down and roughly by how much l, so I estimate that course is around 20 seconds slower than a "normal" 5k course. So, when he was running 18:50 it was likely 18:30 at the more optimal parkrun he has done, but not as regular. (He has only ever run 2 parkrun courses, which is very convenient when looking at data).
Sirpoc will reply usually if you message him, he told me before he was using these parkrun times -10/15 seconds as he was accounting for a slower course. I think, perhaps, he underestimated this. But this is REALLY nitpicking on the nth level.
Secondly, as he got better, he often "leveled up" his training paces, BEFORE he has run the time. Working with the data and of his workout metrics showing a big jump, that the time will come so he may as well just increase the paces. This sometimes looks like the case, sometimes not. I'm not sure I can work that part out or care enough. The caveat is he suggests nobody else do this, unless they really know what they are doing.
The upside to this, he has explained and what I feel is the huge advantage with training like this, is that you seemingly know to a very narrow margin what you will run in a race. So it makes pacing better. Which means performance will be optimised. Something (among many things) is hugely overlooked about this method.
I know some of this stuff has been touched on before, but I know there are a lot of new readers interested in such things.
Tiny nitpick, 3x3k @3:37 is a bit faster than what you would get from most of the calculators for 16:30 fitness. 339-345 range
Two things I forgot to add. We know from the book that half the surface of his local parkrun slows sirpoc down and roughly by how much l, so I estimate that course is around 20 seconds slower than a "normal" 5k course. So, when he was running 18:50 it was likely 18:30 at the more optimal parkrun he has done, but not as regular. (He has only ever run 2 parkrun courses, which is very convenient when looking at data).
Sirpoc will reply usually if you message him, he told me before he was using these parkrun times -10/15 seconds as he was accounting for a slower course. I think, perhaps, he underestimated this. But this is REALLY nitpicking on the nth level.
Secondly, as he got better, he often "leveled up" his training paces, BEFORE he has run the time. Working with the data and of his workout metrics showing a big jump, that the time will come so he may as well just increase the paces. This sometimes looks like the case, sometimes not. I'm not sure I can work that part out or care enough. The caveat is he suggests nobody else do this, unless they really know what they are doing.
The upside to this, he has explained and what I feel is the huge advantage with training like this, is that you seemingly know to a very narrow margin what you will run in a race. So it makes pacing better. Which means performance will be optimised. Something (among many things) is hugely overlooked about this method.
I know some of this stuff has been touched on before, but I know there are a lot of new readers interested in such things.
thanks for the reply, forgot it was a parkrun, carryon!
I would definitely go by pace or power, not lactate or HR.
I would also design the training with the specific demands of the event in mind, as well as the characteristics of the athlete.
For a hobby jogger focused on 5+ km distance races, that would mean doing as much threshold-raising training as possible, while avoiding anything that might get in the way of that goal.
Volume would be primarily dictated by time available and what the person could tolerate, and only secondarily by race distance/duration (hard to run a good marathon without doing at least a few really long runs - anything shorter, though, and there really isn't much need).
Anything/everything else would just be a difference without a distinction.
What an incredible non-answer. the classic know-it-all and nitpicker who can critique you all day but when asked to describe something practical with their tremendous knowledge they totally shrivel up. How would you train? "It depends" How about for a hobby jogger focusing on distance? - "Raise your threshold" How? - "..." Well how much threshold? - "not too much"
HAHAHA why not just say "The way I would train for a 5k, would be to do the training that improves my 5k time and nothing else"
Soooo smart but wouldn't know how to find a coconut on coconut island
Black-and-white answers are for those who can't wrap their mind around the complexities of training, in particular the principle of individuality.
Endurance training is the most simple training out there especially for middle aged time constrained people, it’s really simple and got nothing to individually outside how much load do you have already, cookie cutter works for 99%.
I see you still cherry picking questions to answers, I guess that’s the price of greatness.