The effectiveness of NSM is far outweighed by the stress and exhaustion from being swarmed by these two people that are desperate after recognition. We get it guys, you think you are great, its a shame no one else does, but it doesn't seem like it is stopping you. Maybe start your own threads?
The occasional 5k race would be an excellent choice.
So in other words nothing that he/she isn't already doing?
The key to maximizing results is getting the balance (and timing) of sub- and supra-T training correct, as well as how the latter is structured. You asked specifically about the supra-T training for the average runner here (presumably a not-young person focused on road races), and I answered in that context. If the population were different and/or the target event was something else - say, a much shorter, one-of event - well, then the supra-T training would be different.
TLDR: Sub-T is the cake. Supra-T is the icing. Both taste good alone, but you still need the cake AND the icing to make a great dessert. The problem is that historically too many people seem to overemphasize the icing, skimping on (or even leaving out) the cake.
So in other words nothing that he/she isn't already doing?
The key to maximizing results is getting the balance (and timing) of sub- and supra-T training correct, as well as how the latter is structured. You asked specifically about the supra-T training for the average runner here (presumably a not-young person focused on road races), and I answered in that context. If the population were different and/or the target event was something else - say, a much shorter, one-of event - well, then the supra-T training would be different.
TLDR: Sub-T is the cake. Supra-T is the icing. Both taste good alone, but you still need the cake AND the icing to make a great dessert. The problem is that historically too many people seem to overemphasize the icing, skimping on (or even leaving out) the cake.
So in other words nothing that he/she isn't already doing?
The key to maximizing results is getting the balance (and timing) of sub- and supra-T training correct, as well as how the latter is structured. You asked specifically about the supra-T training for the average runner here (presumably a not-young person focused on road races), and I answered in that context. If the population were different and/or the target event was something else - say, a much shorter, one-of event - well, then the supra-T training would be different.
TLDR: Sub-T is the cake. Supra-T is the icing. Both taste good alone, but you still need the cake AND the icing to make a great dessert. The problem is that historically too many people seem to overemphasize the icing, skimping on (or even leaving out) the cake.
So,so well expressed! 🙌Exactly what perfect proper training is all about, to understand there is a need of both ' the cake ' and " the icing' in a symbiosis to creat the most delicious dessert.🧙♂️
RAC’s delivery is harsh but makes some good points in my opinion. I think some people on this thread get too focused on following the Vanilla plan to a t without seeing the big picture. This style of training isn’t groundbreaking, but it’s packaged very well for the time crunched or low volume runner. -lots steady of steady state/tempo/subT running improves stamina. (runners in the 70’s knew this) -running your easy runs easy allows you to do more of the above while also allowing one to increase overall volume of the easy running itself. Many do these quicker than necessary to achieve the desired adaptations they provide.
-Sirpoc’s frequent Parkruns at higher intensity than threshold most certainly contributed to his gains
-Sirpoc’s frequent Parkruns at higher intensity than threshold most certainly contributed to his gains
This goes against what Sirpoc has written himself.
Somewhere in this mess of a thread he states that his role of his racing is overblown and proceeds to point out that while he raced a bit in the beginning there have been quite long periods with practically zero races .. especially in the winter.
It's pretty wild the fitness gains from this method. I started 14 weeks ago after a long injury layoff. Early December I was averaging 4:10/km for 10 minute reps, the past 3 weeks I was averaging 3:40/km. 6 minute reps are down from 3:55/km to 3:35/km. Same heart rate, same route. I haven't ran a PB since 2019 so I'm excited to see what the year brings! I never thought I'd be able to run 3 workouts a week but I'm feeling much better than I was when I was running 130km/week and 2 hard workouts. Just doing vanilla off 6 days a week averaging around 85km/week.
The RAC sympathizers make me even sadder than the professor himself. “He makes good points” - does he?
Dozens and dozens of people will post testimonials about the method like how using 70% maxHR as a cap on there easy runs has them feeling better, training more consistently, and running big PRs. Then RAC will come through and smugly say actually there’s no scientifically based distinction between running 70 vs 75% on easy days.
okay so we should all those people to give back their PRs because the science says they shouldn’t have it. That’s the guy you want to defend 😂😂😂
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
we’ll keep running PRs and having a good time. If the lonely, cynical egg heads want to do their thing, have it at. But don’t come to our party cut the music and tell us we shouldn’t be enjoying ourselves
Dozens and dozens of people will post testimonials about the method like how using 70% maxHR as a cap on there easy runs has them feeling better, training more consistently, and running big PRs. Then RAC will come through and smugly say actually there’s no scientifically based distinction between running 70 vs 75% on easy days.
I never said any such thing. In fact, I would have told you that it's just the opposite: for the same duration, exercising at 75% of MHR will result in both (slightly) greater adaptations and (slightly) greater strain than exercising at 70%.
Which, of course, is the more appropriate choice depends on the context.
TLDR: Making sh*t up to try to score points just makes you look stupid.
It's pretty wild the fitness gains from this method. I started 14 weeks ago after a long injury layoff. Early December I was averaging 4:10/km for 10 minute reps, the past 3 weeks I was averaging 3:40/km. 6 minute reps are down from 3:55/km to 3:35/km. Same heart rate, same route. I haven't ran a PB since 2019 so I'm excited to see what the year brings! I never thought I'd be able to run 3 workouts a week but I'm feeling much better than I was when I was running 130km/week and 2 hard workouts. Just doing vanilla off 6 days a week averaging around 85km/week.
I'm in the same boat. Someone got me the fantastic book (an absolute must and better than all the scattered seconds and third hand information online) for Christmas at our running club and I've just started to see big, really big jumps in how much easier the workouts are. About 8 weeks in. Haven't raced yetm excited to find out if I'm yet another person like yourself who can turn back the sands of time!
Hopefully you provide an update. Have read a lot of the thread in my spare time. I think the testimonials are what keeps the trolls at bay and helps the thread made a comeback from the guys who seem to want people to agree with them so reply to themselves lol
In the book, Sirpoc recommends keeping the threshold pace in intervals.icu updated based on race results.
I raced a 5k in mid Feb and a half marathon today, both PBs. The 5k gives a higher vdot score and therefore quicker threshold pace, which is not a surprise, as I've always been better at anything under an hour.
Which threshold pace do I use? Do I use the more conservative and recent half marathon derived threshold pace?
This post was edited 14 seconds after it was posted.
The RAC sympathizers make me even sadder than the professor himself. “He makes good points” - does he?
Dozens and dozens of people will post testimonials about the method like how using 70% maxHR as a cap on there easy runs has them feeling better, training more consistently, and running big PRs. Then RAC will come through and smugly say actually there’s no scientifically based distinction between running 70 vs 75% on easy days.
okay so we should all those people to give back their PRs because the science says they shouldn’t have it. That’s the guy you want to defend 😂😂😂
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
we’ll keep running PRs and having a good time. If the lonely, cynical egg heads want to do their thing, have it at. But don’t come to our party cut the music and tell us we shouldn’t be enjoying ourselves
They don't have to give back their PRs, but they also haven't answered whether they would have done better (or, had no adverse results) from using a 75% ceiling on their easy runs. if you haven't rebutted the science, then you haven't really made your point.
In the book, Sirpoc recommends keeping the threshold pace in intervals.icu updated based on race results.
I raced a 5k in mid Feb and a half marathon today, both PBs. The 5k gives a higher vdot score and therefore quicker threshold pace, which is not a surprise, as I've always been better at anything under an hour.
Which threshold pace do I use? Do I use the more conservative and recent half marathon derived threshold pace?
Do whatever is latest because that will indicate your current fitness.