Lol. Havent been here for a couple of months and thought I have a look. People still debating runnersarecleuless and the magic coach. Thats insane. Impressive they can keep finding people to continue with them.
Any actual interesting going on or just more of the same?
I suspect there really isn't all that much to discuss .. The book has been great at filling in the blacks, which granted where posted, but where hard to find, so people had questions.
Now a days this thread can be silent for a day or two .. I must admit that one of the reasons I'll reply to runnersareclueless occasionally is just to keep it alive
For all practical purposes this thread has run it's course.
Indeed, using a fixed distance to estimate "threshold" is more of an issue with running than cycling, due to the greater range of performance times - in cycling, the near-cubic relationship between speed and power serves to significantly constrain things.
The above, of course, is why Steve MacGregor has suggested using 15 km pace for faster runners, but 10 km pace for slower runners.
Regardless, the important thing to keep in mind is that even though the relationship between intensity and speed in running is linear, it isn't 1:1. IOW, for a given variation in duration that variation in intensity will be less (although not to the same extent as with cycling).
I actually agree that precisely nailing down "threshold" isn't as important as many believe. I'm just surprised that (if) sirpoc apparently actually skipped over the "cookbook" phase and tried to turn people into experienced "chefs" right off the bat.
As for the notion of training a lot in the "no-go" zone and filling in the rest with as much as you can handle (but no more!), while being conservative in how quickly you ramp up training, I'm all on board. As others have also pointed out, this is hardly a novel approach.
Indeed, using a fixed distance to estimate "threshold" is more of an issue with running than cycling, due to the greater range of performance times - in cycling, the near-cubic relationship between speed and power serves to significantly constrain things.
The above, of course, is why Steve MacGregor has suggested using 15 km pace for faster runners, but 10 km pace for slower runners.
Regardless, the important thing to keep in mind is that even though the relationship between intensity and speed in running is linear, it isn't 1:1. IOW, for a given variation in duration that variation in intensity will be less (although not to the same extent as with cycling).
Who are these people you keep quoting, uphill runner and now Steve macgregor I might as quite my mate Theo who has a YouTube channel if you want. You type a lot like normal but say naff all action information
Runnersarecluless posts remind me of many academics, or so called academics, that I have encountered in many years of being in professional cycling. Someone who has swallowed every text book but in reality is terrible, horrible in fact, of applying such knowledge into something of use. Or fixation of issues that simply do not matter.
He's the kind of guy who the team bring in, everything then gets ignored as you have absolutely no idea how to apply it in a real world situation. It's a story as old as time in the history of sports training. That isn't to say some of the best academics (or wannabes) aren't of use, but very much falls into the "of little use" category and give off the stench of someone who doesn't even know it.
I don't know anything about "Uphill Runner" except that a video they produced was quoted a few pages back in this thread.
Steve McGregor is a well known cycling/running/triathlon coach/sports scientist. He was the first to apply TSS and the PMC to running (over 20 years ago now).
So I take it that your not in favor of doing lots of training in what historically been considered the "grey zone" and of ramping things up gradually??
Steve McGregor is a well known cycling/running/triathlon coach/sports scientist. He was the first to apply TSS and the PMC to running (over 20 years ago now).
The purpose of this study was to test if a simplified impulse-response (IR) model would correlate with competition performances in an elite middle-distance runner over a period of 7 years that encompassed two Olympiads. Daily...
Runnersarecluless posts remind me of many academics, or so called academics, that I have encountered in many years of being in professional cycling. Someone who has swallowed every text book but in reality is terrible, horrible in fact, of applying such knowledge into something of use. Or fixation of issues that simply do not matter.
I agree about academics in general. Every field I know enough about to judge they are often worse than useless and often actively push nonsense just to increase their impact factor and publication count.
In sports though we have an opposite problem: a lot of coaches/gurus selling snake oil, promises, complicated training plans. They invent ideas like de-load weeks, all kind of complicated periodization, 101 ways to do VO2max intervals, metaphors like "raising your ceiling" or "compressing threshold", "lactate clearance workouts", VLaMax, Inscyd testing, lactate shuttling etc.. You will be worse off following that advice - less fit and more likely to get injured.
This one academic here makes you realize there are only a few things we really know about endurance training and that it's all about doing as much as you can handle week after week while performing specific training for your goals - in running it's almost always about aerobic fitness. While his advice is very rarely actionable it helps you recognize all the snake oil salesmen out there and avoid what they try to push.
Compare him to guys like Seiler who actively pushes wrong advice and misled tens of thousands of athletes with his wrong conclusions about how elites train or to countless of services there that woo people with "marathon block training plans" for only 99$.
He isn't trying to make a buck out of you and helps you recognize the coaching landscape for what it is.
I have to say it sounds he is a bit jealous that a hobby jogger from UK put a few basic principles together, proved the approach himself and deservedly built quite a reputation around it :)
Followed vanilla NSM since start of the year with slight variations on long runs to ease doubts I had in maintaining speed on tired legs - 5k at target race pace (as determined by vdot calc 5k time equivalent) as the end of sunday slow run & 5k very slow, 5k target pace, 5k very slow, 5k target pace - would make sure my next ST sessions were a lot easier too to manage fatigue.
14 min pb in half marathon this weekend, shaved 2 mins off my 5k time. Followed the pacing strats in the book, have never felt better in races and I've fallen back in love with running. Thanks again for everything, James and contributors.
I actually agree that precisely nailing down "threshold" isn't as important as many believe. I'm just surprised that (if) sirpoc apparently actually skipped over the "cookbook" phase and tried to turn people into experienced "chefs" right off the bat.
As for the notion of training a lot in the "no-go" zone and filling in the rest with as much as you can handle (but no more!), while being conservative in how quickly you ramp up training, I'm all on board. As others have also pointed out, this is hardly a novel approach.
How much smoke are you blowing up in your own arse when you invent things to critizise and argue about (just so you can be right?). Other tgan that you are pushing at many open doors, only to look super smug when you find yourself in.
Its hillarious that "hardly a novel approach" is your anchor point against this method after all your posts. Thats hardly a novel point.
Runnersarecluless posts remind me of many academics, or so called academics, that I have encountered in many years of being in professional cycling. Someone who has swallowed every text book but in reality is terrible, horrible in fact, of applying such knowledge into something of use. Or fixation of issues that simply do not matter.
He's the kind of guy who the team bring in, everything then gets ignored as you have absolutely no idea how to apply it in a real world situation. It's a story as old as time in the history of sports training. That isn't to say some of the best academics (or wannabes) aren't of use, but very much falls into the "of little use" category and give off the stench of someone who doesn't even know it.
He might have swallowed every book, but I am unsure if he read them first.
Now and again he does some screaming errors, and in general he is beating around the bush and will rather quibble than dwelve into a proper argument.
A good academic wouldn't need that, they would be more to the point. They would also not make those errors, and they would not have the need to do all that intellectual-grandstanding. They would get their recognition from their own work, so no need to do it here.
I'm guessing its someone with a previous physiology education but not much practice, or a relevant education but practice in a very different sport.
Whatever it is I don’t see the point, there is no proper discussion, no one is left impressed. The smallest dogs barks the loudest.
You make it sound as if sirpoc just came down from the mount with his ideas. However, as I and others have pointed out, there's nothing really novel about his approach, at least from a big picture perspective. After all, wasn't it Lydiard who admonished people to "train, don't strain"?
As that study by McGregor demonstrates, he also wasn't the first to try to apply tools developed for cyclists to running.
Its hillarious that "hardly a novel approach" is your anchor point against this method after all your posts. Thats hardly a novel point.
Yet one worth repeating, because so many seem to think that it is.
(How hard do think Zapotek actually ran his intervals, when you take into consideration how many he did per session, and the relatively short rest periods in between?)
Yet one worth repeating, because so many seem to think that it is.
(How hard do think Zapotek actually ran his intervals, when you take into consideration how many he did per session, and the relatively short rest periods in between?)
You genuinely upvote your own posts 😂 probably have a couple of burners for good measure. Hilarious. Nobody is listening to a thing you say and you haven't provided anything other than really arguing semantics. It's funny you waste so much time to even post when literally everyone thinks you are a mong.
Some great posts and testimonials lately. You know, useful stuff we can apply to the real world.
You make it sound as if sirpoc just came down from the mount with his ideas. However, as I and others have pointed out, there's nothing really novel about his approach, at least from a big picture perspective. After all, wasn't it Lydiard who admonished people to "train, don't strain"?
As that study by McGregor demonstrates, he also wasn't the first to try to apply tools developed for cyclists to running.
I don't think even sirpoc thought this was novel? But that completely, totally misses the point.
Nobody who had tried it at hobby level really came up with a solution to how much is the right amount. Nobody really experimented with how to make the most of it without lactate testing, and certainly nobody laid it out in such a neat, convenient way so that thousands and thousands of runners could pick this training up and reap the benefits. Nobody remotely even close to that level.
All it took was a non academic normal guy to cut through all the BS and make something practical, useful and incredibly meaningful to the average runner. Which is even more difficult in the age of the crap influencers and social media has you think makes a good runner.
You are like a spoiled brat who seems to want to be praised for having the foresight that you knew all this to begin with, but, conveniently forgot to tell us how or share until after the horse had bolted. You can't make up some of the sheer nonsense you post. If nothing else, in a thread where a lot of idiots have turned up, you made the village proud.
You genuinely upvote your own posts 😂 probably have a couple of burners for good measure. Hilarious. Nobody is listening to a thing you say and you haven't provided anything other than really arguing semantics. It's funny you waste so much time to even post when literally everyone thinks you are a mong.
Some great posts and testimonials lately. You know, useful stuff we can apply to the real world.
He's got about 3-4 burners. Always the same, near on half a dozen upvotes or the same downvotes to his criticisms. Say what you want about lexel, but he didn't cheat the system like this dude and JS with burners, he just took the 0-25 ratio of downvotes like a man lol
