Saw a guy on the NSM subreddit asking if he did his Double T too slow last night. 10k PB of 42:40🤦🏼♂️he’d improved from 47:30 to 42:40 in 3 months following NSM after 7/8 months of inconsistent training.
And this is going to be the problem. We are now over complicating stuff idiots like this should be doing. This is going to be an absolute mess.
The whole point of this method is that it is designed for hobby joggers.
EVERYONE knows doubles and it is NOT the solution for hobby joggers.
Someone needs to rein in the reddit sub and push off doubles discussion to a different sub before newbies see this BS and get injured out of confusion.
Bakken is literally saying you should NOT use it because it's "far too imprecise for meaningful zone calculations".
I see what people are saying. I followed the link and put my age in. The max HR it gave me was a bit silly. I had to play around and change my age to 23 for it to align and I can't even remember being 17 it was that long ago.
Basically, what he has done has used 220- age + included "his" margin of error. It's very confusing. Along with does suggest if you interpret it in the book about 45 minute 10k guys doing double threshold workouts. That's not to say this is a blanket no, but NSM itself has proven incredibly safe and progressive for such a wide range of people this seems a bit strange and reckless, given the message is intensity control.
Big fan of Bakken, but there is a lot of confusion going on here and i don't feel it's going to help the average hobby jogger. If anything, going to make it far more complicated or provide information that is hugely conflicting.
I almost had to give runners are clueless and upvote of the muscle tone posts, but I reigned myself in when he started being a bit of a D about it.
A bit like others I'm torn as we have the OG here, but a lot of it raises more questions than it answers. And I don't agree it's because it's not spoon fed information, I'm just not convinced it hits the mark. I'll read again tonight.
The whole point of this method is that it is designed for hobby joggers.
EVERYONE knows doubles and it is NOT the solution for hobby joggers.
Someone needs to rein in the reddit sub and push off doubles discussion to a different sub before newbies see this BS and get injured out of confusion.
Bakken is not saying hobby joggers should be doing double threshold. He's saying it's an option down the line. Nobody things the average hobby jogger should be jumping into double threshold before a long period of consistent running or a decent period starting with easy doubles.
If you think Bakken is saying hobby joggers should be doubling you haven't read the book and are brain dead. Literally nobody would be suggesting that until miles down the line.
10-12 beats per minute? That is ridiculous. The margin of error is absolutely vast. In fact, using it as a reference point even with a margin of error is simply ridiculous.
I've just plugged my age into his calculator and it's 30bpm off lol I had to make my age about 7.
Why he would publish this is baffling.
We are good at laughing at JS for his equally ridiculous "back down to 120bpm". Likewise, to use age (minus) with any margin of error for a wide selection for people is simple ludicrous.
Take the name Bakken out of this and as I said, we would be howling with laughter.
He is not saying pace HR is 220- age. He's saying it's 220-age minus another 12. I don't see a problem with that. It'll probably do and has solid basis in science.
Bakken knows more than anyone who has ever posted in this thread combined.
I don't know about muscle tone and double-threshold for 45' 10k runners, but the online calculator is just an online calculator: it's probably been sitting there for years and it has to spit out a number to produce something. Going after Bakken for this is silly and unfair in my opinion.
On the topic of being too advanced and overly complicated for hobby joggers: Bakken says people should start with a period of 4-8 months of NSM just to get muscle tone right and build the aerobic engine. Then, you can add specific work through X-sessions according to the demands of your upcoming race. Isn't this exactly what our overlord Sirpoc did to prepare for the marathon? Add different and more specific types of stimuli to meet race demands, just for short periods and always keeping the central element stable (threshold training). I don't think this goes against NSM at all.
Just checked out that sub for the first time in a while. It's devolved into everyone talking about muscle tone and X-factor and double T. I think the crowd that is easily distracted by shiny objects has found their new calling.
Bakken gives different ways to test yourself and gives different recommendation what to choose based on whether you're a recreational, ambitious or elite/sub-elite runner
After all that he finishes off by saying "Don't use the 220-age formula"
10-12 beats per minute? That is ridiculous. The margin of error is absolutely vast. In fact, using it as a reference point even with a margin of error is simply ridiculous.
I've just plugged my age into his calculator and it's 30bpm off lol I had to make my age about 7.
Why he would publish this is baffling.
We are good at laughing at JS for his equally ridiculous "back down to 120bpm". Likewise, to use age (minus) with any margin of error for a wide selection for people is simple ludicrous.
Take the name Bakken out of this and as I said, we would be howling with laughter.
He is not saying pace HR is 220- age. He's saying it's 220-age minus another 12. I don't see a problem with that. It'll probably do and has solid basis in science.
Bakken knows more than anyone who has ever posted in this thread combined.
No .. He is don't use the 220-age formula as it can be 10-12 beats per minute off.
What he is saying is that if you're say 40 years old then the 220-age formula will give you a max hear rate of 180 bpm. But in reality it will be somewhere between 168 and 192 bpm.
I don't know about muscle tone and double-threshold for 45' 10k runners, but the online calculator is just an online calculator: it's probably been sitting there for years and it has to spit out a number to produce something. Going after Bakken for this is silly and unfair in my opinion.
On the topic of being too advanced and overly complicated for hobby joggers: Bakken says people should start with a period of 4-8 months of NSM just to get muscle tone right and build the aerobic engine. Then, you can add specific work through X-sessions according to the demands of your upcoming race. Isn't this exactly what our overlord Sirpoc did to prepare for the marathon? Add different and more specific types of stimuli to meet race demands, just for short periods and always keeping the central element stable (threshold training). I don't think this goes against NSM at all.
I think people are just surprised. And posting questions. I do have a few and was surprised to find muscle tone so central. When honestly, it's probably the least important factor to consider. It really only needed to say "check you are fully recovered". Anything else is probably unnecessary for most of us.
The HR thing is weird, but no biggie. It is from the book in the "golden paces" page from the QR code, so is a new feature. It is what it is. Obviously it's a big error and I'm sure he will change it. Any calculator with even margin of errors build in asking you for your age is clearly not fit for purpose.
If people want to do doubles, let them. I have no problem with that. Again, it's likely not necessary but they can make up their own minds is my view.
The book is generally solid. Was I expecting more? Yes. But my expectations were high and we've been spoilt by Bakken sharing a lot of this stuff kindly on his blog before and the fact NSM is such a good book for the average person, that has spoiled us as well.
It's still a solid read. I don't think I've seen anyone say you shouldn't buy it, more just a bit of a curiosity as to why in terms of direction etc. that it takes.
10-12 beats per minute? That is ridiculous. The margin of error is absolutely vast. In fact, using it as a reference point even with a margin of error is simply ridiculous.
I've just plugged my age into his calculator and it's 30bpm off lol I had to make my age about 7.
Why he would publish this is baffling.
We are good at laughing at JS for his equally ridiculous "back down to 120bpm". Likewise, to use age (minus) with any margin of error for a wide selection for people is simple ludicrous.
Take the name Bakken out of this and as I said, we would be howling with laughter.
He is not saying pace HR is 220- age. He's saying it's 220-age minus another 12. I don't see a problem with that. It'll probably do and has solid basis in science.
Bakken knows more than anyone who has ever posted in this thread combined.
What do you mean by ' pace HR ' when it was discussed to calculate MHR?
Just checked out that sub for the first time in a while. It's devolved into everyone talking about muscle tone and X-factor and double T. I think the crowd that is easily distracted by shiny objects has found their new calling.
Yeah well ... People like their rocket science and as lore has it. If NSM was any simpler, you'd need a helmet
People like to feel that they're clever .. or that they're doing something difficult.
Once you're in the rhythm with NSM you barely feel tired after your workouts.
How can that be an accomplishment, an achevement, something that makes you feel out of the ordinary?
Who can it be advanced running??
Speaking of which .. That is also why r/advancedrunning sure love their Pfitz and hero workouts!
I'm going to be honest and I'm happy to be flamed, but this is how I feel:
I don't think Bakken's book is very good for your average runner. I don't think he should have tried to make it like that. It's very confusing at times, there's contradictions and the whole muscle tone is a rabbit hole now people are going to way overthink.
It's tried to clean everything in to make it for everyone and I honestly think that is a mistake. You are now going to have 40+ min 10k runners doing double threshold. Not just double runs, double threshold.
Saw a guy on the NSM subreddit asking if he did his Double T too slow last night. 10k PB of 42:40🤦🏼♂️he’d improved from 47:30 to 42:40 in 3 months following NSM after 7/8 months of inconsistent training.
It's even more insane that he's getting mostly earnest support for obviously stupid training, with only a couple of people having the common sense to say "hey don't do that". There was another guy a days ago talking about Double T who currently runs 22min for 5k. WTF are we doing here folks. Greek Ultra Method (GUM) level stuff.
It's even more insane that he's getting mostly earnest support for obviously stupid training, with only a couple of people having the common sense to say "hey don't do that". There was another guy a days ago talking about Double T who currently runs 22min for 5k. WTF are we doing here folks. Greek Ultra Method (GUM) level stuff.
I have to ask. Why the outrage??
Seems like we are trying gate keeping double threshold running for the Elite?
-
Isn't the core of it running at the proper pace.
If someone has the time, why is running doubles a problem
After all key here is proper pacing as said.
Is it really a problem, if that 22 minute 5k two days a weeks runs 2 x 20-25 minute at the proper pace? .. Which would be around 5:00/km
Or if a 30 minute 5k runner goes out and does the same at 6:45/km.
-
It's the same logic as with NSM. You have a proper pace that keeps you safe and so you go out and run for an allotted time.
Is adding 10-15 minutes to what NSM would have you doing but splitting it up in two sessions really going to wreck you?
-
This thread used to be so great .. Proper debate and plenty of common sense.
Now it's just outrage and nitpicking irrelevant details.
No Bakken does not know more than everyone who has posted in this thread combined. Most likely there are at least a dozen posters in this thread that know more than Bakken. Because a measurable fraction of people interested in the subject know more than Bakken is why he gets all the static. Back in the day when Bakken posted on here, the static was even louder and more correct.
Where Bakken beat all those who objectively know more than he did and does was he actually put together a plan that has served as a new branch in the tree of training methods. I haven't tried to count myself but I think in all of history only about a dozen people have made that level of contribution. When you are trying to wrap your head around that, remember the higher you are up in the tree the harder the new branches are to distinguish.
I think both copeland and bakkens book is great. However I do find it a bit annoying that people who have never even got the easy gains from just running a bit more are skipping that part. I see people all the time running 70 km/week for months and still run a 10k around 50 min. Thats just nuts (if you not very old). I think these kinds of systems works best for people who have reached some kind of limit