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.
It's not a problem it's just a waste of their time and energy compared to smarter training, and it's not outrage or gatekeeping to call it out as such. Some people love training a lot more than they love performing well -that's totally ok! They are free to train stupidly, we are free to call that training stupid.
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.
I don't understand muscle tone at all (and it does seem a bit shady), but I see this as my "fault" and I don't want to say it's all garbage.
What I really liked about the book is the framework to add specificity in a controlled and measured way---through the X-session---always keeping threshold as the central component. It feels like a really safe way to expose yourself to different stressors, in a gradual and precise way, with specificity in mind. I didn't have this before, and I look forward to try it in the weeks before my next race. It also gives us room to experiment and see how we respond to different stimuli (hills, faster paces, etc.).
It's not a problem it's just a waste of their time and energy compared to smarter training, and it's not outrage or gatekeeping to call it out as such. Some people love training a lot more than they love performing well -that's totally ok! They are free to train stupidly, we are free to call that training stupid.
Compared to what smarter training?
NSM, which is basically the same? A JD or Pfitz routine, a Canova build?
-
It's kind of a silly statement in a thread for hobby joggers :D
Running is more than being as close to Ingebrigtsen or Kipchoge as possible. It's more than making those digits on your watch as small as possible on the finish line.
It can also be about joy, purpose and health. It can be adventure. Definately a good bit of escapism too for most hobby joggers.
So the reason to do doubles might be:
* To ensure consistency by more variety and keeping boredom at bay
* A chance to relieve stress both before and after work!
* Getting slightly more breathing space away from daily conflict and chores at home
* To ensure consistency by feeling smug about yourself cause you're copying the training method of several Olympians.
* To test your limits and how your body reacts ... Being bold!
What I really liked about the book is the framework to add specificity in a controlled and measured way---through the X-session---always keeping threshold as the central component. It feels like a really safe way to expose yourself to different stressors, in a gradual and precise way, with specificity in mind. I didn't have this before, and I look forward to try it in the weeks before my next race. It also gives us room to experiment and see how we respond to different stimuli (hills, faster paces, etc.).
I've posted far too much today .. Apparently I'm in a bad mood. But one final post as it comes with an upvote of this post
And yes .. Indeed ... !
That is great thing about the book. Sure it does open the opportunity for less careful runners to wreck themselves, but end of day it's a tool box
You've got your base ... Which can be NSM as stated by Bakken (The very safe flat training originating with KI and refined by Englishman Copeland).
Then he gives you stuff you can sprinkle on, if you ever want to expand that base .. Be it doubles, xfactor or periodization.
Plenty of warnings and talk about how to test yourself in different phases of training and about injury prevention.
Done .. Now go out and see how your body reacts!
-
It's so refreshing compared to old school running books that just tell you what to do every day of the week.
Not that I plan of doing any of it in the foreseeable future .. But it's nice to have the toolbox presented.
I like the rec runner example in the book of the dad who does double threshold by doing 3x10 min at 4:30-5:30 AM. Then packs lunches & has breakfast with the kids. Then heads out again to run 10x1k from 7-8 AM before dropping the kids off at school.
Pretty sure I'd be wiped for the entire day after that.
I like the rec runner example in the book of the dad who does double threshold by doing 3x10 min at 4:30-5:30 AM. Then packs lunches & has breakfast with the kids. Then heads out again to run 10x1k from 7-8 AM before dropping the kids off at school.
Pretty sure I'd be wiped for the entire day after that.
That doesn’t even seem like doubling, just a really long rest interval. And I’d be passed out at my desk by 11am
It's not a problem it's just a waste of their time and energy compared to smarter training, and it's not outrage or gatekeeping to call it out as such. Some people love training a lot more than they love performing well -that's totally ok! They are free to train stupidly, we are free to call that training stupid.
Compared to what smarter training?
NSM, which is basically the same? A JD or Pfitz routine, a Canova build?
-
It's kind of a silly statement in a thread for hobby joggers :D
Running is more than being as close to Ingebrigtsen or Kipchoge as possible. It's more than making those digits on your watch as small as possible on the finish line.
It can also be about joy, purpose and health. It can be adventure. Definately a good bit of escapism too for most hobby joggers.
So the reason to do doubles might be:
* To ensure consistency by more variety and keeping boredom at bay
* A chance to relieve stress both before and after work!
* Getting slightly more breathing space away from daily conflict and chores at home
* To ensure consistency by feeling smug about yourself cause you're copying the training method of several Olympians.
* To test your limits and how your body reacts ... Being bold!
And so on.
Dose is the difference between medicine and poison -the key part to NSM is proper dosage. Double T is an overdose of that for 99.99% of runners. Fentanyl given in the hospital is a very different situation than the junkie overdosing on the street.
As I said, it's ok for people to simply enjoy doing a lot of training rather than prioritizing performance. All those points you mention are valid, but they are a prioritization entertainment and ego. It's a different intent and it's fair to call that out.
Dose is the difference between medicine and poison -the key part to NSM is proper dosage. Double T is an overdose of that for 99.99% of runners. Fentanyl given in the hospital is a very different situation than the junkie overdosing on the street.
As I said, it's ok for people to simply enjoy doing a lot of training rather than prioritizing performance. All those points you mention are valid, but they are a prioritization entertainment and ego. It's a different intent and it's fair to call that out.
I doubt this is right.
FIrst of all if we talk about prioritizing ego then what is this almost religious belief that NSM hit the load dose perfectly and it's better left to the professionals to be administered doubles (fentanyl).
-
Running doubles might be a bad idea for someone with a very physically demanding job like say in construction. But even someone like that might investigate doubling on his bike (Sirpoc).
But not everyone works in construction. A ton of people have office jobs, where they sit on their a** for 8 hours straight.
Adding doubles isn't an insane additional load and while it might slowly cook you, but maybe we should just trust people to adjust if signs of that start showing instead of calling them out in advance?
After all most hobby joggers are adults, no?
-
Btw if you look at Bakkens (norwegian) book his first section is aimed at the recreational runner that does 1-3 hours week. That is strictly singles off course.
Then comes the recreational runner that wants more and run 4-6 week. His recommendation with regards to doubles is to consider adding them if you're at the higher end of this. He suggest starting with one doubles day a fortnight or a week in order to easy into it.
If you're running above six hours then all if fair game.
No one is talking about taking on doubles as a noob. But NSM runners should be out there 5-8 hours a week already, right?
If someone like that decides to experiment with doubles, why the need to call him/her out?
Now ad in a margin of error of 10-12 beats and you hit a range from 160 to 184.
His quote seems spot on and not completely wrong with regards to your heart rate of 160.
We shouldn't be even having this conversation or dealing with margin of error when it comes to something like this. It's Bakken, but this is sloppy and to have a link to a calculator from a QR code in the book that old_skool50 posted is just wrong. Why even mention margin of error of 10-12 beats when if you run a 5k all out you'll at least be in a significantly narrower range of errors than that. It's nonsensical.
The Norwegian version (language) is far better as it keeps the focus on the stuff really Bakken is the gold standard on and draws on his experiences. The English language book he said is more comprehensive, but it really is too much, too much contradictory information and over complicating things for hobby joggers. The proof is in guys who don't need to, well on the improvement curve, who are currently already overdoing it a week in. Some will survive it, but the majority just took themselves out of the comfort zone and easy gains.
It's frustrating, because it could have been all better. Someone already posted this, but the key thing about the NSM book is it gives you enough plus some excellent new stuff, to go away and come back years later and maybe try something different. This also isn't Bakken's fault, but sirpoc hasn't helped here by releasing something half a year previously, so good and so bang on the money for hobby joggers.
It's still obviously an excellent book and everyone should be buying it just to have it on their bookshelf. But the first man to break through the glass ceiling with ideas isn't always the one in time who has refined things. But there's no doubt down at hobby level it lacks the experiences. Especially when it comes to doubles, we have seen time and time again your regular guy doing this far too early and burning out. The internet is littered with such feedback since Bakken first kindly shared so much information on his blogs.
I've nothing against doubles, even for a 40+ min 10k runner as mentioned. But to have a book about intensity control, it's again nonsensical to open this up so early. I realise this seems overly critical and it's likely on me as another poster said for having too high expectations.
As a Scandinavian I can tell you, the Norwegian version is for serious runners and cements Bakken's name back home as the godfather of doubles. It's his piece to say to Gjert, I'm the guy. It's a great read.
The English language version is just something to put out there, to cash into or creep into the market. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it and I doubt as much thought went into it. Just chapters he thought runners might want to hear, dumber down and stamped his name on it.
Of course there are contradictory between both version, but the Norwegian one is the gold standard.
"Forget 220 minus age. The formula has a margin of error of 10-12 beats, far too imprecise for meaningful zone calculations".
Did you people seriously think that Marius Bakken was not aware that "220-age" is not precise?
My max heart rate is around 160. I’m 48 years old. His quote is still completely wrong.
Actually I’m 47 and my max heart rate has been same for at least 8 to 10 years plus. Dunno why I keep thinking I’m 48, just 2 more months till I am tho
I'm reading the double-threshold chapter in Bakken's book. Again, it seems some people here are either misinterpreting the book completely or haven't read it. Bakken highlights this paragraph:
"WARNING: I advise against double-threshold if you do not have:
-Complete control of intensity around threshold;
-Been completely injury-free over time;
-Experience tolerating double sessions in general;
-Discipline to refrain if it does not feel right."
I don't see how this could lead the occasional 10k runner with no experience in doubling to start double-threshold.
The book provides an extensive framework for training, with principles and general ideas. If anything, it further validates NSM, so much that it advices doing months of NSM before adding anything else to training. The book is a celebration of NSM, with more ideas and tools to add different types of sessions in a controlled and precise manner. I don't see why you hate it so much.
Sorry for going off topic of Bakken's book, but what are people most people in the 7-8 hour range doing for sub-T volume? 3x12, 5x6, 10x3 is where I've been for about 3 months, but the book pushes up to 4x10 and 6x6. I'm at a point where my HR on my last interval is landing several beats below LTHR, so I'm considering options between increasing sub-T speed vs. sub-T volume. My focus is 10K/HM.