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.
Sorry, should have said I've been doing NSM for over a year, just went from 3x10 to 3x12 about 3 months ago, so I've been steady at 96 minutes sub-T volume for 3 months, now considering between increasing sub-T volume a bit more vs. increasing speed to account for lower HR in workouts.
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.
Yes. There is going to be confusion when people debate the merits of a book that they clearly haven't actually read. Maybe if you haven't read the Bakken book, don't comment on it?
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.
Sounds like you've shifted your LT curve right. Probably best to keep your 3x12, 5x6, 10x3 and just pick up the sub-T pace instead of adding more sub-T volume.
This post was edited 42 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
typo
There seems to be a thread of: “Bakken’s Book adds too much complication, nuance, and speculation for most runners”
Why would someone write about general relativity when most of us are fine with Newtonian gravity? Because some people are or want to be physicists (elite and aspiring elite runners) and because some people are just interested in physics (enthusiastic hobby joggers). The fact that the “system” isn’t completely finished or polished and there are speculations on areas of improvement is the interesting part to a lot of people. The fact that most people won’t “need” Bakkens book is not an issue with the book.
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.
Why are you making up sh*t that isn't in the book? Everything he says on page 149 is basically the opposite of what you're saying here.
Please cite to the page where he gives this example.
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.
Why are you making up sh*t that isn't in the book? Everything he says on page 149 is basically the opposite of what you're saying here.
Please cite to the page where he gives this example.
I've been a part of this thread since the early days. And I've been doing subT since 2019. Vanilla NSM is great. Sirpoc's contributions to this theory are amazing. But the morons on here who are lying about Bakken's book because they somehow think it discredits NSM (which it categorically does not) need to be put in their place.
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.
Surely thats an error and is meant to be 7-8 PM (or whatever it is)?
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.
Surely thats an error and is meant to be 7-8 PM (or whatever it is)?
The book is very reasonable, measured, and recommends that people err on the side of conservatism. It recommends people start with an approach very similar to vanilla NSM and then experiment to see what works best for them. The caricatures described in this thread are not a reflection of what's in the actual book.
I think the Bakken book is an excellent addition. What I don’t get, is that the translated version is supposedly so different to the original? That doesn’t make sense, if true.
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.
Why are you making up sh*t that isn't in the book? Everything he says on page 149 is basically the opposite of what you're saying here.
Please cite to the page where he gives this example.
It’s 100% in the book. Why would I make that story up, lol?. I’ll get you the exact page number as soon as I get home from work this afternoon. Bakken is just giving an example of how double T can be flexible as long as there’s 90 min between sessions.
FWIW I really like the book. I’ve already started been doing some of the X factor sessions the Norwegians on here shared when they read the book in Norwegian.
Not in the book, but I heard him say that the first session works as a primer for the second session, which is why S/T sessions (but not a full workout) work as a warm up for a race.
Sorry, should have said I've been doing NSM for over a year, just went from 3x10 to 3x12 about 3 months ago, so I've been steady at 96 minutes sub-T volume for 3 months, now considering between increasing sub-T volume a bit more vs. increasing speed to account for lower HR in workouts.
3x36=108 weekly, not 96, you may want to rethink your volume if it’s Beating you up to the point that it’s preventing you from doing basic arithmetic
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.
Why are you making up sh*t that isn't in the book? Everything he says on page 149 is basically the opposite of what you're saying here.
Please cite to the page where he gives this example.
page 152
In lieu of an apology, in NSM fashion I'll accept a Mars bar/Milky Way, or beer, or a pair of size 8.5 Dynafish Xiaonians.
As a hobby jogger, I've tried a few double thresholds, but they are very hard mentally. To have done a proper workout, have to work all day, then do another one, and then know you have to run the next morning is a lot.
And I've done the first two steps: I double four days a week, as that's my 25 minute commute to and from work. And two of those days are a subt session that ends at my office, then 25 easy to get home.
If I could take a nap and chill during the day, I think it would be very manageable. With work, I'm dreading it.
As a hobby jogger, I've tried a few double thresholds, but they are very hard mentally. To have done a proper workout, have to work all day, then do another one, and then know you have to run the next morning is a lot.
And I've done the first two steps: I double four days a week, as that's my 25 minute commute to and from work. And two of those days are a subt session that ends at my office, then 25 easy to get home.
If I could take a nap and chill during the day, I think it would be very manageable. With work, I'm dreading it.
The dude who followed NSM and posted on here and Reddit who ran a sub 3 about 6 months after a 3:15 ran a lot of doubles to and from work. Generally shortish like yourself.
I think there is a belief that we need to be running long miles in one run but breaking the runs up , even the easy runs, will surely help fatigue?
As a hobby jogger, I've tried a few double thresholds, but they are very hard mentally. To have done a proper workout, have to work all day, then do another one, and then know you have to run the next morning is a lot.
And I've done the first two steps: I double four days a week, as that's my 25 minute commute to and from work. And two of those days are a subt session that ends at my office, then 25 easy to get home.
If I could take a nap and chill during the day, I think it would be very manageable. With work, I'm dreading it.
Mostly the same for me. I used to double and it burned me out. Having to drop the kids off from school, fit in work in between that and then fit all that in between 2 reasonably taxing runs a day, was just too much. First run was Lt1 -10 seconds of M pace, second was a classic sub-thereshold workout.
For your average guy, it's just a lot. I got that NSM book and that's a game changer for me, there was so much in there that helped me to balance load and really understand intensity control properly, outside of the usual running speak.
If I run twice in a day, it's usually only ever easy running. I've actually gotten faster on just the one sub threshold run a day, 3x a week. It's a little harder (as designed by sirpoc to scrape the limit) but I'm also just recovering better. So probably absorbing more of the load, of not being so burned out I can't use it.
Like your post, if I had nothing to do, or just sitting around all day in between sessions, I'd probably double again. I can't imagine many, if any, of us middle aged semi serious runners have that luxury though.