You guys would make great politicians. Before it was "NSM prevents injury", now it's "okay, NSM doesn't prevent injury but most runners get injured". Next up: "NSM does cause injury, everybody knew that!!"
Hugely broken the injury cycle of my 40s. Now I'm in my 50s training like this 7 days, never felt better and touch wood not been injured since.
It's not particularly surprising that so many people are having big success breaking injury cycles with it. That seems to be one of the most common plus points. You are never really overloading in training and creating an overload for periodization, which is the usual snapping point for me. I imagine that's the same for most of us as well.
If we are talking for the marathon, whilst NSM does have a bolt on, it's in no way minimal risk like the rest of it and isn't designed to be. That's very clear.
You guys would make great politicians. Before it was "NSM prevents injury", now it's "okay, NSM doesn't prevent injury but most runners get injured". Next up: "NSM does cause injury, everybody knew that!!"
Seems like for the *few* people that got injured it was unrelated to the training. IIRC Sirpoc got injured from his manual labor job. Another guy got injured post marathon. I think another guy got injured from doing a race in spikes without running in spikes for quite a while previously. None of that is specifically related to NSM.
So if a runner gets injured doing NSM, it's never specificially related to NSM. But if a runner gets injured doing Daniels, it's always specifically related to Daniels.
That's almost as bad as the guy who excused never PB-ing by saying getting injured for a PB isn't worth it. Because that's the only way to PB!
Even GUMMY is injured now and he's made of greek steel.
Now three weeks later ran a 45sec PB in the 10k (chip time: 33min22). Just did the short taper into a 10k race as per Sirpoc's book. Weekly 'mileage' around 100km now (+-62 miles).
At the end of April I'll have another tune up race (10 miles), I guess sub 55min should be feasible.
So if a runner gets injured doing NSM, it's never specificially related to NSM. But if a runner gets injured doing Daniels, it's always specifically related to Daniels.
That's almost as bad as the guy who excused never PB-ing by saying getting injured for a PB isn't worth it. Because that's the only way to PB!
Even GUMMY is injured now and he's made of greek steel.
I mean it's not rocket science. NSM will give the majority of runners a better chance of staying healthy. Within the 10,000+ posts it's probs Lt the #1 takeaway. But I don't think anyone ever thought running 7-8 hours a week, however you run will keep you injury free. You can only give yourself the best chance. I don't really think this concept is particularly hard to understand.
I'll add my name to the long list of people it has luckily kept far more healthy than previously. We can only go on past history and how do many runners have mentioned this. Sure, it's anecdotal, but there's enough comments here and elsewhere to identify positive patterns.
Can anyone remember who posted about doing LT1/MP everyday of the week? and roughly what page of the thread it was?
Hard to navigate the thread, as the previous username mentions, but I first posted about this on pg 444 (post#8865). There was a series of good replies in response to that. Also some scattered posts about it before then. There is also some discussion around pg 505, and again in pgs 530-540ish. Users shirtboy2022 (and some other shirtboy alter egos) and Kinder Surprise had stated they were trying it, don't know if they did end up following up. I remember someone actually did report back on it a few weeks (months?) ago and had a good post but I can't find it.
Unfortunately, this topic seems to be continually squashed in this thread by those who refuse to hear anything other than the SirPoc gospel despite this initially being his idea. The old fogeys of the thread will remember cross-training and double easy days being ideas that were continually shot down by the zealots until they realized the man himself was doing them. These zealots being the same people complaining that this thread is dead when they're the ones killing it...
I get it, we all do: vanilla NSM works as is. Can we move on now, and talk about variations without having every idea shot down? This isn't life or death, we can ask questions, try new things, make tweaks here and there, see what happens, have *gasp* fun with it. Isn't that how SirPoc ended up at this method in the first place, by NOT being a slave to accepted training methods?
Yeah been mostly following LT1 only, with small touches of SST/Zwift Races, so pretty hyper polarized.
Also polarized from the standpoint that much of this work is on the bike, and the running is almost exclusively LT1 and above.
I've felt no issues in recovery and the running has actually bounced back much faster than i wouldve anticipated.
Not that i thought it would take forever to have the running crossover, when youve run for the better part of 30 years, you arent exactly starting from scratch.
I will probably mostly continue in some variation of LT1 with SST as probably my most intense session on SOME days, then probably play around a bit when i want to race some 5ks.
For me, my life is highly stressful atm the moment, and LT1 combined with life stress if more than enough of a stimulus that i can actually absorb even if not 'optimal', but im way past the 'optimization' of performance part of my journey, it's all about not digging graves to fall into every month with too much intensity.
If anything is super interesting i can share (i document most of the numbers), but for the next 8-10 weeks it will be mostly staying the course and trying to get my threshold back to where it was before i went crazy with intensity last fall racing on Zwift.
I'd say the main takeaway from experience doing a ton of threshold, some variation of NSM for the most part, and adding cross training to it almost maximum dosage, is you are still better off being slightly under than over.
And for those that want to keep the load pretty flat and not do a hard periodization, i think you can still 'periodize' if you are monitoring with lactate somewhat, just like A Almgren and others have pointed out. Early in the season, keep the cap incredibly low and move it slightly as you approach racing season (say early season (if you have a LP2), you are trying to target 2.0-2.5, mid season 2.5-3.0, late season into races (3.0-3.5). I think this is a compromise somewhere in between the camps and makes sure you are safely keeping your metabolic profile in check.
I think even looking back on my training, i would have done it 5bpm lower (165 rather than 170 bpm) on my sweetspot sessions, and .3-.5 mmol lower on lactate (2.5-2.7 rather than 3.0 at the end of sessions), just to be even more in the green part of the ledger
So if a runner gets injured doing NSM, it's never specificially related to NSM. But if a runner gets injured doing Daniels, it's always specifically related to Daniels.
That's almost as bad as the guy who excused never PB-ing by saying getting injured for a PB isn't worth it. Because that's the only way to PB!
Even GUMMY is injured now and he's made of greek steel.
I mean it's not rocket science. NSM will give the majority of runners a better chance of staying healthy. Within the 10,000+ posts it's probs Lt the #1 takeaway. But I don't think anyone ever thought running 7-8 hours a week, however you run will keep you injury free. You can only give yourself the best chance. I don't really think this concept is particularly hard to understand.
I'll add my name to the long list of people it has luckily kept far more healthy than previously. We can only go on past history and how do many runners have mentioned this. Sure, it's anecdotal, but there's enough comments here and elsewhere to identify positive patterns.
Even though I really like speed development or at least speed maintenance (strides, or some fully-recovered reps), the faster I run the more likely I am to get injured. I am not super injury prone, but every time I've been injured in the last 3-4 years it has been doing 100s or 200s or strides, and a minor thing snowballs from a little tweak. No surprise that really never touching faster than 5K pace keeps people generally healthier.
The recovery pace probably does a lot to prevent overuse stuff (tendonitis, joint stuff, etc).
So if a runner gets injured doing NSM, it's never specificially related to NSM. But if a runner gets injured doing Daniels, it's always specifically related to Daniels.
That's almost as bad as the guy who excused never PB-ing by saying getting injured for a PB isn't worth it. Because that's the only way to PB!
Even GUMMY is injured now and he's made of greek steel.
Giving love to the troll as I know you are suffering in living, we believe in you, just believe
Yeah been mostly following LT1 only, with small touches of SST/Zwift Races, so pretty hyper polarized.
Also polarized from the standpoint that much of this work is on the bike, and the running is almost exclusively LT1 and above.
I've felt no issues in recovery and the running has actually bounced back much faster than i wouldve anticipated.
Not that i thought it would take forever to have the running crossover, when youve run for the better part of 30 years, you arent exactly starting from scratch.
I will probably mostly continue in some variation of LT1 with SST as probably my most intense session on SOME days, then probably play around a bit when i want to race some 5ks.
For me, my life is highly stressful atm the moment, and LT1 combined with life stress if more than enough of a stimulus that i can actually absorb even if not 'optimal', but im way past the 'optimization' of performance part of my journey, it's all about not digging graves to fall into every month with too much intensity.
If anything is super interesting i can share (i document most of the numbers), but for the next 8-10 weeks it will be mostly staying the course and trying to get my threshold back to where it was before i went crazy with intensity last fall racing on Zwift.
I'd say the main takeaway from experience doing a ton of threshold, some variation of NSM for the most part, and adding cross training to it almost maximum dosage, is you are still better off being slightly under than over.
And for those that want to keep the load pretty flat and not do a hard periodization, i think you can still 'periodize' if you are monitoring with lactate somewhat, just like A Almgren and others have pointed out. Early in the season, keep the cap incredibly low and move it slightly as you approach racing season (say early season (if you have a LP2), you are trying to target 2.0-2.5, mid season 2.5-3.0, late season into races (3.0-3.5). I think this is a compromise somewhere in between the camps and makes sure you are safely keeping your metabolic profile in check.
I think even looking back on my training, i would have done it 5bpm lower (165 rather than 170 bpm) on my sweetspot sessions, and .3-.5 mmol lower on lactate (2.5-2.7 rather than 3.0 at the end of sessions), just to be even more in the green part of the ledger
Great post, glad to have another report back.
I do find the numbers super interesting, so please do share more if you can. Same questions for you as I had for the last person:
What LT1 sessions are you doing? Continuous or intervals (duration/rest?)? Same thing everyday or switching it up? And how did you determine your LT1 pace? By measuring lactate or going off heart rate (or something else)?
I think the success of this whole LT1 everyday approach is determined by very, very carefully managing the effort on the LT1-portion of the runs. From what I remember of the early days, SirPoc spent a while using the lactate metre to dial in on the effort for the sub-LT2 intervals. It took quite a bit of work on his part to figure it out. I think this is probably even moreso the case for the LT1 approach, where you don't have the easy days as a recovery buffer. You have to be running at the exact right effort every session, every day. And I think the correct LT1 effort here is quite a bit more difficult to pin down.
Yeah been mostly following LT1 only, with small touches of SST/Zwift Races, so pretty hyper polarized.
Also polarized from the standpoint that much of this work is on the bike, and the running is almost exclusively LT1 and above.
I've felt no issues in recovery and the running has actually bounced back much faster than i wouldve anticipated.
Not that i thought it would take forever to have the running crossover, when youve run for the better part of 30 years, you arent exactly starting from scratch.
I will probably mostly continue in some variation of LT1 with SST as probably my most intense session on SOME days, then probably play around a bit when i want to race some 5ks.
For me, my life is highly stressful atm the moment, and LT1 combined with life stress if more than enough of a stimulus that i can actually absorb even if not 'optimal', but im way past the 'optimization' of performance part of my journey, it's all about not digging graves to fall into every month with too much intensity.
If anything is super interesting i can share (i document most of the numbers), but for the next 8-10 weeks it will be mostly staying the course and trying to get my threshold back to where it was before i went crazy with intensity last fall racing on Zwift.
I'd say the main takeaway from experience doing a ton of threshold, some variation of NSM for the most part, and adding cross training to it almost maximum dosage, is you are still better off being slightly under than over.
And for those that want to keep the load pretty flat and not do a hard periodization, i think you can still 'periodize' if you are monitoring with lactate somewhat, just like A Almgren and others have pointed out. Early in the season, keep the cap incredibly low and move it slightly as you approach racing season (say early season (if you have a LP2), you are trying to target 2.0-2.5, mid season 2.5-3.0, late season into races (3.0-3.5). I think this is a compromise somewhere in between the camps and makes sure you are safely keeping your metabolic profile in check.
I think even looking back on my training, i would have done it 5bpm lower (165 rather than 170 bpm) on my sweetspot sessions, and .3-.5 mmol lower on lactate (2.5-2.7 rather than 3.0 at the end of sessions), just to be even more in the green part of the ledger
Great post, glad to have another report back.
I do find the numbers super interesting, so please do share more if you can. Same questions for you as I had for the last person:
What LT1 sessions are you doing? Continuous or intervals (duration/rest?)? Same thing everyday or switching it up? And how did you determine your LT1 pace? By measuring lactate or going off heart rate (or something else)?
I think the success of this whole LT1 everyday approach is determined by very, very carefully managing the effort on the LT1-portion of the runs. From what I remember of the early days, SirPoc spent a while using the lactate metre to dial in on the effort for the sub-LT2 intervals. It took quite a bit of work on his part to figure it out. I think this is probably even moreso the case for the LT1 approach, where you don't have the easy days as a recovery buffer. You have to be running at the exact right effort every session, every day. And I think the correct LT1 effort here is quite a bit more difficult to pin down.
Lactate and HR combined, and a lot of previous testing in and around LT1 from previous cycles, so i have a pretty good idea where the HR bpm = leaving baseline from a lactate standpoint.
For me, id say anything up to 1.7 mmol on my meter is still probably under LT1 (in terms of BPM: on the bike, HR typically <150, maybe <145 in the AM, running HR caps slightly higher than the bike). Depending on the day, its usually like 1.3-1.5 mmol on an LP2.
Also, im not afraid to slow down the intervals/lower the power if it starts right on the line or seems like its going to drift be drifting up/HR bpm is elevated. As has been pointed out HR is variable but you can figure out if its high or low going forward for that session when paired with the lactate value.
A mix of both continuous and intervals.
On the bike, 'intervals' no less than 20:00 in length, up to 30:00. Or a continuous ride of 60:00 or so if the HR is super stable.
For running, also mixed. Safely under the HR caps with no drift. Intervals mixed lengths, but a lot of stuff is on a treadmill or a loop almost like a track, so its easy to be checking in on the HR constantly.
Lactate and HR combined, and a lot of previous testing in and around LT1 from previous cycles, so i have a pretty good idea where the HR bpm = leaving baseline from a lactate standpoint.
For me, id say anything up to 1.7 mmol on my meter is still probably under LT1 (in terms of BPM: on the bike, HR typically <150, maybe <145 in the AM, running HR caps slightly higher than the bike). Depending on the day, its usually like 1.3-1.5 mmol on an LP2.
Also, im not afraid to slow down the intervals/lower the power if it starts right on the line or seems like its going to drift be drifting up/HR bpm is elevated. As has been pointed out HR is variable but you can figure out if its high or low going forward for that session when paired with the lactate value.
A mix of both continuous and intervals.
On the bike, 'intervals' no less than 20:00 in length, up to 30:00. Or a continuous ride of 60:00 or so if the HR is super stable.
For running, also mixed. Safely under the HR caps with no drift. Intervals mixed lengths, but a lot of stuff is on a treadmill or a loop almost like a track, so its easy to be checking in on the HR constantly.
I'm confused. I thought shirtboy had turned heel about 50 pages ago.
Lactate and HR combined, and a lot of previous testing in and around LT1 from previous cycles, so i have a pretty good idea where the HR bpm = leaving baseline from a lactate standpoint.
For me, id say anything up to 1.7 mmol on my meter is still probably under LT1 (in terms of BPM: on the bike, HR typically <150, maybe <145 in the AM, running HR caps slightly higher than the bike). Depending on the day, its usually like 1.3-1.5 mmol on an LP2.
Also, im not afraid to slow down the intervals/lower the power if it starts right on the line or seems like its going to drift be drifting up/HR bpm is elevated. As has been pointed out HR is variable but you can figure out if its high or low going forward for that session when paired with the lactate value.
A mix of both continuous and intervals.
On the bike, 'intervals' no less than 20:00 in length, up to 30:00. Or a continuous ride of 60:00 or so if the HR is super stable.
For running, also mixed. Safely under the HR caps with no drift. Intervals mixed lengths, but a lot of stuff is on a treadmill or a loop almost like a track, so its easy to be checking in on the HR constantly.
Great info, thanks.
You mention HR around 150bpm while cycling. Out of curiosity, what % of max HR is that?
Lactate and HR combined, and a lot of previous testing in and around LT1 from previous cycles, so i have a pretty good idea where the HR bpm = leaving baseline from a lactate standpoint.
For me, id say anything up to 1.7 mmol on my meter is still probably under LT1 (in terms of BPM: on the bike, HR typically <150, maybe <145 in the AM, running HR caps slightly higher than the bike). Depending on the day, its usually like 1.3-1.5 mmol on an LP2.
Also, im not afraid to slow down the intervals/lower the power if it starts right on the line or seems like its going to drift be drifting up/HR bpm is elevated. As has been pointed out HR is variable but you can figure out if its high or low going forward for that session when paired with the lactate value.
A mix of both continuous and intervals.
On the bike, 'intervals' no less than 20:00 in length, up to 30:00. Or a continuous ride of 60:00 or so if the HR is super stable.
For running, also mixed. Safely under the HR caps with no drift. Intervals mixed lengths, but a lot of stuff is on a treadmill or a loop almost like a track, so its easy to be checking in on the HR constantly.
Great info, thanks.
You mention HR around 150bpm while cycling. Out of curiosity, what % of max HR is that?
~79% (max of 190)
for running, probably a couple percentage points higher than that.
I will say, and ive talked to a few ppl about it, it took a long long time to get efficient enough on the bike to get my max hr as high as running. When i first started, the efficiency wasnt there, so the HR on cycling for the same la- was even lower, probably 15-20 bpm when i started.
Now, like i said, very close, but thats after 3-4 years of what SirPoopy would characterize as 'taking cross training too far' lol
I'll be honest, I didn't realise how fast FOD had got with using sirpoc's principles adapted. Kind of wild, as he's been running for a while now. Looks like a huge marathon PB is on?
for running, probably a couple percentage points higher than that.
I will say, and ive talked to a few ppl about it, it took a long long time to get efficient enough on the bike to get my max hr as high as running. When i first started, the efficiency wasnt there, so the HR on cycling for the same la- was even lower, probably 15-20 bpm when i started.
Now, like i said, very close, but thats after 3-4 years of what SirPoopy would characterize as 'taking cross training too far' lol
You the example of tipping the scales too far on cross training in the book?
Good to see our resident professor is clueless is getting owned by the same “hill uphill runner” book he preached several weeks ago, that aerobically underdeveloped or rather aerobic deficiently syndrome is a thing and has been known for decades despite arguing there is no such thing.
Shows how NSM is undoes the problems caused by general inactivity and those coming to the sport in their late twenties onward.
does the mountain of evidence, we have another source from coach Scott Johnson.
I'll be honest, I didn't realise how fast FOD had got with using sirpoc's principles adapted. Kind of wild, as he's been running for a while now. Looks like a huge marathon PB is on?
What is interesting to me is there have been a number of people now who have worked closely with sirpoc and have had huge success (or at least from what FOD was saying, has direct access to bouncing off ideas) and seem to be making individual tweaks for what they have in mind. Wigglewaffle posted as much as did the guy who was around 2:32 in Seville. Other people have posted he's helped them. OK, so there is a book, but it's refreshing that there is a guy that seemingly is just happy to help and ask for nothing back. It goes give me faith a little bit in otherwise an online space where I've become very cynical.
Good luck btw to FOD. It looks like there's a huge PB on the cards. It's crazy to see even for him who has trained a various number of ways, has made this work for him with just the 7 runs a week, albeit sandwiched into 5 days through no choice and that he is part of a long list of people who just feel so good with this routine of just chipping away with no hero sessions.
Shows you how it's so much about intensity control and learning that. If anything I think that's what sirpoc has brought into focus rather than any subthreshold magic.