I find it amazing a tradesman wrote a book in such detail and even bothered to post such fantastic posts early in this thread. Shows you how insular and stereotypical we can be about who "knows" about running. A lot of what has been written puts some professional writers and academics to shame. Shows you if your ideas and you can communicate well, nothing is closed to anyone.
… I will pretend that you didn't just call a 5K race/time trial an "anaerobic session" to spare myself the intense second-hand shame I would feel otherwise.
…
I’m not familiar with the relevant academic literature, but I believe the technical wording of one observing such a point is: “oh, snap!”
No strides. He doesn’t even do k reps. He just does 2 miles, 2k and mile reps. 4:05 at 5,000 feet. Wow.
Cheetodust is how I found out about NSM. He was on it early.
He made me re think a lot, especially the need for speed, as he's been doing stuff as low as 800. He's posted some good information in the thread, but I do wish he would post more.
Especially as he goes back a long, long time in running and I'm sure has trained a number of ways.
Yet he's clearly decided this gives him the best bang for his buck, even right down to the really short stuff.
Maybe the cycling has helped. It will be interesting, because sirpoc seemingly has him doing some stuff on there from what he has said.
Anyway, what a fantastic run, that is really no joke at altitude. Looking at the results, beating kids less than half his age.
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
My best new is 3k under NSM, my second best is a 1500 and then my third best is a 10k. My 5k is the worst. I just do vanilla NSM 6 hours a week. 8x3. 5x5 and 3x10.
I've found best to block out all the noise, that you must do this or must do that for a specific distance and just focus on getting fitter. In simple terms I seem to remember sirpoc talking about in the book, you are just looking for shift your lactate curve to the right, that's all getting fitter is. At hobby level I suspect it shifts reasonably parallel across distances. I doubt there's much more to it than that, most people will come here and try and over complicate it. There's also a guy on Reddit who posted about his mile PB training with no strides or anything.
There's also a motivation boost, you are running with people for most of the time in shorter distances so that probably gives us all a boost for locking onto someone or a pace and just holding on.
I would be interested in asking cheetodust if he thinks the intensity sirpoc has had him do on the bike has helped. I have done one session now and I do feel like it's a zero risk way to remember how to hurt yourself a bit. Almost like a trump card you can play without staying outside of what you do normally running. Maybe this is a factor but it would be interesting to hear his feedback.
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
Last Spring I raced a 1500m off NSM, but very slightly modified. About 4 weeks before race day, I modified one workout a week by cutting a couple 1000m reps off the workout and adding a very few reps at 1500m/mile pace. I think I did a 4x 400m and a 5x 300m, and a "big" one of 4x 500m - again these were at the end of a shortened sub-T session (so like 24 minutes of sub-T work leading into them, and not 30 minutes)
Did three workouts add any race-specific fitness? Likely no, not in isolation. Did it get me used to the turnover and pacing of middle-distance race pace and add some confidence in running a distance I rarely-to-never race without compromising the rest of my weekly work? I 100% feel it did.
I get modifications for distances outside the marathon aren't exactly popular. The poster above me who said he just does vanilla NSM is right that fitness is fitness and what matters more than any specificity. So any changes are probably not necessary, but I think it's confidence-building and would do it again.
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
Last Spring I raced a 1500m off NSM, but very slightly modified. About 4 weeks before race day, I modified one workout a week by cutting a couple 1000m reps off the workout and adding a very few reps at 1500m/mile pace. I think I did a 4x 400m and a 5x 300m, and a "big" one of 4x 500m - again these were at the end of a shortened sub-T session (so like 24 minutes of sub-T work leading into them, and not 30 minutes)
Did three workouts add any race-specific fitness? Likely no, not in isolation. Did it get me used to the turnover and pacing of middle-distance race pace and add some confidence in running a distance I rarely-to-never race without compromising the rest of my weekly work? I 100% feel it did.
I get modifications for distances outside the marathon aren't exactly popular. The poster above me who said he just does vanilla NSM is right that fitness is fitness and what matters more than any specificity. So any changes are probably not necessary, but I think it's confidence-building and would do it again.
Agreed. Comes down to specificity having two aspects, physiological and mechanical. Vanilla takes care of the physiological by increasing the amount of furnaces and pipes in muscles. Some benefit from additional mechanical stimulus that accustoms one to race paces, but in a moderate dose. Icing the cake and whatnot.
Problem is running discussions often conflate the two such that only the less important mechanical aspect or race paces is yapped about. NSA has contributed to putting the aspects on their places, in a very practical way.
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
Last Spring I raced a 1500m off NSM, but very slightly modified. About 4 weeks before race day, I modified one workout a week by cutting a couple 1000m reps off the workout and adding a very few reps at 1500m/mile pace. I think I did a 4x 400m and a 5x 300m, and a "big" one of 4x 500m - again these were at the end of a shortened sub-T session (so like 24 minutes of sub-T work leading into them, and not 30 minutes)
Did three workouts add any race-specific fitness? Likely no, not in isolation. Did it get me used to the turnover and pacing of middle-distance race pace and add some confidence in running a distance I rarely-to-never race without compromising the rest of my weekly work? I 100% feel it did.
I get modifications for distances outside the marathon aren't exactly popular. The poster above me who said he just does vanilla NSM is right that fitness is fitness and what matters more than any specificity. So any changes are probably not necessary, but I think it's confidence-building and would do it again.
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
Last Spring I raced a 1500m off NSM, but very slightly modified. About 4 weeks before race day, I modified one workout a week by cutting a couple 1000m reps off the workout and adding a very few reps at 1500m/mile pace. I think I did a 4x 400m and a 5x 300m, and a "big" one of 4x 500m - again these were at the end of a shortened sub-T session (so like 24 minutes of sub-T work leading into them, and not 30 minutes)
Did three workouts add any race-specific fitness? Likely no, not in isolation. Did it get me used to the turnover and pacing of middle-distance race pace and add some confidence in running a distance I rarely-to-never race without compromising the rest of my weekly work? I 100% feel it did.
I get modifications for distances outside the marathon aren't exactly popular. The poster above me who said he just does vanilla NSM is right that fitness is fitness and what matters more than any specificity. So any changes are probably not necessary, but I think it's confidence-building and would do it again.
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
No, u want to get fit quick, do VO2. Nobody ever said NSM is best way to race 1500 or 5K. But it gets you 90% of the way there. The maths is simple.. Race specific training sessions for older people = 95% of “potential” but with 40% chance of injury. Pure NSM = 90% potential * 5% injury chance. Chances are, you show up fitter for the 5K following NSM. You are right on the perfect way to incorporate it, however that’s too complex for most people or the risk is not worth it
Last Spring I raced a 1500m off NSM, but very slightly modified. About 4 weeks before race day, I modified one workout a week by cutting a couple 1000m reps off the workout and adding a very few reps at 1500m/mile pace. I think I did a 4x 400m and a 5x 300m, and a "big" one of 4x 500m - again these were at the end of a shortened sub-T session (so like 24 minutes of sub-T work leading into them, and not 30 minutes)
Did three workouts add any race-specific fitness? Likely no, not in isolation. Did it get me used to the turnover and pacing of middle-distance race pace and add some confidence in running a distance I rarely-to-never race without compromising the rest of my weekly work? I 100% feel it did.
I get modifications for distances outside the marathon aren't exactly popular. The poster above me who said he just does vanilla NSM is right that fitness is fitness and what matters more than any specificity. So any changes are probably not necessary, but I think it's confidence-building and would do it again.
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
So ...
How big a percentage of hobby joggers doing NSM do you think consider the 1500m or shorter as their main distance?
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
Respect everyone's opinion, but personally I think most of this is old-school nonsense. This is coming from someone who considers himself old school. I fell into the trap of falling for a lot of this myself for many years.
If you only have hobby hours, the vast majority of people would get faster just by sticking to NSM instead of worrying about anything race-specific. We already have a huge number of people saying the same thing about the 5K—and even shorter distances.
I’m way faster in the mile and 5K now than I was years ago, and I’ve more than doubled my age. I’m still only running 5.5–6 hours a week, spamming sub-threshold work. I’m just fitter overall.
No hobby jogger is ever going to reach 100 % of their potential in any event. It’s laughable to even think that. So you might as well fill the fitness tank as much as possible. Spamming sub-threshold is boring, but it’s the easiest way to do it.
I used to do one threshold session plus some 5K-and-below specific work and still only ran 5–6 hours a week. Here are the two factors that changed everything for me:
Spamming just sub-threshold lets me stay far more consistent—which is a massive benefit.
Three sub-threshold sessions are worth more than one 25–30 minute threshold session plus 15–20 minutes of faster-pace work. Ninety minutes of sub-threshold work week after week will simply make you fitter. You’ll run faster. It’s not rocket science—even at 5K and below. I bet I’m not the only one who wishes they had known this when college coaches told us you have to “practice running fast to run fast” even in the scraps of the depths of D3. Looking back, it was ridiculous. I would have had far better results just doing NSM (or any equivalent base training) year-round and getting into really good overall shape.
The big caveat, of course, is the elite level. There, everyone is already almost as fit as they can get, so specificity becomes the final difference-maker. But to think the same rules apply to hobby runners is just plain stupid, in my opinion. I say this because you mentioned “to run your best 1500.” Again, almost nobody here is ever going to run their absolute best 1500. It’s about getting as fit as possible so you can run as close to your potential as you can. Nobody is anywhere near their potential. Climbing as high up the fitness chain as possible is what gets you closest—not specificity. People still cling to this idea blindly because it was drilled into them by dinosaur coaches who only really understood elite training. Even at the elite level, plenty of top athletes are now challenging how much specificity is actually required.
This is probably the biggest myth busted by the whole conversation in the thread . At the very least, it has clearly shown that specificity is wildly over-inflated for shorter distances—and it’s probably not something most of us need to worry about at all. Or at least until you are certain in the medium term you can't improve via an easier way.
My best new is 3k under NSM, my second best is a 1500 and then my third best is a 10k. My 5k is the worst. I just do vanilla NSM 6 hours a week. 8x3. 5x5 and 3x10.
I've found best to block out all the noise, that you must do this or must do that for a specific distance and just focus on getting fitter. In simple terms I seem to remember sirpoc talking about in the book, you are just looking for shift your lactate curve to the right, that's all getting fitter is. At hobby level I suspect it shifts reasonably parallel across distances. I doubt there's much more to it than that, most people will come here and try and over complicate it. There's also a guy on Reddit who posted about his mile PB training with no strides or anything.
There's also a motivation boost, you are running with people for most of the time in shorter distances so that probably gives us all a boost for locking onto someone or a pace and just holding on.
I would be interested in asking cheetodust if he thinks the intensity sirpoc has had him do on the bike has helped. I have done one session now and I do feel like it's a zero risk way to remember how to hurt yourself a bit. Almost like a trump card you can play without staying outside of what you do normally running. Maybe this is a factor but it would be interesting to hear his feedback.
Yeah some details about suprathreshold done on the bike would be very interesting to know
Theoretically it makes sense to train lactic power at least a little bit. But at the same time I think the physiological importance of lactic power (Magness' "you will lose your 400m speed if you only run around threshold, as you won't be able to produce high lactate") although still true is realistically overestimated for hobby runners in the 4'10"-4'20" range for the 1500m, especially if those runners focus more on longer events. What's more concerning to me is the coordination, the familiarity with running so much faster than usual. Yeah being in a pack in the race may help psychologically, but in the end you are far away from what you are accustomed to, there's no way out of it. But again, we have examples of people doing basically equally good on vanilla and tweaked approaches. Maybe in the end sticking to vanilla is still the best compromise, especially if you also want to keep improving in longer distances
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
So ...
How big a percentage of hobby joggers doing NSM do you think consider the 1500m or shorter as their main distance?
Not very many at all considering 90% of available races for amateurs are 5k and up. I think one thing people forget about NSM vs Norwegian-style Elite's who train for the 1500 is they do specific work in addition to the threshold work, never as a substitute.
For example where most NSM is based around 90 minutes of threshold a week, someone like Jakob is doing 120-150 minutes of threshold and his X-session at peak volume. Even into racing season Jakob is maintaining 90-120 minutes a week of threshold.
Hobbs Kessler actually talked about how when he dropped to 60 minutes of threshold a week for racing season he started to feel worse in the 1500 and is now making sure he keeps 90 minutes as his minimum.
I know for myself I don't need much anerobic work to be ready for a 1500, but do need some neuromuscular prep which can be accomplished purely with just a few 100m and maybe 200m strides, either at the end of a threshold session or an easy day.
With a solid warmup (800-1k of threshold and strides) my aerobic system is so primed that a 1500/mile race doesn't feel anaerobically limited (as long as I don't go out too hard)
The 800 is a different beast, although I would point to Josh Hoey's training as a blueprint for threshold-based 800/1500 training using specific work in the morning and threshold in the PM as well as a standard double T day instead of a long run.
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
Respect everyone's opinion, but personally I think most of this is old-school nonsense. This is coming from someone who considers himself old school. I fell into the trap of falling for a lot of this myself for many years.
If you only have hobby hours, the vast majority of people would get faster just by sticking to NSM instead of worrying about anything race-specific. We already have a huge number of people saying the same thing about the 5K—and even shorter distances.
I’m way faster in the mile and 5K now than I was years ago, and I’ve more than doubled my age. I’m still only running 5.5–6 hours a week, spamming sub-threshold work. I’m just fitter overall.
No hobby jogger is ever going to reach 100 % of their potential in any event. It’s laughable to even think that. So you might as well fill the fitness tank as much as possible. Spamming sub-threshold is boring, but it’s the easiest way to do it.
I used to do one threshold session plus some 5K-and-below specific work and still only ran 5–6 hours a week. Here are the two factors that changed everything for me:
Spamming just sub-threshold lets me stay far more consistent—which is a massive benefit.
Three sub-threshold sessions are worth more than one 25–30 minute threshold session plus 15–20 minutes of faster-pace work. Ninety minutes of sub-threshold work week after week will simply make you fitter. You’ll run faster. It’s not rocket science—even at 5K and below. I bet I’m not the only one who wishes they had known this when college coaches told us you have to “practice running fast to run fast” even in the scraps of the depths of D3. Looking back, it was ridiculous. I would have had far better results just doing NSM (or any equivalent base training) year-round and getting into really good overall shape.
The big caveat, of course, is the elite level. There, everyone is already almost as fit as they can get, so specificity becomes the final difference-maker. But to think the same rules apply to hobby runners is just plain stupid, in my opinion. I say this because you mentioned “to run your best 1500.” Again, almost nobody here is ever going to run their absolute best 1500. It’s about getting as fit as possible so you can run as close to your potential as you can. Nobody is anywhere near their potential. Climbing as high up the fitness chain as possible is what gets you closest—not specificity. People still cling to this idea blindly because it was drilled into them by dinosaur coaches who only really understood elite training. Even at the elite level, plenty of top athletes are now challenging how much specificity is actually required.
This is probably the biggest myth busted by the whole conversation in the thread . At the very least, it has clearly shown that specificity is wildly over-inflated for shorter distances—and it’s probably not something most of us need to worry about at all. Or at least until you are certain in the medium term you can't improve via an easier way.
I think we’re mostly agreeing but talking past each other a bit.
I’m not arguing that specificity matters more than fitness as obviously getting fitter is the biggest driver for almost everyone.
My point was just that if you want to actually run your best 1500, at some point you need to touch that pace and develop the specific demands of the event (speed endurance, pacing, etc). Also, I was replying to the poster who said other changes probably weren't necessary and that specific work for them was more confidence boosting.
You can get very fit just doing threshold, but there’s a difference between being generally fitter and being optimized for a specific race distance.
For hobby runners, sure you’ll improve a ton just doing NSM. But I still think there’s a gap between “getting fitter” and “running your best possible 1500,” (or other distances shorter than 5/10K) and that’s where some specificity comes in.
NSM surely gets you aerobically fit and is a decent way to get fit quick. But you absolutely need specific work to run races that have anaerobic components like the 1500 if you want to truly run your best at those distances. There is no way you'd run your absolute best 1500 from just doing threshold and never running specific 1500 speed endurance or pace work. NSM more heavily favors 5K and up distances as the actual race pace of those events is more pace adjacent (not to mention, aerobic leaning).
The perfect way to truly leverage NSM or any threshold system is to use it for the majority of your base building and then incorporate it in a maintenance mode while ramping up specific work for your race distance. Obviously if you are doing a half marathon or marathon, NSM and specific work will be very similar, but 5K and down starts to require work that reflects the pace you want to race.
Respect everyone's opinion, but personally I think most of this is old-school nonsense. This is coming from someone who considers himself old school. I fell into the trap of falling for a lot of this myself for many years.
If you only have hobby hours, the vast majority of people would get faster just by sticking to NSM instead of worrying about anything race-specific. We already have a huge number of people saying the same thing about the 5K—and even shorter distances.
I’m way faster in the mile and 5K now than I was years ago, and I’ve more than doubled my age. I’m still only running 5.5–6 hours a week, spamming sub-threshold work. I’m just fitter overall.
No hobby jogger is ever going to reach 100 % of their potential in any event. It’s laughable to even think that. So you might as well fill the fitness tank as much as possible. Spamming sub-threshold is boring, but it’s the easiest way to do it.
I used to do one threshold session plus some 5K-and-below specific work and still only ran 5–6 hours a week. Here are the two factors that changed everything for me:
Spamming just sub-threshold lets me stay far more consistent—which is a massive benefit.
Three sub-threshold sessions are worth more than one 25–30 minute threshold session plus 15–20 minutes of faster-pace work. Ninety minutes of sub-threshold work week after week will simply make you fitter. You’ll run faster. It’s not rocket science—even at 5K and below. I bet I’m not the only one who wishes they had known this when college coaches told us you have to “practice running fast to run fast” even in the scraps of the depths of D3. Looking back, it was ridiculous. I would have had far better results just doing NSM (or any equivalent base training) year-round and getting into really good overall shape.
The big caveat, of course, is the elite level. There, everyone is already almost as fit as they can get, so specificity becomes the final difference-maker. But to think the same rules apply to hobby runners is just plain stupid, in my opinion. I say this because you mentioned “to run your best 1500.” Again, almost nobody here is ever going to run their absolute best 1500. It’s about getting as fit as possible so you can run as close to your potential as you can. Nobody is anywhere near their potential. Climbing as high up the fitness chain as possible is what gets you closest—not specificity. People still cling to this idea blindly because it was drilled into them by dinosaur coaches who only really understood elite training. Even at the elite level, plenty of top athletes are now challenging how much specificity is actually required.
This is probably the biggest myth busted by the whole conversation in the thread . At the very least, it has clearly shown that specificity is wildly over-inflated for shorter distances—and it’s probably not something most of us need to worry about at all. Or at least until you are certain in the medium term you can't improve via an easier way.
Also, I think the disconnect here is that you’re treating “getting fitter” and “running your best for a specific event” as the same thing, and they’re not.
I agree that for most people, especially earlier on, just getting fitter (via sub-threshold/NSM) is the biggest driver of improvement. No argument there.
But that doesn’t mean specificity is “overrated” or unnecessary, it just means it’s a smaller piece of the puzzle. There’s still a real difference between being generally fitter and being able to actually execute a 1500 or 3K or even a 5K at race pace (rhythm, speed endurance, pacing, etc).
Even if nobody is near their absolute ceiling, adding a bit of specificity on top of that fitness will still outperform just doing more threshold alone. It’s not either/or.
So again, I think we mostly agree that fitness comes first, but I don’t think that leads to the conclusion that specificity doesn’t matter for hobby runners. It just matters less, not zero.
Maybe it's better in other places, but it was next to impossible to find 1500/mile races, and even harder to find 800s as an adult hobby jogger. And I was trying in Washington DC, a major metropolitan area. If you're creating a system/book for the masses, the shortest race with considering is a 5k.
I trained for a mile using vanilla Norwegian singles. I ran 4:59, even paced throughout, and had a lactate reading of about 21 after the race (pretty sure it was accurate). I don't think it killed my ability to generate lactate.
I'd like to know more about 1500m racing on NSM... I made great gains 10km-HM but the idea of running a 1500m at the corresponding VDOT pace seems crazy difficult. You just hop on the race and trust your instinct for gauging the effort?
My best new is 3k under NSM, my second best is a 1500 and then my third best is a 10k. My 5k is the worst. I just do vanilla NSM 6 hours a week. 8x3. 5x5 and 3x10.
I've found best to block out all the noise, that you must do this or must do that for a specific distance and just focus on getting fitter. In simple terms I seem to remember sirpoc talking about in the book, you are just looking for shift your lactate curve to the right, that's all getting fitter is. At hobby level I suspect it shifts reasonably parallel across distances. I doubt there's much more to it than that, most people will come here and try and over complicate it. There's also a guy on Reddit who posted about his mile PB training with no strides or anything.
There's also a motivation boost, you are running with people for most of the time in shorter distances so that probably gives us all a boost for locking onto someone or a pace and just holding on.
I would be interested in asking cheetodust if he thinks the intensity sirpoc has had him do on the bike has helped. I have done one session now and I do feel like it's a zero risk way to remember how to hurt yourself a bit. Almost like a trump card you can play without staying outside of what you do normally running. Maybe this is a factor but it would be interesting to hear his feedback.
I have found out some interesting things racing the shorter distances for sure. I think some of it trial and error with the method but others are likely just age related as a masters runner. I still feel the vanilla method works best for me. I seem to be quite susceptible to soreness and tight muscles with any shorter reps below a mile in distance. I was chronically injured under traditional faster training, always on the verge or dealing with a lower limb niggle. Concerning racing the mile distance, I feel great doing it with this approach. My younger Collegiate days I was full gas vO2, barely any aerobic strength, hanging on hoping to salvage things with a kick always. Now 25 years later, I race the mile the way I wished it felt. Under control, surging from long way out and gradually pressing. Now I don't feel bouncy and springy when I'm on the last lap. I'm sure that's a combo of this training and my age. I strained a calf 3 days after my last mile race in the winter, because I didn't prep wearing spikes. I had meant to get to the track and do at least 2-3x200 in spikes this week but had a super hectic life stretch and couldn't fit it in. I ran this most recent race very conservative not going out too hard and just working my way up, not my usual style. I would say for shorter racing, it might help to do 1-2 just mild test mechanical run throughs. Just the tension on the tendons, not pace itself at all, I have been able to run 59-60/s pace in 800's without any race specific prep, nothing faster than 77's in training. I think just the tension of being up on your toes on the achilles and calf, just need a mild wake up a few days in advance mechanically, with a just enough buffer time to recover before a race. It's what I hope to do when I have time ahead of any upcoming races 800-mile. The modifications I have added in with some help from others, including Shirtboy and Sirpoc, are: a vigorous warmup of 3x3 min 1 min off of subt/T/10k ish paces has really cured the stale legs at the start of races. I have enjoyed adding in the trainer, I have only done 1 session that was really anaerobic in nature, the bulk of all my cycling sessions have been 3x10 min of 88-92% of ftp. I might start adding that as my first session after a race in a preventative way given being a masters runner. I was doing doubles (bike-run) for about two months in winter twice per week, but it got derailed straining my calf in Jan, and I haven't added it back in since. Up to this point I was using HR monitor to guide all my sessions, but just started lactate testing this winter and its been kind of eye opening. My HR at times matched with what my previous ceiling had been pegged but when I would get tired/sick/stressed/poor sleep , wow my lactate at way lower HR values would be sky high. My first gut reaction was honestly being upset at the readings, but I've just eased off and trusted the readings the past few weeks. Hoping that keeps me feeling a bit more fresh, maybe will be able to handle doubles better whenever I plan to add it back in. I am the first to admit I can't hang with all the academic banter back and forth on the past almost 600 pages. But I know that in my 40's I have been able to go from running a 4:36 mile to 4:20 in 3 years. Just not sure I could be swayed to increase the speed or actual intensity in my training with the results up to this point.