All of these discussions seem to be a trend of the natural desire to always create something new and try to optimize the last 0.1% out of everything, which most often actually leads to decreases in performance rather than any kind of improvement.
I feel like most people (lets say 5k pb >16 for male) would simply benefit from following the most basic of setups.
If you run 7 days a week: 3 easy runs, 3 sub-t runs, 1 long run (which is just 1.5 times the length of your easy run) If you run 6 days a week: 2 easy runs, 3 sub-t runs, 1 long run, 1 easy cross-training day If you run 5 days a week: 2 easy runs, 2 sub-t runs, 1 long run, 2(1) easy cross-training day, (1 sub-t cross training day) Maybe <5 days a week would still work but then other methods might be better.
If its not deep winter and there are some local races (anything from 1 mile to HM) and you enjoy racing do like 1 race every 6 weeks or so; which replaces the sub-t during that week and turn the long run into an a recovery run (0.5-0.75 times the length of easy run).
From my observations any person who has stuck with one of the approaches outlined above for at least 6 months has made significant improvements.
Once you reach your ceiling on that, and by that I mean no improvements for like 3 months, you can start looking into doing more but before that I would stop stressing about overoptimizing anything. Of course, if one is very interested in hyper-optimization and all that, go and make your best plan. But I believe what I outlined above is enough to reach 99% of the benefits of the original NSM idea, for anyone who just wants to 'test' (test here means sticking with it for at least 6 months) the method.
I think this is a very good point. NSM is quite a fine balance. Young hopeful's posts hit the nail on the head. You can do other things in the scope of NSM, but the issue you run into is what you take with one hand, you lose with the other.
He periodized, he ran slightly faster at 5k, but it was for one or two performances, then lost some of the easy gains you can get by just continuing to spam ST. There's a chart in the book as well that's quite good about tapering. An elite periodizing is probably further up the improvement curve, so doing it is cashing in less of fitness gains working towards their peak. It's all interesting debate, but I think I'm firmly sold on lack of periodization is actually a purposely designed strength of NSM.
You cannot have everything in 7 hours a week training. The easiest and most sensible thing to compromise on is just not worrying or trying to optimise specificity or periodize for a race. That doesn't mean you cannot, or shouldn't do this. But it appears most people who has posted here have reported the same, you can't have it all and that specificity and periodization are not as important as others have previously made out, for hobby runners.
The difference now in something like cyclists, even running elite to an extent is there is a trend to go more for all year round fitness. Which is something NSM promotes by default.
What's a good calculator to actually use, now that we have been told lactrace is outdated/too fast? Or can we just use lactrace and then just take % of their given paces? (i.e. if their ST paces are 7:10-7:20 for 3-minute reps, then take 95% of those values to err on the safe side? In this case, 7:32-7:42)?
What's a good calculator to actually use, now that we have been told lactrace is outdated/too fast? Or can we just use lactrace and then just take % of their given paces? (i.e. if their ST paces are 7:10-7:20 for 3-minute reps, then take 95% of those values to err on the safe side? In this case, 7:32-7:42)?
I don't know if the book's paces are in a calculator somewhere. The % difference between Lactrace paces (midpoint of the low-high range) and book paces is not constant but is linear, going from low % difference to higher % difference (each rep length has its own % difference range).
Also regarding sticking to below <70% max heart rate for easy runs, Cam Myers always has absurdly high heart rates for his jogs. For example, today he did 8.6k at 4:19 pace with an average heart rate of 152bpm and with a max hr of 206bpm which would be like 73% of his max hr. Not egregious but for a 13 min 5k runner, it's surprising to see it that high. He averages mid 140s too for most of his easy runs too
My point is maybe heart rate is not really indicative of effort at slower paces? Especially if you live in a Hillier or hotter climate.Myself as an example, my heart rate usually drifts higher the fresher I am, and I'd need to be really fatigued to get close to 65% of max heart rate which is recommended. Wouldn't it be better use 65% of 5k pace as a cap? It's just always rubbed me the wrong way when I see some devotees recommending you walk to get your heart rate down to an arbitrary number. I think the 70% rule originated from Bakken and Sirpoc training in really cold weather where you'd have to really work to get your heart rate up
Also regarding sticking to below <70% max heart rate for easy runs, Cam Myers always has absurdly high heart rates for his jogs. For example, today he did 8.6k at 4:19 pace with an average heart rate of 152bpm and with a max hr of 206bpm which would be like 73% of his max hr. Not egregious but for a 13 min 5k runner, it's surprising to see it that high. He averages mid 140s too for most of his easy runs too
My point is maybe heart rate is not really indicative of effort at slower paces? Especially if you live in a Hillier or hotter climate.Myself as an example, my heart rate usually drifts higher the fresher I am, and I'd need to be really fatigued to get close to 65% of max heart rate which is recommended. Wouldn't it be better use 65% of 5k pace as a cap? It's just always rubbed me the wrong way when I see some devotees recommending you walk to get your heart rate down to an arbitrary number. I think the 70% rule originated from Bakken and Sirpoc training in really cold weather where you'd have to really work to get your heart rate up
There's maybe something in this. But again, I fear we are overcomplicating stuff. This isn't a criticism, I've done this myself. This might just fall into the specific to a person's situation. But, don't forget here the goal is to provide as broad a set of boundaries for as many people, to help them. That was the goal of the thread.
70% of MHR as a hard cap has held up well for me. I work between a hot and mild climate. Purely anecdotal for me, but the cold climate I can run 1 minute at least per km faster, for the same mid 60s % of MHR. If I run the same pace, in the heat, my HR will be 15bpm higher for the same pace. On RPE scale, it feels much harder. So, I just stick to HR and pace is pace and it evens out as I spend about 50/50 of my time between the two climates.
The book give lots of options for easy pace you could use. 65% of max aerobic speed, based on 5k race, respiration rate. Think Bakken mentioned being able to breathe through your nose, or using the talk test. Copelands does mention HR % is the best.
I've calculated all these & tried them & get very different paces for each of these ranging from 8:10 to 9:10 min/mile pace. If I go by HR it's more like 9:10 pace. 1st 2 above are more like 8:10 & 8:20 pace. It's hilly where I live. On hot, muggy days I hardly even look at my watch & breath through my nose to get a sense for pace. Also run as slow as I can mentally handle. It's usually above 70% avg those days, but I don't care.
Thing with HR is I've followed this thread for years, all the reddit posts & don't recall anyone clarifying or asking about doing a max HR test. So what are people using for max HR then? Likely guessing or going by a race which isn't reliable. If people are going to be such sticklers for easy runs less than 70% max HR they should be doing a max HR test yearly, yet I'm guessing that's not the case. I've never seen anyone I follow on Strava doing a max HR test. Never read any posts on here about it.
There were 3 requirements Hadd had before starting his method.
1. Get up to 50 miles a week anyway possible 2. max HR test 3. 2400 meter test
Almost think NSM should have 1. get up to a set time each week, 2. Friel Test, 3. Max HR test
Outside of the marathon special block, periodization really isn't part of NSM. It's just building up and then sustaining the same workouts each week over a long time horizon. People have latched onto that as a weakness, but it's also a critical part of what makes the system work.
That's the only thing about NSM I somewhat disagree with.
If your A race isn't a marathon but a 5K, why shouldn't implement a small special block for that once or twice a year? Doesn't have to be much but 3-5 "x-factor" workouts over the course of 6-10 weeks where you switch the 10x3 against a fast 30x45/15 or whatever seems reasonable to me and barely impacts load. (Or drop the long run after x-factor, and load is probably the same or less.)
Only speaking from my own experience obviously, but I did three parkruns over the course of 6 weeks on vanilla NSM last summer and the first one felt mediocre at best, the second one a bit better, and the third one was ~50 seconds faster and at a lower average HR.
I'm well into my 40s though -- maybe younger people can handle faster race paces easier without practicing them.
I like this approach as it takes the thinking out of running, plus a 10k PB along the way helps. For 5k I've yet to experience a breakthrough. This year I've started adding a Parkrun once every couple of months and it is the physical/muscular element that is the toughest aspect; certainly feel the demand of different range of motion in the hips. I think I'm just not physically (and mentally) conditioned at this effort level and which will take time if I'm only running a 5k every 8-weeks
It might just be a case of suck it up buttercup, but wondered if 45/15 reps have helped anyone in a similar position or perhaps a higher intensity warm-up might be.
The book give lots of options for easy pace you could use. 65% of max aerobic speed, based on 5k race, respiration rate. Think Bakken mentioned being able to breathe through your nose, or using the talk test. Copelands does mention HR % is the best.
I've calculated all these & tried them & get very different paces for each of these ranging from 8:10 to 9:10 min/mile pace. If I go by HR it's more like 9:10 pace. 1st 2 above are more like 8:10 & 8:20 pace. It's hilly where I live. On hot, muggy days I hardly even look at my watch & breath through my nose to get a sense for pace. Also run as slow as I can mentally handle. It's usually above 70% avg those days, but I don't care.
Thing with HR is I've followed this thread for years, all the reddit posts & don't recall anyone clarifying or asking about doing a max HR test. So what are people using for max HR then? Likely guessing or going by a race which isn't reliable. If people are going to be such sticklers for easy runs less than 70% max HR they should be doing a max HR test yearly, yet I'm guessing that's not the case. I've never seen anyone I follow on Strava doing a max HR test. Never read any posts on here about it.
There were 3 requirements Hadd had before starting his method.
1. Get up to 50 miles a week anyway possible 2. max HR test 3. 2400 meter test
Almost think NSM should have 1. get up to a set time each week, 2. Friel Test, 3. Max HR test
Max as a % for highest known HR will do. I've done max hr tests over the years. It's about 1.5%+ usually of what I can do in a 5k. That's good enough, when the object really is just to use it as a hard cap. If anything, it's more useful you use the slightly lower number as if gou do push it, you already have a soft target.
There was a guy who made an interesting post about doing lab work and suggested the reality was that people's max in the lab is probably not replicated out training anyway so the 1-2% range of what you can manage in a 5k will do for the purpose of application here.
I probably agree with the general premise that it will absolutely do, when you are just looking for plug and play for as broad a range of runners as possible.
At the end of the day, the easy days not being easy are what will get you. If you can manage 6+ months of NSM and feel like you can go on forever, then whatever you are doing is going to be fine anyway, right?
I like this approach as it takes the thinking out of running, plus a 10k PB along the way helps. For 5k I've yet to experience a breakthrough. This year I've started adding a Parkrun once every couple of months and it is the physical/muscular element that is the toughest aspect; certainly feel the demand of different range of motion in the hips. I think I'm just not physically (and mentally) conditioned at this effort level and which will take time if I'm only running a 5k every 8-weeks
It might just be a case of suck it up buttercup, but wondered if 45/15 reps have helped anyone in a similar position or perhaps a higher intensity warm-up might be.
Higher intensity warm up works for me. A mini subthreshold session pre-race.
If I really care about the 5k coming up, I'll jump into a race a few weeks before. I think this just helps psychologically more than anything.
These tick the boxes for me personally, more than messing up my routine for anything more specific during the weeks in the leadup. Cheetodust's posts helped me confirm I feel I'm on the right path for me with regards to this.
Also regarding sticking to below <70% max heart rate for easy runs, Cam Myers always has absurdly high heart rates for his jogs. For example, today he did 8.6k at 4:19 pace with an average heart rate of 152bpm and with a max hr of 206bpm which would be like 73% of his max hr. Not egregious but for a 13 min 5k runner, it's surprising to see it that high. He averages mid 140s too for most of his easy runs too
My point is maybe heart rate is not really indicative of effort at slower paces? Especially if you live in a Hillier or hotter climate.Myself as an example, my heart rate usually drifts higher the fresher I am, and I'd need to be really fatigued to get close to 65% of max heart rate which is recommended. Wouldn't it be better use 65% of 5k pace as a cap? It's just always rubbed me the wrong way when I see some devotees recommending you walk to get your heart rate down to an arbitrary number. I think the 70% rule originated from Bakken and Sirpoc training in really cold weather where you'd have to really work to get your heart rate up
I’d take those HR numbers with a grain of salt. Cam Myers just ran a solo 3:29 and 13:11 at Aussie champs. I highly doubt 4:19 pace for an easy run is above 70% of his max. He is likely better than 13:11 at the moment but just using that performance, his easy jogs are over 90s per k slower than his 5k PB. That’s an easy run, no matter what his Strava HR says.
Also regarding sticking to below <70% max heart rate for easy runs, Cam Myers always has absurdly high heart rates for his jogs. For example, today he did 8.6k at 4:19 pace with an average heart rate of 152bpm and with a max hr of 206bpm which would be like 73% of his max hr. Not egregious but for a 13 min 5k runner, it's surprising to see it that high. He averages mid 140s too for most of his easy runs too
My point is maybe heart rate is not really indicative of effort at slower paces? Especially if you live in a Hillier or hotter climate.Myself as an example, my heart rate usually drifts higher the fresher I am, and I'd need to be really fatigued to get close to 65% of max heart rate which is recommended. Wouldn't it be better use 65% of 5k pace as a cap? It's just always rubbed me the wrong way when I see some devotees recommending you walk to get your heart rate down to an arbitrary number. I think the 70% rule originated from Bakken and Sirpoc training in really cold weather where you'd have to really work to get your heart rate up
Or maybe 70% of MaxHR is a value that will work reasonably well across the board for hobby joggers? 70% is a value that will assure all reasonable endurance athletes to at least keep intensity below LT1, and elite endurance athletes to be far below LT1.
Perhaps some % below LT1 would be a more scientific value to use?
Because we are running just singles daily as NSM runners I believe in more quality at the easy runs and to be in the ballpark of 70-75 % mhr to get best boost for the bucks. As long as it still feels relaxed with easy breathing.
I think the easy running below 70% of mhr is more about staying below a certain threshold for when it is easy. Is there any evidence towards it being beneficial to coming as close as possible to that limit?
I am not sure if it will be worth it from a risk reward perspective to run at 73%, 74% or 77%. What is gained from running at 74% instead of 69%? And what happens if you are riding that line, but this week its hotter than usual, you had a couple of nights with bad sleep, and you end up overstepping that line over and over?
70% just seems like "easy with safety margins". I think its better to just plod around than chasing marginal gains on easy days.
Also regarding sticking to below <70% max heart rate for easy runs, Cam Myers always has absurdly high heart rates for his jogs. For example, today he did 8.6k at 4:19 pace with an average heart rate of 152bpm and with a max hr of 206bpm which would be like 73% of his max hr. Not egregious but for a 13 min 5k runner, it's surprising to see it that high. He averages mid 140s too for most of his easy runs too
My point is maybe heart rate is not really indicative of effort at slower paces? Especially if you live in a Hillier or hotter climate.Myself as an example, my heart rate usually drifts higher the fresher I am, and I'd need to be really fatigued to get close to 65% of max heart rate which is recommended. Wouldn't it be better use 65% of 5k pace as a cap? It's just always rubbed me the wrong way when I see some devotees recommending you walk to get your heart rate down to an arbitrary number. I think the 70% rule originated from Bakken and Sirpoc training in really cold weather where you'd have to really work to get your heart rate up
I have brought up this discussion before. I believe the 70% max. heart rate originates from karvonen et al 1957, where the research concluded that easy pace should be between 60-70% HRR and not MHR. Overtime people have oversimplified this and turned into 60-70% MHR.
I don't know Cam Myers max. heart rate, but I can use myself as an example. I have max. heart rate of approximately 206 myself and my resting heart rate in 47. I ran 34:20 10k a couple of weeks ago. Here are my easy phases according to different methods:
VDOT: 4:18 ~ 4:44/km
Lactrace: 4:56/km
Sirpocs method of calculating 65% of MAS: 4:42
Sirpocs 5k to easy pace table: 4:43
Here are this weeks easy runs and HRs. These are quite representative of my easy runs.
So, am I running too fast? I don't think so. And for Cam Myers to be running too fast according to the research by karvonen et al 1957, his RHR must be lower than 26.
The book give lots of options for easy pace you could use. 65% of max aerobic speed, based on 5k race, respiration rate. Think Bakken mentioned being able to breathe through your nose, or using the talk test. Copelands does mention HR % is the best.
I've calculated all these & tried them & get very different paces for each of these ranging from 8:10 to 9:10 min/mile pace. If I go by HR it's more like 9:10 pace. 1st 2 above are more like 8:10 & 8:20 pace. It's hilly where I live. On hot, muggy days I hardly even look at my watch & breath through my nose to get a sense for pace. Also run as slow as I can mentally handle. It's usually above 70% avg those days, but I don't care.
Thing with HR is I've followed this thread for years, all the reddit posts & don't recall anyone clarifying or asking about doing a max HR test. So what are people using for max HR then? Likely guessing or going by a race which isn't reliable. If people are going to be such sticklers for easy runs less than 70% max HR they should be doing a max HR test yearly, yet I'm guessing that's not the case. I've never seen anyone I follow on Strava doing a max HR test. Never read any posts on here about it.
There were 3 requirements Hadd had before starting his method.
1. Get up to 50 miles a week anyway possible 2. max HR test 3. 2400 meter test
Almost think NSM should have 1. get up to a set time each week, 2. Friel Test, 3. Max HR test
Wait, why do you think "going by a race isn't a reliable way to try to achieve 100% max HR."??
If you can evenly pace (time trial) a competitive PR kinda of effort off of an all-out 2.5km-3km or 1.5 to 2-mile kind of all-out race on a track it's probably one of the best ways to try to get up to 100% max HR (besides an accurate Vo2max test in a lab which would be the gold standard). You just have to be wearing a reliable HR strap and can't flood yourself with lactate too fast. Most people also if they aren't 100% mentally dialed for this kind of effort and pain might also slow or stop a bit too early before they hit actual max.
The key is an even paced effort over 5-8 minutes that's going to slowly build to your 100% kind of effort (after even pacing for 5-min+...then what you can sustain for 2-3min (at least 100% Vo2max)...but should get you within a few % at least of true 100% max HR (which of course is a moving target over time!).
Of course 2.5km to 3km races are kind of harder to come by (compared to a 5km), but the final 3km push of a well paced 5km (especially if you are under 20-min) should probably yield at least a good 95-96% + of max number imo....
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.