On that topic, is there a video clip of this 200+ cadence shuffle? Would be interesting to see how it's actually possible..i'm pretty short myself but can't for the love of god even force myself to run relaxed at even 180. Can't find a video of James.
Someone already made the point but it's always slower runners relative to what is actually fast at races (I understand these are faster than the regular person), that 17-22 min range of runners who are always the ones most disgusted with the idea their easy running should be slower. Faster guys still run very slow, relative to their ability.
Plenty of pros are jogging at 5:00+/km for their easy or recovery runs. Proportionally this is no different from a true elite running a 2:45/km 5k than a 20 min runner running 7:00/km for their easy runs. The difference is the 20 min runner often has an over inflated opinion of their own ability (don't shoot me, my pb is 20:21 so I understand this moral dilemma!).
You really expect someone to just do the same training non stop for 6 months? That is just pure stupidity.
That's why NSM works. It's the whole point. You sacrifice peaking for races, you leave periodization on the table for constant and consistent gains. You are, in effect, doing the same thing over and over with a tiny ramp rate.
It works because over X period, you spread out the load in a way where you controlled the fatigue more than having big weeks and and then down weeks. By the end of X period, you did the most training you could without leaving much on the table given the time you have.
It's the idea of all year round fitness, which cyclists have come around to for a while now and even runners are. It's also why people are having such good success. Over this X amount of time they are very lieky doing more than they could, via most other training methods.
There is a much bigger picture here often folks just aren't understanding, outside of just the framework laid out. Which is surprising, as I read the book and it explains it very well.
This is a deceptively simple yet profound post. Doubters should read it carefully and really understand what it's saying.
On that topic, is there a video clip of this 200+ cadence shuffle? Would be interesting to see how it's actually possible..i'm pretty short myself but can't for the love of god even force myself to run relaxed at even 180. Can't find a video of James.
A few people have mentioned from seeing it in real life and being shocked. Jiggmeister (what happened to him? I sometimes wonder where some of these people went!) posted about the shuffle once after they did a parkrun together the day before the Great south Run in about 27 minutes.
There is also a video from London somewhere where you can see the short steps. It probably looks most strange at easy pace of 4:45/km range he often runs, where it's still in the 200 range but he's moving so much slower.
Someone asked him before and he said that he just started running and that felt natural. Our bodies are quite clever I think at keeping us running in a way best suited to keeping us away from biomechanical injuries.
I once managed 200 cadence for about 50m at 5:10/km pace and felt like I was going to trip over my own feet lol
Yeah, And have not argue against that. But its a vast difference running at 5:25 min/km for a sub 19 runner compared to running at 7 min/km just to get below 70%.
Thats all Im saying.
I now use a simple mental trick to get around all this silliness over easy runs: They're not runs, and you're not running. They're crosstraining. Easy days are simply crosstraining done with a running-like motion. And - just like crosstraining on the elliptical - pace has no meaning, so there's no point trying to factor it in. All that matters is that you're doing running-specific crosstraining at a certain HR for a certain duration. Your actual running is done on the subT days. Thinking this way has certainly helped me.
I find it hard to picture someone doing an hour on the elliptical at 70% (to improve stroke volume which 70% is about optimal for), and getting frustrated that they should be pumping their arms and legs faster for some reason. If you use this mental trick, that's what it comes down to and it puts easy days in perspective, for me anyway.
I now use a simple mental trick to get around all this silliness over easy runs: They're not runs, and you're not running. They're crosstraining. Easy days are simply crosstraining done with a running-like motion.
Hard agree. I'm friends with a runner colleague on Strava and we often pass each other in the early morning doing the same loops. They said they noticed me going much slower than usual and backed it up by snooping at my paces. I had the exact same revelation when I responded with, "Yeah just trying a new method. It's that easy it feels like I may as well be swimming or cycling, but I can't replace running if I want to get better at running."
Someone already made the point but it's always slower runners relative to what is actually fast at races (I understand these are faster than the regular person), that 17-22 min range of runners who are always the ones most disgusted with the idea their easy running should be slower. Faster guys still run very slow, relative to their ability.
Plenty of pros are jogging at 5:00+/km for their easy or recovery runs. Proportionally this is no different from a true elite running a 2:45/km 5k than a 20 min runner running 7:00/km for their easy runs. The difference is the 20 min runner often has an over inflated opinion of their own ability (don't shoot me, my pb is 20:21 so I understand this moral dilemma!).
As a % of race paced proportionally the maths on this surprisingly checks out. It is a good point.
I’ve recently been thinking about something, and I think this thread has the right minds for it. Let’s consider a training plan based on time and intensity, say, 7 hours per week, with 75% easy running and 25% sub-threshold work, following NSA guidelines. We give this plan to two runners: one is a 15-minute 5K runner, and the other runs it in 25 minutes. Let’s assume both execute the plan perfectly in terms of intensity control, recovery, etc. Is the 25-minute runner more likely to end up overtrained or struggle with recovery? a) No, since both are running at appropriate paces. b) Yes, since the 15-minute runner is likely more accustomed to higher training loads. c) Yes, for the reason in (b), but also because being a 25-minute runner may indicate that they are not yet ready for 7 hours per week at the prescribed intensity, no matter how diligent they are with pacing. In case it’s not obvious, I’m trying to understand whether, as a slower runner (currently 22–23 minutes for 5K), I’m doing myself a disservice by attempting NSA at 7 runs per week (roughly 6 hours total) and 3 sub-threshold workouts. I’m very strict about controlling intensity (both for sub-threshold and easy runs), and I’ll feel great and make progress for a few weeks, but then my paces drop by 15–25 seconds per kilometer across the board for 1–2 weeks before I feel good again. Maybe I’m simply not ready for this volume of training.
You're thinking about this wrong. NSA is more than just a set of prescribed workouts. The part about ramp rate is crucial, but everyone skips over it.
If you're currently doing about 6 hours of volume in total each week, that's great. Start with that. But if you're not already doing 90 minutes of volume at pace, don't jump into 3 x 30-minute sub-T sessions! If you do, of course you'll be overcooked after a few weeks.
Let's say you're currently doing a Daniels 20-minute tempo run and 6 x 800 at 5K pace each week. That's around 42 minutes of volume at pace per week.
So start there. 3 x 14 minute sessions, at very manageable sub-T intensities. 5 x 3 minutes, 2 x 6 minutes, 1 x 10 minutes + 5 minutes, for example. The rest is easy miles.
Then add 2-3 minutes of volume (in total for all three sessions, not per session) at pace each week. The idea is to keep it so gradual that you barely notice. And in 3-6 months, you'll be up to 3 x 30 minute sessions each week. Or build up even more slowly.
We're not teenagers trying to hit a big time by the end of the season, or elites who have one shot at the race of a lifetime. We're boring adult hobby joggers who can spend months or years if we want, slowly building up weekly training load. It's our secret weapon.
Thanks for the answer. Yes, I understand that point pretty well. I guess what I'm after is reassurance that my problem when getting those periods of bad performance doing NSA come from overreaching despite being disciplined in controlling intensity, so that I can dial it back a bit until I get to the sweet spot of load and recovery and slowly ramp from there.
Before NSA I did 4-5 months of 7h/week just "easy" (as in conventional easy, not NSA easy, up to 78-79% max HR). Not really chasing improvement, just for the love of the game. Looking back this probably had me permanently not recovering enough to improve, but not fatigued enough to feel bad either running or through the rest of my day.
Then I start NSA, reducing total hours (7->6) and easy pace (down to 65%-70% max HR), and still end up not being able to handle this? I'm completely fine with that, dialing it back a bit more, but I was worried that something else might be the problem, since people seem to be able to easily handle this kind of volume. Of course, they are faster than me, but their training paces are also faster... Hence my somewhat convoluted question lol.
Oh and forgot to mention, its not that I've never run intervals or anything. In fact before those months of just easy running I had a 4 month stint with NSA where I did improve but also found this problem of slumps. Before that it was more classic training with overall lesser volume and intervals and "tempo runs" that upon review were an affront to God.
Isnt it possible that a 17m 5k runner that does a 7:00 km easy run to stay under 70% mhr is just really underdeveloped in this area? Most likely this is z1, maby he never run z1 before and just needs time to improve?
I started at run-walking to stay under 70%, then whent to a barly possible 7:00 constant running easy run and now do a 6:15 - 6:40 easy run under 70%. Just needed time to adjust. I see this a fixing a underdevelopment problem.
Same guy might be at 6:00 easy pace 6 months later and everybody is happy again.
Isnt it possible that a 17m 5k runner that does a 7:00 km easy run to stay under 70% mhr is just really underdeveloped in this area? Most likely this is z1, maby he never run z1 before and just needs time to improve?
I started at run-walking to stay under 70%, then whent to a barly possible 7:00 constant running easy run and now do a 6:15 - 6:40 easy run under 70%. Just needed time to adjust. I see this a fixing a underdevelopment problem.
Same guy might be at 6:00 easy pace 6 months later and everybody is happy again.
This is a scarily close to being me. I used to have to run 6:00/km to get under 70%. Walking up hills. But really, that was the max I could handle and do 3 workouts a week. I started with a 17:55 PB. I'm down to 17:12. My easy pace as come down hugely just by sticking to really easy, it's now around 5:10/km. That's obviously a much bigger improvement for the same effort, versus how much my race pace has improved. When I started NSM this was the most humbling part of the experience.
I had pretty much no improvement for 6 months or so while I was running the easy pace around 70% HR max. Now I run strictly below 65% (some days as slow as 60) and it makes a huge difference on how my legs feel on the workouts. I guess it's the muscle tone stuff that Bakken talks about. Now I can safely push up towards LTHR without feeling wrecked the next day. When I was running faster on easy days, I often felt I had to hold back on the subT.
There is a guy on reddit who claims to have ditched the 3 easy runs (kept the long run) and made significant improvement. Really puts things into perspective having a guy run infinite min/km easy runs and still have gains.
For those that have used this training for a while, I’m looking for experiences transitioning into marathon training. I have the book, so I’ve seen the “special block” but I’m also interested in experiences other have had using this as a base phase and then transitioned into a “traditional” plan like pfitz. I responded very well to a pfitz HM plan and am debating the best approach for a fall marathon. Will be my first marathon.
Before there was a book I copied the stuff from the thread here 1:1. This was early enough I guess sirpoc hadn't even thought of a marathon yet.
So went from 7 months of NSM to Pitfz. Was a shock to the system. Topical debate, but easy running was a lot harder, the MLR was incredible hard in the middle of the week and quite intensity happy. I feel NSM gave me a good base and I did make it through, which is a risk with pitfz, but I don't think I ran my best race. I probably needed a much longer taper. I was overcooked with a month to go.
Last marathon I did I used the NSM book block. Felt a lot easier in the build, felt stronger in the race and the result was practically the same. The big advantage for me is I never doubted I would make the start line and wasn't fighting myself in the race. The big problem you will find is going from NSM back to another plan will likely feel harder, which is normal as anything else is more periodized and focused on the here and now.
Thanks for the reply, this thread has turned into a bit of a mess lol. I’m still on the fence between the two but I think if I were to go with the pfitz plan I would add two transition weeks were I add in the MLR and GA paced runs.
There is a guy on reddit who claims to have ditched the 3 easy runs (kept the long run) and made significant improvement. Really puts things into perspective having a guy run infinite min/km easy runs and still have gains.
well, if you do your easy runs at old grandma pace, I guess it will not make any difference if you do them or skip them ;)
For me running easy runs slower (easy instead of moderate) was surprisingly hard as it demanded continuous attention at first, but much less now after a few weeks.
In my opinion an “ego” explanation for resistance to slower rest runs is insufficient: There is a cognitive load to take into account and the body has to be used to be new running speed.
Two arguments I can see for running easy over 70%:
1) Your form sucks if you go to slow. Probably not much of an issue for fast runners but if your <70% pace is 6:30/km or slower, you might start shuffling a bit too much. I know I would.
2) Your HR is weird. Wife (not a LT1.5 lady, thankfully) pretty much has the same HR whether she is running at 6:15/km or 7:15/km. She also gets negative decoupling of a few percent on almost every run. I've heard/read this from a few women -- not sure whether that's a female or an age thing or just coincidence. But running by HR probably isn't all that helpful in that case.
Living in a somewhat hilly/undulating area (100 meters elevation gain for a 10 km run) makes it difficult to not have HR spikes over 70 HBM, even when I now walk part of the steepest inclines.
But as sirpoc said in his book: My legs won’t fall off.
There is a guy on reddit who claims to have ditched the 3 easy runs (kept the long run) and made significant improvement. Really puts things into perspective having a guy run infinite min/km easy runs and still have gains.
well, if you do your easy runs at old grandma pace, I guess it will not make any difference if you do them or skip them ;)
Skogshuggarn .. It's all fairly easy
Link your Strava ... We'll watch your run your non-grandma paced easy runs and how you follow that up by crushing your races.
We'll tip our hats to you and everyone moves on with their day
well, if you do your easy runs at old grandma pace, I guess it will not make any difference if you do them or skip them ;)
Skogshuggarn .. It's all fairly easy
Link your Strava ... We'll watch your run your non-grandma paced easy runs and how you follow that up by crushing your races.
We'll tip our hats to you and everyone moves on with their day
my easy pace for today was 5:30 min/km at HR 130. Thats 65% of my max HR. I dont know what I can do now in a 5k, but I dont think I can manage more than 19:30. So my easy pace is a bit faster than grandma, but not much=).
dont really get the anger. I simply said that people maybe should think about if their maxHR is right if they have to go almost walking pace on easy runs.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
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.