probably get dovnvoted to oblivion here, but I experienced something similar in reverse as well.
I tried running every day (v.s 4-5 days a week) and then extended my easy runs to 45 mins (v.s 30-40) but slower, strictly keeping them at around 65% MHR (around 125-130 for me, with a MHR of around 195) v.s 70%(around 135-140 low). If it's not humid or hot, I didn't even break a sweat after run. 10 weeks later I did a 5k TT and I actually ran more than 1 min slower. I don't know, my legs just didn't feel springy at all and I just couldn't get my HR up.
I think aerobically I might have improved, but it just failed to translate into better performance so I revert to the old way - running fewer (4-5 days per week), shorter but faster (but still easy, RPE of 2-3, btw, funnily enough, RPE when running at 120ish to 130 or even 140 ish HR is not that different to me) easy runs and I seem to have be trending up again.
Maybe that's because I'm an old fart who needs more recovery than you guys, haha.
edit: btw, I didn't even do long runs and still don't.
What were your workouts like in that period? Identical? Curious if you were doing 4 easy and 3 subthreshold? I think this stuff is interesting to look at.
Once I got onto that, over about 5 months I got faster. The third workout was the key to upping the load. In the end I just got way fitter, having been slower initially after a month or so. And yes I agree, my easy runs are now so easy I don't even really need a shower! But, it really allows me to do 3 solid workouts a week. It's not the workouts themselves that are magic, it's slowly increasing load.
I think everyone is finding in the end, if you can increase that load over a long period of time, there's an excellent chance you will get faster. Those who have come down from higher mileage to this, no suprise it's really not doing much for them. But the reason the majority are improving is if you take the previous 6 months, then their first 6 months of nsm, it finally allowed them to not just stay healthier, but run or generate more stimulation towards their fitness than the previous 6 months.
Same with guys who could already handle more intensity crammed via either workouts or easy runs on 4-5 days, versus whatever they are now doing over 7. They may have been better on 5-6 cramming it in, than 7 days. I've seen a few people like this who running at a harder intensity almost all the days, probably creates as much load as 3x subthreshold and 4x very easy. They just happen to be able to handle that and that is better for them.
But the ramp rate in built is so small, I think it's very hard to guage over such a short amount of time. I lump in people who say they have improved or not improved by the way in that, neither can tell what is truly happening I don't think until quite a lot longer down the line.
I've been doing this for a few months now and am seeing improvement as well. Need to do an actual race at some point, but solo track TTs are accurate enough.
Did a 22:10 5k in February to see where I was at that point a month into training. NSM is mainly 3x9, 3x10, etc. with 90s to 120s rest MWF. Some 5x6 and 6x5 but I love the longer sessions. EZ runs Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. Long run on Saturday EZ. Sometimes I will substitute the Wednesday NSM workout and put in 2x10 or 2x12 at ST (nothing faster) in the long run (i.e. a de facto mini sirpoc marathon add-on), as needed. If not it will be purely easy.
Did a 4-mile TT a month and a half ago in 27:38 (21:55 5k split). Did the same TT on the track a few weeks ago and hit 26:58 (21:17 5k split). 38-43 mpw average since January.
Started from 20-25 mpw in December and just ran 44 last week, no injuries. Still need to improve my weight workouts/plyo to build overall strength and balance. I see runners who BQ and they all tell me weight work is huge in terms of not falling apart or cramping 22 miles into the marathon. Irish dance helps with flexibility but I need to do more kettlebells and exercises to strengthen my hams/glutes for the long term.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
So what kind of workout do you do on Tuesday and Thursdays and at what pace/power?
I tried cycling doubles for a bit -- 10x3 running + 2x10 cycling on Tuesdays, 6x6 running + 12x1/1 cycling on Thursday, regular 4x10 run on Saturdays -- but it was pretty hard. My running LTHR is 170 but on the bike anything above 140 didn't feel great. Can't imagine the difference is 30 bpm for me.
Has anyone else been adding in the bike to a Tuesday and Thursday in the morning? Sirpoc is kind enough to talk about the intensity as I asked him via the Strava comments, above Lt1 but probably slightly lower than SS, but with a run then in the PM. I'm a sheep and really bad at making my own training decisions so I've just ended up copying him.
This to me solves the doubles puzzle. Running doubles I'm cooked! But this feels very manageable and after now 14 weeks of this I have taken a huge step forward in fitness, after a plateau of NSM just running. I was stuck at 17:14 and have just now ran 16:45. I will say the NSM running alone got me from 18:4x to the 17:14 after years of trying to crack 18 so this isn't a complaint, i just didn't really have any volume i could then add in singles, but this took 17 months and zero injuries to get to.
It feels like the rest of my week is almost identical, but just adding this on has made huge gains (knocking 30 seconds off from 17:14 is a huge gain IMO). Maybe I have dialled back my easy running a touch in terms of intensity 65% max HR cap)
The fatigue cost is minimal from these morning part of the double, if any fatigue actually and sometimes I actually feel better in the evening run.
Is this "free hit" of "baby doubles" as sirpoc has been calling it, really this likely to have had such an impact? The interesting thing is sirpoc seems about the same fitness level, but with less running + cycling. Perhaps if he could get up to his old running levels + the 2 baby doubles he can go beyond the 15 flat mark? I'm sure he's two steps ahead of us all but just asking that question.
once a week double on Tuesday
tried bike/bike, run/bike many times in the past, bike/run this week copying the man himself and had to admit to him, bike/run feels the best
Magness dropping his "How To Get Fast Running Under 50 Miles A Week | Amateur Training Masterclass" video and makes sub-threshold (higher end aerobic work) the center of it. But then can't help himself and talks about training for the Mile and 3000m. Steve, how many amateur runners (especially in the USA, and even more especially in the south-central US), are out running a 3000m on the track? 😂
He does seem to finally "get" the idea of running faster paces but in a sub-threshold state. i.e. the 45/15 workout. Guess all that talking with Bakken finally got to him. Pretty decent watch in the scheme of internet training talks for adult amateurs.
Something like 500k ams are running 1500-5k races. And they tend to be towards the serious end of running. Might not be a majority but definitely a sizable group.
i get it that it is hard for most people not to suffer from main character syndrome but is it really that hard when you are on a fricken board that is constantly talking about amateurs 1500-3200 performances?
Got any examples here? I don’t hold that view of him to say the least.
Muscle tone. Mixed messages. When to use it, when it's applicable, do we even need to worry about it. Sometimes vague, depending on podcast he's been on.
45/15. Who is it for? When? What intensity? Again, different answers in the book, Reddit and now the Reddit AMA.
Doubles. When to add them. Who are they for. What is the minimal risk for hobby runners? Is it NSM or is it something else? Again, opinion seems to change.
This isn't a criticism either, but he's often spitballing ideas on the fly. Which is good, we should always be rethinking. But makes it hard to apply. I agree this is a bit like old Daniels lectures or seminars. You apply something and then you are like "damn, last time i watched a lecture you said something totally different". Not that we should be spoon fed, but when people have a definitive opinion on something from an expert, it makes it much easier to make good decisions in your own training.
Do you have examples on the contradictory messages, say on 45/15? When does his opinion change?
The guy has been harping his thresholds for 20 years so this seems weird.
Magness dropping his "How To Get Fast Running Under 50 Miles A Week | Amateur Training Masterclass" video and makes sub-threshold (higher end aerobic work) the center of it. But then can't help himself and talks about training for the Mile and 3000m. Steve, how many amateur runners (especially in the USA, and even more especially in the south-central US), are out running a 3000m on the track? 😂
He does seem to finally "get" the idea of running faster paces but in a sub-threshold state. i.e. the 45/15 workout. Guess all that talking with Bakken finally got to him. Pretty decent watch in the scheme of internet training talks for adult amateurs.
Something like 500k ams are running 1500-5k races. And they tend to be towards the serious end of running. Might not be a majority but definitely a sizable group.
i get it that it is hard for most people not to suffer from main character syndrome but is it really that hard when you are on a fricken board that is constantly talking about amateurs 1500-3200 performances?
I added the Magness vid to be watched later. 37 mins. Any good takeaways?
john Korir Boston Marathon record holder regularly does 1 hour easy runs at 8:30-9:30/mile! He should really be speeding those up if he’s serious about this running thing 😂😂😂
While running 120-140 miles per week and 2X a day for context.
But not holding down a 9-5, chasing down 3 kids, cleaning his house, mowing the yard and doing some evening work to get ready dor the big meeting tomorrow. Btw the youngest had a rough night so you ended up with 5 hours sleep, but no sleeping in!
(Just saying, stress is different, but you might have equal or more stress at 80 km weeks.)
Muscle tone. Mixed messages. When to use it, when it's applicable, do we even need to worry about it. Sometimes vague, depending on podcast he's been on.
45/15. Who is it for? When? What intensity? Again, different answers in the book, Reddit and now the Reddit AMA.
Doubles. When to add them. Who are they for. What is the minimal risk for hobby runners? Is it NSM or is it something else? Again, opinion seems to change.
This isn't a criticism either, but he's often spitballing ideas on the fly. Which is good, we should always be rethinking. But makes it hard to apply. I agree this is a bit like old Daniels lectures or seminars. You apply something and then you are like "damn, last time i watched a lecture you said something totally different". Not that we should be spoon fed, but when people have a definitive opinion on something from an expert, it makes it much easier to make good decisions in your own training.
Muscle tone: not that important to check for 7-day vanilla NSM if the intensity control is correct. NSM should provide fairly good muscle tone handling by design. More important to check if you deviate from the 7-day NSM structure, or if your easy days involves lots of standing/walking at work.
For those interested, he put a demonstration video on his web site, even though I personally feel the stair test feels easier.
45/15: That is not one specific session, which should be pretty clear in the book. Pages 164-169 in the book lists many different variants. It's an approach to train at higher speeds while still being below LT2.
Minimal risk for hobby joggers: A combo of sub threshold runs and very easy runs, as a flat model without any periodization. Such as NSM, without marathon blocks.
Double thresholds: The basic requirements for which runner could test double threshold are listed at the top of page 150 in the book. Doubles are not part of NSM, and you need easy doubles before gradually approaching double thresholds.
Muscle tone. Mixed messages. When to use it, when it's applicable, do we even need to worry about it. Sometimes vague, depending on podcast he's been on.
45/15. Who is it for? When? What intensity? Again, different answers in the book, Reddit and now the Reddit AMA.
Doubles. When to add them. Who are they for. What is the minimal risk for hobby runners? Is it NSM or is it something else? Again, opinion seems to change.
This isn't a criticism either, but he's often spitballing ideas on the fly. Which is good, we should always be rethinking. But makes it hard to apply. I agree this is a bit like old Daniels lectures or seminars. You apply something and then you are like "damn, last time i watched a lecture you said something totally different". Not that we should be spoon fed, but when people have a definitive opinion on something from an expert, it makes it much easier to make good decisions in your own training.
Muscle tone: not that important to check for 7-day vanilla NSM if the intensity control is correct. NSM should provide fairly good muscle tone handling by design. More important to check if you deviate from the 7-day NSM structure, or if your easy days involves lots of standing/walking at work.
For those interested, he put a demonstration video on his web site, even though I personally feel the stair test feels easier.
45/15: That is not one specific session, which should be pretty clear in the book. Pages 164-169 in the book lists many different variants. It's an approach to train at higher speeds while still being below LT2.
Minimal risk for hobby joggers: A combo of sub threshold runs and very easy runs, as a flat model without any periodization. Such as NSM, without marathon blocks.
Double thresholds: The basic requirements for which runner could test double threshold are listed at the top of page 150 in the book. Doubles are not part of NSM, and you need easy doubles before gradually approaching double thresholds.
I've yet to read his English book ... But in the Norwegian version he clearly outlines how to train starting with a simple subt/easy programme and then guides you how to build training like this from beginner to NSM.
NSM which originates from unknown Ingebrigtsen brother Kristoffer and refined by Englishman James Copeland gets a clear thumbs up for people with lives outside running and no planned important races.
But if you want to go beyond that then doubles, the 45/15 and periodization is introduced.
I find it all very structured and logical.
Is the English version that unclear?
I get Bakken can be confusing, if you go only with podcasts and reddit, but the at least the Norwegian version of the book is clearly structured.
Love doing the method. Having success. However, am getting conflicting info--I've read 90s for the 10- to 12-min. reps on reddit but I've always thought it was 120s for the longer reps and 60s for the shorter ones (3x10 up to 5x6).
I do 60s jogging rest for all reps including 10min. As long as you're in the Goldilocks zone of rested enough but not too much it doesn''t really matter. (Jogging rest helps to keep it aerobic if you're a sprinter type and start each rep too bouncy/fast otherwise.)
I do the same. 60 sec jog for all reps from 3-10 mins. If I can't do it with 60 sec jog, I am running them too hard.
Has it lost some structure, since people don't seem all that happy with it?
It has a different structure. More aimed at advanced runners and trainers than the Norwegian version, and more comprehensive in scope. And the English version also has much more small details. (For example, in terms of detail the "Intensity Control Deep Dive" chapter goes way beyond anything covered in the Norwegian version. Most NSM runners don't even have a lactate meter, and here he talks about things like different lactate curve responses to a single session.) The Norwegian version is more a step-by-step approach for the average runner.
With that said, NSM gets a thumbs up in the English version of the book as well (on page 99), and is described as a very safe variant of flat a training model.
On a somewhat related note: Andreas Almgren's new book will be released on May 01. It will apparently describe Almgren's own approach to threshold training and how he changed his training to get rid of all the constant injuries he had before. Based on Bakken's answers on the reddit AMA, I get the impression that Bakken has read a preview of that book.
Doesn’t make any sense why he would publish versions that are different. However, I still don’t think that beginners should even be thinking about double threshold.
Do you have examples on the contradictory messages, say on 45/15? When does his opinion change?
The guy has been harping his thresholds for 20 years so this seems weird.
There's different messages in both lanagues of book. If you then add in what he's said on the NSM sub Reddit and then the AMA, he just wants to seem to keep everyone happy so this does mean things can change depending on the audience. It's very hard if not impossible to write something that applies to hobby jogger up to a bible for coaches who coach elite. Maybe this is the issue?
Does this matter? Probably not. It's still nice to hear his thoughts and some of it of course will change over time. Stuff on muscle tone I'm sure will change as more research is put into it, I feel Bakken has even sorted of changed his view on he practicality of it as we move forward in real time as people are posing questions and feeding back to him. This is a positive, not a negative.
For the vast majority of runners you can just buy the NSM book and you will get enough to get you started for a few years on your training journey anyway, which is a lot clearer and concice. This isn't a criticism of NSM either, in fact it's the strong point. Gives you enough to understand how to shape your training, but not too much yet it's still very clear about its views of the world or overly complicated.
It has a different structure. More aimed at advanced runners and trainers than the Norwegian version, and more comprehensive in scope. And the English version also has much more small details. (For example, in terms of detail the "Intensity Control Deep Dive" chapter goes way beyond anything covered in the Norwegian version. Most NSM runners don't even have a lactate meter, and here he talks about things like different lactate curve responses to a single session.) The Norwegian version is more a step-by-step approach for the average runner.
With that said, NSM gets a thumbs up in the English version of the book as well (on page 99), and is described as a very safe variant of flat a training model.
On a somewhat related note: Andreas Almgren's new book will be released on May 01. It will apparently describe Almgren's own approach to threshold training and how he changed his training to get rid of all the constant injuries he had before. Based on Bakken's answers on the reddit AMA, I get the impression that Bakken has read a preview of that book.
I can't wait until this thread and Reddit starts to try to train like Almgren 1:1.
tried bike/bike, run/bike many times in the past, bike/run this week copying the man himself and had to admit to him, bike/run feels the best
congrats on the progress!
This seems to be the best combination for me as well, as someone who was previously interested in Tri. Bike in the AM and run in and PM. The other way around seems like a bigger stresseer in my experience.
Doesn’t make any sense why he would publish versions that are different. However, I still don’t think that beginners should even be thinking about double threshold.
Bakkens Norwegian book is a nice one
Starts with a couch to running program in the beginners section
Then you get from running to MSN in the intermediate section.
And finally an advanced section that goes beyond MSN with the double threshold in the final part. Bakken starts this section with saying that it is irrelevant for the vast majority of runners, but lays it out for those wanting to look into it.
-
I think it's a much better book than Pfitz or Daniels
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.