Was thinking the same, its all seems to be made overcomplicated. If you can count till 5 out loud this means your under LT2. Or am I missing something?
I could probably count to 5 and also say a basic sentence that is legible over when Lt2.
I think this is one of those rules that is definitely going to be "test it out yourself".
Replacing subthreshold sessions with easy running will result in lost fitness. The key to this system is that there is 1.5 hours of sub-threshold running a week - probably as much as a recreational runner can handle without getting hurt.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness
Not sure how you calculate CTL as this is a cycling metric but at least in cycling TSS is known to severely overestimate easy riding. For example 2 hours of riding at 70% of your threshold results in about the same TSS as 1 hour at threshold. That this is nonsense is clear to anyone who ever rode a bike with a power meter.
TSS is useless as a tool for comparing efforts of different duration because of the way its formula work. A lot of cyclists think they can get fit by riding around at leisurely (70% of threshold) pace for hours but it does very little. The same is going to be true in running.
The most important part of all of it is doing the actual sub-threshold work. The only reason the schedule isn't even more sub-threshold heavy is that it would increase injury risk.
Very useful again, thank you. I'm going to try simply counting aloud - it makes its own scale and if overheard would just sound like someone doing something technical to do with their running.
Was thinking the same, its all seems to be made overcomplicated. If you can count till 5 out loud this means your under LT2. Or am I missing something?
Counting is languange-dependent. Doing it in English/German (5), Norwegian (6), Spanish (8), Italian (9) or Finnish (10) will result in very different number of syllables.
Replacing subthreshold sessions with easy running will result in lost fitness. The key to this system is that there is 1.5 hours of sub-threshold running a week - probably as much as a recreational runner can handle without getting hurt.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness
Not sure how you calculate CTL as this is a cycling metric but at least in cycling TSS is known to severely overestimate easy riding. For example 2 hours of riding at 70% of your threshold results in about the same TSS as 1 hour at threshold. That this is nonsense is clear to anyone who ever rode a bike with a power meter.
TSS is useless as a tool for comparing efforts of different duration because of the way its formula work. A lot of cyclists think they can get fit by riding around at leisurely (70% of threshold) pace for hours but it does very little. The same is going to be true in running.
The most important part of all of it is doing the actual sub-threshold work. The only reason the schedule isn't even more sub-threshold heavy is that it would increase injury risk.
Sirpoc somewhere commented that said the core of MSN is the subt workouts and then you fill the cracks with easy.
This is also what Bakken endorses ... At least in his Norwegian book.
Once you move past beginner his recommendation is to do 3 x subt and one easy day on a four days a week schedule. Then add more easy days to fill out the week. He comments that there will be improvement by just doing 3xsubt with no easy on a 3 day schedule.
If anyone has listened to Sirpocs recent talks with FOD will have noticed that he these days is a fan of going 2 x subt, 2 x easy and one long run, if you're on a five day schedule.
Not quite sure why he's doesn't do less mileage on the easy runs and adds a third subt?
Anyways ... I'm not sure why there is such an obsession with easy when talking about Norwegian Singles running, when it's noobs not quite yet doing the full 7 days a week program.
1) How much sub-T can you fit in maximally in your weekly schedule while being consistent.
2) Weekly time on feet. Your low intensity easy running is just getting time running under your belt. This is more for running economy than anything else IMO. More time you spend running, the easier it is mechanically, thereby reducing energy demands AT Sub-T, making you faster. Yes there's a low-end aerobic component but it surely isn't the main driver of fitness for marathon and under. Otherwise we'd see all these recreational ultra runners ripping at 5ks. Sub-T is your aerobic, stackable bread and butter.
Are people doing double threshold ignoring the 20-25% rule now?
Perhaps cross training doesn't count as much towards the % since it's less impact? I see the big names going well over 25%, doing more like 40-67% of the week is subt minutes. Perhaps you reach a point after years where you don't need the easy runs to balance the subt minutes.
I've got very fast before on almost exclusively easy running training for an ultra, but we are talking 15 hours a week at least. You can obviously cover intensity, with huge volume. But at thie point in my life I have no time for it.
I restarted training via NSM on 5 days, the 3+2 almost beginner at around 4.5 hours a week after nearly a year out. Built up over 19 months training like this to 8 hours a week, still on singles.
Ran a lifetime PB at 10k today and I expect to run a lifetime 5k next weekend. Over the last 19 months, I've probably ran more consistently in terms of load generated in that time than even equivalent periods when training for ultras over the last decade. It's shocking how easily consistent weeks of the same thing over and over stacks the fitness over time.
I'm glad I found NSM as I just don't have the time to run that much anymore, wife, kids etc and i can be incredibly competitive for my standards still on 50- 60% of the time i previously committed.
There's probably different ways to make small adaptations per individual, but in the end it's all about spreading the risk and management of load. You can't have everything but NSM prioritizing the foundations of training without all the jazz is the key to it.
What sirpoc has done and probably changed things for a lot of hobby runners for the better, is challenged what is important versus what is not. Or just deciding in a situation onlf limited hours what is important versus what you can do without.
Are people doing double threshold ignoring the 20-25% rule now?
Perhaps cross training doesn't count as much towards the % since it's less impact? I see the big names going well over 25%, doing more like 40-67% of the week is subt minutes. Perhaps you reach a point after years where you don't need the easy runs to balance the subt minutes.
No doubt you can get away with more cross training. There's less muscle tone of muscular recovery to worry about.
Let's not forget that it you are doubling, the first session is going to be easier. Yes, it's still work above easy, but it's certainly not pushing it up near the floor of LT2 as per NSM is designed with clearly that purpose in mind.
You also have to think, the easy also becomes even easier. It's just about taking all the same principles again and applying them to can you do the work consistently over a long period of time just doubling.
All in that NSM is a very clever and tight framework to give your average runner the same safeguards elites already know about, but rarely get scaled down to hobby level. You can still take anything from what we have learned about via this thread and sirpoc book and use it towards doubling, even without Bakken's elite focus or X-factor workouts.
It's another reason why this training if you are going to commit to it on limited hour is likely unmatched, in the current landscape, across just about any distance.
Yes I used to cycle. I experimented training in a lot of different ways. What I found out (I used to time trial) is that whatever CTL I got to that I could maximally sustain, my power was the same over 10 or 25 miles (key distances for time Trialists). To pluck an arbitratory number at random , say my 20 min power was 340w at a CTL of 60, it didn't really matter HOW I got there. In the sense I could do that power on a range of 7 or 12 hours a week training. The 7 hours may have been sub threshold sweetspot every other day, or the 12 hours may have been lots of slow riding and some vo2 max stuff in a week. I tried 4-5 different ways to get to that CTL number. Each time my power was almost the same.
Throwing in this callback to post #14 in this thread, as it seems relevant to the current discussion. I do agree that some measure of training load may assign too much value to easy efforts, but research definitely supports this idea that more aerobic load (even at low intensity) = more aerobic benefit.
Was thinking the same, its all seems to be made overcomplicated. If you can count till 5 out loud this means your under LT2. Or am I missing something?
Counting is languange-dependent. Doing it in English/German (5), Norwegian (6), Spanish (8), Italian (9) or Finnish (10) will result in very different number of syllables.
True. I tried it yesterday on the first 10 min rep of 3 and got to 15 (21 syllalbes) fairly comfortably (any more and it would be forced). I had to breath pretty hard for a few seconds straight after though. Did it on the cooldown and got to 21 (35 syllables). It was clear though that counting has a metronomic, robotic rhythm quite ulike saying a normal sentence aloud. That might make a difference.
I've got very fast before on almost exclusively easy running training for an ultra, but we are talking 15 hours a week at least. You can obviously cover intensity, with huge volume. But at thie point in my life I have no time for it.
I restarted training via NSM on 5 days, the 3+2 almost beginner at around 4.5 hours a week after nearly a year out. Built up over 19 months training like this to 8 hours a week, still on singles.
Ran a lifetime PB at 10k today and I expect to run a lifetime 5k next weekend. Over the last 19 months, I've probably ran more consistently in terms of load generated in that time than even equivalent periods when training for ultras over the last decade. It's shocking how easily consistent weeks of the same thing over and over stacks the fitness over time.
I'm glad I found NSM as I just don't have the time to run that much anymore, wife, kids etc and i can be incredibly competitive for my standards still on 50- 60% of the time i previously committed.
There's probably different ways to make small adaptations per individual, but in the end it's all about spreading the risk and management of load. You can't have everything but NSM prioritizing the foundations of training without all the jazz is the key to it.
What sirpoc has done and probably changed things for a lot of hobby runners for the better, is challenged what is important versus what is not. Or just deciding in a situation onlf limited hours what is important versus what you can do without.
+1 to this. I think anyone can get pretty fast at hobby level off a disgusting amount of easy running. It just takes a lot longer to train. I've seen guys train for ultras or just mileage and playing around on different terrains and run rally fast times. For myself I've l come into a local turkey trot 5k and 10 seconds off lifetime college PB on about 17-18 hours a week of just easy when i was young, free and single and could run as much as i wanted.
Easy running has a place, or guys would just be running 3 workouts a week and not bothering with it. How much impact it has? Who knows. But it's obviously worth something.
I've found in general, as my load has increased using tracking software, I've gotten faster versus masters version of myself. It's hardly surprising, it's just the old school way of increasing mileage, just framed into something different. I think sirpoc has said many times, easy stress is overstated, but it doesn't really matter in the context of NSM. You are roughly running through same ratios week to week, so the raw numbers placed on things aren't important, but that you can compare it to an older version of yourself and your training via the method.
Disclosure I'm around a minute off my lifetime 5k via NSM. But I'm training well under half the amount, not injured and over twice my age from when I ran that pb. So it's a huge win for me. I'm better than 5 years ago when you compare myself to being in the same situation, middle aged dad, two kids, two dogs snd a wife who also has a career.
The talk test that's been around forever is absolutely confusing? That's all we're talking about. Don't confuse it with a plot to unseat NSM. Our Lord J.C. also used respiration rate as a datapoint, so it is ordained. Do you renounce the sacrament?
And if you don't use an HR monitor, RR/talk test is your guardrail.
Tbh another case of Bakken conflicting information at times, based on language written.
Absolutely confusing when it's really quite simple. Use pace to pitch the workout, use LTHR or just below as the guardrail.
Very simple, very effective and has been working for anyone using NSM for years now.
This has worked for me fantastically well. I have a pace in mind for the workout (takes 30 seconds to check the weather and the NSM book), use -1% of that to pitch the first rep. Work through the workout, keep an eye on HR in relation to LTHR and that's about it. 9/10 I'm not adjusting anything, but when I am I just back off. That's it.
It already couldn't be simpler. All you need is a watch and a HR monitor.
The talk test that's been around forever is absolutely confusing? That's all we're talking about. Don't confuse it with a plot to unseat NSM. Our Lord J.C. also used respiration rate as a datapoint, so it is ordained. Do you renounce the sacrament?
And if you don't use an HR monitor, RR/talk test is your guardrail.
Who really doesn't use a HR monitor if they are training like this? You need one piece of information. LTHR.
That isn't to say the talk test isn't useful. But I would include myself as someone who could have a conversation at or even above LTHR. I need to go quite a bit above before I can't say a basic sentence.
Just use what works for yourself and don't get your knickers in a twist so easily.
The talk test that's been around forever is absolutely confusing? That's all we're talking about. Don't confuse it with a plot to unseat NSM. Our Lord J.C. also used respiration rate as a datapoint, so it is ordained. Do you renounce the sacrament?
And if you don't use an HR monitor, RR/talk test is your guardrail.
Not to be difficult, but is anyone really doing this method without a HR monitor? 75% of your running is controlled via HR. The rest is at least guardrailed by LTHR.
This isn't being disingenuous, but even if a few people aren't, surely 99% of folks are using a HR monitor?
Not to be difficult, but is anyone really doing this method without a HR monitor? 75% of your running is controlled via HR. The rest is at least guardrailed by LTHR.
This isn't being disingenuous, but even if a few people aren't, surely 99% of folks are using a HR monitor?
I've never used an HR monitor and go by pace, feel, breathing, and manual HR at the end of reps/session. I know what T and I pace feel like from Daniels as a yardstick. Is looking at HR mid-rep essential or even that useful, if you know your pace (via known points on the route), RPE, breathing, etc. relative to conditions, and you get HR at the end anyway? I'm sure that gives you over 95% of what you need.
I've never used an HR monitor and go by pace, feel, breathing, and manual HR at the end of reps/session. I know what T and I pace feel like from Daniels as a yardstick. Is looking at HR mid-rep essential or even that useful, if you know your pace (via known points on the route), RPE, breathing, etc. relative to conditions, and you get HR at the end anyway? I'm sure that gives you over 95% of what you need.
Dude, manual HR at the end of the session? Just join the modern world and buy a HR monitor, especially if you alresdy have the tech on a watch seemingly to give you pace.
I'm all for old skool but there's so many things you can get from HR, even if it's just to look for patterns in your training.
Damn I thought I was an old skool old fart behind the times with my past it's sell by date forerunner And 10 year old strap.
Posts like this make me think people want a pat on the back for "keeping it real".
Dude, manual HR at the end of the session? Just join the modern world and buy a HR monitor, especially if you alresdy have the tech on a watch seemingly to give you pace.
I'm all for old skool but there's so many things you can get from HR, even if it's just to look for patterns in your training.
Damn I thought I was an old skool old fart behind the times with my past it's sell by date forerunner And 10 year old strap.
Posts like this make me think people want a pat on the back for "keeping it real".
Definitely not, I wouldn't have mentioned it if 'over complicating things' hadn't complained about people using the talk test to gauge effort. (Ironic that using simple methods is 'over complicating things'.) ghetto superstar telling me to 'just use what works for yourself' - which I was doing thank you - just pressed my butttons.
As it happens I don't get pace from my watch, it's a regular Timex. I get it from checking time at known points and work out what % faster/slower I'm going than book pace. I honestly couldn't care less if someone thinks that's mad, weird, posing for a pat on the back or whatever, it's just what I do given the tech I've got and it isn't a big thing. Plenty of people do the same, a few years ago everyone did.
I don't get the minor fuss here. Taking your HR at the end versus looking at your watch, the difference is trivial, who cares?
I've got very fast before on almost exclusively easy running training for an ultra, but we are talking 15 hours a week at least. You can obviously cover intensity, with huge volume. But at thie point in my life I have no time for it.
The question is how fast you would be if you included more intensity.
Throwing in this callback to post #14 in this thread, as it seems relevant to the current discussion. I do agree that some measure of training load may assign too much value to easy efforts,
Maybe it was true for him for a while but then he invented a completely different system that is based on quite a lot (in comparison to other method) sub-threshold work. He also said that if he was just cycling he would do more sub-threshold work (longer sessions). It would be interesting to see what intensities he used to accumulate that CTL as well. Maybe it was closer to tempo and not just easy riding.
but research definitely supports this idea that more aerobic load (even at low intensity) = more aerobic benefit.
Can you quote some? All I can think of are some observational studies that come down to "fast people do more volume" which suffer from both survivorship bias (those who didn't get injured had more time to train) and not counting that people who do more volume almost always do more intensity as well.
Easy running has a place, or guys would just be running 3 workouts a week and not bothering with it. How much impact it has? Who knows. But it's obviously worth something.
Of course it has impact. The question is how big. If injuries and glycogen stores weren't an issue you could be running threshold every day. Most people can't do that though so various systems are created to maximize sub-threshold running and fill the rest with what it can be filled - easy running.
You are roughly running through same ratios week to week, so the raw numbers placed on things aren't important, but that you can compare it to an older version of yourself and your training via the method.
Yes, the metrics are flawed but as long as you are doing similar schedule they are still useful to see if you are doing more or less than in the past. The problem arises when you try to optimize for them and notice that for example 2 hours of easy running provides a higher score than 45 minutes of threshold. Then you will pay for imperfection of the metric.
There are many people like that in cycling: riding pro (or higher) volume at easy intensities and not getting anywhere fitness wise.
Disclosure I'm around a minute off my lifetime 5k via NSM. But I'm training well under half the amount,
Do you mean in hours or intensity? Are you doing more sub-threshold work than before even though the total volume is lower?