The issue with this is the sample size. While yes, there are some folks who can NEVER touch a faster pace and still bang out a 4:05 like CheetoDust, I’d argue that this is the exception to the rule, and that MOST people need to obey the rule (aka: run faster than 10k pace to race a fast mile). There are a lot of people out there with quick natural turnover who don’t really express it until their overall fitness is solid, but not everyone is like that
The reason I disagree with this is I don't think he's an exception. At all. I have ran a really good mile on just vanilla, I have also trained for it with specificity and basically was the same speed. I did another 6 months of vanilla aerobic loading and then was about a full 10 seconds faster with nothing else.
I now have veteran friends who have trained like this for close to a year, who jumped on the bandwagon following me. One of those just broke his mile PB, lifetime. He's 44. Of course you could add this stuff, it it's probably overrated for most reading this and on top of that, you are probably giving up what you be better training elsewhere.
Doesn't mean don't do it. But just think what are you gaining. Is the small amount of speed needed at the point you are at, adding to making the race tank fuller than just getting fitter and fitter with spamming mkre of the aerobic gains which are most important even for something like the mile.
There's a guy on Reddit who was 3:10 marathoner, now he's close to 2:40. The mile is his strongest PB out of everything. I don't actually think these are outliers.
Some people might need to do these things, but I would argue some of it is actually psychological, rather than physiological.
I post all this btw as someone who has admitted many times on here, I used to be obsessed with training speed or sure this was the only way for shorter events.
My middle school son has done nothing in training faster than high 6/low 7 minute pace and ran a 5:32 mile a few weeks ago. He also ran a 65 on a 4X400 relay leg. He wasn't touching those kinds of times when I was having him do the traditional interval approach. I used to feel the same way, that there was no way you could run a fast mile without running fast intervals. I've seen with my own eyes that this is not the case because if you watch my son in training you'd think he's slow as molasses. Well, he is except when it matters.
This might suprise your but some people aren't from the USA. Also some people didn't "run track" at any junior level.
Letsrun seems to have a large section of people obsessed with HS and college track meets, what times you ran in HS and who you beat.
It's not the same in the realm world. Most runners don't come from the USA way.
Even then, I've spoken to a lot of US runners and as someone posted above, they were just told to go out and hold on. Which is obviously giving up time if you paced it properly.
Here in the (scolding hot) UK, just look at club runners. They don't have a clue. I've been in a number of local clubs with coaches, none of who teach you how to pace or even understand where to pitch a race.
In fact, it's pretty common in hobby jogging 5ks for someone to finish in 17 flat but went out in like 3:10/km.
I was in a group of us of about 9 who were aiming for 37:00 to score points in our local series and agreed to run as a group even though it was cross team. Everyone else went out in 3:25/km for the first 2k. This was like 4 months ago lol so at least I knew better and just held off, in fact, I dropped off after like 100m and did the first 2k in 3:46/km and then passed absolutely everyone in that group as if they were standing still in the last couple of K. At least three of them are definitely better runners than me and should beat me every time.
Not a single one of them that I spoke to afterwards saw the problem. "Just one of those days" or "sometimes you just gotta let rip!". But if you explained to them that 3:25/km killed their race they would just tell you "nah, felt fine at the time, didn't have it in my legs today".
That's the other thing my son has learned to do well - pacing. He let's everyone take off like it is a 100 meter dash and then reels them in as they inevitably die in the middle two laps. He usually comes through the first 400 last or close to last but his split is always right what we want and then he capitalizes on the mistakes made by the others who go out over their head. It does take some discipline to let them go at first and trust that they'll come back. It helps when there is a sub 5 kid in there that some of the dummies who are only capable of 5:30 go out with. LOL. Then they run 5:45 after coming through the first lap in 72 and wonder what happened.
I’ve seen a couple of people on Strava who have been targeting LT1 recently, including Sirpoc. Even Wiggle Waffle seems to consistently target around 2.0 mmol for sessions. His paces seem to be in line with his race performance though, so maybe that’s just individual variation. What’s the reasoning behind the recent LT1 sessions?
I’ve seen a couple of people on Strava who have been targeting LT1 recently, including Sirpoc. Even Wiggle Waffle seems to consistently target around 2.0 mmol for sessions. His paces seem to be in line with his race performance though, so maybe that’s just individual variation. What’s the reasoning behind the recent LT1 sessions?
I'm one of the recent LT1 fans and it's for a few reasons
1. I'm coming back from injury and time off running so would rather trade off the wear and tear that LT2 sessions give with some extra load. I'm not planning to race any time soon so the loss of top end speed and threshold adaptions is worth the trade off for more volume and reduced injury risk.
2. It's bloody hot in the UK right now so I wouldn't trust myself to not redline a traditional LT2 session, this way I'm definitely staying subthreshold.
3. It still provides great running economy adaptions which is key after coming back from an injury when your body and form are feeling rusty. I find LT1 spam helps my easy pace improve quicker than just running easy 7 days a week.
I'll eventually transition back to the standard NSM formula once I'm ready to get racing again. However, given the heat I might stick with the lower end of LT2 or even keep an LT1 session in there as recovery is super minimal.
How are you determining LT1? I might be wrong but I don't think that's in the book. Seems like it's harder to pin down as a pace, although perhaps consequences for getting wrong less severe compared to sub-LT2 training?
Okay, Stryd has been done to death. But, does anyone have experience of using the Coros footpod?
I wear the Pod 2 for all of my sub-t runs. It's worth it to me because it provides quicker pace feedback that just my watch alone, so it can be helpful at the beginning of each rep.
I also like that it provides some semblance of accuracy in measuring distance/pace on the treadmill. I'm not saying it's anywhere close to 100% accurate (probably more like 95%) but that's far better than just my watch alone.
However, for any of the other metrics like effort pace or running power, I'd say it's totally worthless.
I’ve seen a couple of people on Strava who have been targeting LT1 recently, including Sirpoc. Even Wiggle Waffle seems to consistently target around 2.0 mmol for sessions. His paces seem to be in line with his race performance though, so maybe that’s just individual variation. What’s the reasoning behind the recent LT1 sessions?
I asked sirpoc this directly. He actually said if you are looking at his treadmill runs, LTHR having tested equivalent lactates last month when he was doing DFA a1 tasting, was lower on the treadmill. So a run topping out at 165bpm on the mill for him is generating the same lactate as a low to mid 170s outside.
This is somewhat in line with my experience. He actually posted the other day on Strava he probably has 3 LTHR guardrails now, cycling (indoors) > treadmill > running outdoors.
Don't know about cheetodust, but he did post here he was just being extra cautious having come back from an injury.
How are you determining LT1? I might be wrong but I don't think that's in the book. Seems like it's harder to pin down as a pace, although perhaps consequences for getting wrong less severe compared to sub-LT2 training?
It's much harder to pinpoint. For a start, it's more of a moving target daily and a narrower zone. The beauty of NSM is we aren't doing any of the super controlled morning Norwegian type sessions and the 3 workouts we are doing have a pretty wide zone, meaning it's pretty easy to hit them without more than just basic guardrails in place. It's the appeal of a lot of it.
Most people probably will run a Lt1 workout too hard or immediately go to the upper border of it. It's really hard without lactate testing. Pace wise, it's a decent amount slower than marathon pace for a good standard of runner. It's important to get right and not muck up if you are doubling, the consequences of blowing a Lt1 workout when it's your only run of the day are minimal IMO.
I see this often but I find have a distinct slight increase in breathing depth at LT1. I've tested it a billion times and it is very repeatable and noticeable. Once you get a feel for it, it's easy to identify.
Relevant addendum: I saw Inigo San Milan's latest substack which defined zone 2 as exactly LT1, made me laugh given a specific point isn't a zone, and how his previous interviews with influencers had got everyone jogging round at an easy pace for all their training.
I see this often but I find have a distinct slight increase in breathing depth at LT1. I've tested it a billion times and it is very repeatable and noticeable. Once you get a feel for it, it's easy to identify.
In Bakken's book, he mentions that VT1 often coincides with when speaking without difficulty goes from "Yes" to ""Yes, but..." (It's based on the research by Carl Foster.)
How are you determining LT1? I might be wrong but I don't think that's in the book. Seems like it's harder to pin down as a pace, although perhaps consequences for getting wrong less severe compared to sub-LT2 training?
It's much harder to pinpoint. For a start, it's more of a moving target daily and a narrower zone. The beauty of NSM is we aren't doing any of the super controlled morning Norwegian type sessions and the 3 workouts we are doing have a pretty wide zone, meaning it's pretty easy to hit them without more than just basic guardrails in place. It's the appeal of a lot of it.
Most people probably will run a Lt1 workout too hard or immediately go to the upper border of it. It's really hard without lactate testing. Pace wise, it's a decent amount slower than marathon pace for a good standard of runner. It's important to get right and not muck up if you are doubling, the consequences of blowing a Lt1 workout when it's your only run of the day are minimal IMO.
When I do my reps, and I know this is n=1, so take it for what it is, the first rep is usually a bit slower. I have done NSM consistently, with no problems, since February, and am at 50-52 mpw now, NO injuries or trips to the PT or Dr. Christina Murphy (great dry needling therapist in Cbus) since early January, before I started.
My LTHR is 175 (Friel test from 2023). Typically, I do 3x9 of NSM but sometimes 3x10 or 3x11 (at correspondingly slower paces)
First rep may be something like 9 mins. at 7:48-7:50
Second rep is 9 mins. at 7:41
Third rep is 9 mins. at 7:38
(All with 90s jogging rest, at 10:30-ish recovery. I always end feeling like I could have done another rep but don't).
My Strava HR graph usually has my third rep coming in around 170-172. The first rep is usually 155-160, the second one is higher, and the third one comes up right under threshold.
I do these on Mondays and Wednesdays. I either do a third, shorter NSM (2x9 or something totallying 20-22 mins.) on Friday, then LR Saturday, 13 to 15 at this point, EZ effort. Either another EZ run or OFF on Sunday.
As far as LT1 and LT2, I'd guess my LT2 is my LTHR of 175. LT1-? I have no idea, maybe that is the 155-160 figure. I will have to race soon and see if NSM really translates into better results.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Okay, Stryd has been done to death. But, does anyone have experience of using the Coros footpod?
I wear the Pod 2 for all of my sub-t runs. It's worth it to me because it provides quicker pace feedback that just my watch alone, so it can be helpful at the beginning of each rep.
I also like that it provides some semblance of accuracy in measuring distance/pace on the treadmill. I'm not saying it's anywhere close to 100% accurate (probably more like 95%) but that's far better than just my watch alone.
However, for any of the other metrics like effort pace or running power, I'd say it's totally worthless.
Does it need constant calibration, or is it ready to go?
I saw someone post about a year ago, about how they used NSM for their local team series for vets.
Inspired by this (having now finished the season) I'm happy to report as the designated "coach" for the team, I have used it since around August last year to give vanilla workouts to the guys we hoped would score this season, in our vets league. First 4 score points, had 5 willing to train like this with myself included, 3 who didn't and did their own thing. We usually have 6-7 guys turn up to most events looking to score points.
TLDR results:
We went from finishing 8th out of 9 last year, to second. We had a slow ish start (classic NSM ?) but near on dominated the second half of the season. Races are either 1500, mile, 3k, 5k, 5 miles and one 10k.
Our top two scorers last year, were in the no change to training camp, they are track night regs, classic stuff like 400 repeats at 5k pace cutting down. The rest of us often went to these nights, but just did our own thing. Anyway, our top two scorers from last year, by the end of the season (so a good 8+ months of NSM) were not even needed as point scorers anymore. Interestingly, they still have decided to keep training like they are, despite being overtaken by members of our club who they would usually beat handsomely in previous years.
Anyway, I think two separate clubs posted about this, hopefully nobody in our vets league sees this here in our part of the UK, as I think we can win it next year for the first time in our history, provided no other guys catch on 😂 as I think we have a pretty big advantage with the sustainability and all year round fitness it provides. By the end of the year everyone on the NSM train was in good shape for every races, no working out who is good for each event etc, you just turn up and race.
Thanks to the thread, thanks to sirpoc and all the others who have posted over what are now the years of reading.
I know this isn't a vet specific type training, but I really do think the older you are, it opens up the door to bringing down your age graded times.
This is a really interesting post, basically a controlled scientific experiment. Do you have any metrics on change over the year for the NSM and 'control' groups? And the two previous top scorers really don't grasp that they've been overtaken by a change of training? If they like their 400s that's fine, but don't they want to get faster as well?
Has anyone tried using dfa-a1 as a recovery/stress indicator?
I haven't been able to make much use of it during runs but, out of curiosity, I pulled two years worth of workouts from Runalyze, ran it through a script and looked for phases where my effective VO2 max out- oder underperformed my fitness (CTL).
The single strong correlation that I found was that during phases where VO2 max underperformed, dfa-a1 had dropped roughly 10-15% from its baseline, both during easy runs and workouts. When I was making progress, dfa-a1 averaged between 1.10 to 1.20 on easy run, when I was stalling, the average went down to 1.0, sometimes even below that, despite HR% being the same.
I'm not sure whether that's actionable and works both ways yet -- but since I'm currently stuck in a plateau with low dfa-a1, I'll give it a shot, spamming easy days and maybe the occasional rest day, trying to get back above 1.10 again.