Didn't he say he has been same weight throughout? So I do not think weight or loss is factor here. The big question is, how he improve from 18:xx so much and staying at that level for while then massive improve using this method.
I think you are right with analysis. His posts show very smart if not science go apply what learned and also communicate it back to us in good way. I think make a very good coach . I would pay for his coach services .
I enjoy your thoughts Lexel, I think you are misundestand and have unfair rap in thread.
Wonderful. I hope things work for you. And maybe this will work.
But I hope you know the real training "secret": String together a couple of years of consistent running (6 days a week), following the usual principles: sleep enough; eat right; don't add volume too fast; don't add workout volume or intensity too fast. Have cutback weeks. After a race or season, figure out the kind of break you need (full break for a week or two? Or just a couple of days off after a marathon, a really light remainder of the first week, and then 3-4 weeks of easy running with a gradual return to previous mileage? Everyone is different).
You could do that with Daniels, Pfitzinger, Hansons, or some other good plan and see progress, but consistency and good habits are the key for any of those. The same applies to this method, but maybe your body will respond better to this one. And maybe you'll find that it resonates with you in a way that actually builds your ability to remain with it consistently. But there's no magic plan that overcomes inconsistency.
If you find yourself caught back in the trap of doing exactly what coaches advise against (and nearly all of us have lapsed into that at least a little bit at some time), then you won't get the results you want.
And although you can set goals over any time frame, remember that your job is to train exactly the way you're supposed to train today (or rest today, or whatever), according to your fitness, plan, and and the way you feel -- and to make the right kind of incremental progress by doing so.
And over time, that will all add up to something you'll like a lot.
The success won't just come to you years down the line, either. If you adopt the consistent approach with a view toward sustaining it over the long haul, you'll probably be surprised at your progress over intermediate stages, too.
(incidentally, this probably isn't a news flash, but I think nearly any coach could turn the vast majority of 30 min. 5k runners into 24 min. 5k runners via any number of training styles if the runner commits to good, consistent training habits. You don't have a lot of people running a 30 min 5k because they follow the wrong plan; they run that because they don't follow a plan, or they don't know how to follow the plan well (e.g., "easy means easy"/"train, don't strain").
"looks on paper like terrible training for 5k" what ? no. It looks like a very sensible approach to training. However I see people also saying they would happily pay to be coached through this system. I mean you are probably going to get good results through this system (as there is an emphasis towards not hurting oneself which is important) but so will you with any half decent coach. The progression of one runner is indeed impressive but it is just a sample of 1 at this point so perhaps let's not jump to conclusions on how this is the best "system" bar none.
I am 37, training consistently for 18 months after running recreationally for a while and have seen substantially the same progression as Sirpoc, while doing a bit of everything in terms of training. Again sample of 1 but there are many ways to skin a cat
I don't follow exactly, ie I do way more mileage than want would be recommended for my age, but I enjoy it and it allows me to run an ultra whenever I want.
In the past, whenever I train for marathons (I have run a lot) I have found my 5k time always improves, regardless of not adding any 5k specific stuff. Whenever I have tried to implement fast stuff, it has never seemed to make any difference to my times.
So, what this thread has given me confidence to do is embrace what I already knew even more. I now do 3 subT's a week, touching up to 15k on a Saturday, which is more than I did. I have also dropped mileage on my rest days to perhaps recover better from more subT work.
Currently I run circa 3:40-50 for my sub Ts. A few days back I averaged 3:26 for a 5k, so similar pace gap to sirpoc, just not as quick as him :( .
For reference though I am quite a bit older than him and I managed this without climbing to far into my pathetic small hurt box :)
Fair enough, thanks for the detailed response and emphasis on consistency. I'm learning to stay at 35-40 mpw for now and let my body get used to that base mileage.
"looks on paper like terrible training for 5k" what ? no. It looks like a very sensible approach to training. However I see people also saying they would happily pay to be coached through this system. I mean you are probably going to get good results through this system (as there is an emphasis towards not hurting oneself which is important) but so will you with any half decent coach. The progression of one runner is indeed impressive but it is just a sample of 1 at this point so perhaps let's not jump to conclusions on how this is the best "system" bar none.
I am 37, training consistently for 18 months after running recreationally for a while and have seen substantially the same progression as Sirpoc, while doing a bit of everything in terms of training. Again sample of 1 but there are many ways to skin a cat
I'm starting to do this (taking it easy with one sub-thresh session a week for now) and am seeing even my EZ paces get faster--going from 10:05 to about 9:20 and my HR going from 150-155 in January to 135-140 as of today for those paces. No, those are slow paces compared to everyone here but it's proof at least (to some degree, maybe not all) that this easy interval method may help.
In a way, I'd view it as an inverse (and even better) version of Maffetone.
Are you losers still going? 93 pages of pure nonsense, made up lies and progress and the attitude of wanting to take training easy so performances suffer as a result.
Are you losers still going? 93 pages of pure nonsense, made up lies and progress and the attitude of wanting to take training easy so performances suffer as a result.
What do you suggest that's better? Have done some 5x1600 intervals every few weeks as fitness checks and I'm slowly improving. 2 mins. rest between 1600m sets. Manual laps.
Are you losers still going? 93 pages of pure nonsense, made up lies and progress and the attitude of wanting to take training easy so performances suffer as a result.
What do you suggest that's better? Have done some 5x1600 intervals every few weeks as fitness checks and I'm slowly improving. 2 mins. rest between 1600m sets. Manual laps.
Others may not but I like how you are running these progressively, ie easing into the session. As you get more use to the idea you will probably be able to narrow the gap between the first and last
What do you suggest that's better? Have done some 5x1600 intervals every few weeks as fitness checks and I'm slowly improving. 2 mins. rest between 1600m sets. Manual laps.
Others may not but I like how you are running these progressively, ie easing into the session. As you get more use to the idea you will probably be able to narrow the gap between the first and last
Thank you! I'm not sure why I was downvoted but you can't make everyone happy, I guess. I am trying to get it so they are eventually all within a few seconds of each other. The first one is always slow for me. Even though I warm up with active stretches and 1-2 miles of jogging.
I’ve been poking around at intervals.icu (great tool - donate to it!) and have a few nitty gritty questions about how it reports data:
One: I’ve noticed that the same sessions (e.g. 9 min pace for 45 mins easy run) can have slightly different load scores (39,42). Why? While that might seem small, it’ll add up over the week if you go purely by these numbers.
Two: does historical data get restated when you update your zones, or no? It LOOKS like “no” but would love it if someone can validate.
thanks for this awesome thread. I’ve been at this in an informal way for the past few months and already seeing gains from the excellent structure proposed here.
Thank you! I'm not sure why I was downvoted but you can't make everyone happy, I guess. I am trying to get it so they are eventually all within a few seconds of each other. The first one is always slow for me. Even though I warm up with active stretches and 1-2 miles of jogging.
Do you do some strides? I think 1600s at a comfortable pace like this should not be too hard to hit the threshold speed or within 5 secs/mile. Everyone is different but better to go slow than too fast. So I wouldn’t say it’s a big deal that this is how it goes for you.
Two, it does not retroactively recalculate loads when you update your threshold. But you can go back to past workouts and recalculate it yourself
im not sure about why the inconsistency in load calcs though. I’ve noticed similar variation for runs done at identical paces/durations. Also my actual training load for a session always seems to come in higher than what’s predicted in the workout builder, not sure why
I’ve been poking around at intervals.icu (great tool - donate to it!) and have a few nitty gritty questions about how it reports data:
One: I’ve noticed that the same sessions (e.g. 9 min pace for 45 mins easy run) can have slightly different load scores (39,42). Why? While that might seem small, it’ll add up over the week if you go purely by these numbers.
Two: does historical data get restated when you update your zones, or no? It LOOKS like “no” but would love it if someone can validate.
thanks for this awesome thread. I’ve been at this in an informal way for the past few months and already seeing gains from the excellent structure proposed here.
Was it the EXACT same pace for the EXACT same duration? Because any small variance will mean a small difference is to be expected. (Also assuming you're calculating both load scores via the same method i.e. not comparing pace vs HR).
As for historical data, the answer is no, and that's how it should be. It does not make sense for historical data to be recalculated when you update your threshold/zones, because whatever load/CTL/fitness that happened in the past was calculated to that prior threshold/zones.
Fair enough, thanks for the detailed response and emphasis on consistency. I'm learning to stay at 35-40 mpw for now and let my body get used to that base mileage.
That’s fine, and that may work really well for you. But in my own view of consistent training, I would say the answer is less rigidly “stay at 35-40 mpw for now” than just related to following broad principles of what to do and not to do.
But I suppose a lot depends on what time frame you mean by “for now,” as well as what your upcoming schedule is (I believe you have a spring goal race).
E.g., I think at one point you may have asked about whether you could skip base building and head right into workouts. That would be a no. And I think you’ve had a nice attitude toward your plan of using a workout as fitness tests, but it looks like you might’ve done 5 x 1600 fairly early in your inclusion of workouts. That looks like potentially high volume early for a workout, but I don’t know: maybe you prepped your body for it over the course of weeks. And anyway, that’s water under the bridge now.
And maybe settling in on mileage right now is fine. Or you could probably go with small incremental increases for a couple of weeks, do a cutback, return and maintain for a few weeks; rinse and repeat. That would be a conservative way to build. (or look at Daniel’s percentages, or just follow a plan that builds that mileage for you, or whatever).
But there are lots of good options. The key is recognizing and avoiding less constructive options. And those less constructive ways usually follow the impulse of: ”must hit X goal in race Y weeks away” unless you really know for a fact that you’ve been building well toward that goal on that timeframe.
I’ve mentioned more about mileage here because I was taken aback by your previous statement that you might need upwards of 80 mpw because you knew what 35-50 gets you. I suppose it’s possible that you had a really sensible view of that, but I feared that you would possibly push above 50 mpw way too soon. And I disagree strongly with the statement that you know what up to 50 mpw gets you. You had some decent results with similar mileage, but even when you got fit fast and did pretty well, you felt a little bit let down as a result of a few hitches in training and then poor pacing. And then over time, you had a series of long layoffs, sometimes through absolutely no fault of your own. And although you learned a lot along the way and made some improvements, I don’t think you have quite had the chance to follow best practices consistently in the course of bouncing back from any of those layoffs yet. And so you still haven’t had the chance to show up on the line ready to race according to the fitness you gained in training, then been able to see the results of that via a well-paced race. And you certainly haven’t been able to do that multiple cycles in a row. Doing that is what gives a runner insight into what a particular mileage range gets you.
And I expect you’re all prepped and set up to find out what good, consistent training gets you. Good luck.
I’ve been poking around at intervals.icu (great tool - donate to it!) and have a few nitty gritty questions about how it reports data:
One: I’ve noticed that the same sessions (e.g. 9 min pace for 45 mins easy run) can have slightly different load scores (39,42). Why? While that might seem small, it’ll add up over the week if you go purely by these numbers.
Two: does historical data get restated when you update your zones, or no? It LOOKS like “no” but would love it if someone can validate.
thanks for this awesome thread. I’ve been at this in an informal way for the past few months and already seeing gains from the excellent structure proposed here.
Was it the EXACT same pace for the EXACT same duration? Because any small variance will mean a small difference is to be expected. (Also assuming you're calculating both load scores via the same method i.e. not comparing pace vs HR).
As for historical data, the answer is no, and that's how it should be. It does not make sense for historical data to be recalculated when you update your threshold/zones, because whatever load/CTL/fitness that happened in the past was calculated to that prior threshold/zones.
Yep, same exact duration and pace. I know because I entered the values in Strava manually to test how it worked.