That being said, a short easy run is a nice boost of hormones and blood flow that aids in recovery and adaptation. For a high volume athlete who is very fit and very durable they can add in a daily jog to get these recovery benefits without a recovery cost. For a normal runner something like an easy walk or bike ride in the morning would probably get the job done and be safer.
.
Excellent post. just picking up on the above para.
As an older runner (late 60s), an easy run can feel stupidly easy, by breathing and heart rate etc, but legs can still feel a bit fatigued. I have often thought a brisk walk would be better, but swayed by the fact that walking is not running, it can’t be recorded as mileage, there is a loss of specificity, and I suppose it feels like cheating, etc.
Any views from anyone else, on walk/bike to replace some easy runs?
In the case I'm referring to the walk or easy bike ride is a super easy supplemental session to be added into a day that also includes a normal "easy" run (or threshold session, or whatever). It's the equivalent of a shakeout jog but for those who aren't durable enough for the extra volume or aren't fit enough yet to have any run pace that is truly easy enough for this purpose.
I also think it's totally fine to replace some normal "easy" runs with cross training if your legs need a little less running volume, but thats a slightly different approach and will require relatively more time and effort to get a similar effect. I think when it comes to easy stuff in general that specificity is massively overrated, particularly if durability is severely restricting the total volume we can get with just running. Most of us just need to train more and do it more consistently, whatever can enable that is great.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
You seem to have missed my point. Just because adaptive responses take a long time to phenotypically manifest themselves doesn't mean that they are due to motor learning ("skill").
For example, long-term improvement in running economy could be due changes in myosin expression in the fastest, and therefore most difficult to recruit and hence train, motor units.
Unfortunately , we may need know. What clearly can be said, however, is that variations between people in how they run explains only a minor fraction of differences in their energy cost.
And you seem to have missed my point. Neuromotor skills take years and a huge amount of practice to develop. Changes in myosin expression happen in a few weeks.
Yes, there are other reasons for differences in running economy, the most obvious being the combination of natural speed and oxygen uptake, with typical numbers being 8 to 9 meters per second for maximum velocity and around 70ml/kg/min for oxygen uptake at around 10% bodyfat. But those numbers mean little without the years of dedicated training and regular racing.
I would highlight that the comment was clearly (or seemingly not!) tongue in cheek and highlighting his progress, and dare I say it, talent. The logical implication of him being averagely talented yet doing 32 within a couple of years is that all those other top level V40s running 32.30-33 with a history of consistent training over a decade are below averagely talented. I frankly think is nonsense. 315w is relevant only in the context of weight, again assuming he wasn't obese at this time, above average. I do like the idea of an obese sirpoc powering round the CTT circuit though!
Fwiw I think this method will improve most time limited runners. I just don't think the *averagely talented* v40 runner should be expecting a quick jump to sub 32 anytime soon.
I think sirpoc just doesn't know or have context of how good he is. He seems quite humble in my opinion and better than 99% of cycle and runner.
I don't do Strava old school here but I hope he read thread and see this. 100% he should do duathlon world champs. Not just qualify if times for bike and run in this thread are true and not made up I actually think he is almost lock to podium and probably get gold medal in ages group. No jokes. 18 min ten mile ITT and 32 flat 10k you just don't see that sort thing at age group hobby level .
Good rheas. Enjoy it on all levels. Especially the talk about easy runs lately. It's a debate in own head have been having for a while. How much does it matter in system like this.
Why elevate mitochondrial biogenesis to a high level of importance in a training plan?Isn't it a natural process of basic metabolic function and relative to oxidative stress?
Muscle respiratory capacity is the primary determinant of the ability to maintain a high metabolic rate for a prolonged period of time. Although redox state may play some role in signaling, the primary factors that seem to drive increases are 1) cellular "energy charge", or what John Holloszy once called "squiggle P" (~P), and 2) elevated Ca2+ levels.
Be that as it may, training should first and foremost be designed to enhance actual performance.
I'm fairly certain that I have never been compromised in those facilities when healthy and well fed. So yes my primary concern for performance is enhanced fitness, which determines how effectively I can use them.
I agree with this. The hobby jogging Ingebrigtsen is obviously quite talented considering who his brothers are. Yet sirpoc is almost a minute better than him on the 10k now, despite being 4 years older and training very similarly.
Neuromotor skills take years and a huge amount of practice to develop.
Exactly.
What is your opinion on motor learning? Do you think easy paces are transferable to higher paces in this respect (brain motor learning) or do you think only paces in the area of +-5% of a traget velocity improve the motor learning for that specific pace? Experts opinion is different here.
Neuromotor skills take years and a huge amount of practice to develop.
Exactly.
What is your opinion on motor learning? Do you think easy paces are transferable to higher paces in this respect (brain motor learning) or do you think only paces in the area of +-5% of a traget velocity improve the motor learning for that specific pace? Experts opinion is different here.
That probably depends on race distance. A marathoner has more use for lots of easy running because that is closer to his race pace than it is for an 800 meter runner.
To the second article. Interesting, however he underestimates CR (cost of running) which includes also (but not only) brain learning, and LT%, which takes years to develop, as discussed deeply previously.
I'll be that guy to add to the sirpoc debate. Held my tongue until jow. Seems like an OK dude, although a bit like he loves the attention if I'm honest. Thinks he is talented and loves you guys complimenting him. He is NOT talented. I'm sorry, but what world are we living in when someone who runs 32 flat has talent? Maybe standards have slipped these days but he is getting lapped multiple times in any meaningful race and there are plenty of runners older who would be lapping him as well. Those who think he is talented are the ones who are the real fat kids at school, the true slow pokes. People throwing around terms like sub elite. An absolute insult to actual sub elite runners that some hobby jogger who is kinda OK is put into that category. Insulting, actually to those of us who HAVE talent.
I'll be that guy to add to the sirpoc debate. Held my tongue until jow. Seems like an OK dude, although a bit like he loves the attention if I'm honest. Thinks he is talented and loves you guys complimenting him. He is NOT talented. I'm sorry, but what world are we living in when someone who runs 32 flat has talent? Maybe standards have slipped these days but he is getting lapped multiple times in any meaningful race and there are plenty of runners older who would be lapping him as well. Those who think he is talented are the ones who are the real fat kids at school, the true slow pokes. People throwing around terms like sub elite. An absolute insult to actual sub elite runners that some hobby jogger who is kinda OK is put into that category. Insulting, actually to those of us who HAVE talent.
I agree with this. The hobby jogging Ingebrigtsen is obviously quite talented considering who his brothers are. Yet sirpoc is almost a minute better than him on the 10k now, despite being 4 years older and training very similarly.
Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen lost more than 10 years of training, and has been held back by minor injuries and niggles
Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen lost more than 10 years of training, and has been held back by minor injuries and niggles
I think he just means they have both been running for about the same amount of time, since 2021. Both do very similar training, until recently very similar times, very similar ages. We could have had hobby jogger Brit v Norway just like Jakob and Kerr. Would been fun. But I think sirpoc too far ahead now off KI. Maybe would be HM Norway could win. KI much better PB. 10k Britain wins. Best of 3 hehe 5k or 1500 to decide!
I'll be that guy to add to the sirpoc debate. Held my tongue until jow. Seems like an OK dude, although a bit like he loves the attention if I'm honest. Thinks he is talented and loves you guys complimenting him. He is NOT talented. I'm sorry, but what world are we living in when someone who runs 32 flat has talent? Maybe standards have slipped these days but he is getting lapped multiple times in any meaningful race and there are plenty of runners older who would be lapping him as well. Those who think he is talented are the ones who are the real fat kids at school, the true slow pokes. People throwing around terms like sub elite. An absolute insult to actual sub elite runners that some hobby jogger who is kinda OK is put into that category. Insulting, actually to those of us who HAVE talent.
What world are you living in that 40 year olds just rock up and run 32 flat on pretty average rather than fast looking 10k courses? This post sums up LRC. People way overestimating what actually is happening in reality and overestimating of their own talent. I can almost guarantee it's written by someone jealous and who didn't run even near 32 flat in their peak let alone as a master.
He didn't upload that era so hard to say with how much consistency he managed to train with Daniels.
This is something I’ve thought about as well.
In my early 20s, without any run-specific training whatsoever, I ran 18:5x. Picked up a Daniels book and was at 17:30 in less than a year. But then I hit a plateau like sirpoc describes.
Unlike sirpoc, I stuck with Daniels.
I wish I would have had the insight he had to switch methods because the threshold system is definitely superior. But I stuck with Daniels and it wasn’t until 3 years later that I was running in the 16s for 5K.
The implication, if we take sirpoc’s results at face value (18–> 15), seems to be that I would have been able to run well into the 15s if not the 14s in my 20s using the Norwegian singles approach. But is the difference really that much?
Maybe the difference is worth 1-2 minutes over 5K, tops. Maybe sirpoc spends a few more years training under Daniels and gets down to low 17s/high 16s and then truly plateaus. Thoughts?
I know earlier in the thread there was discussion about adding doubles, but the thread is so long I'm not going to be able to find the posts. Anyway, I recall the advice seeming be that if you are going to double you should do so on easy days, not the workout days. Just curious as to why? My typical practice is to double on workout days whenever possible, with the thought being that an easy 4M run in the morning acts as a shakeout for the workout later in the day, and keeps the easy days easier. I'm not wed to anything, just trying to find out if data/experience/theory show that doubling on easy days is better.
It seems better to me to keep the hard days hard and the easy days easy. Extra volume on easy days would reduce the recoverability. Per Marius Bakken's page:
...[athletes] using this model have a clear difference between the hard days of training and the easy days, focusing as much as possible on the hard “block” days of threshold work.
I am curious to know the reasoning behind clumping volume on easy days.
I know earlier in the thread there was discussion about adding doubles, but the thread is so long I'm not going to be able to find the posts. Anyway, I recall the advice seeming be that if you are going to double you should do so on easy days, not the workout days. Just curious as to why? My typical practice is to double on workout days whenever possible, with the thought being that an easy 4M run in the morning acts as a shakeout for the workout later in the day, and keeps the easy days easier. I'm not wed to anything, just trying to find out if data/experience/theory show that doubling on easy days is better.
Cases could be made for either, ultimately comes down to the specifics of what someone's training looks like and what their preferences are. Like a lot of this thread sometimes people get lost looking for hard rules when they really just need to use common sense and listen to their body.
A case for doubling on the easy days is that the split here can keep each easy run truly easy, and you get a double dose of the blood flow, hormone boost, etc that helps you recover and adapt. There's a point of trying to scale up individual easy run duration where it becomes not so easy. Think about that point in duration where your legs start to feel heavy and it requires relatively more mental energy to keep going -one idea behind splitting the easy day into a double is that it helps manage exposure to that while still getting in a lot of volume.
One key aspect of this thread is managing day-to-day effort so that there aren't huge swings in training and we can keep overall training load higher by virtue of that. Hard-days-hard and easy-days-easy is a useful heuristic for beginners that often gets overdone because people don't understand the overall goals of training. These threshold sessions can accumulate a lot of volume so adding an easy double to that day can push the daily volume way too far into "hard" for some people. Again it kinda depends on where the individual is at with their total volume and how they response to different sessions.
For example: I'm in a situation right now where my easy days are about ~100min of running, split roughly evenly between two runs and my threshold sessions accumulate 70-80min of total running. Adding a double to that pushes it towards 100-120min total on the day, which is sometimes fine, but sometimes leaves me asking a little too much of the next easy day recovery wise. Particularly with the summer heat its a judgement call where sometimes I drop the double on my hard days and they end up being less total volume than my easy days. I'm pretty close to getting fit enough where the extra volume of doubling every workout and easy day will no longer be issue, but in this sort of transitory level of training I go against the common convention some days in favor of the overall training load. As I continue to scale up volume I will focus most of that additional volume on workout days and my training will start to look more "conventional" in that sense.
Be confident in running your own experiment and figuring out what makes sense for your current level.
This post was edited 17 seconds after it was posted.
For me personally, I feel like doing a 60 + 30 double on easy days would make me fatigued for the workout the next day even though it is an easy effort. I think just the volume of it would leave me feeling slightly tired during the workout the day after. For this reason I'm going to experiment with 30 min doubles on 1 or 2 of the sub T days and just keep the easy days 60 min and 1 90 min lr per week. I have only been running a total of ~3 years so far and am currently hovering around 45 mpw with a max of 60 mpw for a few weeks last summer, so I don't want to overdo it.
Current PRs are 5:29 1600, 18:57 5k, and 1:29 half (although im quite outta shape at the moment) so I'll see where this approach can take me with the doubles and 3 sub T
P.S. I want to say that I love your posts and all you have contributed so far.