Lexel, coincidentally, I read that paper. Three things that stuck out to me were the correlation coefficient was low (so there was not a strong inverse linear relationship), the three runners with the longest time to exhaustion had vVO2Max values that were right on the mean, and the times to exhaustion ranged from around 2 minutes to 11 minutes, I believe. I recognize the limitations physiologists can face in regard to their research, but that is not data that warrants absolute conclusiveness, in a true scientific sense. If anything, I think it demonstrates how we should be more careful in assigning take away messages from research to apply in our training.
I agree, there is interpretation on the range of percentages to use. Also, how you calculate them (i.e. “normal” math vs “Canova” math). I myself have used both versions on this thread in relating ideas, but they both get you in the range. Intuition and feel for effort should play a part at some point, I think.
I agree that there are individual differences (as always), but i can also see a trend here. Billat confirmed Monod and Scherers model.
As mentioned by others, in most papers, tlim (time to exhaustion at vVO2max) is between 5-7minutes. In cycling btw. they often use 5 or 6 minutes (sidenote). So if i combine that with Monods/Scherer/Billat about the inverse relationship of vVO2max to performance, i conclude:
5min all-out: pro level
6min: club or very good runner (like sirpoc)
7min: hobby jogger category
So Sirpoc you did it very well imo. Also the 65%MAS, as capt for your easy days, fits very well for me and is Tinmans easy intensity. Everything is in line.
Lexel, I think we could come up with many different approaches to calculate workout paces based on a race, time trial, or lab data. That’s been my main emphasis is that you can use a lot of different approaches to arrive at the same range of paces. I’m, perhaps, a little more liberal with my terminology which I’d largely contribute to having a variety of sources I’ve used and learned from (physiologist, coaches, and athletes). All of whom essentially suggest the same things we are discussing even though they may be referred to differently by name or arrived at differently by method.
I know you’re keen on standardizing a way for us runners to refer to paces and share different research that makes use of those concepts. However, I find when I read the research it is not particularly convincing nor does it seemingly propose a better way to train, that actually works. In fact, many physiologists, Billat herself, seem keen on promoting intervals at or very close to vVO2Max. I think this thread would agree (along with the 90’s) that doesn’t seem to produce sustainable results.
Regarding Billat’s paper…. and I’ll admit this is not necessarily specific to the thread, if you look at the actual test statistics cited to demonstrate the inverse relationship between running at vVO2Max and time to exhaustion, they are not particularly strong. The r value is -0.36, that is a weak correlation and per that value, only 12.96% of the variation you see in the time to exhaustion is explained by ones vVO2Max alone. Other studies I’ve seen seem to have this same pattern. Just looking at the plotted data, you can see a lot of variance across different velocities. That’s kind of expected, to a degree, when you see Monod and Scherrer’s hyperbolic model, which you mentioned, where if you have a large difference between your vVO2Max and LT, you’ll have a much shorter time to exhaustion.
In general, I don’t see how these technicalities in the research inform our training in a novel way? If anything, they seem to suggest we are doing it wrong. A lot of studies show running at or near vVO2Max not only improves speed but also improves the LT. Owen Anderson, PhD, basically wrote a book based on that one idea haha
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
i.e. to clarify my last post, I thought it worked for me (TME calculator) but have also read that it's not as accurate as other calculators. (To avoid confusion and I can't edit the prior post).
That'll work. So if I say do the 10x1k around 15k pace, that's a rough guide to get you somewhere under lactate threshold based on my own experience. Or maybe 8x1k depending on your mileage etc. But Tinman's site is useful IMO because it has a lot of data points and these are only guestimates anyway. Whatever any calculator says, I don't actually know what my real life 15k pace is to compare it to. As I've said (probably to bore people to death), this is a rough guide as to what works for me and I know has for a few other people. I know more about why it works for me, as I've lactate tested quite a bit in the past and every now and again to spot check. But I think it's an excellent ballpark if you want to have a really , really simple starting point for this.
Also, I'll double post myself here. But I just thought of this - I'm 99% sure we've spoken about it in this thread. It also obviously depends on your ability. If you are just starting out and are slower and 1km is taking you over say 4mins, cap it at just whatever distance you can run in 3:30-4 mins for example, at 15k pace. I use distance as it fits in nicely with the amount of time I want the intervals to be anyway. You could easily just do 8-10x 3:30 mins for example as 8-10x1k at 15k pace.
Same goes for all the reps spoken about it. Hard2find pretty much broke it down into what you would want to do it by in terms of minutes somewhere in this thread. The only one from memory he didn't have was 8 minutes which is probably around the cut off point for the 2k invervals . Again if you can't run 2k in 8 mins don't worry about it. Just do 4-5x 7:30 mins or something like that.
Sirpoc, that’s exactly how I think of it too, based on time. By nothing other than my own curiosity to see if running all my workouts for a total of 60 minutes would make a difference compared to what I was doing previously, I started using a 4:1 run to recovery ratio. And just used intervals in that ratio that totaled 60 minutes. So 12*4min, 6*8min, 4*12min, and 3*16min. It’s tiring and redundant so I’ll mix it up on occasion, maybe something like 16 min w/ 4 min + 10*1 min On/Off + 16 min w/ 4 min, but I largely stick to the aforementioned once I build up to it.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Also, I'll double post myself here. But I just thought of this - I'm 99% sure we've spoken about it in this thread. It also obviously depends on your ability. If you are just starting out and are slower and 1km is taking you over say 4mins, cap it at just whatever distance you can run in 3:30-4 mins for example, at 15k pace. I use distance as it fits in nicely with the amount of time I want the intervals to be anyway. You could easily just do 8-10x 3:30 mins for example as 8-10x1k at 15k pace.
Same goes for all the reps spoken about it. Hard2find pretty much broke it down into what you would want to do it by in terms of minutes somewhere in this thread. The only one from memory he didn't have was 8 minutes which is probably around the cut off point for the 2k invervals . Again if you can't run 2k in 8 mins don't worry about it. Just do 4-5x 7:30 mins or something like that.
I have a question. Thread has caught my interest. So I'm quite slow although I think doing OK for my age at 60. I do about 5.5 hours now and just ran a 23 but have hit that brick wall and can't seem to crack it. So say I was to do 5x2k. That would obviously take me much longer. You would break it down into shorter reps? As I would guess that would take me around 10 minutes a rep that's just not plausible. 5x8 mins? Also sounds like a lot?
Do any of you run sub threshold and how much each week?
What was your 5k before starting threshold and what is it now?
They won't answer because their 5k is garbage.
You do realise it is on pages 1, 2, and then 10 through 20 when the question is repetitively asked.
If you are not a middle aged year time limited runner which has stagnant then potentially it’s not for you. Especially if you are in college with countless hours to run, with a coach, with top notch facilities, and prime of your life and think track middle distance is best or best running 100 mile weeks for donkey years and current 5k is sub 14 minutes you may wish to try something different.
I have a question. Thread has caught my interest. So I'm quite slow although I think doing OK for my age at 60. I do about 5.5 hours now and just ran a 23 but have hit that brick wall and can't seem to crack it. So say I was to do 5x2k. That would obviously take me much longer. You would break it down into shorter reps? As I would guess that would take me around 10 minutes a rep that's just not plausible. 5x8 mins? Also sounds like a lot?
On 5.5 hours you probably want to limit yourself to 4 reps. Obviously you don't want to be doing 50 mins a time. I think overall if you are going to do 3x these sessions a week you don't want to be spending more than 30% time in zone over the week, absolute maximum on these, but that's literally pushing the limit and probs my living on the edge. That limits you at a max of 100 minutes. But 25% is more realistic. So it would be something like 4x7 mins at around 5:02-5:05 /km . You could then do 8x3.5 mins at around 15k pace or even a touch slower whilst you are getting used to it and then finish the week with 3x9 mins at around 5:06-5:09 /km. Rest just fill in the blanks for all easy running , no faster than about 6:25 /km. That really would be this system broken down into literally it's simplest form, without using any other equipment to measure anything. I hope that answers your question.
On 5.5 hours you probably want to limit yourself to 4 reps. Obviously you don't want to be doing 50 mins a time. I think overall if you are going to do 3x these sessions a week you don't want to be spending more than 30% time in zone over the week, absolute maximum on these, but that's literally pushing the limit and probs my living on the edge. That limits you at a max of 100 minutes. But 25% is more realistic. So it would be something like 4x7 mins at around 5:02-5:05 /km . You could then do 8x3.5 mins at around 15k pace or even a touch slower whilst you are getting used to it and then finish the week with 3x9 mins at around 5:06-5:09 /km. Rest just fill in the blanks for all easy running , no faster than about 6:25 /km. That really would be this system broken down into literally it's simplest form, without using any other equipment to measure anything. I hope that answers your question.
Thank you very much for the detailed reply and so quickly as well. This is excellent. I am going to give this a try. I have a running buddy who has been encouraging me to do something similar and at this point I'm not improving, so what the hell, why not. Confirms what I have suspected , that my easy runs have been too hard and they are likely draining me for no extra benefit? I usually am doing them at more like 6:00/km flat or even slightly faster with a HR of 78%-80% max. I've been mostly doing tempo classic work Daniels style or hill repeats mixed in with some 800s at 5k pace. If nothing else this will be a welcome change :) I shall report back.
You do realise it is on pages 1, 2, and then 10 through 20 when the question is repetitively asked.
If you are not a middle aged year time limited runner which has stagnant then potentially it’s not for you. Especially if you are in college with countless hours to run, with a coach, with top notch facilities, and prime of your life and think track middle distance is best or best running 100 mile weeks for donkey years and current 5k is sub 14 minutes you may wish to try something different.
Absolutely hitting nail on the head. This is probably best in 5-8.5 hour range of hours available which conicide with usually what middle age hobby jogger have available. I believe KI is at limit. Anymore and you want to look at Norwegian DT system. Which is totally different ball game . Then u look to Jakob or Bakken mayb for tips . 80-100 mile and DT intensity totally different to this thread. This thread is not new or novel approach but bring together sensible and clever ideas from range of endurance sport to maximise a hobby jogger. I don't think there better way I have seen for long term improvement for your average hobby jogger. If you follow this with discipline I think very likely you improve. Lactate meter is best but not practical so this is a very nice solution for all.
Imagine gatekeeping running, lmao. The goal of many here is to find how to train optimally, given limited talent and time. Once you have maxed out those constraints, you need to get into the details to improve.
I mean, yeah at the end of the day, you're not going to win anything other than the local parkrun. You're not going to make any money by running. So what's the point?
It's a hobby, it doesn't need to have a point, other than enjoying the process. Just ask the millions of fat slow cyclists spending thousands on carbon bikes, power meters, fancy computers etc etc
I take it you'd consider buying the latest shoe tech also 'cosplaying at being elite'?
I agree with this and your post entirely. Also, I think it does matter the intensity. The whole thread is about hitting that sweetspot for training. That sweetspot is quite large under threshold, but it's also important to make sure you are in it, to get the absolute most out of our hobby jogger hours. Is it boring? Damn right. Is it cool? Definitely not. But running is not exactly cool in the first place is it lets be honest 😂😂 if you are a cyclist without a power meter, you are almost certainly at a huge disadvantage. I'm not saying we should be at these extremes, running should be more accessible - but you can gain an advantage at any sub elite or hobby jogger level I feel if you do work to maximise your training load.
The whole point of this thread and then the vast amount of fantastic contributors towards it, is to make thinking hobby joggers can improve nearer to their maximum potential.
I can only speak for me (although others have clearly shared their positive experiences) but worrying about all this has improved my 5k to level I quite happy with, having been at a point or stagnation that was really disappointing. If you offered most people a 7.5% improvement in performance over a year after the previous year or so of just maintaining,I think they would take it, no? Hobby jogger or not and yes even Parkrunners! I just wouldn't have got that increase in performance had I kept doing what I was doing - which was not worry too much and just follow the standard template, some tempo, some vo2, some moderate runs etc. So I think it matters. Maybe matters even make for the untalented than the elite, ironically. They will probably get to a higher % of their potential on talent alone. Us not so much.
I bet most people would turn down a 7.5% increase. Everyone running 20 now knows they will be significantly faster at 35. They all turn it down. Unless you are like 70, you aren't running a 28 min 5k and 60mpw.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that. We have a bunch of systems that work but nobody is going to be able answer questions at the level of are you better off with 30min CV and 40 MP or just doing 2*40 MP. Or any of the variation in between. As I said you are free to nerd it up if you want. You will be just as fast by approximating the paces.
And no it matters a heck of a lot for an elite. The are pushing edges that few non elite come close to. And 5s to them matters. Running 27:40 versus 27:50 doesn't.
I know you’re keen on standardizing a way for us runners to refer to paces and share different research that makes use of those concepts. However, I find when I read the research it is not particularly convincing nor does it seemingly propose a better way to train, that actually works. In fact, many physiologists, Billat herself, seem keen on promoting intervals at or very close to vVO2Max. I think this thread would agree (along with the 90’s) that doesn’t seem to produce sustainable results.
...
In general, I don’t see how these technicalities in the research inform our training in a novel way? If anything, they seem to suggest we are doing it wrong. A lot of studies show running at or near vVO2Max not only improves speed but also improves the LT. Owen Anderson, PhD, basically wrote a book based on that one idea haha
To clarify: everyone can train the way he/she prefers. It is not my intention to say, your training system is bad and you should train differently.That is not the point!
It is about to have a common language. You see, with the example of MAS, that we both have different opinions on it and have therefore a different language. This is not good, as it sucks up energy, lost in communication. And the result is that your CS to vVO2max formula is different to mine. (but mine is correct anyway :))
Having said that, i read a lot of VO2max papers and information and indeed training at vVO2max seems to improve VO2max very well. However, the drawback is that it is very taxing, risk of injury is higher, recovery time higher, burnout risk higher. You can't see a training unit isolated, as there was training before and will be after it. And there is periodization, an important point.
The sub-CV training mentioned herein goes a long way and takes possible a safer route. That does not mean vVO2max training can't be done.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
I bet most people would turn down a 7.5% increase. Everyone running 20 now knows they will be significantly faster at 35. They all turn it down. Unless you are like 70, you aren't running a 28 min 5k and 60mpw.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that. We have a bunch of systems that work but nobody is going to be able answer questions at the level of are you better off with 30min CV and 40 MP or just doing 2*40 MP. Or any of the variation in between. As I said you are free to nerd it up if you want. You will be just as fast by approximating the paces.
And no it matters a heck of a lot for an elite. The are pushing edges that few non elite come close to. And 5s to them matters. Running 27:40 versus 27:50 doesn't.
I think you have totally missed the point of the thread. Or not read it or both? Unless I have misunderstood he is saying it's a 7.5% increase for basically the same mileage or hours per week. This being after a long period of plateauing. Nobody is saying increase your mileage to get faster. It's squeezing every last drop out of the time you have. Tri guys and cyclists have been doing this for years. Unless you are absolutely insane you would be stupid to not want to look down and see why this is the case. Again, unless I have totally misunderstood the thread that is fully explained here, via training load metrics etc. I don't know why metrics seem so offensive to runners. It absolutely matters the difference between say 7:50 a mile and 8:00 if the 7:50 puts you over threshold for a significant amount of time. You only have so matches to burn and once they are all out that leaves you in debt for the week recovering. This is making sure there's always a flame still burning. Again, that is looked at in depth here. There's been papers linked , people's experience, metrics. I train 6 hours a week and if someone said to me you can train for 6 hours and get 7.5% better and I'd have to run, wait for it, 6 hours a week I'd obviously be interested.
I bet most people would turn down a 7.5% increase. Everyone running 20 now knows they will be significantly faster at 35. They all turn it down. Unless you are like 70, you aren't running a 28 min 5k and 60mpw.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that. We have a bunch of systems that work but nobody is going to be able answer questions at the level of are you better off with 30min CV and 40 MP or just doing 2*40 MP. Or any of the variation in between. As I said you are free to nerd it up if you want. You will be just as fast by approximating the paces.
And no it matters a heck of a lot for an elite. The are pushing edges that few non elite come close to. And 5s to them matters. Running 27:40 versus 27:50 doesn't.
I think you have totally missed the point of the thread. Or not read it or both? Unless I have misunderstood he is saying it's a 7.5% increase for basically the same mileage or hours per week. This being after a long period of plateauing. Nobody is saying increase your mileage to get faster. It's squeezing every last drop out of the time you have. Tri guys and cyclists have been doing this for years. Unless you are absolutely insane you would be stupid to not want to look down and see why this is the case. Again, unless I have totally misunderstood the thread that is fully explained here, via training load metrics etc. I don't know why metrics seem so offensive to runners. It absolutely matters the difference between say 7:50 a mile and 8:00 if the 7:50 puts you over threshold for a significant amount of time. You only have so matches to burn and once they are all out that leaves you in debt for the week recovering. This is making sure there's always a flame still burning. Again, that is looked at in depth here. There's been papers linked , people's experience, metrics. I train 6 hours a week and if someone said to me you can train for 6 hours and get 7.5% better and I'd have to run, wait for it, 6 hours a week I'd obviously be interested.
So burning 3 matches by running at 8:00 is ok but burning 3.25 by running at 7:50 injured you? I think you are overestimating your ability to quantify stress.
There are plenty of experiences of people doing 1 CV(higher intensity than we are talking about) and 1 tempo and having great improvement. Heck that was a standard XC program (5*1 mile at race pace, 8 mile tempo run) for several programs that did very well.
For reference though what was your 5k and tempo run paces? How many second differences are we talking about...
What also leaves me a bit perplexed is the arbitrariness of the arguments. Sometimes training is designed with a measuring device, then it is omitted, sometimes you run by feel, but then suddenly it plays a very big role that you run, for example, 8:00 and not 7:50. The title of the thread refers to low mileage, but some run 60 or 70 miles. Also, the question of whether the successes of some here can't be explained simply by having trained with more consistency over a period of time doesn't matter. A core group of people here vote each other up and anyone down who doesn't write what they want to hear. How about actually lining up 10 people with a clearly defined program over 10 weeks for a specific competitive distance, training really low mileage and only threshold workouts? You then compare those to another group of 10 people doing another well-organized program? I suggest the FIRST program by Dr. Bill Pierce and Dr. Scott Murr, if anyone else knows that. I think that would be a start.
During Covid work from home in 2020 and 2021 I tried FIRST (and about every other plan in three month blocks) as it was easy to experience, both my speed and endurance became slower than with a regular Daniels or hubson training program. A study of one though.
The fastest end of the scale of Tinman tempo is marathon pace. Stick with it and let it settle down. Your 4:30 really isn't much slower than I do my longer intervals at. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. You are in the ball park. Honestly don't push right up to the limit whilst you are getting used to how it all feels. The 2k repeats are just under 8 mins for me and I'm often a bit slower than HM pace and and lactate is still reasonably high if I have tested. The good thing if you feel you are aerobically undertrained, you are doing probably the best workouts to fix it if you can squeeze 3 in a week.
As someone just starting out with trying to wrap my head around this, is Tinman's calculator even good enough to establish baseline speeds, from which you can derive your thresholds and associated paces for the workouts and sessions you've covered? (As opposed to using JD's VDOT tables, etc.).