Really interesting thread. I was in the original thread linked to in here and I love this style of training whether aiming at the mile-5K as well as the HM/Full (there I incorporate a long run into this as an addition, and do longer intervals like the non-pro Ingebridsten brother). I've always disliked VO2 stuff, and found it led to a boom/bust feeling and I'd be fried in a couple of months. When doing intervals from 400 to 1200 with short rest (minute max), I don't wear down over the season and feel like I can race at a pretty high level for a long period of time. I got a late start this season (unrelated to training setbacks), but we'll see how the 5th Avenue Mile goes. If all goes well, I'll have put together a decent chunk of these workouts (2-3x per week), even if I'm a few weeks short of what I'd have in an ideal world.
How are you tweaking the training for the mile? More strides?
Not thoughtsleader, but I think the 200m hill sessions would work pretty well for mile/5k. You could do them every other week rather than every week, and in place of LR+3rd threshold session. So week would would be 2x threshold, plus 1 "x" session. Remember the point of the X session is to achieve a high level of lactate in a relatively specific manner to your target race. Do while a high volume of short hills fits the bill, it shouldn't be the only option. Rotate it with some traditional 5k or 1mi pace track work (again, not every week) or whatever is specific to your race needs.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that.
The small difference in pace (i.e. the few seconds you mention) absolutely matters and makes a noticeable difference.
I performed my LT stage test a few days ago to see how my lactate values changed since the last test which took place 7 weeks ago.
I will report back with a more detailed summary of the changes in a separate post, but I wanted to note here and now that a difference of 5 seconds per km between the last two stages made a huge impact. Going from 3:45/km to 3:40/km pace had my lactate shoot up from 2.4 to 3.8 mmol/L.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that.
The small difference in pace (i.e. the few seconds you mention) absolutely matters and makes a noticeable difference.
I performed my LT stage test a few days ago to see how my lactate values changed since the last test which took place 7 weeks ago.
I will report back with a more detailed summary of the changes in a separate post, but I wanted to note here and now that a difference of 5 seconds per km between the last two stages made a huge impact. Going from 3:45/km to 3:40/km pace had my lactate shoot up from 2.4 to 3.8 mmol/L.
Hey jiggy. Would be really interested in this summary As it's something I have played around with. I've posted before about deliberately going over threshold, just so see if it would kill me 😂 obviously I didn't die ha ha but I did go about 7 seconds per km like you mentioned for the end of a 2k sessions and my lactate rocketed to well over 4+. I was otherwise in around the 2.5-3 ish range. What I really felt was it in my legs the next day, quite shockingly in fact for what was only a relatively short amount of time. The amount of fatigue is totally out of proportion to what seems like only a little bit of extra pace.
It's why I agree 10 seconds here makes a huge amount of difference. Once you get up in that high ish range just under LT state, it's a real balancing act to make sure you stay in that zone. It's why as boring (yet again) I sound, I would much prefer someone to run slightly too slow and pace on the cautious side, that to push the limits where the risk reward just isn't worth it. Even if you lactate is only 2.0 mmol or just above as a random example , you are still going to be getting a huge amount and % of the benefit as if you are at say 3.3 mmol, to pick another arbitratory point as the example. But the issue is say you are regularly hitting the 4+ range. There's no way anyone could handle this 3x a week on maybe 7 hours like me, for almost a year. The 4+ might be giving you a a slightly higher TSS per session , but the value just isn't there if you can only do it twice a week instead of three times.
I mean , maybe it's geeky or "nerd it up" as it was put. But, I mean, let's be honest running is probably one of the least cool sports out there, so, I mean who cares right? My feeling is despite being a true hobby jogger I may as well at least try and get the best out of myself.
You can chose to believe that running your workouts at 6:00 pace versus 6:10 matters. But science can't answer that.
The small difference in pace (i.e. the few seconds you mention) absolutely matters and makes a noticeable difference.
I performed my LT stage test a few days ago to see how my lactate values changed since the last test which took place 7 weeks ago.
I will report back with a more detailed summary of the changes in a separate post, but I wanted to note here and now that a difference of 5 seconds per km between the last two stages made a huge impact. Going from 3:45/km to 3:40/km pace had my lactate shoot up from 2.4 to 3.8 mmol/L.
Definitely interesting to see the results when you do a LT test, I agree. I’m with sirpoc, this is already a sport that attracts nerds and social misfits haha. Plus, this thread clearly loves data and detail, so why let those who disagree disrupt the content of our exchange.
On that topic, and for those who say pace doesn’t matter (within a limit of course), look at a well plotted lactate curve where blood lactate is plotted as a function of speed. Take a small unit change in pace, say 5 seconds per kilometer, so just 2 seconds per 400m. When you’re well below LT1 you can make many unit increases and have little to no change in lactate, but then you reach that LT1 point and that same unit change leads to a large change in lactate. Get to that LT2 point (or slightly beyond) and that one unit change results in a massive spike in lactate. That is all happening in a relatively narrow window (LT1 to LT2) compared to the range of paces leading up to that threshold. The bioenergetics of what’s happening when you are in that range is very interesting and also, as sirpoc pointed out, quite delicate. You can literally pick up the pace by just 1-2 seconds per 400m and be imposing a much greater stress on your body, bioenergetically speaking, when you are at your LT2.
Anyone who has had lactate testing done or uses/has used a meter would, I think, definitely have an appreciation for this, in the sense of relating the feeling to the numbers. It’s rather fascinating. As far as it changing how we train and what workouts to do, I think that’s up to the individual to use that information as they want. Some embrace it, some discard it. That’s life.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Definitely interesting to see the results when you do a LT test, I agree. I’m with sirpoc, this is already a sport that attracts nerds and social misfits haha. Plus, this thread clearly loves data and detail, so why let those who disagree disrupt the content of our exchange.
On that topic, and for those who say pace doesn’t matter (within a limit of course), look at a well plotted lactate curve where blood lactate is plotted as a function of speed. Take a small unit change in pace, say 5 seconds per kilometer, so just 2 seconds per 400m. When you’re well below LT1 you can make many unit increases and have little to no change in lactate, but then you reach that LT1 point and that same unit change leads to a large change in lactate. Get to that LT2 point (or slightly beyond) and that one unit change results in a massive spike in lactate. That is all happening in a relatively narrow window (LT1 to LT2) compared to the range of paces leading up to that threshold. The bioenergetics of what’s happening when you are in that range is very interesting and also, as sirpoc pointed out, quite delicate. You can literally pick up the pace by just 1-2 seconds per 400m and be imposing a much greater stress on your body, bioenergetically speaking, when you are at your LT2.
Anyone who has had lactate testing done or uses/has used a meter would, I think, definitely have an appreciation for this, in the sense of relating the feeling to the numbers. It’s rather fascinating. As far as it changing how we train and what workouts to do, I think that’s up to the individual to use that information as they want. Some embrace it, some discard it. That’s life.
You are spot on with references to blood lactate curve. The pace is well within the range some people have decided doesn't matter. It absolutely does, if you want to train using this method. Just say training at Daniels T base as I've heard described here is probably a horrible idea. Far too broad and for most of the time / distances we are talking about in terms of recreating a sub threshold reaction, is way hard.
I have some questions . Lexel and Hard2find. You seem to be on the same page but not. I wonder does it matter? You both seem to have described paces that fit in with sirpoc84 and his general guidelines. Or maybe it is worth everyone really getting on the same page and a universal language? I don't know. But I have enjoyed your guys backYou are spot on with references to blood lactate curve. The pace is well within the range some people have decided doesn't matter. It absolutely does, if you want to train using this method. Just say training at Daniels T base as I've heard described here is probably a horrible idea. Far too broad and for most of the time / distances we are talking about in terms of recreating a sub threshold reaction, is way hard.
I have some questions . Lexel and Hard2find. You seem to be on the same page but not. I wonder does it matter? You both seem to have described paces that fit in with sirpoc84 and his general guidelines. Or maybe it is worth everyone really getting on the same page and a universal language? I don't know. But I have enjoyed your guys back and forth. I'm 50/50 on if it's worth us digging down further or not? What do you guys think?
sirpoc84 I have a few questions for you. What do you think is the disconnect between your cycling and running? Do you believe this can work for running to an extent like it has,but optimal for cycling? I only mention as I believe the times you describe for cycling are elite, whereas your running is very good but not even sub elite. Your TT description for 10 miles I would argue is the equivalent of a near sub 14 5k. But you are hovering around 17. Could you sprinkle in some stuff like 16x200 or maybe stuff like 10-12 X 300? Around mile pace for just a bit of top end speed. Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading. and forth. I'm 50/50 on if it's worth us digging down further or not? What do you guys think?
sirpoc84 I have a few questions for you. What do you think is the disconnect between your cycling and running? Do you believe this can work for running to an extent like it has,but optimal for cycling? I only mention as I believe the times you describe for cycling are elite, whereas your running is very good but not even sub elite. Your TT description for 10 miles I would argue is the equivalent of a near sub 14 5k. But you are hovering around 17. Could you sprinkle in some stuff like 16x200 or maybe stuff like 10-12 X 300? Around mile pace for just a bit of top end speed. Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading.
Definitely interesting to see the results when you do a LT test, I agree. I’m with sirpoc, this is already a sport that attracts nerds and social misfits haha. Plus, this thread clearly loves data and detail, so why let those who disagree disrupt the content of our exchange.
On that topic, and for those who say pace doesn’t matter (within a limit of course), look at a well plotted lactate curve where blood lactate is plotted as a function of speed. Take a small unit change in pace, say 5 seconds per kilometer, so just 2 seconds per 400m. When you’re well below LT1 you can make many unit increases and have little to no change in lactate, but then you reach that LT1 point and that same unit change leads to a large change in lactate. Get to that LT2 point (or slightly beyond) and that one unit change results in a massive spike in lactate. That is all happening in a relatively narrow window (LT1 to LT2) compared to the range of paces leading up to that threshold. The bioenergetics of what’s happening when you are in that range is very interesting and also, as sirpoc pointed out, quite delicate. You can literally pick up the pace by just 1-2 seconds per 400m and be imposing a much greater stress on your body, bioenergetically speaking, when you are at your LT2.
Anyone who has had lactate testing done or uses/has used a meter would, I think, definitely have an appreciation for this, in the sense of relating the feeling to the numbers. It’s rather fascinating. As far as it changing how we train and what workouts to do, I think that’s up to the individual to use that information as they want. Some embrace it, some discard it. That’s life.
You are spot on with references to blood lactate curve. The pace is well within the range some people have decided doesn't matter. It absolutely does, if you want to train using this method. Just say training at Daniels T base as I've heard described here is probably a horrible idea. Far too broad and for most of the time / distances we are talking about in terms of recreating a sub threshold reaction, is way hard.
I have some questions . Lexel and Hard2find. You seem to be on the same page but not. I wonder does it matter? You both seem to have described paces that fit in with sirpoc84 and his general guidelines. Or maybe it is worth everyone really getting on the same page and a universal language? I don't know. But I have enjoyed your guys back and forth. I'm 50/50 on if it's worth us digging down further or not? What do you guys think?
sirpoc What do you think is the disconnect between your cycling and running? Do you believe this can work for running to an extent like it has,but optimal for cycling? I only mention as I believe the times you describe for cycling are elite, whereas your running is very good but not even sub elite. Your TT description for 10 miles I would argue is the equivalent of a near sub 14 5k. But you are hovering around 17. Could you sprinkle in some stuff like 16x200 or maybe stuff like 10-12 X 300? Around mile pace for just a bit of top end speed. Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading.
Ok, so following are my two latest LT stage tests. They both took place on my personal treadmill under the same conditions (as far as I could).
I was fasted for multiple hours prior to the test. No caffeine on the day. Both tests took place in/after a deload week.
Same warm up for both tests (easy progressive 4 km). I wore the exact same kit on both tests.
I have run nothing but easy mileage, long runs and sub threshold workouts in between the tests. Most of the workouts were done on the treadmill, except a few shorter repeats which I have done outdoors.
Test Date: 25/06/2023 Temperature = 23.1 degrees Celsius Relative Humidity = 39.1%
1) Each stage lasted 7 minutes (except the warm up, of course).
2) The speed of the 5th stage is different between the tests by 0.3 km/h. I was not able to take a reading at 16.3 km/h in the first test so I repeated the same speed for the 6th stage. I've run a slower 5th stage during the second test to have more insight on the difference pace makes.
You are spot on with references to blood lactate curve. The pace is well within the range some people have decided doesn't matter. It absolutely does, if you want to train using this method. Just say training at Daniels T base as I've heard described here is probably a horrible idea. Far too broad and for most of the time / distances we are talking about in terms of recreating a sub threshold reaction, is way hard.
I have some questions . Lexel and Hard2find. You seem to be on the same page but not. I wonder does it matter? You both seem to have described paces that fit in with sirpoc84 and his general guidelines. Or maybe it is worth everyone really getting on the same page and a universal language? I don't know. But I have enjoyed your guys back and forth. I'm 50/50 on if it's worth us digging down further or not? What do you guys think?
sirpoc What do you think is the disconnect between your cycling and running? Do you believe this can work for running to an extent like it has,but optimal for cycling? I only mention as I believe the times you describe for cycling are elite, whereas your running is very good but not even sub elite. Your TT description for 10 miles I would argue is the equivalent of a near sub 14 5k. But you are hovering around 17. Could you sprinkle in some stuff like 16x200 or maybe stuff like 10-12 X 300? Around mile pace for just a bit of top end speed. Just my thoughts. Thank you for reading.
All I can do is share my experiences with you. It's hard to compare performance in running and Time Trialling, mainly because as an amateur it's much, much easier to get close to a pros level in a standalone race. In fact I've beaten and taken scalps of neo pros in a 10 in the UK on a bike. There's much more to the sport than JUST the aerobic fitness. I can probably gain a whole minute maybe more, on a pro just in a better position, better aero specific kit etc. The amateur, ironically, knows more about Time Trialling than the pro with good power who mostly just rides his road bike and doesn't care about TTs. So in this sense, you can't compare it. I'll always have been better on the bike, because of this. If you compare at the time, I was within a minute of the all time fastest 10 mile TT in the UK. Wiggins held the record at one point, a low 17. I'll never, ever get near the 5k equivalent, which is a sub 14 park run to get within a minute of the best. Literally never. I can't make up the gains in a sport that is almost based totally off your condition. Not equipment. It's funny, I was talking to shirtboy over email about shoes. It's peanuts in comparison to what you can gain via super shoes, versus the bike. Yet I'll still probably buy some 😂
Also my age. I'm nearly 40 now. Also the fact I'm fatter/heavier. Oh and also speaking to shirtboy who I now have on Strava, running a course that "wasn't designed in a night at the pub" would help. So maybe I could run sub 17 on another, faster course. But again, all these factors add up.
If you look at my Aerobic actual fitness, both sports with very similar training have probably worked out as expected. In the sense they probably both get me very close to my maximum ability. Which I guess is all we care about? And I've tried stuff like 10x300. For me it's just not worth it. My legs are totally trashed after. It doesn't create much training load IMO and I'm affected still a few days later. Give me just being a pure strong aerobic guy any day without picking up the niggles and basically just leave the vo2 max stuff for the parkruns. I'm sure if I emigrated to a cold place and took up cross country skiing, or was a long track speed skater, I would STILL train this way.
I have some questions . Lexel and Hard2find. You seem to be on the same page but not. I wonder does it matter? You both seem to have described paces that fit in with sirpoc84 and his general guidelines. Or maybe it is worth everyone really getting on the same page and a universal language? I don't know. But I have enjoyed your guys back and forth. I'm 50/50 on if it's worth us digging down further or not? What do you guys think?
There are more than one way to skin a cat and to describe something. However, having the same language is of course important if we communicate to each other and that helps to develop the sport further. I am glad more people are now aware of this.
My results rocketed from around 5 k at 15 min down to 14:20 on as low as 50-55 mpw on 6 days running per week and one day off.Then I needed one maxVo2 interval at 5 k race pace and I just did a longer sustained tempo run 10-12 k at 3:15 min/ km almost every week. Nowadays I know the lactate threshold should have been in interval reps 400- 3000m close to 3:05-3:08 min/ km to have been most effective. Now runners of today can benefit of this my experience out from a very long running life.👋🙏🧙♂️🇸🇪
How does that contribute to this thread? Leave, you annoying narcissist.
How are you tweaking the training for the mile? More strides?
Answering this post and the hills suggestion. Speed tweak wise I do a speed session a couple times to sharpen, sets of 4-3-2 good rest. I also throw in 200s occasional in lieu of a final threshold rep with solid rest. These function like strides and the 4-3 give me some pace work. And yes I do like that 200m hills session. I’d be doing it more if I had the proper time for buildup. Last year I did it every other week.
How does that contribute to this thread? Leave, you annoying narcissist.
How doesn't that contribute to this thread?
How bout the fact he post same things 4x now. Also fact way coach liar want you to train is also way guys in this thread had had less success with. This thread not like his training. He not explain why his way is better yet there are pages and page of reasons why sub threshold is better. So, he have no contributions. Just got air. As usual.
Ok, so following are my two latest LT stage tests. They both took place on my personal treadmill under the same conditions (as far as I could).
I was fasted for multiple hours prior to the test. No caffeine on the day. Both tests took place in/after a deload week.
Same warm up for both tests (easy progressive 4 km). I wore the exact same kit on both tests.
I have run nothing but easy mileage, long runs and sub threshold workouts in between the tests. Most of the workouts were done on the treadmill, except a few shorter repeats which I have done outdoors.
Test Date: 25/06/2023 Temperature = 23.1 degrees Celsius Relative Humidity = 39.1%
1) Each stage lasted 7 minutes (except the warm up, of course).
2) The speed of the 5th stage is different between the tests by 0.3 km/h. I was not able to take a reading at 16.3 km/h in the first test so I repeated the same speed for the 6th stage. I've run a slower 5th stage during the second test to have more insight on the difference pace makes.
This is the summary. I can attach an excel sheet with plots of the lactate curves, as well as the heart rate information if anyone is interested.
I have not even run three workouts per week, just two.
The system works.
First comment! I'm a massive lurker but enjoyed this post I must comment Absolutely fab post ! Would love to see the excel sheet if that's possible? Im sure I'm not only one.
I think this can show we can fully put to bed argument that does the fine details really matter?. Well, actually yes. If you want to train like this. It also shows what I think spoc and other said earlier in thread. There's a slightly wider range probably going to benefit runner under threshold in terms of paces, if you include down to 2.0 mmol. But once you get to that near end of LT pace , trouble can start quick. This is why many who train like this event Bakken orginally say, better to go too slow than to fast and ruin the rest of the week. But more important long term, fatigue creep up on you without knowing.
Sirpoc, since it is better to run a little slower than too fast, do you think the benefits of this approach would still be there if a runner ran at marathon pace for the treshold sessions ?
Especially if "marathon pace" is a little bit faster than actual marathon pace, more like target marathon pace. So what at first would be tempo pace might become marathon race pace as fitness increases.
Asking this because as an older athlete my muscles don't tolerate HM or 15k pace two times a week, that would result in injury.
First comment! I'm a massive lurker but enjoyed this post I must comment Absolutely fab post ! Would love to see the excel sheet if that's possible? Im sure I'm not only one.
I think this can show we can fully put to bed argument that does the fine details really matter?. Well, actually yes. If you want to train like this. It also shows what I think spoc and other said earlier in thread. There's a slightly wider range probably going to benefit runner under threshold in terms of paces, if you include down to 2.0 mmol. But once you get to that near end of LT pace , trouble can start quick. This is why many who train like this event Bakken orginally say, better to go too slow than to fast and ruin the rest of the week. But more important long term, fatigue creep up on you without knowing.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Below is the link to the excel sheet, better download it as Google Sheets online viewer does not show the lactate curve plots properly. At the bottom of the sheet is a plot with an overlay of both tests for comparison.
Sirpoc, since it is better to run a little slower than too fast, do you think the benefits of this approach would still be there if a runner ran at marathon pace for the treshold sessions ?
Especially if "marathon pace" is a little bit faster than actual marathon pace, more like target marathon pace. So what at first would be tempo pace might become marathon race pace as fitness increases.
Asking this because as an older athlete my muscles don't tolerate HM or 15k pace two times a week, that would result in injury.
Definitely worth it. I have still seen lactate of 2 and slightly above mmol when I have tried longer reps (say 4x10 mins at the longest end depending on how much you do a week, but something like 4x 8-9 mins is fine) at marathon pace. This would usually gets me to within 85% max HR by the end and whilst it might be a bit slower pace wise, you still will get a huge amount of the training benefits in this range. This is the really good thing about training sub T, there's a window probably right down to where you are asking about in marathon pace, to collect a lot of the benefits. Which is why people doing doubles will often start the day with a session at somewhere around this pace to try and hit around this lactate. I think, that roughly matches up with Jiggys amazing post above. He's seeing 2+ lactate at around the end of his tests at around 85% Max HR which is about where I do or have in the past. I'm not sure what that equates to in terms of pace relative to himself or if that is around his marathon pace, maybe he could give us an idea. I would imagine the paces are just a guide for the individual, as I doubt his paces match up exactly to mine, but what I have seen no matter what , is how people's data all shoe the same. Pace really, really and I mean really does matter once you are hovering just below threshold. It gets out of control quick for what even seems like a small fraction of change in speed.
I was helping a friend out recently who used to be a lot faster than me. He blew a lot of these workouts and got tired really quick. I would say right, today run 5x7 mins at HM pace + 2 seconds per KM and he would be like "it was awesome! I felt amazing so the last two reps I was around hour pace!!" As if I would be impressed. He just didn't listen that he was burning himself out really quick. Within a few weeks he was wrecked as he was doing stuff like this every session. The same on 10x1k would end up around 10k pace. Going back to Jiggys post, you can see quite quickly how much lactate would have been building up session on session towards the end, which, just isn't sustainable long term for 3x a week.
. I think, that roughly matches up with Jiggys amazing post above. He's seeing 2+ lactate at around the end of his tests at around 85% Max HR which is about where I do or have in the past. I'm not sure what that equates to in terms of pace relative to himself or if that is around his marathon pace, maybe he could give us an idea.
I'm glad you find it helpful.
So in terms of paces, I have not run a marathon in a long time and I have definitely underperformed in all of my six marathons, being barely a sub 4 hours marathoner.
My shorter PBs are more reflective though:
HM = 1:24:30 (4:00/km pace)
15K = 58:09 (3:53/km pace)
10K = 37:01 (3:42/km pace)
5K = 16:57 (3:23/km pace)
All of these times were achieved in 2020/2021. I have run a 37:45 10K back in April though, and a few 17's in the 5000m (track races) in 2022.
Thank you to everyone for this great thread, I've read all of it and have taken a lot of notes.
The hobby jogger Ingebritsen approach intrigues me, with the 3 SubTR sessions a week.
What kind of interval sessions would you recommend implementing for someone focusing on the 5k ?
Don't complicate it too much. Just run the sessions you like the look of to get you started. None of them are 5k specific and I run almost only 5k races. I have done zero 5k specific work, I have just mixed up mostly 10x1k, 6x1600, 5x2k, 3x3k with the odd 25x400. The paces I listed for myself in my original examples, all generate around the same lactate. So just mix them up to keep yourself interested and to get a bit of variability in paces. But I haven't done 25x400 in a while now. It's almost always some sort of variable of the other 4 mentioned for months on end.
