And another thread gets ruined by the emoji spammer. STOP REPLYING TO HIS POSTS. When will you people learn.
Lexel or coach js? Or are they the same person? Both are ignorant as one another and probably wear same clown shoes.
Jan is Jan ! The Magic Wizard J.S . A great coach with his extremely effective Dancan system.Just join and your running dream results come true! Start your new year with the expert on low mileage and great results.
While acknowledging the variation that occurs on an individual level, so as not to suggest I think there is only one way to approach training, your description of both lactate testing and training, mirrors my own very closely! There is no way I’m running near my LT1 pace on the daily while also doing 2-3 workouts (I count my long run as a workout) per week. I’m also a 8-10 hours per week runner, which I think plays a role in how one perceives things. Sure if I’m only running 4-6 hours per week I’m going to be a lot fresher, but I’m also not nearly as fit on that.
Even when I’ve tried the “Runners World Approach” of running very little on my easy days and focusing on the hard days. The logic, which I concede is sound reasoning, of doing more on your workout days while doing a minimal amount on your easy days so that you’re more recovered for your workout days, just doesn’t translate physiologically, for me.
In fact, the times when I have been able to handle more volume in workouts, as well as density of workouts, was when I was running 10-12 hours per week. Despite my times improving minimally on that higher volume, my general aerobic fitness, ability to recover between sessions, and ability to handle more volume per session, was improved. That generally involved 1.5-2.5 hours per week of work in the LT1-LT2 range and the remaining 8.5-9.5 hours significantly slower than LT1.
I don’t see how it’s sound reasoning when it’s the aerobic base development (easy running) that allows you to do longer workouts at faster paces.
If it’s all about being fresh for workouts, why do easy days at all?
I didn't say I think it is correct physiologically (and in practice) and I certainly hope you didn't think I was suggesting that haha.
I'm saying that, the promotion of "Run Less, Run Faster" rests on the idea that the hard days produce the stimulus, so if you don't run as much (or at all) on the easy days in between, you'll be better rested and able to do more/go faster on your hard days, thus producing a greater stimulus for improvement.
While I don't generally agree with that approach, the rationale of "Stress-Recovery" is fair. I just think it is incomplete and ignores what you pointed out, that substantive volumes of easy running improve aerobic conditioning, which actually facilitates even better workouts.
Some of the recent posts seem to be suggesting that one needs to run more easy volume in order to develop or maintain fitness, that it’s the easy run volume that enables you to do longer, harder sessions, and that they feel too beat up if they don’t slow down considerably.
Once again it’s not the pace that’s interfering with your recovery it’s the volume of work.
Running much slower than 5K + 2 min will not develop the fitness of a seasoned runner. At worst, it will just make you more tired if you do too much of it.
Running for 30-40 min at 5K pace + 2 min pace on your easy days will get you a better return than let’s say 60 min at 5K pace + 4 minutes to use a rather simple example that illustrates this point.
I do use Training Peaks. I linked everything with my with Garmin (I use a garmin fenix 5 pro with HRM pro chest strap and electrode gel over the pads) and have the zones set for both HR and pace in accordance with my recent lactate threshold test. Would you suggest anything else for "calibrating" the values? I want to make sure I get it right as yes, TSS and CTL will be a tool to determine training, mainly to corroborate how my body feels.
I am telling you, this training left me beat. I even went to the doctor to get bloodwork done because I felt just awful all day, even with eating enough healthy food, sleeping 8-9 hours a night with 5+ hours of rem/deep sleep (use whoop to track), and supplementing thorne AM/PM multivitamin and iron each day.
Appreciate the good luck wishes!
You may want to go into the metrics for the run and see that it's not counting it twice (i.e. one 40 minute run being counted as two 40 minute runs). I believe one of the guys from the Norwegian thread had that issue when they initially uploaded their data to one of the training metrics platforms. The Strava group would probably be the best spot to sort that out. I believe a lot of them use Training Peaks or Intervals.icu
Luckily I haven't been injured for over a decade running 3-4k miles per year. But what I call "becomes not fun" is usually associated with higher injury risk. Making one's training schedule unsustainable.
After all, what's this 'aerobic development' about? If you are amateur, you have some given amount of time per week which is reasonable for you to devote to training. You want maximum aerobic stimulus packed into this time which can be sustained week after week indefinitely or at least for the duration of your training cycle. Running almost every day at around LT1 is not the worst way to go about that (Hadd method had some success), but I personally have no reason to suspect it is the best. Please correct me if I'm wrong and oblivious to something here, but I don't know of any prominent research papers or any well-known training paradigms other than Hadd which would focus on running at or a little below LT1. Norwegian thresholds, Sweet Spot, Zone 2, Easy Interval method and so on – all these medium intensity methods try to maximise time between LT1 and LT2.
Running much slower than 5K + 2 min will not develop the fitness of a seasoned runner. At worst, it will just make you more tired if you do too much of it.
Running for 30-40 min at 5K pace + 2 min pace on your easy days will get you a better return than let’s say 60 min at 5K pace + 4 minutes to use a rather simple example that illustrates this point.
What is the significance of 5k pace + 2 minutes? That's just some arbitrary guess at a correct pace.
Hmm. As one of those who 'feel too beat up if they don’t slow down considerably', I calculated the paces you mention for myself just to understand better and put in perspective. And there's probably not as much contrast as your post would seem to imply.
I run all of my regular easy runs at "Recent 5K +2", well maybe +2:10. Long runs at "Calculated 5K + 2". Sometimes I would recklessly start running easy days at 6:45 - 7:00 because it feels more fun for the first 2-3 days but it quickly beats me up. That's the pace I have to slow down from.
Both 5K + 4 paces are quite slow. I never run like that in training no matter how beat up I would be. Some good running friends of mine run Sunday long runs at about 9:00 pace because they accept runners of every ability. I join very rarely when I'm not training for a race, just to chat. I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that some runners who run 5K in about 20 minutes would run 10+ minute miles for their own benefit, not for social reasons.
I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that some runners who run 5K in about 20 minutes would run 10+ minute miles for their own benefit, not for social reasons.
I run a 22:00 5k and my easy pace is between 10:30/mi and 12:00/mi. Any faster and I'm already over LT1.
It is an art. However, baseline is not the lactate value at rest, that is wrong.
Lexel, when did you last take a lactate sample? I’ve gone through 300+ strips on myself in the past couple years. I’ve done so many different protocols and tests that I have my own protocol now.
I’m out in the field collecting data while you read papers. Please buy a meter and practice before you claim something is wrong.
By the way, I have more than 120 papers in my personal library. I have 25 years of high-level data collection, interpretation, and presentation experience.
Can you show me where baseline lactate at rest significantly differs from a gentle warmup?
You see that 25 years of doing something is not a guarantee that it is correct :)
Lactate values at rest can be off from the baseline. Any experienced person knows that.
If have the Lactate Pro 2 , and i was first tested as an athlete in the 90th and even posted my lactate test in the big norwegian thread. You are welcome.
Thanks for sharing! I assume you're using Training Peaks for the TSS values? You may want to check that everything is being uploaded properly as the values do look very high. Not that TSS is your focus, but if you paid for the subscription and are going to use TSS and CTL to monitor the stimulus, you at least want to know it's giving you the right feedback. Best of luck with your new training!
I do use Training Peaks. I linked everything with my with Garmin (I use a garmin fenix 5 pro with HRM pro chest strap and electrode gel over the pads) and have the zones set for both HR and pace in accordance with my recent lactate threshold test. Would you suggest anything else for "calibrating" the values? I want to make sure I get it right as yes, TSS and CTL will be a tool to determine training, mainly to corroborate how my body feels.
You need to adjust your run FTP then, because there's no way you can hit over 100 in an hour. That's the problem with your assertion that you can't run under 8:00 minute pace for an hour.
From Trainingpeaks:
"By definition, one hour spent at Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is equal to 100 points."
and
"The stressfulness of any given pace is determined in relation to your current functional threshold pace (that is, the fastest running pace you could sustain for one hour)."
There's simply no way that you can run sub 20 at sub 6:20/mile pace and not be able to run 40 minutes more at a pace 100 seconds a mile slower.
Regardless of what you think about your anaerobic abilities contributing, 20 minutes is like 90% aerobically supplied energy.
Nothing about any of your numbers makes any sense, so it means that none of your data is going to make any sense until that's corrected. As Coggan (creator of TSS) said in regards to data, "gigo- garbage in, garbage out.."
Instead of emulating pros and modeling training on the theories of elite level coaches, most runners would be more fit, injured less, and would glean better results if they followed the training of the late ED WHITLOCK. Running loads of miles three minutes slower than his marathon pace elicited some amazing results. Likely, because he focused almost exclusively on easy aerobic running without looking for hacks and shortcuts.
EW also ran 2 hours/day, and 3 hours/day when he started ramping up his training.
Some of the recent posts seem to be suggesting that one needs to run more easy volume in order to develop or maintain fitness, that it’s the easy run volume that enables you to do longer, harder sessions, and that they feel too beat up if they don’t slow down considerably.
Once again it’s not the pace that’s interfering with your recovery it’s the volume of work.
Running much slower than 5K + 2 min will not develop the fitness of a seasoned runner. At worst, it will just make you more tired if you do too much of it.
Running for 30-40 min at 5K pace + 2 min pace on your easy days will get you a better return than let’s say 60 min at 5K pace + 4 minutes to use a rather simple example that illustrates this point.
This declarative post isn’t substantiated by research nor the experience of many. For both performance and metabolic health, we need higher volume. Moving slowly may be necessary to achieve an appropriately high volume. Over years, this volume/easy pace may get faster, but maybe not, even if performance improves. Base training should be ongoing and based on effort not pace. This 80% of training is developing metabolic capacity and muscular endurance. Faster (above LT1) is demonstrably worse than slower (below LT 1).
You see that 25 years of doing something is not a guarantee that it is correct :)
Lactate values at rest can be off from the baseline. Any experienced person knows that.
If have the Lactate Pro 2 , and i was first tested as an athlete in the 90th and even posted my lactate test in the big norwegian thread. You are welcome.
Happy New Year.
Lexel....a baseline reading is just that...baseline. ) 0 m/s or 0 watts. That's baseline. Same as RMR...its baseline metabolic rate.
You need to adjust your run FTP then, because there's no way you can hit over 100 in an hour. That's the problem with your assertion that you can't run under 8:00 minute pace for an hour.
That definition is wrong. Exactly 60 minutes is a mathematical effect of the scoring system.
I just rode for 60 minutes at MLSS and could go 10-15% longer with sufficient motivation. Lactate was around 4.7-4.9 mmol/l. Most people should be able to, they just overestimate mlss (ftp).
I do use Training Peaks. I linked everything with my with Garmin (I use a garmin fenix 5 pro with HRM pro chest strap and electrode gel over the pads) and have the zones set for both HR and pace in accordance with my recent lactate threshold test. Would you suggest anything else for "calibrating" the values? I want to make sure I get it right as yes, TSS and CTL will be a tool to determine training, mainly to corroborate how my body feels.
You need to adjust your run FTP then, because there's no way you can hit over 100 in an hour. That's the problem with your assertion that you can't run under 8:00 minute pace for an hour.
From Trainingpeaks:
"By definition, one hour spent at Functional Threshold Power (FTP) is equal to 100 points."
and
"The stressfulness of any given pace is determined in relation to your current functional threshold pace (that is, the fastest running pace you could sustain for one hour)."
There's simply no way that you can run sub 20 at sub 6:20/mile pace and not be able to run 40 minutes more at a pace 100 seconds a mile slower.
Regardless of what you think about your anaerobic abilities contributing, 20 minutes is like 90% aerobically supplied energy.
Nothing about any of your numbers makes any sense, so it means that none of your data is going to make any sense until that's corrected. As Coggan (creator of TSS) said in regards to data, "gigo- garbage in, garbage out.."
Totally get where you're coming from. To be honest, I am puzzled by my sheer lack of lower aerobic ability. I have a tested max hr of 201 and I jump quickly into the 140s doing 12 min miles, yet I can race at 6:18 pace for 5 km. Mind you, the race was a flat course and I was wearing vaporflys. I have my LT/HR/Pace zones set on TrainingPeaks according to a lactate threshold lab test I just did 2 weeks ago. Not lying, I would probably struggle finishing an hour run at sub 8 min pace right now.
Today I ran completely by feel and hardly looked at my watch HR data, a 40 minute jog had me running 12:12 pace. To me this just felt easy, I was hardly breathing above normal and my HR avg'd 144. A reminder, my LT1 HR/pace is 163/10:32.
There are stories of people on the Uphill Athlete forums with similarities to mine, where they had to significantly slow down in order to stay well below LT1. Prior to starting running 2 years ago (where I would redline mostly everything), I had very little background in anything aerobic in the sports/hobbies I had. I think it is a safe bet my true low aerobic system is quite underdeveloped simply because it's never been touched in training. Would you say this is a fair assumption? My running age is quite young, so I think it's feasible that an untouched system would be at around 12 min miles.
It sounds like you are more speed based. Are you more of a sprinter type? Were you faster than all of your peers when you were a kid growing up etc?
Everyone is different, and some have more ST muscle fibres than others, that make them an aerobic beast. Others are endowed with more FT muscle fibres, and speed comes more naturally, and endurance is a weakness.
It sounds like you are more speed based. Are you more of a sprinter type? Were you faster than all of your peers when you were a kid growing up etc?
Everyone is different, and some have more ST muscle fibres than others, that make them an aerobic beast. Others are endowed with more FT muscle fibres, and speed comes more naturally, and endurance is a weakness.
Ha I would say I am the opposite of a sprinter build. I am 6'4, 175. Lanky with long legs lol.
I was never fast growing up no. I grew up a volleyball player, which is fast twitch dominant - so maybe something there.