Cool story thanks and congrats to Sirpoc for his massive result, he has more ahead.
As for myself, I did a half marathon yesterday in 1:21:3X, which was about a 3 minute PB.
Fantastic pb! 3 minutes is no joke at already a very respectable pb.This thread keeps coming back with some lovely success stories. hobby joggers should all be looking at this and thinking they should give this a try? I would say, a big fat yes.
Hello, I just quickly skimmed through some of the thread, and I have a few thoughts for consideration, and some articles that some here may find interesting, before I eventually get around to reading the whole thing. Please ignore anything that is ad nauseam at this point.
There is evidence supporting CP/CV as the new gold standard for defining the threshold, over the (quasi) maximal lactate steady state, which tends to be ~4% lower with the common 30-minute protocol. This difference largely seems to be due to the short trial durations used to calculate CP/CV, which have less built-in fatigue than MLSS. However, this could still be useful to define a subthreshold effort, and the single visit protocol for MLSS may directly equate to CP/CV so then they could be used interchangeably, in addition to it already being 'close enough' for the purposes of training.
There is evidence to support the validity of either method to delineate the heavy and severe domains of exercise. In the late 1980′s, the first study assessed the homeostatic responses at and above CP (+5% of CP) derived via the traditional method [35] and confirmed the validity of CP to establish the boundary between heavy and severe exercise. These results have since been confirmed or reproduced several times
A recent study has strengthened the case for CP as the delineator between heavy and severe exercise. Exercise was performed at an intensity<CP [− 7.6% of CP (− 26 W)], which resulted in the stabilization of intramuscular lactate, PCr, glycogen, and pH, blood lactate concentrations above baseline, and a VȮ 2 slow ‘component’ with a plateau (Fig. 13) [25]. In contrast, exercise performed at an intensity >CP [+7.6% of CP (+26 W)] disturbed homeostatic control, and evoked a VȮ 2 slow ‘component.’
Regarding LT1, my view is that Seiler et al are wrong to consider this a threshold in any real sense of the word because it's inherently above baseline yet not a functional threshold, like LT2, which we know is basically where the wheels fall off the bus in distance running. To me, it seems to be through protocol an arbitrarily selected point on an exponential curve that increases with intensity. Furthermore, it seems inappropriate to call <LT1 low intensity and >LT1 high intensity, like if you get 0.5 mmol/L over, you suddenly jump to the other end of the intensity domains. The 80/20 guideline isn't nearly nuanced enough as a prescription for any athlete; if put into a 3-domain or zone model, then 80/20/0 is completely different than 80/0/20, yet both are 80/20. Additionally, elites tend to do their easy runs ~1 mmol/L, not ~2 or 0.5 over baseline, so it's mostly semantics unless you subscribe to the "zone 2" ideas of Tadej Pogačar's fluffer(Inigo San Millán) , which I remain skeptical about until he actually defines it physiologically, instead of the whole thing being an ad for his coaching services.
the baseline+0.5 mmol. L−1 has favorable reliability, and the reliability of the log–log LT is uncertain There is no research directly investigating the validity of any estimate of LT1 to delineate the domains of exercise.
To his credit, Seiler's greater idea of "keep easy, easy, keep hard, hard" can be made to fit the Norwegian model with the simple addition of "keep moderate, moderate". I am not sure how well his ideas of polarization by session intention have held up over time and as others noted, he pulled back from this, but I digress.
Although I doubt anyone here is that into %HRmax, I would like to make it clear that it cannot define any exercise domain and it shouldn't be used to prescribe training. One person may have their LT1 at 60%, the next person at 90%. Similarly, one person may have their LT2 at 75% and the next at 97%. LTHR is much better, but it's still a misnomer as your threshold doesn't have a set heart rate value; do the same test under the same conditions without improving at running, and the BPM will still probably be different due to day-to-day HR variability. HR is also such a lagging indicator compared to pace, lactate, running power, etc. which is important if you're going to try to still be subthreshold while running on grades, and cardiac drift throws an additional wrench into this.
(I'm trying to keep these links from embedding so this wall of text doesn't get any longer, sorry if it doesn't work) () () () ()
In this review we integrate the scientific literature and results-proven practice and outline a novel framework for understanding the training and development of elite long-distance performance. Herein, we describe how fundam...
Please consider to multiply the distance by factor 4 and the rest time by factor 2-3 for converting from swimming workouts to running workouts. It is fascinating: this guy was 20 years ahead of the running mainstream and few such as some Norwegians listened ;)
Jan Olbrecht is an expert in his field and took a lot over from A. Mader et al. He wrote also the book 'The Science of Winning' a must read for anyone interested in training, lactate measurement and other stuff.
He was years ahead. VLamax is (still) not even discussed here in this whole forum. A lot to catch up in the running world ...
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Any forum for runners is full of threads where it’s unclear which intensity or which threshold is meant. There are several definitions of a threshold LT1, LT2, VT1, VT2, LTH, Aet, AnT, 2mmol, 4mmol, MLSS etc. and every...
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run see...
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run see...
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run see...
I didn't think this would be so contentious, and I'm already getting downvoted by association, not that it matters. You will like that second article I posted, although I do think the main benefit of MLSS is that you don't have to do any testing above CP/CV/CS, but then again, it doesn't give you W'/D', and 30 minute bouts near threshold over multiple days is a tall order.
What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run see...
By definition, the selection of MLSS must be at one of these discrete speeds or power outputs - with the inevitable outcome that the selected MLSS must always be lower than the actual MLSS. For example, if the behavior of blood [lactate] indicates that the speed of 16 km/h is below MLSS and the speed of 17 km/h is above MLSS, then 16 km/h would be selected as the MLSS. However, had it been applied, a speed of 16.5 km/h might also have produced a blood [lactate] response consistent with exercise below MLSS such that 16.5 km/h would instead have been selected as MLSS. On average, with differences of 1 km/h or 30 W between discrete tests, the MLSS will be underestimated by 0.5 km/h for running or 15 W for cycling, respectively. The limited granularity inherent in the MLSS protocol therefore inevitably results in underestimation of the ‘actual’ MLSS. Indeed, it is crucial to appreciate that, as presently defined and measured, MLSS must reside within the heavy-intensity domain rather than at the boundary of the heavy- and severe-intensity domains.
In comparison, the single-visit MLSS is less work, and very useful if it does actually delineate the boundary between heavy and severe exercise, but the protocol is a bit complex.
During a continuously increasing exercise workload (WL) a point will be reached at which arterial lactate accumulates rapidly. This so-called lactate threshold (LT) is associated with the maximal lactate steady state workload...
Me? I'm fine with just using my 10k race pace to estimate my threshold and I don't train frequently enough to be very serious about maintaining a subthreshold pace, unlike the legitimate athletes in this thread. Who knows, maybe I'll get inspired.
Nice to see the thread going, I haven't logged in for a while.
Very happy with a new PB of 16:55. Feel like on a fast course could be easily into the 16:40s.
One thing I will say, is the debate is fantastic , but keep it simple. If you don't or won't or can't use a lactate meter, I still stand by the paces roughly I started with posting. I've helped a good few people out, the reps from 1k(3-4 mins) up to 3k+ (or 10 mins) seem to be working the best.
As long as you know your current fitness, a good starting point is still 1k reps at no faster than 15k pace, 1600m reps at a fraction slower than 10 mile pace, 2k reps at HM pace up to 25k pace - and 3k reps around 25-30k pace. This as a starting point. You might find it shifts a little per individual, but having helped a few people now, I don't think those as a starting point, has sent anyone into the crazy spheres of being trashed. Obviously the number of reps is important, but stick still to around a max of 25% sub Threshold over the 3 days ( in terms of time in zone) of your total weekly volume. So if you are doing maybe 5 hours a week, but then you start trying to run 10x1k , you'll obviously wreck yourself. 5 hours a week, would be 75 mins total spread across 3 workouts, 5.5 hours would be 82-83 mins, 6 hours 90 mins- and so on. Less than 5 hours, probably isn't going to work. There's probably a cap on doing this in singles, that's probably 8+ zone.
Easy runs still cap at an absolute max of 70% MHR to make it even more simple, rather than starting to talk about MAS.
If you want to begin and just try this out for 4-6 weeks, I honestly don't think you need to over complicate it more than this as a pure starting point. Considering we are 50 pages in, that's still relatively simple. Once you get past that stage, then maybe start to dig around in the weeds and tweak things a bit or looking into the training metrics and stuff talked about. But give it a good month to 6 weeks without worrying about anything too much than just following the basics.
Edit: one other thing, "Fusio" has made the group on Strava, I don't even know how to stare the link to stuff like that, but there's a good number of people on there and it's already proved useful with some guys and gals sharing snippets of things.
Thank you! I did a 3:25 marathon in cold weather a few days ago but will use the equivalents for 10k/15k to build my single threshold workouts. I plan on dropping down to the 5k and focusing on speed before doing a marathon again. Stuck in the 3:20-3:25 range.
Hello, I just quickly skimmed through some of the thread, and I have a few thoughts for consideration, and some articles that some here may find interesting, before I eventually get around to reading the whole thing. Please ignore anything that is ad nauseam at this point.
There is evidence supporting CP/CV as the new gold standard for defining the threshold, over the (quasi) maximal lactate steady state, which tends to be ~4% lower with the common 30-minute protocol. This difference largely seems to be due to the short trial durations used to calculate CP/CV, which have less built-in fatigue than MLSS. However, this could still be useful to define a subthreshold effort, and the single visit protocol for MLSS may directly equate to CP/CV so then they could be used interchangeably, in addition to it already being 'close enough' for the purposes of training.
There is evidence to support the validity of either method to delineate the heavy and severe domains of exercise. In the late 1980′s, the first study assessed the homeostatic responses at and above CP (+5% of CP) derived via the traditional method [35] and confirmed the validity of CP to establish the boundary between heavy and severe exercise. These results have since been confirmed or reproduced several times
A recent study has strengthened the case for CP as the delineator between heavy and severe exercise. Exercise was performed at an intensity<CP [− 7.6% of CP (− 26 W)], which resulted in the stabilization of intramuscular lactate, PCr, glycogen, and pH, blood lactate concentrations above baseline, and a VȮ 2 slow ‘component’ with a plateau (Fig. 13) [25]. In contrast, exercise performed at an intensity >CP [+7.6% of CP (+26 W)] disturbed homeostatic control, and evoked a VȮ 2 slow ‘component.’
Regarding LT1, my view is that Seiler et al are wrong to consider this a threshold in any real sense of the word because it's inherently above baseline yet not a functional threshold, like LT2, which we know is basically where the wheels fall off the bus in distance running. To me, it seems to be through protocol an arbitrarily selected point on an exponential curve that increases with intensity. Furthermore, it seems inappropriate to call LT1 high intensity, like if you get 0.5 mmol/L over, you suddenly jump to the other end of the intensity domains. The 80/20 guideline isn't nearly nuanced enough as a prescription for any athlete; if put into a 3-domain or zone model, then 80/20/0 is completely different than 80/0/20, yet both are 80/20. Additionally, elites tend to do their easy runs ~1 mmol/L, not ~2 or 0.5 over baseline, so it's mostly semantics unless you subscribe to the "zone 2" ideas of Tadej Pogačar's fluffer(Inigo San Millán) , which I remain skeptical about until he actually defines it physiologically, instead of the whole thing being an ad for his coaching services.
the baseline+0.5 mmol. L−1 has favorable reliability, and the reliability of the log–log LT is uncertain There is no research directly investigating the validity of any estimate of LT1 to delineate the domains of exercise.
To his credit, Seiler's greater idea of "keep easy, easy, keep hard, hard" can be made to fit the Norwegian model with the simple addition of "keep moderate, moderate". I am not sure how well his ideas of polarization by session intention have held up over time and as others noted, he pulled back from this, but I digress.
Although I doubt anyone here is that into %HRmax, I would like to make it clear that it cannot define any exercise domain and it shouldn't be used to prescribe training. One person may have their LT1 at 60%, the next person at 90%. Similarly, one person may have their LT2 at 75% and the next at 97%. LTHR is much better, but it's still a misnomer as your threshold doesn't have a set heart rate value; do the same test under the same conditions without improving at running, and the BPM will still probably be different due to day-to-day HR variability. HR is also such a lagging indicator compared to pace, lactate, running power, etc. which is important if you're going to try to still be subthreshold while running on grades, and cardiac drift throws an additional wrench into this.
(I'm trying to keep these links from embedding so this wall of text doesn't get any longer, sorry if it doesn't work) () () () ()
San Millan defines Zone 2 as FatMax. "Fluffer" had me chuckle though.
2)In my opinion Z2 (I started using ~25 years ago) is the exercise intensity at the one you elicit the highest stimulus for mitochondrial function, lactate clearance capacity & fat oxidation. From my tests in the lab it also tends to coincide w/ maximal fat oxidation (FATmax).
Before I get accused of troll, I have read the thread. But I am a bit skeptical.
Do we really think the main guy we talk about here other than jakobs older brother really ran a low 56 for 10 miles when he was barely breaking 19 mins a year ago? It also sounds like he was a 19 runner for a while so it wasn't like he was just passing through that marker. That would almost equate to a low 16 5k this 10 mile he supposedly run and probably on cusp of being a 15 runner. It just doesn't seem plausible on this kind of basic training. When I see something too good to be true, it usually is. Yes, I could accept it maybe if going from a 25 down to a 22. But returns will diminish sub 19 especially and to almost find 3 minutes when then doing zero speedwork or anything runners have done that we know works, well I just don't quite believe it. Maybe we are missing something we aren't being told? I can believe he stays healthy as this doesn't sound hard. It's easier than my training. I just don't believe it would make anyone fast. This isn't doubles, this isn't particularly high mileage. This is absolutely basic stuff.
San Millan defines Zone 2 as FatMax. "Fluffer" had me chuckle though.
I understand where you are coming from, but there is a world of difference between "tends to coincide w/ FATmax" and "zone 2 is FATmax". By his own admission, he has never publicly defined it, and it is his trade secret. Certainly if my fatmax was 40% of VO2max, as it is in some people, he wouldn't have me out there walking, right?
Not to get too far off the rails with this. LT1 and "the talk test", which equates to being near VT1, is often taken as the surrogate for ISM's "zone 2" by his acolytes and it is generally accepted as the end of the moderate exercise domain. My point is that we shouldn't get too caught up in doing our easy runs near it, especially if the rest of the runs will be subthreshold/tempo because they are fairly close in terms of intensity.
The issue becomes, "Well then, how easy is easy?" AFAIK, there are no real physiological anchor points below the first metabolic turn point we can use as a reference, zone 1 in a 5-zone model is 100% arbitrarily determined. It's somewhere at lactate baseline, below a ventilatory inflection point, etc. A percentage of a maximal anchor point like VO2max, HRmax, or Wmax doesn't tell us where our domains are in relation to it. % of CP or MLSS doesn't tell us where the first turn point is in relation to it. Maybe % of VT1, LT1, or GET could work, but I can't see that becoming too popular.
That leaves subjective descriptors like RPE which aren't really that helpful and all of this says nothing as to what is the optimal easy intensity.
It is correct that MLSS lands close below CV (CV is faster), by using the standard definition of MLSS. However, this standard MLSS definition is arbitrary as correctly criticized in the paper 'The maximal metabolic steady state: redefining the ‘gold standard’', also referred by you above in post #1062.
To find MLSS you need a lactate meter. The beauty of CV is, that you don't need a lactate meter to find it. That does not mean a lactate measurement during or after a quality session or by a ramp test, is wrong. CV offers a performance indicator which is in my opinion easier to get, and you get an athlete profiling.
And there we are, 10K pace is basically CV pace for Pro athletes but not for amateurs as they need longer to run a 10k. So 10k pace is close below CV for most, and yes a good starting point for the Norwegian method. However, the underlying, lets call it theory, goes deeper.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Before I get accused of troll, I have read the thread. But I am a bit skeptical.
Do we really think the main guy we talk about here other than jakobs older brother really ran a low 56 for 10 miles when he was barely breaking 19 mins a year ago? It also sounds like he was a 19 runner for a while so it wasn't like he was just passing through that marker. That would almost equate to a low 16 5k this 10 mile he supposedly run and probably on cusp of being a 15 runner. It just doesn't seem plausible on this kind of basic training. When I see something too good to be true, it usually is. Yes, I could accept it maybe if going from a 25 down to a 22. But returns will diminish sub 19 especially and to almost find 3 minutes when then doing zero speedwork or anything runners have done that we know works, well I just don't quite believe it. Maybe we are missing something we aren't being told? I can believe he stays healthy as this doesn't sound hard. It's easier than my training. I just don't believe it would make anyone fast. This isn't doubles, this isn't particularly high mileage. This is absolutely basic stuff.
I don't think there's anything you are missing or any big secret.
I think you're absolutely right, it is basic stuff, which is why it has been successful. It is true to the basics that many coaches have known for years, e.g.:
1) Lots of aerobic volume matters
2) Run your easy days easy, recover well
3) Run workouts but not so hard that you can't run again tomorrow or get injured
4) Consistency matters
It's just a way of remixing training whilst remaining faithful to the above principles which are common to all successful training plans.
I don't think there's anything you are missing or any big secret.
I think you're absolutely right, it is basic stuff, which is why it has been successful. It is true to the basics that many coaches have known for years, e.g.:
1) Lots of aerobic volume matters
2) Run your easy days easy, recover well
3) Run workouts but not so hard that you can't run again tomorrow or get injured
4) Consistency matters
It's just a way of remixing training whilst remaining faithful to the above principles which are common to all successful training plans.
I wasn't trying to troll the forum or ruin this thread. I was just pointing out what you have said, that this is such basic stuff and I find it hard to believe a hobby jogger could progress this much. 19 down to 18 is hard, 18 to 17 is very hard and to get down to what is the equivalent of a very low 16 is insanely hard, especially if you have previously shown no real talent to do so, as he was around a high 18 low 19 runner for over a year. This is with dropping ALL speedwork and no vo2 max stuff? I'm sorry but this just add up all within a year and a few months? This isn't a troll, I'm just not buying into what we are being sold in this thread.
I don't think there's anything you are missing or any big secret.
I think you're absolutely right, it is basic stuff, which is why it has been successful. It is true to the basics that many coaches have known for years, e.g.:
1) Lots of aerobic volume matters
2) Run your easy days easy, recover well
3) Run workouts but not so hard that you can't run again tomorrow or get injured
4) Consistency matters
It's just a way of remixing training whilst remaining faithful to the above principles which are common to all successful training plans.
I wasn't trying to troll the forum or ruin this thread. I was just pointing out what you have said, that this is such basic stuff and I find it hard to believe a hobby jogger could progress this much. 19 down to 18 is hard, 18 to 17 is very hard and to get down to what is the equivalent of a very low 16 is insanely hard, especially if you have previously shown no real talent to do so, as he was around a high 18 low 19 runner for over a year. This is with dropping ALL speedwork and no vo2 max stuff? I'm sorry but this just add up all within a year and a few months? This isn't a troll, I'm just not buying into what we are being sold in this thread.
I think the counterpoint to the VO2max and speedwork comments would be:
1) The intervals under this method are still pretty fast, most are completed between marathon and 10km pace. So not 5k pace, but what you miss out in top end speed is made up for with much more volume at faster paces (you could easily clock 20km at HM pace and above in one week - no one is clocking 20km a week at 5km+ pace under traditional plans)
2) Running at or above VO2max is not the only way to stimulate improvements in VO2max. Whilst running at the paces specified may not be such an intense stimulus, they are easier to rack up volume and recover from so the loss of some stimulus is balanced out.
I'm not the individual that prompted your comment, so I can't comment on their progression. As a cyclist though they did clock an 18:xx 10 mile TT before coming to running. So we're not talking about someone with no aerobic conditioning or experience following training plans here!
It is correct that MLSS lands close below CV (CV is faster), by using the standard definition of MLSS. However, this standard MLSS definition is arbitrary as correctly criticized in the paper 'The maximal metabolic steady state: redefining the ‘gold standard’', also referred by you above in post #1062.
To find MLSS you need a lactate meter. The beauty of CV is, that you don't need a lactate meter to find it. That does not mean a lactate measurement during or after a quality session or by a ramp test, is wrong. CV offers a performance indicator which is in my opinion easier to get, and you get an athlete profiling.
And there we are, 10K pace is basically CV pace for Pro athletes but not for amateurs as they need longer to run a 10k. So 10k pace is close below CV for most, and yes a good starting point for the Norwegian method. However, the underlying, lets call it theory, goes deeper.
I think that is why the discussion has irked people. If they aren't elite, then their 5k time is above critical power and their 10k time is below it, so that would basically be their 'max targeted subthreshold' pace served to them on a platter. Unless they want to train/race exactly at threshold or use it as a metric to track their progress instead of race results, which are truly the gold standard measure of performance, then they probably think it's just a distracting academic matter.
The functionality of it all is getting a bit lost. Putting aside how much the duration of the exercise impacts the intensity domains, which perhaps, is best measured in the field using a lactate meter towards the end of the session. They are too impractical to provide the constant data required for highly accurate training under normal training conditions. You wouldn't, for example, whip out a lactate meter while running up a mild hill just to check that you are not over an arbitrary lactate value.
So let me make an argument for running power, or perhaps running velocity. For starters, running power is consistent enough to be used directly as an intensity gauge without getting into the whole debate about whether it's a true measure of power. It's much more responsive than HR. As shown in studies on Stryd, it can be used to derive CP/CV with good accuracy without doing specific time trials, provided there is enough variety in training data(outdoor or indoor). The derived threshold value can be kept up-to-date with no effort by the end user, without them doing any all-out efforts, races, or even anything at threshold.
What I find interesting is that they're eventually going to be able to use stress scores, historic data, weather information, and a complex algorithm to account for all environmental conditions and, for the most part, the state of your body, in order to remove their impact on running power and velocity. You would be able to directly compare a cold, snowy, hilly run in a state of overreaching to a run on a flat surface in perfect weather with fresh legs.
Take this all with a grain of salt because I actually haven't done much testing on this and I'm still a luddite. Most times the watch is at home or being plainly ignored until I look at the data after the run. I did try COROS' Effort Pace but it just managed to distract me since it's delayed by like 10–20 seconds, but in essence it's a customized Grade Adjusted Pace that tracks with power.
Before I get accused of troll, I have read the thread. But I am a bit skeptical.
Do we really think the main guy we talk about here other than jakobs older brother really ran a low 56 for 10 miles when he was barely breaking 19 mins a year ago? It also sounds like he was a 19 runner for a while so it wasn't like he was just passing through that marker. That would almost equate to a low 16 5k this 10 mile he supposedly run and probably on cusp of being a 15 runner. It just doesn't seem plausible on this kind of basic training. When I see something too good to be true, it usually is. Yes, I could accept it maybe if going from a 25 down to a 22. But returns will diminish sub 19 especially and to almost find 3 minutes when then doing zero speedwork or anything runners have done that we know works, well I just don't quite believe it. Maybe we are missing something we aren't being told? I can believe he stays healthy as this doesn't sound hard. It's easier than my training. I just don't believe it would make anyone fast. This isn't doubles, this isn't particularly high mileage. This is absolutely basic stuff.
I follow on Strava and it's legit. What I would highlight though is that he was a top tier cyclist on the UK TT scene. Thus he's probably got a hell of an aerobic base (plus talent) to work from (think capillaries/mitochondria/heart etc), so the improvement is likely much larger/quicker than the run of the mill athlete can expect. Similarly, I saw Tom Domoulin cracked out a 32 min 10k the other day, not bad for a cyclist!
In terms of rate of improvement, he's not alone benefiting from threshold interval focus, this year my hobby jogger partner (female mid 30s) has gone from 39 down to mid 36 for 10k (on a hot day!) typically averaging ~45-50 mpw, by doing threshold sessions twice per week, long run, plus strides with rare top end sessions sprinkled in, which sex-adjusted is probably a similar leap over a similar time frame. She does vary it a bit (eg has 1 rest day per week, sometimes makes the long run a progression, adds/replaces with the elliptical) but the two threshold sessions are the weekly staple. Can't persuade her to do 3 until she stops improving!
As an aside, whilst there appears no fast work in sirpoc's training it's probably worth remembering he races 5k every 3 or 4 weeks which is a decent max stimulus.
It may not work for everyone but this sort of training certainly works for some. If you're time limited and plateaued there's no harm in giving it a go. Personally I'd throw some strides in as well, but that's me.
I wasn't trying to troll the forum or ruin this thread. I was just pointing out what you have said, that this is such basic stuff and I find it hard to believe a hobby jogger could progress this much. 19 down to 18 is hard, 18 to 17 is very hard and to get down to what is the equivalent of a very low 16 is insanely hard, especially if you have previously shown no real talent to do so, as he was around a high 18 low 19 runner for over a year. This is with dropping ALL speedwork and no vo2 max stuff? I'm sorry but this just add up all within a year and a few months? This isn't a troll, I'm just not buying into what we are being sold in this thread.
I think the counterpoint to the VO2max and speedwork comments would be:
1) The intervals under this method are still pretty fast, most are completed between marathon and 10km pace. So not 5k pace, but what you miss out in top end speed is made up for with much more volume at faster paces (you could easily clock 20km at HM pace and above in one week - no one is clocking 20km a week at 5km+ pace under traditional plans)
2) Running at or above VO2max is not the only way to stimulate improvements in VO2max. Whilst running at the paces specified may not be such an intense stimulus, they are easier to rack up volume and recover from so the loss of some stimulus is balanced out.
I'm not the individual that prompted your comment, so I can't comment on their progression. As a cyclist though they did clock an 18:xx 10 mile TT before coming to running. So we're not talking about someone with no aerobic conditioning or experience following training plans here!
Steve Magness's book, specifically the section on training intensity, is pretty interesting on this front, to paraphrase badly/from memory, in well trained distance runners there's minimal gains to be made in vo2max, and little evidence for why vvo2max pace may be a good pace to train at for distance runners, ie the benefits can be gained at other paces (including threshold). For most, time better spent improving LT and RE, which LT intervals do, especially if you rotate through the full range (400s-3k) for the added race specific speeds. Apologies to SM if I've butchered that!
I follow on Strava and it's legit. What I would highlight though is that he was a top tier cyclist on the UK TT scene. Thus he's probably got a hell of an aerobic base (plus talent) to work from (think capillaries/mitochondria/heart etc), so the improvement is likely much larger/quicker than the run of the mill athlete can expect. Similarly, I saw Tom Domoulin cracked out a 32 min 10k the other day, not bad for a cyclist!
In terms of rate of improvement, he's not alone benefiting from threshold interval focus, this year my hobby jogger partner (female mid 30s) has gone from 39 down to mid 36 for 10k (on a hot day!) typically averaging ~45-50 mpw, by doing threshold sessions twice per week, long run, plus strides with rare top end sessions sprinkled in, which sex-adjusted is probably a similar leap over a similar time frame. She does vary it a bit (eg has 1 rest day per week, sometimes makes the long run a progression, adds/replaces with the elliptical) but the two threshold sessions are the weekly staple. Can't persuade her to do 3 until she stops improving!
As an aside, whilst there appears no fast work in sirpoc's training it's probably worth remembering he races 5k every 3 or 4 weeks which is a decent max stimulus.
It may not work for everyone but this sort of training certainly works for some. If you're time limited and plateaued there's no harm in giving it a go. Personally I'd throw some strides in as well, but that's me.
That is excellent improvement! What does her threshold sessions look like?
It is correct that MLSS lands close below CV (CV is faster), by using the standard definition of MLSS. However, this standard MLSS definition is arbitrary as correctly criticized in the paper 'The maximal metabolic steady state: redefining the ‘gold standard’', also referred by you above in post #1062.
To find MLSS you need a lactate meter. The beauty of CV is, that you don't need a lactate meter to find it. That does not mean a lactate measurement during or after a quality session or by a ramp test, is wrong. CV offers a performance indicator which is in my opinion easier to get, and you get an athlete profiling.
And there we are, 10K pace is basically CV pace for Pro athletes but not for amateurs as they need longer to run a 10k. So 10k pace is close below CV for most, and yes a good starting point for the Norwegian method. However, the underlying, lets call it theory, goes deeper.
I think that is why the discussion has irked people. If they aren't elite, then their 5k time is above critical power and their 10k time is below it, so that would basically be their 'max targeted subthreshold' pace served to them on a platter. Unless they want to train/race exactly at threshold or use it as a metric to track their progress instead of race results, which are truly the gold standard measure of performance, then they probably think it's just a distracting academic matter.
The functionality of it all is getting a bit lost. Putting aside how much the duration of the exercise impacts the intensity domains, which perhaps, is best measured in the field using a lactate meter towards the end of the session. They are too impractical to provide the constant data required for highly accurate training under normal training conditions. You wouldn't, for example, whip out a lactate meter while running up a mild hill just to check that you are not over an arbitrary lactate value.
So let me make an argument for running power, or perhaps running velocity. For starters, running power is consistent enough to be used directly as an intensity gauge without getting into the whole debate about whether it's a true measure of power. It's much more responsive than HR. As shown in studies on Stryd, it can be used to derive CP/CV with good accuracy without doing specific time trials, provided there is enough variety in training data(outdoor or indoor). The derived threshold value can be kept up-to-date with no effort by the end user, without them doing any all-out efforts, races, or even anything at threshold.
What I find interesting is that they're eventually going to be able to use stress scores, historic data, weather information, and a complex algorithm to account for all environmental conditions and, for the most part, the state of your body, in order to remove their impact on running power and velocity. You would be able to directly compare a cold, snowy, hilly run in a state of overreaching to a run on a flat surface in perfect weather with fresh legs.
Take this all with a grain of salt because I actually haven't done much testing on this and I'm still a luddite. Most times the watch is at home or being plainly ignored until I look at the data after the run. I did try COROS' Effort Pace but it just managed to distract me since it's delayed by like 10–20 seconds, but in essence it's a customized Grade Adjusted Pace that tracks with power.
You're over complicating it bro. Beauty of what some people discuss on here is the simplicity.
