It is obvious that Sirpoc is very slow twitch. These runner types thrive on lots of threshold type work, and don't need much faster stuff. A more fast twitch runner needs the faster stuff, and will get easily fatigued on such a volume of threshold work. Of course the consistent weekly volume, regardless of make up, is very important.
IMO, the whole fast twitch/slow twitch thing is way overblown. If you are truly doing these workouts at sub-threshold, they’re repeatable. For the fast twitch athlete (okay, I’ll bite) it might be better to do 2x sub threshold and replace the third sub threshold with hills. In my experience, middle distance runners struggle with fatigue from threshold work because they do it way too fast. They’re more speed based, so threshold feels slow to them, and they run it too fast. They probably are disproportionately under trained aerobically, and their threshold is slower than expected.
Is it overblown? Even Marius Bakken mentions that fast-twitch runners might benefit from more conventional approach:
4. The ability to do sprint/strength work is likely influenced somewhat by muscle fiber composition, where I suspect those with slightly more fast-twitch fibers can deal with more of this.
5. Similar to the above point 4 : I suspect that runners with a higher fast-twitch fiber composition may need a more balanced approach and more conventional training including more multi-tier training. There is some unpublished work by professor Brodal where they looked at capillarization on students – that were not runners. They started a running program to see the capillary development, mostly consisting of long endurance runs. Though, when also looking at the students that did not finish the study, an overwhelming number of these had a higher number of fast-twitch fibers in the biopsies – an indication that these may not have responded to the training, and lost interest on the way. At least this is an interesting area to look into, not explored much.
IMO, the whole fast twitch/slow twitch thing is way overblown. If you are truly doing these workouts at sub-threshold, they’re repeatable. For the fast twitch athlete (okay, I’ll bite) it might be better to do 2x sub threshold and replace the third sub threshold with hills. In my experience, middle distance runners struggle with fatigue from threshold work because they do it way too fast. They’re more speed based, so threshold feels slow to them, and they run it too fast. They probably are disproportionately under trained aerobically, and their threshold is slower than expected.
Is it overblown? Even Marius Bakken mentions that fast-twitch runners might benefit from more conventional approach:
4. The ability to do sprint/strength work is likely influenced somewhat by muscle fiber composition, where I suspect those with slightly more fast-twitch fibers can deal with more of this.
5. Similar to the above point 4 : I suspect that runners with a higher fast-twitch fiber composition may need a more balanced approach and more conventional training including more multi-tier training. There is some unpublished work by professor Brodal where they looked at capillarization on students – that were not runners. They started a running program to see the capillary development, mostly consisting of long endurance runs. Though, when also looking at the students that did not finish the study, an overwhelming number of these had a higher number of fast-twitch fibers in the biopsies – an indication that these may not have responded to the training, and lost interest on the way. At least this is an interesting area to look into, not explored much.
It’s overblown in the sense that a lot of “fast twitch” athletes are probably just under trained aerobically. I hear people who have run sub-60 in the quarter (like 57-59) say they’re fast twitch. I would argue that they are not. I’m not saying there isn’t any merit to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch thing. I feel like it’s more likely that people are intermediate and just haven’t trained appropriately. Saying your short distance PRs are better than your longer distance PRs is not sufficient evidence. It could just be indicative of training. I think people are quick to group themselves in a certain category but it takes a bit more effort and time to figure it out.
It’s overblown in the sense that a lot of “fast twitch” athletes are probably just under trained aerobically. I hear people who have run sub-60 in the quarter (like 57-59) say they’re fast twitch. I would argue that they are not. I’m not saying there isn’t any merit to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch thing. I feel like it’s more likely that people are intermediate and just haven’t trained appropriately. Saying your short distance PRs are better than your longer distance PRs is not sufficient evidence. It could just be indicative of training. I think people are quick to group themselves in a certain category but it takes a bit more effort and time to figure it out.
Are they undertrained aerobically? Probably. But isn’t that the point for short power athletes? If you do too much endurance, you actually lower the amount work you can do on the top end. So you can’t actually develop endurance if you’re trying to increase power for short duration work. Seems like there’s a trade-off depending on your target distance.
Im just a dumb engineer. I wish I had a good exphys background.
Is it overblown? Even Marius Bakken mentions that fast-twitch runners might benefit from more conventional approach:
It’s overblown in the sense that a lot of “fast twitch” athletes are probably just under trained aerobically. I hear people who have run sub-60 in the quarter (like 57-59) say they’re fast twitch. I would argue that they are not. I’m not saying there isn’t any merit to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch thing. I feel like it’s more likely that people are intermediate and just haven’t trained appropriately. Saying your short distance PRs are better than your longer distance PRs is not sufficient evidence. It could just be indicative of training. I think people are quick to group themselves in a certain category but it takes a bit more effort and time to figure it out.
It is overblown by some thinking that everyone is the same. They are “under trained aerobically” as you put it because that is the weakness that they are endowed with by being FT. How can you argue that someone is not FT? It is a bit like someone who is gay, they know that they are different. But they keep getting told they are not gay, they just haven’t met the right women.
It’s overblown in the sense that a lot of “fast twitch” athletes are probably just under trained aerobically. I hear people who have run sub-60 in the quarter (like 57-59) say they’re fast twitch. I would argue that they are not. I’m not saying there isn’t any merit to the fast twitch vs. slow twitch thing. I feel like it’s more likely that people are intermediate and just haven’t trained appropriately. Saying your short distance PRs are better than your longer distance PRs is not sufficient evidence. It could just be indicative of training. I think people are quick to group themselves in a certain category but it takes a bit more effort and time to figure it out.
It is overblown by some thinking that everyone is the same. They are “under trained aerobically” as you put it because that is the weakness that they are endowed with by being FT. How can you argue that someone is not FT? It is a bit like someone who is gay, they know that they are different. But they keep getting told they are not gay, they just haven’t met the right women.
The question is more how FT is a distance runner going to be? If you are looking at a 4:00 miler sure one might be say 60% ST and the other 80%. If the dude is 20% st he is running the 400. And if you’re 80% FT, it doesn’t matter how you train. You aren going to find a method that makes you anyhing but mediocre.
odds are thiugh you are like just about everyone else and in the 40-60% range and things like biomechanics matter. I have no doubt I have more Ft% than Kip give. I also have no doubt he ran a 400m 4+s faster than I could.
most of the so called FT are just underttrained. They look at better 100-400 times than 5k and go they are speed based. That just reflects that you hit more of your speed max with zero training. If they did 4 years of 70mpw, a lot of these so called FT runners would learn that they are actually pretty balanced with their best times being in that 800-3k range.
It is overblown by some thinking that everyone is the same. They are “under trained aerobically” as you put it because that is the weakness that they are endowed with by being FT. How can you argue that someone is not FT? It is a bit like someone who is gay, they know that they are different. But they keep getting told they are not gay, they just haven’t met the right women.
The question is more how FT is a distance runner going to be? If you are looking at a 4:00 miler sure one might be say 60% ST and the other 80%. If the dude is 20% st he is running the 400. And if you’re 80% FT, it doesn’t matter how you train. You aren going to find a method that makes you anyhing but mediocre.
odds are thiugh you are like just about everyone else and in the 40-60% range and things like biomechanics matter. I have no doubt I have more Ft% than Kip give. I also have no doubt he ran a 400m 4+s faster than I could.
most of the so called FT are just underttrained. They look at better 100-400 times than 5k and go they are speed based. That just reflects that you hit more of your speed max with zero training. If they did 4 years of 70mpw, a lot of these so called FT runners would learn that they are actually pretty balanced with their best times being in that 800-3k range.
Exactly. I think I’m doing a poor job of articulating my point. We’re really not talking about 4:00 milers in this thread, but the explanation above by Ffff still stands. What I am talking about applies to individuals running quite a bit slower. Yes, a sub-1:50 800 guy that is “fast twitch” will train differently than a 13:30 5k guy or a 28:00 10k guy. 99% of us are not these guys. I mentioned the 60s quarter runner in my previous post. That’s more what I am getting at. So many people will say definitively that they are “fast twitch” or “slow twitch” based on minimal data. It’s just getting way too far into the weeds when the majority of us are most likely in the middle. You’re better off just trying the training than fretting over whether or not you’re “fast twitch” and should be doing things differently.
It is overblown by some thinking that everyone is the same. They are “under trained aerobically” as you put it because that is the weakness that they are endowed with by being FT. How can you argue that someone is not FT? It is a bit like someone who is gay, they know that they are different. But they keep getting told they are not gay, they just haven’t met the right women.
The question is more how FT is a distance runner going to be? If you are looking at a 4:00 miler sure one might be say 60% ST and the other 80%. If the dude is 20% st he is running the 400. And if you’re 80% FT, it doesn’t matter how you train. You aren going to find a method that makes you anyhing but mediocre.
odds are thiugh you are like just about everyone else and in the 40-60% range and things like biomechanics matter. I have no doubt I have more Ft% than Kip give. I also have no doubt he ran a 400m 4+s faster than I could.
most of the so called FT are just underttrained. They look at better 100-400 times than 5k and go they are speed based. That just reflects that you hit more of your speed max with zero training. If they did 4 years of 70mpw, a lot of these so called FT runners would learn that they are actually pretty balanced with their best times being in that 800-3k range.
We are not talking about elites here. An elite sprinter is not going to train as a distance runner.
However, a non elite sprinter, once he gets into his 30s is too old to sprint. He wants to keep running and joins a running club, to train for 10ks, marathons etc. He still has the physiology of a sprinter. Every running club will have a few of these runners. He may well be mediocre, but can still race decent age group times. I agree that 70 mpw will make him pretty decent, with the caveat of whether his physiology can withstand that. I disagree that he will learn that he is not FT and is pretty balanced. If that was the case, it is unlikely he would have been a natural sprinter. Most coaches accept that a FT type has to train slightly differently when it comes to the specifics of threshold running.
The question is more how FT is a distance runner going to be? If you are looking at a 4:00 miler sure one might be say 60% ST and the other 80%. If the dude is 20% st he is running the 400. And if you’re 80% FT, it doesn’t matter how you train. You aren going to find a method that makes you anyhing but mediocre.
odds are thiugh you are like just about everyone else and in the 40-60% range and things like biomechanics matter. I have no doubt I have more Ft% than Kip give. I also have no doubt he ran a 400m 4+s faster than I could.
most of the so called FT are just underttrained. They look at better 100-400 times than 5k and go they are speed based. That just reflects that you hit more of your speed max with zero training. If they did 4 years of 70mpw, a lot of these so called FT runners would learn that they are actually pretty balanced with their best times being in that 800-3k range.
We are not talking about elites here. An elite sprinter is not going to train as a distance runner.
However, a non elite sprinter, once he gets into his 30s is too old to sprint. He wants to keep running and joins a running club, to train for 10ks, marathons etc. He still has the physiology of a sprinter. Every running club will have a few of these runners. He may well be mediocre, but can still race decent age group times. I agree that 70 mpw will make him pretty decent, with the caveat of whether his physiology can withstand that. I disagree that he will learn that he is not FT and is pretty balanced. If that was the case, it is unlikely he would have been a natural sprinter. Most coaches accept that a FT type has to train slightly differently when it comes to the specifics of threshold running.
Whoa, whoa. Who says 30 is too old to sprint? :) I still think you’re making big assumptions here but I get the overall point. You could argue that, if the former sprinter is not elite, then they probably aren’t fast twitch. They’re more intermediate. To be an elite sprinter, you need to have a ton of fast twitch. If you’re sub elite, then your physiology is probably not optimized for that. Idk how sub-elite we are talking here but it’s just so far into the weeds. I think we’re splitting hairs. I just don’t think it matters all that much. You could also argue that this sub-elite sprinter doesn’t have the physiology to be good at the marathon no matter how they train and they will always get beat by their slow twitch competitors and will never be a good age grouper. The whole point of this thread is to keep things simple. Talking about muscle type is definitely complicating things. David Roche, of Some Work All Play, mentions on his podcast often that he is fast twitch. He used to be a football player. He runs ultras now. His training isn’t really different than what most ultra runners do. He talks about how he has gradually shifted his physiology over time. I don’t know nearly enough about exercise physiology to know if this is even possible, but it’s an example of what we are talking about: a fast twitch guy who used to be in an explosive power event who does longer stuff in his 30’s.
We are not talking about elites here. An elite sprinter is not going to train as a distance runner.
However, a non elite sprinter, once he gets into his 30s is too old to sprint. He wants to keep running and joins a running club, to train for 10ks, marathons etc. He still has the physiology of a sprinter. Every running club will have a few of these runners. He may well be mediocre, but can still race decent age group times. I agree that 70 mpw will make him pretty decent, with the caveat of whether his physiology can withstand that. I disagree that he will learn that he is not FT and is pretty balanced. If that was the case, it is unlikely he would have been a natural sprinter. Most coaches accept that a FT type has to train slightly differently when it comes to the specifics of threshold running.
Whoa, whoa. Who says 30 is too old to sprint? :) I still think you’re making big assumptions here but I get the overall point. You could argue that, if the former sprinter is not elite, then they probably aren’t fast twitch. They’re more intermediate. To be an elite sprinter, you need to have a ton of fast twitch. If you’re sub elite, then your physiology is probably not optimized for that. Idk how sub-elite we are talking here but it’s just so far into the weeds. I think we’re splitting hairs. I just don’t think it matters all that much. You could also argue that this sub-elite sprinter doesn’t have the physiology to be good at the marathon no matter how they train and they will always get beat by their slow twitch competitors and will never be a good age grouper. The whole point of this thread is to keep things simple. Talking about muscle type is definitely complicating things. David Roche, of Some Work All Play, mentions on his podcast often that he is fast twitch. He used to be a football player. He runs ultras now. His training isn’t really different than what most ultra runners do. He talks about how he has gradually shifted his physiology over time. I don’t know nearly enough about exercise physiology to know if this is even possible, but it’s an example of what we are talking about: a fast twitch guy who used to be in an explosive power event who does longer stuff in his 30’s.
Yeah, some do continue a sprint career well into old age. I used 30s as that is when most lose their top end speed, and also injury risk increases.
It is all relative, someone can be FT, but not have the biomechanics, body shape, or strength to be elite. Similarly, someone can be extremely ST, but because of poor biomechanics, can be beaten in a long distance race by someone more FT. However, the two types of physiology generally generate higher/lower lactate levels, clear lactate slower/faster, and recover differently. My understanding is that these differences can’t be trained away.
Threshold training, which is what this thread is about, is one area where the training may have to be more suited to the runner, rather than generic.
We are getting too much into the weeds, and probably best to leave it here.
Just seen Strava group, sirpoc runs 16:13 to destroy his PB. I do wonder what more needs to be done for people to take notice . When will the progress stop. He run nothing even near this pace in training. It remarkable.
Been following this thread. This is pretty crazy. The progress is maybe the most astounding I've followed on a letsrun thread. Does anyone as old as me here remember some of the classic threads where people chase ridiculous times or train like morons? Late runner Phil comes to mind. Whereas this just seems so sensible and actually when you strip it back , pretty boring but safe, yet to go from a stagnated Daniels type style runner to absolutely wrecking PBs on a regular basis. I'm genuinely curious as to where this ends. What I find even more remarkable - this has been glossed over in the thread - I've read it through. Is nobody seems to burn out or suffer any real dramatic injuries.
This sounds inspiring...even for a 21-22 5k runner, this could get them under 20 easily over a few months' time.
Thresholds around 7:15-7:20 pace every other day (for whatever duration (3-4 or 6-7 mins/distance--1k or 2k), EZ runs the other days, a LR on Saturday. Nothing too crazy about it.
One additional question I had is in regards to when you all start th workout phase. Do you go straight from the warmup period into your first workout rep, or do you rest for a minute or so, stretch, etc. before starting that first rep. I see that no strides are typical done between warmup jog and workout reps, but wasn't sure if there is any sort of pause between the warmup and start of the workout. Thanks in a advance!
I think this becomes a matter of personal preference. I still do some mobility/drills after my warm up.
Thank you also for your contributions. You, sirpoc84 and shirtboy are amazing...if this can take an old, slow 21-min. perpetual 5ker down into the 18s I'd send you $ if I could...
It's not just moderate per say, he's working just below LT2 which is the optimal zone for working one of the most trainable parts of your aerobic system. You can bring your threshold pace up much closer to your v02 max pace by doing this, without actually training the v02 max zone, which is much less trainable anyway by directly targetting.
He's also running close to 100k a week now with 90 mins of this at threshold. If you do this properly and don't over train for 2 or 3 months you will seriously see the gains. IMO he could be doing it even more specific by using a treadmill for workouts which would allow to control for a lot more variables, but when you're doing the thresholds properly they are going to gradually get faster. I think it's entirely realistic to get these sorts of gains tbh
I'm not sure I'm buying it completely either. We have had all these threads over the years of guys spending a whole lifetime trying to break 1:15 etc and getting nowhere near. Yet some random 40 year old dude who was a solid but slow ish 18:50 runner does what most serious runners would consider pretty easy workouts, 3x a week and what most serious runners would consider 4 days really slow and that's it? You crack 1:15? If that's the case he's just put all coaches out of a job and we should all just follow this. It cannot be that simple.
It really does sound that simple. I joined that Strava club and there are tons of good discussion there.
EZ, threshold (single or double, whatever you can do), EZ, threshold (single or double), EZ, LR, rest day
I havre previously posted , but I have also joined that Strava group. It's excellent. I'm not sure who the guy on there was today replying to the lactate steps thread, but very insightful.
I would add Hard2find to the list. I found his charts on here most useful . Sirpoc isn't hard to find, he's one of the admin I think and the bike pic gives it away. Are jiggy, shirtboy or Hard2find there? Sorry if I forgot anyone else, but those are the real props of this thread.
Jecht would probably do well with it but take into account it isn’t a magic pill. It’s simple smart training with purpose and doesn’t require you to obsessively focus on an easy HR and “closing the show”.
run easy (easy, not slow but easy), two controlled CONTROLLED workouts a week with a long run and a good amount of mileage in between.
stuff like this might not translate well to a 50 mpw marathoner
On 30 mpw how much volume should I be putting into these workouts? I did 18:14 this morning at parkrun. Workout during the week was 5x1k at 6:20 (final rep was a bit faster).
On 30 mpw how much volume should I be putting into these workouts? I did 18:14 this morning at parkrun. Workout during the week was 5x1k at 6:20 (final rep was a bit faster).
About 5 km worth of sub threshold volume per session at ~ 30 mpw.
I havre previously posted , but I have also joined that Strava group. It's excellent. I'm not sure who the guy on there was today replying to the lactate steps thread, but very insightful.
I would add Hard2find to the list. I found his charts on here most useful . Sirpoc isn't hard to find, he's one of the admin I think and the bike pic gives it away. Are jiggy, shirtboy or Hard2find there? Sorry if I forgot anyone else, but those are the real props of this thread.
Merry Christmas everyone.
I've never used Strava but registered to look at this group. How do you find it? It only lets me search for athletes (I don't know anyone's name on there) or clubs (real life ones). Could someone post the link to this group please?
Want to share a bit here to help demonstrate how important it is to individualize your training/paces. 25M, 5k pb of 19:11 and recently ran 19:35. Super interested in this method for the sake of longevity and lack of burnout. I had suspicion I was quite aerobically deficient as the 9:00 easy runs I was doing kind of trashed me over time and I could never have consistency in volume across weeks.
this week I got a lactate test and discovered I am quite aerobically deficient and my LT1 pace is 10:32 and LT2 is 8:02. Pretty crazy someone who raced 3 miles recently at 6:18 pace has a LT 2 mins slower about.
I am sharing this because had I listened to the calculators and race conversion equations, I would wind up absolutely trashing myself in workouts running them way over my LT2. If this system is something you all would like to try, I would highly recommend either lactate testing or doing the HR drift test to approximate LT2 and the friel 30 min test to approximate LT2.
Want to share a bit here to help demonstrate how important it is to individualize your training/paces. 25M, 5k pb of 19:11 and recently ran 19:35. Super interested in this method for the sake of longevity and lack of burnout. I had suspicion I was quite aerobically deficient as the 9:00 easy runs I was doing kind of trashed me over time and I could never have consistency in volume across weeks.
this week I got a lactate test and discovered I am quite aerobically deficient and my LT1 pace is 10:32 and LT2 is 8:02. Pretty crazy someone who raced 3 miles recently at 6:18 pace has a LT 2 mins slower about.
I am sharing this because had I listened to the calculators and race conversion equations, I would wind up absolutely trashing myself in workouts running them way over my LT2. If this system is something you all would like to try, I would highly recommend either lactate testing or doing the HR drift test to approximate LT2 and the friel 30 min test to approximate LT2.
One thing I would say the guys who have been so helpful in this thread made early, was if you are unsure, go slower than the guide paces. it's much better to do slower than too fast . Caution is the key here and has been the theme of thread