I am a average to good runner, 1:22 , even i am running longer and faster on my weekly long run.
The issue here is that you are running longer and faster long runs but you run only a 1:22 HM, when sirpoc (or KI) is much faster than you, running shorter and slower long runs.
It's hard to take this thread seriously, when I log onto the Strava group and see sirpoc thinking 90 mins is a long run. Absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe nobody has mentioned this properly yet. No wonder his 5k is better than his HM. Maybe you can get away with this on 5ks. But how do you expect to run a HM on 90 min long run at his slow paces a week? I am a average to good runner, 1:22 , even i am running longer and faster on my weekly long run.
Method to the madness, or just madness or lack of running knowledge?
Many years ago, when I started running, I joined a club where runners competed in everything from 800m to half marathon. The long run was a weekly (when not racing) 90 mins run. We had a 63 and a 64 min guys. Then all the way up to 1:21 What are you saying? That those would be 61 and 62 min guys if they ran 2 hours for their long run?
Maybe. But who says you couldn't be faster than 1:22 if you trained differently? Only one way to find out.
It's hard to take this thread seriously, when I log onto the Strava group and see sirpoc thinking 90 mins is a long run. Absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe nobody has mentioned this properly yet. No wonder his 5k is better than his HM. Maybe you can get away with this on 5ks. But how do you expect to run a HM on 90 min long run at his slow paces a week? I am a average to good runner, 1:22 , even i am running longer and faster on my weekly long run.
Method to the madness, or just madness or lack of running knowledge?
Thank you for highlighting this!
A taxing long run is another training idea that this approach challenges. I get it, I’m shocked as well that folks can get such great results off of just a 75 min long run. You said that his HM is not as good as his 5k….barely. Looking at how tightly coupled spiroc’s 5k, 10k, 10mile and HM times are is just astounding. Like thread voyager said earlier, it’s as if specificity (long run in this case for the HM) is irrelevant if you have a great base.
Some who follow this method like to put their Sub T into a long run to get better specificity for the HM. But the point is that no one session matters that much, it’s about maximizing total training quality/volume. So the question isn’t should I do a longer long run, it’s how much is that going to cost me and the overall approach? People respond to training differently. Maybe you can do a more taxing long run and bounce back for 3 sub Ts after (doubt it).
This training methodology isn’t saying that any type of training is bad. It’s not saying that a long run isn’t valuable. It’s just saying that long term load is the greatest predictor of performance (which some disagree with, that’s fine.)
So if you accept that CTL is the main driver, no single session is that important, including the long run. You have a training budget. With a budget, you can’t have it all. That’s why I think it’s important to articulate what this training is NOT, so going in, you know and accept the trade offs. And maybe those trade offs aren’t for you, but I’m going to give it a try :)
It's hard to take this thread seriously, when I log onto the Strava group and see sirpoc thinking 90 mins is a long run. Absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe nobody has mentioned this properly yet. No wonder his 5k is better than his HM. Maybe you can get away with this on 5ks. But how do you expect to run a HM on 90 min long run at his slow paces a week? I am a average to good runner, 1:22 , even i am running longer and faster on my weekly long run.
Method to the madness, or just madness or lack of running knowledge?
Thank you for highlighting this!
A taxing long run is another training idea that this approach challenges. I get it, I’m shocked as well that folks can get such great results off of just a 75 min long run. You said that his HM is not as good as his 5k….barely. Looking at how tightly coupled spiroc’s 5k, 10k, 10mile and HM times are is just astounding. Like thread voyager said earlier, it’s as if specificity (long run in this case for the HM) is irrelevant if you have a great base.
Some who follow this method like to put their Sub T into a long run to get better specificity for the HM. But the point is that no one session matters that much, it’s about maximizing total training quality/volume. So the question isn’t should I do a longer long run, it’s how much is that going to cost me and the overall approach? People respond to training differently. Maybe you can do a more taxing long run and bounce back for 3 sub Ts after (doubt it).
This training methodology isn’t saying that any type of training is bad. It’s not saying that a long run isn’t valuable. It’s just saying that long term load is the greatest predictor of performance (which some disagree with, that’s fine.)
So if you accept that CTL is the main driver, no single session is that important, including the long run. You have a training budget. With a budget, you can’t have it all. That’s why I think it’s important to articulate what this training is NOT, so going in, you know and accept the trade offs. And maybe those trade offs aren’t for you, but I’m going to give it a try :)
I am. It shocked since the 5k-hm are basically the same event when you are getting in enough miles so you can 13.1 comfortably. A 90min run does that. Race a 1500 or a marathon and I expect some divergence. Load matters a ton but the specifics do matter a little bit. Maybe a k specific training block would drop that PR by 20s. Most of 3k-marathon running is the same build a big vo2max and get a high LT threshold. The specific work matters when going for those last seconds.
would spiroc be running faster with 2 of the workouts, A 2 hour long run and a dozen strides? Or heck just alternating a long run with a 3rd workout over the training cycle. Who knows. But if you are still improving, keep doing what you are doing. When you stall out, change it up.
Love the thread and Strava group. Even as a slow 5k hobby runner I've found this approach really useful, especially as an ex sprinter with zero idea how you lokg distance guys train! I saw someone else mention conversations about running, love those guys and have messaged them on Facebook , they are called "running trips" on there, but you can easily find them by also searching conversations about running to find the page. Would be awesome to hook them and sirpoc up. I'm sure he'd do it, he's shared some incredibly useful information with me via DM on Strava. I honestly think it would only take a few pods or to do the rounds and this approach would truly blow up. The only issue with the thread as amazing as it is, it's not quite linear. Just my thoughts anyway. Maybe if other people were interested in hearing more they could also suggest it to her conversations about running guys. The Norwegian pods they have produced, this feels like a natural home and they don't rush things. As this will need at least two parts to do it justice.
I'm slow, really slow, but I did break 21 over the weekend training like this, for context. I was stuck in a mid 22 for a while. I'm sub 11 seconds PB for the 100 but I feel like if I can ever break 20 , that will be a bigger achievement!
I think we need to lose the impression that thresholding is a high mileage approach.
Running involves redundancy. Your body uses various systems to move and you can train it to perform the same movements in different ways.
You can choose to focus training speed, you can focus on aerobic. These are two equally valid ways of skinning the cat. Its not about volume. Its that training aerobic system will have a top down effect to improve short distances that is just as useful as a bottom up approach directly targetting speed endurance.
Love the thread and Strava group. Even as a slow 5k hobby runner I've found this approach really useful, especially as an ex sprinter with zero idea how you lokg distance guys train! ...
I'm slow, really slow, but I did break 21 over the weekend training like this, for context. I was stuck in a mid 22 for a while. I'm sub 11 seconds PB for the 100 but I feel like if I can ever break 20 , that will be a bigger achievement!
Love the post, as another ex-sprinter. It's really easy to run really fast for 100, yet really hard to run really slow for 5K. That's a frustrating equation to live with. I've started on this method to try and break 20 as well. Keeping the pace and HR down is a challenge but having this framework and discussion is helping a lot in keeping the longer term context in mind while training.
Thank you for this--did you do the threshold stuff for 8-12 weeks, re-test at your new fitness, run the 10k, then re-adjust the threshold paces to your new race times?
I.e. right now I am in 21:xx 5k shape and will do the thresholds based on that CURRENT pace. Then after 8-12 weeks of doing 5x2000, 3x3000, 10x10000 w/EZ runs on other days, re-test 5k and get 20:xx. Then use the thresholds at the 20:xx equivalent on the TMN or JD calculator and do the same thing for another 8-12 weeks?
I actually messaged sirpoc this on Strava, now they finally added a private message feature. He always seems happy to reply and I asked him this exact question. He said with regards to this, that usually he just waits for a race result to shift his paces , but if he goes a while and feels like he is faster he will shift based on a session like 3*3200 becoming faster for the same RPE or HR per lap. When he's done this, the race result shortly after would usually confirm this anyway. But that the beauty of this system over since he has done this for well over year now is that you become familiar with the performance patterns. I hope that sort of answers your question as I was very curious about this exact thing myself.
Thank you! I'd rather do it for a long time, re-test, and be safe. I don't race too often to begin with.
Thank you for this--did you do the threshold stuff for 8-12 weeks, re-test at your new fitness, run the 10k, then re-adjust the threshold paces to your new race times?
I.e. right now I am in 21:xx 5k shape and will do the thresholds based on that CURRENT pace. Then after 8-12 weeks of doing 5x2000, 3x3000, 10x10000 w/EZ runs on other days, re-test 5k and get 20:xx. Then use the thresholds at the 20:xx equivalent on the TMN or JD calculator and do the same thing for another 8-12 weeks?
Yes, I think this is good (current pace + retest + consider effort since it won’t be the same at the same pace for every workout and it looks like you’re not doing lactate tests). How did you prep for this workout schedule? That is, what has your average weekly mileage been for the couple of months prior to this? Is that all on 5-7 days/week? Have you been doing any other workouts recently, or are you just resuming workouts now? Are you jumping right into 5 x 2000?
(I’m assuming the 10x10000 is a typo for 10x1000, of course … unless you’ve prepped for it with 5x18)
Yes, I meant to type 10x1000, not 10x10000 ;) I want to run a 3:07 marathon someday and change my name to Gregggg too...:p
This thread is really, really stupid. If anyone thinks this is optimal on time crunched then they need their heads testing. There is a reasons there are multiple editions of Daniel's books and they are best selling. The reason being it's almost certainly the best way to train on time crunched. Spoiler people, this is why he has different levels of training plans as well.
I doubt you even feel like you have done a workout at some of these paces mentioned here. The easy pace, you probably don't even need a shower afterwards. You guys are nuts. You are putting Daniels in the bin to follow Jakob's slow older brother and some random British dude who used to ride a bike. Seriously, everyone just breathe and think about that for a minute. You guys are nuts.
The random British dude made huge gains, and he himself said he's not fast. It gives the rest of us hope we can improve no matter what level we are at.
You are putting Daniels in the bin to follow Jakob's slow older brother and some random British dude who used to ride a bike. Seriously, everyone just breathe and think about that for a minute. You guys are nuts.
I'll follow Joe Biden's running routine if it gets me a PB. This stuff is working, I couldn't care less who came up with it.
Same here--I'll sniff around until I find the solution ;) I'm being cheeky here but whatevs
I can only speak for myself, but in 2020 right before the Pandemic I did more of the conventional stuff ~ VO2 to the well workouts, easier runs "harder" etc. I was training as hard as I had since college/right after it. I was dealing with sicknesses, fatigue etc decently often as a result. My BK Half race got cancelled (due to COVID), and I did some Time Trials instead. I managed an OK mile time trial (course was short ~ probably a 4:50). I tanked a 3K time trial, and I was feeling pretty done with post-collegiate training. Meanwhile since then, I adopted a lot of the principles in this thread and despite being older, I feel fresher in training than ever before. I've run faster in the mile on abbreviated buildups (two years in a row), and I've found the principles work well for the marathon/half as well (with the adjustment of long runs). Yes running long reps with short rest can be a bit "boring," but staying healthy and improving is the right type of boring as opposed to crashing and burning.
Updating this, but can only say the training is feeling great. Have put together about 12 solid weeks. I am training for a marathon and there arent fast 5ks around (maybe I should hit the track, though I don’t have spikes). I am starting to get in the routine of a short threshold (400-1000) and long threshold (1600-2400) with 1’ rests in each week and a long run typically with some tempo/threshold. I have a hilly 4-mile soon and hope to drop a big PB.
This is extremely helpful. Even if a 5k is only 21:xx (6:45-7:05 pace) the threshold-y paces for this are a doable 7:35 on the fast end to 8:02 for the slower intervals...
In a way, it reminds me of an inverse of Maffetone training (obviously not the same thing) in that we are training at a set speed and naturally improving effort to hit that set speed (within the 7:35-8:02 sub-threshold range) over a long time. Maffetone is training at a set effort and watching speed improve at that set effort (HR).
I think one of the reasons this has been such an insightful discussion for many is that this method produces fantastic results in a commonsense way, YET flies in the face of foundational training philosophies. There have been several in disbelief of the results achieved. I think behind their troll appearance may be genuine questions of WHY this works.
Like Summary shared, here was a great post around page 60 summarizing what this training methodology IS, and I think it would also be fruitful to summarize what this is NOT and WHY. Below are common training ideas that are challenged in this approach. Note that these comments are for 5k-HM not the Marathon, which is a different beast.
Periodization: No up weeks or down weeks. No weeks with shifting focus. No peaking. Just settle into your maximum sustainable training load and repeat. This not only works for hobby joggers from this thread, but also for the elites coach by Grete Koens. Perhaps periodization is an engineered way to handle a training system that inherently tears you down more than it builds you up?
Progressive Overload: The workouts do not need to progress for you to progress. There will be a ceiling to this approach, but it will take a surprisingly long time and will take you much higher than other approaches. There is a progression, but it looks more like season over season rather than week over week.
Variety: Variety is overrated (and helps coaches keep their jobs). Running is simple. A 5k is 95-99% an aerobic event. Variety works in fields like investing because there is no way to know for certain what will pay off. But in running, we know what trains the aerobic system with little cost: easy running and sub threshold running. In this case, the best investment strategy is going all in what we know works FOR THE LEAST COST.
Specificity: This is a big one. Perhaps a good way of looking at this methodology is that the quality of a session is determined by how little recovery time it costs you, rather than how strong the stimulus is in preparing you for the event. Adaptations take a long time, so any stimulus will need to be highly repeatable for it to have any effect. To stimulate the demands of an event there will need to be ample recover, resulting in lower overall training load due to needed recovery time. Better to keep aerobic load high and humming along, and just freshen up as needed before events. Grete Koens does this approach for her elites as well. She says that the 1 specific session before a major event are more to convince the athlete they can perform, rather than any underlying physiology. Training at 5k pace consistently WILL make you more efficient at 5k pace—however, it will cost you. And it’s the cost that matters in the long term (injury/ overall training load). Also, racing fairly frequently helps with performance. Often, a 5k race is less taxing than a 5k specific session!
Speed Training: I love strides. I’m surprised that KI and Spiroc don’t do them. But it makes sense, because the likelihood that speed is the limiting factor for hobbyjoggers like me is very low. We are all aerobically undertrained, and no amount of short speed will make up for that.
I hope this helps summarize what this training is NOT. I'd love to hear y'alls thoughts!
It's hard to take this thread seriously, when I log onto the Strava group and see sirpoc thinking 90 mins is a long run. Absolutely ridiculous and I can't believe nobody has mentioned this properly yet. No wonder his 5k is better than his HM. Maybe you can get away with this on 5ks. But how do you expect to run a HM on 90 min long run at his slow paces a week? I am a average to good runner, 1:22 , even i am running longer and faster on my weekly long run.
Method to the madness, or just madness or lack of running knowledge?
Thank you for highlighting this!
A taxing long run is another training idea that this approach challenges. I get it, I’m shocked as well that folks can get such great results off of just a 75 min long run. You said that his HM is not as good as his 5k….barely. Looking at how tightly coupled spiroc’s 5k, 10k, 10mile and HM times are is just astounding. Like thread voyager said earlier, it’s as if specificity (long run in this case for the HM) is irrelevant if you have a great base.
Some who follow this method like to put their Sub T into a long run to get better specificity for the HM. But the point is that no one session matters that much, it’s about maximizing total training quality/volume. So the question isn’t should I do a longer long run, it’s how much is that going to cost me and the overall approach? People respond to training differently. Maybe you can do a more taxing long run and bounce back for 3 sub Ts after (doubt it).
This training methodology isn’t saying that any type of training is bad. It’s not saying that a long run isn’t valuable. It’s just saying that long term load is the greatest predictor of performance (which some disagree with, that’s fine.)
So if you accept that CTL is the main driver, no single session is that important, including the long run. You have a training budget. With a budget, you can’t have it all. That’s why I think it’s important to articulate what this training is NOT, so going in, you know and accept the trade offs. And maybe those trade offs aren’t for you, but I’m going to give it a try :)
The Hadd "clock analogy" comes into play here. I'm hoping this training will help bring 5k/10k/13.1/26.2 all together on that watchface.
I just thought I would post up whilst I have a chance today, as there has been a bit of renewed talk here this week and a few questions that have come up.
Firstly, would I be quicker if I did X instead of Y? That's difficult to answer, but again I feel that this comes back to to specificity is a very small factor in the bigger picture. If anyone is in the Strava group, Hard2Find has made an absolutely amazing spreadsheet where you can run models and prepare different training weeks and calculate what load it will bring. He is way smarter than me, myself him, jiggy and shirtboy started discussing something like this only a few days ago and its already made and into version 3 or 4. This won't necessarily answer what makes someone quicker, but is probably the best and most powerful planning tool I've seen made specifically for runners, maybe ever.
Which brings be onto a second point, about how I don't specifically feel sub threshold is anything magical, just how my experience from cycling shows it gives the best bang for your buck when it comes to CTL. Now, I have been speaking to a number of old friends who I used to communicate training ideas and sharing of data with when cycling recently, talking to them about training makeup and how it matches or indexes to overall CTL and performance. The difference seemed to range from virtually no difference for me (in terms of getting to a certain CTL was all that mattered, no matter how), to most other people over years of data, seeing some difference in training makeup to get to a certain CTL and what power output that resulted in. So the spread in all of our data, was from about 0% difference right up to 11%. One of the guys had a lot of data on swimmers he coached and found the same sort of thing. His suggested was that a reasonable training plan (he mentioned a Maglischo as a baseline) would probably sway around 5% up and down based on the worst conceivable way to train you could think of (totally unstructured) to the best bang for your buck on around 5-10 hours, which appeared in most cases to be sub threshold.
In case anyone is unclear on what I am saying here, the example might here my FTP might be 300w on a pretty normal looking textbook training schedule, for a CTL of lets say 80. A totally unstructured and just riding/running randomly makeup, might mean I need a bit more CTL, lets say 85, to reach 300w. But it might only take a CTL of maybe a bit less than 80, to reach 300w when doing sub threshold work. Now, one thing it also does appear, as the hours increase and you are less time crunched, the gap looks to probably close a bit and the options you also have of makeup of training, shrinks as well as you will be doing 80%+ or more very easy work, whereas I am sticking by to 75-25%. Why is this the case? who knows, probably all TSS isn't created equal, maybe a traditional training program for any of the aerobic sports has more vo2 work than you need and it tires you out for everything else. Maybe there is another reason.
So the big question is, how does looking at top amateur riders and a bunch of swimmers (which I must stress, is not pulled from scientific studies) transfer to running? Well as I have said before, I have seen the same play out in my own running training. Will it be the same for everyone? probably not, but if we had another data long term, I am sure we would see the patterns there. One of the main problems is runners don't seem to collect data about their own training accurately, which is the main issue. Even if they have years worth of data, they aren't updating thresholds, zones (sorry Coggan, I mean levels) so their actual daily TSS and overall CTL lacks accuracy.
Could you probably ice the cake better if you want to train for a specific event? Probably. If you absolutely only were going to do 5ks, should you try and find a balance of some sort of 5k pace or vo2 max work? Probably. Is it going to be the limiting factor for a hobby jogger? Probably not. The other good thing about training like this is you can pretty much be in peak shape for a range of events , 5k to HM I am within a few seconds of where I want to be.
Right, that's long enough on that, but it's something quite a few people have asked me about lately so thought I would spend some time going through some of where I am at on it.
A couple of other of small notes. I've come to the conclusion this is about 5-8.5 hours max here as the sweetspot, to running this sweetspot stuff, excuse the pun, on this singles approach. You could maybe do a touch less, but having thought about it more I don't think you will be getting the benefit . The third session is the key to creating that extra bit of load, week in, week out that all adds up in the end. Anything much less than 5 hours, realistically you are losing the benefit as it just doesn't give you enough hours for 3 sessions and to keep things fresh and sustainable.
Two other updates. No I don't run 400s anymore. They didn't create anymore or less lactate and they trash my legs for the next day more (I've dumped them for a while and still improving at the same linear rate in the 5k) and I've upped the rest to 2 mins on the 3200 because in the week in the route I run after work, there's a road I need to cross and it takes more than the 1 minute rest to get over it ha ha so literally no special reason. Same with doing 1600s not 2ks. No actual reason other than that I don't have to cross a road mid run. A bit random, but I saw these questions somewhere in the thread a while back and forgot to answer them!
P.S I'm not sure who made me guardian of the thread. There's other guys way smarter than me here. My only skill I think is learning quite quickly what works and what doesn't when it comes to training. If this has all helped anyone over the last 7-8 months, that's awesome. I'm under no illusions myself that I am as good as running as I was cycling, but I am still enjoying it and still improving. I turn 40 next month, fingers crossed I can make it to Sub 16 before then.
I just thought I would post up whilst I have a chance today, as there has been a bit of renewed talk here this week and a few questions that have come up.
Firstly, would I be quicker if I did X instead of Y? That's difficult to answer, but again I feel that this comes back to to specificity is a very small factor in the bigger picture. If anyone is in the Strava group, Hard2Find has made an absolutely amazing spreadsheet where you can run models and prepare different training weeks and calculate what load it will bring. He is way smarter than me, myself him, jiggy and shirtboy started discussing something like this only a few days ago and its already made and into version 3 or 4. This won't necessarily answer what makes someone quicker, but is probably the best and most powerful planning tool I've seen made specifically for runners, maybe ever.
Which brings be onto a second point, about how I don't specifically feel sub threshold is anything magical, just how my experience from cycling shows it gives the best bang for your buck when it comes to CTL. Now, I have been speaking to a number of old friends who I used to communicate training ideas and sharing of data with when cycling recently, talking to them about training makeup and how it matches or indexes to overall CTL and performance. The difference seemed to range from virtually no difference for me (in terms of getting to a certain CTL was all that mattered, no matter how), to most other people over years of data, seeing some difference in training makeup to get to a certain CTL and what power output that resulted in. So the spread in all of our data, was from about 0% difference right up to 11%. One of the guys had a lot of data on swimmers he coached and found the same sort of thing. His suggested was that a reasonable training plan (he mentioned a Maglischo as a baseline) would probably sway around 5% up and down based on the worst conceivable way to train you could think of (totally unstructured) to the best bang for your buck on around 5-10 hours, which appeared in most cases to be sub threshold.
In case anyone is unclear on what I am saying here, the example might here my FTP might be 300w on a pretty normal looking textbook training schedule, for a CTL of lets say 80. A totally unstructured and just riding/running randomly makeup, might mean I need a bit more CTL, lets say 85, to reach 300w. But it might only take a CTL of maybe a bit less than 80, to reach 300w when doing sub threshold work. Now, one thing it also does appear, as the hours increase and you are less time crunched, the gap looks to probably close a bit and the options you also have of makeup of training, shrinks as well as you will be doing 80%+ or more very easy work, whereas I am sticking by to 75-25%. Why is this the case? who knows, probably all TSS isn't created equal, maybe a traditional training program for any of the aerobic sports has more vo2 work than you need and it tires you out for everything else. Maybe there is another reason.
So the big question is, how does looking at top amateur riders and a bunch of swimmers (which I must stress, is not pulled from scientific studies) transfer to running? Well as I have said before, I have seen the same play out in my own running training. Will it be the same for everyone? probably not, but if we had another data long term, I am sure we would see the patterns there. One of the main problems is runners don't seem to collect data about their own training accurately, which is the main issue. Even if they have years worth of data, they aren't updating thresholds, zones (sorry Coggan, I mean levels) so their actual daily TSS and overall CTL lacks accuracy.
Could you probably ice the cake better if you want to train for a specific event? Probably. If you absolutely only were going to do 5ks, should you try and find a balance of some sort of 5k pace or vo2 max work? Probably. Is it going to be the limiting factor for a hobby jogger? Probably not. The other good thing about training like this is you can pretty much be in peak shape for a range of events , 5k to HM I am within a few seconds of where I want to be.
Right, that's long enough on that, but it's something quite a few people have asked me about lately so thought I would spend some time going through some of where I am at on it.
A couple of other of small notes. I've come to the conclusion this is about 5-8.5 hours max here as the sweetspot, to running this sweetspot stuff, excuse the pun, on this singles approach. You could maybe do a touch less, but having thought about it more I don't think you will be getting the benefit . The third session is the key to creating that extra bit of load, week in, week out that all adds up in the end. Anything much less than 5 hours, realistically you are losing the benefit as it just doesn't give you enough hours for 3 sessions and to keep things fresh and sustainable.
Two other updates. No I don't run 400s anymore. They didn't create anymore or less lactate and they trash my legs for the next day more (I've dumped them for a while and still improving at the same linear rate in the 5k) and I've upped the rest to 2 mins on the 3200 because in the week in the route I run after work, there's a road I need to cross and it takes more than the 1 minute rest to get over it ha ha so literally no special reason. Same with doing 1600s not 2ks. No actual reason other than that I don't have to cross a road mid run. A bit random, but I saw these questions somewhere in the thread a while back and forgot to answer them!
P.S I'm not sure who made me guardian of the thread. There's other guys way smarter than me here. My only skill I think is learning quite quickly what works and what doesn't when it comes to training. If this has all helped anyone over the last 7-8 months, that's awesome. I'm under no illusions myself that I am as good as running as I was cycling, but I am still enjoying it and still improving. I turn 40 next month, fingers crossed I can make it to Sub 16 before then.
You write very long posts ) . Another smarter way to train on low mileage only needs 1-2 threshold intervals per week at close to half marathon pace ( Lt 2) . Then also there is a need to frequently do short reps ( 200- 600m ) @ 5 k race pace to support the threshold pace to improve and feel easier and easier and then faster pace at same effort.
Then the training week becomes 1 maxVO2 interval @ 5 k race pace + 1 threshold interval at close to half marathon pace., or 2 threshold intervals @ close to half marathon pace.Proper recovery is also a very important part of a very effective smart training method
This way the runners improvement comes much faster than " Norwegian method at low mileage".
I find the speed stuff (strides, hill sprints, etc.) to be incredibly valuable but I’m not sure how to fit them in with the schedule, especially if you are only running six days a week. Potentially something like:
Off, T, E, T, L, E+ hill strides, T
Maybe adding strides on both easy days. Maybe during the cool down of a threshold day. I don’t know how this would impact CTL. I have also considered replacing a T day with 30s hills but again, don’t know if the stress from that session would ruin the system
You write very long posts ) . Another smarter way to train on low mileage only needs 1-2 threshold intervals per week at close to half marathon pace ( Lt 2) . Then also there is a need to frequently do short reps ( 200- 600m ) @ 5 k race pace to support the threshold pace to improve and feel easier and easier and then faster pace at same effort.
Then the training week becomes 1 maxVO2 interval @ 5 k race pace + 1 threshold interval at close to half marathon pace., or 2 threshold intervals @ close to half marathon pace.Proper recovery is also a very important part of a very effective smart training method
This way the runners improvement comes much faster than " Norwegian method at low mileage".
My advice just help you out guys...🖐🧙🏼♂️🖐
Take it or leave it... 😁🙏 Good luck! 🇸🇪🧙🏼♂️
He writes long posts because what he is sharing, is potentially significant shift in thinking for runners. This thread alone is littered with success stories following this approach. No made up BS like you come up with .You are out of your depth here Jan, leave the discussion to those who understand what is actually being talked about here. Move along, you will just get eaten alive in this thread. Your response clearly shows you have zero understanding of training models or even want is being discussed here.
Back to what sirpoc said, incredibly interesting. As say the big question is what transfer over to runners. There are now almost 200 guys in Strava group from this thread alone, it would be good if maybe over summer months we could try to collate all data somehow. As long as people are tracking stuff accurately as possible like thread suggests, maybe Hard2find seems like the guy that could plot all the data on the relationships between load, CTL and some sort of threshold we agree on? Even if it's just 5k performance or something to keep standardised. It really does seem like the the average cyclists bookkeeping in looking into this for time crunched is factor here. Power I think easier metric to track.