Agreed, assuming one has the time and resources for a more time intensive method. I think one thing we and all of let's run can agree on - the Dancan't "method" proposed by the well-known fraudster JS certainly has to be the absolute worst way to run, probably even worse than not running at all.
The Dancan method by the wellknown Swede JS is one of the very best.Some years ago I was told by my Irish friend Vincent he was coached by the mystical mastermind coach and improved his 5000m master best from 16.30 to 15:30 something in just two months coached by the Swedish magician online coach.Then Vincent ran a 72 half and personal best.
Jan, we all know it's you. You are embarrassing yourself.
Can the mods kick this stupid man out of Letsrun, please? Thank you.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense to treat TSS as an individual metric. I used HRSS (normalised TRIMP) for a while as I was running mainly in the woods and thus my paces where slower obviously, but from this week on I'm going to switch to pace TSS for good. I will stick to 65 if it replicates well and maybe then I'll try adding one more interval at the same pace and see what happens then.
BTW, did you find your similar CTL value corresponds to similar performance in the race? I mean, e.g. let's say mine was X at some point when I PB'd and then had a long break from running, will I reach similar race result if I go back to X in terms of CTL? Or is it uncorrelated? I'm asking about mere approximation and experiential evidence from others of course.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense to treat TSS as an individual metric. I used HRSS (normalised TRIMP) for a while as I was running mainly in the woods and thus my paces where slower obviously, but from this week on I'm going to switch to pace TSS for good. I will stick to 65 if it replicates well and maybe then I'll try adding one more interval at the same pace and see what happens then.
BTW, did you find your similar CTL value corresponds to similar performance in the race? I mean, e.g. let's say mine was X at some point when I PB'd and then had a long break from running, will I reach similar race result if I go back to X in terms of CTL? Or is it uncorrelated? I'm asking about mere approximation and experiential evidence from others of course.
Yes. I have gone back to almost zero CTL cycling, built it back up to "X" amount and managed to reach the same power for the same CTL (equivalent of PB in running). I wasn't alone in being able to index CTL to performance, but it totally replies on good data in, good data out. This is where the vast majority of people fall short of having any meaningful sets of numbers, even to themselves. Or get confused thinking "My CTL is 100, that guy's is 70, he's just caught me for a minute in a time trial. CTL is dumb". It's only meaningful and compatible, to yourself.
FWIW, I found 1.5w per one CTL increase was pretty standard for me, once you smooth out the curve. There will be a point where it doesn't increase the same, but on part time training, I never reached that. I've mentioned here before, but a few of us looked into it and the performance based on the worst conceivable way versus the best way to gain CTL, was only maybe maximum 10%. So in a sense, more is more , until you reach the point you are just naturally capped. I would imagine that's more hours than any of us here (in this thread anyway) are willing to put in. For running, the performance versus CTL isn't quite as neat. But, in general, we are talking a handful of seconds or maybe slightly more from my 5k time, per km CTL increase. But I don't have a huge amount of data on this - also with the caveat of I've never gone back to zero. So that's an increase from a benchmark of 40 CTL, in both ways I have trained for the same race result (a high 18). Hope that helps or sort of answered your question.
Thanks again for a valuable response. In a few weeks of this training I should reach my top CTL/fitness level from last year, so I'll do a time trial only then and I'll report back whether it works for me well.
Do you plan on regularly testing your threshold pace? I use HR for TSS since I’ve found that my LTHR changes a lot less than LTP when I get fitter (or detrain).
Quick question - I am using trainingpeaks to log everything. I had a sub T session (using a meter, 6x1k - last rep 2.4 for a 2.5 LT2) and my rTSS was 104 meanwhile the hrTSS was 64. I have my LT2 pace set for 8:02 and I crossed that only in the last k rep. Also using a Garmin HRM pro chest strap with electrode gel on the pads.
Basically, I know I should probably stick to only using rTSS or only using hrTSS. Which do you all use and have you had issues like this in the past? Thanks!
Quick question - I am using trainingpeaks to log everything. I had a sub T session (using a meter, 6x1k - last rep 2.4 for a 2.5 LT2) and my rTSS was 104 meanwhile the hrTSS was 64. I have my LT2 pace set for 8:02 and I crossed that only in the last k rep. Also using a Garmin HRM pro chest strap with electrode gel on the pads.
Basically, I know I should probably stick to only using rTSS or only using hrTSS. Which do you all use and have you had issues like this in the past? Thanks!
Something is broken, as you obviously didn't get 104 TSS for that session, not possible. TrainingPeaks can be pretty broken for this sort of thing, lots of different people report duplicate runs, issues like that etc. Two things, try intervals instead as much better and please, follow sirpoc solid advice. Don't mix match training metrics. Just pick one and it be fine. But golden cheetah or intervals surely better option.
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.
Love your posts! I turned 40 last November and still love this sport. I did a 5k on 2/3 in 22:14, am basing my paces off that, then will re-adjust after 4/27 when I do Cap City 1/2 (a big half in Columbus, Ohio).
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).
Just one clarification! If you do drop down to shorter intervals (eg 400-600), the pace can get pretty fast on 1’ rest. You see Jakob sometimes drops down to a rest of 30”-45”. Of course his running time is shorter and his fitness is extremely high! But you can hit pretty good speeds without going past where you should, which I think helps you in shorter races. I think you were referring to the long interval set but just making sure.
How does your weekly schedule look like? Do you run intervals Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday?
When and how many times do you measure the lactate?
Tuesday 10x3min (Or 7-8x on easy weeks), Thursday 5x6min(4x on easy weeks), Saturday 3x10min(or 2x 3km on easier weeks). Easy days are Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but each 2 weeks I skip the run on Monday to completely reset and feel fresh for next Threshold interval. On Wednesday and Friday I usually do strides at the end of the run 6 short ones 15-30sec. Sunday as a long run is 75-90min, running just a little faster than easy runs.
I did about 200 lactate tests earlier this year, wasted first 50, just to get a feeling on how the lactate behaves. Most of the test were done on with the intervals I still do. But last 2 months I did not do any lactate testing. I don't think it is necessary at all to implement this method. Just be honest with your self and especially when starting, be safe with the pace to not get over the threshold. Like Marius Bakken wrote, if you go over the threshold by 10%(Probably LT2), you get 4-5x more fatigue than staying 10% under it. That's the whole point of this method.
I think the paces I hold in intervals can be summed up as the 3min intervals at a bit faster than half marathon pace(around 5 sec per km), 6min intervals at half marathon pace and 10min intervals at pace a bit slower than half marathon pace(5-10sec).
But you have to be honest with those paces, and not take the PR that was set on optimal conditions 2 years ago. If you don't feel fresh and struggle to hit all workouts, you are going 2 fast.
If someone is doing about 60-80km of training, I am pretty sure they can pretty much jump right in and try this. Maybe start a bit safer by cutting a few intervals on first few weeks.
I was injured around hip area for 1 year, so my stride was compromised a bit over the past year. I think my running technique was pretty bad and I was not utilizing muscles in top parts of the leg at all. I think I fixed that by adding in Zwift rides, about 3-5 hours total every week. I think a bit of cross training has huge benefit and can increase load which would injure you if it was done with pure running.
It's pretty clear my CTL is through the roof since I started following method of training.
Interesting you are using time intervals (10x3 minutes), rather than actual workout distances (3x3000, 10x1000, etc.). Do you start off with time intervals and then work you way to the prescribed distances (3x3000 at 25k-30k pace, for instance)?
Quick question - I am using trainingpeaks to log everything. I had a sub T session (using a meter, 6x1k - last rep 2.4 for a 2.5 LT2) and my rTSS was 104 meanwhile the hrTSS was 64. I have my LT2 pace set for 8:02 and I crossed that only in the last k rep. Also using a Garmin HRM pro chest strap with electrode gel on the pads.
Basically, I know I should probably stick to only using rTSS or only using hrTSS. Which do you all use and have you had issues like this in the past? Thanks!
rTSS makes more sense, just make sure your threshold pace is set correctly.
104 sounds wrong though.
(I did have TrainingPeaks overestimate my TSS scores by huge margins, turns out it was calculating it by power. I switched to intervals.icu and it has been consistently good).
Interesting you are using time intervals (10x3 minutes), rather than actual workout distances (3x3000, 10x1000, etc.). Do you start off with time intervals and then work you way to the prescribed distances (3x3000 at 25k-30k pace, for instance)?
Just for the consistency and it's simpler to me. It's not the same to run 1k in 3:15 and 3:45. And as you progress, you are making all of your intervals shorter if you stick to distance.
So if you see you stagnate with the current interval structure and wan't to achieve bigger stimulus, except for speed, you can also add additional repetitions
Just for the consistency and it's simpler to me. It's not the same to run 1k in 3:15 and 3:45. And as you progress, you are making all of your intervals shorter if you stick to distance.
So if you see you stagnate with the current interval structure and wan't to achieve bigger stimulus, except for speed, you can also add additional repetitions
Good point on that, then time makes more sense so you get that longer adaptation.
I use HR for TSS as well. For building up fitness, I want to control my internal load (HR). For goal/race specific training, I use pace to control my performance. However, I do not mix HR and pace for calculating TSS. During race specific training my focus is goal pace such as 800m pace amd develop it Canova style. Obviosly, highest CTL will be at peakfitness at the end of base phase.
Do you plan on regularly testing your threshold pace? I use HR for TSS since I’ve found that my LTHR changes a lot less than LTP when I get fitter (or detrain).
For now I just updated my paces to a little bit faster ones each time I didn't reach LTHR on the last interval. I've seen a rapid improvement due to coming back to frequent running and it worked well, I feel recovered for each workout, now it's already 3 weeks of three sub-threshold workouts per week. Also, I'm going to run a HM actually in 2 weeks, so I'll use this race result first, but later I'd like to run a 5k (Parkrun) not less often than 6 weeks (that's exactly 42 days that are taken into consideration by intervals.icu while computing CTL/fitness), maybe once a month. So yeah, you're right, it's a crucial part if one sticks to pace TSS, but for me it's not a con, it's probably a nice way to remind yourself how is it to race 5k so that you'll be better prepared for such an effort once you take part in a race.
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.
Love your posts! I turned 40 last November and still love this sport. I did a 5k on 2/3 in 22:14, am basing my paces off that, then will re-adjust after 4/27 when I do Cap City 1/2 (a big half in Columbus, Ohio).
This is the right idea -- at least one table says that threshold pace for you at this time would be 7:34/mi. But this approach is really about threshold effort, not threshold pace.
I'd suggest slowing down a bit to 7:40 pace. If you have a track, do 800m repeats in 3:50 with 1 min recovery, and pay careful attention to how you feel the next day. Lacking track access, do repeats of 3-4 minutes with 1 min recovery. Learn the effort, then do repeats without watching the pace. Get the effort right, and the pace will take care of itself.
Love your posts! I turned 40 last November and still love this sport. I did a 5k on 2/3 in 22:14, am basing my paces off that, then will re-adjust after 4/27 when I do Cap City 1/2 (a big half in Columbus, Ohio).
This is the right idea -- at least one table says that threshold pace for you at this time would be 7:34/mi. But this approach is really about threshold effort, not threshold pace.
I'd suggest slowing down a bit to 7:40 pace. If you have a track, do 800m repeats in 3:50 with 1 min recovery, and pay careful attention to how you feel the next day. Lacking track access, do repeats of 3-4 minutes with 1 min recovery. Learn the effort, then do repeats without watching the pace. Get the effort right, and the pace will take care of itself.
thank you and appreciate it. It sounds like 8-ish reps based on what has been discussed at 3-4 mins. each (24-32 mins. of sub-threshold).
1600m@7:45 is what I had written down at some point, but maybe even slower, but as you said, go by effort is probably more logical.
Do this for 6-8 weeks and re-test, as noted earlier...
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
This is the right idea -- at least one table says that threshold pace for you at this time would be 7:34/mi. But this approach is really about threshold effort, not threshold pace.
I'd suggest slowing down a bit to 7:40 pace. If you have a track, do 800m repeats in 3:50 with 1 min recovery, and pay careful attention to how you feel the next day. Lacking track access, do repeats of 3-4 minutes with 1 min recovery. Learn the effort, then do repeats without watching the pace. Get the effort right, and the pace will take care of itself.
thank you and appreciate it. It sounds like 8-ish reps based on what has been discussed at 3-4 mins. each (24-32 mins. of sub-threshold).
1600m@7:45 is what I had written down at some point, but maybe even slower, but as you said, go by effort is probably more logical.
Do this for 6-8 weeks and re-test, as noted earlier...
Yes, I think this is exactly right. Definitely have to wait to see how you are feeling the next day to decide if it was too intense. And if you can successfully repeat the following week.
FWIW, I do 8x4min reps for a total of 32 minutes of work for these shorter intervals. They seem to take more out of me, something about all of the starting and stopping. On days where I am doing 1 mile or 2 mile reps, I can tolerate 36min and 42min, respectively. Something about the continuous effort feels easier. The paces arent that disimilar (10s/mi seperation between each).
