Curious1! wrote:
When doing this kind of training would you still have a medium long run between workout days? And would the long run be easy then so you can recover? And on what days would you do strides?
Nothing here is original, all structures that plenty of coaches and runners have used before. Coaches like Tinman, Rubio, Wetmore, Hudson us a pretty standard outline as follows:
Sun - Easy w/ strides
Mon - Workout
Tue - Medium Long Run
Wed - Easy w/ strides
Thu - Workout
Fri - Easy
Sat - Long Run
If that's a structure that appeals to you, you can use that template and just make both your workouts threshold sessions. If you're wanting to follow the "Norwegian" outline:
Sun - Easy
Mon - Tempo
Tue - Easy
Wed - Tempo
Thu - Easy
Fri- Repetitions
Sat - Long Run
If in your warm up for the two tempo sessions you do 8*100m strides, that's two sessions of strides there. The repetition workout is essentially a stride workout, so far as pace goes (assuming it is done at approximately 1500m pace) although if the repetitions are longer and/or the total volume is high, the physiological impact can be different than a basic leg speed session.
I think a lot has to do with how you define these different training philosophies. For example, if you just think of the Norwegian System as emphasizing threshold workouts then whether you use the first template or the second, you're training using the Norwegian System. This is nothing new to be honest as runners have been using these outlines for years. I think what gives the Norwegian System it's novelty is 1) the regular utilization and analysis of lactate readings and using lactate values (or efforts) that are lower than the traditional LT as popularized by Daniels and others here in the US as 60 minute race pace or 4.0 mmol and 2) the redundancy in the workouts used. This even goes against some coaches suggestions on never repeating the same workout or always progressing the workout so as to modulate the training load. I personally think consistency over many weeks, say 18-24, and then just repeated for each build-up is better than the really intense workouts that are progressed toward at the end of most runners' training plans in order to illicit a big stimulus and "peak" them. Hope that was helpful and gives you some ideas.
RunSl1m wrote:
What no one has come up with so far is the obvious solution.
You want to maximize threshold work on low mileage. Something's got to give. And I am talking LOW mileage. 30 mpw. This is what it looks like:
M: tempo @ MP, 5mi (1mi warmup, 1mi cooldown)
T: off
W: tempo @ MP, 5mi (1mi warmup, 1mi cooldown)
T: off
F: 7mi easy
S: 9mi Long Run
This will keep you sharp year round and maximize your potential for 5k to HM on low mileage.
shirtboy2022 wrote:
I just dont think "marathon pace" is going to get you the benefits you want if you are only deploying it twice a week.
For your schedule, i would do MP everyday. Totally doable. MP here roughly equal to LT1/High Z2 ish effort
If you were to do that id chop it up a little differently:
M:
7 mi 2 mi WU 4 x Mile at MP -10 second per mile w/1:00R, 1M CD
or
7 mi 'long run' with 2mi WU, 4mi @ MP+20 second per mile progressing down, 1 mi CD
T: OFF
W: 7 mi 'long run' with 2mi WU, 4mi @ MP+20 second per mile progressing down, 1 mi CD
Th: OFF
F: 7 mi 2 mi WU 4 x Mile at MP -10 second per mile w/1:00R, 1M CD
Sa: 9 mi 'long run' with 2mi WU, 5mi @ MP+20 second per mile progressing down, 2 mi CD
Su: OFF
needs explaining wrote:
Hi Lexel, could you explain more? I'm a bit confused by this. Obviously FT and ST fibres make a different. But why can't we use anything spoc says? He's posted up numbers. His lactate pro 2 results are very much in line with the average or general person and he knows from reading all the posts what his lactate threshold is. It's not like he's reaching his lactate threshold at some weird high or low numbers. We are 19 years on and what he has found is very much in line with Tinman's estimations from the thread hard2find posted up. So even though he is clearly a terrible sprinter in running, apologies to spoc but you are horrific sprinting on a bike lol I still don't think that invalidates anything. Funny anecdote, but most of us interested in 5k + are probably very slow twitch anyway. Farah went to his kids school sports day in full kit and got beat in 100m by a dude in jeans in the dad's race.
Hard2Find wrote:
Not that you asked, but…If I were going to explain it…and keep it VERY simple:
Slow Twitch = Type 1
Fast Twitch = Type 2a and Type 2x
Lactate generated by the fibers increases as you move from slow twitch to fast twitch. The faster you run, the more energy you derive from glucose (there’s an inverse linear relationship between fat utilization and carbohydrate utilization as exercise intensity increases). Fast twitch fibers require more glucose and thus, produce more lactate. The fibers have different “lactate transport” qualities as well. Slow twitch fibers will use the lactate to convert to energy. So while the fast twitch fibers are producing more lactate, the slow twitch fibers are absorbing it, in very simple terms.
By doing consistent endurance training over time, the Type 2a fibers will take on more of the characteristics of the Type 1 fibers, so they can further aid in the lactate absorption/conversion process. Paces in the range of easy to tempo, roughly, are what stimulate these adaptions. Think more and/or denser mitochondria, capillaries, enzymes and efficient transport ability in the muscles.
The specifics of how you do the workouts to generate these changes are largely based on that fiber make up the athlete possesses. If you are heavier on the slow twitch side maybe more volume at tempo and longer runs in general will maximize your potential. Conversely, if you’re more on the fast twitch side, slightly faster paced workouts, even though you’re targeting the same adaption will bring about your optimal fitness.
So Jealous wrote:
Great post!
How does that look, more specifically, as it applies to this thread? Would a fast twitch runner so more 1ks and 400s? Maybe mix in an X factor every other week? Lower overall volume?
Yes, pretty much exactly. In general, slow twitch would do more volume, longer long runs, more tempo volume (whether in long interval form or straight tempo) and just a touch of speed, like strides, for neuromuscular stimulus. Fast twitch would do less overall volume, shorter and less strenuous long runs, less tempo volume (predominantly in interval form), and regular speed (x-factor workout at a higher lactate level). Those are the guidelines though as fiber make up is really a spectrum so it's an experiment to see what you respond well to, while also accounting for the demands of different race distances.
I think sirpoc did a really good job of laying it out already, providing his workouts and relative efforts along with his experience using TSS and CTL metrics. Which I will say, having not known of it previously to reading this thread, and now having spent way too much time creating a TSS matrix and CTL, ATL, and TSB plots from past training data, I quite enjoy LOL. Thank you sirpoc! Hope you’ll keep us updated on your progress too and your 10 mile result. Would be interesting to see how your times from 5k, 10k, and 10 miles compare with your training!
Charlesvdw wrote:
Sirpoc, since it is better to run a little slower than too fast, do you think the benefits of this approach would still be there if a runner ran at marathon pace for the treshold sessions ?
Especially if "marathon pace" is a little bit faster than actual marathon pace, more like target marathon pace. So what at first would be tempo pace might become marathon race pace as fitness increases.
Asking this because as an older athlete my muscles don't tolerate HM or 15k pace two times a week, that would result in injury.
Definitely worth it. I have still seen lactate of 2 and slightly above mmol when I have tried longer reps (say 4x10 mins at the longest end depending on how much you do a week, but something like 4x 8-9 mins is fine) at marathon pace. This would usually gets me to within 85% max HR by the end and whilst it might be a bit slower pace wise, you still will get a huge amount of the training benefits in this range. This is the really good thing about training sub T, there's a window probably right down to where you are asking about in marathon pace, to collect a lot of the benefits. Which is why people doing doubles will often start the day with a session at somewhere around this pace to try and hit around this lactate. I think, that roughly matches up with Jiggys amazing post above. He's seeing 2+ lactate at around the end of his tests at around 85% Max HR which is about where I do or have in the past. I'm not sure what that equates to in terms of pace relative to himself or if that is around his marathon pace, maybe he could give us an idea. I would imagine the paces are just a guide for the individual, as I doubt his paces match up exactly to mine, but what I have seen no matter what , is how people's data all shoe the same. Pace really, really and I mean really does matter once you are hovering just below threshold. It gets out of control quick for what even seems like a small fraction of change in speed.
I was helping a friend out recently who used to be a lot faster than me. He blew a lot of these workouts and got tired really quick. I would say right, today run 5x7 mins at HM pace + 2 seconds per KM and he would be like "it was awesome! I felt amazing so the last two reps I was around hour pace!!" As if I would be impressed. He just didn't listen that he was burning himself out really quick. Within a few weeks he was wrecked as he was doing stuff like this every session. The same on 10x1k would end up around 10k pace. Going back to Jiggys post, you can see quite quickly how much lactate would have been building up session on session towards the end, which, just isn't sustainable long term for 3x a week.
This has been a great discussion to follow. I’m looking for a small improvement to my 2.45 (@3.55/k) marathon and willing to try the method as i havent been really improving this year. Usually doing 90k+ a week. Could something like this work as a basic training week for a marathon?
Mon:rest
Tue:10-12k very easy
Wed:10x1km @3.45
Thu:10-12k very easy
Fri:5x2k @ 3.50
Sat:10-12k very easy
Sun: long run 30k=21k very easy +3x3km@3.50..3.55
My focus is only on the marathon so the long run would be more specific for that purpose. It would be a combination of a 3x3k workout and easy 20k run that KI has done during his Hm training. This long run would be followed by a rest day+easy day as above.
Total Beginner wrote:
This thread is incredible and I am going to try it. I bought a Lactate Plus meter.
One question I have is: is there any difference to doing 3Q + LR vs. doing a subthreshold workout inside the LR? So 2Q+LR (w/ a subthreshold session inside)?
Reason I ask is I am mostly training for half marathon / marathon. Would the latter (doing 2Q+QLR) be better for half marathon / marathon?
And if not, would it be okay to do the LR the day after a Q session?
The whole Ingebrigtsen training discussed here is the "base" phase. They do this and then maintain their gains and either start hard workouts or race frequently to get specific stimulus.
If I were using this to train for a half/full marathon, I would do the 3Q + Easy LR and then do what you thought of, the 2Q + Q LR to maintain the straight up LT benefits and also apply them, specifically, to running long the last 4-8 weeks or so. Bakken kind of talks about this with his hour warm up for a 5x6 min session and I think that is about ideal if you're trying to abide by this method. You can always adjust it to you though! The important thing is specific sessions should be specific, thresholds matter less those days and pace/form you expect to use come race day matter more.
triplethreshold wrote:
Wondering what everyone’s thoughts were on an approach geared toward half marathon and eventually full marathon. I was thinking 2 sub T workouts and then a 90 minute long run either with a tempo of 20-30 minutes in the middle or a fast finish long run. Would that be overcooking too much or does it sound about right? Essentially dropping the 3rd sub t workout and keeping the more traditional long run for the longer distances but still getting that 3rd threshold stimulus. Thanks to all in advance!
For the marathon, I would expect the 3rd sub-t session to be long run session starting at easy and working down to 5-15 second slower than current marathon pace, then holding it for the session, the last 5-10mins of the session can be at current marathon pace/effort/hr/power/sm02/lacate.
The time to work down to marathon + pace would be progressively decreased each week depending on your current fitness levels, this increases your time near marathon pace, you should also think about increasing the total length of the session depending on how long this session is, ideally 2 hours to 2 hours 30 mins depending on your marathon expected finishing time.
This should give a large stimulus at sub t without being overly taxing and great practice being very specific to practicing long effort required for a good marathon.
You maybe still need to do a 75mins to 90mins “long” easy run at some point during the week though.
I'm a 64 year old retired runner (and current HS XC coach) with 2 total knee replacements, so I no longer run. But, I'm a devoted rower, and have been following an "age-adjusted" Norwegian Method plan for many months. I use a 10 day cycle that includes 2 LT sessions
(one longer reps & one shorter reps), one X-Factor day (what I'd call mile-specific for a runner), and plenty of easy rowing, elliptical, biking, walking on the other days.
The schedule looks like this:
1. Short LT Reps (30-90 seconds/30 sec rests. Kept @ LT effort/HR)
2. Easy Aerobic
3. Easy Aerobic: may insert a few really relaxed 15 second pick-ups
4. Long LT Reps (3-8 minutes kept @ LT effort/HR)
5. Easy Aerobic
6. Easy Aerobic: may insert a few really relaxed 15 second pick-ups
7. X-Factor Day: Generally 30-60 second intervals @ 4 minute race effort
8. Off Day or Easy Aerobic
9, Easy Aerobic
10.Easy Aerobic: may insert a few really relaxed 15 second pick-ups
Repeat....
I can honestly say that while following this schedule, I never have bad days. When I first started doing this kind of training about a year ago, I tried doing a quality session every other day, but found that this led to a lot of residual fatigue (probably due to age). As soon as I started buffering the LT days with 2 easy aerobic days, and followed the X-Factor day with 3 easy aerobic days, I started feeling really good all of the time.
laughing at the clowns 3/24/2024:
For reference I started following the thread in December 2023. I loosely followed what sirpoc was doing, but wanted to implement double thresholds, because I have more time and wanted to try to take it as far as possible.
What does it consist of? Well I do 5 x 6 minutes in the morning and 10 x 3 minutes in the afternoon on the treadmill consistently every Tuesday and Thursday, all off of 60 seconds standing. Monday is easy, Wednesday easy, Friday easy, Saturday some faster hill stuff and Sunday easy long. I scrapped the 400m repeats early on, because I just felt that I wasn't getting much threshold benefit from them due to how short the reps were, and also it just felt strange doing them on the treadmill.
I haven't invested in lactic readings due to the price, but instead used Max HR and LTHR to chart these paces originally. So for reference my max HR is quite high at around 210-211, the idea is to keep everything under 190 HR at the very highest which is around LTHR (might be closer to 192-193 but I'm keeping it on the safe side). I'm taking mean readings from the last 2 minutes of every rep and aiming to keep that average per session around 172-175 for these readings. If my HR is lower than 172 consistently over a few sessions then I know its time to up the pace, if its higher than 175 then it's mostly just due to gym temperature, or bad days, but I know that I need to back off.
So from December -> March
I started with doing the 5 x 6 minutes @ 3:43/km at 175HR, and 10 x 3 minutes @ 3:35/km around 175 HR too. For the first 3 weeks my HR was pretty consistent at this. Then gradually lower in the 4th week and 5th week (169-171 HR), so I upped the paces of both by .1 on the treadmill. After the first month, I started seeing pretty clear increase in fitness every single week. I wouldn't up the pace every week, but it was basically every 2nd week that I was in the position to increase pace by 0.1 on the treadmill.
I haven't missed a single Tuesday or Thursday session (other than 1 week which was a down week) since I started, now my paces are 3:33/km for the 6 minutes, and 3:23/km for the 3 minutes around 172-174 HR currently. I keep all of these things documented quite rigorously on spreadsheets too. For reference it comes out to around 130-140km a week, and this is very easy to sustain for me because I am not really doing anything at a high intensity, other than the hill reps which are very low duration (usually 25 seconds). I don't really feel any fatigue build up from this and can fit everything in 50 minute sessions, other than the long run. Not had any injuries either, treadmill is very forgiving. All of my easy runs are done between 5:00/km and 4:35/km. Sometimes do long runs slightly quicker but still very much aerobic (4:20/km - 4:40/km).
I haven't been running for a particularly long time either, was in 40 min 10k shape in November 2022. Since December 2023, I've gone from 16:40 -> 15:40 5k shape late March 2024. 20 Y-O. Didn't run in school or at all earlier in childhood. Not ran a 10k but assuming it would be somewhere between 3:16-3:19/km just from feel.
I'm not saying that this method is flawless, and it is definitely not as scientific as lactic usage. But I'm pretty confident I will be in under 15 shape by the end of the year from this, and don't really know where after that.
Maybe someone will find it useful.
So, for a solid four months straight, I stuck to this training routine gearing up for a half marathon. Then, in the fifth month, I tweaked it a bit to prep for a full-on marathon. Like I mentioned earlier, I simplified things while keeping the core structure intact:
Monday: Easy jog for 8-11 km
Tuesday: Did 10 x 3min intervals, cruising at a pace between 10 km and half marathon pace
Wednesday: Another chill run, 8-11 km
Thursday: Hammered out 5 x 6min intervals at a half marathon pace
Friday: Took it easy again with 8-11 km
Saturday: 3 x 10min intervals, just a tad slower than half marathon pace
Sunday: 75-95 minutes long, a bit quicker than usual but still cruising in Zone 2.
For intervals days I had 3km warm up and only 1km chill down. Rest between intervals 60-90 sec.
Come February, I was all set for a half marathon, aiming for at least 1:18:xx. But man, did things go south after the halfway mark. Looking back at the data, it was clear I wasn't in top form that day. My heart rate was way too high from the get-go compared to my training days from a week ago, and I used chest strap for precise readings. Hit a 3:43 pace at the halfway mark, but the second half turned into a survival mode slog, finishing in 1:21.
After that disappointing half, I had a mere four weeks to gear up for a full-blown marathon in Rome. I decided to tweak the plan by easing up on the Saturday run and stretching out the long run to over 30 km, keeping it slightly below marathon effort for 15-20 km of it.
This was my third crack at a marathon, with my last one clocking in at 2:58:45 about a year and a half ago. My heart rate in those previous marathons averaged 162 bpm, so this time, I capped it at 160 bpm until the 30 km mark.
Crossed the finish line in 2:54:09, and boy, did I still have some gas left in the tank. Last 700 meters, I was flying at a 3:29 pace. And get this, all of this was done with just three long runs - 30 km, 35 km, and 32 km.
So, yeah, turns out this method isn't just good for up to half marathons - it works pretty well for the full marathons too. I was smashed after my first 2 marathons, but this one went butter smooth. I had no idea marathon could be that easy on the body. I was back at full training mode on Tuesday.
My advice? Stick to the base training, like I did for the first four months, then maybe start prepping specifically for the marathon about a month earlier than I did to get in more long runs. But hey, I was dead set on smashing that half marathon PR just two weeks before the full marathon, so there you go!
I got my next attempt at setting new half marathon PR in 3 weeks. I hope that it won't be too warm, since I am pretty temperature sensitive
This is great! What I love about this thread is that the OP's first inquiry was downvoted a bunch, yet some thoughtful Letsrunners enlivened the conversation with their constructive contributions. Would love to hear more on this thread from folks who've seen success from doing this over the long term. For me, I have been training for the mile (although always been too slow for a miler) using this method, and I felt like my 1500-mile times were stagnating for a while as I raised my CTL with 3x threshold weekly – however, my 5k and above times were dropping rapidly, and my mile splits were more consistent! The instant I subbed one threshold session for hill repeats and some specific track sessions, my shorter distance times also dropped much quicker than usual. So, for next training block I am learning for myself that I can keep doing the 3x threshold to get really strong for a while, then only minor tweaks later on can give me the muscular strength/coordination to hit those faster paces.
I guess what I'm realizing is that the fear I had of not improving at short distances from doing mostly threshold work isn't totally warranted – just need to add some "tuning" or "sharpening" workouts, and the times have still dropped. I used to hit the track twice weekly with threshold and hard VO2 work mixed in, but did not see the same improvement, I think likely because the mile is still highly aerobic, and much like sirpoc's early comments, my earlier CTL was much lower. My takeaway from this personal experience is that there's a layer of high-end aerobic work in the program that works so reliably, and tweaking the program slightly to meet the anaerobic demands of the 800-mile can yield great results after months of doing threshold-heavy work. Thanks all for a great, informative thread.
random9921 wrote:
Would trying to squeeze in 4 sub-thresh sessions in some weeks work? Or would this lead to burnout and injury.
sirpoc84 wrote:
This is a good question, I'm going to totally contradict myself here......you could - but - I wouldn't.
Only because I think 3 sessions leaves you sometimes staring over the edge. Never quote tips me over, some weeks I could maybe manage a 4th, sometimes not. I guess the 4th on an every other day could work, but I think it's risky. Remember, this really is about gaining as much load as you can, in the quickest and most efficient way, without ever burning out. I'm still going good, injury free. Only COVID as stopped me in the last 18 months . It's always tempting to be greedy though and increase load, I come up with madcap ideas all the time then stop myself and go back to what I know works. It's easily all overthinked. I did try and make Hard2find run marathon pace 30 mins everyday to see what would happen, but then one never got off the ground ha ha If anyone does try anything a bit more aggressive, would be interesting to hear their medium to long term feedback.
This is the contradiction, if I was cycling I have done 5+ of these sessions in a week, when you are quick building after some time off, all at sweetspot (which is what sub threshold is, it's just taken on a new name). But one thing I have really learned, is the demands of running are no joke.
Now where there might be something interesting to look into and room for experimentation - is what Jiggy and Shirtboy are up to at the moment, as they are actually incorporating a lot of cycling into their week, to get in quite a bit more work. Early indications, are good, but you still need a decent amount of running on top of that, to keep you a "runner" first and foremost. What the balance is, I'm not sure. They are still very much experimenting as they go. The irony, I'm the one doing no cycling.
Excellent stuff 👍🏻 your summary is just how I feel having been doing your system for 4-5 months. I've made big improvements. I have been testing lactate as where I am pace isn't reliable, so I probably have it dialled in now though. But I also have found maybe i could squeeze in some extra work but at the end of the day you might just end up coloring outside the lines when you don't need to take that risk. 3x a week will get most of us improving. There is no glamour in this but as a masters athlete I am a step ahead of my rivals having dropped off a bit. Very grateful to the thread.
At under 15mpw, you might as well put it all on sub-T singles every other day. 3 or 4 days of small sub-T runs of 4 or 5 miles would work, but it depends on what your limiting factor to your mileage is. If the reason that you can’t run more than 15mpw is time, you should just do hard workouts. If it’s injury risk, you should be finding ways to cross train effectively. Other than these reasons, one must need to raise their mileage before starting to think about different training philosophies.
bencrush wrote:
Serious question. Does anyone just do all of their mileage (especially low mileage guys, under 15 miles per week) sub threshold since it's easy to recover from?
I do.
I run the exact same workout every day on the same dirt road - in January when I started it was all 200m threshold intervals. It would be a bit hard to recover in 60s - really sucking wind - my thresh paces were about 8 min mile pace which was too fast but I got better pretty quickly.
FF to today and everything I run now is 500m and the thresh pace is 6:30 and a subthresh about 7:10. I alternate fast/slow days by making fast days mostly thresh pace and slow days almost all sub-thresh pace - same distance and reps every day. I can feel like crap some slow days and have never had a fast day that gave me a problem (other than some minor injuries).
I also now generally recover in about 30s but I still take the full 60s as a rest. No more sucking wind for any thresh intervals. In the beginning was doing about 30 mpw now up to 60 mpw (some of that is walking).
My resting pulse has also dropped from 56 to 50 over that time period.
For me these are easier (especially mentally) and more productive workouts than I have ever done in decades of running. Boring yes - but still improving every week and feel like I still have a long ways to go.
Portal wrote:
It seems like most people using this method have dropped the 400s and typically do longer reps instead. 2 miles, 2k, mile or k reps seem to be the most popular.
Any reason for dropping the 400s?
For me personally, I've stayed away from the 400's because it's hardier to dial in the correct effort. With longer reps, you can easily get a good feel for how hard you are working. I would definitely try the 400s with a lactate meter though.
Portal wrote:
It seems like most people using this method have dropped the 400s and typically do longer reps instead. 2 miles, 2k, mile or k reps seem to be the most popular.
Any reason for dropping the 400s?
Directly from sirpoc, either in this thread or Strava group, can't remember which.
He was generating the same lactate at the 400 rep paces he posted as right up to 3k, but they made him feel more tired the next day or more importantly 48 hours later, than the 1k and above reps.
To me, if you feel like this, makes total sense to drop them. If you now look at that he's dropped them, it hasn't hurt his short range stuff at all. He's still progressing in a nice way despite running never close to race pace. The thing to remember here is really only lactate/ load is what matters. We are just using pace, as a simplifier to try to get close to the lactate we want.
We are really lucky to have this thread and all the free information that sirpoc and others provide. This could easily be charged for or behind a paywall. For real for me, I've seen people charge 100s a month for content like this. It's all free and open. LRC is a very toxic place, but this thread has restored my faith a bit. Thank you all.
Portal wrote:
It seems like most people using this method have dropped the 400s and typically do longer reps instead. 2 miles, 2k, mile or k reps seem to be the most popular.
Any reason for dropping the 400s?
I really like 60-90s reps on short recovery, and I think it has some unique advantages over longer slower reps, but I also think it makes sense for a lot of people to hold off on that style of work.
It's one of the most challenging workout schemes to execute correctly. A lot of people are underdeveloped enough aerobically that they can still make incredible progress with easier-to-execute workouts in the more familiar threshold to sub-threshold effort range, so it's just not yet worth the skill development effort and risk of overreaching to take on the more difficult to execute workout.
The whole philosophy discussed in this thread basically boils down to just to doing the easiest workouts that will still give you some progress so that you can do the most of those workouts and get the most progress in the safest and most sustainable way.
Merchant of Venice Beach wrote:
in for long haul wrote:
If someone said to me I have a 5k through marathons coming up and I really want to give myself the best shot and performing as close to my ability as I can in 6-12 months, there is no other method I think that is likely to get them as close to their potential in that time, than this.....and I've been around this running game for more years than I care to mention!
Have loved reading this thread! Only question I have is what about shorter distance? Currently trying to get back into PR shape for 800/1500 and have been following more speed focused plan. Reading thread has turned my head but everything seems to be 5k+ focused. Would love to hear if anyone has found this kind of threshold training good for true mid distance. Assume it would be good for 1500 but not sure about 800. Would be really nice to have more relaxed workouts for me, as speed days and race pace stuff has been tough to manage injuries with as getting older!
MoVB
This is a really great question. My guess is that you could aim for shorter reps (5x6min or 10x3 min on Tues, 25x60s on Thursdays), then do the usual hill session (10x30s if working into shape, then build up to 2x10x30s if it's not too much) that the Norwegians do on Saturdays, with two days easy afterward. The hills are intense but easier on the joints than track sessions. Muscular power and anaerobic capacity become more important to train here if races are shorter, but I think implementing threshold sessions is still helpful for raising aerobic capacity. Hope others with more experience with this can chime in – these are just my initial thoughts!
sirpoc84 wrote:
I don't have a huge amount of data for running, all I know for me (so far) is I can plot CTL / 5k performance reasonably neatly. So far, more is more. I suspect, there's a cut off with this. In terms of you max out your aerobic capacity and you can probably get by with less CTL, for the same performance and add in hills, speed work. I'm not there yet, I don't think.
My guess, as would be with cyclists on time crunched (mainly being top amateur/ sub elite time trialists in the UK) that you probably won't reach the point where this is a huge factor. I'm talking 9 hours a week or less. 8 hours is the point in which I've got in my head I might have reached diminished aerobic returns and have to try something else to add in. But time will tell.
A guy way smarter than me on the old TT forums, did his own study of a number of people's training and how the acquired CTL matches with performance. The general jist was, the difference in FTP at a given CTL for each individual, was probably +-10% spread, if you consider what is the absolute worst training schedule you could do (my z2 for weeks and weeks and hours and hours on end) versus the best bang for buck, being sweet spot. Basic example , CTL of 60. A sensible, generic training plan might generate a FTP of 300. The worst training you could do, just aimlessly riding, but generating the same CTL, might get you can FTP of 270 (note it would take you way longer in time to also reach the same CTL) . A really well thought out, sweetspot block of 6 months might scrape out 330w ( in much less time riding). All for the same CTL of 60. That's the extreme end. For me, I was a much narrower range , where X CTL basically equalled Y power from a baseline of about 160-70w untrained and a CTL of 0.
The guy I talked to a lot about this was a swimming coach, he found it also applied to swimmers he'd known and triathlon specialists. To me, something along these lines makes perfect sense for running, albeit with some small running specific factors etc, mainly the ability to absorb pretty big punishment on the body. But in a nutshell, it's roughly what I've stuck to, followed the plan, the numbers and I'm still seeing the improvements I'm happy with and would expect to see.
Incidentally , again, this would need bigger studies, there are two people who messaged me direct on Strava (I think one has posted in this thread) who have adapted this to do marathon pace work , so right at the bottom of the sub threshold range and they have racked up huge CTL numbers in 6 + months and without even really thinking about it. One set a 5k PB and one set a 10k PB. Sadly, neither had accurate historical data from years past, but the main takeaway was from talking to them, that almost certainly in terms of overall load, they were both just doing much more than they ever had, but just in a controlled manner/ racking up the training load. Much like I was shocked when I suddenly hit a power pb after a big crash and just riding the turbo aimlessly to keep myself busy.
I stand by that nearly a year on, it's probably likely to make most people improve, but as we have seen with some cases in the Strava group, it's very easy to get it wrong and come unstuck like other training modes, if you go too hard. Ultimately, most of us here are hampered by our aerobic capacity. Training like this is pushing it up from below, even at what seems like pretty easy running levels.
Thanks for all your posting over the last year and taking the time on Strava to help. I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated by this approach to training! I am one of the guys you were speaking of! got fully confused and obsessed in what I would call quite aggressive marathon plans!! By race day I was usually absolutely spent. My longest run this time a couple of weeks out was 30k easy. It's the slowest pace and shortest distance I've done as my big last run and I've ran 7 Ms now. Even with the long run I made sure my sub threshold didn't take a bit of backseat. I felt super strong even past 30k to go on race day. I assumed I would hit the wall at some point, it basically never came.
To add, my build didn't feel anything special until around 12 weeks in and I knew this time would be different. I have never felt fresh in a marathon plan at 3 months before. All I changed as you know was the long run was longer on a Sunday @usually 110-120 mijs and the Thursday session was longer at 5x9 mins , at M pace . Other two sub threshold were a mixture of the ones you have been doing. Standard 10*1k up to 3*3k.
I had no intention of going for a 5k. But happened as happy accident. My guess now with my new found understanding, in the past for 5k I was totally obsessed with speed!!! Speed , speed , speed and more speed workouts. When actually, I was just embarrassingly under developed in an aerobic sense. M was a PB hugely and a 45 second 5k PB as well. Two for the price of one!!
I see others have been asking about the M. I wouldn't change much. What I did worked well think and it easily replicated.
as;lkdja;skdjga;dglj wrote:
I know earlier in the thread there was discussion about adding doubles, but the thread is so long I'm not going to be able to find the posts. Anyway, I recall the advice seeming be that if you are going to double you should do so on easy days, not the workout days. Just curious as to why? My typical practice is to double on workout days whenever possible, with the thought being that an easy 4M run in the morning acts as a shakeout for the workout later in the day, and keeps the easy days easier. I'm not wed to anything, just trying to find out if data/experience/theory show that doubling on easy days is better.
Cases could be made for either, ultimately comes down to the specifics of what someone's training looks like and what their preferences are. Like a lot of this thread sometimes people get lost looking for hard rules when they really just need to use common sense and listen to their body.
A case for doubling on the easy days is that the split here can keep each easy run truly easy, and you get a double dose of the blood flow, hormone boost, etc that helps you recover and adapt. There's a point of trying to scale up individual easy run duration where it becomes not so easy. Think about that point in duration where your legs start to feel heavy and it requires relatively more mental energy to keep going -one idea behind splitting the easy day into a double is that it helps manage exposure to that while still getting in a lot of volume.
One key aspect of this thread is managing day-to-day effort so that there aren't huge swings in training and we can keep overall training load higher by virtue of that. Hard-days-hard and easy-days-easy is a useful heuristic for beginners that often gets overdone because people don't understand the overall goals of training. These threshold sessions can accumulate a lot of volume so adding an easy double to that day can push the daily volume way too far into "hard" for some people. Again it kinda depends on where the individual is at with their total volume and how they response to different sessions.
For example: I'm in a situation right now where my easy days are about ~100min of running, split roughly evenly between two runs and my threshold sessions accumulate 70-80min of total running. Adding a double to that pushes it towards 100-120min total on the day, which is sometimes fine, but sometimes leaves me asking a little too much of the next easy day recovery wise. Particularly with the summer heat its a judgement call where sometimes I drop the double on my hard days and they end up being less total volume than my easy days. I'm pretty close to getting fit enough where the extra volume of doubling every workout and easy day will no longer be issue, but in this sort of transitory level of training I go against the common convention some days in favor of the overall training load. As I continue to scale up volume I will focus most of that additional volume on workout days and my training will start to look more "conventional" in that sense.
Be confident in running your own experiment and figuring out what makes sense for your current level.
Question about hills wrote:
Marius Bakken says this:
”The Ingebrigtsens use hill training for the “single” day in the base period on the day where double threshold is not used and have done so from early training days.
From my own experience, this works well, but it is also possible to use shorter/semi-short intervals from 200 meters to 1000 meters at 5-8 mmol/l lactate levels.
Which type of session works the best likely differs from runner to runner and from distance to distance, but I do encourage finding a model that involves some work above the AT – or at least a specific different stimuli about once weekly.”
Are people doing this intense work or no? Is that because most people here are doing longer races?
I think of the hills or short track intervals, also referred to as the X-factor workout, as the workout that provides whatever needed stimuli isn't accomplished by all the easy volume and threshold work. What exactly that needed stimuli is here is specific to the development level and goals of the athlete. Part of it is target event -safe to say X-factor work is less relevant if you're priority races are 10km+, more important races 5km-. That being said, I'd say a larger part is the athletes development -what are someone's current performance limitations and what's the most effective way to address those. Threshold and easy volume are the meat and potatoes, X-factor is the sauce and seasoning.
What a lot of people in this thread seem to be experiencing is that they don't have much need for anything beyond volume, threshold, and maybe some strides, or at least that they can still make good progress without much of anything resembling X-factor work. Most of us are running up against predominantly aerobic limitations so it makes sense to throw most/all of our workload towards addressing that limitation.
Myself I don't really follow the "method" of this thread or the Bakken training exactly, but I do use a lot of the same guiding principles and my weekly structure looks somewhat "Norwegian". For background: formerly ran a lot and ran pretty fast in college several years, got really out of shape since then and now am a little over a year back into serious training again.
Typical week I've done recently is ~130km, running twice/day 5x/week.
Easy + strides
30-35min of short intervals @ LT2-10km effort session,
Easy + strides
45-50min of longer intervals @ ~MP effort
Easy
X-factor
Medium long run @ ~LT1
All this is context to set up how I approach the X-factor day. Thanks to my talent and running history my innate speed/speed-endurance is pretty good, or at least relatively way better than my current aerobic fitness, but there are still some specific non-aerobic weaknesses I've noticed that I try to address. Among these are the skill of maintaining relaxed biomechanics while running 5k pace or faster, central max VO2/max HR ability, and just the mental toughness of being able to hurt.
I've come up with two general workouts to address these aspects for myself.
3-4x (5x200m hills), cutting down from 5k to 800m effort, jog back between reps and walk between sets. It's not a very challenging workout because the whole focus is just practicing good biomechanics at a range of paces, and at my current level I need to do that without running through too much fatigue.
2-3x (600m, 400m, 200m hills), running very hard, jog next rep distance. Targeting central VO2 max/max HR, glycolytic capacity, and mental toughness. It's a very hard workout in the moment but with the low session volume and utilizing a hill my legs don't feel beat up after.
You'll notice these are not as hard/long as the X-factor sessions in the Bakken/Ingebrigtsen -given that I'm not a world-class 1500m/5000m runner and not training at their workload I don't need as big of a stimulus as those guys do.
I do feel like this stuff has complemented the threshold running nicely and helps add some more fun to training. Funny enough though I'm now being forced into an all-sub-threshold scheme for a little while -I somehow got myself an intercostal muscle strain during some beer-fueled 4th-of-July swimming and currently can't breathe deep enough to run faster than MP without my chest feeling like it's going to explode. It will be an experiment to see how much X-factor work really matters.
I have shamelessly copied sirpoc for 20 weeks now and had big success, the first 10-15 I tried to be clever for my HM and incorporate stuff into the long run etc. it just complicates it and created an imbalance in how I felt versus copying by the book. I wouldn't change, what isn't broken. Right up to HM I would not change anything that's been suggested. Virtually every success of the huge amount I've seen, it's sticking to the format. Too many people are making the big mistake I think of HM changing way too much. Look at KI and sirpoc, neither has a much better distance right up to HM and we are only talking 30-35 mins work per session. Sirpoc just ran 1:12 flat on a course that I would say looks one of the most challenging I've seen on paper, for a road course.
I do 6 days a week and have still seen lots of success with it. Don't overthink it. Three sub-T workouts, one long run. Replace a recovery jog day with day off. If you are nervous that your CTL will tank because of this, then feel free to tack on 15-20 min to your cool down on those workout days and your long run day. Many people run 6 days a week and do just fine. Again, just shuffle the extra miles around your 6 day window.
Strava stalker to the rescue again 10/28/2024:
Alfie wrote:
If doing nothing faster than S/T, and therefore only getting speedwork from periodic 5k TTs. Is there any general consensus on how frequent the 5Ks should be, once every month etc?
This is where I think sirpoc has had more success than KI, well in my opinion anyway. I would say sporadic racing with a tiny taper like sirpoc does is a safer dynamic than then switching to the more aggressive hill repeats or vo2 work on a weekly basis. Obviously we are only comparing two people , but these are two who have likely stuck to this the longest where we have literally all the sessions available. But I worried for KI as soon as he started the regular work above Threshold.
They were both doing around the same for a while and were both on around the same level. The weird thing is they were both still improving, so I'm not convinced I know why KI started to mix things up. If your PBs stop, sure, take a chance on being more aggressive. But he was still going great. Whereas sirpoc has stuck it out totally like a machine and is now miles ahead of KI level who also seems to have started picking up injuries.
For the record, I count 8 5ks or parkruns that sirpoc has done since November last year. So we are sort of around once every 6-7 weeks it would seem as a blanket average. But that also includes 3 10ks and a HM in that time. I personally consider that a hell of a lot of racing in a year but I do think that helps put sprinkles on the already great system.
Unfortunately where I am in the world, there is no Parkrun local to me. I think this is a big factor, as I know I would be motivated perhaps to do and do this with other people. If you see in the Strava group, a huge chunk of the UK or Aussie guys are doing parkruns but also training like this.
parkerjohn wrote:
Back to helpful discussion…
It appears that sirpoc is going beyond the initial recommendations (beyond 30 min of sub-LT work per session) by increasing volume to 4 x 3K and 7 x 1600.
Also, the long run is creeping up towards 1 hr 45 min duration
The easy runs have stayed at 1 hr
Makes a lot of sense. This is probably an extra ~5-6 min per session given that he has improved his paces over time – so, very incremental and a reasonable progression for someone who has gotten fitter and is committed to doing more [sub-]threshold work in one session (without turning to double threshold, which is not the point of this thread). Very interesting kicking up the long run duration as well, seems like he is able to handle the extra load well based on his recent PR!
Want to hear if anyone else has started slightly modifying this schedule with some success (and in keeping with the core principles). For example, I still do three 30-36min [sub-]threshold sessions (Tues/Thurs/Sun) but fit one session into my 90min long run so that I can do a light hill sprint session (~2 sets, 4-5 reps) on Saturday that over time doesn't leave me too sore/tired for threshold the following day. Dropped my mile time by 10 seconds recently doing this, and has helped me progress the intensity of my threshold effort (same effort, just happens to be a bit faster) too it seems. 5k pace feels much easier on race day (also PR'd by 20 seconds). Having a great time so far, feeling strong, quick and snappy, not remotely burnt out. Thanks parkerjohn for keeping the productive convo going.
Others have mentioned this but I think it’s perfectly fine to add in a little speedwork following some of the sessions. For example today I did 3x8 minutes off 2 mins rest and then 4x30 seconds at vo2. Not after every session necessarily but I find it helpful to stay in touch with some speed while keeping the focus on aerobic dev.
I think some people may need the occasional all out efforts than others. Personally I've found that if I do just a 2 week peaking block (eg sessions like 5-6*1mile at 10k pace, or even 2k reps) leading into race week then I get much better results than going into a race solely on sub T. It's almost like my heart needs a few extended efforts at properly high heart rates to be able to sustain it for an entire race, same for the legs and muscular endurance. When I go in solely after a long sub T block without either having done several parkruns or a couple of weeks of efforts I fade badly, almost like it's a shock to the system.
Everybody is different so what works best for others may not work best for you. I'm convinced the sub-t method is a super efficient approach to improve your aerobic engine for most people, it just may be that you need to tweak the edges to get the best out of yourself on race day.
sirpoc84 wrote:
There's obviously a million ways to train. There might be a better one on 7 days a week and only an hour or so to dedicate to training in a day. But if there is, i'm yet to have tried it. I'm absolutely not the guardian of this system, despite what the internet seems to think. If there is another or better way to train and someone could show me that, I'll jump all over for it. After all I basically just stole this idea from my own training in another life as a cyclist, of which I just stole from others. All I've done really is lay it out or I guess communicate what I've done in a way people can interpret or understand. There's far smarter people than me in this thread who pick the bones out of the science of it.
Hi Sirpoc,
I can think of 3 ways that elicit similar input and output:
1. What you are already proposing: Sub-T with intervals ranging from 3-10mins adding up to around 30 mins of work in total.
2. Marathon pace continuous runs of around 45mins, perhaps up to 1h (the pace would likely be below MP, more around high-end aerobic if you are closer to elite)
3. Shorter Sub-T intervals: Sub-T with intervals of 30 secs to 90 seconds depending on level of runner, but roughly 200m and 400m intervals ranging from mile pace up to 8k pace. Also, possible to include 800m interval at 15k pace. This is what many call the easy interval method developed by Verheul and adapted by Klaas Lok.
Think of it this way on a spectrum of sub-T stimulus: continuous 3hr pace run to long intervals (sirpoc method) to short intervals (verheul method) all performed at a pace that ideally stays just under LT2.
I have tried all of them all and my preference over the years has shifted more from continuous MP runs (which I did almost daily that is difficult to believe now, but I had no life stress at that point, so was able to absorb it) to short intervals.
The way I think about long sub-T vs. short sub-T intervals is there are trade offs:
Long sub-T intervals (say 6x1k, 3x2k, 2x3k for a slower runner) has the advantage of accumulating a lot of running right below threshold, but it does not involve faster paces, so doesn't engage full range of muscle fiber activation, neuro-muscular adaptation, etc. (for example HM-30k pace all involve high activation of slow twitch, but little fast twitch, etc.)
Short sub-T intervals (20x200m, 15x400m) has the advantage of practicing faster paces with fast twitch activation, running economy, etc. as above, but it does not accumulate as much running right below threshold due to HR rising and declining during shorter intervals. This results in a lower average HR than long sub-T intervals. Think of it this way if LT2 occurs at HR 170, a 2k run will have the majority of it in 165-170, whereas a 400m interval will have less than half of it in that HR range. Even if the total distance covered is the same shorter intervals result in lower total load than longer intervals.
So I think those are the main tradeoffs between the two. Long sub-T intervals are basically a happy medium between continuous and longer MP runs and shorter sub-T intervals.
Just my 2 cents.
Below are a few themes from Sirpoc's marathon build.
1. Long run- between 90m to 2hr 22 minutes in length. Only one 2hr22m. Before these weeks he was doing 1hr40, up to 1hr50 long runs with the regular 3subt schedule. His build begins weeks before what's included here.
2. Sub T- continues with the regular sessions 3x per week. Mini tapers with less volume at sub T before races.
3. 3-5 x 5k at marathon pace- Sirpocs slowest 5k was 17:22 during London (mind explodes). All of these workouts were done at or slightly faster than marathon pace. 3x 5k was most common and he only did the 4 and 5 x 5k once each. The week of the marathon he did a 5k at sub T in lieu of subT intervals; I presume these were also done at marathon pace
4. Races- 5k 8 weeks out, 10k 5 weeks out, HM 3 weeks out before the marathon. That's a lot of racing! I believe he pr'd in every distance, which in itself is telling.
5. Volume and tapering- If it wasn't a race week, the volume (time per week) would be pushed to a new height. If you take the race weeks out, his volume progression is 7hr 50, 8hr, 8hr 6, 8hr 24, 8hr 21, 8hr 25, 8hr 51. Consider that Sirpoc hit his highest volume (8hr 51m) immediately after just PRing in the Half Marathon. Adding intensity through racing while also increasing weekly time is my opinion is the cornerstones of the build. From first principles, the two essential variables to increasing load are 1) intensity(races) and 2) volume (time per week, and time at intensity).
Well done Sirpoc, what a race! It truly takes skill to be able to execute a marathon like this on your first try. I think it's clear that Sirpoc has great skill for racing, which he honed during his cycling time trialing years (also, you can suffer a bit deeper on the bike than on the run, which is good practice). I think the longer the race, the more variables are at play and the more a skill for racing can save you time. It's absolutely incredible how tightly his PRs correlate from 5k to marathon, which indicates the benefits of aerobic strength and racing skill.
It's all well earned, congrats!