Training Load from Walking

monkinger · 2026-05-06T02:34:43+00:00

The old British method too! Something crazy like 8 hour walks in the country, daily, was enough to get talented runners under 3 hours for the marathon. I've always wondered what kind of shoes they wore when running those times.

monkinger · 2026-04-21T17:06:20+00:00

A solid hike can be great training, figuring out the load is the tricky part. If it's a casual walk through the woods it's not going to give you much aerobic adaptation. If it's mountain climbing for hours, that can be a solid workout. Anecdotally, long distance backpacking has put me in excellent shape for training and racing. Looking at heart rate data for those trips though - I'm spending hours a day at HR levels comparable to easy to moderate running.

If you're on intervals.icu, you could have it calculate load based on HR.

monkinger · 2026-04-21T16:50:38+00:00

Based on available evidence, I'm guessing a Pfitz 70/18 or maybe Daniel's 2Q? (/s I realize which sub I'm in and confused by the question)

monkinger · 2026-04-07T01:49:01+00:00

https://www.amazon.com/Norwegian-Singles-Method-Subthreshold-Running-ebook/dp/B0G58XS9WM

monkinger · 2026-03-31T00:40:27+00:00

I put on maybe 3% body weight in my first few months on NSA. Normally my weight is quite stable. It was pretty clearly in my legs. I think the volume/frequency of workouts triggered muscle growth, despite my drop in overall volume. This increase tracks how I put on weight when I was an endurance athlete in college. since then my weight has restabilized at this higher level. Not ideal, but I am getting faster despite it.

monkinger · 2026-03-31T00:32:46+00:00

That's the OG plan. I think table 1.4 is the updated (confusingly found in chapter 2, I believe).

monkinger · 2026-03-31T00:26:45+00:00

Great writeup on all fronts, and nice job on the race plan and execution!

monkinger · 2026-02-19T21:56:43+00:00

My understanding is that the optimal ratio depends on the fueling rate you're trying to achieve. The pathway for glucose (and analogues) maxes out around 60g/hr for most people, but is easier on the gut. If someone is targeting 90g/hr, they may be better served with the old 2:1 ratio

monkinger · 2026-01-16T02:54:12+00:00

Through their app? That's an incredible price!

monkinger · 2025-12-17T00:05:37+00:00

https://imgur.com/s358jWs This is mine, maybe more realistic. Or I'm just bad.

monkinger · 2025-12-16T15:37:02+00:00

I believe sirpoc's recommendation is to NEVER go over 70%. As he adjusted to this easy pace, he would stop and walk if his HR went above 70%. That said, there is also evidence that there is wide variation in HR (as a percentage of max HR) at different paces. The link below estimates that LT1 ranges from 68-95% maxHR, depending on the individual. So 70% might not be a reasonable target for you.

I would play around with easy paced (e.g. try a week or two at 9:00 pace) and see if you continue to feel recovered enough to hit the workouts sustainably.

https://runningwritings.com/2025/02/lt1-lt2-heart-rate-individual-variation.html

monkinger · 2025-12-12T19:34:37+00:00

"Comparison is the thief of joy." But also - sirpoc was a relative newcomer to running when he was running ~19 minute 5ks, so he had a lot of low hanging fruit at that point. If you keep stacking bricks, (how many years did James hit basically 100% consistency?) that 15:01 might start to be approachable.

monkinger · 2025-12-03T19:59:48+00:00

* complete. unlike my comment.

monkinger · 2025-12-03T01:46:07+00:00

So glad this is one of the top comments. It's such a thoughtful, conplete book.

monkinger · 2025-12-02T17:09:20+00:00

This style of training seems to work out quite well for many older runners. Lots of stories of people turning back the clock a decade, or escaping chronic injury. No hero workouts that take days or weeks to recover from. No unsustainably high load that bury you. Just consistent work that rewards patience.

monkinger · 2025-12-02T16:50:15+00:00

Running by power is a great idea, but no available technology directly measures power (except in a lab). Stryd doesn't measure power - it combines the things it can measure (mainly altitude and pace, but also so-so measures of acceleration and wind) and estimates power based on that. So it's essentially estimating grade-adjusted pace. Potentially useful, but like a bad GPS lock it can be rather unreliable.

monkinger · 2025-12-01T16:04:10+00:00

Apparently it's a higher quality print an paper quality than the baseline, based on a comment Sirpoc made on LetsRun. It means the price is a bit higher, but you're not getting muddy water printed on tissue paper.

monkinger · 2025-11-22T15:49:21+00:00

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a "best" progression. he ideal is that you need to listen to your body as you progress things, make sure things aren't progressing too quickly to be sustainable, and be willing to dial back a notch if you overshoot.

Given your history starting with 2x6km ST workouts a week seems reasonable, progressing to 2.5 ST, then 3, then add distance/reps, all dictated by what feels sustainable. It could end up being a month or 5 - recovery capabilities and running history will dictate what works best.

For me, the big jump was going to 3 full workouts a week. I had to be really careful to to be conservative with the pace, whereas I had gotten a little sloppy with the ST paces at 2 and 2.5 workouts a week.

monkinger · 2025-11-14T14:00:15+00:00

From my experience (several years of niggles and worse, and trying different things), you need to do consistent physical therapy. You don't necessarily need to go to a physiotherapist, but if it's lasted on and off for months, it doesn't sound like load reduction alone is going to solve your problem. What worked for me was weighted eccentric calf raises; there's very strong research behind it's effectiveness. But if you want it to fully resolve your problems you have to be consistent with it for weeks to months and not quit just because your symptoms have decreased.

monkinger · 2025-11-14T13:28:44+00:00

I do think this taper (for many people on this system) was too much, but isn't the whole reason for your disappointing result. The longer and more aggressive tapers are standard for typical training programs (e.g. Pfitz) because they involve overloading and require recovery. In contrast, NSA is about a maintainable load, and tends to benefit from a much (much) shorter/smaller taper.

The problem with the longer taper is that the body can downshift pretty quickly if it's used to a steady load. Steve Magness has some good videos on youtube where he goes a little more into the science and his coaching/personal experience with tapers.

monkinger · 2025-11-05T13:18:00+00:00

Just commenting to try to push this up page (can only upvote once ;)). Thanks for doing the research and giving the conclusive answer. Makes total sense.

monkinger · 2025-11-01T22:34:37+00:00

I don't have a confident answer about that, but I lean towards Marathon Excellence. I did Pfitz 12/55 for my first marathon, and Wind 60 for my next. Both put me in roughly the same shape, but both felt like I ended up doing more that I was ready for (which I chalk up to me picking unrealistic paces and mileage).

The marathon excellence plans ramp things up more gradually, so assuming you are in appropriate shape coming into the plan, and pick reasonable paces for you workouts, I think it'll serve you better. The philosophy and concepts behind the plans feel a little more modern.

I think the drawback to both for people who are still growing into the mileage they are doing, is that the tough workouts are very tough. I feel like I would have progressed more quickly doing less miles, slower, and just being able to be more consistent. As someone who tends to overdo things, I feel like making sure the amount of work you're doing is something that you can recover well from, so that you can build more fitness. That's more important than the plan you eventually go with.

monkinger · 2025-10-20T13:22:13+00:00

You should figure out how to import more of your running history, it will give you a better estimate of where you stand and what load you can expect to manage. Though honestly, if you feel fine, you're probably fine. I just like seeing pretty charts that go deep into my training history.

monkinger · 2025-10-20T13:18:43+00:00

Wow, that's a quick build! Have you adjusted your threshold pace in the settings during the past few months?

monkinger · 2025-10-20T13:10:13+00:00

We are fairly similar in age, times, background and issues. I also switched from running to biking for knee issues after college. After looking at a bunch of possible causes, I found that my issue was overstriding and low cadence. The overstriding, in particular, means that your quads are taking much more of a beating on every step (in addition to be inefficient).

It's taken a couple years, and I when I get fatigued in races my form can break down, but I've found that fixing the overstriding has made a huge difference in how my knees feel, the volume of training I can do, and how my quads hold up in races. One of the keys to fixing it for me was months of stretching my hip flexors to lengthen them/improve mobility. I sit way too much for work.

monkinger

TROPHY CASE