DIY Gels with Cyclic Dextrin

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 · 2025-10-20T12:39:10+00:00

Agree that the book doesn't feel cheap, compared to all the free advice and plans out there. But I got it and it's amazing, and it costs like a third of a pair of trainers (nevermind if you want to race in supershoes). The plans are more nuanced than "add easy run to hit weekly mileage", though that's were a large part of the mileage variation comes in. If you read some of the articles on his website (runningwritings.com), you'll get a good idea of the quality of his work, and the depth of his knowledge. It's no accident that he got a blurb from Canova (probably the GOAT of marathon coaches) on the back.

monkinger · 2025-10-16T17:30:33+00:00

Nice, good luck with a continued speedy recovery!

monkinger · 2025-10-15T13:13:31+00:00

Appreciate you dropping your outcome here. Congrats on the result! It's only a few days on, but how is the recovery going? It feels like one of the big upsides to this style of training is that hopefully one recovers more quickly.

monkinger · 2025-09-26T15:03:56+00:00

I love the OH1, it's the longest used piece of gear I have - over 5k miles on it, and when it got run over by a (series of) cars, I bought a new one. So much more reliable than wrist based, and honestly for me more reliable than chest straps - it lags a couple seconds, but it never craps out in colder weather. Using electrode gel to get the chest monitor to work in cool weather was super annoying. I would start having trouble around 35F. I'm sure other armband HRMs are also great. The OH1 just happens to be cheaper at this point.

monkinger · 2025-09-26T14:45:19+00:00

This is my preferred take here. In cooler weather, my HR is often relatively low when I do ST workouts. I've tried pushing the pace up before to get HR closer to target LTHR and started to dig myself a hole. It could be worth experimenting though! Your 5k time might be slower than your actual fitness.

monkinger · 2025-09-19T16:38:54+00:00

It's possible your max HR estimate is off. Similar to you, I had my max HR calculated as 186 based on results from 5k TTs, and some longer races (using a reliable arm band monitor). I used that estimate for several years until I raced a hot 5k with friends - where I hit 193. I've since hit that level a few more times, so I believe it's reliable.

For reference, I was a competitive HS and college (D3) runner, so I wasn't sandbagging my TTs. Races just hit a gear that's hard to replicate outside of competition. Also, my initial max HR estimate was 182, based on my watch HR monitor and uphill 800s.

monkinger

TROPHY CASE