Shownotes

Highs and lows in training

01:01 -

• The time spent out of the water a few weeks ago is still clearly showing in my swim training. During a threshold session of 200-metre repeats, I was descending the turnarounds as planned, but from the start I felt slower than expected.
• As the rest intervals tightened toward the end of the set, it became obvious that I was well beyond LT2 and that finishing the full session would turn into a grind with little added benefit. I decided to stop early in order to preserve the intended stimulus and avoid unnecessary fatigue.
• I still completed around 2 kilometres of threshold work, missing only a couple of repetitions, so overall the damage was limited. Even so, it was a rough session, especially knowing that I still had a threshold bike workout scheduled later that day. With some caffeine on board, the hope was simply to feel a bit better and get through the next session.
• Despite the challenges, the overall training week was positive. It was only the second week since late November that I managed to reach approximately 90 kilometres of running, including two quality sessions: one threshold session and one VO₂max session.
• This is the level of volume I would like to sustain throughout the year. While I would ideally like to go higher, I am not convinced my body would tolerate that consistently, so the focus will be on maintaining this workload without pushing beyond what is sustainable.
• If I can hold this volume and quality consistently, I expect to see meaningful progression in my running performance.
• Later in the week, changing weather conditions made outdoor training difficult. Poor conditions meant avoiding the track, and missed gym opening hours forced an adjustment.
• Having access to a treadmill on that day made it much easier to complete the planned session and ensured that the training was not compromised. It was also reassuring to confirm that the treadmill pacing appeared accurate and realistic, as treadmill feedback can sometimes feel overly optimistic when fitness is improving.
• While it is easy to accept fast numbers without question, slower or inconsistent readings tend to invite more scrutiny. For now, though, the data appears reliable, and confidence in the setup remains intact.

Mikael’s bonus session

05:46 -

• One of my key marathon-specific sessions, which I consider a bonus or optional workout, is an over–under session built around continuous five-kilometre blocks.
• Typically, I prescribe three to five rounds of these blocks. Each five-kilometre segment is run in a rolling, continuous manner, alternating pace very close to marathon pace.
• The structure consists of one kilometre slightly faster than marathon pace, around ten seconds per kilometre faster, followed by one kilometre slightly slower, again by about ten seconds. 
• This pattern is repeated, resulting in four kilometres that oscillate just above and just below marathon pace. The final kilometre of each block is run at a steady intensity, clearly within zone two. It is not an easy jog, but it is controlled, typically around thirty to forty-five seconds per kilometre slower than marathon pace.
• This structure allows the athlete to remain very close to marathon pace without large fluctuations, while still introducing subtle variation. When performed three times, the session yields twelve kilometres of work close to marathon pace; four rounds give sixteen kilometres, and five rounds extend this to twenty kilometres.
• Although the final kilometre of each block could be considered a form of recovery, it is deliberately steady rather than easy, which means the session remains demanding throughout. The lack of long, easy recovery makes the overall workload quite challenging, even when the total marathon-pace volume is relatively modest.
• I use this type of session during the marathon-specific phase of training. The exact timing depends on the athlete’s background, experience, and familiarity with the marathon distance, but I generally aim for a specific preparation period of around twelve weeks.
• During this phase, I like to rotate this session with a small selection of other marathon-focused workouts, including more straightforward marathon-pace sessions and other variations that provide a slightly different stimulus. The goal is to build specificity without repeating the exact same stress week after week.
• One of the main reasons I value this session is that it avoids the trap of running marathon pace continuously in every specific workout. Many athletes feel compelled to constantly confirm fitness by locking into marathon pace, which can become difficult to sustain consistently across a full training week.
• By alternating slightly faster and slightly slower segments, the workload becomes more manageable while still remaining highly specific. This approach supports consistency and allows the athlete to better absorb other key sessions.
• From a training perspective, I also prefer not to let marathon preparation push athletes into becoming overly one-paced. While this session is not speed work, the brief segments run slightly faster than marathon pace ensure that the athlete continues to touch higher intensities.
• The alternating structure also introduces variation in physiological demand, rather than reinforcing a single, monotonous stimulus. Even without focusing heavily on the underlying physiological theory, the practical benefit is clear: the athlete faces a more varied challenge, both physically and mentally, which helps sustain adaptation over time.
• That said, I do not consider this session universally appropriate. Its value increases as marathon pace approaches higher relative intensities. For athletes targeting slower marathon times, the benefits may be more limited, and the session may be less necessary.
• I tend to see more value once athletes are running closer to three and a half hours or faster, with the session becoming increasingly useful as performance level improves.

Power Rankings: number 5 (Jack)

12:10 -

• The ordering of my sessions is somewhat flexible, as it is often difficult to rank them definitively, but one of my key workouts is a classic hill repetition session consisting of twelve one-minute efforts. I consider this primarily a VO₂max-oriented workout.
• The hill selection is important: ideally, the gradient should sit between five and eight percent. It needs to be steep enough to require clear force application and knee drive, but not so steep that it compromises running speed or mechanics.
• Consistency of gradient is also important, as it allows rhythm to develop without having to adjust pace midway through each effort.
• Each repetition is run uphill for one minute at a perceived effort of roughly eight to nine out of ten, followed by a jog back down for recovery. Walking is avoided, as the goal is to keep heart rate elevated throughout the session.
• Recovery typically lasts around one minute and fifty seconds to just over two minutes, depending on the gradient. Throughout the session, the focus is on maintaining good form, strong but relaxed arm drive, active knee lift, and a stable, relaxed torso.
• For athletes with a more anaerobic profile, the session can be split into two blocks to manage lactate accumulation. The recoveries remain active, allowing partial clearance without fully dropping cardiovascular strain, which helps maintain a strong aerobic and VO₂max stimulus across the full workout.
• In terms of progression, I have occasionally extended this session to fifteen repetitions, but I do not see a strong need to push beyond twelve. The volume is already substantial at this intensity, and extending it further does not necessarily improve the outcome.
• With hill repetitions, the stimulus is not purely VO₂max. There is also a strong component of running economy, neuromuscular coordination, and muscular power, particularly because uphill running facilitates good mechanics and force application.
• For this reason, I generally keep the volume slightly lower than I would for a flat VO₂max session. If the sole objective were VO₂max development, I might opt for a longer flat session instead, but I view hill repetitions as a more mixed stimulus.
• Because the recoveries are active and not static, the cumulative time spent at high intensity is still significant. When executed correctly, the session results in a prolonged period of elevated cardiovascular strain, making it both demanding and effective.

Power Rankings: number 5 (Mikael)

16:29 -

• My number 5 session is a fartlek-style workout that I have been experimenting with more recently. While not many of my athletes have used it yet, I have found it very effective in my own training.
• The intention behind this session is to target VO₂ work while allowing faster running without the injury risk that can come with very hard, continuous efforts, particularly when managing minor niggles.
• The structure relies on active recoveries to keep oxygen uptake high without requiring extreme speeds during the work intervals.
• The session consists of two rounds. Each round includes two minutes on and one minute off, followed by two repetitions of ninety seconds on with one minute off, then three repetitions of one minute on with one minute off, and finally four repetitions of thirty seconds on with thirty seconds off.
• The structure progresses from longer work-to-rest ratios early on toward shorter, more frequent changes later in the round. This gradually builds heart rate and oxygen uptake, which then remains high as the session transitions into one-to-one work-to-rest segments.
• Perceived exertion stays high throughout, but the active recoveries prevent excessive mechanical strain.
• In practice, the recoveries are run as an easy jog rather than a slow plod, while the faster segments are typically around 5 km pace, occasionally edging closer to 3 km pace if progressing within the session.
• The first round is executed conservatively to ensure control, with the option to slightly increase intensity in the second round if feeling strong. A five-minute easy jog separates the two rounds. The total time spent running fast amounts to around twenty minutes, with each round lasting approximately sixteen to seventeen minutes including recoveries.
• I find this session particularly effective because the descending interval durations help preserve form as fatigue accumulates, while the continuously active nature of the workout keeps the cardiovascular system under sustained stress.
• It provides a strong aerobic and VO₂ stimulus without requiring maximal speeds, making it both challenging and sustainable.

Power Rankings: number 4 (Jack)

21:03 -

• One of the key sessions I use is an LT2 threshold progression workout. The structure consists of two sets of 3 kilometres, 2 kilometres, and 1 kilometre, with short recoveries after the 3-kilometre and 2-kilometre segments, and a full recovery between the two sets.
• The intensity is progressive: the 3 kilometres are run just below LT2, the 2 kilometres are around LT2 or threshold, and the final 1 kilometre is run slightly above threshold.
• Compared to a more classic LT2 session, the purpose here is to introduce more variation in intensity rather than sitting continuously at a maximal steady state. Because of the higher overall demand, I use this session more sparingly than a traditional threshold workout.
• It fits best within a build phase, once a solid aerobic base has been established and a substantial amount of conventional threshold work has already been completed. The descending nature of the intervals also places an emphasis on durability, as pace increases under accumulating fatigue.
• This session works particularly well when building toward events such as a 10 km or half-marathon, where the demands align closely with the progression in intensity.
• Within a triathlon context, it is likely more suitable for higher-level athletes, but from a physiological perspective it can still have a place in many training plans.
• More broadly, I find that incorporating small variations in pace within sessions is especially valuable in running. Unlike cycling, where terrain and group dynamics naturally introduce variability, running can easily become overly repetitive in terms of pace.
• Including controlled changes in intensity provides a different stimulus and helps avoid stagnation, even though steady, single-pace sessions remain important and necessary.

Power Rankings: number 4 (Mikael)

23:45 -

• My session is a hill-based tempo workout, most commonly performed on a treadmill unless access to a very long continuous hill is available. The session consists of four to six repetitions of eight minutes at a tempo effort, corresponding to roughly an RPE of six out of ten, zone three intensity, or around eighty-five percent of maximum heart rate.
• The incline typically ranges from five to ten percent. Recovery is structured using a three-to-one work-to-rest ratio, which translates to approximately two minutes and forty seconds of easy jogging at zero incline between repetitions.
• Faster runners may build toward six repetitions, but even four repetitions provide a strong stimulus, particularly when the incline is toward the higher end of the range. The uphill nature of the session creates a markedly different demand compared to flat tempo running.
• I find this session especially effective for triathletes. Triathlon performance relies heavily on strength, fatigue resistance, and the ability to run well under accumulated fatigue rather than simply running fast.
• This workout develops muscular endurance and resilience in a way that transfers well to half- and full-distance triathlon racing. For that reason, I tend to use it more frequently with triathletes than with pure runners.
• There are also effective outdoor alternatives. One approach is to accumulate thirty to forty minutes of uphill work on a shorter hill, such as three-minute climbs with active downhill recoveries.
• This format often results in a roughly one-to-one work-to-rest ratio, making the session long and demanding, but still highly effective. I have seen strong results with this approach outdoors as well.
• While I consider this an excellent session with a very strong stimulus, I also believe it requires some caution, particularly on the treadmill. I have personally experienced knee issues during a block where this session was performed regularly, and although injuries are multifactorial, it was one of the few changes introduced at the time.
• Feedback from physiotherapists has suggested there may be some elevated risk associated with this type of loading, so careful progression and individual tolerance are important. Despite this, I still regard it as a highly valuable workout, especially for triathletes, when applied thoughtfully and conservatively.

Power Rankings: number 3 (Jack)

27:32 -

• One of my key sessions, which I rank highly, is a classic flat threshold workout inspired by the Norwegian approach, focused on sustained work in high zone three.
• In contrast to the LT2 progression session, where intensity moves gradually through threshold, this session is about sitting very close to LT2 and holding that intensity consistently.
• A representative structure I use is three repetitions of two kilometres followed by four repetitions of one kilometre, giving a total of ten kilometres of work at threshold intensity.
• The primary objective of this session is to maximise time spent just below maximal lactate steady state without accumulating excessive fatigue.
• Lactate levels typically remain controlled, around 2.5 to 3.5 millimoles, allowing a high-quality stimulus while still being repeatable across the season. I see this as a session that can be used throughout the year, rather than only in a specific phase, provided the intensity is well controlled.
• I prefer to start with the longer repetitions and then transition to shorter ones. This sequencing allows pace to be maintained more easily toward the end of the session, while increasing mechanical load as fatigue develops, without significantly changing the internal physiological load.
• It creates a demanding but manageable progression that balances durability and control.
• This session can be performed with spikes for athletes who tolerate them well, as they increase the mechanical demands and intensity of the workout.
• Personally, I do not handle spikes particularly well, but for athletes with the appropriate strength and resilience, they can be a valuable tool. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the session depends on getting the intensity right.
• When threshold pace is well calibrated, it is possible to accumulate a substantial amount of quality volume. While the session is challenging, it remains sustainable, and the total volume can be progressed over time as long as execution remains disciplined.

Power Rankings: number 3 (Mikael)

29:32 -

• Another session I use frequently is a shorter, steady threshold workout performed at a similar overall intensity, but with more controlled pacing. The idea is to begin slightly conservatively and allow the intensity to build naturally over the course of the session.
• If threshold pace is well established, I typically recommend starting around ten seconds per kilometre slower than threshold, or roughly fifteen seconds per mile slower. If the athlete is feeling good, the pace can gradually progress so that the final repetitions are run right at threshold.
• I usually structure this session using four-minute intervals. The total number of repetitions can vary quite widely, anywhere from six up to fifteen, but for most athletes the most effective range tends to be between eight and twelve.
• If I had to choose a single starting point, eight repetitions of four minutes is a very solid option. It provides enough volume to create a meaningful stimulus without becoming excessively demanding.
• Recovery is kept relatively short and controlled, using a three-to-one work-to-rest ratio. This typically means one minute and twenty seconds of rest between intervals.
• The recoveries do not need to be long; if significantly more recovery is required, it is usually an indication that the intensity is too high. When executed correctly, this structure allows the athlete to accumulate quality time close to threshold while maintaining good control over fatigue and overall session quality.

Power Rankings: number 2 (Jack)

30:50 -

• One of my favourite sessions, and one that I rank very highly, is a long progression run built around three continuous blocks of twenty minutes. The defining feature of this workout is the gradual increase in pace across the entire run.
• Pacing is set by working backwards from the final block, which should be run approximately ten to fifteen seconds per kilometre slower than LT2. Each preceding block is then another ten to fifteen seconds slower than the one that follows.
• For an athlete with a threshold pace of around four minutes per kilometre, this would typically translate to the first twenty minutes at roughly 4:40 per kilometre, the second block at around 4:25, and the final block at approximately 4:10.
• Perceived effort should rise progressively, sitting around RPE 5 in the first block, RPE 6 in the second, and RPE 7 in the final block. This is a demanding session and one that athletes need to build toward over time.
• I usually start with shorter formats such as three blocks of fifteen minutes, or a descending structure like twenty, fifteen, and ten minutes, before progressing to the full three-by-twenty-minute version.
• The first block should sit clearly below LT1. For very anaerobic athletes, this may need to be even easier, and if that becomes difficult to control, this session may not be the most appropriate choice.
• That said, progression runs are extremely valuable for developing durability, particularly for triathlon and longer road races where the ability to run fast under fatigue is crucial.
• If the goal is to make the session highly specific for a 10 km or half marathon, the final block can be progressed slightly beyond LT2, but that turns it into a race-simulation workout and should be used sparingly.
• I have extensive personal experience with similar progression formats, including very long runs where pace was increased every three kilometres over distances of thirty kilometres or more.
• These sessions start very conservatively and gradually build until reaching, and sometimes slightly exceeding, LT2 near the end. They are extremely demanding but, when absorbed well, can be highly effective.
• There is a common criticism of progression runs that they are inefficient because they do not maximise time at a single target intensity. From a purely physiological or sports science perspective, that argument has some validity. However, I do not agree with it in practice.
• The very aspect that makes progression runs less “efficient” is also their strength. I like to use them earlier in the base phase, before athletes are ready to handle long, steady tempo or threshold sessions.
• They act as a bridge, introducing sustained work at higher intensities without requiring the athlete to immediately lock into a demanding pace.
• Progression runs also reduce the risk of athletes starting too hard, which is a common issue when a fixed intensity is prescribed. Athletes are generally more comfortable beginning conservatively when they know the session will build, whereas being asked to hold a steady intensity from the start often leads to overshooting and early fatigue.
• In that scenario, much of the intended aerobic adaptation is lost. The progression format encourages controlled execution and supports mitochondrial and aerobic development without excessive stress.
• Another advantage is that progression runs help ensure quality late in the session. If the goal is to complete a strong twenty-minute block near LT2 at the end of a long run, a progression is often the most reliable way to achieve that.
• Prescribing a harder effort earlier can compromise the ability to execute that final block properly. The progression structure manages fatigue so that quality can still be maintained when it matters most.
• This approach also provides protection on bad days. Even if pacing is theoretically correct, there are days when the body simply does not respond as expected.
• A progression run naturally self-regulates, allowing adjustments without the session becoming a complete failure. This highlights the balance between coaching art and scientific principles.
• While physiology provides a framework, practical execution and real-world athlete behaviour matter just as much. Observing what consistently works for high-performing athletes is not the only input that should be used, but it is an important one.

Power Rankings: number 2 (Mikael)

40:00 -

• Another marathon-specific session I use follows the same progressive theme but is structured in repeating rounds rather than long continuous blocks.
• The session consists of four to six rounds of four kilometres. Each round is built around subtle pace variation very close to marathon pace.
• The first kilometre is run at around ten seconds per kilometre slower than marathon pace, the second kilometre at marathon pace, and the third kilometre at approximately ten seconds per kilometre faster than marathon pace.
• The fourth kilometre serves as a steady recovery, typically run at marathon pace plus thirty to forty-five seconds per kilometre.
• The rounds are performed continuously, rolling from one segment to the next. If completed four times, the session totals sixteen kilometres, with twelve kilometres of focused work. If extended to six rounds, the total distance increases to twenty-four kilometres, with eighteen kilometres of work.
• The session remains highly specific because all of the faster running is tightly clustered around marathon pace. At the same time, the small variations in intensity provide a different stimulus compared to steady marathon-pace running and make the session more manageable mentally.
• I have also adapted this session, along with other marathon-specific workouts, for different race contexts such as Ironman and middle-distance triathlon.
• The underlying principles remain the same, but the structure is adjusted to reflect the lower relative intensity of race pace. For Ironman-specific preparation, I would generally use longer blocks, as the pace is easier. This might mean fewer total rounds, but with each block extending beyond one kilometre.
• For example, the slower segment might be one kilometre, followed by two kilometres at Ironman pace and three kilometres slightly faster than Ironman pace.
• Because Ironman pace is relatively moderate for most athletes, this adjustment maintains specificity while still providing an effective stimulus. The exact structure would, of course, depend on the athlete, particularly at the elite end of the spectrum.
• For middle-distance racing, the session would remain closer to the marathon version. For many age-group athletes, half-distance triathlon pace is similar to marathon pace, so the overall format does not need major modification.
• However, total volume would be reduced to remain appropriate for the race distance, typically limiting the session to four or five rounds rather than six.

Power Rankings: number 1 (Jack)

43:02 -

• One of the sessions I value most, and which differs clearly from the others, is a Kenyan-style fartlek. Most of the sessions I use are relatively guided by pace, with the exception of hill repetitions, whereas this session is entirely effort-based and performed over rolling, undulating terrain.
• Traditionally, this type of workout is done on dirt roads, often in large groups, with the structure varying slightly from week to week. The emphasis is less on strict pacing and more on sustained hard running controlled by feel.
• The intensity is generally lower than a pure VO₂max session, while the overall volume is higher. As a result, the session sits more in the realm of fractional utilisation and lactate clearance rather than maximal aerobic power.
• One of the most common formats is one minute hard followed by one minute steady, repeated around twenty times. Other variations include two minutes hard with one minute steady, or pyramid formats such as one minute on and one minute off, then two minutes on and one minute off, three minutes on and one minute off, before descending again.
• The harder efforts typically correspond to an effort level similar to somewhere between 10 km and half marathon intensity, while the recoveries are run slightly slower than marathon pace.
• Importantly, neither the hard nor the steady segments are dictated by pace. Everything is controlled by perceived effort, which allows the terrain to naturally influence speed without compromising the intent of the session.
• Ideally, this session is done in a group of athletes with similar ability. The group agrees on the format and then runs continuously over rolling roads for forty to fifty minutes, including both the hard and steady segments. The group dynamic plays a significant role in the effectiveness of the session, making it both demanding and engaging.
• I have personal experience of training environments where these sessions are a regular fixture, and one of my biggest regrets was sticking too rigidly to a pre-set plan instead of joining in.
• This type of workout reinforces an important principle: when the opportunity exists to train hard in a strong group, it is often worth embracing it rather than overcomplicating things.
• At its core, the session is about running hard over varied terrain, staying engaged, and accumulating a high-quality aerobic stimulus through controlled intensity and shared effort.

Power Rankings: number 1 (Mikael)

46:00 -

• My top-ranked session is a long threshold workout built around extended intervals. It is very similar in nature to other long threshold formats, such as sessions using two-kilometre and one-kilometre repetitions, but in this case I prefer to use eight-minute intervals.
• The session typically consists of four to eight repetitions of eight minutes. For many athletes, four repetitions already provide a very strong stimulus, while more advanced athletes can gradually build toward eight repetitions.
• Recovery is structured using a three-to-one work-to-rest ratio, which results in two minutes and forty seconds of recovery between intervals.
• Given the length of the recovery, I do not consider it passive. Instead, it should be performed as an easy jog. The pacing is controlled and disciplined, starting at approximately ten seconds per kilometre slower than threshold, or around fifteen seconds per mile slower.
• If the athlete feels strong, the pace can gradually build through the session, but even holding this slightly conservative intensity throughout already makes the workout highly effective.
• This session accumulates a substantial amount of time at threshold across relatively long intervals, making it one of the most reliable ways to develop sustained aerobic power. When executed well, it delivers a very high-quality stimulus without the need for excessive intensity or complexity.

Differences in session choices for different modalities

47:30 -

• One clear difference that stood out is that my swim and bike training includes a greater emphasis on VO₂-focused sessions. While I do include some VO₂-type work in running, such as fartlek, I tend to use it more sparingly in a triathlon context.
• A significant portion of the aerobic stimulus developed through swimming and cycling is partially transferable to running, which reduces the need to chase the same volume of high-intensity work on the run. Some running-specific intensity is still necessary, but it plays a less central role.
• Another important factor is that the run comes last in a triathlon. Because of this, performance is less about absolute speed and more about the ability to run well under fatigue.
• Strength, durability, and fatigue resistance therefore take precedence in how I prioritise run training. This heavily influences why longer threshold-based sessions rank so highly on my list.
• The strongest similarity between my run training and my bike training lies in the emphasis on sustained threshold work. In both disciplines, I focus on accumulating meaningful amounts of time at the correct intensity.
• This does not mean the sessions are easy, but rather that they are controlled enough to allow a substantial total duration of work. Whether this is achieved through shorter intervals, such as four-minute repetitions, or longer ones like eight-minute intervals, the goal is to gradually build the capacity to tolerate long periods of threshold work.
• For more advanced athletes, this can eventually extend toward an hour of total threshold time, which mirrors the intent behind many of the bike sessions I prescribe.
• While VO₂max work can sometimes be easier to execute on the run, as heart rate tends to rise quickly, this comes with a clear trade-off. The injury risk associated with high-intensity running is significantly higher than with comparable intensity on the bike or in the pool.
• Increasing speed on the run carries a much greater mechanical cost, and this risk has to be managed carefully.
• Another distinction is that running sessions often have a broader application beyond triathlon. Many of the sessions I value for running are equally relevant for open running races, whereas the swim and bike sessions tend to be more tightly aligned with triathlon-specific demands.
• In swimming and cycling, there are also certain elements—such as band work in the pool or sprint work on the bike—that do not always appear as standalone sessions in a rigid training plan but still play an important role.
• I gave some thought to including elements like hill sprints or strides in my run list. They are unquestionably valuable, but ultimately they did not fit neatly into the ranking.
• That does not diminish their importance. Instead, I prefer to integrate strides regularly, often within warm-ups, as a consistent way to maintain neuromuscular sharpness without adding excessive fatigue or injury risk.

Upvote and downvote

50:50 -

• From my list, the fifth-ranked session was the fartlek, followed by the treadmill-based strength endurance session at number four, the shorter four-minute threshold repetitions at number three, the marathon-specific descending repetitions at number two, and the long eight-minute threshold intervals at number one.
• From that list, I chose to upvote the VO₂max-oriented fartlek session. It is a session I use regularly with athletes, even though it did not feature explicitly in my own ranking. For the downvote, I selected the marathon-specific session, not because I dislike it, but simply because of its high placement within a triathlon-focused context.
• My own list consisted of one-minute hill repetitions, an LT2 progression session using descending distances, a classic threshold session with longer and shorter repetitions, a progression run built around long continuous blocks, and the Kenyan-style fartlek at the top.
• When reviewing these sessions, the Kenyan-style fartlek stood out as the one I would upvote without hesitation. Even though it already ranked first, I still felt it deserved particular recognition due to its quality and overall appeal as a session.
• For the downvote, I selected the long progression run. This was not a reflection of disliking progression runs in general, but rather a preference for slightly different execution. I would be more inclined to modify that structure by using shorter blocks or incorporating a broader range of paces.
• That said, I have used similar progression-based formats successfully, particularly in long-distance triathlon preparation such as Ironman, where accumulating a large amount of controlled work is beneficial. Even so, in its exact form, it is the session I would be least likely to prescribe compared to the others on the list.

Run and run pace percentages

54:01 -

• Before closing, I wanted to address one additional point related to running, which could almost be considered a public service announcement. It concerns the use of run pace percentages, particularly as they are applied within common training platforms.
• Many athletes and coaches use tools such as TrainingPeaks, where workouts are built by setting a threshold pace and then prescribing intensities as percentages of that value.
• For example, an interval might be set at ninety percent or an easy run at seventy percent, and the platform automatically generates the corresponding paces. This approach works smoothly from a practical standpoint, but it is important to understand what is happening behind the scenes.
• What these platforms typically do is convert the threshold pace into a speed. If threshold pace is five minutes per kilometre, that corresponds to twelve kilometres per hour. A prescription of ninety percent is then calculated as ninety percent of that speed, resulting in 10.8 kilometres per hour, which is subsequently converted back into a pace of approximately 5:33 per kilometre.
• This speed-based calculation differs from pace-based systems often associated with marathon training methodologies, where percentages are applied directly to pace rather than speed. In that framework, five minutes per kilometre is treated as three hundred seconds, and ten percent is simply thirty seconds added or subtracted.
• At intensities close to threshold, the difference between these two methods is relatively small. However, as the intensity moves further away from threshold, particularly toward easier endurance running, the discrepancies become much larger.
• Using the same example, seventy percent of a five-minute-per-kilometre threshold pace would equate to six minutes thirty seconds per kilometre in a pace-based system, whereas a speed-based system would prescribe closer to seven minutes per kilometre. That is a substantial difference in practical terms.
• This was one of the reasons I deliberately chose to describe paces using simple additions or subtractions of seconds rather than percentages. Introducing percentages would require additional explanation about which calculation method is being used, and that can quickly become confusing.
• In practice, I do not think this distinction is critically important for easy running, where the primary instruction is simply to run easy. Likewise, near threshold, the differences between methods are small enough that they rarely change the overall outcome. Nonetheless, the differences do exist, and I believe it is useful for athletes and coaches to be aware of them.
• In my own coaching, I have chosen to align fully with the methodology used by the platform I work with, so that calculations and prescribed intensities are internally consistent.
• This also ensures that any tools, calculators, or training plans built around that system behave as expected for the user. That said, I remain cautious about relying too heavily on percentage-based prescriptions.
• While they can be convenient, particularly when copying sessions across athletes, they do not account for individual differences in athlete profiles, biomechanics, or tolerance to different intensities.
• These limitations become even more apparent at the extremes. Above threshold, some athletes can comfortably run well beyond it for short intervals, while others can barely exceed it. At the other end of the spectrum, easy running can look very different depending on performance level.
• A very fast marathon runner may need to run at a much lower percentage of threshold to remain genuinely easy, while a slower runner may sit at a higher percentage and experience a similar subjective effort. Biomechanically and energetically, these situations are not comparable, even if they are labelled similarly in percentage terms.
• This is also why I am sceptical of overly simplistic discussions around concepts like zone two. For highly trained athletes, what is considered zone two can still be mechanically demanding and energetically costly, even if it sits within the correct metabolic range.
• The absolute energy expenditure can be extremely high, which changes how the session is experienced and how it needs to be managed.
• All of this highlights how complex endurance training really is. Percentage-based systems can be useful tools, but they are only one piece of the puzzle. Understanding athlete profiles, individual responses, and the practical realities of execution is just as important.
• This naturally leads into broader questions around athlete typology and how different physiological and biomechanical traits influence training prescription, which is a topic worth revisiting in more depth in the future.

LINKS AND RESOURCES

• All running related episodes on That Triathlon Show
• John Davis – Coaching, physiology, and running calculators | EP#464
• Running Writings Pace Percentage Calculator