The programme: October 2026

Updated 2 Nov 2026

Running notebook · 2026 record · Running record

This is the programme agreed by 8 October 2026, updated through 2 November. The cycle began on 15 October. Ten workouts are complete: nine of the original twelve, plus the extra VO₂ repeat on November 2. The intended total is thirteen. LT remains planned for November 3; the later trial and F dates are provisional. Completed work stays on the 2026 record.

LT aims at sustainable high lactate turnover. VO₂ aims at time near maximal oxygen uptake. F is repeatable fast running; FA adds a shorter-recovery fast set; TT is a time trial; X is an experiment. These labels describe intentions, not measured internal physiological states.

The larger aim is the notebook’s 800+ World Athletics point profile across 800–5000 m. The LT and VO₂ gates below are workout milestones toward that aim. A repetition pace with recovery is not a continuous race mark to score against the event table.

Current choices · Transition · Cycle · Current calendar · Progressions

Current choices

LT is now at 3×1600 m. The 8 October workout passed the first 1200 m gate. The first longer session on 16 October was 6:22.67, 6:21.91, 6:27.07: 6:23.88 average (3:59.93/km). The two 100 m walks took 1:11.93 and 1:15.99; elapsed time through the last finish was 21:39.57, including the walks. Early pace felt comfortable, but reported heat strain made the third rep very hard, with a loss of posture and knee lift before a strong finish with good form. 6:08 average remains a later graduation target. There is no inferred heat-adjusted time.

The second 1600 session on 23 October was 6:20.51, 6:18.81, 6:16.05: 6:18.46 average (3:56.54/km). Recoveries were 1:02.68 and 1:11.25, with 21:09.30 from the first start to the last finish. Faster closing laps contributed to progressively quicker reps. I kept good posture and felt comfortable through the laps in less severe heat, while still carrying mild soreness from FA. Both ankles felt tension afterwards, without changing my walking, and were already easing by the discussion. 6:08 remains the gate; no progression to 2000s has yet been earned.

The third 1600 session on 28 October was 6:19.82, 6:20.62, 6:15.86: 6:18.77 average (3:56.73/km), with 57.42 seconds and 1:06.01 recovery. I paced conservatively because the difficult final 900s had left me unsure whether my legs would hold. I kept good posture and composure, then was less cautious in the faster final rep. The average almost matched October 23; the possibility of holding the last rep’s pace throughout remains untested. 3×1600 m and the 6:08 gate remain unchanged. One LT slot remains before the time trial.

For November 3, I want to move from 6:18.77 average (3:56.73/km) towards the low 6:10s. The intention is a more confident first 1600, aiming under 6:15 without an aggressive start, then trying to accelerate across the set. Around 1:33 per lap gives 4:39 through 1200 m and 6:12 for 1600 m (3:52.5/km). These are planned checkpoints; 6:08 average remains the LT graduation gate.

VO₂ is now at 3×900 m with nominal 5:30 recovery. The 15 October 3×800 m, averaging 2:35.55 (3:14.4/km), earned the change. The first 900s on 19 October were 2:53.74, 2:56.22, 3:01.05: 2:57.00 average (3:16.67/km). Actual rests were 5:03.34 and 5:14.31. Heavy legs persisted between reps; a strong headwind and deteriorating form accompanied the slowing. The 2:55.5 average graduation target remains ahead. The next attempt stays at three 900s, aiming for a lower average and more even execution. The nominal recovery remains 5:30; that session’s shorter rests do not redefine it.

The second 900s on 27 October were 2:57.25, 2:57.58, 3:01.57: 2:58.80 average (3:18.67/km). Actual recoveries were 5:00.20 and 5:04.03. After three days off while unwell, I felt composed and finished strongly, but could not access faster running from the outset. The mean was 1.80 seconds per rep slower than October 19; I did not report the same breakdown. I see this as a return session and hope to feel sharper in the next pair. Three 900s and the 2:55.5 gate remain unchanged.

The third 900s on 1 November were 3:03.63, 2:58.33 and 3:06.34: 3:02.77 average (3:23.07/km), with 5:11.14 and 10:48.17 recorded recovery. I felt nauseated after eating too much at lunch, urgently needed the toilet and stopped around the second repetition. It was a cold night on an unlit track, and I felt awful while running. The slower result remains completed training; the conditions limit the comparison with the earlier sessions. I chose a repeat on November 2 and LT on November 3. The repeat is now complete; LT remains planned.

The extra 900s on 2 November were 2:56.82, 2:55.43 and 2:54.84: 2:55.70 average (3:15.22/km), with 4:59.86 and 6:03.16 recorded recovery. Crowds prompted the longer wait before the last rep, which included repeated outside passes, including excursions towards lane three on the bends. I felt good through the fastest rep and afterwards. Three subsequent 200s with walk-back recovery were estimated around 30 seconds each by feel; the group’s stopwatch times were not obtained. My ankles felt good.

Close to the target, not graduated. The recorded mean remains 2:55.70, or 0.20 seconds per rep above the 2:55.5 gate. I want to cement that graduation target next cycle. 3×900 m remains current; 4×900 m waits until the gate is earned. Nominal recovery remains 5:30.

The first FA session is complete. The 21 October 4+4×200 m averaged ~30.31 then 30.50, using a labelled distance correction for the third repetition. The set break was 4:56.05; the recovery before repetition seven includes an aborted start and return. Early repetitions were controlled; the wet track, slipping shoes and severe late stiffness made holding the speed very hard. Right-ankle tension afterwards changed my walking for a couple of hours despite no ankle pain, and had settled by the discussion. October 22 was the planned rest day. After the October 28 LT, I chose to insert rest on October 29 following right inner-ankle tension that later settled.

X is complete on October 30, repeating the 4+4×200 m format. Recorded set averages were 30.36 and 30.40; my estimates of late button presses in reps one and three give an illustrative ~30.13 opening average. The record preserves both the original times and the uncertainty. The set break was 3:03.23, versus October 21’s 4:56.05, with close-to-90-second recoveries throughout the second set. I tried to stay relaxed late in rep seven, then went all out in rep eight, finishing in 30.11 and completely spent. Before the repeat, I had predicted a sub-30 opening average, then proposed under 29 as a stretch ambition. This adds a completed repeat; it does not change the current cycle’s allocation or create a new progression gate.

The 11 October 5000 m trial is complete: 19:59 reported, 3:59.8/km, 161 points, with the finish estimated after a phone failure. It adds a continuous event benchmark alongside the interval observations. It does not establish a measured lactate threshold for the LT-labelled repetitions; their role is to support longer track performance.

The transition into the first cycle

The 9 October 3×800 m, 11 October 5000 m trial and 12 October 6×200 m / 3 min are completed transition sessions. The 200s averaged 30.76, finishing in 30.22 and 29.30 with deliberately greater sprinting intent. It felt good; the F benchmark remains six repetitions with three-minute rests.

The original transition proposed a chill day on 13 October and a first full cycle starting on 14 October, with an 800 m time trial on 29 October if the sequence held. Those were conditional dates. I subsequently confirmed 15 October as day one. Its 3×800 m and the 16 October 3×1600 m complete block one. This replaces the tentative start date; it does not turn the remaining scheduled sessions into completed work.

Block two’s VO₂ session was originally due on October 18 and was completed on October 19. The October 20 FA attempt was blocked by an event at the track; I completed the workout on October 21. The proposal to train three days in a row was superseded by the October 22 rest intention after that effort. Completed dates and the next reported intention replace assumptions based on an uninterrupted calendar.

After the October 23 LT, I did not run on October 24–26 while unwell. The October 27 900s completed block three; October 28’s LT began block four. I considered a third consecutive training day for X, then chose rest on October 29 after the right inner-ankle tension, before X on October 30. That decision inserted one rest day and shifted the remaining sequence forward by one day. X was completed on October 30, followed by the November 1 VO₂ session. On November 2 I chose to add a repeat of the 900s and move LT from November 2 to November 3, which had previously been a planned rest day. The original calendar and the completed sessions remain distinguishable.

The 18-day cycle

Each block has two training days followed by a chill day. Chill leaves room for rest or easy movement according to how I feel, without another quality session:

The original template contains four LT sessions, four VO₂ sessions, and one each of F, FA, TT and X, with six chill days. The additional November 2 VO₂ repeat is a completed departure from that template, bringing the intended total to thirteen workouts, including five VO₂ sessions. It does not erase November 1’s completed session.

The original eleven specified workouts and flexible X slot remain identifiable; X was completed as mixed-rest 200s on October 30. LT and VO₂ retain their independently earned progressions. The recurring F/FA formats remain unchanged.

FA is fast running with a second, shorter-recovery set: the current template is 4×200 m with three-minute rests, followed by 4×200 m with 90-second rests. Its purpose includes repeatedly finding fast, organised running with heavy legs and incomplete recovery: gathering posture and rhythm for the finish. The first completed session held speed through severe late stiffness; the near-even times do not establish preserved movement. I see a connection to the final metres of the 900s; whether that practice transfers remains a question. TT is an event time trial; the transition’s 5000 m is complete, and the first full cycle’s proposed endpoint is 800 m. X keeps an experimental place open. I chose to repeat 4+4×200 m in X and completed it on October 30. Dense 10/10 running, 300 m repetitions and 2×3×500 m remain earlier alternatives. F remains the stable 6×200 m benchmark.

The allocation has some freedom built in. Three LT–VO₂ pairs, F, FA, TT and X form the backbone; two remaining slots are currently occupied by another LT and another VO₂. Those could later change if the results justify a different emphasis. For now, I want to see how this allocation behaves over cycles before changing it automatically.

One possible next-cycle change is five LT sessions and three VO₂ sessions, reallocating an existing slot if LT progress continues to lag. That remains a proposal to assess after the remaining LT sessions and actual time trial. That reallocation is not adopted; this cycle’s additional VO₂ repeat is a separate decision.

The session count does not describe the whole load. A time trial, relaxed fast repetitions and an experimental sprint set can cost very different amounts. One recent chill day still included a short backpack run; my plan for another rest day included running to the gym and back. The label cannot erase that activity.

The current calendar

Completed training is recorded through 2 November. The extra VO₂ repeat is complete, following November 1’s stomach-disrupted session. Ten workouts are complete: nine original slots plus the repeat. Three planned workouts remain: LT, the 800 m trial and F. The extra 200s after the 900s are part of the same session.

If the remaining dates hold, the cycle spans 23 calendar days, October 15 through November 6 including the closing chill day, with thirteen workouts instead of the original twelve. I am treating the 800 m trial as a checkpoint within normal training, without adding a formal taper. The old November 3 rest day is now the intended LT session; later dates remain provisional.

Two independently earned progressions

LT and VO₂ advance on separate tracks. A quicker LT session does not require a simultaneous VO₂ graduation. A calendar does not require either one.

The LT gate is the target average, assessed alongside execution, conditions and recovery. The October 8 graduation included another repetition plausibly available; that observation is not a universal requirement to finish every session with a spare rep. There is a time to push and a time to back off. The numerical gates remain unchanged. The 1200 m comparison used one-minute rests; the first 1600 session used the two 100 m walks recorded above.

The VO₂ gate is the target average without a major final-repetition collapse. Recovery is currently 5:30. Shortening it is not a required part of this progression.

A row is a workout and its graduation target. Passing it unlocks the next workout; the next row’s pace is the next gate, not a compulsory entry pace. October 8 unlocked 3×1600 m, and October 15 unlocked 3×900 m. The first attempts at those larger sessions do not require their later 6:08 and 2:55.5 graduation times.

The later rows are ambitious proposals, rather than evidence that these exact steps are optimal or already tolerable. Their role is to make the direction and next decision clear. The training still has to earn them.

When to revise it

LT and VO₂ graduate separately when the completed workout meets its time and intended character. F keeps the same distance, count and recovery while I explore faster relaxed running. X asks whether an experimental format deserves a recurring place; an experiment does not need to produce a new personal best to answer that.

The cycle is a way to make the next comparison possible. Actual effort, recovery and the rest of my movement determine its cost. Running to the gym, carrying a backpack or a hard bike commute still belongs in that assessment, even on a day whose programme label says chill.

A revision should keep the previous programme identifiable and point to the completed observation that changed it. The spring 2022 sheet is an older reminder that a written plan and the season actually run are different records.