Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

pretty sure it's the real Henrik I

Respect! you should do an AMA with Tracksta so we can bother you about specifics on all the stuff we've likely gotten wrong!

LT from lactate does not do the trick, because there are over 20 different ways to define LT with a lactate step test. Spiro data would be better but not all people do a spiroergometry.

But what most runners have is a 5k race time below 25minutes to estimate CV. Then the communication is super easy: some can say i do my easy run for 60min@70%CV (example). Or with x%CV i stay at my lactate baseline for 60minutes.

And then there can be discussion like: i have more success doing 45min@%85CV compared to 30min@90%CV (again example).

So cool, I guess i am 10-20 years ahead here.

I should have specified, but my reference to LT was if LT is defined as 60 minute race pace, not necessarily 4 mmol/L of blood lactate. vVO2 could be 10 minute race pace, vCV could be 30 minute race pace, and vLT 60 minute race pace. Maybe vVO2 is closer to 8 minutes, maybe vCV is closer to 35, for example but the pace you could hold for those few minutes shorter or longer is not as varied as the pace people run when someone associates LT to your half marathon pace or CV to your 10K.

I agree there is too much variety in blood lactate readings to suggest singular figures to train at. I think most people who engage in these topics understand, as with most any data collection, there's going to be a distribution about a mean. I also think we sometimes go too far in the weeds about trying to illicit detail or reinvent how training is done. Jake Wightman beat Jakob Ingebrigsten at last years 1500m and no one, as far as I've observed, is asking how he trains LOL

It seems that while physiologists and some of us give thought to the mechanism behind improvement and quantifying it, plenty of coaches and runners are fulfilling their potential with good old trial and error. And to be fair, we really are pretty much all in the same neighborhood of what we are doing.

I hadn’t looked back at this thread since initially recommending Kristoffers strava. I assumed it would be the usual misinterpretation and obsession with double threshold.

Great thread guys. I think finally people are understanding the true mentality behind “Norwegian” training. I once heard Jakob say on a podcast (some non running Norwegian company podcast or something) - his goal is to run as many miles as he can, as fast as he can. And he can’t run fast every day because he will get injured.

The goal is essentially to do the most training you can sustain.

Id be curious how spoc will progress his training. Kristoffer has very gradually increased volume over time - almost imperceptibly but over years it leads to big changes.

One other thing to note- KI was doing some shorter and quicker reps over this past winter, and 1k reps around 3:20. He sustained it but eventually posted that he felt beat up so slowed down a bit and increased the volume. So even Henrik is experimenting with what might work…and tracking it.

Sustained training, that is the point that we've been emphasizing. Well put!

A back of the envelope calculation, but really as much a conceptual idea as metric, could involve using your HR. No, as with any metric, I don't think this is infallible nor precise. Having said that, I think we would all agree that if we ran all our minutes per week at 75% HR_Max, we could sustain that, right? Well if you simply use 75% and multiply that by the total minutes run, you can use that value to track your training, similar to TSS and CTL. For example, if you run 7.5 hours per week, 450*0.75 = 337.5. If you wanted to standardize this just divide by the total number of minutes ran, which in this case will just give you 0.75 since there was only one input. However, using this as a benchmark, you can include different intensities. For example:

90 minutes at 85% HR_Max

180 minutes at 75% HR_Max

180 minutes at 70% HR_Max

90*0.85 + 180*0.75 + 180*0.70 = 76.5 + 135 + 126 = 337.5

337.5/450 = 0.75

So, same total and standardized to 0.75 but with 90 minutes spent at 85% HR_Max, which roughly for most of us probably works out to running between MP and HMP on long intervals.

And again, before I get attacked for the pitfalls with this like, what if you run a pace faster than the minimum pace that illicits HR_Max, don't you know HR can vary based on heat, fitness, nutrition, hydration, etc. It's simply a potential way to gauge YOUR training, as the total score and standardized value can vary based on your personal training volume and findings. Of course, I wouldn't suggest it's going to tell you anything you don't already know intuitively.

They did a while Sweat Elite series on Wightman’s training.

Nothing id want to copy and certainly pressing the envelope from the other direction

Theres sone variety but not as much as youd think and the important part is to tie it to heart rate individually.

One thing you can be sure of, if you are aerobically trained/fit 4.0 mmol is very likely not your lt2 (on a lactate plus, for reference ).

marcus osullivan shorthanded it (coach of p tiernan in college, lactate guided coaching philosophy, uses the lactate plus): ‘if youre under 3.5 mmol on your reps youre in the ballpark’

100% accurate statement in my estimation and experience

I used to do a 3 day schedule rotating a 5-6 tempo with 5-6 miles threshold repeats. So T/th, e, e —> repeat

had a lot of success at 5-10k, even mile-3k, with just that and minimal long runs, zero vo2 intervals.

The hill repeat session? I saw that one. I figure with him being a British middle distance guy and from what he was saying about training, his template is more from the Horwill and Coe approach to training than Ingebrigsten.

I agree with you as well on the lactate reading, but I do wonder for amateurs or lets say runners not running substantive volume, how they would perform. When I used the meter, I was running 9.5 hours per week in singles, which I would consider substantive. In fact, one summer I even did all my workouts on a treadmill for 12 weeks. Just the two workouts per week, all other runs were outside. I did regular testing and found that 3.0-3.5 mmol was my range for most of these. In order to get to 4.0 I had to put out an effort that felt more like 10km race effort. I often found that once my volume was up and I was doing 40-50 minutes of threshold intervals in a session, the accumulated fatigue made me not even want to try and run any faster than those readings anyway LOL. I found that when I dropped volume a bit to 8 hours per week and dropped the threshold to 3*10 minutes at what was a more intense effort, I got to 3.5-4.0 mmol but lost fitness in my 5*2400m test and a time trial test, which was interesting, to a degree.

Btw, I’m really enjoying the variety of engagement on this thread! Normally I don’t post. I very rarely even visit the forums much any more. This is encouraging though!

That’s interesting! Living in Florida, I’m always experimenting during the summer. This summer I did something very similar. I just did 60 minutes every day, with a Tempo-Easy-Easy rotation. I rotated 3 tempo workouts, 6*5 min, 3*10 min, and 2*15 min. Did a few time trials in there to gauge fitness and found I am basically the same as previous summers. Even ones where I ran a lot more per week. I don’t believe I’d be as fit in the half and certainly not the full though.

It really is the hobby jogging brother of JI, PI and HI, I remember him from the Norwegian reality TV series about the family. He has over 9,000 followers on Strava.

What most people do not know is that lactate is multi dimensional. It is not only a pace to lactate value, it is also influenced by duration. It is some kind of muscular stress level indicator.

You need reference values. 3mmol relative to which MLSS and baseline? It's individual. For the Norwege guys MLSS is the upper threshold.

Lactate levels can therefore not transfered from athlete to athlete, i posted that several times here.

So it's funny, I think SPOC84 started most of this off although no OP, he is ex cyclist become runner, I am ex runner become cyclist. It's funny, I spend time in UK although not native and have time trial friends as scene is very big there, straight away I ask a few of them on Strava and they know who spoc84 is like someone else mention in thread. I hope you will now accept my Strava request my friend, I see you have many KOMs cyclist (some of your times up mount Teide for amateur insane) still but no for running, I think you discredit yourself I think your potential for running is huge now you have right way to train for you .So it's funny, we have almost one of best hobby UK cyclist time trials in his past copying one of all time hobby jogger in Jacobs brother. I think this is probably something we want to listen and open our ears to. It is relevant to us more than 99% of stuff people talk about and guys like this while not set world records, clearly have wide range of multi sport knowledge to apply to sport in running where coaches are old and crusty and do same way they have for number of years.

Lexel, I think maybe you add digging in ground too much. I don't want to cause tension that is not my goal but CV has its flaws, I think your thinking is wanting to have a running metric that works just as well as power. Once we have that all these debates be finished. One thing I learn from cycling now, training so much easier to measure and control. PMC is easy to use and understand over time and I agree you can use the metrics to give an idea where you are. It is not perfect. But now I'm just hobby cyclist over runner he he oh sipoc I would happily pay for your services to set up my position for time trial bike, I hear you are cda field testing master. But that is for another time 😊

Hard2find I think in simplistic terms, you are probably along the correct lines with your HR talk. I think it's better than nothing hrTSS works OK. But nothing comes close to power. But that does not mean a user cannot find patterns to index in their own data in the PMC for running. But it's less compatible to others. Although the sessions like spoc and others laid out I think are still maximum way a runner who is just hobby guy will max his potential closely Without cracking.

And yes, in cyclist terms this is time crunched training they say. I mean, you cannot get injured cycling so it's really just for the lazy guys like me . But has a hobby jogger runner, you have to realise life outside exist and strain on the body is a lot. Maybe I should have done this when serious runner, as I got injured to much. Pushed envelope too far and cracked.
I very much enjoy this thread, I found it by mistake but read most of it through this weekend and in my bookmarks.

I'm happy to update where I'm at, if anyone finds it interesting. I plateaued completely at around 18:50-19:00 no matter what I did. In fact I felt like I'd just completely burned out. So looked at this probably around this time last year and went from there. In that year I've come down to a 17:27 and yesterday a 35:50 , so I think I might be able to dip under 17 soon, especially as the 5k course I do has 3 dead turns (only 5k I've ever fan, but done it like 25 times, which also helps at plotting progress). It's little gains, here and there. There was no big leap apart from the first PB. I had been doing this maybe about 6 weeks and nothing seemed to happen. Then suddenly I pb'd by like 25 seconds out of nowhere. I guess that was my body adapting and then the door opened.

I think I mentioned before, if I increase volume I will do it incrementally and proportionally to my 75/25 easy /sub threshold load. So it might be I add on 5 mins to all my easy runs and then that adds on maybe an extra rep somewhere to my sub threshold intervals, in it's most simplistic form. What holds me back I'd time. This week I was at 6 hours 45, maybe I could stretch the whole week to 8, but with life etc that's likely my limit. But that still gives a bit of time to play around with.

And to the other guy, ex cyclist - I don't want this thread to be about me. For a number of reasons, but mainly I just happened to be the first one to post up what in doing and I was pretty open I just kind of combined what I already knew from cycling myself and stealing what Kristoffer did/does. But I'm glad you found it useful. But there's many other people in this thread who have probably been running longer than me and doing this for longer than me who are all adding in fabulous contributions.

Guys, unbelievable thread! I have been running 20 years and felt like everytime I clicked on the next page there was something I learned.

Can I ask a question? I really am slow and hobby jogger to the extreme so I'm also never going to be using lactate meters and such which obviously I know would be better! But how is the best way to determine ones LTHR? There's so many ways I've heard. I am going to try sub threshold training like this thread but go on HR, so I'm more concious than ever to get it to within a small window. Can we go on anything based on races? I have a lot of race data but nothing at an hour. How do you guys feel about the Joe Friel method? His name has been brought up in positive light in this thread and I have his book and it's and oldie now but great 👍🏻

One popular rule of thumb range is 88-92% of Max HR.

I'm sure the rest will chime in with better ideas.

I assumed that most of us engaging in this discussion do have an appreciation for the nuance of these metrics, LT included.

The two tests I see most often used and cited (but not saying these are the only and best ones) are either 1200m intervals on the track or 3 minute intervals on the treadmill. I’ve used both myself, but have also collected readings when doing tempo intervals, VO2 Max intervals, and 60-90 second hill repeats. I may have also poked myself after a few time trials, I’d have to check my data. All of that is to say, I was aware that what I was gathering was unique to me (just as spiroc stated about TSS and CTL values) and not necessarily generalizable to others without standardizing it.

I’ve seen it discussed before that if the intensity was increased in smaller steps, the lactate curve would likely be a continuous exponential function that could be fitted for each athlete specifically of course. I think the same would hold true that if you extended each interval in duration, past a certain intensity level, the lactate readings would rise if you went long enough. This to me, is why standardizing is helpful, as it gives a consistent way to report data and then extrapolate for others to use and experiment with.

I think we appreciate that most running metrics are multi-variate, so far as what is contributing to the output being achieved. I’d suggest that blood lactate isn’t only intensity and time dependent but also physiological in the sense of the athletes fiber make up. Meaning, I can’t seem to generate high values of lactate, relatively speaking. I’m VERY, seemingly, slow twitch dominant as well and from the data I’ve seen, this seems to perhaps be a characteristic of runners like myself. As opposed to the ones who are more middle distance oriented and can generate higher relative lactate values.

Similar to heart rate, I thought of the lactate readings as 1) a source for some new data and 2) a different way to control effort and, perhaps, quantitatively know I wasn’t overdoing it in workouts. Having been there, done that. I think it’s helpful, but certainly not something that’s going to turn me into a world beater, as that’s not seemingly in my genetics. However, like everyone, I do have a maximum potential, so it’s interesting to try different approaches in the quest to reach that point and feel like I'm pursuing that purposefully and productively.

Definitely keep us updated as you progress! I'd be especially interested how your 10 mile race goes. Maybe we can even start a new thread for us "Norwegian" influenced hobby joggers. Think Henrik will have some free time to train us after worlds for our fall and winter races? LOL

I would do for Friels benchmark test, for LTHR. Run as hard as you can for 30 mins in a time trial, so pick a distance on Tinmans calculator as it as a wide range of distance conversion, that is closest to 30 mins. Crop from 10-30 mins and use that as your LTHR. He says to take that as your LTHR. Personally, I feel 98% of that is more accurate. It's always proven a great benchmark for me. Either way I'll be in the range of what a hobby jogger needs.