Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Now seems like good time to post my experience. I found this thread via Google in September last year looking up Coggan . Used to race my bike so I had a fair understanding of the principles in this thread and was very pleased to see someone use a forumulatic approach to running as is normal in cycling.

For remarks. I was 19:20 for the 5k. I had been running roughly 2 years. I follow a few different plans, they usually result in the sense issue. Breakdown, injury, just after running somewhere in 19.

I reset in September my training to this. I would say until Santa Claus came, nothing and I was very disappointed. I felt strong on intervals, but not doing fast work felt silly, slow and honestly I almost throw this in the trash and come here to say how silly this is. But then a remarkable happened, I just decided to set off on a 5k solo TT at my local track here in the province. I thought I would set myself to pace around 19 flat, right from start. I expected to fail. But I didn't. I never had feel so strong a feeling and whilst my legs maybe didn't have training at that speed, my aerobic was so strong and I could just hold the pace I set out at. I even managed to kick at last lap and finish solo TT in 18:48. I couldn't believe.

Now more months on. I just broke 18 for 17:56 in my local race now weather is better. I never thought much like this was possible, at years of 37.

I just want to thank Strava group, here and sirpoc for everything he shared and how he helps if asked . If I ever in UK, we know this man likes beer I will buy him one! Also how it inspiring to see someone just struggle like the rest of us now run times at 40+ years that are in stratosphere.

Maybe trolls are here too, but I think this thread bring out the true spirit of community amateur running.

If you take anything from my post on the internet, please give this way a chance. But don't expect miracle. It does not work in an instant but you can maybe do things you didn't know you can do. I think the key here is the system and training expands the aerobic system beyond what strictly amateur runner can usually do.

Yeah, not convinced you need much mile/1500m pace work at all. I've done some slightly more intense 3k-10k pace workouts in recent week with the occasional mile pace rep of up to 300m, but very little volume at this pace compared to normal middle-distance training. I haven't done any hill reps and dropped the 300m reps in the spring once I started doing more club workouts and races. It has been much less intense than any previous attempt to run a fast 1500m. Certainly nothing like the traditional 8x400 @ mile pace with 60s recoveries type workout. I just took a couple of seconds off my high-school 1500m PB (I'm in my mid-30s now). Other than this season the quickest I've run in the past 5 years was 10s slower. Still only running 4:16 so quite firmly in hobby jogger land but the training definitely works.

I got outsprinted in the final 100m, but I finished quicker than I've ever done before so it doesn't really matter. Maybe you need Martin & Coe-style middle-distance training to win big races. I don't think you need it to run your best time.

Chill Runs, very thoughtful post! This is the type of discussion I’ve been waiting for since TSS was first brought up!

As far as I can tell, in trying to discern how Andrew Coggan derived TSS, it seems he used the percent of 60 minute race pace (which he called FTP or Jack Daniels would call T-pace) and the percent of the lactate value at that pace (based on using a power function to model the lactate curve) to assign stress points. Then scaled it so that the score for a 60 minute race effort would be equivalent to 100 TSS. Sirpoc shared with me some old cycling threads Coggan posted in and he himself states that TSS is not a system meant to represent physiological stress, strictly training stress. I share all that only to set up this next point.

As I interpret your post and the general validation for using TSS from others, it seems to reduce to maximizing training load, so CTL. That long-term training stress is thus dependent on the TSS equation. So, with that in mind, consider this. A score of 60 TSS can be achieved in many ways, three of which are 55 minutes at 80% FTP, 36 minutes at 100% FTP, and 30 minutes at 110% FTP. To put that in terms of Jack Daniels 80% FTP is E-pace, 100% FTP is T-pace, and 110% FTP is I-pace.

So, according to the TSS equation, those three workouts would be equivalent in stress. Now, I don’t expect strike zone accuracy, but being in the ball park seems a reasonable expectation. Does any runner think those are even close? If I made it to 30 minutes at I-pace, I’ll have also made it to heaven, because I’d be dead haha. Contrast that with 55 minutes at E-pace (which I think many feel is more like a moderate pace). That’s something I could do regularly, particularly if I’m not doing any workouts.

To be fair, and I do try, Coggan designed this system based on training by power for cyclists, so there is that consideration. However, if the underlying equation which is quantifying training stress is so skewed, how seriously should it be treated in an attempt to generalize an explanation on? I think the poster lactate_guided pointed this out… TSS, while directionally accurate, is likely not a predictor of race performance nor physiologically accurate.

Another way to possibly frame this, if training load, as determined by TSS, is the driver of fitness, one should be able to achieve the same race results on the same CTL score, no matter the intensity distribution. I imagine that if most people took their weekly average intensity, it would fall between 75-80% FTP? That’s probably a little slower than Daniels E-pace for most. If you simply ran that pace, for the same amount of hours per week, do you think your race results would be the same? I think the workouts matter, but so too does the individual and their physiological make-up.

Another observation, and this may just be that many on this thread are from a cycling background and/or are new to running? There seems to be this suggestion that runners have no concept of training load or haven’t thought of this type of approach/mindset before? I can think of several examples just on LRC, going back to the early 2000’s, that would suggest that assessment to be unfair.

Tinman started a thread, “no interval work success” where the whole discussion basically promoted and shared experiences of runners training exclusively in the easy to threshold pace range. John Kellogg practically wrote a book, “The Training Wisdom of John Kellogg”, which a poster compiled somewhere, on how he coached Wejo to a massive 10km pr of 28:06 doing almost exclusively base work (i.e. volume and threshold). Hadd, whose original thread may be longer than this one (?), outlined what is essentially this method, but based on HR instead of lactate. And though it wasn’t on this site, to show that Andrew Coggan isn’t the only PhD with a training stress point system, Jack Daniels published his own point system for tracking training stress in his second edition. Which, bringing it back to LRC, a user programmed into an Excel workbook at the time and shared on this site (jiggymeister, you may want to look for that version haha). There are even more flamboyant (though likely unknown) coaches like Lyle Knudson who’ve promoted near daily threshold running (sorry sirpoc and shirtboy, the experiment has already been run, literally haha).

Lastly, sirpoc leading on that he’s not scientific is a bigger troll job than JS Wizard ever leveled on this thread haha. He’s far more keen minded than he credits himself as.

Congrats on the 1500m man. Curious what paces you've been running your threshold sessions at? I've been doing similar training, planning to race a 1500m soon. Late 30's haven't done like any speedwork so I'm nervous about it ha. This is comforting to read though.

H2F, your posts are without doubt some of the best on this thread, smart, inciteful and witty. You are a true credit to LRC

I've been doing 800s at around 5:40-5:45/mile pace (45s recovery), 1200-1600m around 5:50 pace and 3200m at 6:00-6:05 pace (all 60s recovery). 4-5 miles of quick running in each session, 3x per week. That's been the bulk of the work since last August. Mile reps have come down from 6:10-ish to 5:50 over that time at the same effort.

Looking at my training log for the past four weeks, in this period I've done about 12k at quicker than 10k pace, half of which came from racing. Two 1500m races, a 3k race, the second half of one workout (5k pace down to 1500m pace), one full workout (1500-3k pace) and a handful of long strides at the end of another workout (1500m pace). So the amount of faster running hasn't been trivial but it's only really been the past 6-8 weeks like this, and the bulk of quick mileage has still been threshold stuff. Compared to the last time I was in something like this shape I reckon I'm doing 75% less mileage at quicker than 10k pace and at least double the total volume of 'fast' running (most being at threshold pace).

I’m not sure what post you just read, but I basically just s**t all over TSS/CTL, though given the spectrum I covered, I prefer to think of it as a fecal Jackson Pollock.

Apparently my membership in the strava group is now under review. So, unfortunately, the engagement is off. You’re welcome to still have a w**k though. It seems you’ve also been building and maxed out your CTL over the course of this thread? So understandable if you want to reduce your load, so to speak.

Sorry, I should have clarified, when I said CTL, I meant Critical Thinking Load. Hard2Believe surely would have been a better accompaniment to SirCrock than Lard2Find, no? If you’d like, you can contact me privately and I can be your ghost writer. This thread deserves a better troll.

One thing I will add as a remark about TSS and Coggan. It's been around for many years and nobody has improved it yet. Maybe this is the thread to do the work?!

I will add. I agree with a lot you say Hard2find but I also fully agree with sirpoc . He has hit the nail on the head about what a lot of cyclists and triathlon guys already know, the difference in performance between the best way to train and gain CTL vs the worst, will result in not really as much a spread of power / fitness than you would think. The makeup of TSS does matter, but definitely not as much as people have suspected.

Two things seemed to be the case when I was chatting on slow twitch years ago. 1. People who trained via sweetspot like this method does for running , could gain CTL the quickest, stay freshest and CTL and performance was linear 2. The people who did huge volume for something like an ultra IM, but a lot of it was easy, still were reporting they got around the same power gains at the same CTL despite doing nothing as hard. It just took longer to get to the same CTL . It was maybe as sirpoc reported, maybe 5% less power . So again this shows there is a best or worst way to train, but margin or error is narrow.

This system laid out by sirpoc just happen to be the system that maybe seems to gain CTL the easiest way, stay fresh but also the most efficient. I don't think actually this is the best way to train. If plausible for example you can get 70 CTL via Daniel's and 70 CTL by sirpoc method, Daniel's might be better, at top end of spectrum of that 10% margin of effort for CTL Vs performance. But point being, take that random CTL number I use example, you probably can't get to 70 CTL by Daniel's method, break down, too tired, body won't allow but you could or can via sirpoc method. CTL and TSS not perfect but I think it can provide us some good guide here. What needs happening is someone produce a system like Coggan but we agree on how to apply it broadly to running. I think this would work nicely on track, flat, constant , but more difficult for people who don't live in flat etc to use pace. Maybe Hard2find seems like smart guy he is the one for job!

It must be noted, you cannot compare CTL person to person. I am noting this for a single individual.
I hope my English passes. Many thank and great thread.

Thank you for this. I'll have to read up more on CTL and CSS from a biking perspective to get more context. Daniels seems to be more polarized and beats you up. So, faster results but more risk of injury.

You guys are fishing in the darkness.

The training method described here by sirpoc, improves mainly running economy. I.e. one theory is that fast twitch fibers (type IIa) will get more aerobically and therefore more efficient during training. Easy paces need mainly slow twitch fibers and higher paces require more and more fast twitch fibers (additional to slow twitch fibers). That further leads to the theory that more time spend around LT2 (sub-CV), recruits type IIa fast twitch fibers for a longer duration and that leads to the improvement in CR (cost of running). Total time spend around LT2, consistent over some period, seems to be important. TSS/CTL is not a good index for that and in general (agree with H2find), and can be easily falsified. I am sure brain learning is involved too, as the brain fires and adresses the fibers. Also here, more time spend around LT2 means more learning time for the brain.

But I think all the TSS/CTL stuff was just a param to begin converting the system from cycling to running (time-wise, or pace-wise, if you are fast enough). I still think TSS is useful because it is a power metric that you need as a starting point.

Those are the best conditions to catch herring. I like herring. I also like the results I am getting with this method.

This sir is a lie. Coach JS has 40 year now experience in elite athletics. All his athletes are in verification races. He has nothing to prove. Sirpoc does parkrun and nothing else, so 15:40 it not even counts. The distance we have no idea is 5km.

It is only fair someone defends his name. Who knows , sirpoc most likely would be sub 15 at least already with the magic touch of a wizard :)

First, sirpoc ran 15:40 at a verified 5k not a park run.

Second, Mods, I don’t want to detract from this amazing thread but you need to immediately and permanently ban Jan.

He is in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and will easily be proven to have committed cyber fraud on your website. He is intentionally making fully provable misrepresentations in an effort to induce consumers to pay for his services, including misrepresenting himself as multiple people with false handles. This goes well beyond fun and games as he is clearly doing this to further his pecuniary interests. There is no doubt a court and jury would find this to be the case. With this knowledge, by allowing him to continue to post on your site, you will be found liable for conspiracy.

If Jan makes one more post, my office will absolutely file a criminal complaint with the U.S. attorney’s office and pursue this matter in U.S. Federal District Court for D.C. We will also pursue interpol to arrest this man and bring him to justice.

I am not kidding. I am very well connected with the U.S. Attorney’s office in multiple districts.

Cyber fraud. All because he posts sometimes under multiple unregistered usernames and offers coaching. Glass houses etc.