Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

lexel wrote:

Consistency wrote:

The confusion is from people not using a universal system. Since we are of significantly different capabilities, especially when we look at world class athletes too, the comparisons to race times fall apart. The more important metric is what paces you can hold for certain durations like 30mins (CV pace), 60mins, etc.

Like look at HM pace. For a world class runner that’s very close to a 60min race. So their HM pace is the pace they can hold for 60mins. If you run a 90+ min HM, then your HM pace is a significantly different intensity and will have a significantly different effect when you train at that pace.

When people here are putting workout paces in terms of race paces, it’s inevitably individualized, not a flawless universal recommendation.

Similarly, if you measure the intervals by distance rather than duration, then you are running much longer intervals than the elites. A 400m rep can end up being nearly 2mins long for a runner in this thread, whereas Jakob is running it in just over a minute. You’d be nearly doubling the volume of the workout by going by distance rather than duration.

Lol. For over 100 pages it try to explain that to the people here, in vain. Haha, i laugh my ass off, this thread is really entertaining in this respect. There are still questions about the correct pace...

Better is, yes you guys know the answer (right?), to provide the intensity in %CV. Sooner or later we get there. Sooner or later some use a language transferable from athlete to athlete. The life is hard in the mountains, but not hopeless.

CHill Runs wrote:

Hey Lexel, I don't mind you. I think the disagreements add to the conversation. Consistency, I think you make good points as well.

What you're both getting at is trying to find a better pace rule to guide the training intensity. The issue is that you need both power and duration to make a prescription for someone. That's highly individual. What you both propose, along with Sirpoc, is basically just how to get started and help most people on average. But I don't care about the average--I care about me! It makes no difference to me if your system on average is better than Sirpoc's.

Consistency, I've thought about going based on 60 min or 90min pace as well rather than distance PRs. The interesting thing is that if you are right most people would be undershooting their lactate values at the end of sessions (unless they're faster than sirpoc). But the opposite ends up happening; Sirpoc's paces are too fast for most.

This is a case where works on average doesn't have much utility. Everyone just has to start, be consistent with how they monitor and make intelligent adjustments.

The people with success either know their body/ RPE really well and are approaching things conservatively, or have done lactate testing and are monitoring intensity post session.

CHill Runs wrote:

Hey Lexel, I don't mind you. I think the disagreements add to the conversation. Consistency, I think you make good points as well.

What you're both getting at is trying to find a better pace rule to guide the training intensity. The issue is that you need both power and duration to make a prescription for someone. That's highly individual. What you both propose, along with Sirpoc, is basically just how to get started and help most people on average. But I don't care about the average--I care about me! It makes no difference to me if your system on average is better than Sirpoc's.

Consistency, I've thought about going based on 60 min or 90min pace as well rather than distance PRs. The interesting thing is that if you are right most people would be undershooting their lactate values at the end of sessions (unless they're faster than sirpoc). But the opposite ends up happening; Sirpoc's paces are too fast for most.

This is a case where works on average doesn't have much utility. Everyone just has to start, be consistent with how they monitor and make intelligent adjustments.

The people with success either know their body/ RPE really well and are approaching things conservatively, or have done lactate testing and are monitoring intensity post session.

Coach Jeff ROC wrote:

CHill Runs wrote:

This is a case where works on average doesn't have much utility. Everyone just has to start, be consistent with how they monitor and make intelligent adjustments.

The people with success either know their body/ RPE really well and are approaching things conservatively, or have done lactate testing and are monitoring intensity post session.

I think this is pretty key. But I also think this applies to any training system.

Beginners are at a disadvantage because they don't know how it (any "it," any "workout") is supposed to feel simply because they haven't tested their bodies enough. If you've only done easy running, marathon pace is torture. If you've only gone as high as LT, VO2max feels like a stroke on rye with a heart attack on the side. They really don't know. Can't know. Experienced runners know their various thresholds because they have effed up enough workouts to know. We know because we ran at the wrong pace, noticed, and said "Ouch, not gonna touch that hot stove again. Too often."

I'm such a data geek, but I've got to admit that my "perceived exertion" tends to be the final arbiter. It always has been. I always strap on the HRM. I have a Stryd pod. Never lactate tested, but I have fantasized about it. In the end though, that little voice in my head going "Holy crap, there's no way in hell I can do this X more times/kms/miles" ultimately rules the workout. In the past, I might make excuses. "Too hot cold windy fatigued oversexed hungover undersexed hungry humid and wrong shoes." Now I'm just honest with myself and say, "Nope, not today. Either slow it down or shut it down." Some days, of course, I wish it had been race day cuz it feels easier than it oughta. Anyway, if that's what you mean by "intelligent adjustments," I say "I agree." But for inexperienced runners, RPE is black box, and spreadsheets never lie.

Coach Jeff ROC wrote:

CHill Runs wrote:

This is a case where works on average doesn't have much utility. Everyone just has to start, be consistent with how they monitor and make intelligent adjustments.

The people with success either know their body/ RPE really well and are approaching things conservatively, or have done lactate testing and are monitoring intensity post session.

I think this is pretty key. But I also think this applies to any training system.

Beginners are at a disadvantage because they don't know how it (any "it," any "workout") is supposed to feel simply because they haven't tested their bodies enough. If you've only done easy running, marathon pace is torture. If you've only gone as high as LT, VO2max feels like a stroke on rye with a heart attack on the side. They really don't know. Can't know. Experienced runners know their various thresholds because they have effed up enough workouts to know. We know because we ran at the wrong pace, noticed, and said "Ouch, not gonna touch that hot stove again. Too often."

I'm such a data geek, but I've got to admit that my "perceived exertion" tends to be the final arbiter. It always has been. I always strap on the HRM. I have a Stryd pod. Never lactate tested, but I have fantasized about it. In the end though, that little voice in my head going "Holy crap, there's no way in hell I can do this X more times/kms/miles" ultimately rules the workout. In the past, I might make excuses. "Too hot cold windy fatigued oversexed hungover undersexed hungry humid and wrong shoes." Now I'm just honest with myself and say, "Nope, not today. Either slow it down or shut it down." Some days, of course, I wish it had been race day cuz it feels easier than it oughta. Anyway, if that's what you mean by "intelligent adjustments," I say "I agree." But for inexperienced runners, RPE is black box, and spreadsheets never lie.

Femke Bols fat brother wrote:

I was just going to come here and say similar, but this post does the job.

I know sirpoc has mentioned he doesn't want thread to be made about I'm, but he has no choice. He has progressed and we can relate to him and in my opinion he's still one of the only ones following his method true. I think there are too many people changing too much. But that is just my view. One thing I learned the hard way, was the easy runs really you should listen to this 70% max HR guide. I go by feel, what feels easy to me actually isn't. The first few months 76-78% max HR really caught up with me. As soon as I checked my ego in and went slower, I started to really progress. If you look at sirpoc easy runs, aside from after that usual 10-15 mins everyone gets where your body starts working, there's almost no cardiac drift. Even by the end of an hour or 90 mins run. It's quite remarkable. Easy really should mean easy. If you look at what Seiler says, despite his limitations, basically if you are truly below LT1 you should see a pretty flat HR plot after the first 10 mins. I asked sirpoc this direct on Strava, he says still even to this day he will very slowly run or even walk up any steep inclines he encounters. If that is good enough for a 15 min master 5ker then I can certainly check my ego at door and do the same.

Alfie wrote:

lexel wrote:

I absolute agree with you that there is a need for an individual adaptation. But you need also a good starting point.

Sirpocs pace description seems too high for some athletes because he is a severe slow twitcher (it is what it is and i do not mean that in a bad way). That means from his muscle fiber topology he has more slow twitch fibers than most others, he creates less lactate as others and his lactate clearance is higher than others. That means more fast twitch fiber type athletes (i.e.most people) have to reduce the pace a little bit.

Rep descriptions like

(8-10) x 3min@95%CV; 60-90sec rest and

(5-7) x 5min@90%CV are still very solid advices for most athletes.

Better be conservative, as too high that should be the mantra here.

I agree with your narrative.

As a FT type, these %CV are still too fast for me.

easy slow days wrote:

Merchant of Venice Beach wrote:

Really interesting. Just started seriously checking HR on runs and have been pretty shocked how much slower paces are. Previously assumed easy feel of 8:30-8:50 pace was just normal run but finding that keeping HR in low 130s needs almost a minute slower. It has felt painfully slow but did notice pretty much any hill makes HR climb to 150 then makes way back down. Never thought of walking a hill, my HS coach would be screaming at me for walking on a run! But realizing that gonna have to unlearn a lot of my previous training habits and also "check ego." As always, really appreciate people sharing this and asking questions!

MoVB

I'm yet another one of the annoying people who messaged sirpoc on Strava. Maybe by now he's fed up with us all! But the post you replied to also stuck a chord with me, in the sense what always catches my eye is how easy his HR is on easy runs as i also asked him about this. I asked him how he does it and he simply said run slow and check your watch lol sounds simple. I think we overlook how disciplined he is. I think that is truly part of the success. Maybe being a slave to the metrics is truly the best way for best results? Hard for some of us to get heads round as experienced runners.

His pace can vary a bit / got faster as he's got faster. But that HR average is always below that 70% mark mentioned, as we know and have seen his max HR somewhere in the low to mid 190s. So 125-33 average what we see for him is truly easy. Remember, it's not about pace. Your body does not have a measuring guage in it. It has no idea how far you run. Just knows how long and for what effort. Easy run I think in this thread hugely overlook. Very hard to do the workouts 3 times a week if you are running even steady rather than truly easy.

jecht wrote:

easy slow days wrote:

I'm yet another one of the annoying people who messaged sirpoc on Strava. Maybe by now he's fed up with us all! But the post you replied to also stuck a chord with me, in the sense what always catches my eye is how easy his HR is on easy runs as i also asked him about this. I asked him how he does it and he simply said run slow and check your watch lol sounds simple. I think we overlook how disciplined he is. I think that is truly part of the success. Maybe being a slave to the metrics is truly the best way for best results? Hard for some of us to get heads round as experienced runners.

His pace can vary a bit / got faster as he's got faster. But that HR average is always below that 70% mark mentioned, as we know and have seen his max HR somewhere in the low to mid 190s. So 125-33 average what we see for him is truly easy. Remember, it's not about pace. Your body does not have a measuring guage in it. It has no idea how far you run. Just knows how long and for what effort. Easy run I think in this thread hugely overlook. Very hard to do the workouts 3 times a week if you are running even steady rather than truly easy.

Also we have to realize everyone's EZ pace will be different. My Max HR is around 200-215 so my 70% is 140-ish...someone else's EZ run pace may be 120-125 HR...Strava is tricky, everyone is different

Power_thighs wrote:

Alfie wrote:

I agree with your narrative.

As a FT type, these %CV are still too fast for me.

This is interesting. I was a multi eventer back in my university days and definitely on the faster twitcher side (jumping events were my strongest point, nowadays my legs are still twice the size of most on the start line for distance races), in my older age (nearly 40), the past couple of years I've been trying to convert to distance (now 36min 10k PB - hobby jogger territory but improving). I've tried the sub threshold method for a couple of months last fall but found it more draining than it should (compared to traditional training weeks, ie one faster interval session, one tempo) and was going backwards whilst also dealing with niggles so gave up. Didn't really match many people's experience here. I wonder if this could be the reason, ie need to slow it down far more than specified by the spreadsheets. I was always conservative, but perhaps not enough.

For a faster twitch athlete should the easy/long runs be slower too? I guess sub 70% HR max is already very slow (8 min mile) though so maybe not. I guess lactate testing would probably be the only way of truly finding out for the ST intervals. Keen to give it another go but hesitant after the last attempt.

Thanks for bringing up the muscle fibre type point, one of my training partners who is definitely slow twitch has really thrived with a SubT approach using the same pace guide, whilst I struggled. Feels like this could be the reason why.

Power_thighs wrote:

This is interesting. I was a multi eventer back in my university days and definitely on the faster twitcher side (jumping events were my strongest point, nowadays my legs are still twice the size of most on the start line for distance races), in my older age (nearly 40), the past couple of years I've been trying to convert to distance (now 36min 10k PB - hobby jogger territory but improving). I've tried the sub threshold method for a couple of months last fall but found it more draining than it should (compared to traditional training weeks, ie one faster interval session, one tempo) and was going backwards whilst also dealing with niggles so gave up. Didn't really match many people's experience here. I wonder if this could be the reason, ie need to slow it down far more than specified by the spreadsheets. I was always conservative, but perhaps not enough.

For a faster twitch athlete should the easy/long runs be slower too? I guess sub 70% HR max is already very slow (8 min mile) though so maybe not. I guess lactate testing would probably be the only way of truly finding out for the ST intervals. Keen to give it another go but hesitant after the last attempt.

Thanks for bringing up the muscle fibre type point, one of my training partners who is definitely slow twitch has really thrived with a SubT approach using the same pace guide, whilst I struggled. Feels like this could be the reason why.