Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

That's a great thread btw for those interested in the application of how different types of runners can go about structuring their workouts but get more or less, the same benefit. I think that's the thread where had links the HR vs duration plots and the plots of fiber type activation rates based on Dudley's research, right? A lot of great info in that thread and no trolling since it was just Hadd and Cabral engaging.

what? really? is that somehow confirmed? is lexel really a slowpoke?

For how many years did sirpoc train using a Daniels philosophy? And do you think the amount he’s improved by (18:xx to 15:xx) would have been possible if he had been run training since age 20 but then at age 39 found and applied the Norwegian singles approach?

Hi all,

I’ve really enjoyed this thread, it’s made me think at length about the approach I’ve had to training over the decades. Before we even get to the details of lactate etc, the idea of doing sessions at non-maximal intensity is a novel one for me. I wish I’d known about it in my 20s!

It’s early days (I’ve been doing this style of training for just under two months) but it’s interesting that I ran a slight “old man” PB (I’m in my late 40s) in the 16:40s on the weekend, vs my previous of just under 17min. I’m currently doing about 80km/week (50mi/week), which is more than I’ve done for a few decades and keeping in mind it’s winter here in Australia. So perhaps it’s also possible my 5k result came from increased mileage. But of significance is that at no point during the last two months have I run to the point of being a crumpled heap at the end of a session – something that was unthinkable in my previous approach to training, at any mileage. I’d collapse 2-3 times a week previously after a session of hard intervals.

Now, two questions I have, which I don’t think have been covered (I read the first 60 pages of this thread before it sort of degenerated, but I’ve been keeping up again since about p125):

We all know Jakob is a handy 1500m runner, but most on this thread seem to be longer distance specialists. For me, 5k is as long as I race seriously and my main interest is the 1500m, probably more closely followed by 800m but then I enjoy the 3k/5k a lot too. Perhaps you can get away with training like this for 1500, just, but it’s hard to imagine it being good for the 800m? Or perhaps it is a good way to build base during the winter, then switch to (or include) more traditional lactic tolerance type training come summer. But has anyone here applied this as a middle distance runner?

Secondly… what about this as a method for kids? I have seen some say that part of the strategy with this approach is high overall mileage. I have a daughter in her early teens, also focused on middle distance running. We’re doing a few of these longer, low-intensity type sessions which she’s handling well. But her total mileage is maybe 30km/ week (about 20mi/week). I’m reluctant to dial total weekly volume up for a young athlete… is the Norwegian approach therefore one that should wait a few years?

We don’t have a lactate meter, and I’m still relying on some ‘gut feel’ for intensity (I haven’t even done a Friels test yet) but, we both seem to be recovering well from the sessions. I am to do my easy runs at around 130bpm and long intervals maxing out at 160bpm. I suspect my max is around 180bpm (but don't know - haven't been wearing the HR strap all that long).

Anyway, thanks again to so many of the contributors on this thread – really interesting stuff.

Thanks for this, a fascinating (albeit lengthy) read.

The main naive takeaways as far as this SubT approach as specified seems to be as follows:

Faster twitchers following the specified SubT schedule are possibly leaving something on the table whilst the current outline seems ideal for slow twitchers.

Fast twitchers should consider shorter/faster reps and slightly lower volume eg 10-15x400s (10k pace) and 45s jog recovery (not passive), 20-25x200s (35s jog). Obviously this lower volume would lead to lower CTL, but this is probably better for FT. Longer reps and CTL maximisation makes sense for ST.

I need to read through it again as there was A LOT and I've probably overlooked some important caveats. Interesting stuff! Slow twitchers, as you were, FT proceed with caution.

Another point of interest was the difference between ST and FT in relation to peaking (and by consequence periodisation). ST able to continue year round whilst FT more peaky/dippy. Sirpoc being a prime example on the ST front of constant peaking.

I've been reading this thread with interest almost since the start. Kudos to sirpoc, the crew etc for this wonderful and I truly mean wonderful, dedication to help, explanations, free advice that is as good as anything currently on the internet or in print.

My experience, I am an ex 400 runner who is very very fast twitch orientated. Gave that up, had family etc. and got into hobby jogging around 4-5 years ago. The usual story, work events, charity runs, turkey trots etc. I was really slow, happy with 21-22.

I came across this thread like many others I am sure, simply by mistake. First few pages seemed interesting and I've had it pinned to my taskbar ever since.

I was already doing 5-6 days a week and 5+ hours , so I thought this method might work for me. Upped it to 7 and followed the normal schedule. Firstly, the paces were way too fast. Which I had suspected being A) slow and B) good knowledge of my fibre make up. In fact, I had to go super slow to make it work loosely using HR as a guide. I would say that maybe 10-12 weeks I felt terrible. Truly awful. In fact I was just about to give up because I just felt this wasn't made for me and back to shorter, harder stuff. But then I entered a 5k purely for fun to run with my wife and I actually PB'd by a good 30 seconds. From maybe a week or so after that, my body felt like it had changed. The grind feeling was gone and I could run the paces on the lower end of the spreadsheet someone shared on Strava. Now, another 3-4 months on and a bigger drop of my PB - sub 19, I can run actually nearer the faster end of thr guide paces. But took me a long, long time to get there. Whereas, seems like the real slow twitch runners, got there either straight away or adapted in a much shorter space of time.

My case study of one? Don't give up. I was pure speed and nothing else and as far away from a middle to long distance runner as you can get. Anyway, just my thoughts guys, hope it might provide some hope ot context to some.

This is encouraging. In response to Alfie as well, I have a few things to add. I just concluded my spring track season, and some friends that I can beat in 800m and mile races have gone on longer summer runs for XC with me. I noticed that in the first mile I feel fine, but by the 4th mile I’m getting dropped by guys that are 10s slower than me in the mile. This is pretty frustrating, and I was trying to figure out what happened, was it just a bad day, did I underfuel, etc, but it has happened multiple times. I’m pretty sure I’m a FT guy, because I can run a good 200, 400, 800, decent mile, and then everything falls apart when I get to the 5k. I have XC season approaching in the fall and I would like to be a fast XC as well as track runner. I have been using this method for about 6 weeks since I stopped training with the team (interval focused, fast strides almost every day). It’s only been recently that I actually feel ok on the easy runs, and don’t feel incredible fatigue by the end. The 3min intervals feel super easy to me, 5min intervals are alright, and I’ve tried to do some 8min intervals and I just feel like a cow. I wonder if since I’m in the offseason, this is when I work on that aerobic weakness, or am I doomed to always be lagging on the long runs with the team but dominate the 200m repeats, as has happened this track season? The other thing is that I might not be necessarily FT, but just aerobically undertrained (only been running for 2 years, consistently for 6 months as of now)

Times: 26 (hand-timed time trial, alone), 56, 2:08, 4:56, don’t have a recent 5k

Really interesting post. How is your top end speed/pop now - any affect or has it held up?

Coggan is the biggest troll on the internet. You aren't far behind. You are both A+ morons. This is probably the most arrogant and unfounded post you have made to date and that is saying something!

The notion of "aerobic decoupling" is just something Friel made up. There is really no scientific research or rationale for using it to guide training.

Here's what can be said:

1) There is always some amount of cardiac drift, even below so-called LT1;

2) cardiac drift is greater at higher intensities and in hotter/more humid conditions; but

3) endurance training and acclimation both tend to reduce cardiac drift.

See anything actionable in there? I don't.

Arguing with people isn't trolling (he says while arguing with a troll).

The Ingebrigtsens are ALL 1500m specialists FIRST for the most part - this thread and the Strava group are filled with NON-1500m runners - and I think they have mostly adjusted the training to fit the longer races - for example - KI and Sirpoc do 3x3200m reps and rarely or never do the 400m reps. For them I think this is a reasonable alteration - but for 1500m type runners I think it might be unnecessary. The original Ingebrigtsen training seems to concentrate on 400m 1k and 2k reps and nothing longer. That's what 1500m specialists should do IMO.

I also don't see a huge utility in long runs for 1500m runners. There was someone on the strava thread who said he never did ANY runs longer than 1600m and PR'd his HM time.

I also question the emphasis on so much Easy mileage - if the entire point of easy days is to recover - it matters not how many of those miles you do - perhaps it is only necessary to do some minimum mileage as just a way to make sure your body MOVES on those days and flushes all the waste products from your system.

I don't know. But it seems to me the THRESHOLD runs are the 95% training and all the other stuff - long runs, easy days, hills etc - those are last 5% training.

One last thing - using distance for the threshold reps I think is a mistake - CTL and other type measurements are a version of something weight lifters have known and used for decades - you improve your hypertrophy and strength based on Time Under Tension. 5 slow reps can beat 10 fast ones because the TIME the muscle is being subjected to stress is greater.

I think thresholds are the same - you don't target 10x1k or 25x400m - instead you target the hours per week. Look at 10x1k for Jakob versus 10x1k for a hobby jogger like me - a session like that is 50+ minutes for me - it might be HALF that time for Jakob.

It cannot possibly make sense for hobby joggers to be spending twice as much time doing threshold training as Jakob.

And since all these reps vary little in pace ( a few seconds per k faster or slower depending on the distance of the rep) - in the end all that matters is the TIME you spend doing threshold reps during any given week. And the distance of any specific rep might be mostly irrelevant.

As u get faster u naturally end up doing more threshold mileage even while keeping the total time the same.

Lots of slightly different ways to skin this cat.

I agree that time is a better metric than distance; you're not the first one to say this by the way.

I disagree on the importance of easy mileage. They are not junk miles, but an essential part of this training method - and of all other successful methods.

Thanks for this. Now I can just ignore everything you ever say, saves me some reading.

Agreed. The distinction i would make is obsessing over how fast to do the "easy" mileage is a fool errands in this system. If you are doing 3x sub T workouts in the week, you should be treating those easy days always more conservative than you think you should run them. Those are not there to generate extra stress. If anything, always round these runs down any way you can (or with whatever metric you are using to track them) to not compromise the other sessions and unnecessarily add fatigue.

I struggle with this myself. When i start feeling good I always fall for the false choice of speeding up the easy days. Never fails. But it always fails me. I made this mistake last fall and have been trying to be very conservative with these, since they are there to only glue together the real work in the week.

For reference, last fall i would set my 'cap' so to speak at 75% of MHR. This year ive been adamant about staying under 70% MHR and even WELL under that with much better day to day fatigue response.

Thanks for this. You have proven always a very sensible poster in this thread over the last year. I also totally agree with you. It's always something I do. I have a week where I'm feeling great and run 10 seconds faster per km for the easy runs and that ALWAYS seems to be the starting point for the inevitable wheels falling off. I follow sirpoc on Strava and I just can't believe sometimes how consistent and disciplined he is, along with KI. I just can't stick to it. I literally don't know what's wrong with me. Engrained runners instinct? Anyway I'm glad someone as smart as yourself Shirtboy actually falls into roughly the same trap as me. Kind of makes me feel better.

Hi Alfie, yeah it can be frustrating. Just going through my books and noticed Magness has a chapter dedicated to ST vs FT training, worth a read if you can get hold of it. Largely agrees with my summary in my previous post for FT: long run - slower. For aerobic power - avoid LT pace runs, substantially slower tempo, or faster than LT but broken up...suggests short intervals at 3-10k pace with short rests to train FT fibres aerobically. Says that FT respond better to 5k/10k pace work than LT pace. Anaerobic work - FT can handle more, long rests between intervals, however cautions about doing too much anaerobic volume if you're targeting 5k/10k+ to avoid inhibiting your aerobic capacity. Also emphasises the need for FT to maintain stimulus on FT fibres: sprint work (8-10s) should be used. Lower mileage required than ST.

There are various other interesting bits about training for each type but that's the key bits relevant to this approach.

Relevance to this thread: So it seems to me that FT would be prudent to at least consider incorporating the shorter intervals (eg 1 mins at 10k pace, (30-40s), or 30s @5k (30s) at least for one of the sessions per week, whilst for any long reps being extra conservative to keep well well below LT. Additionally including some sprint (8-10s max speed, 3 min+ recovery) work as and when. Otherwise you're potentially wasting and neglecting your main strength.