Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

So what happens if you train up to a certain level of fitness, then cut back?

Hickson's studies showed that you could reduce frequency and duration by up to two-thirds, and training-induced improvements in VO2max were maintained. However, if intensity was reduced, VO2max regressed.

That's VO2max, though - performance itself was reduced with any reduction in training load.

I see them as adaptions to the workload. And they can happen quickly, for example, lifting heavy weights will increase my muscle mass in a few weeks and phenotypically, I'm very much a slow twitcher.

Why elevate mitochondrial biogenesis to a high level of importance in a training plan?Isn't it a natural process of basic metabolic function and relative to oxidative stress?

VO2 max regression? Hmm, is that absolute VO2 max? And is it peak or plateau?

I leave a Reddit thread discussing the intensity that allows greater mitochondrial biogenesis. They come to the conclusion that a permanent high intensity is not sustainable and that some type of combination is necessary to make it sustainable and obtain the greatest profit, very logical. At lower intensities, biogenesis also occurs, and although for the same work time or volume it is lower, by being able to achieve a much higher volume because fatigue arrives much later, the gains become greater thanks to that.

Although I have made a brief summary, I recommend reading.

You seem to have missed my point. Just because adaptive responses take a long time to phenotypically manifest themselves doesn't mean that they are due to motor learning ("skill").

For example, long-term improvement in running economy could be due changes in myosin expression in the fastest, and therefore most difficult to recruit and hence train, motor units.

Unfortunately , we may need know. What clearly can be said, however, is that variations between people in how they run explains only a minor fraction of differences in their energy cost.

Muscle respiratory capacity is the primary determinant of the ability to maintain a high metabolic rate for a prolonged period of time. Although redox state may play some role in signaling, the primary factors that seem to drive increases are 1) cellular "energy charge", or what John Holloszy once called "squiggle P" (~P), and 2) elevated Ca2+ levels.

Be that as it may, training should first and foremost be designed to enhance actual performance.

It's very challenging to comprehensively study whats going on in the mitochondria in response to exercise, so keep in mind when most studies talk about any aspect of mitochondrial function, volume, whatever, they are often just looking at some of proxy for these in a form of a particular mitochondrial enzyme or membrane protein.

When it comes to the idea that too much quality running and not enough easy running leads to mitochondrial damage there's some evidence that could support this and a few working models of what's going on, but nothing super solid to my knowledge. A ramble on a few concepts:

One theory is that too much intense exercise leads to an overproduction of reactive oxygen species overwhelms the antioxidative capacity of the mitochondria to deal with these ROS. I'm not sure if the result here is actual damage to the mitochondria or just a compensatory shutdown of metabolism (and thus production of ROS) so that they can get back to a more balanced redox environment.

Another possibility is an imbalance in substrate utilization with too much intensity. I seem to recall some studies that have found disturbed glucose control and insulin sensitivity issues in elite athletes training very hard. Not sure of the exact implications here.

Another theory is less about dose/damage of high intensity itself and more about what we're not doing during this type of training. If we drop overall volume and threshold work we just lose aerobic capacity over time -pretty simple.

I like to think of the mitochondria less as machine-like powerhouses that we should constantly push to the limit, and more like microscopic livestock that we need to cultivate and take care of. Training serves to "feed" them. We need to feed them the right balance of stuff and should not abuse them. Not the best analogy but I think there's something here.

I'm not sure if easy running is actively "protective" against mitochondrial damage/dysregulation or if its more just a general balancing of training effects.

That being said, a short easy run is a nice boost of hormones and blood flow that aids in recovery and adaptation. For a high volume athlete who is very fit and very durable they can add in a daily jog to get these recovery benefits without a recovery cost. For a normal runner something like an easy walk or bike ride in the morning would probably get the job done and be safer.

Going into less understood and maybe somewhat woo woo territory now, I think an important aspect of successful training is not only getting the correct training load, but balancing time between heightened, ready-to-perform, sympathetic nervous system state and the chill rebuild parasympathetic nervous system state. If we are doing much intensity we are always in ready-to-perform mode and not getting to fully rebuild from all that stress. Easy running gets/keeps us in that chill mode where actual adaptation takes place.

There's plenty more models/theories/whatever about this, and ultimately not sure it really matters how we describe whats going on in the mitochondria. We have a pretty good idea of what works from all the coaches and athletes running real world experiments. The best consistently run a lot and run most that fairly easy. I don't think we need to a deep understanding of cellular biology to tell us to follow the obvious path here.

Excellent post, John. Enjoying your addition to an already long list of top contributions. I very much take Lexel and Coggan off that list!

To bring it back to the thread overall, like your point, we don't necessarily need to know why the stuff sirpoc has laid out works - and workings to a high ish level, all we need to know is it seems to work for a large and significant majority for those who have tried it. This isn't hearsay, there's countless real people who have posted her and on Strava who have tried this for a significant period of time.

My personal view is that it is a clever mix and balance of the hardest higher intensity stuff one can handle + plenty of easy running. This provides a backdrop and consistency so many runners have never had, using more traditional methods. Of course, as others have said this isn't a magic pill. But it is most likely , if you can stick to it, going to provide improvement to most runners on some sort of time crunched and limited schedule. All the pieces matter it seems, why they matter and what the science says is almost irrelevant, at this point.

Excellent post. just picking up on the above para.

As an older runner (late 60s), an easy run can feel stupidly easy, by breathing and heart rate etc, but legs can still feel a bit fatigued. I have often thought a brisk walk would be better, but swayed by the fact that walking is not running, it can’t be recorded as mileage, there is a loss of specificity, and I suppose it feels like cheating, etc.

Any views from anyone else, on walk/bike to replace some easy runs?

It depends on fitness level. If you are unfit a walk can be a good training, and if you are very fit ,a flat walk is not enough stimulus. As we age fitness goes down naturally (i provide no paper) and in this case a walk could be a good idea. But it depends not on age, it depends on the fitness level.

While everyone has been arguing about the theoretical importance of easy running, spoc, who has barely missed a day of easy running since starting with this method, just ran a 32:01.

My main gripe with Sirpoc is that he keeps describing himself as "averagely talented". You don't do an 18 min 10 mile TT, nor a 32 min 10k aged 40 off a year or two of running whilst being averagely talented. It's quite frankly insulting to those of us who are averagely talented.

Not sure about this. For two reasons:

1. Also being from the UK, sirpoc mentioned doing cross country at school and being a middle of the pack runner. Considering nobody runs in school apart from the days you are made to do it on cold, winters days, it's a pretty good indicator of who the natural talented kids are as he's mentioned. In fact, I know there's a lot of talent spotting UK athletics does at stuff like this. It's a really good indicator of who might be aerobically talented, or will become it. As 90% of kids are just footballers at this point. He's mentioned this before and I totally understand the point.

2. If he was really talented, in my opinion he would have gotten much better results out of Daniels. Really talented guys seem to flourish even with just a bit of work with a Daniel's system. They definitely don't "peak" or plateau at 19, if you have real talent. The system seems to have been how he's managed to break through the barrier, a lot of good runners hit, but never reach even nearly 90% of their true potential as they really need to train to get near it or just can't manage the load. A really talented runner in my eyes would be running even 17:30 minimum on a Daniel's plan he followed after even just 6 months. Let alone over a year just to get 18:50.

Also I believe he posted his FTP was 315 on the bike. Honestly, I hope he doesn't take this with disrespect. But that's not really talented in the slightest to be honest.

Just my thoughts on the subject, but it's something interesting for sure to think about. What talent even is.

Anyway, congrats to him on another PB. Well earned and I think a great inspiration to many of us older runners.

I agree. He was a sub-elite TT cyclist who turned into a sub-elite runner. Way better than "average".

The weird thing however is that Daniels training did not work for him, and this sub-treshold model did.

I would highlight that the comment was clearly (or seemingly not!) tongue in cheek and highlighting his progress, and dare I say it, talent. The logical implication of him being averagely talented yet doing 32 within a couple of years is that all those other top level V40s running 32.30-33 with a history of consistent training over a decade are below averagely talented. I frankly think is nonsense. 315w is relevant only in the context of weight, again assuming he wasn't obese at this time, above average. I do like the idea of an obese sirpoc powering round the CTT circuit though!

Fwiw I think this method will improve most time limited runners. I just don't think the *averagely talented* v40 runner should be expecting a quick jump to sub 32 anytime soon.

Been reading this thread with interest. I sort of agree with this point but I can't shake and help think why didn't he get much better using a Daniels method as someone else mentioned? We know he probably has talent from cycling, but he was pretty average, for a while. We know facts of no real weight change of note either. We know how we trained. We know how he trains now. It's really such a cool thread as we are not really in the dark about much.

It begs the question.....if we accept he is a pretty good talent , which I'm sort of swaying towards, although not exceptional, how many other guys out there are grinding away with Daniel's 4th edition running 18-19 when their talent is being potentially stifled? They might not even know they have talent and are being held back by the regime if they are later to running as well. Let's say fiber types matters, for argument sake and they are also slow twitch like sirpoc. There might be a lot of other guys in the same situation with literally minutes more talent to unlock. Maybe that's the key to the thread. If you haven't yet tried this method and are getting reasonable results, it could be you next?

Maybe I'm off the mark. Feel free to flame me as a newbie!

Injuries? Sure he mentioned that previously. All the R and I work can be attrition Al with Daniels. Also just the skill element of transitioning from cycling to running take time. He didn't upload that era so hard to say with how much consistency he managed to train with Daniels. Regardless, I think what Coggan said is key, it's all about consistency with some overloading week after week, month after month, year after year. This method offers a way of doing this whilst being low risk for the majority and it's worked spectacularly for him. He's still above averagely talented though 😆. Might also be that this sort of training specifically is superior for his physiological makeup, will leave that for others though.