Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

agree with this 2 wrote:

The "bang for buck TSS" idea I think is secondary to the fact that Sirpoc had massive success cycling with 3 sub T. As others have said, this is actually fairly common training in cycling, so he had that as further validation to stick to it. Then, within that framework, he uses TSS along with how his workouts are going, to triangulate the shape he's in. Pretty smart. The TSS comparison of this vs Daniels was trying to objectively say that 3 sub T generates more load than than Daniels. I think you can also get a subjective feeling for this, that Vo2 workouts ask a lot of you and then you just can do as much during the rest of the week-- TSS is just a formal way to compare it.

Hard2Find had a great post earlier in the thread about the drawbacks of TSS. It is heavily biases volume over intensity. For example, 25 min at Interval, 32 min at Threshold and 53 min at Easy (all JD paces) generate 60 TSS according to Hard2Find's TSS calculator spreadsheet. The recovery needed for those workouts are ridiculously different. The take away is that TSS isn't everything, but it's a helpful metric to track consistency/ progress if you're already working within a logical training framework.

I suspect that what is optimal is highly individual, and that in the vast majority of cases good training that you do consistently will always beat spotty training that may be "ideal." To the posters above who say that those with success stick closely to Sirpoc's guidelines, my suspicion is that what's happening is that those people are more consistent than the people changing things up. If you create a plan that's similar but different from Sirpocs and you stick to it, you may get just as good of results. I think the reason is that the range of sub T paces/ durations is actually much broader than what Sirpoc does. But what Sirpoc works, so why change it?

I think if you're following a hard/ easy approach, what Sirpoc does is probably very close to ideal. Maybe if you're weaker on the endurance side 40-45 min worth of intervals at M pace may be better than 36 min at Sub T. But now we're splitting hairs, and its probably best to just get out and run.

If you're willing to break the hard/ easy approach, there are a lot of ways to generate more TSS in a week, like the 30 min at M a day that the poster above mentioned. I suspect that there will be greater variability with this kind of clustering, meaning some will do great and some will break, and the hard/ easy will probably be best for most people most of the time. But the ultimate question is, does this higher TSS convert to greater fitness and faster times? I've heard Sirpoc estimate that there may be about a 10-15% difference in performance based on how you generated your TSS. Say person A gets 60 CTL through lots of all easy running, person B through 3 sub T, and person C through a Daniels program. The variation in performance between those groups may be 10-15%, so TSS gets us in the right ballpark but isn't predictive. 3subT gets us the load with less time than plan A, and is more repeatable than plan C. I suspect the variation in performance is largely due to one's training history and general strengths/ weaknesses.

For example, my 5k time is much better than my 10k time which is much better than my HM time. I suspect for me, that more volume at the lower end of the sub T range is more beneficial than the shorter reps (400s, 1000s). Below is the schedule I've experimented with for 4 weeks. I just had a break due to Covid, and am torn between picking it back up or going to the traditional 3 sub T.

Monday- 1 hr with 8x 4 min LT2

Tuesday-1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace) 3x 15 min for example

Wednesday- 90 min easy

Thursday- 1 hr with 4 x 10 min at M pace and slightly quicker

Friday- 1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace)

Saturday- 1 hr easy

Sunday- 1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace)

My CTL shot up doing this vs 3 sub T. My experience is that the fatigue you get from LT1 work is completely different than the fatigue from LT2. One way to describe it is that running LT1 simulated high milage. It's still Z2 in 5 zone model work, but with 45 min at LT1 I felt like it was more like a 90 min easy run. Interestingly, this pace is about 88% of JD's T pace, which is at the low end of sweetspot for cycling. I like my easy days in the woods so I'm leaning towards going back to 3 sub T. Kinda funny, my garmin was going crazy during this period. My estimated VO2 max shot up and my estimated 5k time was in the 15s when my PR is high 17s lol. Clearly it's wrong, but maybe it's directionally correct? It's hard to tell knowing that TSS is biased towards volume/ distance. Am I just optimizing for something that isn't that important for a 5k? Maybe. Would this improve my HM? That seems likely, given how poor my HM is compared to 5k. Again, only did it for 4 weeks and then got Covid so not much of a sample size.

sirpoc84 wrote:

The other thing I will mention is cross training. If you are going to cross train I would be pretty confident in doing this plan but across whatever method you are doing alongside running. What makeup that is in terms of balance, I don't know. But shirtboy has been doing something similar and he's basically not gotten worse at running - and he's barely a runner now (I don't think he will mind me saying that 😅). Following the same plan whilst injured, or something similar with lots of cycling sweetspot also probably is a smart thing to do. Jiggymeister came back quite quickly from injury and was pretty good quite quickly with a large TSS load from cycling.

So I would say the next natural progression of the thread is other people sharing not just their running experiences but also how or why maybe they have cross trained using the same basic principles.

sirpoc84 wrote:

The other thing I will mention is cross training. If you are going to cross train I would be pretty confident in doing this plan but across whatever method you are doing alongside running. What makeup that is in terms of balance, I don't know. But shirtboy has been doing something similar and he's basically not gotten worse at running - and he's barely a runner now (I don't think he will mind me saying that 😅). Following the same plan whilst injured, or something similar with lots of cycling sweetspot also probably is a smart thing to do. Jiggymeister came back quite quickly from injury and was pretty good quite quickly with a large TSS load from cycling.

So I would say the next natural progression of the thread is other people sharing not just their running experiences but also how or why maybe they have cross trained using the same basic principles.

ah so you don\'t understand .... wrote:

It's actually you who doesn't understand. There is NO SUB THRESHOLD PACE. It doesn't exist. The posts here and that everyone has talked about are a guide. To try and get you in to the sub threshold state. Look at sirpoc or KI runs. We have lots of clear data for them. Sirpoc might do 3:16 one week, other weeks we see 3:23 say the week before, all for the SAME DISTANCE. The conditions and a whole number of factors effect the running pace. But he or KI do not care about the pace in reality, just that they are probably reaching around or just below LTHR as a rough rule of thumb, by say the end of the last rep.

If people don't understand this then firstly, don't come here and try and act clever when you aren't. Secondly, understanding this is absolutely fundamental to making 3x sub threshold sessions a week work. Where you are pushing the limits but never exceeding it.

The "paces" are just a rough guide to get you started. That aren't set in stone as there is technically no actual definitive sub threshold pace itself.

sirpoc84 wrote:

agree with this 2 wrote:

The "bang for buck TSS" idea I think is secondary to the fact that Sirpoc had massive success cycling with 3 sub T. As others have said, this is actually fairly common training in cycling, so he had that as further validation to stick to it. Then, within that framework, he uses TSS along with how his workouts are going, to triangulate the shape he's in. Pretty smart. The TSS comparison of this vs Daniels was trying to objectively say that 3 sub T generates more load than than Daniels. I think you can also get a subjective feeling for this, that Vo2 workouts ask a lot of you and then you just can do as much during the rest of the week-- TSS is just a formal way to compare it.

Hard2Find had a great post earlier in the thread about the drawbacks of TSS. It is heavily biases volume over intensity. For example, 25 min at Interval, 32 min at Threshold and 53 min at Easy (all JD paces) generate 60 TSS according to Hard2Find's TSS calculator spreadsheet. The recovery needed for those workouts are ridiculously different. The take away is that TSS isn't everything, but it's a helpful metric to track consistency/ progress if you're already working within a logical training framework.

I suspect that what is optimal is highly individual, and that in the vast majority of cases good training that you do consistently will always beat spotty training that may be "ideal." To the posters above who say that those with success stick closely to Sirpoc's guidelines, my suspicion is that what's happening is that those people are more consistent than the people changing things up. If you create a plan that's similar but different from Sirpocs and you stick to it, you may get just as good of results. I think the reason is that the range of sub T paces/ durations is actually much broader than what Sirpoc does. But what Sirpoc works, so why change it?

I think if you're following a hard/ easy approach, what Sirpoc does is probably very close to ideal. Maybe if you're weaker on the endurance side 40-45 min worth of intervals at M pace may be better than 36 min at Sub T. But now we're splitting hairs, and its probably best to just get out and run.

If you're willing to break the hard/ easy approach, there are a lot of ways to generate more TSS in a week, like the 30 min at M a day that the poster above mentioned. I suspect that there will be greater variability with this kind of clustering, meaning some will do great and some will break, and the hard/ easy will probably be best for most people most of the time. But the ultimate question is, does this higher TSS convert to greater fitness and faster times? I've heard Sirpoc estimate that there may be about a 10-15% difference in performance based on how you generated your TSS. Say person A gets 60 CTL through lots of all easy running, person B through 3 sub T, and person C through a Daniels program. The variation in performance between those groups may be 10-15%, so TSS gets us in the right ballpark but isn't predictive. 3subT gets us the load with less time than plan A, and is more repeatable than plan C. I suspect the variation in performance is largely due to one's training history and general strengths/ weaknesses.

For example, my 5k time is much better than my 10k time which is much better than my HM time. I suspect for me, that more volume at the lower end of the sub T range is more beneficial than the shorter reps (400s, 1000s). Below is the schedule I've experimented with for 4 weeks. I just had a break due to Covid, and am torn between picking it back up or going to the traditional 3 sub T.

Monday- 1 hr with 8x 4 min LT2

Tuesday-1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace) 3x 15 min for example

Wednesday- 90 min easy

Thursday- 1 hr with 4 x 10 min at M pace and slightly quicker

Friday- 1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace)

Saturday- 1 hr easy

Sunday- 1 hr with 45 min at LT1 (90% of M pace)

My CTL shot up doing this vs 3 sub T. My experience is that the fatigue you get from LT1 work is completely different than the fatigue from LT2. One way to describe it is that running LT1 simulated high milage. It's still Z2 in 5 zone model work, but with 45 min at LT1 I felt like it was more like a 90 min easy run. Interestingly, this pace is about 88% of JD's T pace, which is at the low end of sweetspot for cycling. I like my easy days in the woods so I'm leaning towards going back to 3 sub T. Kinda funny, my garmin was going crazy during this period. My estimated VO2 max shot up and my estimated 5k time was in the 15s when my PR is high 17s lol. Clearly it's wrong, but maybe it's directionally correct? It's hard to tell knowing that TSS is biased towards volume/ distance. Am I just optimizing for something that isn't that important for a 5k? Maybe. Would this improve my HM? That seems likely, given how poor my HM is compared to 5k. Again, only did it for 4 weeks and then got Covid so not much of a sample size.

I actually do read here when I can. But haven't really felt like I've had much to add for a while. Firstly, great post - hope you are in the Strava group (although I feel with a post like that you probably already are!).

Secondly, just to state for the wider audience; I don't think there is inherently anything special about sub threshold. At all. I just think it's probably the easiest range to control, as well as the easiest to access or qualify in some way , along with seemingly fitting the various "load" models the best. The key being you can easily build more in, you should know where your fitness is, which will also lead to better performance.

I will however, probably die on the hill of saying until I've seen evidence otherwise, for the aerobically underdeveloped runner, this is probably as good as you are gonna get in terms of bang for your buck on 5+ hours a week (with the odd tweak here or there for individuality or how a good coach might adapt slightly). Once you get to maybe 8.5-9+, again there are better ways to train (doubted t at a lower intensity). Under 5 hours (apart from just starting out) I would probably just roll the dice and do something aggressive from a Daniel's book.

So that already takes out a large percentage of the population who could be doing this. Inside of that though, I do think as a cut and paste regime off the shelf, it's as likely as anything if not more so to give you success. I think, as you mention poster above, consistency is as much the key to this as any other single factor.

One other point of note, yes I did say there's probably a 10% swing or so in either direction. Guys much smarter than me when it came to looking at cycling data (and some swimming) for guys who had trained various ways over various seasons - found there was actually not a huge amount of difference between plan A versus plan B versus plan C. Say a 300w on a pretty standard cycling plan of 20 years ago might get you 300w. A totally unstructured plan might get you 270-280w and something that gave you best bang for your buck, over a potentially shorter but more condensed time period (sweetspot), might gain you 320-330w. Again though, this is for time limited guys - not elite level. FWIW my data was the most outlier, in that it was almost identical for me no matter what - and I did try a totally awful training plan of just riding 2.5-3 hours a day at zone 2 (but took way longer).

Is this going to be the case for running? Who knows. Runners are bad record keepers in terms of accurate data. Myself and Hard2find also talk about this most days and know that the original model TSS was built on probably has some flaws , which come down to expected power duration curves. Hard2find, if anyone, might find an alternative. If anyone can, it would be him (and to make it running specific).

The other thing I will mention is cross training. If you are going to cross train I would be pretty confident in doing this plan but across whatever method you are doing alongside running. What makeup that is in terms of balance, I don't know. But shirtboy has been doing something similar and he's basically not gotten worse at running - and he's barely a runner now (I don't think he will mind me saying that 😅). Following the same plan whilst injured, or something similar with lots of cycling sweetspot also probably is a smart thing to do. Jiggymeister came back quite quickly from injury and was pretty good quite quickly with a large TSS load from cycling.

So I would say the next natural progression of the thread is other people sharing not just their running experiences but also how or why maybe they have cross trained using the same basic principles.