Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

ok, lexel.

In a tale as old as time, lexel finally turns into the ultimate sociopath and troll and goes full JS. Posting in the same broken English but pretending to be different accounts. It's lame, it's pathetic but we can't say we didn't see it coming.

Other than lexel, great thread, great read. Having trouble finding the Strava group link, doesn't seem to be working. Can anyone be so kind as to post a direct invite link here?

There are just as many, if not more, ways to calculate CP/CV. This study, for example, compared (IIRC) 27 of them:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Critical power: How different protocols and models affect its determination - PubMed

Estimations from CP3-hyp were found to be the most accurate, independently of TTE range. Models that include two trials between 12 and 20min provide good agreement with the criterion method (for both CP and W').

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29203319/

The irony of irony being that lexel would like you to run 27 time trials before you are even ready to train.

Guy is a clown. It's fun seeing you bury him, but he's easy prey.

In my irrelevant opinion, these two concepts and their respective calculation sub-variants are both concepts for determining what a sustainable but still significant effort should look like. Chances are most people will be in a spectrum between all these values, and for guys doing relatively low milage on singles, maybe any of them could be good enough for the purpose of building a weekly schedule with 2 or 3 significant but still sustainable workouts.

I have read only the abstract of the paper, as it is not for free available. The standard calculation to estimate CV is the 2 parameter approach. It is recommended to have at least 3 better 4 time-trials. However, some studies show that also 2 TTs gave a good result (2 TTs at the edge of the hyperbolic function, short-long). In my %CV thread, i presented a CV estimation based only on a 5k result, based on IAAF score tables, which seems to work well too.

As we train here below (sub) CV, we do not need W’/D’ (in this 2-paramter approach). (this parameter has indeed problems)
I mentioned the 4th performance parameter, which is durability (additional to LT%, VO2max, CR). Any VT/LT/CV 'threshold' shall not be seen as a constant parameter, it is a variable. CV as well as LT2 goes down it we get tired (i provided some papers here in the past) . And there are day to day variations.
Intensities above CV seems to increase recovery time significant. Therefore, to stay ‘safely’ below CV, you need some kind of safety gap below CV. This gap is individual, but 95%CV is a good starting point (for the method mentioned herein).

The big advantage of CV is, that you do not need neither a step graded lactate testing, where you have to select between 20+ methods to estimate LT2, nor a spiroergometry. A spiroergometry is still considered the gold standard as you know, but it is quite expensive and complex. Also measurement tolerance is there. However, a spiroergometry is the only way to measure VO2max and CR, so it has its value.

CV is available for the broad mass, without any complex measurements and devices, that gives a big plus for it. It also provides the possibility to rank athletes based on CV for a HS or whatever, as it is a great performance index.

P.S (all): Just to clarify: I mentioned Sirpoc, H2F and Coggan in a positve way and my posts were deleted from the moderation. Period.

I would like to take a closer look at sirpoc's specific training. Does anyone have the link to sirpoc's Strava group? Many thanks in advance!

It's 3 posts above yours.

For the masses. How about just follow through guides from this thread or the charts Hard2find shared? That are even more simple and plug and play than your obsession with CV. Whilst at the same time this thread has in it's basis helped hundreds of people at this point. The irony, you seem to have worked that out yourself and your training you recently listed resembles this thread. Yet you wrote it like it's something new, yet as unbelief pointed out your findings and summary basically are reminiscent of page 1.

You can post here all you like lexel, but you are becoming a cry baby where you just keep shouting louder when nobody listens to your nonsense. Very much JS behaviour to be honest with you. You are a very odd person who really just craves attention or someone to just say 'wow lexel, you're right after all!'.

Oops, thanks loljj!

I can name that song in one note.

So just popping in for a 22 week update. I've since run a 36.50 10k which I was fairly happy with and seemed to be reasonable chunk of improvement compared to my starting point.

I've also done another 5k which was a couple of seconds faster. But basically unchanged since I started training this way.

I definitely feel fitter aerobically than when I started but 5k pace just seems out of reach.

So not a disaster by any means but seems I'm a mediocre responder to this type of training.

I'll probably start experimenting by adding in some faster stuff. Or perhaps switch between blocks of this type of training and blocks of faster stuff. Definitely glad I gave it a try anyway.

Improvement is improvement, and I'd bet a reasonable sum that with 4-6 weeks of specific 5km work (at/over race pace) you'd pick up a faster 5km in line with your 10km. What's to lose? I doubt you'll get slower.

You can always revert to continue the single ST approach after. See it as a different mesocycle to break out of the monotony of ST, if staleness is a potential reason you feel progress hasn't been as forthcoming as you'd hoped/expected.

Remember those who apply the full ST (aka Norweigan) approach bake in some race specific work as competition approaches.

double post

kind of same here. (just some minutes slower as "slow runner uk")

I started end of July in transitioning to subT as outlined - also picked the paces on very cautious side. August 5km pace + 25-45 seconds. End of October did run another 5km and this was even bit slower than August. But as with you I also feeld fitter currently, just was not able to translate this to good 5km race.

Did more research. What I did find on various pages was that for slower runners (>40 minutes for 10km) threshold pace seems to be closer to 10km race pace rather than half marathon pace. So since two weeks I run all my workouts just a little bit faster, more like August 5km pace + 10-20 seconds. The workouts are surpisingly as doable as with the slightly slower pace and also the days inbetween feeling the same. I had a couple of good parkruns (not run all-out, so not sure about race pace) now as well.

Will continue now with the new paces. That feels just very good now. Still do not have a lactate meter at hand and will continue with paces for the moment. My feeling says I did good progress - numbers will follow (hopefully).

My main event upcoming is a half marathon in April, and in case I might still not progress for the 5k might still be beneficial for that event then.

When you say 5km pace plus 25-45 seconds or 10-20 seconds, are you talking min/km or min/mi pace?

Sirpoopy strikes again. FAILS to even manage to break 1:10 for the HM. Yet you guys lap it up and think this actually works as a legitimate training method LOL

He did run a PB but had wanted to be faster. But he was ill this week so no surprise it was not a super result.