Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

obturator wrote:

old_skool50 wrote:

at the end of my first week it felt way too easy. Almost like a recovery week from what I was used to. The workouts felt like I could have easily done more reps

Bolded is what I don't get. I've tried some of these workouts & they seem very difficult, especially with only 60 sec of jog recovery. Perhaps I'm a wimp, or too mentally weak or simply bored with repeat speed workouts at my older age.

Are we supposed to build up to these workouts? And they're sub threshold right? Not threshold?

I'm fast twitch so perhaps lacking aerobically. My legs feel trashed the next day after these workouts. No way I could tolerate 3 workouts a week. If you do a long run & 3 workouts a week that only gives you 1 easy day between. Plus a workout day & long run likely fall back to back. In my opinion, that's intense for a has been hobby jogger like me.

I used the Norwegian Singles Calculator using my most recent 5k time of 18:39 (course was accurate). Also used the suggested pace times below to compare. I run 45 miles a week, so am allowed 4 miles of sub threshold work, but haven't been able to tolerate near that much. Easy runs are around 8:30 pace, (which isn't fun at all going that slow, except for days after workouts where I'd rather not be running at all because again my legs are dead). Track's snow covered & it's nothing but hills here so it's hard to find a somewhat flat stretch to do these workouts. (more excuses, I know)

Subthreshold workout recommendations:
1K reps (usually 8-12 x 1K) with 60" rest at 10mi to 15K pace (For me that'd be 7 @6:23 mile pace)
- This workout felt the most doable. But most I've done is 5 reps at around 6:20 pace. Haven’t tried it, but doing 8 reps would probably end me.

2K reps (usually 4-6 x 2K) with 60" rest at HM pace (for me 3 @6:32 mile)
- Most I've done is four 1mile repeats at 6:33 pace. Mile repeats have always been my least favorite (even back when running in college) & this workout was dreadful. Also did 3x1 mile on 2 occasions. 2 x 1 mile & 2 x 1k once.

3k reps (usually 3 x 3K) with 60" rest at 30K pace (for me that’d be 2 @6:43)
-Kind of mixed this into the middle end of a few 10 mile runs where I did 3 miles straight at 6:46 pace & it makes no sense, but this felt the most easy of the 3. Mentally it’s a lot easier & more natural feeling to do 3 miles at a time & be done, then repeats where you recover & have to start again. This workout was the most fun too, which makes me wonder if I should just do progression runs every other day & have some fun with running at my older age.

What effort are people rating these workouts? I'd probably rate these 8.5-9/10 whereas other training plans I'd rate workouts 7/10. I'm not getting a lot of cardiac drift so perhaps they're still in the sub threshold HR category. I've sorta been following the Tinman method where a rough guideline is CV workout of 5x1k at 6:20 pace, 60 sec jog recover, plus 5 x 200 meter at 1600m pace with 200 jog. Other workout is 3 mile tempo at 5k+ 60 sec, so 7 min pace. This method feels way easier than the above workouts, which makes me wonder if I'm doing it all wrong.

Enjoyment is key wrote:

I definitely don’t find these workouts as easy as old_skool describes them, but nowhere near as difficult as they seem to be for you. And I‘m fairly sure I’ve been pushing the pace a bit too much on a couple of them…

Do you have another longer race to compare to or calculate from? You’re taking the fastest listed paces for your 18:39 — your 1km reps could be more like 6:39 pace and be in the pace span, but keep in mind that the 5km is still under 20 minutes. It’s a highly aerobic race, but short enough that your ability to burn energy above threshold before fatigue (W' in cyclist jargon), which varies significantly between athletes, still plays a significant role. You also say you’re more of a fast twitch athlete. These pace bounds probably work for most people, but some people will be outliers too.
I‘d say set a *fastest* pace of 6:40/mile for the 1km repeats for you. Start more like 7min/mile pace and work your way down to 6:40 pace by the end. See how that feels. Once you’ve gotten used to training around and below your threshold, you can do a lot based on feel.

Not sure just how hilly the area you’re training in is, but the variation between my intervals based on hills is significant, i.e. over a min/mile pace difference. I cannot use pace in those circumstances whatsoever. In your case, I would also switch to using time and other metrics (power, GAP, HR) or just running on feel. Basically, you should scale these workouts such that doing three per week is doable — that’s largely the point of the system! And I‘d like to hammer home the point above about slowing your easy pace. If you’re doing a more traditional base phase, running high Z2 might make sense sometimes. Here, it’s best just to really go easy. Try to make your routes interesting so you aren’t bored!

loser here wrote:

losers 4 losers wrote:

You guys really are dumb if you think this training method will work. This thread is as pathetic and sum up modern laziness to actually you know, run hard to improve.

Sirpoc and his loser followers will soon realise soon how stupid they have been. It's funny , you guys really think he knows more and is faster than Jakobs oldest brother and more than Henrik who has started coaching the brother with hills, strides, hard workout. Like anyone with any sense does.

There's no evidence any of this works. It's pure fantasy.

Yeah I'll happily consider myself one of the losers following. Gone from 21 min 5k to 18:24 in a year following this thread. Previously had been running or following other plans for close to a decade.

Sirpoc's training is out there. It's not a secret. His performances in his 40s speak for themselves and testiment to this system.

There are dozens of testimonies in this thread of people who have improved more or less copying him. Hundreds on Strava. A guy posted in fantastic detail the other day on Reddit how he went from almost 7 years as a stagnated 20 min guy well into his 40s to breaking 18 after 9 months of this and still improving, even down to the Mile. Question is, why wouldn't anyone consider training like this? Not even should they.

Also, no disrespect to Kristoffer, but sirpoc is at another level to him. Sure, he has Henrik coaching him. But I'm just as likely to follow the guy who has had truly remarkable results and as have others following his lead than someone who really is scaling down what he knows from elite to hobby jogger

Would a pro train like this? No, obviously not. Are most of us pros? Hell no. It's all very well looking at the training plans of olympic runners, but the reality is we should be shaped by guys who have life balances, stresses, jobs, other things going on in life like a sirpoc. Also, I think there is something new here. Find me one other training program that doesn't have speed or vo2 work built in, no strides, no straight tempos and basically just two paces of running. Pretty much none and none with this level of success.

He's probably given as much to the LRC community for free than almost anyone I can ever remember.

If respecting or being inspired by that makes me a loser, give me a T-shirt now.

The great thing about this these and why it is so damn good is even when the usual guys try and troll it or make it toxic, the positive still shines through. Think how rare that is for LRC and you'll understand why the only loser here is guys who make posts like the one I'm replying to.

old tima wrote:

astro bot wrote:

Got to give some respect to some of the older greats on here like Cabral, jtupper, JK, Hadd, Tinman, Canova, even Malmo with the summer of Malmo training. There are others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

I actually went back through a lot of old threads recently, I think pound for pound this stands up or even surpasses them. If probably provides the average guy or gal the best opportunity to improve, over a period of time where you don't have the pressure of blocks or cramming everything into 12-16 weeks. On top of that, there's been extra information into the theory which is new to most runners and also how or why you are trying to archeive goals. Nobody has tried to sell anything, nobody has asked for anything back in return and other members of the community like Hard2find have clearly teamed up with sirpoc to provide invaluable tools that you would usually find behind a pay wall. I like the real time journey as well.

If that is enough for the HOF, I don't know what is. As much as I love some of the other threads you mention, a lot of it I read and ask, 'is this really aimed at me?'. We have had success here from 27-28 min guys, down to sirpoc himself who is now I would guess one of the top masters runners in his country, all from hobby jogger down. There's likely only a small proportion of people this isn't for. I think a lot of people realise that despite the bluster of LRC, most of us are slow.

old_skool50 wrote:

I thought I would post here, as I think it's worth someone coming here now and again and giving a fair and long term review of this method, system or whatever we have decided to call it.

I have been coming on LR message boards for many years to read. I'm now 50 and anyone who has been here a while will likely be as beat up by the place, skeptical and probably down right miserable by a lot of the experience.

I don't believe in miracle cures. I don't believe in miracle training. In fact, quite frankly I had this thread down as a bunch of idiots fumbling around in the dark. But hey, don't judge me that's how LR makes you feel! But then, you actually take a step back and think 'Hmmm, there is a lot of actual positivity here'

So, my background, I ran in school. I was average. Very average. Gave up, came back as a married, hobby guy at 36. I ran 19:11 for the 5k and a 1:28 half at 38. I stumbled around that level for a while, mainly using a mixture on and off of various new ideas coming out, or simply going back to more traditional methods from various cookie cutter plans you will find in the usual literature. I actually scraped an 18:56 at 41 from a day where it all came together.

Anyway, come around this time last year, this thread I guess was in its peak. I seemed to tick all the boxes. My best was long behind me, I was running around 6 hours a week still with various plans but I was going nowhere. Was running around 21:30. Tbh, I was pretty happy with that at nearly 50. But decided, why the hell not try this new craze.

Wow, did I make the right decision! I read most of this thread through twice. To make sure I hadn't missed or messed up any of the interpretation. Set out to just start out right away:

My initial impressions were I must be missing something, at the end of my first week it felt way too easy. Almost like a recovery week from what I was used to. The workouts felt like I could have easily done more reps although I did start cautious and that's not a feeling I have had in my previous years very often!

I was already doing 6 hours so I basically just replicated the classic here, 3*10, 6*5 and 10*3. And I just went on .....and on.....and on. Suddenly week 9 I noticed things were significantly faster. I jumped in a 5k , ran 20:50.

Just kept going. 3 easy runs and the long run plus the same workouts. On and on and on. Boring. Very boring. I hopped in another 5k around week 16. 20:21.

You see the pattern. On and on and on. Week 21. Ran 20 flat. You know the pattern, same week in week out. This was by far the fastest I had run in a very long time.

Anyway, I was building to a half, this was around week 28. I ran 19:32 in a random 5k I jumped in , them the week after I broke 1:30 with a 1:29 flat in a HM.

As time as gone on, I kept improving, when, remarkably just before Christmas I broke my best from when I was 41, a couple of days after my 50th birthday . I ran 18:29 and was blown away by it. To have a sense of achievement at this age just blows my mind.

The key to this is the consistency. It has allowed me to just keep going, doing my own thing. Whilst fellow old friends of mine are training themselves into a black hole of fatigue, I am staring into said black hole but never faling in. Anyway, last Sunday I broke 1:25 and ran 1:23:55 in a half. Cleaning up on my new age category of 50+ afterwards much to my delight!

I have managed to increase load as that time has gone on. From hovering around 6 hours to managing sometimes to squeeze out around 7. Running everyday I can, as suggested. Paces from the original posts way back now, seem pretty good. Maybe I had to slow them a bit for the first month or so, but quite quickly I feel into the Goldilocks zone sirpoc84 suggests. Easy runs are easy, just cap at 70% HR and whatever will be will be.

Probably the most difficult aspect of this is working out a balance between how much you have improved, versus where to go next in terms of paces, more time training to squeeze some more load out.

It seems madness to me now I was doing 200-400 repeats to give me a speed boost in a 5k. I mean really. I was a 21 min guy. This is simply madness when you think of it. Absolutely the limiting factor is my aerobic engine was running out of fuel wah before any speed I had in my legs was usual.

I just wanted to share this and hope it might inspire someone else to never give up on improving based on this thread. I thank those who posted their own experiences here that helped me decide to dive head first in myself.

Highly recommend the Strava group by the way, all the main characters of the thread post there regularly and as others have said, it's not behind any paywall which I find remarkable. You won't find a better bunch of free resources on the whole web.

old skool lameness wrote:

old_skool50 wrote:

I thought I would post here, as I think it's worth someone coming here now and again and giving a fair and long term review of this method, system or whatever we have decided to call it.

I have been coming on LR message boards for many years to read. I'm now 50 and anyone who has been here a while will likely be as beat up by the place, skeptical and probably down right miserable by a lot of the experience.

I don't believe in miracle cures. I don't believe in miracle training. In fact, quite frankly I had this thread down as a bunch of idiots fumbling around in the dark. But hey, don't judge me that's how LR makes you feel! But then, you actually take a step back and think 'Hmmm, there is a lot of actual positivity here'

So, my background, I ran in school. I was average. Very average. Gave up, came back as a married, hobby guy at 36. I ran 19:11 for the 5k and a 1:28 half at 38. I stumbled around that level for a while, mainly using a mixture on and off of various new ideas coming out, or simply going back to more traditional methods from various cookie cutter plans you will find in the usual literature. I actually scraped an 18:56 at 41 from a day where it all came together.

Anyway, come around this time last year, this thread I guess was in its peak. I seemed to tick all the boxes. My best was long behind me, I was running around 6 hours a week still with various plans but I was going nowhere. Was running around 21:30. Tbh, I was pretty happy with that at nearly 50. But decided, why the hell not try this new craze.

Wow, did I make the right decision! I read most of this thread through twice. To make sure I hadn't missed or messed up any of the interpretation. Set out to just start out right away:

My initial impressions were I must be missing something, at the end of my first week it felt way too easy. Almost like a recovery week from what I was used to. The workouts felt like I could have easily done more reps although I did start cautious and that's not a feeling I have had in my previous years very often!

I was already doing 6 hours so I basically just replicated the classic here, 3*10, 6*5 and 10*3. And I just went on .....and on.....and on. Suddenly week 9 I noticed things were significantly faster. I jumped in a 5k , ran 20:50.

Just kept going. 3 easy runs and the long run plus the same workouts. On and on and on. Boring. Very boring. I hopped in another 5k around week 16. 20:21.

You see the pattern. On and on and on. Week 21. Ran 20 flat. You know the pattern, same week in week out. This was by far the fastest I had run in a very long time.

Anyway, I was building to a half, this was around week 28. I ran 19:32 in a random 5k I jumped in , them the week after I broke 1:30 with a 1:29 flat in a HM.

As time as gone on, I kept improving, when, remarkably just before Christmas I broke my best from when I was 41, a couple of days after my 50th birthday . I ran 18:29 and was blown away by it. To have a sense of achievement at this age just blows my mind.

The key to this is the consistency. It has allowed me to just keep going, doing my own thing. Whilst fellow old friends of mine are training themselves into a black hole of fatigue, I am staring into said black hole but never faling in. Anyway, last Sunday I broke 1:25 and ran 1:23:55 in a half. Cleaning up on my new age category of 50+ afterwards much to my delight!

I have managed to increase load as that time has gone on. From hovering around 6 hours to managing sometimes to squeeze out around 7. Running everyday I can, as suggested. Paces from the original posts way back now, seem pretty good. Maybe I had to slow them a bit for the first month or so, but quite quickly I feel into the Goldilocks zone sirpoc84 suggests. Easy runs are easy, just cap at 70% HR and whatever will be will be.

Probably the most difficult aspect of this is working out a balance between how much you have improved, versus where to go next in terms of paces, more time training to squeeze some more load out.

It seems madness to me now I was doing 200-400 repeats to give me a speed boost in a 5k. I mean really. I was a 21 min guy. This is simply madness when you think of it. Absolutely the limiting factor is my aerobic engine was running out of fuel wah before any speed I had in my legs was usual.

I just wanted to share this and hope it might inspire someone else to never give up on improving based on this thread. I thank those who posted their own experiences here that helped me decide to dive head first in myself.

Highly recommend the Strava group by the way, all the main characters of the thread post there regularly and as others have said, it's not behind any paywall which I find remarkable. You won't find a better bunch of free resources on the whole web.

Dude, running the same week after week? That's so lame and to put yourself through that and look like a loser to go from very slow and lame to just not quite as slow and lame. I mean, who is gonna actually do that? Imagine not having fun running because you have to follow some British old loser on the internet.

old_skool50 wrote:

jecht wrote:

I am surprised Big Running Media (Citius, Flotrack, RW, FastWomen, etc.) haven't really touched on this.

The only places I've seen double-thresh are:

1) This thread.

2) Reddit/r/AdvancedRunning

Not even r/Running has it!

r/ARTC might but I forget that site exists half the time.

There is a quick calculator that allows you to plug in your last race and it generates paces/times for your sub-thresh workouts. See below:

Link:lactrace.com/norwegian-singles

I'm pretty confused by this post. I see double threshold literally everywhere.

But this thread isn't double T and is a decent amount away from being it. I think there's a ton of confusion still about what sirpoc laid out.

For a start, the sessions are actually probably a little bit more aggressive, still without going too far. We don't have the factor of having to go again in the evening. Or another double on the horizon. There's also no X factor workout here.

colder and wiser wrote:

The comparison with EIM has been made before, but the similarities are mostly superficial.

Look at the basic philosophy in a nutshell: The goal of SubT is to improve aerobic fitness by maximizing training load per week, which for time-constrained amateurs targeting 5K-HM races is best accomplished with 3 SubT workouts, a moderate long run, and some very easy runs.

Compare that with EIM: The goal is to develop a reactive stride by doing only workouts that include faster-pace intervals in some form. Easy running is harmful to this process and should be avoided. EIM will work for all athletes, from novice to pro, training for 800m-marathon. If you can't do EIM workouts every day, it's better to cross train.

So yeah, some of the workouts are vaguely similar, but the two approaches are attempting to accomplish entirely different things in completely different ways. And it shows in how SubT thinks easy runs are great, while EIM thinks they're bad. There are only moderate-effort days in EIM but no easy days, while in SubT there are only moderate-effort weeks.

SubT has worked well for me (although I won't have another chance to race for months yet). I gave the EIM a serious try a few years ago and it was a disaster for me.

it\'s biggest flaw wrote:

agreed 100% wrote:

Bit of a lurker, but agree with this post 100%. Sirpoc and this method has worked great for me. To compare it to EIM is simply laughable, I have the book and have tried it also. To even think they are similar, shows a lack of understanding of what is trying to be achieved.

It's like when people think this has anything to do with doubling, or Jakob etc. It really doesn't. Obviously all training methods are linked somehow, but I think this method in this thread is very unique as it effectively is only concerned about one thing, aerobic capacity, at the sacrifice of literally anything else on the table.

This is the flaw though, right? If you are starting out, sure an aerobic base is necessary. But even masters runners where I guess you can't do what you used to do; to really compete or get fast in your 40s you still need those harder sessions, the specifics of the race you are training for. You are not going to just run 15 and below without training the specifics of that race taking a 5k as and example. This is where EIM is trash, it misses the basics of easy running and why this system is hyperbolic trash, it forgets to learn to run hard, sometimes you know, you need to train hard.

I havent read the whole thread, it's long and unnecessary even by LRC standards and I'm sure it falls into the trap of another craze, with no supportive evidence either.

Training for the most part has had a mixture of all the components for a while now. Everyone is going to need a mixture of distance, speed, intensity, strides maybe as an absolute minimum. You think for the previous 50+ years coaching at elite, sub elite and masters level have just been making it up? No, we know what works.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with garbage phrases, meThis is the flaw though, right? If you are starting out, sure an aerobic base is necessary. But even masters runners where I guess you can't do what you used to do; to really compete or get fast in your 40s you still need those harder sessions, the specifics of the race you are training for. You are not going to just run 15 and below without training the specifics of that race taking a 5k as and example. This is where EIM is trash, it misses the basics of easy running and why this system is hyperbolic trash, it forgets to learn to run hard, sometimes you know, you need to train hard.

I havent read the whole thread, it's long and unnecessary even by LRC standards and I'm sure it falls into the trap of another craze, with no supportive evidence either.

Training for the most part has had a mixture of all the components for a while now. Everyone is going to need a mixture of distance, speed, intensity, strides maybe as an absolute minimum. You think for the previous 50+ years coaching at elite, sub elite and masters level have just been making it up? No, we know what works.

Stop trying to reinvent the wheel with garbage phrases, metrics and general psudo-science with absolutely no basis but to confuse people and send them down the wrong path.trics and general psudo-science with absolutely no basis but to confuse people and send them down the wrong path.