Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

To add, I found the Steve Magness videos on sprint training for endurance runners and on tension to be helpful.

I'd recommend watching them from start to finish since key points are spread throughout. But one thing I'd emphasize is how strength training and sprinting are much easier to maintain than to build. So it may be a little disruptive to the training recommended by this thread, but that's only when you're building. Maintaining it is so much easier than building, such that it is almost certainly time-efficient once you're in maintenace mode. The same can be said for people who are perpetually tight: stretching is a big time commitment to make progress but maintaining it is very easy once you've reached a comfortable level. And the last similar thing that comes to mind is body composition. Spend time working on it once to get it in a good spot and then maintaining it is easy and will benefit you for years.

The relevance of the tension video here is that the ways to increase tension could be quite tiring if you never do any strength or sprint training. But if you have developed your strength and speed, then you can do effective strength and speed work without incurring significant fatigue. Also, these subthreshold workouts and slow easy runs will only lower tension. Some runners could find that the training makes them feel flat, making the tension methods even more important and yet harder to do simultaneously, as they'll be a new stimulus that's extra fatiguing. Not a good spot to be in, but easy to fix.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression but it's disappointing that people seem to be a bit close-minded about including other things and defensive about the training method here. I don't think strength and sprint work are threatening to the method. Just a tiny bit of periodization or a one-time "special block" to develop them and then reduce them 75% to maintenance mode are some really promising optimizations / tweaks imo.

Practically speaking, I'd at least wager that combining plyos/strength/sprinting all into one exercise: 6-8s hill sprints, is worth the time. On the other hand, I'd wager that doing heavy compound lifts, as John Whelan suggests, is inefficient -- very fatiguing for not a lot of relevance to endurance running. In fact the elites who do lift heavy are nowadays reducing the range of motion of lifts to make them more targeted and running-specific and less fatiguing.

1. We're not talking about sprinters here
2. Most of the people this thread applies to have no need for a finishing kick, zero. The are looking to run PRs and optimizing for flat out steady state running is how to get there. Even for those that may like to have a good finishing kick, most that comes from smart pacing and being less tired when it's time to kick, not any sort of deliberate work on developing the kick.
3. I'm a huge hill sprints fan, no disagreement there. I think where we would agree is that a good way to add some "strength training" for a lot of folks would just be some adding some plyos and hill sprints to a few run sessions
4. Most people do not have the luxury of a garage gym. I agree that many should be able find a spare 5-15min a few days each week, and I would say that's great for general wellness but is not going to move the needle much on running performance. Other than some sort of corrective work, the strength work that will actually improve running performance needs to be pretty high intent and intensity, which is hard to squeeze in to small availabilities. If someone is seeming to get away with no strength training I rather them continue that than risk extra fatigue or injury.

I'm not anti-strength training by any means, I currently lift pretty aggressively by distance runner standards because it's fun and something I can actually set PRs in on a regular basis. I just also know what it actually takes to run fast (hint: it's running a lot).

Yeah hill sprints are the best thing if someone was going to only do one of these extra things, it's also the easiest to implement in my opinion. Though there are also things that plyos and heavy lifting can accomplish that hill sprints can't.

Plyos vs Hill sprints in particular: sprinting uphill actually makes the exercise less plyometric. In most cases thats probably a good thing -we may not want the extra shock overload, but I still don't want to be dismissive of non-running plyometrics altogether!

With lifting you lose a lot specificity and time, and may add some soreness but you can still get some benefits while eliminating impact altogether. I've found you keep the volume really low 3-4x <5 reps and consistently do it 2-3x the week the fatigue is not terrible, so it's just a matter of time commitment. Like you said -keep range of motion tighter. No need to go a$$ to grass on a squat just to impress the gym bros.

There are certainly some people here being close-minded to anything that doesn't follow the doctrine of their lord and savior sirpoc, but outside of that small group I think there is a really good and more general of ethos of "do the easiest and simplest stuff that will make you better, don't waste time and energy on anything else".

I think it's more the point in that we have had so many examples of this method working, the ones who have had the greatest success , have stuck to keeping it basic. In the sense you just run, maximise the obvious huge aerobic gains and don't worry about anything else, even strength, hills etc.

When I say success , I'm not talking who is the fastest, I'm talking guys who have make percentage wise the biggest progress from stagnation. We are probably on well over two dozen guys who have given feedback on huge progress with the absolute basics.

The trouble with adding in the above. You are adding in unknowns. Yes, it might benefit some, but for others it might tip the balance away from the repeatability gains and the like this method obviously provides. You then start having to debate what strength even means as there's different interpretations. Then you are really straying away from keeping things the same, consistent, simpleand respeatable which is the whole idea of this method as I understand it.

I've seen way worse ideas for a charity event or something. The Norwegian Singles method or whatever we are calling it now has huge traction and this could be fun. There's way worse running content out there than this would be. Make it happen. Let's have a spotsbook on the relay odds.

Make it really fun and get an idea of how fast pros are. sirpoc runs first leg v JI and then leg 2 KI up against Kerr.

Sirpoc is faster than KI I think, make it 5000 so we give JI the advantage over Kerr. Would actually be fun.

+1.

My best PR is my marathon PR. It was set after a good taper, adequate carbloading, well-rested and in super shoes.

It seems logical that the same pace feels much harder during a training block and in regular shoes.

So I run 2k repeats at target marathon pace or a little slower, definitely not at HM pace.

I actually am enjoying the debate on to strength or not to strength! I would say, a year ago I was totally on the strength, hills, specificity side of the fence. Until I found this thread.

What sirpoc laid out, made sense in theory, after all it wasn't just what to do, but why. Many thanks to him by the way, whatever anyone things the dude has given more to hobby joggers in my opinion, than 99% of these influencers with thousands of disciples.

I found this thread in February 2024, so my journey is coming close to a year. I am a mediocre runner. My biggest achievement was winning my local parkrun, if that is even a thing. I ran 19:23 and I am 35 years old. I got there through a lot of hard work. A mixture of classic stuff like Daniel's 2Q plans and specific strength sessions, got me to around 19:05. I certainly felt stronger with some lifting etc. This was all around 2023.

Back to February 2024 and like I mentioned, something just struck me with all the knowledge here. I've seen other posts saying the same, so I think there's something about the lay out etc and sirpoc's explanations that resonates with people, the 'Ah that is me' when he describes the struggles.

I started off with good fitness it must be said, with 5 years in the bank and a near 19 flat. Not good but obviously not terrible. So I basically jumped straight in. The paces were very near what I could cope with, although I was a little thrown off with how easy the easy runs were and that took a lot of time to adjust to compared to other programs.

The main issue I noticed after a few weeks, was how hard it was to do some basic lifting and stregth work and fit in 3 sub threshold workouts. In fact, it was near on impossible. My legs hurt couldn't cope with the demands. The strength stuff was merely standard stuff you will see in a lot of classic coaching books and manuals.

I jumped on the side of the fence that I would just throw the lifting and stregth work out of the window and purely went 4x easy and 3 x sub threshold and nothing else, not even strides. Oh boy did I make the right choice.

By Christmas parkrun, I ran 17:22. The progress was pretty steady. I had a breakthrough around week 7 in training which translated to a PB in week 9. It's been pretty steady since. I was have dropped maybe 10 seconds on average each parkrun. Yes, I am racing maybe once maybe 3-4 weeks. But I was doing that for the previous 5 years so it's not like suddenly that's the big factor. Another big note here, is initially I was doing 6 hours a week for most of that time, while I was doing 6 hours a week for most of this, I have slowly been able to ramp it up to 7. This is the first time in my running life I have got anywhere near 7 on a week by week basis and I feel a ton better than I did on my previous 6.

Here is the interesting bit. I added strides back in and some lifting around the new year. Suddenly, I really started to struggle. After the first week or so, I assumed it would just take time to get back into it, but if anything it got worse. My legs just felt like lead when it came to sub threshold days. Anyway, the last week or so I have given back up strides and anything you could consider strength work and almost straight away within a few days it suddenly felt like 4x easy and 3x sub threshold was definitely doable again.

I'm not sure if there's a conclusion here, but I just thought I would post based on the fact it seems to be a big debate of what to include on top. My legs probably actually felt stronger and less fatigued in general with the long period of nothing but running. I actually only got back into it because of a couple of videos I saw from some old school coaches and it convinced me now with the biggest base I have ever had, to add that work back in.

Anyway guys, thanks for the amazing thread, all the big contributions, the Strava group and thanks to sirpoc for his original posts. Whatever motivated him to do so, I'm glad you did! Keeping an eye out for if he ever does a marathon?! I believe the London Championship entry list went out today. Is he on it?

Oh, I honestly agree it would be kind of cool for a KI and sirpoc show down! I agree I would rather see that than half the garbage being put out on YouTube and Instagram these days by running channels!

I once asked sirpoc if he thought marathon pace would be too slow for sub-treshold pace.

He thought there probably is a range of sub-treshold paces that are effective training, and that MP is at the low end of this range.

I'd expect it to be a struggle to integrate it and for other training to suffer temporarily. Whether the other training suffers permanently is the unknown. I think some amount must be possible but what's the correct amount to achieve some benefit without compromising your important sessions?

But my philosophy is why bother until you've plateaued? You can keep building volume until you're using all your allotted time for training. Then you can keep increasing paces until they plateau. Only then are you really forced to find out where the bottleneck is and if it's something you can improve. If it ever does come to that, I think you could at least maintain aerobic fitness while you work on speed, and then at some point speed/strength becomes less fatiguing (it's not a new stimulus anymore) and you also do it less (because you're just maintaining now, not building) and so you can reinstate your normal training. Or you could take another approach and introduce the smallest amounts of speed/strength possible such that they couldn't possibly have a significant effect. 1 stride that turns into 2 strides, strides slowly turn to 90% sprinting, and those turn into a single hill sprint, which turns into 2 hill sprints, etc.

I think there's some individual physiology at play here too, whether genetic or from training history. Some people will have an easier time building strength and speed standards while others will have an easier time hitting higher volumes of slower running. I personally have a lot easier time sprinting than most distance runners and a lot harder time building volume. So I'm aware it might not be the best general advice to tell people to do hill sprints like it's so easy.

Just focusing on fatigue to benefit ratio, if a certain kind of training is more or less fatiguing for an individual, then they should take advantage of it or avoid it. You see the most variety in 800m runners. I don't think the low mileage speedster 800 runners should try to build to 80mpw as a long term goal to reach their full potential. And the 80mpw guys should not drop mileage to try to hit the same 400m time as the speedsters.

But I still think that, ultimately, if we're talking about the most time-efficient training or if we're talking about time-unlimited training, then strides/strength/plyos/sprinting make it in there in some form. I think current consensus is strides and hill sprints are the most effective and you can integrate strides into easy runs so there's no time lost or mileage sacrificed. I think no one recommends doing jog recoveries for true hill sprints (I always hear walk back and standing recovery) but I'd imagine that jogging the recoveries is not that bad. Or you sacrifice some time/mileage for the sake of standing recoveries.

Hey man, greet post. I'm glad someone has mentioned this and thanks for sharing your experience. I have sort of found the same. I trained with Pftiz plan and incorporated gym strength sessions. I thought they were what kept me strong and relatively injury free. But also found the same when going to the sirpoc NSM method. The leg strength days actually became an issue in the sense my legs felt just horrible to have to do that + what is effectively 3 Q workouts a week. Man, I felt bad like the whole method was impossible with the gym day as well. Someone posted here about sirpoc himself not doing strides or any strength work and i was floored by it. I thought I would experiment , dropped it and after that month my legs finally didn't feel beat up. I would say now, I have way less niggles. Like a lot of others, I have obviously improved my PBs quite a bit. I read a lot of studies about strength, I'm not convinced anymore it's a good use of a hobby joggers time, especially as there's pretty big debate into what actually is strength and what is useful. A lot are intervention studies on really low mileage guys who aren't even really runners or a lack on research into how strong and resistant one can get by just running lots, near the limit, but getting still enough recover like this method. Maybe the third session a week is almost covering up or building that resilience dedicated gym sessions might bring. Who knows.

If you sometimes look at sirpoc workouts every now and again, whilst he is never blowing through to any kind of super crazy fast paced by his standards, he is sometimes going almost as slow as M pace some days. It's rare, but does happen. HR data can indicate this is the case as well, I've seen him run 168-169 as max HR for the day even on the last rep is which is going to be way below his LTHR and that matches with M pace for the workout as well.

I wonder if this is a deliberate ploy of his? The understanding of when things are in a little bit of the harder stage than need me and it's cutely eased off as a result. Would be interesting to know. He's clearly given us the general gist of the system but there are definitely little nuances that he is making the most out of that we aren't privvy to.

What paces are you running for km repeats and easy runs? My PB is 17:26 right now.

Forgot to update the last 2 weeks, so here's my week 5 and 6 update.

Week 5 I ran 70 miles total, which I haven't done since sometime in 2022. My pattern now is start the week on Monday and go Easy/SubT/Easy/Easy/SubT/Easy/Long. My SubT workouts this week were 6x8min at 6:49 and 10x4min at 6:35. Long run was 17 miles.

Week 6 I took Monday off and ran 55 miles for the week. I had a little bit of calf tightness so I pulled the mileage back a bit early in the week and was fine by the end of the week. SubT of 5x10min at 6:53pace and 6x8min at 6:47 pace. Long run was a hilly trail 13.2 miler.

Have a race coming up on 2/15 which will be my first race since before the haglunds/debridement surgery. It will be a 5k, would love to break 19. Honestly though I will be going a bit into the unknown as it will be my first 5k since before covid and my first super shoe race.

Anyone else in the Strava group? Hobby jogger gets PB and claims the long run isn’t necessary…

I have started sub-threshold running and am seeing improved fitness even on my EZ runs. HR is now going from 153-155 to 145-ish BPM, and EZ pace came down from 9:45-9:50 to 9:25-9:30. Did an 11-miler today and felt strong running 7:15/7:09 to close out the set. Had an injury in November, started up with run/walk and then got to the point where I could do 3 weeks of EZ base starting in late December (28.5/35/41 miles) and felt great. Part of it was due to me not warming up properly via active stretching.

Two weeks ago I started the following sets with sub-threshold. I found out that if I had a third session before a long run, I'd just load the volume onto Monday and Wednesday, keeping Friday light, then doing the LR Saturday or Sunday. If my schedule didn't work for 3 smaller sessions I just did 2 bigger sessions.

Made sure to keep volume at no more than 25% of total run time.

Week 1--32 miles total, 4:45 (285 mins) of total run time, 51 min of sub-T (17.8%)

1/20 6x3 (w/60s jog rest) at sub-T (7:50-7:55-ish) - 18 mins, w/u and c/d, 4 total

1/21 2 EZ

1/22 8x3 (w/60s jog rest), same pace-24 mins, w/u and c/d-6 total

1/23 6 EZ

1/24 3x3 (w/60s jog rest), same pace-9 mins, w/u and c/d-3 total

1/25 3 EZ

1/26 8 long, including 4 EZ in 36:47, 4 at progression from 8:29 to 7:17.

Week 2--41 miles total, 6:02 (362 mins) of total run time, 60 mins of sub-T (16.5%)

1/27 3 EZ

1/28 8x4 (w/60s jog rest), 32 mins, w/u and c/d-7 total

1/29 7 EZ

1/30 2 EZ

1/31 8x3 (w/60s jog rest) and 1x4 (w/60s jog rest), 28 mins, w/u and c/d-6 total

2/1 5 EZ

2/2 6 EZ in 56:40 (9:27 pace), 2@MP (7:49/7:44), 2@10k (7:15/7:09), 1 down in 9:01-11 total

This has been gone over before, but it's a little hard to find (pg 82, #1625 maybe?)

The idea is basically as long as you have the fitness, 5k-21k races don't really need a long run for your endurance since your lactate threshold and overall training load will be a bigger factor.

Nice job improving. How long doing this did it take you to start to notice improvement?

I don’t know this method well, but if you’re doing 10K pace in your long run, is that part of this method?

Don’t disagree for more advanced runners but this one is spouting out running advice a 1:58 HM…

No, I just felt good at the end today and realized I was going faster than I should have...I later went back and guesstimated it was my 10k pace. I am trying to lock in MP at sub-7:39 to break 3:20.