Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Not quite sure how you can be a fan of the thread and then ask these questions. Read sirpoc's posts and he's answered this a number of times here and elsewhere. Forget doubling, you are aiming for the higher end of sub threshold. Whatever that number is in terms of lactate, means absolutely nothing unless you have done testing yourself. But, it's been clearly stated it's pushing towards the boundary of LT2. It's more aggressive than doubles.

I wouldn't worry too much about what KI has done lately, he has lost his way a bit. He's lactate testing a bit blind in my opinion and has lost any real purpose. Experimenting perhaps, pushing too hard in patches, just basically not getting any consistency whatsoever, which is what this plan is all about. Whereas I think this thread if you follow the training load quantification aspect, you will probably understand where you want to get to, rather than just testing lactate - especially for the athlete who is old and also has limited time on their hands.

Whether the trolls like it or not, sirpoc himself is the absolute standard bearer of this method.

I would urge anyone to look at what he's doing. It's remarkable how he continues to work out how to progress. Key note here is the lactate testing is pretty much only a tiny part of the plan, which makes it a ton more practical and why so many people have had success copying him.

Week 2

03.03 - 7.1K @ 5:48 (138 HR)
04.03 - 5 x 2:15/0:45, ON: 2.6K @ 4:20 (169 HR) / OFF: 0.68K @ 5:29 (168 HR)
05.03 - 7K @ 6:02 (141 HR)
06.03 - 16 x 1:00/0:30, ON: 3.95K @ 4:03 (171 HR) / OFF: 1.45K @ 5:31 (171 HR)
07.03 - 7K @ 6:00 (136 HR)
08.03 - 5 x 2:30/1:00, ON: 2.97K @ 4:12 (168 HR) / OFF: 0.8K @ 6:14 (163 HR)
09.03 - 13K @ 5:48 (136 HR)

Week total: 69K @ 5:40 (146 HR)

This week was completely loaded, I had to change the pipes in the whole apartment,move the furniture around, clean-up, which took a toll on me. The weather started to warm up, too, so I was expecting the HR to go a bit higher, but luckily, that wasn't bad. It also had a positive effect, as I've felt the muscles warmed up properly and I was a bit faster than usual.

In the beginning of the week I've picked up a cold, but that didn't last, and towards the end of the week the HR dropped back to normal, I'm no longer making serious efforts to keep it under 70% HRmax (138).

I'm feeling strong and rejuvenated after months of general exhaustion and running plateau.

The plan for next 2 weeks is to get to 20-22 x 60s/30s and 5 x 3:00/1:00 and then the road to longer reps (6:00/2:00) can start.

I defeintely take critique on my post. I love the thread and know for a fact that the single norwegian model works great. A tons of people I know has used it, and sirpoc's story speak for itself.

What my question was supposed to be is how do you know where to target withint the range of that I3 zone(which is the name of the threshold zone according to Olympiatoppen ). If you check the Olympiatoppen litterature, you can see that when the athlete reach a certain pace, lower values will also be defined as threshold. Translated:

Threshold workouts where lactate levels range between 1.5 - 3.5, depending on the workout design and the athlete's training condition. Some sessions where lactate stays consistently below 2.0 will still be classified as a I-3 workout for elite athletes, as the speed (external load) of the interval work will be high. In certain contexts, the term "low threshold" is also used for lactate measurements between 1.5 - 2.0 during this type of interval training.
In the model commonly used with what's called "double threshold," the goal is typically to have a lactate level of 1.5-2 in the morning session and a slightly higher lactate level in the evening session.

My question then becomes, have KI reached a level where he has to keep some of his threshold sessions at a lower lactate to keep the mechanical load lower? I know that KI is trained by his brother these days. How do you know when a session should be 1.5, and when should it be 3.5.

I sort of agree with the guy who already posted to you. If you do a step test and your LT2 is 4.0 mmol range, aim for 2.5-3.5 in your single sessions. If it's 3, aim for 2-2.5. As the other reply said, sirpoc has probably solved this and clearly he is making more progress than KI and is faster. The coaching for KI is obviously great, but it's a scaled down version of Jakob, whereas sirpoc is thinking from the ground up and probably understands better what is working for the hobbyist. Don't forget, he's now trained himself to become sub elite in two sports from very meagre starting points.

You are also probably overthinking this too much.

Most definitely probably overthinking, but I like to understand things.

I also come from cycling like sirpoc, and in cycling sweet spot training does not push as close as possible to the LT. It is pretty well known that whether you do 85% or 95% makes little to no difference, but the latter carries more fatigue. For running that also probably rings true. I would imagine that for someone who has not done the LT test yet, it would be a good start(as Marius Bakken also says) to just target 2.5-3.0 mmol on the Akray, which for most athletes should be sub LT. This also is in line with what sirpoc has written of course.

You rise good points. Until Sirpoc has ordered his lactate meter, he is fishing in the darkness.

First you should understand that lactate values are not transferable from athlete to athlete. Thinking different, is a classic beginner mistake. Any athlete has an individual lactate profile. That means where to train at, depends on your personal lactate profile, as well as from the purpose of your training. It makes a difference if you prepare for a 5k or a marathon.

sirpoc has a lactate meter. He used it lately to set up his longer reps. I know this because I asked him on Strava and he replied. He is using the paces that work for him as a proxy for lactate, which is totally sensible for someone who isn't a pro and wants convenience. He tested lactate almost on day 1.

There's a ton of theory and science in this thread, but at the end of the day the guy has come as close to solving hobby jogger training on limited hours than just about any paper ever has. The science and why this work I'm sure will catch up. Whereas with all due respect lexel, you are wasting your time with theory when you are missing what works.

Obviously it would be nice to understand why. But in the meantime, I don't think that matters. The success in this thread for the majority of people speaks for itself.

This is coming from someone who is a full time academic, by the way. Research lexel, as you know is often years and years behind. You are so focused and obsessed with what you think you know, you cannot think outside of that box.

It seems to be that Sirpoc dug it out only recently.

Of course it doesn't push as close to LT if you are cycling. But you might do 3x20 at least 3 times a week. You can't sustain that kind of volume or impact from running. So with running singles, you generate as much load as you can, within the hand you are dealt , with having in mind, you train again in 48 hours + an easy run in-between. The whole theory of this, is you generate as much accumulated load as you can that is sustainable, week to week, month to month.

As we have seen with Sirpoc84 marathon build, you might have to come and think outside of that a bit. Time will tell, I guess as to it this works or not. But who is to doubt the man, at this point? I think I would agree for the most most part, if you care about 5K- HM this is almost certainly the best way or very close to, for someone with limited time to train. There's a reason why this thread is still going, it's because more and more people are still finding it and having remarkable success.

May I ask what his name is on strava to avoid scrolling through the thread again?

Lexel, thanks for everything you bring to this thread. I don't think people appreciate you. I think maybe jealousy;) maybe if guys like Coggan would listen to you, they might learn something. It's a shame sirpoopy himself won't allow himself to be coached by you. Maybe then he would actually have some success ;)

cyclist do this quite differently in the terms that they periodize and continually increase the SS duration. The norwegian model is much more of a focus on continuity. This of course has been mentioned several times in this thread. In running there's always a limit to how much you can do, but in cycling you can do a lot and then periodize blocks with rest.

My point is that whether you run 85 or 95% of LT doesn't have a big difference on your cardiovascular system. Mechanical, yes, but, your gains will most likely be the same whether you run and measure 2.5 or 3.0 during for example 5x6 minutes. My whole point with this was that if you have not taken the LT test yet, and want a simple way to start asap, you can run at the lower point of the range. This is also what Bakken has said. Of course, any runners should also use other metrics like HR or RPE together with the lactate. Being a cyclist you also learn in a great way how to feel sweet spot compared to FTP(threshold). Sirpoc used this to his advantage.

O/10

I don't think it's "well known". Often repeated without evidence maybe but that's about it.

There are various World Tour pro posting their training with power (and often HR) on Strava. There is very little periodization. They taper off before races and that's about it. As far as I understand there is 0 evidence for taking easy weeks.

Cardiovascular system matters little for FTP because most important adaptations are in muscles and for those adaptations load definitely matters. Quoting Coggan: metabolic fitness is way more important than cardiovascular fitness.

I think system like this is perfect for cycling as well: ride every day, do 3 subthreshold sessions a week + 3-4 endurance rides. Try to do as much subthreshold work as possible in a way it's sustainable every week whole year round. When you read about Norwegian method (for example here: ) this seems to be their main idea.

link.springer.com

Training Session Models in Endurance Sports: A Norwegian Perspective on Best Practice Recommendations - Sports Medicine

Background Our scientific understanding of the mechanistic and practical connections between training session prescriptions, their execution by athletes, and adaptations over time in elite endurance sports remains limited. Th...

Link:link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s402...

I had considered dabbling in cycling and I asked sirpoc himself what his weeks were like. Whilst there was some overload and sometimes doubling if time allowed, for the most part he basically did what you described. Down weeks are a thing of the past in cycling, gone are the days where you might have half the winter off. They are absolutely stacking load upon load all year round now, as you suggest.

As much as I enjoy the chat in this thread and the science, I can't help but think we are trying to over complicate things. For a hobby guy in either sport, sirpoc has got to the top fraction of a %. Probably even more so actually in running, if you consider he's 41 and probably going to run sub 15 soon. I guess maybe a dozen guys in the whole of the UK might do that this year in that age group? I would probably bet, he trains the least amount of hours to get there. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't imagine it's much more than that number of runners.

The main takeaway though is how disciplined this mo for is and consistent. Being able to do the same thing, week in, week out stick to the basics and fundamentals of what you are doing and look at the results? Of course if you wanted to dial in performance more he could add some specificity. But does it matter? I'd rather be an all round distance hobby jogger hero rather than dialing in just to get another 5 seconds in a 5k.

You have to remember what nobody is saying here: this isn't the greatest training method in the history of endurance sports. But, for a large percentage of people it's likely the smartest and safest way to get to the best of your ability, for the majority who find themselves time crunched. It's probably not even up for debate, at this point.

I've said before, put me firmly from skeptical, into unsure, into full bought in. It's totally changed how I think about the sport and endurance in general and what actually makes you good.

95% of LT would almost certainly be between LT1 and LT2. Whereas 85% would almost certainly be below LT1.

That would work well if you were strictly a TTer or perhaps a protected rider fighting for the GC in stage races.

Unlike in running, though, to do well in most cycling events you also need to be able to change pace rapidly, sprint at the end of races, exceed FTP and VO2max for extended periods to not get dropped, etc. Thus, cycling training quickly becomes a lot more complicated than what's being discussed here.

I agree with this, however, I would argue that the general fitness gains to be had from maximizing load are bigger than the race-specific fitness gains to be had for the 99.8% of cyclists who don't have a 6w/kg threshold. Like if you want to have a really good 12 minute w/kg, you won't get there without having an at least decent 6 hour power.

Long time lurker. Huge thanks for the thread - I've digested an enormous amount of it, but apologies up front if I've missed anything which answers the following.

Other training approaches consider a few aspects: cardiovascular, physiological, psychological, and even gastrointestinal. My take on the sir_poc approach/NSA is that it clearly tries to optimise cardiovascular fitness given available time around 7 hours, but I'm interested in whether by ignoring the other facets it is suggesting they matter far less than thought, or are just not mentioned so far.

Being clearer for each:

Physiogical: I've not seen any mention of drills to include strides, skips, plyos or anything else which stands to improve running economy or strengthen and prepare joints and tendons for increased load (possibly including general strength too). Do we consider them irrelevant in this approach, or are we still recommending them in parallel?

Psychological: many runners refer to the psychological benefits from knowing how a certain pace feels or being more confident they can hold it or something around it for a portion of what they would in a race. Do we accept that trusting the approach *is* the psychological advantage here?

Gastrointestinal: perhaps more relevant for the marathon, how do you train your gut for intense work whilst absorbing carbs and liquids without doing long runs to simulate?