Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I've been doing this method for a while now, i struggled with the shorter races for maybe the first 1-2, but then it just all seemed to click into place. I'm late 30s and I have managed to beat my college XC PB in a road 5k exclusively training like sirpoc.

I remember reading this thread in 2023 and being dismissive. 2024 came around and I would say some of sirpoc's early posts started to remind me of how I was feeling.

The easy day debate is interesting, it was really, really hard for me to reign myself in and run under 70% MHR. If you look at sirpoc easy days, we know his max from data he has shared is at least 191-92+, so he is doing his easy days consistently at like 67-68% of max HR average. Sometimes way easier, maybe even 65%. If that's good enough for a 30 min 10k hobby jogger, that works for me. You also have to realise, he was still doing runs this easy relative, even when he was really just another hobby jogger. That was the wake up call for me and to check my ego in at the door. It's meant I've had to park running with other people, but it's absolutely critical for me to stay truly easy to feel like I can actually do three meaningful workouts a week.

I think that it's also worth remembering while this method probably fits as a cut and paste program better than any other ever seen for a hobby jogger, nothing fits everyone's physiological make up. But if I was going to randomly just give a cut and paste program with zero tweaks to your random turkey trotter for the next year, I don't see anything better out there that would improve a guy or gal over the course of a a calendar year. The sirpoc method I think has as good a strike rate as I've ever seen here on LRC.

Massive respect to the guy, hope we does well in London and I hope he brings out a book or something. This thread alone is better than most of the literature you can find. To have it condensed would be fantastic. Would be great for someone in the running publishing world to collaborate with him perhaps.

Maybe something else is limiting you that this method just doesn't quite stimulate enough? Your cadence for a shorter person is very low, perhaps adding strides 3 times a week could help. If you're feeling renegade and a bit risky, have a listen to Dan Nash's physiology of endurance running episode on VO2 max, maybe you just need a 4 week block to raise your ceiling then you can revert to this and push up from below. An alternative more in the spirit of the method would be to replace the third session of the week with a parkrun every other week to get that hard stimulus more frequently, sirpoc did many frequent parkruns (even back to back) when he was attempting to break 17.

Sirpocs easy & long runs are usually (except for the last week or 2) around 6:55 mile pace. That's not that slow. Yes, I know it works perfectly for him with his advanced aerobic system, but it's not like he's slowly jogging out there. There was a long stretch there where I never saw him run slower than 7 min pace.

Most of the elite marathoners, 10k racers I follow on Strava will run some of their easy runs at 7:15 to 7:30 pace & they're under 2:20.

Good. That helps a bit. What were they (a) when he started, (b) a year ago? Roughly the same percent of his threshold pace (or whatever relative marker you want)?

The tricky part is that it’s not a one to one comparison between Sirpoc and the elite marathoner and 10k racers that you likely follow on Strava. If I had to guess, the people you follow are running more mileage than Sirpoc. He’s said that, if he were running more volume than he is now, he’d have to double and slow things down across the board.

I sort of agree with you, but also don't. He's never, ever run as far as I can see, done an easy run over 70% of average HR. The speed is irrelevant, that is easy in anyone's book, especially compared to mainstream running literature, a lot of will have you 75%+ max HR. The only thing, as someone has already said, if he was running more miles, as pros do, this would obviously be slower again and likely in doubles. It's the nature of the beast. You also have to remember he's likely gonna run 2:25 on probably vastly less mileage than 2:20 guys who also aren't 41. So I'm as inclined to pay as attention to sirpoc as what any pros are doing, to what is meaningful for my own life.

The balance on this very clever sirpoc system of singles, is you fight and push up both LT1 and LT2 from below. You are always squeezing the limits of both. Pushing up LT1 from below on easy days, by getting a bit closer to, but never beyond LT1 and the workout days, pushing up to and close to LT2, but never beyond. On the amount of hours, the balance works.

It's why I think if you like to run by feel or put your own spin on this method, you may as well not bother buying into it as such. By design, the two types of runs have a specific purpose. If you were running doubles, I think it's already as well been pointed out the intensity drops, to account for more overall load and so on. It's why this is more unique and I don't really think there is anything Norwegian running about it and truly more the sweetspot method of cyclists, completely adapted by sirpoc. More the British method or just trademark is as sirpoc, as the Norwegian aspect is confusing people.

some easy runs … super easy

Late to the thread, what's do HJ and NSA stand for

Presumably hobby jogger and Norwegian Singles Approach. The latter being the entire essence of this thread, maybe better named sweetspot or sirpoc method.

Sweetspot is something very different

No I'm pretty sure this method is an amazing cyclist adapting his sweetspot cycling training into a running version

Any thoughts on a non-competitive, but avid cyclist replacing most of the easy runs with low HR road and MTB rides? The HR would likely be closer to 60% MHR and only increasing to 70% MHR on some steeper climbs.

I could get in ~6 hours of training through cycling as opposed to about 3 hours of easy runs. I'm not under the assumption that it would necessarily improve my running, but I enjoy cycling and think I might not have the time if I'm running 7 hours/week.

The biggest red flag that comes to mind is that essentially 65-75%+ of my running will be threshold work (3x week or once every three days). If it matters I'm 44 and currently in 19-20' 5K shape.

The whole thread is literally built on the premise of sirpoc trying to find out how he can adapt his exclusively sweetspot / easy cycling schedule for time trialing, to running. It's just a scaled lower volume version.

The cycling can convert, especially the easy days. I have actually found this method to be around 60/40 either way as the best balance, depending on what I am looking to improve or race. Say I may have a running race coming up, I'll make sure at least 2/3 of my sub threshold sessions are running. Maybe some weeks all 3, the long ish run and the rest turning the legs over on the bike. If I have a bike race coming up, I may do only one sub threshold run, one more intensive session on the bike and another 3*15 or something similar ~90% FTP.

It's probably not all as sport specific as you think, the majority of your training load aerobic transfers. I found sirpoc interesting. I haven't seen this talked about much but I think from memory on Strava he hasn't ridden in 7 years, but the middle of last year he did a 20 min power test on the bike based off his running fitness and said he got around 287w and his best ever was 325w - and he's significantly older. Tells me that whilst you obviously want some specificity, you can probably go the other way as well. There's also tons of guys in the Strava group who are pretty fast and do a lot of cycling to supplement running.

same here. Ive spent the better part of the last 2 years trying to find a ‘balance’ on running/cycling to be able to be in striking distance for performance on both sides of the equation. Lately its a 3/3 split, cycling/running, on a 6 day schedule.

Easy runs to me are always more bang for the buck than easy rides, but easy rides definitely have their benefits if you have the time.

Ive noticed alternating 2to1 Quality (1 run Q, 2 cycling Q, then vice versa) has definitely shown some promise vs trying to figure out an exact golden configuration.

I think the specificity angle is a good approach, too. I used that approach last year and it seemed solid: If you have running road races coming up, dropping a cycling day helps in the short term.

Definitely a hybrid approach and gets more complicated but i think in many ways it saves your legs even more to the older, more injury prone among us. Or even those that are in terrible climates

you can easily swap some sub T running for sub T cycling, and even scale it up slightly on the cycling days without the impact.

Id say the more you implement the bike the more the easy running serves as the glue or bridge back for translating the fitness across the disciplines

I was listening up to the point you said someone who has hidden for 7 years did 287w for 20 mins with a previous PB of 325w. There's a lot of lies in this thread. But this one just takes the cake.

287 or 325w are not insane numbers for 20’, especially if youre closing in on 15:00 for 5k and 30:00 for 10k

Im sure this is a troll post, but actually am gonna have to agree. No way is this true, just cannot possibly be.