Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Well done on your recent PB mate. Sub 20 is a nice milestone. There's plenty of hobby joggers who will never get there.

Were you doing the easy runs based on MAS around 5:35/km? If so I have a friend who has been training like this (although now I think he's given up as he just went too hard on the sub threshold days). He was the same, his HR was pretty high - but we stuck to MAS and even after a few weeks it came down quite a lot on these runs. The other option is you don't know your true max HR, but I doubt that - it wouldn't account for most of the gap and also I'm usually at or very close to max HR at parkruns so I would imagine you are as well.

This is why everything I posted up was a guide , I'm sure I'm boring everyone by keeping saying this - but what I posted was what I knew definitely fit neatly for me. Go to Tinman's calculator, plug in your 5k time and from memory his "easy" is a little big slower than MAS. I would stick to that range maybe for now. It's definitely not going to crush you and you will be able to do your workouts the next day - take HR even off the screen on your watch for a few weeks and then after 2-3 weeks have a look at how things have improved.

Your intervals now seem like they are in a good range. Slightly slower than what I've been doing proportionally, but not by much tbh and as I've said before it's better to go a little bit slower , as there's still a reasonably big sub threshold window for you to catch and fall into. It does feel slow IMO. Especially if you have been doing park runs. It's significantly slower all the time than your regular "race" (park run isn't a race I hear you say ha ha) pace. But do that Friel test, then you can maybe stay where you are or Dial it up a notch . It'll give you more data and confidence in what you are doing.

Again, you have to maybe take into context my own situation. My 10k and 5k PBs are both new in the last few weeks - I'm probably better at the longer distances than short. My 10k a couple weeks back is 35:41 and my 5k is now 17:24. So again, with my posting up my "guide" I'm probably better as the distance goes up - opposite to yourself. Obviously lactate testing would be best. But I totally understand that isn't a realistic option for most.

I been following this thread right from start and have try the easy runs like this. First my HR higher than 70% as well. Maybe 75% for running like this. But even in 2-3 weeks now yesterday I see it become easier. Run still feel slow and not trash my legs. I think that all that matters. But Hr will drop naturally as u progress with this. I think in end u train like this eventually u arrive an be aerobic monster. Mayb lack top speed but that doesn't matter for HJ'r but aerobic killer for races . GL.

I would also suspect your max HR is higher than you think - 4:30 does seem a bit slow, but everyone is different. For what it's worth I am hitting 89-90% HR (wrist based) at the end of my workouts, aiming for the middle of Tinman 'threshold' pace. Yours looks like it's in the 'tempo' range.

I really need to get a strap and do the Friels test but I really can't be f*cked running 30 mins all out alone, lol

On the longer ones like 3x3k, I might have reps where I am in the fastest part of the tinman tempo range. I wouldn't worry about it too much, like I say I think there's a good window sub threshold to hit within a pretty big range. In that fastest part of tinman tempo range after the last rep I've still seen 2.5 mmol on the longer ones.

The Friel test is unpleasant for sure 😂. But if you are going to use HR it's a great way to do it. You can get a soft strap now pretty cheap and a lot of them are much better on the contact points than they used to be 10+ years ago. I don't even think that straps were great tbh. I used to get a lot of warm up spikes etc no matter what I did. Never have had a problem with even the newer, cheap ones.

Great thread. Well worth the effort it took me to read. Really loved the PMC stuff and looking at patterns and trends in load. This has confirmed what I've seen in my training in the past. When my CTL is at its highest I'm at my fittest in the most simple terms.

I have a question for spoc. How does the power TSS compare to when you have tracked by pace or HR? I've been using a Stryd on and off over the last year and am curious.

Cheers! Annoyingly my HR strap hadn't connected at the parkrun where I set my PB but I'm fairly confident that my max is in the 198-202 range based on workouts/races/other sports (a tough 5-a-side or a 2k TT on the rowing machine feel like they're pretty much all out at some point) so I've been using 200 as an easy baseline for my mental maths. Like you said, even if it's a couple of beats higher in reality it still wouldn't change much.

I'm gonna try running by feel and not worry too much about HR on the easy runs as they were definitely feeling comfortable in the 75% max range, nasal breathing, relaxed, didn't feel too beat up afterwards. Hopefully HR will come down, it already has as at the start of my hobby jogging journey I made the classic error of trying to hit certain paces on my 'easy' runs and my 5:40/km went from 82-85% to more like 75% since I stopped doing that. Based on my recent 10mi race my LT pace ought to be closer to 4:20 than 4:30 but like you said lactate testing is a bit cumbersome, I definitely wanna try it at some point but for now happy just getting into a consistent rhythm with these things and using HR as a proxy. It's also nice to not feel too beat up after the workouts, an unfamiliar feeling as I had been doing way more VO2 Max stuff with various running clubs.

Maybe HRR plays into this as well? My resting heart rate is around 60 and I'm in the process of moving countries so stress levels/sleep probably worse than usual.

Apologies for double posting. Am I right in thinking Tinman's tempo is basically equivalent to marathon pace? In that case could it just be a consequence of not doing enough consistent mileage until recently/being aerobically undertrained? So my VDOT MP is more like my realistic HMP and my VDOT HMP is more like 10mi pace.

One thing to keep in mind is the utility of slow running regarding the easy runs. Oddly, you can run 70 minutes on your easy days and that can be a recovery run. The key, however, is to run slowly. It's the complete key to recovery. Most runners get it wrong: they think that shorter runs are for recovery, but one can run shorter and too fast or shorter at the regular pace and still not feel recovered the next day.

As I said before, pace seems to give you a higher TSS on the easier days, over HR. Whereas the sub threshold days, I'll get a slightly higher TSS score via HR, rather than pace. Overall they almost even themselves out. But STICK TO ONE METRIC. No matter what. Just pick whichever you prefer to train to and stick to it. Or you will have no clue whatsoever really what your CTL is consistently. The actual number it spits out, doesn't really mean anything to anyone but you. But FWIW, I have a CTL of about 61 right now via pace and about 60 it I recalculate via HR. But do not mix and match, if you want to make use of the PMC that's absolutely vital IMO. My experience is very in line with being able to index performance levels and fitness via the PMC, but only if you collect data properly.

When it comes to power, it gets more complicated. For the easy runs, it will give you a TSS almost in line with Pace. But on the workouts, because NP is used to calculate, it will give you a much higher score for TSS than via HR or pace. Today's 10x1k for examples, was 88 TSS based on power, 79 for HR and 77 for pace. So overall, power will create a higher CTL in the long run. Again, it doesn't really matter. As long as you stick to power, as your metric. Again, this isn't of use to anyone, but yourself. But keep your own data consistent.

A side note. My 5k at the TSS for the run was all within 2 of each other. I got 37 based on power, 36 for HR and 35 for Pace. So when the effort is very even and right on the limit, they clearly almost do the same job.

The fastest end of the scale of Tinman tempo is marathon pace. Stick with it and let it settle down. Your 4:30 really isn't much slower than I do my longer intervals at. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. You are in the ball park. Honestly don't push right up to the limit whilst you are getting used to how it all feels. The 2k repeats are just under 8 mins for me and I'm often a bit slower than HM pace and and lactate is still reasonably high if I have tested. The good thing if you feel you are aerobically undertrained, you are doing probably the best workouts to fix it if you can squeeze 3 in a week.

Yes, unfortunately for me, it's not just a few kilograms. I am 175cm tall and weigh over 80kg, and I ran 10km in 37:40 with that. As a cyclist, I wasn't a climber, but I was still 10kg lighter than I am now...

There is nothing impressive about a 17:24 5k. You probably raced yourself into fitness by doing parkrun. Come back when you are 15:xx.

Hello everyone and greetings. I just thought you guy might be interested in my feedback. I have been following this thread since day 1 and almost tried change my training straight off. I stagnate at 5k real bad. I was stuck in mode others have said so I tear up everything and try this. My PB was 20:20 for long time. I always run close to this maybe a year the last 15 times. Before my training was moderate runs, long run with some speed play , Daniels tempo style and some classic vo2 stuff. Maybe 400s. Sometimes hills, whatever different coaches provide me. Maybe 45 miles up to 50.

Now for almost a month now I do what suggested on first page. 3x sub threshold. Feels so easy almost like it's a trick. Even easier than Daniels tempo for sure. So far I only do 9x1k around 15k pace and I do 5x7 mins at Hm pace or slower also feels quite easy and then I do maybe twice so far 3x3k somewhere between HM and M pace. Also feel easy. I think in total I have done maybe 11 sub T sessions now and not do anything else apart from easy runs including easy long. feel very slow. But I keep it up. Now last evening a big suprise, summer series 5k race. I did not feel good in warm up at all. Really bad in fact. But you know I was in total shock . I see my watch as I cross the line. 19:56. I thought must be big mistake. But I have run this race before it definitely true 5k course. Im very happy . Almost a year I have been trying with no success to get sub 20. I know not big for some people but for me I'm very happy 😊

Is this big suprise? Not even quite a month? I do not have training peaks or any other metrics but my Garmin is telling me training like this is increasing my overall train load. Before the line was flat.

I think you misunderstand thread. Guy isnt claim he is good. His problem was he locked in and stagnate and didnt improve for long time . He said he do and lock around high 18 for a year. This seems to a good way for untalent to get the best out of what they have.

Nobody needs to lock this if it does not fit to your wishes.

Spoc trains 7h/week, and i would say he quite maxed out his performance. 7h is not much for any endurance sport. Image e.g. cyclists and triathletes do around 25-30hours/week , a pro runner around 12h/week give or take. So a pro runner trains almost double the endurance time. So it is all relative. Training age in this sport plays also a role, and running is a skill.

It is also a good example that you can't compensate volume with intensity completely. Even with the best method. Volume is still a very important variable.

Been watching this thread for a while. But I will bite . Clearly, you don't understand anything about this thread.

1. Nobody is claiming to be fast. I personally consider a low to mid 17 being pretty fast for a 40 year old hobby jogger with no running back ground. I'm a low 19 guy and I can only dream of a 17 of any sort. As far as I can tell from following the thread, he was running high 18ish for a long period of time whilst following what might be a classic running program whilst racing just as regular. The actual speed or pace of someone is totally irrelevant. What hobby joggers are looking for and the smart training is looking around to see what other people are doing they are giving the greatest relative improvement to previous performance.

2. Most people were probably having a long period of hitting a plateau for a while who have shared their experience in this thread. Nothing they were doing was improving them. This seemed to work in getting the balance right and maximising training load.

3. This isn't something made up. We've had numerous references and examples of how this has been applied to cycling or triathletes previously. Maybe this is an area where running is just catching up. I especially have learned something from home to use metrics such as TSS, CTL etc. and I definitely think I can now add them to make up the package of what I understand about my training.

4. All the resources and technology available to Kristoffer, the years of research etc the family has done yet he is training like this. King of the hobby joggers, whatever you want to call him. But do you honestly think that someone from the best running families around right now, he would train like this if it wasn't optimal for hobby joggers?

5. For what it's worth, I think the guy you are talking about will run a 15. In fact I would predict he will definitely. If you read the thread carefully about how it was applied to cycling, he mentions some times. As a tri guy his times are on the bike are bordering on true elite. So I fully expect if he stays injury free he will keep improving at least for the next 2+ years as he really adapts to running and run your 15:xx anyway.

I mean, basically this thread is for geeks and losers who don't know how to train properly or can't train hard enough. I could probably run a 17 from 2 hours a week. Theres zero talent in this thread that it's pure LOL

65% of MAS seems quick for easy days? Even using a conservative measure, I can run about 4:50/mi for 10', of which 65% would be 6:30ish pace. I'm not touching that on easy days!

Only teenagers write "lol".