Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

The workouts aren't based of race paces. They're based off lactate volume during the interval sets. The races are a byproduct of the training, not the other way around.

I don't really disagree with this, I often do the same if it's hilly. But, on the other hand I think the beauty of this training is you can just stick to sirpoc's real message from the podcast of consistency and sustainability and improve. Or, you can also focus like he does and dial in the last few ounces you can scrape out by playing around with how far you can push the balance.

In my eyes there is no right or wrong here. I do think though if you have the time and will to really look into the finer details, it takes care of itself anyway. Either way, your training will still remain roughly equal. But I don't see this as much different to any other training plan. You can cookie cutter a Daniel's or PItfz plan and just follow it blind or you can scratch under the surface and dig deeper into what is going on.

But this is exceptionally easy following what you have said. I just wish, sirpoc could teach me how to pace as another poster pointed out!

I have a 10k race this Sunday. How should I structure this week, presuming a slight taper?

Usually do sub-T sessions on M, W, F. Thanks

Pace is a result of your effort, not what you should aim to control directly.

Too many people don't understand how to run to feel and are probably underperforming in races because of this.

If you're obsessed with running it a certain pace in a race then what was your previous PR? What HR, power RPE have you been hitting in your reps and what pace? Has this changed since your last race? And by how much? You have tons and tons of data, probably from a watch you spent $800 on, review it and make an informed decision

Watches have made people so out of touch with their bodies, at least they think they are.

Next time you run a 5k, don't look at your splits, just run by feel. You should intuitively know the difference between a 5k effort and a 10k effort.

Less than 10% of the people trying to implement this training strategy have a lactate meter. Estimates of what paces are likely to correlate to the different phases of the lactate production curve are generally the best option. Following the best predictor of performance is performance, basing those estimates on race time makes the most sense.

most people are not measuring lactate. basing the workout paces off a flat 5km race and the effort associated with the workout paces is simple and straight forward. don't try to over complicate this. there's so many people trying to complicate this system on here and in the strava group.

touche' - didn't see this when i posted.

Although HR is variable, lactate is even more so. In terms of adjusting training intensity, I would therefore put the hierarchy as PE > power (or pace, for running on level ground, or when swimming) > HR > lactate.

There are 269 pages of information here and many websites with summaries etc and STILL people don't understand.

Just look through some of the post here. People need things explained like they are a 5 year old.

How useful is the result from one lab test. Is it likely to be more accurate, because it is done in a controlled setting?

Not really of much use whatsoever.

First, precisely because it is a controlled setting (i.e., external validity may be lacking).

Second, because it is a one-of (i.e., only a snapshot in time).

To put it another way: despite having all the common (and a number of not-so-common) "toys" (e.g., metabolic cart) at my disposal, I very rarely use them for anything other than research (or just to satisfy my curiosity).

For example, I haven't measured my own lactate response to exercise for >30 y, and went nearly as long w/o measuring my VO2max (until trying to achieve my long term goal of "60 at age 60").

In the right hands, at the right time, physiological testing might provide enough additional insight into how to best prepare a particular athlete for a particular event to make it worth pursuing. As a general rule, though, I would consider it a waste of resources (time/money/motivation), at least if you have reliable performance data available.

I'm the same as you. There isn't a flat 500m anywhere near my house, so I go by HR to control my intensity, aiming for 85% of max HR.

I intentionally undercook my early reps as my heart is playing catch up/still warming up: I found that if I try to hit 85% max HR in the first few reps I end up expending too much effort.

Like others have said, I don't think hitting exact paces is important: Run, sometimes moderately hard, sometimes really easy. Repeat week after week.

I have been following this thread on and off for quite some time. What your thoughts on using this program for a high school XC runner for summer and in-season training?

This is my kid's 4th and final year on XC and he seems to have stagnated. My guess is the seniors are averaging around 40-50 miles per week. The team hammers many of the runs. Even the easy ones seem way too fast paced.

My gut says that HS kid could do well on this program since same principle applies regardless of age - i.e., most runners are aerobically underdeveloped.

What are your collective thoughts? Would you make any tweaks to the basic program? There is the added complication that XC by its nature involves running on different surfaces and lots of hills, making it harder to lock into a pace.

Weekly racing seems kind of incompatible with the method’s focus on sustainability and consistency and I don’t see how taking significant downtime after the season could be avoided. Also, this method isn’t typically considered the best for short term improvement and would need to be implemented probably as an underclassmen to work. I think this thread’s takeaways to high school running could be to try to race less frequently, not do VO2 Max work other than racing, not exceed Sub T on tempo days, and to take easy runs easier. Other than these things, which I guess most programs don’t do currently, I don’t think you could implement the method because I think weekly racing and downtime after wouldn’t count as NSA. Out of season, though, I don’t see why you couldn’t fully follow it.

Many thanks for response. The weekly racing complicates things, but seems like your practical takeaways could be implemented during the XC season if coach is open to the idea (which is an entirely different question!).

Their summer off-season is approx 11 weeks. Is that sufficient time to make solid improvement? I've read bunch of anecdotes on this thread and elsewhere of older guys running significant PRs on 2-3 months of program, but don't know what their starting points were.

If you're racing once a week I think you could probably still pull this off, but as you said the coach would need to be onboard. You would probably just want to do 2 ST sessions a week and maybe don't worry about pushing the long run too far.

For the offseason it's probably a well structured plan to increase load going into the season which would be beneficial.

I don't think there will be a lot of kids left in the team after a season if they're never allowed to run fast.

Also if they hammer their easy run it's a discipline problem, the training method has nothing to do with it and can't fix it.

First and foremost, you need to TALK TO THE COACH and get them on board with trying new ideas in general. Going rogue with your own plan, even if it's a good plan on paper, creates significant problems.

Once you establish a dialogue with the coach the key thing is understanding what is causing your kid's stagnation, then look at where some of these principles could provide an improvement. For example, hammering easy runs is an obvious problem -but is that a training plan problem or training culture/execution problem? Is there a stagnation in training volume that is causing the stagnation in performance? Recovery issues? You need a plan that addresses the actual problems and a culture where the plan will actually get done properly.

Sirpoc's Sweetspot plan provides a clear formalization of the same stuff that many great HS and college XC programs have been doing in the summer for a long time, so it's obviously suitable as a good summer program and any coach who knows how the best train should immediately recognize those patterns in this plan. With a few minor adjustments you can carry over a lot of stuff to be highly applicable for the HS XC runner.

Do keep in mind that HS kids, despite being aerobically underdeveloped, tend to respond to high intensity much better than the adult rec runners this thread is focused on. Threshold and easy running are still the priority for both groups but the cost/benefit around how higher intensity should be applied will be different. I don't see a compelling reason for a high school runner to drop strides entirely. Mid to late summer probably swap out one of the sub-T days for an progression of harder and shorter X-factor workouts that act as a transition into whatever in-season race specific work looks like. Once a kid is used to the plan with simple workouts you can also move one of the sub-T days to something like 400m reps on short rest to get some practice running faster while still keeping an overall sub-T-ish effort.

To get used to running on different surfaces and hills just run on different surfaces and hills. Any good plan requires the prerequisite of teaching kids to properly run on feel and a culture where they will actually do it so this is no different.

Trying to accurately measure fatigue and training load mathematically will not be as straightforward with the added intensity and variable terrain/conditions that HS XC demands, but you still want to use these principles to target a greater accumulation of training over time. This plan is just training smarter to train more, if you don't do the train more part you wont get faster.

Like everyone says, this type of approach takes time. You and the coach should be looking backwards from the championship season when you provide these suggestions, not the first meet of the season. Sure sometimes people get a quick improvement from this type of training, but that is usually more a reflection from where they are coming from -i.e. fried from too much intensity so smarter training simply allows previous fitness to shine through, weren't actually training very seriously and are getting newbie gains, carrying in a ton of fitness from another sport, etc. If you come into it expecting quick results you will likely end up disappointed. If you cant get commitment to a coherent program for several months you will likely end up disappointed.