This is, in fact, not true. Indeed, quite the opposite, i.e., most folks - even untrained individuals - are reasonably good at judging exercise intensity. (Although some qualify as what one famous sports psychologists once described to me as "perceptual idiots".)
Here's an example of the sorts of research out there:
So the goal was in this paper was to train at relatively intensity, the word goal not go train at what you think is an x effort. So Back in the real world the results speak for themselves that at every 99% of people in 99% focus on goal rather than effort and positive split, regardless what the exercise scientists write papers on
man, does fitzgerald get the paces and efforts wrong. when has it ever been mentioned to do intervals at 30 minute race pace? that's not sub threshold, that's over threshold. and where does all of this heart rate talk come from?
does anyone doing this do 400m/90sec intervals? i always thought the most common length was 6 minutes...
I'm a big fan of the 400/90s reps once per week. Even sometimes do 200m reps closer to 5k pace with even shorter rests. Coming from a speed background so these feel much more natural.
What a nonsensical comment. If an athlete perceives something as being harder or easier than a coach (or any other outside observer), who do you think is right?
(BTW, note that session RPE and RPE are not the same thing.)
PPP: If it feels hard, it is hard.
This post was edited 9 minutes after it was posted.
man, does fitzgerald get the paces and efforts wrong. when has it ever been mentioned to do intervals at 30 minute race pace? that's not sub threshold, that's over threshold. and where does all of this heart rate talk come from?
does anyone doing this do 400m/90sec intervals? i always thought the most common length was 6 minutes...
On the other hand, doesn’t prescribing paces based on distance scale incorrectly? 15K pace means completely different effort for me compared to Sirpoc for example. Is 15K pace really the right pace for my short intervals? Or would it make more sense to define it based on time?
Oh man, I read it and it's bad. It adds a rest day each week (I mean, I do that because I'm old, but sirpoc doesn't). The recommended paces are too fast. The rests are all shorter than what sirpoc actually does. It recommends adding VO2max workouts. It doesn't talk about sweet spot training or consistent training load at all. It doesn't mention any of sirpoc's races, just an 80 second improvement in his 5K time (reality is more like triple that number). It doesn't grasp the importance of sustainability and doing the same thing, week after week, for years, which is what NSA is all about.
It's bad. 🙁
Things have gotten messy and out of control, and the latest article probably hasn’t helped matters. People are asking about a book. Am I writing one? Yes. Will it be any good? I have no clue. I’ve got a first draft that feels solid, but it’s far from polished. Will it impress Andrew, a respected academic, or others like him? Probably not. No offense to academics, but I’m not trying to write an academic paper—I wouldn’t do it justice if I tried.
I’m just a regular person who, for reasons I still can’t fathom, ended up posting here. There’s so much confusion out there—other websites and sources quote me saying things I never said. I’ve got nothing against Matt or anyone else, but it’s hard for others to capture my ideas. Not that I own them; they’re drawn from my life experiences, lessons others were kind enough to teach me, and I’ve packaged them into a framework that made sense to me, and apparently others. Seemingly, this has caught on far beyond my expectations or intentions, turning into what some call the “Norwegian Singles Method" (to be clear, I never named it that; it’s just how it’s organically grown). That’s why I owe it to myself to share my own clear philosophy, have my say, and draw a line under it so I can go live in peace—maybe on a remote island with no Wi-Fi, sipping a beer.
This book, if it comes together, will have a clear start, middle, and end from my perspective, laying out everything you need to know. It ties into my own journey, hopefully helping others avoid the mistakes I made early on. Some folks from this thread might read it and think, “I already know most of this,” which is fine. But a single, cohesive resource will have value I think. It’ll help you confirm if your current or previous approach is optimal, offer new insights or ideas to further develop the method, or serve as an accessible entry point for newcomers who don’t want to sift through pages of discussion. There’s something for everyone, I hope.
I’ve learned things along the way I haven’t even posted about yet, and these now shape a slightly bigger picture, including, for instance, how this approach applies to the marathon. The book won’t just tell you what to do but why it matters. You can follow the most basic version—4 days easy a week and 3 days moderately hard—and likely still see improvement. But there’ll come a point where that alone might not be enough to keep progressing. That’s where understanding the philosophy of this training approach, with its long-term focus and vision, becomes even more critical. Grasping the what and the why is key. If the basic framework doesn’t work out, you’ll have a resource to guide you back. The biggest gains often come for slower runners when they understand the why behind what they’re doing or aiming to achieve.
That said, if the book is terrible, I won’t release it. A few people who’ve seen samples have said, “Wow, this is much better than I expected.” Are they just being nice? Maybe. But I hope people see I’m not clueless. I’m not doing this to cash in—I turned down a big offer to be a co-author in name only, with no input on the content, just to slap my name on a mass-produced book. Doing this myself will likely profit a fraction of what that deal would’ve brought, but it felt wrong and disrespectful to everyone who’s invested time in this thread. If this book is a flop and everyone hates it, at least it’s my own work.
I’m not about to become a YouTuber or influencer either. Honestly, the time I’ve put into this is probably a net loss compared to other ways I could’ve cashed in. But I stay in my lane unless I’ve got something useful to say.
What a nonsensical comment. If an athlete perceives something as being harder or easier than a coach (or any other outside observer), who do you think is right?
(BTW, note that session RPE and RPE are not the same thing.)
PPP: If it feels hard, it is hard.
Andrew, as you are a science guy.
Do you have a view on the Maffetone method, and also the stuff promoted by Tim Noakes?
As short as 90 second reps on one of the workouts? Only 60 seconds rest on the 9 - 12 minute reps? Varying the long run length to periodize the weekly mileage?
Old Matty just can't help himself, and has to try to change it up to be his own thing.
He also missed that this whole thing was informed by Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen's training, would have been helpful to explain how it still had roots from Norwegian athletes.
I re-skimmed the first few pages of the thread, and will walk back my comment some to admit that there was talk (post #30) of doing 25x 400m (which may be in the 90 second range for some runners). Mea culpa.
But as this thread matured, the concepts did as well. I'll stand on the rest of my points.
Outside magazine has written a whole column raving about the Norwegian singles method as invented on this thread with a lot of help from "Spiroc84." I let them know they got the name wrong - it's sirpoc84.
A great column nonetheless and a great thread. It's weird as I'm obsessed with Jakob and am thinking about getting back into running and was thinking I'd try either Norwegian triples or a threshold ever day (but super low mileage), but I haven't read hardly any of this thread. Time to get on it.
Sirpoc84, Outside wants to speak to you. I sent them your email.
For real, if you want to get back into running and want and learn about the Norwegian approach or whatever it is, scaled down then sirpoc is THE go to resource. I don't even think that is really up for debate. It's not even about the reflection of his results, more with what he's been good enough to propose.
man, does fitzgerald get the paces and efforts wrong. when has it ever been mentioned to do intervals at 30 minute race pace? that's not sub threshold, that's over threshold. and where does all of this heart rate talk come from?
does anyone doing this do 400m/90sec intervals? i always thought the most common length was 6 minutes...
I'm a big fan of the 400/90s reps once per week. Even sometimes do 200m reps closer to 5k pace with even shorter rests. Coming from a speed background so these feel much more natural.
Bakken talks about 45-15 in his recent podcast interview, which John Davis (not to be confused with John Whelan) summarizes here:
MB: It's a lot of short progressive intervals with short rest, 45/15 second sessions and that type of workout. Which I’ve found to be the easiest way to keep yourself in steady shape.
I did a 30x45/15 last block and will likely keep that in the rotation going forward, although not weekly
Exciting news about the book. I hope it makes it out into the world, you deserve the recognition before it gets fully diluted and destroyed.
A question for you, this might be overthinking things, but I’ve noticed that many runners in the 18:xx–16:xx range seem to benefit from this approach. I’m wondering if you’d consider modifying it in any way for those of us in the 23:xx–20:xx bracket. For the faster runners, 90 minutes of sub-threshold work per week equates to around 4.5–5.5× their 5K time, 2.5× their 10K time, and 1–1.3× their half marathon time in quality running. In contrast, slower runners are getting significantly less relative quality time. Would it make sense for slower runners to do longer, steadier reps closer to LT1 to get a comparable stimulus in terms of time-on-feet and sub-threshold volume? I still tend to fade toward the end of race distances, so I’m curious if this could help. Not sure if that all makes sense—just wondering if there’s any logic to it.
Maybe a weird or dumb question, but I am trying to dial in on recovery and was wondering: how does everyone feel waking up each morning training with this method? Fresh? Achey? Tired? Varies?
I have consistently increased CTL with much success (8 months!) and have improved most of my times. However, I do wake up achey and stiff each morning (as I did training with threshold/VO2/progressive long run and high mileage) and then was curious if maybe I’m pushing the envelope a bit too much or if this is normal (HR and paces say otherwise). With other methods, I’d improve for a quick while before burning out, but I’m mostly still doing ok here. Just happen to wake up sluggish and wasn’t sure how “fresh” or recovered most people (who are doing this right) feel in the mornings while training with this method (and if being low-grade achey is a sign of slightly overdoing it). Thanks all.
In midst of my second week of NSA, and this has been my experience. I'm pretty experienced as a runner (18:28 5k one year ago as a 56 y.o., the usual injuries causing breaks in training since then). My heart rate is well within the prescribed ratio of max during sub T sessions, and my breathing during the reps is well under control. But I do wake up with stiff legs the next day, and a little sore. So far the easy day, run at a really pedestrian pace (9:05 - 9:30 per mile), has allowed me to get to it on the following sub T day.
I suspect it's an age thing. As you get older, you just recover more slowly.
Maybe a weird or dumb question, but I am trying to dial in on recovery and was wondering: how does everyone feel waking up each morning training with this method? Fresh? Achey? Tired? Varies?
I have consistently increased CTL with much success (8 months!) and have improved most of my times. However, I do wake up achey and stiff each morning (as I did training with threshold/VO2/progressive long run and high mileage) and then was curious if maybe I’m pushing the envelope a bit too much or if this is normal (HR and paces say otherwise). With other methods, I’d improve for a quick while before burning out, but I’m mostly still doing ok here. Just happen to wake up sluggish and wasn’t sure how “fresh” or recovered most people (who are doing this right) feel in the mornings while training with this method (and if being low-grade achey is a sign of slightly overdoing it). Thanks all.
In midst of my second week of NSA, and this has been my experience. I'm pretty experienced as a runner (18:28 5k one year ago as a 56 y.o., the usual injuries causing breaks in training since then). My heart rate is well within the prescribed ratio of max during sub T sessions, and my breathing during the reps is well under control. But I do wake up with stiff legs the next day, and a little sore. So far the easy day, run at a really pedestrian pace (9:05 - 9:30 per mile), has allowed me to get to it on the following sub T day.
I suspect it's an age thing. As you get older, you just recover more slowly.
Helpful insight. For anyone using RPE (supplemented by pace and/or HR), do you place less emphasis on day-to-day variability of pace and HR? Some days an RPE of 5-7 for me is 5:40/mi pace, and others, it's closer to 6:00/mi pace – this is true for both shorter and longer reps. I guess my concern is, is consistency in RPE on sub-T days a fair representative of training load, and conversely, does inconsistency in pace and HR matter less than I think? Sirpoc, for example, has noted that he relies heavily on pace for workouts, then on easy days runs by just HR and time.
In midst of my second week of NSA, and this has been my experience. I'm pretty experienced as a runner (18:28 5k one year ago as a 56 y.o., the usual injuries causing breaks in training since then). My heart rate is well within the prescribed ratio of max during sub T sessions, and my breathing during the reps is well under control. But I do wake up with stiff legs the next day, and a little sore. So far the easy day, run at a really pedestrian pace (9:05 - 9:30 per mile), has allowed me to get to it on the following sub T day.
I suspect it's an age thing. As you get older, you just recover more slowly.
Helpful insight. For anyone using RPE (supplemented by pace and/or HR), do you place less emphasis on day-to-day variability of pace and HR? Some days an RPE of 5-7 for me is 5:40/mi pace, and others, it's closer to 6:00/mi pace – this is true for both shorter and longer reps. I guess my concern is, is consistency in RPE on sub-T days a fair representative of training load, and conversely, does inconsistency in pace and HR matter less than I think? Sirpoc, for example, has noted that he relies heavily on pace for workouts, then on easy days runs by just HR and time.
Would love to hear Coggan's input on this as well, as someone who clearly knows much more than me, ha.
I'm a big fan of the 400/90s reps once per week. Even sometimes do 200m reps closer to 5k pace with even shorter rests. Coming from a speed background so these feel much more natural.
Bakken talks about 45-15 in his recent podcast interview, which John Davis (not to be confused with John Whelan) summarizes here:
MB: It's a lot of short progressive intervals with short rest, 45/15 second sessions and that type of workout. Which I’ve found to be the easiest way to keep yourself in steady shape.
I did a 30x45/15 last block and will likely keep that in the rotation going forward, although not weekly
People really struggle that if you run fast but short, the lactate just doesn’t get that high and they are sort of low stress workouts. This is closer to a threshold than a subthreshold. Up the rest to 30s and it probably becomes subthreshold. There is a vid out there of the Villanova kids doing 400s at couple seconds slower than their 10k pace and having lactate levels below 1.5.
for whatever reason this simple concept is really hard for some people
In midst of my second week of NSA, and this has been my experience. I'm pretty experienced as a runner (18:28 5k one year ago as a 56 y.o., the usual injuries causing breaks in training since then). My heart rate is well within the prescribed ratio of max during sub T sessions, and my breathing during the reps is well under control. But I do wake up with stiff legs the next day, and a little sore. So far the easy day, run at a really pedestrian pace (9:05 - 9:30 per mile), has allowed me to get to it on the following sub T day.
I suspect it's an age thing. As you get older, you just recover more slowly.
About a year into NSA, that's pretty much my experience at a similar age and fitness. I'm still playing with rest intervals and easy pace. The real challenge isn't figuring out what you can do for a week or a month or a 12-week race buildup, but what you can do every week indefinitely. I've felt sore in the morning and then felt okay by the time an afternoon workout rolls around, but I've also found that a few extra seconds of rest at times can help me keep up workout volume without going over the edge in intensity.
That’s why I owe it to myself to share my own clear philosophy, have my say, and draw a line under it so I can go live in peace—maybe on a remote island with no Wi-Fi, sipping a beer.
Not only do you deserve a beer or two, you're owed them by the crate!
