Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Wompppers wrote:

former bomber harrier wrote:

I'm going to be honest, that sounds like an awful way to train. It might work for some people, but from my perspective it sounds like the worst possible combination of subjective analysis and gadget-based data. So you're never really learning "kung fu" (i.e., the ability to run appropriate paces by feel) and you're never fully committed to a data-driven model.

I know the Norwegian method described and debated in this thread wouldn't work for me, mostly because I don't have the right mindset. Some people respond really well to a rigidly-structured plan with hard pace limits. Personally I'm skeptical of such plans because it never forces you to learn the "go for broke" attitude that you need to compete and win. I think it's the difference between a training king/time-trial mindset vs. that of a racer. If you never push yourself in lower stakes workouts, how are you going to answer the bell when the stakes are high?

But again, we're all experiments of one.

In cycling, I go from 220 watt threshold to 280 watt threshold through the season based on completely unstructured training basically guided by feel, CTL, and some other metrics. And the 280 watts is at a CTL of 50 for me. I could probably get to 300+ watts if I went to CTL 70+. Sirpoc knows how to smartly plan and use PMC. That’s his secret sauce.

I find this way of training liberating. I know how I feel for today, I know my short and long term fatigue estimate from the model, and I know the minimum effort to maintain CTL and not incur too much fatigue. My training is completely dynamic due to life.

former bomber harrier wrote:

Wompppers wrote:

Try this.

Use a field method to determine threshold. Not estimate it, feel it.

Then, you need to really do a good job of quantifying your past 3-6 months of training to get an idea of current long and short term fatigue (fatigue masks fitness) so you can seed your performance manager chart. The PMC only accounts for training stress (and it’s still only a model), so you need to account for life stress some other way.

Once you have your PMC, threshold, and scoring system set, you can either plan workouts to estimate scores, or look at past workouts to get an idea of how you need to set your progression to add more work each week while maintaining a ramp rate you can handle. This is the iterative part and you can only tell how the numbers scale to your feeling. If you’re more sluggish and tired, or napping when you didn’t nap before, maybe you’re going to hard. Just be mindful.

For your subT progressions, I wouldn’t even do short intervals. I would do 10-15 minute blocks at the lower end of threshold RPE and work on extending the blocks while controlling ramp rate in PMC. What paces you run are based on how you feel. If you know where threshold is, you know how to stay under it. I believe most people can do an hour at threshold, even untrained. Most just haven’t recognized the feeling yet and will run too hard.

You gotta have computer tools and gadgets to do this easily, in my opinion. Sure, you could do this by feel and a stopwatch, but that’s a skill that most will never have.

I'm going to be honest, that sounds like an awful way to train. It might work for some people, but from my perspective it sounds like the worst possible combination of subjective analysis and gadget-based data. So you're never really learning "kung fu" (i.e., the ability to run appropriate paces by feel) and you're never fully committed to a data-driven model.

I know the Norwegian method described and debated in this thread wouldn't work for me, mostly because I don't have the right mindset. Some people respond really well to a rigidly-structured plan with hard pace limits. Personally I'm skeptical of such plans because it never forces you to learn the "go for broke" attitude that you need to compete and win. I think it's the difference between a training king/time-trial mindset vs. that of a racer. If you never push yourself in lower stakes workouts, how are you going to answer the bell when the stakes are high?

But again, we're all experiments of one.

former bomber harrier wrote:

I'm going to be honest, that sounds like an awful way to train. It might work for some people, but from my perspective it sounds like the worst possible combination of subjective analysis and gadget-based data. So you're never really learning "kung fu" (i.e., the ability to run appropriate paces by feel) and you're never fully committed to a data-driven model.

I know the Norwegian method described and debated in this thread wouldn't work for me, mostly because I don't have the right mindset. Some people respond really well to a rigidly-structured plan with hard pace limits. Personally I'm skeptical of such plans because it never forces you to learn the "go for broke" attitude that you need to compete and win. I think it's the difference between a training king/time-trial mindset vs. that of a racer. If you never push yourself in lower stakes workouts, how are you going to answer the bell when the stakes are high?

But again, we're all experiments of one.

over my head wrote:

A lot of what goes on in this thread goes over my head. Seems a lot of people want to come to it to let everyone know how smart they are, yet never took the trouble to be the ones to lay all this "so called simple stuff that's obvious" out, but then turn up late to the party. Hey ho.

Anyway one thing I can contribute is the marathon. I'm slow. Slower than sirpoc, slower than Grandma's guy and slower than marky_mark from Reddit.

I have however, been doing this plan for about a year. And have progressed at all other distances. I jumped on the marathon adaptation, probably about 6 weeks behind sirpoc and just copied and scaled it for my hours as much as possible, virtually keeping it a 1:1 scaled replica. I was trying to break 3 hours, capping long run at 2hr 50 easy. Previously have done 4 marathons, last two Pitfz plan and Hanson and felt cooked like a goose! They are kind of insane to me, looking back now.

Peaked at 6.5 hours pretty much in all marathon builds, made it safely to just over 6.5 with this and the scaled plan. Never broken 3, or really come that close. 3:05 best effort on a net downhill. Recently ran 2:56 and paced it quite conservatively, maybe could have gotten another minute out of it. I'm older, 48 and pretty damn happy with that. Actually, ecstatic. I thought the sub 3 dream was gone. Can't thank the thread, contributors and sirpoc enough. Wish there was a way to repay him!

Used the plan for the special block identical as well (imho the most important bit) and 1:1 scaled the taper.

Easily the best I felt in the build, in the race itself I felt super strong and controlled and actually feel not to bad and back to training properly now after 10 days.

I wouldn't baulk at trying it. Very rarely does anyone seem let down by this sirpoc method in the normal sense, I don't expect the marathon will be any different, assuming you set yourself a realistic goal and target. Hope this finds it's intended target, maybe those who aren't sure

analogkid wrote:

former bomber harrier wrote:

I'm going to be honest, that sounds like an awful way to train. It might work for some people, but from my perspective it sounds like the worst possible combination of subjective analysis and gadget-based data. So you're never really learning "kung fu" (i.e., the ability to run appropriate paces by feel) and you're never fully committed to a data-driven model.

I know the Norwegian method described and debated in this thread wouldn't work for me, mostly because I don't have the right mindset. Some people respond really well to a rigidly-structured plan with hard pace limits. Personally I'm skeptical of such plans because it never forces you to learn the "go for broke" attitude that you need to compete and win. I think it's the difference between a training king/time-trial mindset vs. that of a racer. If you never push yourself in lower stakes workouts, how are you going to answer the bell when the stakes are high?

But again, we're all experiments of one.

"...compete and win."

Again, this has been fully promulgated as a working person's running plan, the amateur runner with roughly 5-9 hours to dedicate to the sport. It is likely not going to take someone to the front of a race, at least a race of significant scale. That does not mean one cannot still run hard. I imagine the two folks, that we know of, that have run 2:2x in marathons this year were probably running pretty damn hard.

former bomber harrier1 wrote:

I'll just reply here to everyone who seems offended that I "questioned" St. SirPoc. I'd be stoked that he ran 15:01 if he were my mate, but since he lives halfway around the world from me, I don't care. I've run faster and won by more (and less!)...so does that mean you all should listen to me instead? No! Sample every kind of training you're able to try and make decisions for yourself. I'm speaking from my experience that, personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the structure and technology required for such a precise plan.

Running to win for me is more important than time trialing for a certain time. In my experience (again: *my* experience), focus on competing, and the times will come. Maybe I just got lucky with coaches who really focused on training you to be able to consistently run within yourself at certain times and really push yourself at other times. Those "seeing God" workouts are what help the most, in my opinion. Because at the end of a race, you need that knowledge that you can go deeper than what you think the well is in order to win. And winning can be anything from taking first place to beating your rival for 42nd. Doesn't matter.

And maybe it's because I started running 25+ years ago before technology was such an important factor. I didn't even have a Timex most of high school. You learned to run by feel or you didn't succeed. So maybe there's survivorship bias? I get that this method is simply adding metrics to the "feel" but I've never liked metrics for running. It's my escape, so having to run a prescribed pace every day would drive me batty. I let the runs come to me, and I mix in faster work when I feel like it. And competing to win (again, winning doesn't mean one thing) is more important to me than time trialing.

over my head wrote:

This and That wrote:

I'm going to sound like a real obsessive here but, page 237, post #4735 for the full 15 weeks of sirpoc's marathon build.

A lot of what goes on in this thread goes over my head. Seems a lot of people want to come to it to let everyone know how smart they are, yet never took the trouble to be the ones to lay all this "so called simple stuff that's obvious" out, but then turn up late to the party. Hey ho.

Anyway one thing I can contribute is the marathon. I'm slow. Slower than sirpoc, slower than Grandma's guy and slower than marky_mark from Reddit.

I have however, been doing this plan for about a year. And have progressed at all other distances. I jumped on the marathon adaptation, probably about 6 weeks behind sirpoc and just copied and scaled it for my hours as much as possible, virtually keeping it a 1:1 scaled replica. I was trying to break 3 hours, capping long run at 2hr 50 easy. Previously have done 4 marathons, last two Pitfz plan and Hanson and felt cooked like a goose! They are kind of insane to me, looking back now.

Peaked at 6.5 hours pretty much in all marathon builds, made it safely to just over 6.5 with this and the scaled plan. Never broken 3, or really come that close. 3:05 best effort on a net downhill. Recently ran 2:56 and paced it quite conservatively, maybe could have gotten another minute out of it. I'm older, 48 and pretty damn happy with that. Actually, ecstatic. I thought the sub 3 dream was gone. Can't thank the thread, contributors and sirpoc enough. Wish there was a way to repay him!

Used the plan for the special block identical as well (imho the most important bit) and 1:1 scaled the taper.

Easily the best I felt in the build, in the race itself I felt super strong and controlled and actually feel not to bad and back to training properly now after 10 days.

I wouldn't baulk at trying it. Very rarely does anyone seem let down by this sirpoc method in the normal sense, I don't expect the marathon will be any different, assuming you set yourself a realistic goal and target. Hope this finds it's intended target, maybe those who aren't sure

peekay wrote:

former bomber harrier1 wrote:

I'll just reply here to everyone who seems offended that I "questioned" St. SirPoc. I'd be stoked that he ran 15:01 if he were my mate, but since he lives halfway around the world from me, I don't care. I've run faster and won by more (and less!)...so does that mean you all should listen to me instead? No! Sample every kind of training you're able to try and make decisions for yourself. I'm speaking from my experience that, personally, I wouldn't be able to handle the structure and technology required for such a precise plan.

Running to win for me is more important than time trialing for a certain time. In my experience (again: *my* experience), focus on competing, and the times will come. Maybe I just got lucky with coaches who really focused on training you to be able to consistently run within yourself at certain times and really push yourself at other times. Those "seeing God" workouts are what help the most, in my opinion. Because at the end of a race, you need that knowledge that you can go deeper than what you think the well is in order to win. And winning can be anything from taking first place to beating your rival for 42nd. Doesn't matter.

And maybe it's because I started running 25+ years ago before technology was such an important factor. I didn't even have a Timex most of high school. You learned to run by feel or you didn't succeed. So maybe there's survivorship bias? I get that this method is simply adding metrics to the "feel" but I've never liked metrics for running. It's my escape, so having to run a prescribed pace every day would drive me batty. I let the runs come to me, and I mix in faster work when I feel like it. And competing to win (again, winning doesn't mean one thing) is more important to me than time trialing.

Totally get the method isn’t for you. It isn’t for me sometimes either. I think for most runners it would be no fun, and doesn’t jive with the way they want to do their daily running.

That said, the best way to “win” is to finish the race in the fastest time possible. So contrary to what you think, feeling like you are pushing yourself hard is less important than correct pacing or simply being more fit. So whatever method of training, all that matters is being as fit as possible at the starting line and measuring your effort correctly in the race.