Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Apparently what's old is new again.

Avoid biting off more than you can chew, by either running too fast (e.g., VO2max intervals), too far (e.g., really long runs for which you're not adequately prepared), or too much (by increasing volume too rapidly), and progress follows.

I learned the bolded part when I was racing duathlons in the 1990s, then again in the early 2000s when I got a power meter for my bike. In both cases, a single workout where I overdid it set me back for a couple of weeks.

The Aussies also know (knew) this, as they had a rule that if you ever set a PB in training, that's it, you're done for the day. Said rule was implemented to prevent people from doing too much, thus compromising their overall progress.

Baby steps, baby steps.

Being able to convince/persuade people on said facts is as or even more important than just being smart/right.

No one likes being condescended to.

Only when intensity is above maximal metabolic steady state.

As for muscle oxidative capacity, to my knowledge to this day this study remains the all-time champ in terms of the magnitude of the training-induced increase in mitochondrial marker enzyme activities in humans. Indeed, at the end of the 5 months SDH activity was a high as you find in elite athletes who have trained much more for much longer.

The training program? Continuous exercise basically at maximal metabolic steady state for just 4 h/wk. No intervals, no long runs.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Effect of training on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle - PubMed

Effect of training on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4348914/

You only view it as condescension because I refuse to make you happy by agreeing with you.

IOW, it's a you problem.

Though I think you’ve had some nice posts in this thread, in many cases you seem to favor 1 line assertions with no actual argument. Or you add a personal anecdote, which one could say is a form of “generally quite weak argument”. So it goes both ways.

Can't get the 1973 article, but how do SDH levels correlate with race performance?

And does this compare the effect of broken (interval) tempos with continuous ones?

They really don’t. That same lab did some work with some of the great WSU runners of that time. Their enzyme numbers were all over the place and some impressive athletes had some relatively unimpressive numbers. That 1973 article shows that hard training as a physiological effect, but isn’t well connected to real world performance.

An increase in muscle respiratory capacity is the most important physiological adaptation to endurance exercise training. It correlates highly with improvements in endurance performance.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Skeletal muscle respiratory capacity, endurance, and glycogen utilization - PubMed

This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between physical performance capacity and the mitochondrial content of skeletal muscle. Four groups of rats were trained by means of treadmill running 5 days/wk for 13 wk...

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/165725/

Since the Gollnick et al. paper is still the all-time champ, then I would say that it is safe to conclude that breaking things into intervals isn't necessary.

You're apparently thinking of the data in Table 4 of this paper.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Enzyme activity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trained men - PubMed

Enzyme activity and fiber composition in skeletal muscle of untrained and trained men

Link:pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4403464/

Only six athletes were studied, they were a mix of cyclists, runners, and swimmers, and performance wasn't actually quantified for most of them. However, as you might expect the runner who finished 4th in cross-country at the NCAA champs (6 mi in 28:15) had a higher SDH activity (8.03) compared to the so-so middle distance runner (5.04).

No, it doesn't, as I'm not the one complaining about others being stubborn, condescending, etc.

So I read the whole thread in April and started on May 1st, I was in about 18:20-18:25 5k shape and coming off of very little training from the prior 6 months due to injury. I did eight weeks I don't think I could break 19 in a 5k right now and I'm debating stopping. I was holding myself back the first few weeks during workouts and now I'm running them slower but at a higher effort. Maybe it was unrealistic to think I would improve off 50-60 mpw when all my PRs (16:56 1:18:00 2:43:41) are on 80-90 mpw. I'm just surprised that I got slower when I expected to have some improvement purely from consistent mileage and any workouts. Workouts were all half mile to two mile with 60-90s rest, (wrist) HR on easy runs was always under control (low or under 130s bpm). I figured I should ask for either encouragement to push through or permission to bail before I just give up.

Not saying this is the case, but I started this at the start of summer here last year, which is a really bad time in hindsight. Everything gets relatively slower, so it actually turned out I probably had got faster, just didn't realise it or feel it. After around 12 weeks I had definitely got faster measurably, even without taking the summer into consideration. There's also no quick fix here, no matter how you look at it.

It also doesn't work for everyone. I have a group of running friends I meet with for the easy days, Mondays weds and Sundays. After my progress, just about everyone in our mini club has tried it. Out of 8 of us, 4 have gotten significant progress that is game changing for us , 2 have had moderate success, PBs but nothing like the 4 of us, one guy couldn't cope with it, in that he just wouldn't stick to the paces and called the whole thing dumb, and one guy stuck to it rigidly and got worse. I cannot tell you why, he also seemed on paper like the perfect candidate for it.

50% with significant progress, 25% with good progress though, is a pretty damn good strike rate for a bunch that are already seasoned runners, with all but one of us having at least raced a marathon and all generally have trained pretty consistently on 5 hours or more a week, for a good number of years.

But goes to show also, just some people won't respond. I don't think that's a criticism, I've seen sirpoc even admit of course not everyone will come up trumps.

I don't want to just go on and repeat what others have obviously pointed out, but as a starting point for anyone wanting to get better or move up potentially to the next level, this is the most likely starting point to give you the best chance of success, over just about anything. It of course, nothing comes with a guarantee.

Has there been much discussion about the fact Sirpoc was/is a pretty frequent racer? He definitely gets that VO2 max stimulus on a pretty consistent basis (or at least that was the case when I first started following this thread). curious if others think this is an important component that often gets overlooked.

Yeah thats a pretty unrealistic expectation. The whole crux of this thing is that it allows people to safely accumulate more training load than they were before, so you need to actually do the more training part. Consistency of weeks by itself isn't enough if you're running way less. With the heavy dose of sub-t work you'll get a greater training load off relatively less mileage than some more "traditional" weekly set-ups, but it's not enough to make up for a 20-30 mpw difference.

I'd say keep with it and slowly dial up the volume, I bet once you're up to 70-75 mpw it will click and you'll be giving those PRs a scare.

Also keep in mind that if you're in a hot climate right now the summer work may not fully show until you get some cooler temps in the fall.

Are you lowering your load? Then I wouldn't expect improvement. It's not clear from your comment whether the NSA method is increasing or decreasing from what you were previously doing, although your mention of 80-90 mpw makes me think you're coming down in mileage/load to do this method.

I agree with what John said above.

But I also think people who have been faster in the not so distant past are probably most likely to overrate their ability. By that I mean overestimate the paces that are appropriate. The first step is being honest with yourself “is this training repeatable every week for the next year” (sirpoc). You may need to start with laughably slow paces (compared to yourself previously) and build them up.

If your workouts are getting harder but slower, you are either in tougher conditions or you have ramped up too fast. And of course if mileage and overall load are lower, you will be less fit.

My guy, you linked to an article about rats running continuously on treadmills. There is nothing in it that's relevant to the question of breaking workouts into intervals.

It is interesting you mention load.

Ive complete Pfitz 18/70 for a marathon and one of the HM plans and they are tough. I started this method a few weeks back and am slowly increasing the mileage and I think I can be a lot more consistent with this method. Pfitz has a lot of peaks and dips in both mileage and intensity (some weeks don't have a traditional workout) but a well designed Norwegian Single approach can match the load over a 12 week span because you won't have down weeks and you will probably be able to have a shorter taper.

In theory the recovery from a race should also be shorter

garygoals - I appreciate the input, impressive that you got that many people to all participate and nice to see some stats of how/if people improved as we only get self reported here.

John Whelan/ BoingBoingo/ peekay - I did not phrase that statement well, I certainly didn’t expect to improve to PR level (yet) but did expect to improve from 5:55 minute 5k pace level. I wonder if I should get my mileage up first then lengthen the workouts, My initial weeks were 50mpw with three x four mile workouts (2x2 4x1 8x0.5). I'm now having issues getting to the final reps of the workouts at the prescribed (based off 18:20 5k) paces whereas in May I was stopping at my 4 miles of workout with the ability to add-on another rep+ if I had to and at the same paces (as workouts sirpoc or otherwise should be).

BoingBoingo - RE Training Load: I haven't ran consistent 70mpw+ in a little over a year, I am comparing myself to the fitness I was at in April which involved ~1 proper workout a week and a bunch of shorter low 7 min pace runs. I ran 130 miles total in March and 200 in April, about 25 mpw Oct'24-Feb'25. I know this is a lower load then my old self but it should be higher than myself in April and the 5 months prior. There is a chance that my load has decreased since many of my non workout days in April were progression style runs ending in 6:45-6:55 pace.

All - On May 1st I wrote out what my paces should be based on where I started and have kept them in mind during workouts. I probably have ran some of the longer rep workouts too fast but they were slower than what I had been doing, I felt in control (effort with HR to back it up) and I figured I would improve quickly (to maybe 18 flat 5k) over the first 4-6 weeks then improve slowly since I was just getting back to actual (50mpw running) plus consistent workouts. Weather, unavoidable hilliness of my workouts, and being honest with my fitness probably all play a roll, along with all the fringe things like sleep stress and strength work. I just feel like the fitness is decreasing and I don't want to let up on the workouts and it continue to decreasing. I am 'RunnerSam' on logarun if anybody wants to see the specifics. Prior to this week I only missed two workouts in the 8 weeks but I had to take two days totally off this week with no workouts because of some lower leg pain, I guess I will start back up Saturday with the routine.