Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

CTL, etc , are not trademarked according to this page.

trainingpeaks.com

Glossary of TrainingPeaks Metrics | TrainingPeaks

@trainingpeaks

Glossary of the most commonly used acronyms and terms related to the advanced metrics in TrainingPeaks such as TSS, IF, and FTP.

Link:trainingpeaks.com/learn/articles/gloss...

FOD runner has covered sirpoc on his latest video. FOD to me has always seemed like a pretty normal guy like sirpoc.

One thing in the comments I think maybe needs picking up or people are getting confused on already (if FOD reads this). This is nothing like EIM. in fact it's miles away. Just a small detail but they aren't really similar in the slightest once you scratch past the surface. (having been someone who has done both).

Breathing should obviously be a quicker rate than easy runs. I believe sirpoc mentioned they feel like a 6/10 effort for him while running them, but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. (These are for the standard reps, not the marathon training block reps where he did 5k repeats & described them as harder.)

You could look into getting a HR monitor chest strap. It's another metric to use to gauge intensity & keep you in range. Especially in a controlled indoor environment. I got one & realized I was running my reps way too hard since I was previously only going by pace & RPE. My Garmin wrist HR was way off & too low. 6/10 effort for me when I'm pissed off after work (running on hate) & juiced to the gills with caffeine wasn't a good metric for me I discovered, lol. HR monitor is key.

I have a heart rate monitor but I don’t know my max heart rate. It could be anywhere from 200-205, which sounds like a small difference, but my heart rate at for these would be (if 85%-90% of max) anywhere from 170-185.

Edit: I misread your message. I don’t have a heart rate monitor but my wrist one worst very well and it’s consistent enough that I’m able to predict my heart rate +- 1 bpm by feel spare when it spikes for 30 seconds on one rep every few workouts, which isn’t much of a problem

Something I've wondered about sub T workout pacing. The core objective, as I understand it, is to run a pace such that you are sufficiently recovered for the next session. That way you can maximize load each week.

Most runners are not lactate testing. We're going off pace, watch heart rate, perceived effort. Using that mix of inputs, we settle on the pace for a given workout.

It seems that if you're able to consistently recover for the next sub T workout, week after week, you're doing OK. Maybe you'd allow yourself to go a little faster the next session to test the edge of where you should pace. If you can handle the slightly faster pace in subsequent workouts, congrats, that's your new sub T pace.

Is there a flaw in this approach?

Thanks for taking time to reply 🙌

Have been going through the early pages already , with the ( long term ) intent to get through the whole lot :)

but what I can’t see is the following :

if sole purpose is to remain for extended periods of time in the sub LT2 , Does it matter what pace i am running at and if it varies from different interval times ? Obvs shorter intervals would give me a faster pace at my goal 165 HR but does it really matter ?

Could I rhetorically just do all my sessions at 6mins to ten min Intervals and not bother with the shorter intervals ? and still get the same as adaptation as also doing shorter ones ?

This is where it might be helpful to separate the theory from the practice. To your rhetorical question - no it shouldn’t matter, in theory.

However, in practice, the people who have success with this often just copy Sirpoc. For whatever reason that seems to work best for a lot of people.

I get the impression that people who gravitate to this method are people who have a history of pushing too hard and are now trying to follow a strict set of rules that prevents them from overcooking the workout.

Based on that, it would make sense to me that the people who succeed would be the people who are most invested in following the rules as laid out.

I think it's hypothetically possible to run as sustainably while running stuff faster than sub T. I would maybe be running the same training load, but not in sub T work. This is an extreme example, but if I ran 2 miles at VO2 Max pace, that maybe wouldn't be as difficult in just one week as running say 8 mile of sub T. I think that part of the Norwegian is that running at a lower intensity with increased intensity control allows for smaller deviations in recovery required from each workout. If I'm inadvertently targeting my LT2 every workout versus the proper sub T pace, and I'm well rested and conditions are optimal I won't run into any issues, but I think where the problem lies is if I am not well rested in any given week, or the execution of the workout is off, and because I'm running the same pace as I was previously, I'm exceeding LT2 and resultingly running into more issues than if I was exceeding sub T and just getting into threshold range. I don't want to accidentally run too close to LT2 and end up digging myself into a hole.

Right but that’s missing the other half of the equation. The whole point is not just to run sustainably, it’s to maximize work done, while running sustainably.

I don’t think anyone’s ever denied that you can do VO2 work without burning out. You can just get to a much higher training load sustainably by using sub threshold.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying and why I am trying to be as dialed into sub T as possible rather than running normal T where I couldn't have as high of a load sustainably

Well, right that you will get maximized volume of work done while running sustainably at sub threshold, but is it the most effective way to get fast sustained progress? My experience says no on that question.....

When you mix VO2 work with 'maxed' threshold work in a proper smart way they both cooperates to a faster and higher level of raceresults.You need less volume of training but get atleast the same results and still don't raise injury and overdoing risk.

The thing is it also considers those recoveries in the averaging of your %HRmax, which compensates for the obviously slower average pace.

The way I understood it, Runalyze takes the whole HR, distance and time series from your activity and it adjusts based off the expected % of HRmax you would have in a race for such distance.

So the 1' recoveries are indeed slowing you down, but also bringing your average HR for the activity to a way lower level.

I don't know a lot about the EIM. At first glance, it does look quite similar, though. Would you mind giving a quick summary of why the two methods are not alike at all?

Can't believe I'm taking this bait. There's no way you can look at these two methods and say they seem similar, except to the extent that all distance running methods are going to be mostly similar. Right off the bat, EIMs philosophy couldn't be more different, the idea is that we focus too much on metabolism (working on our aerobic and anaerobic systems), and need to focus more on the mechanical (being "reactive" and bouncy). Contrast that to the British Sweetspot method which is entirely focused on improving aerobic fitness, nothing else. Those are about as different philosophies as you can get. In practice they are very different as well, in EIM you are running intervals everyday, essentially alternating days of marathon pace (1k-2k) reps with days of reps at 3k-10k pace (200-400m), plus other stuff like forest fartleks and traditional anaerobic interval workouts. In EIM you are never doing extended easy running as that's the cardinal sin to the mechanical reactivity you're striving for. Compare that to British Sweetspot where a ton of focus is put on running the 4 easy days as easy and slow as necessary to keep them in the right aerobic zone. And you're three workouts are all about maximizing time in the upper end of the aerobic zone. No fast reps, anaerobic work, fartleks - strides are even controversial for goodness sake.

On the other hand, they both involve running.

If I recall correctly, Sirpoc went with the 3 sessions being different, simply to spice things up for variety. I don’t think, how you break up the 30 mins of work is critical. However, if you were to do the 3 sessions the same, I reckon the 3 times 10 mins would probably be best, for endurance. Adding a few strides could make up for the slower pace,

Ya - because volume of easy mileage is how one succeeds at workouts without getting "overcooked". These guys were trying to do the workouts of guys running 80-100 mpw while run 40-60 - which only works for a short time (except for the most talented).

Those who stick to the program probably are the best at staying injury and niggle free, and not having to step back or reduce training. Over time, they run fastest on this method. The talented guys were able to do the workouts initially without injury.

This thread seems to be on life support whenever sirpoc doesn't show up for a couple weeks.

Praying for him to pop up to tell us whatever he feels like. Don't mind if it's about the consistency of his poop at different levels of RPE, just need a minimal lifeline