Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

you're fast, you'd probably be under 16 with your talent and monster 26.2-base....welcome to the thread AFF!

See I am torn on this one. I sort of agree and don't.

Yes he was a good cyclist, but he was also a very average runner for around 2 years and went through a huge period of absolutely not improving. I would always like an answer to this.

Also, I don't know the answer either, is why have those who stuck to it so closely, had the best success? The ones with the barely beleiveble (I mean that in a good way, it's not hard to find these people they are real) improvement times, all seem to basically just do a 1:1 scaled copy.

Just throwing this out there.

Obviously the thread is looooong so a lot of stuff is repeated. These are genuinely interesting and legit questions I haven't seen given a definitive answer.

Would sirpoc have continued to be a good but relatively mediocre runner compared to what he is now, if he hadn't created his training philosophy? It probably can't be answered and is a bit of a what if. But I just don't see that he would have got to near where he is now?

Maybe it's just a coincidence people have stuck to it closely seem to clearly have the best success? My thinking is there is no such coincidence. Just like the guys who have blown the marathon away compared to their previous pbs but have gone straight copy. My view is whilst the system is absolutely in my mind now the best hobby jogger system, bar none, it's actually very balanced on a knife edge. It works great, until it doesn't. But the window of what it works and the bullseye of balance seems to be very, very close to what sirpoc came up with.

Back on the grind after a 3 week break from subT, just easy and long runs. I increased volume and subT at the same time, hit a bit of a wall. One thing I learned is that I can't really handle 70% max HR easy runs, I have now been running roughly 62%-65% and feeling a lot better. Also able to go a touch quicker on the subT. Just a small tip that might help someone out, this is in line with Paul's article comparing pros 10k pace and how easy they run their easy days.

Do we have any data from this two year period when sirpoc supposedly was a very average runner?

It's been said before in this thread but you are pushing the envelope with this method, despite its critics saying its too easy; or the people who train like this are "afraid of a little sweat." Take it further and you might burn out/get injured, dial it back and you're not generating the marginally higher training load compared to any other training method.

A lot of people adding their own flair to this method are probably doing so before they need to (re: plateaued). People staying within the margins and doing what, at this point, has been proven to work are likely to see generous improvements.

He has said many times at the same of this thread, on strava and when I met him in person that when he started are a “terrible” parkrun he went out and got a Daniels book and trained two years using that trying to get faster at 5km.

think he got down to 18:50’s and couldn’t get any faster he was following KI and notices parallels with his previous cycling training and created his subT plan from there

Most training looks at the same things, aerobic gains. If it doesn't, you may as well put it in the bin, as that is what will make you better, for the most part.

I agree how you structure it can be important, but I still stand by the fact the impact of load is probably making up 90% of the picture (one of the problems I think with some running training plans is that it doesn't even allow you to fill in the 90%, before you burn out).

The last 10% everyone, especially elites are scrambling around for. I think maybe what I have evolved this into, probably fills in the 90% better than most training, but I might be wrong about that. I don't see specificity as something to even worry about, until you max out what you can gain by filling the aerobic tank. Probably that's where a good amount of the success comes from, people are maybe 60-70% full from sub optimal training and this fills the tank more over time.

I'm glad people are finding this a good way to train, there have been some fantastic results for people lately, but this isn't the only way to train.

Whether you use lactate to control or guide sessions and progression, or use a more analytical method in line with me, we are still all trying to get to the same place. The only thing really that matters is you are controlling fatigue , recovery, but understanding at some point you will need to do more (even if it's small and gradual) to get better.

Average is maybe unfair to guys out there running 18:5x as well, that's probably my fault for ssying I sucked. I was just more frustrated I couldn't process anymore, is a better way to put it. I was just burned out from training.

I worked hard to get under 20 and I think that's the milestone for me where the average hobby jogger has put in a good amount of effort.

But yes, I did go through a huge period of not improving and this is just my opinion - but there's absolutely no way I would have gotten anyway near the times I then have, had I not spent the time to look into how I could make sweet spot work for running. I just don't see it. I fact, I would have probably just quit and taken an 18 as a win.

Also, just a small note, my cycling ability is vastly overrated. I raced time trials and I had OK power, but any decent road racer would drop me in a few miles. Best way to think of my cycling results; I was incredibly aerodynamic and understood how to maximise that before anyone else really knew or cared. That also was a huge analytical process working out what is going on and why. Think of it using a running example, I was racing in puma fast r elite 3 and a lot of my rivals had clogs on. Even then, that is probably not exaggerating enough how much of an advantage I had over people back then. The gap would close now, people pay attention to this stuff. Being that aero back then was unusual, it's not so much now.

This is probably my fault as well, one of the reasons I decided to put a book together was things like this. 70% wasn't mean to be a target, it's a cap. Same with the MAS stuff.

I've written about all this stuff in the book I'm still hoping to put out there and hope people will enjoy. Mainly tightened everything up a bit so there is less ambiguity for things plus a ton of other stuff.

The idea being if you pick it up you don't need any other tools, other than somewhere to track your load and there's pretty much no confusion over what I'm saying (I hope).

Two things then, one someone can just pick it up and go "OK I see what this training is all about and why" and secondly there won't be a million questions dotted around various places of the internet. Not that there is anything wrong with that (although I'm still surprised people are even interested) but more just so that this has a flag in the ground with clear, definitive parameters.

I'm not a coach but I have helped and laid out stuff for a number of runners, but I don't think that makes me a coach, more guiding them on a pretty straight path and I certainly have never taken money from anyone for services, so nobody ask me for coaching ha ha

I was happier for Grandma's guy than my own marathon, and the Bester video guy, my main mission is making him beat me in a race.

I think what most people need help with is the motivation, encouragement , reassurance, but also helping them plan when to do more, when to not, when you might need to take the edge off a session, how to pace (pacing I have spent a lot of time helping people with this, also a big chapter in the book if it ever sees the light of day that I think people can make huge performance gains on by reading only that).

Hard to catch up on the whole thread, I don't check in much. So I have gone back a few pages and answered bits I've seen where I think I can provide some input or answer something.

Oh and I wish I was on a cruise as suggested, but unfortunately I am finally injured. Not too bad and feeling better already, but actually not in a hurry to rush back to running yet even though I could probably start easy running. I'm going to use myself as a experiment of #1 and now seeing how much fitness can be maintained from a decent period of cross training, but more in line with cycling sweet spot where you might do quite a bit more due to the minimal injury risk.

Does this mean the ultra is off?

So no data?

Note I am a huge fan of this method and of sirpoc (see above).

You would need to check his Strava and his parkrun times. But I think James has answered it in his last four post above

Nice, so the book is confirmed

Any idea when the book will be released mate? I'd love to use it for next years spring marathon!

What's your thoughts on Thomas Frank so far and the Arsenal game?

Yes, finding the same thing myself. Targeting closer to 65% max HR generates a lot less fatigue. Have to remind myself that 70% is the max not an average or a target.

SP for the book please add some easy to follow guidelines for the adapting this training method for the Marathon.

The average hobby jogger buying your book really wants to know how to apply this to the marathon in a way that scales up and down.

It's one of the most common, and currently unanswered questions I see and having some sort of formula in your book, from you as the authoritative voice will really complete the methodology.

If you don't mind me asking, what's the injury that finally stopped you from running? Funnily enough I think we got injured around the same time and I also cross-trained but way too stubborn to completely stop running... Anyway mine's a peroneal tendonitis so it certainly still needs some semblance of load to help recover.