Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Old runners like me will remember racing in stuff from the 80-90s. Truly awful shoes. Tegla Laroupe felt good back then, but looking back they surely just bash up the legs versus anything today. You don't need to really have a study on it to know that today's shoes protect you more. It can only be a good thing and allows us either to train more or recovery better of the past.

I'm thankful I lived and ran long enough to actually run in shoes that not only protect you and clearly make you faster, are also fun to run in! Absolutely no reason not to invest a tiny bit more money in something that ticks all those boxes compared to the rubbish we ran in, even 3 years ago when it comes to daily shoes.

The race shoe tech has slowed down but the advantages and advances is mins blowing in daily trainers to an old geezer like me who has been running since 1986!

I have heard others saying the carbon broke. Silly question, how do you know it has broken, if no noticeable difference?

Not sure why anyone wouldn't wear super shoes for all their workouts if they can afford it. Ingebrigtsen wears alphaflys for his morning sessions on treadmill and vaporflys in the afternoon for his faster intervals fwiw

Sometimes it is broken on the visible spot, and if it not, it can be heard - an obnoxious clicking until things smooth out. Otherwise no difference whatsoever.

To the guy saying the difference is higher than 2s/km. Of course it depends on what you consider a "basic shoe". If it is the heaviest and/or the cheapest shoe possible, then the difference is obviously higher. I estimated the difference between the brand's top-of-the-line model (which is trully a super shoe), and the brand's versatile model (like Boston, maybe EVO SL, etc.). At least I consider the versatile shoes "basic" shoes - if you own only one pair, you should own such shoes. I don't know anybody, who would wear the heaviest shoes for their workout days if they have an alternative, so this is why I assumed some decent versatile shoes as basic.

Is there not some researchers suggesting that everyday wear of super shoes weakens the lower legs,

Barefoot running makes the lower legs bullet proof. No one is suggesting that now, but super shoes are at the other extreme of this.

Not disagreeing with anyone here, but we don’t know the long term impact, and whether this is positive or negative.

i am too old for it to affect me, but I wonder about the youngsters who will never run in anything other than super shoes.

I think an older discussion is probably relevant here, that is whether it's better to train on harder surfaces (concrete/asphalt) or softer surfaces (dirt, grass, treadmills).

My personal feeling aligns with what Jakob apparently does: wearing super shoes on a treadmill makes sense. Hard surfaces and uncushioned impacts create a mechanical bottleneck sooner than the softer counterparts. Of course, there must be some limit to this - we can't go infinitely softer and softer until what we're doing hardly resembles running. That's when you may as well be cross training.

But for the adaptations we're targeting with subt training, that'd be my inclination.

However Jakob is training for 1500m/5000m on a synthetic track, which is also a soft surface and those are relatively short distances. If you're preparing for a road marathon, I could see it beneficial for some people to condition their bodies for those mechanical forces. Plenty of people break down mechanically in the marathon, unable to do their aerobic fitness justice. Especially in hillier marathons.

Someone preparing for road races, especially hilly marathons, certainly shouldn't do all their training on a treadmill. And neither should it all be barefoot or with so much downhill that it's impossible to repair all the resulting damage.

In any case, would most people generally benefit (in terms of being able to increase training load and thus get fitter) from nudging toward more "soft" training by wearing super shoes for all their workouts, as opposed to racing flats or some other less protective shoe? The "anecdata" is almost universal from elites and elite coaches: yes this is generally beneficial and recommended. On this topic, I don't really care to wait for scientists to design and run enough experiments to reach a strong consensus. If it turns out this was all misguided, so be it. But anyone waiting for scientific consensus to support everything they're doing is going to be 5-10+ years behind current best-known practices. And with shoes, you can feel free to hedge your bets however you like by creating whatever shoe rotation you want and wearing super shoes for whatever proportion of your training runs you think is optimal for you.

Stop being amazed by "leg turnover". I know a guy who runs for 20 years or so, is very short for a male like 160cm or something, runs high mileage, has around 200 cadence "omg such an amazing leg turnover" and only has a 3:15 marathon PB 3 years ago.

Yup. John Korir ran his 2:02 Chicago marathon with a cadence only in the 180s while running 4:32 mile pace. He does his easy runs at a 160 cadence. His cadence is well below a lot of joggers.

Lot of elites on strava have a relatively low cadence but it seems to be working for them obviously.

I started running in the 1970s and have been using this thread for very high age group records, system works great I am 72 now and running better than I was in my early 60s. I think shoes help greatly though as well to allow training systems like this to thrive, daily running with just building brick after brick. Not only for PBs but the more you can run and recovery from when you find good shoes. There's a lot of great choice out there. I wince at the lack of impact protection in what is already a demanding sport right up until the mid 2000s.

If I waited for science studies to catch up with the tech I'll be dead before they tell me what I already know, move with the times and use the shoes to your advantage. I'm quite an old skool kinda guy and am late to the party when it comes to new things, but even an old fud like me isn't going to let this one slip by.

Not to play old timer card like I do to my grand kids, but those old enough to remember and with an open mind rather than "it was better back in the day attitude" can tell you all you need to know about the recovery protection today's shoes provide. Glad to see another old timer agree.

It's one of those things I don't even see as a debate. As someone else said, you will be buying shoes anyway, just get ones that offer the even more superior foams and shock absorbion.

Huge sirpoc fan here. Legend of the hobby jogger community. But it's pretty unusual his running style. I remember seeing a video of it from London marathon, very comical I also laughed.

I think he's not exactly small, 173cm? Plodding around at 60-65% MHR at a cadence of 200 is up there with 'highly unusual'.

Big believer in the new shoes. I especially enjoy the super trainers, a little less expensive and can save the pop in your super racers. A few that i love are the zoom fly 6, Mizuno Flash, and the endorphin speed line. For non plated, Streakfly 1 and adios 9 are awesome too.

I remember that video. I thought he could be a pro race walker if he ever gets tired of running. With that high of a cadence I'm sure he nearly always has 1 foot on the ground at all times. Thought I read somewhere where he said he heel strikes too so he likely has 1 straight knee too out front.

Some strides in evidence at the end of an easy run today... Must have posted it to the wrong account as only subscribers to Sirpoc Premium have been allowed access to the anaerobic add-on module, along with NSA+ track workouts and strength routines (15% off first 3 months with code PoopyPlus15).

I remember when this thread was full of good information including case studies, but it's now no even worth reading.

So many people just havent a clue about the actual ethos of this program.

Every comment is either off topic, slagging off Sirpoc, gatekeeping, asking questions that are easy to find the answers or absolute garbage.

The thread is now 345 pages long. That in itself is quite remarkable.

i doubt anyone coming along now is going to read through every page.

Maybe everything that needs said has been said.

I went through 80% of the thread. Found lots of great info but there's a lot of crap from doubters of the method, so it was great when Sirpoc84 nailed the marathon.

The thread has served its purpose, bring on the book!

A book? You can distill this training rationale to a single page.

You would think wouldn't you? It is extremely simple but so many absolutely banal questions are raised.
I really worry about the intelligence level of some people who cant understand the basic premise.

The TENTH post on this long, long, long thread is the basics

"I've basically been doing the Norwegian model on singles.
It's not really that hard to "copy" in the sense the hobby jogging Ingebrigtsten puts all his training on Strava.
It's very basic , usually:
Easy
Sub threshold
Easy
Sub threshold
Easy
Sub threshold
Long run
Repeat .
I hired a lactate meter and turns out my paces are very similar to the equivalents he is running. That's a sample of two but for me who doesn't have unlimited money to spend on the test strips, it's good enough.
I had stagnated around 18:5x for quite a while for a 5k (that's all I really run) but have now made quite a big jump recently to 17:27.
Because there is very little vo2 max stuff I pretty much am ready to go for the next session no problem. Also feel way less tired running this way.
In terms of overall training load (coming from a cycling background) it also creates more CTL for about the same amount of time on feet (around 6 hours 45 for me) compared to training more traditionally, which I had tried (I'd read Daniels, faster 5k and a couple of others)."
A couple of posts later
"Yes I used to cycle. I experimented training in a lot of different ways. What I found out (I used to time trial) is that whatever CTL I got to that I could maximally sustain, my power was the same over 10 or 25 miles (key distances for time Trialists). To pluck an arbitratory number at random , say my 20 min power was 340w at a CTL of 60, it didn't really matter HOW I got there. In the sense I could do that power on a range of 7 or 12 hours a week training. The 7 hours may have been sub threshold sweetspot every other day, or the 12 hours may have been lots of slow riding and some vo2 max stuff in a week. I tried 4-5 different ways to get to that CTL number. Each time my power was almost the same.
Applying this to running, I have about 7 hours a week to train. So running as much sub threshold as I can, which gives a very good CTL score compared to say running 6 days, with long run, hills and a workout, means I'm creating more CTL for the same amount of time running the "hobby jogger" Norway model. This I think is the reason my times have improved, despite now not doing any proper REALLY hard stuff. I hope this makes sense? It's effectively a running version of what is very popular in cycling, "sweetspot" training.
In terms of running just at LT pace, of course not. You adjust the pace depending on the length of the reps + rest.
So for example 25x400 would be a faster pace, than the other end of the scale , 5x2k. But ultimately you are reaching the same state of sub threshold, just under. Remember threshold is a state, not a pace. That's why it's important to play around (if you can) with a lactate meter first, to get an idea and try to marry it up to the more traditional data you can get after each run. Ideally you would have a lactate meter all the time, but for hobby joggers like me, after a month or so you can probably get to 98% of where you need to be without it. For a pro, that 2% difference is a concern. But for me, I'm OK with that 😀"

The core, the basics, everything you need is there on page 1!!!

WTF is the matter with people?

5k fitness check question: Running 7 days/week, with SubT workouts M/W/F, long run on Saturday. Doing a 5k this Sunday. Not a special 5k, just my first standard NSM fitness check. Tips/protocol for this week? I seem to recall reading that Sirpoc ran these without any special modifications. So keep full SubT on Friday (or trim)? Presumably though I'd adjust the long run on Saturday?