Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

This is a sad post to me.

It insinuates that a training method is so dialed in and perfect for everyone, that any individual experimentation is forbidden and a death trap.

Maybe you and others believe that. Fine. But that goes against eveyrthing we know in physiology and the history of training.

I just want to emphasize again, I think sub LT work is great for building up aerobic abilities. As I've said 3x, I used that early in my career for both myself and the HS teams I coached.

I'm simply pointing out that there are tradeoffs. And that there are simple adjustments that would give you more bang for your buck. Or even things to consider to add.

If you are happy and don't want to, great. Keep on training.

But I have a real problem with people being told: DO NOT alter the plan at all. You will regret it.

It just goes against everything we know in training. Every athlete is a N = 1. It's why some athletes excel in a LT dominated system, but others don't. It's why some athletes excel in a big workout system and others don't. It's why some athletes need big volumes and others don't.

Again, if you think differently, that's fine. But individualization is at the core of my coaching principles. Partly, because I've seen it in both athletes and testing.

Again, I love sub LT training. It's why I got a lactate testing device as a teenager. But we can't create prophets out of training systems. We need to be able to find what works for us, given our constraints and demands that we'll face.

And that applies to amateurs and elites.

I just think it's sad that message is: Do NOT ever try to improve this system. That goes against everything I've ever learned from any great coach I've had the privilege to interact with, including Lydiard, Vigil, Gags, Tellez, Canova, Razcko, and on and on.

I said this once but I think part of it is: we treat training programs as a small part of our identity almost. SO when someone criticizes or offers adjustment to our training, we jump into protect and defend mode. I get it. But what I learned from the coaches above is it's much better to be in curious and learner mode. When I had a discussion with Vigil about his training approach, when I asked a "what if" question, he'd pause for a moment. Think about it and then ask me why I thought that way. Then he'd offer up his opinion and insights. It was a masterclass in always being open, always considering, and weighing the benefits/drawbacks. Same with Canova, and many of the others.

Stay curious.

So my advice to folks: If it's working, keep doing it. But don't be afraid to run low risk experiments to see if there are ways to improve your training. Again, don't do dumb things like folks on strava. But I have faith in people who are trying to learn about training and coaching that you too can learn how to adjust training in a safe way.

All the best and thanks for the kind words and dialogue to the folks who engaged.

Sorry Steve, you have a lot of people's respect but you have missed the mark here and jumped in on page 350. As others have pointed out, just about everyone who has experimenting with this has made it worse, or come back full circle to the begining.

I would encourage you to read the thread. I think you are actually probably the one making broad statements here that are a bit vague.

I really agree with the other posters. We have been here, seen in, done it.

Whilst I actually subscribe to this being great training, it's not the only training of course that'll work. But tweaking it has almost always been detrimental, to it's original intentions.

I would really encourage you to spend a few days reading through all the really amazing pieces of information, testimonials, experiences and then come back and revise your statement. I totally respect what you have done for running, but to me your broad statement is actually quite a sad reality of the YouTube culture of today. That may seem harsh, but IMO if you come in on page 350 and start bringing up stuff that has been covered 50 times already, you add gonna have to take the rough with the smooth.

That's not to say it cannot be improved btw, but just about everything you have suggested has been done, tried and made it worse.

Maybe I'm overly harsh. But I feel like Steve has totally fallen into the trap many others have before and we are going round in circles.

I agree with the sentiment. I think where people are coming from is they are trying to bring in outside ideas that have not really worked for others in the past. Most people in this thread would be happy if someone did something new AND proved it worked for them. For example, there were various conversations previously about how to adapt this to the marathon. Some failed, some worked, and the ones that did ended up looking a little similar to sirpoc's eventual marathon build.

With strides or hill repeats, it seems like it has worked for some, but not for all, as noted in the past few pages of it just adding more fatigue. The sad example is the pre-sirpoc OG, Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen, who seems to have made a ton of progress and then started adding the x-factor workouts and stalled out.

But anyways, even this thread has examples of the method NOT working for some folks. So how I think people need to approach this is - try it out, plain vanilla, for 6 months. If it isn't working, figure out how you can tweak it, and know why. If it is, continue on, knowing what you can and can't handle.

Well said, I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree on what would work best for an 18 min 5k runner.

Where a lot of the contention is for the 14-15 min 5k types because I've seen a lot of anecdotes shared here around that range of ability in favor of it (sirpoc himself included of course).

For a 14:30 5k guy at 75 mpw who also wants to run sub 4:10 in the mile, does it make sense to follow the NSA strictly? A lot on this thread might say yes.

I read 100 pages of this before doing the youtube video. As well as the website summarizing the method and the Q and As on that site.

Sure, maybe I missed something in the last 250. I can acknowledge that.

But I just think fundamentally saying: "anyone who has tweaked this approach" has had a negative experience just isn't a healthy way to look at training. Again, it goes against everything I've learned from every good coach I've had the fortune to being a part of.

Maybe instead, you ask: why is a training program so fragile that something as simple as adding "strides" leads to a downfall? What are we missing? Why does this program put us on such a razors edge that adjusting by even the slightest bit causes folks in this thread to fall apart?

Just a thought. But again, to each their own. Maybe you've stumbled upon the holy grail of training.

And again...you're arguing with someone who has tried a variation of this system and largely supports it.

But it's oaky. If you think I'm covering things you've already got figured out and don't want any counter views or expertise. No problem. I'll take my thoughts elsewhere. Take care and best of luck.

I'm not sure Steve is going to listen at this point. Seems like he's genuinely dropped in and not really looked into the history of the last couple of years. As you, others etc. have pointed out, we have all tried all sorts and for hobby joggers keep coming back to ground zero of this thread. It's as simple as that really.

There's zero evidence really in this thread that 99% of us will ever get to the point we need to do much more than how this all started. You certainly can go years and still improve. A 41 year old running a 2:24 marathon on debut is proof of that after 2+ years of literally doing the same, then more of the same.

One thing I didn't have on my bingo card though was Magness downvotes on the thread on the level of Coggan or Lexel. It's a shame, I like Magness but I think he's doubling down and has just got this one wrong. Especially since he's just repeating things we have debated a million times and thousands have runners have trained like this and mostly come to the same conclusion. What's actually happened, to actual dinners is better than anything in theory or some sort of flawed mass study. One of the great things about this thread is there are some seriously intelligent guys who have come back and given us testimonials, feedback and the like of long term training like this.

Whist there is many ways to train, tweaking this balanced and niche system is probably a sub optimal idea. I think just about anyone who has had success with this and has also played around, would broadly agree with this.

Doesnt this suggest that we have maximized the training volume we can safely sustain? Is that a bad thing?

I don't know where or if the old dude chillruns mentions posts here, but he falls into this category. As far as I know, he follows this on a basic level and has consistently got good results and is around the range you mention. Someone might correct me on that though?

The jist though, is we are talking about tweaking things for 99% of people that are absolutely not needed. As much as we would all like to be facing the problems sub 15 min runners face, that's a fraction of us.

It's obviously worth a debate, but for the most part largely irrelevant and I think unfortunately starts to muddy the waters to those who's brains really don't even need to think about this, or yet be influenced or tempting into doing something about it.

Don’t be so sensitive, sheesh. If you think there’s a supportable argument for why you think the speed work is necessary for amateurs (especially old ones), then present it. Don’t make some false assertion that the people here “don’t want counter views” or “expertise.” That’s honestly such a false an outrageous claim. You made an argument that speed work would be more beneficial, some people here have said “we’ve tried that and our data isn’t back that up, for our purposes at least (and probably more),” and you shoot back that we just don’t want “expertise”? Comes off as myopic and arrogant.

There is a supportable argument for why speed work is needed: there's no evidence that hanging out in subT land or Zone 2 is the best way to develop aerobic capacity. There's a recent article reviewing the available research that comes to that conclusion. In fact, the evidence is that higher-level work will improve mitochondrial and fatty acid oxidation better than Zone 2 work, especially in lesser-trained athletes. So if you can crank up the pace, you should, rather than tying yourself strictly to every-other-day subT work. Sirpoc described the repeated-subT system as the "best bang for your buck," not "best bang period." But people are treating it that way. If you can manage your recovery such that you can implement higher-than-subT workouts into your training program, you should (and you should be able to).

Please cite it.

Of course one speed workout will give more benefits than a single zone 2 run. The question is, over time, will those speed workouts provide more benefits than the consistent NSM workouts, and can the speed workouts be sustainable in the way NSM is?

Poor Steve suggested something other than the standard sub t paces, and now is facing the wrath of the Sirpostles.

Yes, god forbid people ask for evidence to support claims.

Just so we’re clear on the timeline, Steve made some claims about what he thought was a superior way to train, people here questioned that, and he responded by saying we don’t want to hear expertise.

I do believe most people would agree with this. If you would be able to do 2 subt and 1 more intense training and recover from it, then this would make it a better system. Its always been about max load and this would create a higher load then 3x subt. Problem is, it would not be substainable on the long run. Imagine doing 2 subt + 1 vo2max a week, every week. Could you do this week in week out for years? Same for running easy days harder, people have tried and faild.

The question isnt wheter you should or should, or be aloud to do so. Its about wether is posible or not. So far nobody seems to have found a improved that actualy worked.

Would be great if Steve would create a protocol like there is now with his improvements. People could just start training his way and let us know how it goes. Time will tell if he can tweak it in a better way by adding strides, hill sprints, speed work, etc

I'm actually a bit Magness fan. But I do think he's missed the mark here. He's steamrolled into a thread with pretty generic posts, offering absolutely nothing that hasn't been covered in 350 previous pages. In fact, repeating claims that have been made many times and all of the evidence suggests is probably sub optimal for this approach. Of course, he could start his own experiment, get thousands have people to try it and then come back in two years and report back.

Yeah I totally agree with this. The point is , how many times have we seen people say "ThIS iS dUmB NeED sPeED", well all the evidence, is you don't? It's not about picking sides really. This is of course an open forum and up for debate. But as much as I like Magness, just because you add a known name doesn't make the argument IMO credible without claims, or using this method with major tweaks, without a lot of evidence. Whereas the flip side is we have had many people already try major changes and fall to bits, mainly because they don't understand what the system is in the first place.

Not sure I buy it. Steve makes content. He make a video trying to generate interest, didn't really back it up IMO with anything clear and is rightly challenged to. This thread has provided adult debate, from Coggan etc and it's always been like that. Ultimately though from someone with no skin in the game, he's definitely not making a new argument. Not that it isn't a way to train, but it's probably sub par and not in the interest of why this thread started in the first place.

We always go back and forth and debate the minor details, yet here, Strava, Reddit the really amazing progress and testimonials are pure vanilla, or very close to it.

I think if there was a way to really improve this method significantly, without personal or individual tweaks, we'd have found it by now. Not knocking Steve, but some of his points aren't exactly new (I'm not suggesting btw he should read the whole thread, that's unreasonable at this point).

I do think if you make bold claims or want to make big changes for this, there at least needs to be a body of work and evidence of people's A-B. I'm not talking in theory, I'm talking results. Just about nobody really is debating the absolute remarkable progress some people have made. Whereas just about everyone or a significant margin of people at least make some. But it's just even beginner progress, the eye opener and staggering thing for me is seasoned runners making life changing gains. That's where the entire thread is full of hundreds of examples that would be pro, stick to vanilla.

This thread is pretty grown up by LRC standards, so I don't think that's unreasonable to at least lay out the where, why of the theory and then put it to the test over 6+ months. The big picture though is the sustainability and staying healthy. That seems to be the bit people are overlooking and why this was designed in the first place by sirpoc.