Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I'm curious about your comment that the evidence is you don't "need" speed. From what I've read, people have had phenomenal results utilizing this method and that's great, I'm even considering trying this myself. So I get that you can run relatively fast on this program without injecting speed. But is there any evidence that contradicts that a little bit of speed (e.g. the Magness 200s, hill repeats, etc.) instead of a 3rd sub T would be counterproductive?

You and others mentioned people who deviated from the plan and then complained that the program failed them. That makes sense and doesn't really disprove anything Magness said IMO. Are there specific examples of someone who thrived on this program after giving it a fair chance but then went backwards when they tried something like 2 sub T workouts per week while substituting the 3rd sub-T for a type of workout that Magness proposed? (Note, I'm not talking about any type of killer V02 workouts).

Yes, the person who basically started it: Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen.

The main issue is getting injured regularly, see KI. Or burning out. Or progressively increasing fatigue to unmanageable levels. Anyone ive seen here or Strava who has tried to either push the workouts, add something to the long run , 5k pace and quicker track workouts or dou regular hill sessions end up getting burned out, or slowly have to scale back from 3 workouts every single week, totally defeating the point of this method.

Look at the dozens and dozen of posts, testimonials, look on Strava. People are usually quite honest about how they tried too much, too soon, tried to keep big workouts in whilst maintaining the balance. The thread is genuinely a goldmine of real people, real experience and how they have balanced and made this work, but have made a lot of mistakes along the way.

That's not to say there isn't other ways to train and be fast, but it no longer becomes this method. No disrespect to Steve, but he's lucky he has credibility or the challenges might be worse. Because he is just suggesting the same stuff that has been debated over and over without any evidence it'll improve the hobby guy. In fact, the opposite evidence. You have to also add in the challenges of a guy with a regular job, a life etc. it's totally designed for that in mind also.

He hasn't quite made a meal of it as much as Fitzgerald, but that was something else.

I agree with your overall sentiment Steve. One thing I'll say is that the discussion of what's "optimal" in this context gets bogged down pretty quickly, for a couple reasons. This method assumes the runner is dealing with a pretty severe time/energy constraints so it's inherently not going to be optimal but rather trying to make the best use of training given limitations. If we remove that assumption the relative value of adding additional training stimuli changes, but then that's also ignoring the reality of the real-life runner doing the training. I think where people are disagreeing with you is the lack of addressing the practical tradeoffs, which is kinda the crux of this whole thing.

Also should point out that people are often arguing here from positions of different constraints and preferences, not really trying to get to the ground truth of training. That's not a bad thing per say -meeting people's life constraints and training preferences is an essential part of good training, but its not going to be hypothetically "optimal" in the broader sense and maybe we shouldn't try to make it that. There's also a lot of trolls, zealots, and other assorted morons here that inhibit honest informed discussion.

I think it's interesting (and would love your perspective) to look at this through the lens of these anecdotes of people running fairly fast with this training (i.e. low/sub-15:00 km), and seeing what's in there that might improve our knowledge of training in general. It's somewhat surprising the gap these guys are able to cover between workout paces and race paces. Sure they might be faster with different training, but instead of arguing that can we pull some insights out of their experience that will help us train better even if we aren't going to do strict Norwegian Singles?

Can the neuromuscular/musculoskeletal aspects we assume require high speeds/force output (i.e. strides/hill sprints) also be developed with sub-T paces?

Are supershoes helping bridge that gap of running economy that would otherwise require more intensity?

Are we overestimating the need for more standalone anaerobic stimulus (at least down to 5k)? Is it possible that the glycolytic activity happening at baseline up to during sub-T work is enough to provide the muscle fibers with enough glycolytic capacity to run those fast 5k paces?

What can do with load tracking models like TSS and CTL? How to best apply those to running? Could we make better models for running?

One thing stuck out to me here, which is that of course you'd expect the likes of Canova, Lydiard, etc to be curious and in favour of experimentation.

It's because they're at (or have been at) the cutting edge of coaching some of the best athletes in the world. Naturally Steve has the same mindset, because in my view he sits in or around the same bracket as those guys.

But again, the training prescription here is for the time crunched hobby jogger who wants to break 20 in the 5k. Experimentation at this level is just as likely to lead to injury or burnout. Why would they risk experimentation in the name of the 5%, when they could work in a boring but consistent manner on the 95%?

I think the point being John, could they cope with better training?

Maybe Steve is confused, because I don't think a single person is saying this is training that should be used for elites. You would have to be an idiot to think that.

But I do think Steve is maybe a bit out of touch with basicslly what 9-5, shift guys, workers who have a full time life can cope with, recover from. The inherent danger for any hobby runner is when fatigue shifts to be unmanageable. That usually comes with the much harder sessions than this training provides.

That's where I think he's missing the point. The whole idea of this method is it provides you with the best opportunity to run your best, given the constraints that the vast majority of us have to deal with: real life.

If I could train like Jakob. I would. But I can't. If I could run a marathon and do a full Canvoa plan and wrap myself up in cotton wool for the rest of the day and get 10 hours sleep a night, I would do that instead. But I can't. I stand by a lot of coaches, in fact the majority do not take enough of this into consideration. But this was all taken in mind, before he even posted in the thread. That's the difference. That's actually the secret really in a way.

I've even seen sirpoc say himself quite graciously this isn't the best training there is. But I think it's hard to argue with that it is probably the best starting point for just about any hobby jogger who is a bit stuck, wants to improve in the medium to long term, or just wants to try something else. There's zero evidence I've seen that anyone needs to be in any rush to make any dramatic changes anytime soon. I've gone a year and make quite staggering progress just maintaining roughly the same ratio of intensity, but increasing overall volume.

I will admit I thought "there's no way I can run a 5k" after a few months doing this. But the pace is there. And a pace that was much faster than I had ever run before. It's weird to me that despite hundreds of testimonials of people not even running as fast as 10k pace, they think they can't then race a 5k at a pace relative to their new workout ability.

Shoes: Definitely bridging the gap. Also makes the third workout easier.

Something better than CTL, TSS. Didn't Hard2find and sirpoc say they were looking into this? Would be good. But, I do think it does the job if you stick to the same routine week in, week out. But definitely room for something.

Wow, a lot of people are attacking Steve for asking if theres room for INDIVIDUALS to tweak this. Of course there’s room for people to try.

but I agree that most people who add things muck it up. Whether it’s Kristoffer or our Greek Ultra Single man, these tweaks have not paid dividends. On the surface though it seems harmless - will hill repeats really add that much injury risk? Can someone actually handle 3x sub-t and 100mpw?

Another poster hinted at this but it’s an interesting idea. It builds off what sirpoc has said in the past I think. Is it possible that we’re riding this line so finely that even something as simple as strides will tip us over the edge? I suspect so.

(Obviously not doing strides one time or once a month. But every week? Every easy run? Maybe that’s when we get into the red)

problem is ppl always fall in love with eating the icing with a spoon and forget to check in on the cake which is overcooking

i think you can do it but it certainly can be overrated.

i think Bakkens points about being hyper careful in the specific period were vary clarifying. before he said vague allusion to it like 'you cant let your threshold go down too much' but that could mean a lot of things. What was interesting about what he said from his time as a pro was he was constantly monitoring his progress with 'speed' work and seems like he was willing to make radical changes to keep things in check -- radical changes back to the basics though, taking his foot off the gas to make sure he wasnt in danger of burning the house down. I dont think that insight can be highlighted enough. You have all the advantages of being a pro and you still need to be hyper vigilant and conservative even after building a huge base, intensity control, all the variables tracked, a pro can still burn all that down by letting their metabolic profile change too drastically because they had to hit 'x,y,z' workouts during their build/competitive period

strides, when done properly, are probably the safest add, but again, unless you are inside that racing window, you dont need to add the stress of doing them just to do them -- they add more time to the workout, might want to change your shoes, etc. It's just potentially another pain in the A thing to worry about when the overall attitude of this approach should be: 'not too hard, eh, good enough for the day'

i think these things always need to be contextualized around how often you are racing as well. if youre racing frequently, you are getting almost all these varying stimuli in one sitting. sure, maybe everything didnt come together in the first race or two, but the trap is then to start making radical changes to force the fitness, which you certainly open the door for yourself when you think you're going to keep it contained

just like plastic surgery for celebs, cant just stop at the botox, gotta keep pushing

Afterall, you cant just wax just the fenders on your old car, am i right?

Just to answer. Because I think this is a great question. Why do people run 15min off this program?

Let's look at this through a different lens, where we have a far longer history of knowledge: high school runners.

When do big breakthroughs occur? Generally after a sustained summer base of consistent aerobic work. Now, some programs include some tempo, strides, fartlek, others mostly mileage. But how many times as a HS coach do you see a big jump in fitness and times after a solid summer base? All the time.

Then you say "just wait until I start the 'speedwork'!" Well, some kids get a lot sharper, some kids get hurt, some kids mess up the balance.

Do we then say, forget it no 'speed work' for the latter groups? No, we make adjustments.

So again for the 50th time, why do people run 15min or kinda fast off this? For the same reason that every year HS kids run 15-16 something at the local 4th of July fun run or the first practice XC meet of the year despite doing mostly easy running. Aerobic development matters a lot. And consistent aerobic work is king.

It goes back to a point I made in the video and this thread. This training is really good at getting you to be 6-8 weeks from running pretty dang fast at a variety of distances.

My only argument is that: That's great. We need to build a base/foundation. But if you want to go a touch faster, and minimize some of the risks, especially with aging (FT fibers erode at a quicker rate, we lose speed/power faster, VO2max declines faster without propping it up with at least a touch of intensity), it makes sense to prepare your body for some of the demands.

How much? Depends on your situation.

I think in this case, the simplicity of the program gets in the way. Because everyone (including most of the 100pg of thread) see it as: 3 sub LT + lots of easy. So whenever someone says: Oh change something, it's okay, I'll replace 1 sub LT with X workout.

Instead, I'd zoom out and look at over the month, what are you doing. What's the minimum effective dose you could insert. Maybe that's 1-2x in the month, taking that 25min of LT, cutting it to 18min total and adding 5x30sec at 5k pace at the end as a start. And then progressing from there. Depending on the goals, this could include moving to faster work, or extending that mini workout.

Again, there's lots of ways to do this. Again, maybe I'm reading it all completely wrong. But most of the arguments on "adjustments" "I've seen have been: I took 1 sub LT session and made it a VO2max workout. And I blew up..."

I'm not here to create a program. I'm just here to educate. If it's helpful to see progressions, I'm happy to show simple progressions.

And I totally get the constraints. I have 2 kids at 2 or under. I only get 45min a day to run or so, all pushing a stroller. While working full time at a bunch of stuff. Yet, still this year I ran 4:45 for a mile pushing my toddler in a stroller. Not too long ago I ran a 5min mile pushing two kids in a double stroller. There's always tradeoffs in the real world. Maybe I'll create my masters stroller mile program: 35mpw, 1 split tempo, 1 faster rhythm workout a week...no workouts anywhere close to going to the well. Repeat for months. Run kinda fast. There's my program. I just need a catchy name.

probably why people settled on 42 days/6 weeks for CTL: you can probably do whatever you want for up to 42 days/6 weeks and then you are smoked and have to pay the toll and go back to foundational base building

hills reps are very athlete dependent. bakken said he didnt do hills specifically and preferred flat 200s, assuming for risk of injury. it was probably risk reward in his mind and hes doing 5ks not the mile. If you are focusing middle distance your stride needs to be more powerful to produce the speed necessary and you need to be in touch with your speed year round. I think when you are a hobbyjogger running 5ks and up and not running championship style sit and kick races, kinda becomes superfluous at that point

also if you have any lower leg issues or are prone to lower legs issues, wouldnt advise to add in hills for S and giggles

Running with the Bugaboos

Better Training for Stroller Rollers

Steve is a big boy. He can defend himself. At the end of the day his job is to make content, not make people happy. He is obviously going to get more challenge in a thread like this that has had plenty of high level discussion, rather than YouTube comments with people who will hang on his every word. That's just the audience.

The main issue I think most people have is that Steve has posed the same changes, no problem. But the same comments that have been done over and over and over, here, Strava, Reddit. This isn't particularly aimed at Steve, but we have all probably had this discussion a hundred times on various platforms and it always comes down to really the same thing, nobody on hobby jogging level can actually rationalize or provide compelling evidence for really making any shifts in the focus of how this thread started and what it's grown into. Again, I want to make this clear. Hobby level.

That's not Steve's fault, he was bound to have to touch on this and make content. That's his job. Not everyone has to agree with anything Steve Magness says and I'm sure he would agree there's stuff he could still learn.

He's not lexel or Coggan, at the end of the day. Despite me totally disagreeing with him on this matter.

Please can we not mention Coggan or Lexel. I think they have their names on the RSS feed for the thread and you say their name three times they reappear when dawn breaks the next morning.

One thing I think could be hugely valuable if you are not going to race every 4 weeks, would be to do a type of workout youve advocated in the past, the "Blend" workout.

To me that really gives you a lot of flexibility and benefits and race type characteristics that you could progress in a very controlled and trackable manner.

Youre getting speed, capacity, metabolic flexibility and resilience all in one workout -- its a little more annoying of a workout to pull off, but thats one i dont think is utilized nearly enough by folks if you are considering a workout to replace a race or prepare for racing

Would you agree that for somebody, like me, who is hitting consistent 5k PBs with this method, that it wouldn’t make sense to change things until I reach a point of stagnation?

As an additional anecdote, been doing this training for around 4 months solid. Sub-T around 6 minute miles, or just under. Had no problem dipping just under 5 min mile for 3 km last weekend when I did my first proper trial. So, haven’t seem to have lost any of my top end speed.

Coggan chose 42 days as the default time constant for CTL based on the scientific literature.

trainingpeaks.com

The Science of the TrainingPeaks Performance Manager

@trainingpeaks

Dr. Andy Coggan explains the incredible science behind the Performance Management Chart in TrainingPeaks.

Open link

Yeah same sort of thing. I did a mile race and set my clubs master age group record. 21s faster than my 5k pace per km and about 35s per km faster than any workout than I have done in 16 months training like this. I've missed 12 days in that whole time. I can't believe I can survive 7 days a week, I thought those days were long gone and I've never in all my years managed to stay injury free, running every day, for so long.

I can't lie, I was terrified by the lack of speedwork. It's more a fear of what you are familiar , or comfortable with, more than anything I think. It's hard to get your head around looking from the outside in. But it just works.

But it's very simple, the aggregate gains of managing quite easily 3 sessions a week on rinse and repeat, far outweigh what speedwork brings. I just can't see the argument for why on earth even after 16 months i would do anything else when im still improving ? That's crazy to me that anyone would consider it. I know you can't compare like for like, but sirpoc went down one path and KI another. KI was probably ahead but totally went off piste, sirpoc stayed absolutely down the narrow and went to another level in comparison.

Been training 27 years and kick myself most days for absolutely chasing the need for speed when I was younger and nearer my best. If I look at old logs getting greedy with speed and the recovery needed is almost always the root cause of my problems. It's different for elites. They can handle it more, they don't have external pressures and they are obvioisly adapted to handle more load.

You can't go just by age graded, I know it has flaws, but I'm way better compared to my peers than I ever have been in my life. Like significantly than I genuinely think my club mates think I'm jucing. The highest compliment to this training I can give!