Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Speed question during NSA wrote:

And Almgren is very candid about the purpose of the Norwegian method (at least in his mind) is to build a monster base of aerobic endurance so that you can handle massive amounts of specificity relative to your peers when the time comes to run your key races. That's obviously a pretty different approach compared to the NSA standard orthodoxy.

So that’s pretty much what every training plan ever developed (except NSA) does. Lydiard, Pfitz, Daniels, and what Magness was trying to say. you even look at other sports like cycling and this is standard.

you build a base because aerobic development takes a long time to see gains but you also hold on to that base for a while while you work on other things, eg anaerobic capacity.

I think anyone with any knowledge of physiology and aerobic training sees how NSA is just that - a good and very simple way to build your aerobic base.

Speed question during NSA wrote:

And Almgren is very candid about the purpose of the Norwegian method (at least in his mind) is to build a monster base of aerobic endurance so that you can handle massive amounts of specificity relative to your peers when the time comes to run your key races. That's obviously a pretty different approach compared to the NSA standard orthodoxy.

So that’s pretty much what every training plan ever developed (except NSA) does. Lydiard, Pfitz, Daniels, and what Magness was trying to say. you even look at other sports like cycling and this is standard.

you build a base because aerobic development takes a long time to see gains but you also hold on to that base for a while while you work on other things, eg anaerobic capacity.

I think anyone with any knowledge of physiology and aerobic training sees how NSA is just that - a good and very simple way to build your aerobic base.

Running UberNerd wrote:

Speed question during NSA wrote:

So that’s pretty much what every training plan ever developed (except NSA) does. Lydiard, Pfitz, Daniels, and what Magness was trying to say. you even look at other sports like cycling and this is standard.

you build a base because aerobic development takes a long time to see gains but you also hold on to that base for a while while you work on other things, eg anaerobic capacity.

I think anyone with any knowledge of physiology and aerobic training sees how NSA is just that - a good and very simple way to build your aerobic base.

Yes and no. I think the actual Norwegian method as described by Almgren is pretty distinctive. Zero long runs. Five days of high-volume specific workouts in a 14 day period. It probably actually more closely resembles true old school Lydiard training to some degree, but I think that’s pretty different from most modern training methods. Most American training methods would keep at least semi-regular long runs and mixed pace sessions in season. Norwegian training is hammering high and low volume aerobic systems during the base phase and then hammering specificity and low volume aerobic in season, with just a semi-regular dose of threshold so as to not lose it completely. It’s a unique application of those approaches in both phases, in my opinion.

Cheetodust wrote:

where is the old guy? wrote:

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.

It’s me the old guy mentioned. I’m coming up on almost two years of doing the plain vanilla method. I’ve had a week or two with small injuries but mostly healthy. Answer a few of the questions. Since adopting this method, (now 43y) I’ve dropped 4:35->4:20 mile, 15:45->14:55 5k, and ran 2:00. In the 800, plus better xc results. These are all times I figured were well beyond in my rear view. Unlike many in the thread, I raced at a pretty high level, topping out around 30 years old, trials all that. But I stagnated big time in my late 30’s early 40’s. I still ran every day. I used to love speed work but it tore me up physically and honestly this method showed how poor my aerobic abilities were.
i tried the x-factor stuff, did hills the first summer, got no change in effect besides more lower limb stiffness. So I just went back to the original 3 workouts.

i have a full time job, kids, busy schedule. Understanding that it’s just load helped me realize I could just knock out time based sessions on the treadmill at night when life was busy with the same results, if not better. I am extreme in how much I don’t care about the details. I love the set it and forget aspect, my true love being racing itself. I’ve gotten way better at racing after 30 years of running, been invigorating. I use HR and essentially rpe since I barely look at my watch during reps at this point.
The things I’ve had to dial in actually is I was feeling stale when the gun went off for races, and found a 800-1k at LT in my warmup was super effective on race day. Beyond that, I don’t even taper besides chopping my closest workout down to 60% if it’s a big race.
i could do any number of things bigger and better but nothing would I be able to sustain like this.

sjm1368 wrote:

I think a lot of the confusion comes around this:

I made a video to answer a simple question asked by viewers: how would I evaluate the training program as a whole. So I did that. It's positives, what it does well, what it lacks, what to watch out for. And overall I said: It's a great way to build aerobically. It's drawbacks are it's one dimensional and neglects speed.

What you all are asking in this thread is a different question, which is: I've been doing this training for X months, should I adjust.

And I've been criticized for not giving substance, which I don't know what that means exactly. But part of that is because the answer to the above question is always contextual, and always...don't change much and do so gradually.

Like, if you came to me doing 200m repeats every single day and you were PRing, I wouldn't immediately drastically alter that. I'd say okay. Let's evaluate what is missing from your program. Let's evaluate where you are at relative to your goals. Let's weigh the costs and benefits. And then make gradual changes.

The first step is always looking at what is there and what's missing.

I've seen it all. I've got world class 5k runners who didn't have a single threshold or tempo run in their training. Some without any strength/power/pure speed. Some with no long runs. Others with no long repeats. And on and on. It doesn't mean you instantly say "Ah, no tempo runs, let's load them up." You say...okay how is this impacting you, is it worth it.

How do you evaluate that? You look at their goals and their physiology. With elites, I often do a lactate test that includes a threshold step test + a max 400. Or sometimes you do a speed reserve test. Or sometimes you simply compare race results. How does their 800-1500-5k, or their 5k-10k-half marathon line up? Or where do they line up in terms of workout strengths (do they kill tempos but struggle on 200s, or long runs.)

That gives you an idea on where the weak link in the chain is. Is your 5k at 4:50 pace, but your 10k is at 5:00 pace...well we can't get the 10k any closer. So we have to investigate why your 5k is stuck at 4:50. Sometimes that answer is way down the chain, sometimes its closer by.

Then you look....hmm is this reflected in training? Do you have that weak link because you never do anything faster than 5k pace? Or whatever the reason may be.

Now, with amateurs, you've got more weak links everywhere. So the truth is you just do something pretty good for a long while and you've got room to grow. But again, you make that evaluation on an individual basis.

Once you've got all that sorted, then you start looking at what's the easiest, risk free way to introduce a solution. And then you get to workout progressions, blends, combos, etc.

So again, maybe this all comes down to, oh Steve isn't giving us exacting answers. That's because there are none. There is no formula for training or coaching.

For the guy who said he's happy, injury free, and running well. Well, don't change much. To the guy who says his shorter distance is blocked, a weak link, well...gradually change something. And no, don't just run more 5ks.... Be systematic about it. I don't think a 5k race is less risky stimulus than a well-crafted progression of 200s, 300s, or 400s, in a controlled fashion. Or adding in some short work in a combo workout. Again, the exact workouts...depends on what the weak link is (is it rhythm/mechanical, physiology (able to tap into speed/FT fibers), etc.).

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I think a lot of the issues in this group (and amateurs) in general is you suck at running workouts. Everything becomes an X factor workout. A test. A proving ground. So you associate speed work with risk.

Instead of seeing that Bob Schul built world class endurance and a very high threshold doing the vast majority of his workouts at distances of less than 300 meters. Again, not suggesting you try that. But just suggesting you expand your definition of intervals to see more controlled, aerobic, etc. style.

And to the guy who asked about coaching. I'd love to, but life is way too hectic to commit to any other coaching folks. I coach a handful of elites because of the challenge of it.

Anyways, I'm really no trying to pump content for contents sake on youtube or elsewhere. I made a video because I had a bunch of people ask. So I gave my honest thoughts based on physiology, history, and my experience. I've done the same for many programs. Every program has it's flaws, including my own training preferences.

sjm1368 wrote:

I think a lot of the confusion comes around this:

I made a video to answer a simple question asked by viewers: how would I evaluate the training program as a whole. So I did that. It's positives, what it does well, what it lacks, what to watch out for. And overall I said: It's a great way to build aerobically. It's drawbacks are it's one dimensional and neglects speed.

What you all are asking in this thread is a different question, which is: I've been doing this training for X months, should I adjust.

And I've been criticized for not giving substance, which I don't know what that means exactly. But part of that is because the answer to the above question is always contextual, and always...don't change much and do so gradually.

Like, if you came to me doing 200m repeats every single day and you were PRing, I wouldn't immediately drastically alter that. I'd say okay. Let's evaluate what is missing from your program. Let's evaluate where you are at relative to your goals. Let's weigh the costs and benefits. And then make gradual changes.

The first step is always looking at what is there and what's missing.

I've seen it all. I've got world class 5k runners who didn't have a single threshold or tempo run in their training. Some without any strength/power/pure speed. Some with no long runs. Others with no long repeats. And on and on. It doesn't mean you instantly say "Ah, no tempo runs, let's load them up." You say...okay how is this impacting you, is it worth it.

How do you evaluate that? You look at their goals and their physiology. With elites, I often do a lactate test that includes a threshold step test + a max 400. Or sometimes you do a speed reserve test. Or sometimes you simply compare race results. How does their 800-1500-5k, or their 5k-10k-half marathon line up? Or where do they line up in terms of workout strengths (do they kill tempos but struggle on 200s, or long runs.)

That gives you an idea on where the weak link in the chain is. Is your 5k at 4:50 pace, but your 10k is at 5:00 pace...well we can't get the 10k any closer. So we have to investigate why your 5k is stuck at 4:50. Sometimes that answer is way down the chain, sometimes its closer by.

Then you look....hmm is this reflected in training? Do you have that weak link because you never do anything faster than 5k pace? Or whatever the reason may be.

Now, with amateurs, you've got more weak links everywhere. So the truth is you just do something pretty good for a long while and you've got room to grow. But again, you make that evaluation on an individual basis.

Once you've got all that sorted, then you start looking at what's the easiest, risk free way to introduce a solution. And then you get to workout progressions, blends, combos, etc.

So again, maybe this all comes down to, oh Steve isn't giving us exacting answers. That's because there are none. There is no formula for training or coaching.

For the guy who said he's happy, injury free, and running well. Well, don't change much. To the guy who says his shorter distance is blocked, a weak link, well...gradually change something. And no, don't just run more 5ks.... Be systematic about it. I don't think a 5k race is less risky stimulus than a well-crafted progression of 200s, 300s, or 400s, in a controlled fashion. Or adding in some short work in a combo workout. Again, the exact workouts...depends on what the weak link is (is it rhythm/mechanical, physiology (able to tap into speed/FT fibers), etc.).

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I think a lot of the issues in this group (and amateurs) in general is you suck at running workouts. Everything becomes an X factor workout. A test. A proving ground. So you associate speed work with risk.

Instead of seeing that Bob Schul built world class endurance and a very high threshold doing the vast majority of his workouts at distances of less than 300 meters. Again, not suggesting you try that. But just suggesting you expand your definition of intervals to see more controlled, aerobic, etc. style.

And to the guy who asked about coaching. I'd love to, but life is way too hectic to commit to any other coaching folks. I coach a handful of elites because of the challenge of it.

Anyways, I'm really no trying to pump content for contents sake on youtube or elsewhere. I made a video because I had a bunch of people ask. So I gave my honest thoughts based on physiology, history, and my experience. I've done the same for many programs. Every program has it's flaws, including my own training preferences.

1500m-enthusiast wrote:

sjm1368 wrote:

I think a lot of the confusion comes around this:

I made a video to answer a simple question asked by viewers: how would I evaluate the training program as a whole. So I did that. It's positives, what it does well, what it lacks, what to watch out for. And overall I said: It's a great way to build aerobically. It's drawbacks are it's one dimensional and neglects speed.

What you all are asking in this thread is a different question, which is: I've been doing this training for X months, should I adjust.

And I've been criticized for not giving substance, which I don't know what that means exactly. But part of that is because the answer to the above question is always contextual, and always...don't change much and do so gradually.

Like, if you came to me doing 200m repeats every single day and you were PRing, I wouldn't immediately drastically alter that. I'd say okay. Let's evaluate what is missing from your program. Let's evaluate where you are at relative to your goals. Let's weigh the costs and benefits. And then make gradual changes.

The first step is always looking at what is there and what's missing.

I've seen it all. I've got world class 5k runners who didn't have a single threshold or tempo run in their training. Some without any strength/power/pure speed. Some with no long runs. Others with no long repeats. And on and on. It doesn't mean you instantly say "Ah, no tempo runs, let's load them up." You say...okay how is this impacting you, is it worth it.

How do you evaluate that? You look at their goals and their physiology. With elites, I often do a lactate test that includes a threshold step test + a max 400. Or sometimes you do a speed reserve test. Or sometimes you simply compare race results. How does their 800-1500-5k, or their 5k-10k-half marathon line up? Or where do they line up in terms of workout strengths (do they kill tempos but struggle on 200s, or long runs.)

That gives you an idea on where the weak link in the chain is. Is your 5k at 4:50 pace, but your 10k is at 5:00 pace...well we can't get the 10k any closer. So we have to investigate why your 5k is stuck at 4:50. Sometimes that answer is way down the chain, sometimes its closer by.

Then you look....hmm is this reflected in training? Do you have that weak link because you never do anything faster than 5k pace? Or whatever the reason may be.

Now, with amateurs, you've got more weak links everywhere. So the truth is you just do something pretty good for a long while and you've got room to grow. But again, you make that evaluation on an individual basis.

Once you've got all that sorted, then you start looking at what's the easiest, risk free way to introduce a solution. And then you get to workout progressions, blends, combos, etc.

So again, maybe this all comes down to, oh Steve isn't giving us exacting answers. That's because there are none. There is no formula for training or coaching.

For the guy who said he's happy, injury free, and running well. Well, don't change much. To the guy who says his shorter distance is blocked, a weak link, well...gradually change something. And no, don't just run more 5ks.... Be systematic about it. I don't think a 5k race is less risky stimulus than a well-crafted progression of 200s, 300s, or 400s, in a controlled fashion. Or adding in some short work in a combo workout. Again, the exact workouts...depends on what the weak link is (is it rhythm/mechanical, physiology (able to tap into speed/FT fibers), etc.).

I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I think a lot of the issues in this group (and amateurs) in general is you suck at running workouts. Everything becomes an X factor workout. A test. A proving ground. So you associate speed work with risk.

Instead of seeing that Bob Schul built world class endurance and a very high threshold doing the vast majority of his workouts at distances of less than 300 meters. Again, not suggesting you try that. But just suggesting you expand your definition of intervals to see more controlled, aerobic, etc. style.

And to the guy who asked about coaching. I'd love to, but life is way too hectic to commit to any other coaching folks. I coach a handful of elites because of the challenge of it.

Anyways, I'm really no trying to pump content for contents sake on youtube or elsewhere. I made a video because I had a bunch of people ask. So I gave my honest thoughts based on physiology, history, and my experience. I've done the same for many programs. Every program has it's flaws, including my own training preferences.

Thanks for continuing to come back to this, Steve. I want to emphasize the point you made on "I don't think a 5k race is a less risky stimulus than a well crafted progression of 200s, 300s or 400s, in a controlled fashion."

Where do we see this very principle demonstrated in direct execution of threshold training? The infamous 20-25 x 400 @~10k with short rest: a high volume of work clearly above threshold pace wise but due to the short intervals and rest, elicits a similar response and stress level to doing longer intervals at true sub T pace.

This is something you illustrated really well on the video where you covered the topic of Aerobic Intervals - modern understanding of threshold and manipulating of rest periods and interval lengths to achieve certain stimuli without incurring excess fatigue.

What you call rhythm 200s have always been a favorite of mine. In season, our down weeks would always include one day of 12-16 of them at mile effort with 200 jog recovery, and I found them to be a nice 6/10 on the effort scale (with traditional VO2 type stuff being like a 9/10) - actually less likely to induce injury than say, 8 x 1k at sub T. That is, so long as I kept the effort on the controlled side - almost feeling like the workout was TOO easy by the end.

sjm1368 wrote:

1500m-enthusiast wrote:

Thanks for continuing to come back to this, Steve. I want to emphasize the point you made on "I don't think a 5k race is a less risky stimulus than a well crafted progression of 200s, 300s or 400s, in a controlled fashion."

Where do we see this very principle demonstrated in direct execution of threshold training? The infamous 20-25 x 400 @~10k with short rest: a high volume of work clearly above threshold pace wise but due to the short intervals and rest, elicits a similar response and stress level to doing longer intervals at true sub T pace.

This is something you illustrated really well on the video where you covered the topic of Aerobic Intervals - modern understanding of threshold and manipulating of rest periods and interval lengths to achieve certain stimuli without incurring excess fatigue.

What you call rhythm 200s have always been a favorite of mine. In season, our down weeks would always include one day of 12-16 of them at mile effort with 200 jog recovery, and I found them to be a nice 6/10 on the effort scale (with traditional VO2 type stuff being like a 9/10) - actually less likely to induce injury than say, 8 x 1k at sub T. That is, so long as I kept the effort on the controlled side - almost feeling like the workout was TOO easy by the end.

THank you. This is such a good point. I want to highlight and reinforce.

NS folks already run "faster" than threshold with the 400s at 10k pace with short rest...

Guess what, you can take the same principle, run a touch faster, and still have lactate at very low levels! How do I know? I've measured it many times You can keep it at 3-4mmol, or 4-6mmol range depending on how you are manipulating the rep length, rest, sets. A touch slower, a touch shorter, easing into it keeps you in the low end of the range.

Do 200s, 150s, 100s at a controlled pace with short rest, often broken into sets to make sure you don't go over the edge, ease into the pace bringing it down from 10k to 5k pace. And guess what....you just created a 5k pace version of the 20-25x400 at 10k pace. Only you get some nice benefits of running faster we've covered.

This is why one of my staple high end aerobic workouts for FT 800 runners is 150s with a 50 walk at !3k-1mile pace. It's aerobic training, but at a more specific pace.

Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. If nothing else, I hope the NS folks see hard workouts through a much broader lens than simply "this is speed work!" Look at your own variation of LT work, from 400s to 1ks to longer reps....All attacking a similar stimulus, even though the pace varies considerably... It's the same for faster workouts.

sjm1368 wrote:

THank you. This is such a good point. I want to highlight and reinforce.

NS folks already run "faster" than threshold with the 400s at 10k pace with short rest...

Guess what, you can take the same principle, run a touch faster, and still have lactate at very low levels! How do I know? I've measured it many times You can keep it at 3-4mmol, or 4-6mmol range depending on how you are manipulating the rep length, rest, sets. A touch slower, a touch shorter, easing into it keeps you in the low end of the range.

Do 200s, 150s, 100s at a controlled pace with short rest, often broken into sets to make sure you don't go over the edge, ease into the pace bringing it down from 10k to 5k pace. And guess what....you just created a 5k pace version of the 20-25x400 at 10k pace. Only you get some nice benefits of running faster we've covered.

This is why one of my staple high end aerobic workouts for FT 800 runners is 150s with a 50 walk at !3k-1mile pace. It's aerobic training, but at a more specific pace.

Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. If nothing else, I hope the NS folks see hard workouts through a much broader lens than simply "this is speed work!" Look at your own variation of LT work, from 400s to 1ks to longer reps....All attacking a similar stimulus, even though the pace varies considerably... It's the same for faster workouts.

Cheetodust wrote:

It’s me the old guy mentioned. I’m coming up on almost two years of doing the plain vanilla method. I’ve had a week or two with small injuries but mostly healthy. Answer a few of the questions. Since adopting this method, (now 43y) I’ve dropped 4:35->4:20 mile, 15:45->14:55 5k, and ran 2:00. In the 800, plus better xc results. These are all times I figured were well beyond in my rear view. Unlike many in the thread, I raced at a pretty high level, topping out around 30 years old, trials all that. But I stagnated big time in my late 30’s early 40’s. I still ran every day. I used to love speed work but it tore me up physically and honestly this method showed how poor my aerobic abilities were.
i tried the x-factor stuff, did hills the first summer, got no change in effect besides more lower limb stiffness. So I just went back to the original 3 workouts.

i have a full time job, kids, busy schedule. Understanding that it’s just load helped me realize I could just knock out time based sessions on the treadmill at night when life was busy with the same results, if not better. I am extreme in how much I don’t care about the details. I love the set it and forget aspect, my true love being racing itself. I’ve gotten way better at racing after 30 years of running, been invigorating. I use HR and essentially rpe since I barely look at my watch during reps at this point.
The things I’ve had to dial in actually is I was feeling stale when the gun went off for races, and found a 800-1k at LT in my warmup was super effective on race day. Beyond that, I don’t even taper besides chopping my closest workout down to 60% if it’s a big race.
i could do any number of things bigger and better but nothing would I be able to sustain like this.