Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

CHill Runs wrote:

sir poopy book wrote:

Any update on the book? Anyone with inside scoop if it's going to happen? Just hadn't seen an update in a while.

Btw good job FOD runner, great to see him embracing NSM.

Great race FOD runner!

I think it’s okay to share that I’ve had the opportunity to read Sirpoc’s book draft. I don’t know what that means for release date, but his book is excellent. It’s the most valuable and practical running book I’ve read.

Even if someone doesn’t subscribe to spamming sub T, the racing sections, tapering, adjusting for conditions, plus technical dives are world class. He has an incredible story to tell while also providing a really practical reference book. I will look it over before my 5k this weekend to estimate 5k fitness and create a pacing plan given conditions (elevation,wind,heat, etc).

This was a super cool part of the book. A few very clean guidelines on how to adjust pacing in certain conditions. Tables depicting how much to expect to slow down per M elevation gain/ loss, temps, and wind etc given real world data. This is super valuable for workouts and racing!!

As an early reader of this thread, there were aspects of the book that I hadn’t seen before. It’s going to be nice when there’s a defining document that lays everything out so we don’t have to spam eachother with questions 🤣

sjm1368 wrote:

idiotonthenet2 wrote:

I thought Steve's video was somewhat disingenuous when talking about the limitations of the method, because he seemed to be saying that at some point you need to introduce some speed work to balance out the reduction in the anaerobic capacity, using the example of Ron Clarke never winning gold, and that eventually you need to think about pulling threshold up from above rather than just pushing up from below.

I don't think he's wrong per se but I thought it was interesting that he didn't discuss at what point the gains that you might see from pushing up from below might diminish and require additional stimulus. I think that's maybe the part that I would see as disingenuous, because Steve must be aware that for every Ron Clarke there's a thousand hobby joggers who can't break 20 mins in the 5k (and these are probably a large part of his audience!) - none of those hobby joggers need to worry about their anaerobic capacity.

So in summary, I would say that maybe Steve falls into the trap of missing the wider context - that the limitations of the method, where the tipping point is crossed - are way beyond the scope of the average hobby jogger.

Happy to answer a few questions.

A few points:
1. I'm not being disingenuous. I'm trying to use examples that resonate with a large swatch of people. I'm not going to be able to address every situation in a 25minute video. I wrote a 250 page dense book on running....and still couldn't address every situation. My goal is to give clear principles that help people. Which in this video it's that training is like a see-saw. And that balance depends on the individual and event they are training for. The Clarke example is an easy one to show what happens when we neglect a component.

2. I'd argue that SOME of those novices do need to worry about the speed/anaerobic side because novices are often way more FT orientated. Not always, depending on the event. But it's why you see some novices respond really well to Igloi style/Easy Interval Method. Because they are much more FT orientated, so you run "easy" intervals.

3. I think NWS is great for building aerobic abilities. As I said, I did something similar in 2005. It's all derived from Bakken's work. It worked well. But if not counterbalanced, it will erode your anaerobic/speed side. To put it simply, you'll go from running a 50sec 400 with 18mmol of lactate at the end, to a 52 second 400, only able to produce 14mmol. Now, for some, that won't matter. For others, it does. It depends on the event and individual.

The solution to counterbalance that is low risk and doesn't add much stress. So I tend to favor counterbalancing that. Whether it's through hill sprints, some 200s or 150s, or any number of options, I like that approach better.

4. As far as when do you need to switch from mostly sub-LT to a different stimulus? It's impossible to give a prescription on that. It varies a lot. But in trained athletes, you generally see a plateau at between 6-8 weeks of repeating the same types of workout over and over, based on lactate testing. This is a very rough rule of thumb. But what you tend to see is sub LT stuff does a good job of flattening and shifting the left hand side of the lactate curve, but where the alternations/pulling up really helps is making sure once you go past that threshold your lactate doesn't shoot up exponentially. Again, I'm simplifying a bit.

But the point is, why stick to

5. THe last point I'll make is I think NWS works because it just gets novice athletes to stop doing dumb workouts and emphasize aerobic training. Many serious novices try to hammer their hard workouts to prove fitness. And then neglect their easy/aerobic side. But if you look at how most elites train, their hard workouts might look crazy to you, but they're mostly under control. They accumulate a high volume because their aerobic systems are so developed they can just recover, bounce back, and handle it. WIth novices, they aren't.

Again, I think that's a great thing. But I don't think we should look at is as some magic solution, or not acknowledge that it has tradeoffs. For some those tradeoffs will matter. For others, not so much.

The way I see training is simple. There is no perfect system. The best coaches and athletes understand a myriad of systems so that they can apply items from each....dependent on the athlete sitting in front of you. Don't wed yourself to a rigid system.

Anyways, keep up the good work, and best of luck. If you want some questions answered, throw thema at my youtube. Thanks

Alfie wrote:

old_skool50 wrote:

I don’t think Steve was being disingenuous, but I believe he’s fallen into the trap of viewing training from a top-down, elite perspective. It’s an easy mistake to make when analyzing running programs. However, I think this approach is flawed for hobby joggers.

To me, the genius of Sirpoc’s approach lies in three key aspects:

He had no preconceived notions about how runners train.

He drew on his success from another sport, that wasn't a mainstream approach at the time either.

Most importantly, he approached the problem from the bottom up, focusing on the needs of everyday runners.

This bottom-up perspective is what many overlook. It’s why Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is best followed closely, or at least with its core principles in mind. For hobby joggers, our primary limitation is almost certainly aerobic capacity. Other factors matter far less and don’t need to be isolated for improvement.

Easier said than done, of course. It’s tempting to tweak the program with old habits or ideas picked up elsewhere, but I believe adding the elements Steve suggests—even for runners in the 15–16-minute 5K range—misses the forest for the trees. While I agree with Steve that certain factors become limiters at the sub-elite or elite level, for most of us in this thread, focusing on Sirpoc’s principles and making the best use of our limited training time is the way to go. There's just far too many testimonials to ignore and far too many who have tried to get clever with it or add in more traditional work and have messed the balance up.

This focus on aerobic capacity, combined with Sirpoc’s finer details, is what makes his approach so unique and eye-opening for hobby joggers. It’s not easy—sticking to the plan is challenging, and the urge to revert to old habits is easy, I've make this mistake myself.

While I agree with Steve that we’ll eventually need to identify when to do more, I disagree that simply adding intensity, pushing the boat out, or getting greedy fast—as we’ve seen people want to do in this thread—is the answer. The answer is to carefully understand what is going on and add in more volume whilst finely balancing it. Again, I think I've seen enough from others to know if you get this right, you can basically keep getting faster without rocking the boat.

I’m excited about the book. Based on Chillruns’ glowing review, I hope and assume it’s designed to address the challenges of hobby jogging, rather than scaling down elite training methods. That’s the secret sauce here and a trap many coaches fall into when working with hobby clients.

Sorry, Steve, if this feels like I’m singling you out—I don’t mean it as criticism. I just think the bottom-up approach is a hugely overlooked factor. Before I trained like this, I was obsessed with how Jakob’s methods could apply to me. In retrospect, what elites like Jakob do is almost irrelevant to my life as a hobby jogger. Sirpoc’s carefully balanced Norwegian singles approach is far more relevant. Most of us could replicate it 1:1 if we prioritized our time. But it’s so finely tuned that tweaking it too much can lead to problems.

Just my thoughts. Great to see this thread still going strong!

Just trying to pin this down a bit more. For those arguing that extra speedwork is not needed. How do you see the monthly all out 5K TT? Simply to confirm training paces, otherwise not necessary? Or is the TT a necessary training component?

coaching pays wrote:

BoingBoingo wrote:

Agree with all of this. The final factor that sirpoc takes into account is time spent training. It's basically about maximizing load/hr spent. And this method is a way to do that.

Steve has a coaching business to protect. Same with guys like Fitzgerald who also tried to get involved. As a former coach myself, it would be hard to admit that for your client base, a middle aged British dude who seemingly doesn't even like running, has come up with something more relatable. So they have no choice but to add their own take on it to sell you coaching. It's obviously too hard to just ignore, as I've seen their social media and the like asking for NSM plans.

Let alone to add in the guy will finally lay it all out in a neat format book by the sounds of it, for probably the cost of a few beers we all owe the guy, rather than 100 bucks a month to get some plan that probably has no relevance to a guy who can't break 19 in a 5k.

sjm1368 wrote:

I just want to add one thing. I think sometimes when we talk training, we get defensive. We want to PROVE our system is the best. And I think you see that in this thread, and elsewhere.

I've got no dog in the fight. My only point and what I try to do is to share context and knowledge with others. I'm not trying to sell a training plan or even coaching. It's why I've got videos and discussions on ALL intervals (Igloi), as well as nearly all endurance (Van Aaken) and everything in between.

I don't think it's coming from the bottom up or top down. It's just understanding training. As I'll point out, I've trained people pretty much this exact way before (for a shorter period). Did I get there through bottom up or top down? I think it's a kind of meaningless distinction. Because any good coach is going to look at who is sitting in front of you and figure out: how do I train them well. Not, how do I shove them into some preconceived system.

I think what's missed in here is that: NWS is just a very very very simple program designed to keep people from doing dumb things. ANd that's great. We have a lot of runners who do dumb things. It's essentially the restricted diet way of training. The way restrictive diets work is they simplify decisions for folks so they don't do dumb things. So they say "Never eat sugar!" even though the truth is some sugar can be fine, and even great (if you're training).

I tend to want to teach folks how to train and periodize better. Instead of overly constrain to make sure people don't mess up. But I also understand we need both sides.

The last thing I'll add... twenty years ago we simply called this approach: 6 weeks out from being able to run fast at most races. It was to jack up LT, which gave you the ability to be in good enough shape to run fast, especially if you had a few weeks to sharpen up. Literally, it was 2 sub T (sometimes 3) sessions a week, hill sprints, everything else easy. And the hill sprints were done the right way, non-fatiguing. I've got a few old training logs of kids I coached and that was it for months...

I'll now take credit for developing the Houston Single Threshold Training system. (All in jest...).

Is it anything special? No. It's just a good way to boost high end aerobic system. One of many ways.

Again, take it or leave it. I'm just adding context and nuance. I still think most of the problems arise from people not understanding training intensity or workout design....which is why I'll continue to put out resources to help people learn.

All the best with whatever training you decide to do.

vlk89 wrote:

sjm1368 wrote:

I just want to add one thing. I think sometimes when we talk training, we get defensive. We want to PROVE our system is the best. And I think you see that in this thread, and elsewhere.

I've got no dog in the fight. My only point and what I try to do is to share context and knowledge with others. I'm not trying to sell a training plan or even coaching. It's why I've got videos and discussions on ALL intervals (Igloi), as well as nearly all endurance (Van Aaken) and everything in between.

I don't think it's coming from the bottom up or top down. It's just understanding training. As I'll point out, I've trained people pretty much this exact way before (for a shorter period). Did I get there through bottom up or top down? I think it's a kind of meaningless distinction. Because any good coach is going to look at who is sitting in front of you and figure out: how do I train them well. Not, how do I shove them into some preconceived system.

I think what's missed in here is that: NWS is just a very very very simple program designed to keep people from doing dumb things. ANd that's great. We have a lot of runners who do dumb things. It's essentially the restricted diet way of training. The way restrictive diets work is they simplify decisions for folks so they don't do dumb things. So they say "Never eat sugar!" even though the truth is some sugar can be fine, and even great (if you're training).

I tend to want to teach folks how to train and periodize better. Instead of overly constrain to make sure people don't mess up. But I also understand we need both sides.

The last thing I'll add... twenty years ago we simply called this approach: 6 weeks out from being able to run fast at most races. It was to jack up LT, which gave you the ability to be in good enough shape to run fast, especially if you had a few weeks to sharpen up. Literally, it was 2 sub T (sometimes 3) sessions a week, hill sprints, everything else easy. And the hill sprints were done the right way, non-fatiguing. I've got a few old training logs of kids I coached and that was it for months...

I'll now take credit for developing the Houston Single Threshold Training system. (All in jest...).

Is it anything special? No. It's just a good way to boost high end aerobic system. One of many ways.

Again, take it or leave it. I'm just adding context and nuance. I still think most of the problems arise from people not understanding training intensity or workout design....which is why I'll continue to put out resources to help people learn.

All the best with whatever training you decide to do.

Most training is the same. There's actually not much difference. But, I do disagree on your point about top down, bottom up.

I wholeheartedly agree with the guy who posted this and I think it's an excellent point. I would say the vast majority of hobby joggers at some point have fallen into the trap of copying elites. It's almost the thing I hate the most about coaching. No matter what you say, coaches who take on hobby jogger clients for the most part just scale down plans they are familiar with at elite level, which are doomed to failure. OK, doomed to failure is probably unfair, but it almost certainly makes a lot of coaching sub optimal and certainly not the best bang for buck that said hobby joggers client paid for.

You have to remember, coaching for the most part is 90% used by just guys who have money to spare, can't be bothered to look into it themselves or hire a coach.
That's where I would also agree the charm of this thread is, it's effectively the working mans free pass to success (I will also add the the price of a 6-8 pack, we owe him a book purchase!). Like the other guy said, he hasn't fallen into this cycle. Or more to the point, did with his original running training but broke it before it was too late thankfully, hence we have this wonderful thread.

I also don't think people are protective of this training. I do think a lot of people have been here for a couple of years at this point and seen just about everyone on a hobby level trying to get cute with it and the wheels start to come off, so are exhausted with trying to warm people off the well trodden path for no reason.

You aren't trying to ice the cake here and shouldn't be. Even KI in my opinion made a mess of it for a good year or so. Again, I think that is because Henrik was coaching him and the confusion of what worked for Jakob wasn't necessary in the slightest for KI at that point.

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.

2 wrote:

To me one key part of this idiot-proof training is the fact that there are no "hero workouts". As a hobby jogger who caught the itch in 2020, the first thing I found was Hal Higdon's training plans, then Pete Pfitz's, then Hanson's. I remember having some solid races but also feeling so beat up during training. But, there were inevitable days where I had to move training around, because of travel, getting sick, a niggle, whatever. Then I asked myself, how the heck am I supposed to fit in this 17 mile long run with 14 at MP and then a 9 mile run the next day in, and then get to my medium long run, and so on... Without a proper coach, I was screwed.

The thing I love about this is there's no guilt or catch up needed. If I have to miss a workout, no big deal. It's essentially the same workout every time anyways. Or if I need to take an extra easy day or skip because of time constraints, no problem I think this is also an underrated part of this training.

cpc46 wrote:

idiots always found out wrote:

Everything Steve has said, is valid. But not for hobby joggers, let alone the guys jumping on this who are masters. Make those changes and let us know how it goes. Strava is absolutely littered with guys who have found this out the hard way. It's a story almost as old as the thread itself. You can do these things, but you will be giving something up, or at least need to, in another area, which eat into the low hanging aerobic gains fruit.

I cannot emphasise enough as others have already pointed out, magness is well down the list of guys who have tried to improve this, f**ked around and found out.

It's like we are just ignoring all we have learned in two years of this thread. There is room for shifting round a bit here and there, but you are always then making a compromise somewhere else. Then suddenly, you aren't training the same way anymore anyway, or losing the focus.

Yeah it's a tale very familiar. Guy doesn't think sirpoc training offers enough, makes adjustments, makes it unbalanced and then will complain sirpoc training doesn't work for them, despite them not following how it's designed.

It's kind of mad we keep coming back to people wanting to tweak the parts they don't like, or add in stuff that's deliberately avoided as part of very careful planning. Then the training doesn't work.

There's also plenty of other training programs out there to try, that will work better by design as intended if you can't stick to this approach within pretty narrow parameters.

For me, I follow sirpoc, grandmas guy plus the old US master who has broken 15 recently in the 5k. You know what they all have in common? They haven't got cute with it or messed with it. It's absolutely just doing what needs to be done. Also, the guy on Reddit who ran like a 2:4x marathon and had never broken 3:10 before in like ten attempts? Again, whilst he is not as fast as the above mentioned, his progress is absolutely ridiculous. He also ran a crazy mile PB by almost a minute. Same pattern, just weeks, months and I think well over a year of this point of just following things absolutely as laid out and still improving.

That's good enough for me to stick to it. It's like the same debate about FT and ST that comes up. By my count there is at least a dozen guys on this thread alone who were all FT and speed guys, who in the end just stuck to it as laid out and improved massively, with slight road humps at the beginning but then coming out the other side without worrying about FT v ST. That evidence again is overwhelming in the confines of this system, yet guys still will die on the hill that this must be tweaked for ST despite all the first hand evidence in the real world.

Runners just can't help themselves. Always looking for the magic formula. I think what people are struggling with is that for a hobby jogger we have as close to found it as you'll get. All the evidence certainly points to it. The reason the thread is so big is because time goes on and there's more success. For real, the strike rate of this system over anything else is ridiculously good.

sjm1368 wrote:

idiots always found out wrote:

Everything Steve has said, is valid. But not for hobby joggers, let alone the guys jumping on this who are masters. Make those changes and let us know how it goes. Strava is absolutely littered with guys who have found this out the hard way. It's a story almost as old as the thread itself. You can do these things, but you will be giving something up, or at least need to, in another area, which eat into the low hanging aerobic gains fruit.

I cannot emphasise enough as others have already pointed out, magness is well down the list of guys who have tried to improve this, f**ked around and found out.

It's like we are just ignoring all we have learned in two years of this thread. There is room for shifting round a bit here and there, but you are always then making a compromise somewhere else. Then suddenly, you aren't training the same way anymore anyway, or losing the focus.

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.

sjm1368 wrote:

John Whelan wrote:

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?

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.