Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I think part of the issue with adding specific work is that many people using this method wouldn’t know what to do. They’re far more likely to mess it up. The method has a very clear, strict layout for what to do each day. For the specific work, do I do what Steve said and add 30s reps or 200s? Or should I do 400s? 600s? 800s? At what volume? A blended workout or a straight session of race pace reps? It’s absolutely doable to add these in. I just think most people would make a mess of it.

I posted a while ago. It probably is halfway through. I basically added in a lot of what Steve suggested. It's probably the 5th or 6th cycle this thread has been in with the same exact debate.

Long story short, I made a mess of it. This was a year ago. The issue being once I added in some shorter stuff, it was OK. it didn't really make any difference I wasn't faster or slower. But because it felt OK, I added in more regular stuff. Strides, hills, 200 repeats to replace the Saturday. Quite quickly I lost focus. I was training but I wasn't using NSM really anymore when you rgink about it. Then quite quickly I needed days off that I didn't on the more boring version. Lesson learned.

I would probably go back to the drawing board if I didn't improve. But back on the basics I'm showing the gradual, steady improvement that is a hallmark for so many. Some guys just wanna I think get involved in something really that doesn't need worth thinking about, for the most part. Most of us are still going to have the aerobic gains route outweigh anything else.

Do you have any more info on Kristian's run? I was really interested to see how he did after he detailed his training as guided by Renato on Inside Running, bummer that it didn't pan out.

I do remember listening and thinking that some of the sessions were crazy, just so much volume at a fairly high intensity.

its all on Strava and he's very open about the workouts, la- #s, ramp tests,
but you can look through a lot of his training to get a pretty good idea of the specifics of Canovas overall program

definite bummer, he seems like a good hearted guy

Bakken is the only one who seemed to recognize the value in a training approach directed at self-coaching amateurs which simplifies training and minimizes risk.

All three of them, but Magness and Palladino moreso, were thinking about this training in comparison to individualized 1-on-1 coaching, especially at the sub-elite or elite level. Even Palladino requires his athletes to at least be a "competitive hobby jogger" level (male sub-2:40 marathon).

Once Sirpoc's book comes out, this training approach will more correctly be compared to other books that are written for self-coaching amateurs.

It is wild how the most popular books -- JD, Pfitz, Magness's own The Science of Running -- have such high risk high reward and complex training. By the time someone needs training like that, in all likelihood they have a coach! The books definitely have value for coaches, too. How many youth coaches have benefited from JD? Countless, I'm sure. And from The Science of Running too! But a TON of the audience of these books are beginners looking to self-coach.

IMO, books aimed at self-coaching amateurs should have an approach to training that minimizes risk. They should have a ton of explanation on how hard to run workouts. A ton of guidance on avoiding overtraining. And a ton of guidance on how to individualize.

Magness acknowledges how many amateurs are running workouts too hard. And how important it is to individualize. His book discusses this latter issue a lot. But the former issue, which is how to choose your overall training volume and how hard to run each workout, is something that these books ought to be addressing head-on with its own chapter or a section for each type of workout.

This absence is the greatest weakness of these books and one of the greatest strengths of NSA. IMO it's probably the most important aspect of getting started on running training. And once a peak race is completed, there ought to be guidance on how to adjust training from there. A lot of people bump mileage "just because" and don't know what to do to adjust their training other than faster paces, more mileage, etc.

I'd love for there to be much more discussion on "minimum effective dose" for quality runs and training overall. Elites are understandably pushing to their absolute limits, sometimes benefitting from "enhanced" recovery but also always benefitting from a lifestyle much more conducive to maximizing recovery. This approach trickles down to amateurs and simply doesn't make sense for their lifestyle and goals. An amateur doesn't need to perform as fast as they possibly could for every peak race. Aim for a result that is like 97% as good and you can drastically reduce the risk of burnout and/or a bad race. Plus, one training cycle going to waste is a huge setback when you're still developing. So if you spend two years aiming for 97% and stay consistent, you end up ahead of someone else aiming for 100% every time and missed the mark just once. We ought to be taking the easy wins when we're still developing. It's only when we're "maxed out" that it makes sense to take on more risk in the hope of a small gain.

So one option is something like NSA that has almost no individualization. It seems to work for 80-90% of people who stick with it and do it right. Maybe even higher. But for some it's not ideal, and it's definitely not ideal for mid distance. But for the 5k-Marathon adult amateur, it's dead simple and helps a ton.

Another option is that authors do a MUCH better job of teaching how to individualize.

Magness's book is probably the best at providing the knowledge to build something like this. However, imo, it really beats around the bush and doesn't take this project head-on.

He's surely aware of the challenges of Science journalism - communicating scientific knowledge to the public. This thread should be a wake-up call to him that there's a MAJOR issue in communicating training knowledge to the public. And I'm not talking about just social media and 15mpw casuals. I mean competitive hobby joggers buying up all these books and making a real effort to train well.

I wish he were energized to wipe the slate clean on how to write a book on training and, from the bottom up, come up with a new way to communicate and guide people to self-coach effectively, so that people can identify what type of runner they are, what training load they can currently handle, how to make adjustments to their training, etc. Kind of operating like a massive decision-tree. Which, again, he has provided a ton of the knowledge for this already and a lot of direction on how to do this, but to actually format it and communicate it in a way that is foolproof and minimizes risk would be a massive accomplishment and revolution.

In fact it would be a nice companion or follow-up to The Science of Running because he could leave out all the deep explanations. It'd be 99% practical and actionable advice. You'd evaluate your current abilities and genetic predispositions to determine your strengths and weaknesses. Then take your goals (not just a short term goal but a lifetime goal or what you're trying to get out of the sport) and suggest a conservative starting point. Provide ample guidance to self-monitor for overtraining. Have re-evaluation periods and guidance on how to adjust training (if at all) based on race results. Idk, this would need a lot of contemplation and drafts and feedback etc to get it right. But imo this kind of treatment is what's required to improve the training of self-coached amateurs if these elite coaches want a good counterbalance to the one-size-fits-all NSA approach (pending what Sirpoc has actually written - I'm excited to see how he discusses these topics and advises people to train).

The reduction of mental overhead this method provides, is worth it to me on its own. No longer do I have to think about what to run on any given day, which is heaven.

If we add in the fact that, today, I ran for the 53rd day in a row, then I don't even care if I'm "leaving gains on the table" by not doing shorter stuff. The rest day before this had ended a smilar streak, and was taken because of a minor niggle which was unrelated to running.

I have NEVER run ~99/100 days EVER on any other program. And I love running, so the more of it I can do safely, the better in my world.

I'm of course fully aboard the vanilla train and believe it's the way to go for me and most other hobby joggers. But even if you could 100% prove to me that adding in X-Factor stuff would make me improve even faster, I'd still stick to vanilla for the reasons mentioned above.

Agree with everything you have just articulated

I think coming from a cycling background helped to square the circle for many with the approach and how he communicated it (obv has been pointed out many times)

I think communication is definitely one plank for improvement but another would be a way to adequately measure fitness level vs simply racing.

I think that's much easier with power and FTP tests in cycling to measure that in a more objective fashion, many of us have discussed here and elsewhere how to adequately port that over to running other than purely the event that is racing, which has some different dynamics than a cycling FTP test.

We floated the idea of an MLSS test to Bakken (for those that test lactate) and again to his credit he responded it may be another guardrail for this sort of approach for another plank in the intensity control column (also, MLSS probably lines up more with a better ceiling for sweet spot type training, which this is, vs the never ending exploration for where an LTP/LT2/whatever we want to call it is derived on a metabolic curve)

I agree with this, but haven't had any problems. Specifically, I do 400s, 600s, 800s, 1200s, 1600s, 2000s, 2400s, 3200s and occassionally add a mix days. I don't think it matters at all in terms of improvement--I mainly just do it to switch up routes and because I like variety. I find my heart rate steadily rises at the same pace no matter what workouts I'm doing, so if I'm 50% of the way through the workout, my heart rate should be the same whether I'm doing 400s or 3200s, and if it's not, I adjust accordingly. To me this is still plain vanilla norwegian singles, but maybe served in a cone instead of a cup.

I think the key is that I've kept every distance at threshold state and not added any strides, hills, fast intervals, etc.

I'll have a test this weekend--signed up for a mile race and am aiming for about 5 minutes, but I haven't run any pace faster than 6min/mile (and that was a 400m rep) in 6 months.

I was referring to this post, messed up quoting it.

Please let us know how it goes. I like reading about people's experience in the shorter races.

This is a fantastic post. Agree with so much of it. Thanks for taking the time.

I agree, it makes way more sense for me to get to that 97% you quote of my potential each time i race.

When you periodize as an amateur there are so many factors. You see so many guys having one great race, then the next sucks. Or totally missing the mark. The boom and bust cycle for me where you peak for a race but you are only playing with a mere 5-8 hours a week is totally insane to me looking back.

The amount of times I also had a absolutely no idea where I was in a block, or my coach didn't. With NSM for me, I absolutely know where I'm at all the time. You are much less likely to perform badly as a result. Sure, sometimes you periodize and have the perfect build, perfect taper , perfect race and you outrun the 97%. But I can count those on one hand in my entire 25 years lifetime running.

Being ready for just about any race. Understanding my body. Being able to run everyday. Understanding why I am doing what I am doing. Whilst the sirpoc workouts are for sure not "fun", it's sure fun being a better runner now than I was in my college years.

From the feedback given by a few people who have seen sirpoc's book and based on his online persona, pods, writings etc I can only imagine this:

The book will be informative and clear that this is a bottom up approach. Made for you. Yes you. That's just about everyone ready this. We are just about all regular people like sirpoc who face the challenges. That is the difference here and why people can relate to him as a person, but not just that the thread as a whole .

It'll leave it open to doing other things if you want to. I've never heard him say don't do something, more think about WHY you want to do something. Now I quite often think "OK this week I'm going to add in X". It's very, very easy to fall into this trap. Then I talk myself down, stick to what is working and use my thinking time for something else and realise I'm still improving, with the risk minimized to levels I didn't think was possible. Obviously you can never minimize running risk, but this comes as close as anything I've ever tried. Again, I don't think this should be overlooked. People scoff, but you ever tried 200 repeats after 9 hours on your feet at work? It's not fun and your body will let you know.

I ran my second fastest 1500 ever recently at 4:06 and did a grand total of zero specificity for it. Could I have got another second maybe out of that race? Hard to say. But then the next week I also set my HM PB a week later at 1:11:53. If I care about just one distance, obviously I would do some sharpening, specificity. But the fact I can jump in to any race, I just love. It's also hard to believe even if I did that, I would be gaining much. Especially considering I have tried just about everything else.

We are about to see how the Greek Ultra Approach works for the Marathon. Will there be a chapter in the book on this?

he ran a HM quite close to berlin, which a few way better than him, norwegian runners criticized. they were correct. kristian U. has his usual cocky and confident replies regarding the training....everyone could see it was too much. a few international runners even commented advising him to ease down. so you're right regarding the crazy sessions and volume...wont change either.

Interesting that you were able to run such a good 1500 without any specificity. How did it feel mechanically tho? I'm scared that if I don't at least do some 200s at 1500 pace then it would feel like sprinting when I hop into a race

Odds on Polymarket currently

Not the poster, but this spring I ran a PR 1600 (4:57) off of 2 months of Norwegian singles. Felt fine mechanically. Interestingly, I measured a 21.1 mmol lactate level after the race. I don't have a baseline measurement to know what my mmol max was in the past, but since that's a pretty ridiculous level already, the lack of speed training can't have hurt mmol max too much (assuming such a thing matters).

You would be insane to take Magness suggestions over Bakken when it comes to the NSA.

I've posted some of my thoughts earlier in the year on Reddit. The mile is has been my strongest distance this year. PBs twice. Barely breaking 6 and taken a huge amount off that this year and have broken 5. Used to do tons of speedwork. Quit being coached because of it beating me up but the absolute insistence it was the limiting factor in my mile fine. I'm not a new runner.

Well over a year of sirpoc full 1:1. Absolutely zero strides, zero speedwork and I've broken 5 in the mile and smashed through the 3 hour barrier in a marathon, basically all on the same training.

As far as I'm concerned, bar a few individual tweaks here and there on a case by base basis, it's solved hobby jogging. Or at least given everyone the absolute best chance of beating their potential.

Your thoughts are classic. I had them myself. How on earth can you not even touch 10k pace in training and then run a mile. Well, it just works. You are just pushing everything up from below , even your top end beyond aerobic capacity.

Look at posts from guys like cheetodust who is probably one of the top guys in his age group in the states. He doesn't seem to worry about it. That's good enough for me. Totally understand if you have no more aerobic potential left. But I would guess that's basically nobody here. Easier to fill the training tank from the bottom up, there's room for most of us.

Because even guys like Magness say you need something, doesn't necessarily make it true or you need to worry about it. Look at the evidence in front of you, or at least the experience of others likely in the same boat as you. There's so much real world information in this thread it's a goldmine. We don't need to talk about things in theory, we know what works for a large proportion of people. As others have added, there's really no downside to keeping to the basics and not worrying about anything else, if you are improving still.

Is sirpoopy finished? Back riding again. Years of bad training catching up and realising the sport is more than just a few easy sessions that grind you down.

Yet you guys think he knows more than Magness.