Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

The natural extension to the "singles" method is to double when you have reached your limit with singles.

Seems to me people still don't get the entire premise of quantifying training load and steadily increasing load.

Yeah that’s not what he’s suggesting. He’s suggesting doing 2 single sessions a week, which is almost certainly a much lower load than he is currently doing

Of course you could find further room to grow if you were on 120mpw. That’s not what I said to him. Can you read?

It could be more sustainable long term, if a VO2max session is being dropped. 80 mpw with 2 S/T sessions 52 weeks a year is a fair training load for a recreational runner, who may not be a youngster.

Depends, but you are speculating.

So, unless you actually know the persons training load, etc, you are just making noise.

The point is...look at some numbers before speculating.

If you can show me evidence of an athlete running sub 15 for 5k, that has a lower training load than the equivalent of 24kms sub t work per week, then it makes sense to wait for confirmation. Until then, get real, this poster is asking if they can reduce load and still improve.

We know nothing other than their volume is 80 miles per week. Maybe they’re only doing one workout. Maybe none (unlikely). Maybe it’s one VO2 day and one tempo run of four to six miles (I did this in college). Going from 80 mpw with one VO2 workout and one tempo to, let’s say, 70-75 mpw with three workouts of six miles worth of sub-T would probably be a higher training load. Maybe their current volume/training is not optimal in terms of the fatigue it’s producing. Even doing 80 mpw with two sub-t workouts with 12k of volume is a decent amount of sub-t volume in the week and would likely lead to improvements. It depends so much on where they’re at and what they’re currently doing. This gets missed a lot with this method. Newer runners don’t NEED to do three workouts a week with 30-36 mins of sub-t per workout, especially if they are training less than optimally. Simply increasing mileage or increasing the volume of sub-t in the week will lead to an increase in load and improvements in performance. Where are you currently at? How can you safely and sustainably increase load?

That’s an awful lot of words to say that you agree with my original post, two sub t workouts a week is extremely unlikely to be an increase in training load for a person running 80mpw and sub 15 for 5k

You say we know nothing other than he runs 80mpw. Not true, we know he runs sub 15 for 5k and a 69 minute half. Use some critical thinking skills, and try to deduce whether he sounds like a newer runner, or a runner that just does one session a week and the rest easy. Then come back to me with your thoughts

And why do you say that running 3 sub t sessions a week might be an increase in load? That’s not what he asked, why answer a question nobody asked? That’s you making noise. You don’t understand anything

Im sorry, I am not trying to sound like I want to reduce load to improve. I want to work smarter with my training. I usually base my weeks off a tempo early in the week, then later in the week a quicker interval session. I am wanting to improve by a big margin, to align with my goals, and I saw this method as a way to work smarter rather than harder.

So if all you are going to do is replace the faster interval session with a slower one, this won’t increase your training load which is what will increase your performance. If you did 3 sub t workouts per week, instead of what you currently do, that might help increase your load, you would have to measure to be sure. The flip side of this, is that doing 3 sessions per week will mean it would be wise to do your easy runs very easy. If you currently do some steady runs alongside with your two sessions, these also contribute to your training load. So it will be about balancing your more intense sessions with your easy days in a way that’s sustainable long term. You also need to take your long run into consideration if you do one.

And just to add, given you already run sub 15 for 5k and a 69 minute half, you presumably worked hard to get to what is a pretty high level of running. You are going to have to continue working hard to improve. Whether that’s through exclusively training at sub t and below, or a more traditional training mix, it will be hard work.

Definitely understand. I know that going too far into the well though in training can affect race day's negatively. This method seemed to get the same work out of training, without overreaching.

Yes, going too far in to the well in training can do harm. This method, as laid out ie. 3 sub t sessions and an easy long run every week, might well be a good option for you. But to go back and answer your original question, doing this method with just 2 sessions a week almost certainly isn’t

The big thing with this method is the 3 sub-threshold runs per week and going really slow on the other 4 days. I agree with the Not at all, doing what you've been doing but with 2 threshold runs probably won't do you much good.

I'd love to pose a few questions regarding the volume/intensity of the subT workouts:

(1) I've read of folks pacing their workouts to hit their LTHR at the end of the last rep. I've also read of folks who leave a meaningful buffer, ending 3-5 beats below LTHR. A meaningful choice? In my case, those two approaches lead to paces maybe 15 seconds/mile apart, so rather different. Other than load management, any reason not to go right up to LTHR? Any physiological difference? Slower could allow for more reps vs faster fewer (while adhering to the 20-25% time target) (especially for the 10 min reps)?

(2) I assume that the 20-25% subT time target is about load management and not some physiological balance? Meaning, if you could handle adding more easy miles, your subT% would get diluted - and there would be no problem with that I assume?

1) I don’t think it would make a huge difference either way, but leaving the buffer is safer in terms of knowing you aren’t over cooking things.

2) I think just adding more easy running is a good stepping stone but once you are comfortable with that then it should be safe to add more sub t work to get the balance back to 20-25%. The limiter may well end up being how much sub t work you can do in a single session, going above 40 minutes or so per session might be a bit too much, and you’d then probably need to look at doubling

To point one, anyone assuming the optical HR sensor in most watches is consistently accurate to within 3-5 beats is wrong. The mean error for these sensors compared to ECG is in the range of +/- 3-5 BPM. Basing training on this fine level of detail is not reasonable. If you're into that degree of specificity, get a lactate meter. Far better to go by feel than rely upon potentially misleading HR data.