Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Have you tried the Brooks Adrenaline? I'm in the same situation as you and they're perfect for me (am using the 23s). They're not renowned for mid/forefoot cushioning but I don't perceive any problem there at all. The Evo SL looks great overall but really doesn't seem good for pronaters. Haven't tried the Superblast.

Just to clarify, I'm talking about anemia, and I assume the poster I was replying to before was talking about iron-deficiency anemia. I don't think people normally say "anemia" when they mean "iron deficiency," although I do think people tend to forget there are an enormous number of things that cause anemia that aren't iron deficiency. But at least with anemia caused by micronutrient deficiencies (iron, b vits, copper, etc), that's something we can keep in mind as needing to be actively worked on, as opposed to, say, anemia caused by a viral infection.

I agree that the full Norwegian method would present a higher risk of anemia than NSA would, but the issue is more whether NSA would present a higher risk of anemia than your average non-elite's training plan.

Sorry I just meant Ferritin deficiency, I think I looked into the difference with anemia but I don’t remember now. I posted my lab work on LRC when I got results.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=13730008

This is completely off topic, it was mentioned in the Villanova’s coach’s training talk. I think it was based off the (supposed) fact that it takes 45 seconds for heart rate to get back up. Like if you ran a 12 minutes continuous threshold, since your heart rate wouldn’t be up enough for the first 45 seconds, that 45 seconds wouldn’t drive the wanted adaptation, but if you ran the same 12 minutes in two intervals, your heart rate wouldn’t be up for the beginning of each interval, and 90 seconds wouldn’t “count”. Not sure if this way of thinking of makes any sense, especially considering Jingy runs what like 62s for his 400 reps, and if 45 seconds didn’t count then the workout would be a very low aerobic stimulus, which seems unlikely.

when going to altitude not generally —that’s the iron supplementation they were mentioning

i think you can also find that in some of the stuff Ferrari has posted as well

your talking about M OSullivans presentation about ‘effective time at threshold’?

you have to distinguish here between ‘lactate guided’ and ‘lactate confirmed’ type approaches.

Marcus is laying out a general, safe framework for development.

For the variation of a lactate guided program using the 400s, firstly HR is going to be a bit of a misnomer vis a vis lactate levels for the session.

Not the place to give full medical advice but you should request a full blood count to see your haemoglobin levels and mean corpuscular volume. If the haemoglobin is low, the MCV will give some indication as to what may be the reason for the low haemoglobin (anaemia).

A low MCV (microcytic anaemia) could be indicative of iron deficiency anaemia and from there I would suggest iron studies which does not include just ferritin but ferritin, transferrin saturation and total iron binding capacity which would give you an idea as to whether your cause of anaemia is in fact due to an iron deficiency.

Probably minimal utility in just sending off a random ferritin. Ferritin can be raised in many ‘inflammatory states’ whether that’s post intense exercise, in the context of illness, autoimmune conditions etc.

I think the talk was more comprehensive, and included periodization, peaking, and all parts of training. Probably included the part on 'effective time at threshold', though it's interesting that his program includes 400s. No idea how accurate or archaic any of what he said is.

This is way simplified, as it would depend on how low your HR gets on the breaks (and 45s is not a hard rule for everyone, come on, think).

But the fitter one is, the lower and quicker the hr will drop. but they will have the capacity for more volume.

are you saying the reps should be 45 seconds faster vs. continuous or 45 seconds slower?

disregard, I think I see what he meant the 45 seconds on later in the thread. But I could be wrong too.

Shoes that I personally like for this program:

Easy days--Salomon Aero Glide 3, Asics Megablast

Threshold--Any race shoes (but I especially like the Saucony Endorphin Pro 4 for feeling like a "normal" shoe but with the advantage of the plate), Asics Megablast.

Yeah no I didn't think it really made that much sense, especially for workouts that short. I think he in the presentation he brought 45 seconds all the way down to K repeats, so not quite down to 400s. It's very interesting to think about, though, especially when comparing directly to Daniels. 45 seconds would imply that, compared to a 4 mile continuous tempo, someone running mile repeats, to achieve the same aerobic effect, would need to run an additional 2 minutes and 15 seconds, since the first 45 seconds of the second, third, and fourth rep would be, in this way of thinking about it, negated. If anything this supports doing threshold in intervals, since it's obviously way easier to run a 4 x mile + an 800 than to do 4 miles straight.

I wanna ask about shoes again. Sorry is this is annoying. If when buying shoes, the question you are asking yourself is 'what pair of shoes allows me to increase the amount of training load I can hold sustainably by mitigating the impact of impact force?', then what do you consider most when buying shoes? I haven't been able to find a lot out there about this; most of the information about shoes is about enjoyment and not getting injured, which is maybe valid and maybe this doesn't matter that much. Supershoes are better than traditional shoes at shock absorption and energy return, both of which are said to enhance recovery. My question is what is the importance of these two aspects of Supershoes compared together? What's better: very strong shock absorption but mediocore energy return like any of the asics supertrainers, a balanced pick like the ASICS Evo SL, or amazing energy return with bad shock absorption like the Saucony Endorphin Speed. Are there any secret Chinese shoes with the shock absorption of ASICS but the energy return of Saucony Endorphin's? This obviously assumes that you would be running the same effort in all of these shoes, so not necessarily the same pace. I feel like this should be talked about more on here since the main tenet of this training method is running the highest load sustainably and better shoes allows the amount of load that can be run sustainably to increase.

The man himself recommended Superblasts

It's crazy how well this system works. Today I ran 8 x 3 minutes at 3:15/km pace... two months ago, I couldn't even manage 3:19 pace for the same workout. Tomorrow i try to run 2h easy near @4.25, next week i try 1h10' half marathon.

I like to use my Evo SL for all aspects of this program. It's the perfect shoes and anyone who struggles with this shoe should be in Gel Kayano's

Generally, what gives the more training stress score, long run of 2 hrs under 70% of max hr or the standard S/T session?

Major congrats to Paul Luttrell, self-professed Serious Hobbyjogger documenting his NSA journey on Youtube and also the writer of those often-cited blogs about running easy runs too fast and how V02max is overrated for amateurs. Ran a 14 minute PB at Mebourne marathon and snuck under 2:36. Seems to be another tick in the win column for consistent subthreshold + truly easy, with a few weeks of specific work for the big one.