Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I probably sound like a broken record about this, but KI runs his easy days far too hard. Based on racing, his max HR is probably slightly under sirpoc if we can compare (there was one race where he recorded 200+, but clearly that's data error and totally out of line with everything else).

This is apt as this is the conversation of topic now in the thread. He's almost always around 70% minimum but often quite a bit north of that, in the low to mid 70s. It doesn't sound like much, but I fell into this trap and when I came down south of 70% I suddenly wasn't beat up or fried and finally this training made sense. The gap between his workout efforts and easy runs are far, far more compressed, than again, if we compare it to sirpoc.

I always felt like you describe him in the video, tired, on the rivet and close to break down. Almost like a switch that changed over a few days, when I was running in the 64-68% range all that went away, whilst then trying to keep the three workouts a week.

It's always something that has stood out to me, simply because I started training like this thread and it's almost exactly the same trap I fell into.

i think why what sirpoc has laid out is probably much better, as all of it is built with the foundations in place and the understanding we as hobby joggers are much more likely to fry ourselves on the easy days, with also regular life thrown in. It's not biased by anything really elite runners massively do or he's not been inadvertently biased by what has worked for an elite runner. In fact, he doesn't seem to care. He's just absolutely focused on that you can do this sustainably almost forever, then that is your starting point.

Hi again nick. We all know you again post under multiple accounts like JS in the hope that runners will finally give you the love you crave, rather than the 15km plodders you shill to. But of all the threads you could come to do that, this is almost the last one in which you will find what you are looking for.

Your arrogance is compounded by the fact the threads hero, had to have you pointed out to even know who you were. I can only imagine your inner rage at finding this out, sociopaths like you are really troubled by stuff like this.

The really good thing about this thread is many have come and gone, who have tried to derail it. Just add you to the list of ego maniacs who pass us by without a second thought.

Looks like the GSR results have had a refresh and Sirpoc is now in the top 20.

I don't want to entertain the trolls but sirpoc taking weeks off over summer, dabbling in another sport and still comes in the top 20 is incredible. especially when compared to people who are doing running full time. the man's a beast.

The pictures from GSR tell quite a different story mate. One was best, one got bested -- and he knows it. Remember that look if you consider wasting money on a hobbyist's book instead of proper coaching and training plans.

That's it from me though, I've made my point. Winner takes it all. Over and out.

Bester, it must really hurt you deep down a hobby jogger who was barely running was only 5 places behind you.

Barely running mate, give me a bloody break. Not even true to what he’s selling is what he is with all the doubles. Bloody ridiculous.

I will just jump in for a short( long? )) comment on this you write. My long experience from coaching " the average guy/ gal " with a regular job and often family life with kids and so on and other normal life demands shows clearly it's very effective to mix maxVO2 , easy steady runs and LT2 threshold intervals ( I never use LT1 or what we use to call sub thresholds) and still just a need of relatively low mileage to get time for other more important things in life.

I'm glad to see so many runners obviously succeed with this NSA method but just wanted to give another view of experience from runners with regular jobs and normal life demands training with a different approach but still on low mileage and succeed with that.

As we all know of by now there are many ways to lead to Rome.😉

Totally agree. But what does that, the "still" part, say about drawing conclusions on NSA from his running performances?

Nick, you beat a 41 year old by barely a minute, who hasn't raced for 4 months and is basically a Tri guy at this point, who has run a fraction of what you have since London. Shows how weird you really are to come here and even care to boast that, so weird.

One guy is a sociopath, the other one everyone likes and is probably the best thing to happen to normal hobby joggers in a long time. It's not hard to work out which one, you are.

I wish people would just stop engaging with the trolls. If you ignore them it at least won't derail the thread further. Cause if you can't restrain yourself with this, how will you hold your HR below 70 % on easy runs?

Or is this just a periodic thing now, and once in a while this thread becomes as random as any other? And the rest of us just need to skip 5-10 pages for the topics to be interesting again? :)

No, and the only thing I post in the Strava group is criticism of Greek singles.

For a method that relies on HR, it is very hard losing HR as a useful indicator. Would welcome insight.

Dude, don't worry, this thread survived Coggan v lexel around the middle. If it can survive that, it can survive Nick Bester.

No.

Hadd recommends to cap the easy units to about HRmax-50bpm. This is a 70-75%HRmax cap for a HRmax in the range of 170-200. Sirpoc has 70%HRmax cap for easy.
For Hadd LT HR should be started at 10beats above (=HRmax-50bpm+10bpm). No HR-drift is allowed. Increase by 5bpm when pace vs HR is steady.
How often and how long per week is not prescribed by Hadd. Sirpoc 3times/week and with higher paces, 30min in duration each.
So only easy is similar, but intensity and approach is different.

Hadds approach increases the utilization of the aerobic system (called aerobic power) but not so the aerobic maximum of it (aerobic capacity), as Olbrecht calls it.
For Olbrecht this approach would be not optimal, as he recommends to first built capacity and then the utilization of it. I agree with Olbrecht here.
However, I can imagine that Hadds approach might work for athletes which have a high slow twitch fiber proportion ...

Hadd stressed the importance of lots of easy running for the physiological changes/adaptations. I can't remember the whole science part, but it was the cellular level changes he stressed occurred at less than 75% max HR training. Training certain (younger?) red blood cells, mitochondria adaptations, etc basically to be an aerobic powerhouse that can flush away lactic acid better. He also believed certain muscle fibers could be adaptable & trained to be more aerobic based. Any aerobic gains at cell level took at least 6 weeks so he stressed patience and trust, & "get to work & don't come back to me until 6 weeks are up, & then we'll check in where you are."

I've only followed this this thread since start of the year so could be wrong but I believe the theme of this method is to keep easy days very easy so you're recovered for the 3 subt's & can handle more repeatable load each week.

Personally, knowing there are biological changes that happen only (or better at) at very easy paces motivates me to keep easy runs truly easy. Saying you need to keep easy runs easy, so you feel recovered gives me too much leeway in my head.

100%. The issue is often with pacing rather than it being an impossibility. I can run under 70% for 2 hrs, but only with constantly checking pace and looking at hr on the watch. If my mind drifts from this, my pace and hr will slowly increase above 70%. It is a hard shift running for 2 hrs with total focus on pace and hr, but totally worth the investment. The key is to target 60%-65%, which leaves a margin for some drift and spikes.

I've had exactly the same experience. I started this method going too hard on the easy days treating the 70% as an average rather than a ceiling. At some point, I swallowed my pride, slowed it down, and my recovery has been a lot better.

I'm still not 100% perfect on keeping my easy or long runs under 70% MHR, but the recovery difference between a 120 avg bpm run and a 130 avg bpm run (130 being about 70% for me) is noticeable.

kind of an old subject around ‘easy’ day intensity but it always goes back to the same thing:

you do more frequent sub T workouts with a greater spread between the workouts and the non workout days

or

you flatten things out and you are running every day Z2/just under LT1 with intensity added on to those days somewhere (assuming smaller volume of intensity bolted on after

but you cant do both

its no different than the cycling paradigms: if you’ve got the time and appetite to do massive volume maybe its more beneficial and safer for you to do insane amounts of Z2 work for development vs sweetspot

sweetspot is just trying to increase the signal frequency. you shouldnt be then trying to create more noise in your training response by INCREASING the intensity of your non workout days. You are intentionally and knowingly creating a signal which will be accompanied with some fatigue that needs to be cleared.

it’s deceiving if your used to Vo2 workouts but its still there and needs to be respected

If you have a Garmin, you set setup a workout keeps you below your 70% heart rate for either time or distance and beeps when you creep over.

Great post. I think this is where sirpoc and Bakken seem to be really on the same page? Basically they both seem to agree, you have to draw a line somewhere. For Bakken and elite running, the parameters are different, for hobby jogging, it's different again.

I see it as not being greedy, something sirpoc brought up in the thread previously. The approach is going to depend on how much time, you have to invest.