Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

vegimite sandwich wrote:

Billx4 wrote:

I’ve thought about this as well. The fact he got injured is a bit troubling but my hunch is that it had something to do with not taking enough rest after London and abandoning singles which had been working so well for him. I also wonder whether there might be a way to make NSM even more sustainable. For example, instead of 10 x 3min, 5 x 6 min, and 3 x 10 min sessions every week…what if we ONLY do 3 x 10 min sessions ( 3x week) to reduce the mechanical load?

Can't say for sure, as I can't find the post again. But, I think someone asked him somewhere and he didn't actually get injured running, but something to do with lifting within something he does within construction. Having been in that game when I was younger, it's way riskier on the body even than running. When someone works on their feet all day and is doing manual labour, it's gonna be hard to separate what the root cause is.

If you are a pro, running twice a day and laying down for the rest of it, obviously it's gonna be easier to identify what stress was on the body.

Billx4 wrote:

The vanilla version obviously works but what I’m saying is what would happen if we make it even more vanilla than vanilla? Get rid of the shorter reps and only do 3 x 10 min (3x week)? Wouldn’t that reduce the risk of injury even further? And as far as I understand it, the physiological/metabolic benefits of 3 x 10 min vs. 10 x 3 min are essentially the same. Lactate values the same. I think sirpoc said once that the only real reason to vary the duration of the reps is to reduce the monotony and keep things a little more interesting but I would happily trade variety for a little extra sustainability. I’m advocating on behalf of the very, very injury prone runners and correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think this minor tweak deviates from the science/spirit of the method.

vegimite sandwich wrote:

Being down under, the best conditions for this year are probably behind me. But very similar to my journey, over 18 months training like this. I do find it odd, fellas still drop in and say about needing to see long term results, which is what made me post. I mean compared to other training methods, we have guys having done this for years, what more do we want? Injuries are down, fatigue and burnout is down, results are up.

Of course are aren't talking everyone improves. But you got such a good chance of this being the one for you, fellas reading this would be dumb not to try it.

I've been running since 2009. I'm 39 now and thought I was cooked. About 18 months ago, stumbled across this thread as a 18:20 runner who thought best days were gone. PB was 16:49 about a decade ago. Yesterday, I ran 15:58. Of course where sirpoc is, that fella is at a different level. 15 flat is absolutely miles away, but I still have hope. Even if I don't improve anymore, I've had a run no other training program has even given me a whiff off. PB in every other distance on the whole, but 5k is my bag.

My wife is planning a marathon next year, if I jump in for my first I'll be doing the sirpoc top up method. No brainer. Marathon just never appealed, but never say never when I'm in this shape. But now I'm managing 100km a week injury free for the first time ever, why not? Of course a lot of the magic here is the repeatability and consistency, that gets you to the point you can safely run a higher mileage. But, it's still incredibly well crafted as a plan with a start, middle and a finish wherever you want it to be. Even if I stop improving, I'll probably always train like this now.

I basically kept it vanilla. I don't have a problem with that, I love me a vanilla ice! Have barely had any days off, used to struggle with even 4-5 days. 7 is a breeze now. Some guys say it's boring? Nah mate, it's boring being injured or burned out all the time. What is not to love about being able to enjoy a run and some head space daily? It's awesome! Struggled with the easy pace at first, have some hills around here so means walking sometimes, especially at the start. Now it just comes naturally, I'm probably 64-66% MHR range, somewhere near where sirpoc is. Stick with it, it comes. Workouts I just stuck to the prescribed paces. Again fellas, listen to what is being ssid. If it feels hard, it's too hard. Within 5 weeks my paces had fallen into the normal guidelines.

Someone said it already, but sirpoc and this thread has probably turned into the best thing to happen to guys like me/us in a hell of a long time, especially if you set aside what you think you know and just buy in. With that in mind, a fella I run with despite seeing all my progress refuses to understand or accept this is even a training method, let alone probably the best one for amateurs out there.

I know sirpoc sometimes comes back, to let us know when the book is out and I'll buy a few copies for me and friends and you can get yourself some of your cold tinnies!

Billx4 wrote:

marmite over veggimite wrote:

Yeah, I mean injuries happen. It's hardly troubling. Totally agree. I lost count, but I went through Strava and at one point there was over 220 workouts 3x a week in a row, or 2 with a race at the end of the week. I mean, if that's troubling, then goodness knows what people think of other training systems. To me that's a miracle.

This is absolutely the best risk reward ratio for someone with a life, wants to succeed the best they can at running, but also limit the injury risk as much as possible.

I’m a huge proponent of the system as is. All I’m trying to say is that for a certain segment of the running population (the most fragile) the possibility of reducing the risk reward ratio EVEN FURTHER is worth a discussion at least, especially since the rationale for why we need to do 3 different sub-T sessions every week was never really rock solid to begin with. Sirpoc has stated that the 60 second repeats pose too great a risk and therefore doesn’t do them. By that logic, wouldn’t the 10 min reps pose the least amount of risk from a mechanical load standpoint?

long distance dedication wrote:

Billx4 wrote:

I’m a huge proponent of the system as is. All I’m trying to say is that for a certain segment of the running population (the most fragile) the possibility of reducing the risk reward ratio EVEN FURTHER is worth a discussion at least, especially since the rationale for why we need to do 3 different sub-T sessions every week was never really rock solid to begin with. Sirpoc has stated that the 60 second repeats pose too great a risk and therefore doesn’t do them. By that logic, wouldn’t the 10 min reps pose the least amount of risk from a mechanical load standpoint?

I think it's worth experimenting if someone finds themself on the cusp of injury.

On the other hand, from personal experience I do not notice any difference in recovery between 3 minute reps and 10 minute.

I don't think 60 seconds reps are necessarily riskier either if run at a certain pace with limited recovery, but that could be an individual thing.

Paula Radcliffe's Porta Potty wrote:

Here Hadd, here wrote:

I attempted to get down to 70% on my easy run again today (failed) and had a thought (rare). The consensus is that NSA is all about the sub-T, and easy days need to be so easy because it's a balancing act and it all hangs on recovery. Go over 70% by a gnat's crotchet and your core will melt down to radioactive sludge.

Is it more of a double act though? Is NSA actually more of a variation on low HR training like Hadd than we've realised? I.e. the easy days aren't just scaffolding for the sub-T, they're an integral part of the training, delivering long-term gains quietly in the background while sub-T takes the limelight.

If so, then does NSA only really work if you treat easy days as Hadd days and be ultra-disciplined about HR? I'd like to know if anyone who's posted a success story has regularly been over 75% or if they stick to 70% as much as the rest of the protocol. My median easy HR is 83% MHR (!) and median sub-T is 88%, yet pretty much all the easy days feel truly easy in RPE, breathing, muscles, etc. and I'm not fatigued. Am I doomed?

And is NSA actually Hadd in disguise? (Twilight Zone music...)

What do you mean by "Hadd easy days"? He was a proponent of running under 70% max HR himself for truly easy days. He mentioned 75% on his messages here because he didn't think people would run that slow.

The point of running at a super low intensity on easy days isn't just about recovery, it is about "squeezing the toothpaste from the very bottom" as Hadd himself once said. You are pushing the paces you can run at that super, super easy effort and making every effort above that quicker. When running the subT runs, you're pulling that LT1 up, as well as pushing the LT2 up at the same time. Ultimately your marathon time will be dependent as much on your LT1 as LT2.

The major reason people don't run easy at under 70% max HR is because they can't. If people are as fit as they think they should be able to run at 70% max HR for 2 hours at least and see zero drift. Most can't. Run easy and your form will improve and you'll make absolutely absurd gains.

Tough answer wrote:

roulette wheel111 wrote:

But isn't some drift still normal, even 10 bpm, esp. on longer runs (12-20 miles)?

I don’t know if anyone has studies to refer to, but my understanding is that most runners will see some drift. Does it follow that, if the goal is actually to stay under a certain HR, one should slow down over the course of a run to accommodate that cardiac drift? I wouldn’t necessarily think so, but someone else might have a take on this. Certainly 10 bpm at constant speed in a trained runner working at an easy pace wouldn’t be unusual on a fairly warm day (at least that much if the runner doesn’t take in fluids and/or is not acclimated to the heat). But yes: even at 45-50 degrees at a fairly constant pace (elevation, temperature), if you allow for 10-15 minutes to get to a baseline HR, then from that point, one would not expect to see wild swings in HR, but would probably see 5-6 bpm higher at the end when compared with that earlier value.

And then, because different runners can have different HR effects, I would hope that those looking for such answers would (1) have a very good chest strap HR monitor, (2) have many HR readings over time, (3) have a solid sense of how to view and interpret data, which can involve looking for different circumstances that could affect results, and (4) not only have clear reasons why they compare different sets of HR results but also have a sense of how they might adjust their running to elicit different results over time and then compare those results.