Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Any of them methods would be fine. As long as you finish where you started your net elevation gain is 0. Depends on the actual topography of your route which one is best.

Okay so the intention is to smooth out the average pace of all of the reps, not micromanage the pacing of each rep. Got it, thanks.

How is that better than a loop, though? I am not a smart person but I think I'm pretty sure that the net elevation gain of any loop is zero.

Also means Chinese shoes are officially canon now.

Start and finish in the same place. I do it for most of my reps already. Helps with pacing a lot. You could run 1km up a big hill and 1km then back down with a break in-between, but you are then dramatically having to change the pace rep to rep, even the purpose of the rep. It's not a must, but it does make sense to control as many of the variables and I also find keeps it more like a day at the track, which again is always more controlled.

The key is understanding if you do a 3km rep for arguments sake, back to the same point, that doesn't mean the uphill and downhills have evened themselves out. If you have gone up 30 metres over that distance and back down again, it's slower target pace required than if you ran a totally flat 3km.

I don't even see this as splitting hairs, as it could affect what was a doable workout, to one that is too fast.

I spent (too much) time thinking about this too. It is a confusing topic made more confusing by what I think are some errors in the tables - minor in the km tables and significant in the freedom unit tables. What I came away with is the same thing you said - try to smooth out the average pace of the reps by having consistent gain/loss across reps. I'm not going to split hairs over the actual adjustments since I train and race in the same rolling hill environments anyway.

Here's what I think are some errors in the tables:

Page 55 says for a typical 4:00 min/km pace with 10 m/km gain and 10 m/km loss, you gain 7 seconds on the descent and lose 13 seconds on the ascent, for a net 6 second loss. I interpret this to be an out and back where I go 500 m with 10 m up and then turn around and go 500 m with 10 m down. The "net" is zero, but really I've gained 10 m and lost 10 m. Table 1.5 on page 57 appears to have the seconds switched between the 4:00 and 5:00 min/km paces though, because it implies a 4:00 min/km pace should be adjusted to 4:07 min/km, but a 5:00 min/km pace should only be adjusted to 5:06 min/km.

The freedom units seem to be pretty significantly off for the elevation adjustments, at least tables 1.6 and 1.7. For a 6:30 min/mi (~4:00 min/km) pace with 30 ft (~10 m) elevation gain, table 1.6 gives 6:40 min/mi (10 seconds slower), and for 30 ft elevation loss, table 1.7 gives 6:17 min/mi (13 seconds faster). That doesn't line up with the km tables and doesn't line up with what's written in the text.

Yeah, that doesn't seem right, now that I'm looking at it. You'd think the # of sec adjustment would scale linearly down as you speed up.

Imagine buying this book and expecting it to be even remotely good anyway. You guys are crazy. There's zero evidence this method even works.

Probably should have got the help of someone like sir nick by the sounds of it? Give it some much needed credibility.

Oh dear Nick b you really need help

I still think there is a disbelief around the method. It's too simple. It can't be that easy to make progress.

The advanced running brigade are all obsessed with Pfitz and long, hard workouts. They blame everything apart from overtraining for their poor races and don't understand their race times on their flairs don't actually match up and they aren't as aerobically fit as they think they are.

I admit I was a sceptic but the more you delve into this method, the more it makes total sense. The proof is here in this thread but some people don't want to believe.

The thing is though, Daniels , pitfz, they ARE proven and based on science. Here you have some random guy on the internet making a small pdf based on a case study of one and everyone is jumping on it. It's probably a good base, for 6-8 weeks after a done period. But that's about it. If you want to compete, be it at the top level or even age group, you need to train and prepare like a winner, ready to race. This doesn't do that. t's just base aerobic training. It can only get even hobby joggers so far.

Out and back = loop. Just a very skinny one.

But he basically clarifies your question on page 56:

"It's far more effective to avoid structuring workouts where you run uphill for one repetition, rest, and then run entirely downhill for the next, as this leads to significant inconsistent paces."

So the intent is to start and end each REP at the same spot.

(Though, to be nitpicky about the book, the table then labels it as Net Elevation Gain and Loss but that isn't accurate; Net = 0 on a looped course, so it should be Total Elevation Gain and Loss, where Total Elevation Gain = Total Elevation Loss)

In a way it's hard to disagree with this. A few people have had varied success with this, but we don't know the ins and outs of what they did before. The suspicion for me is they had headroom for growth anyway. There's a reason you see guys like Magness, Matt Fitzgerald and other proven guys in the field "add" to this, because they know what all coaches do, "it's not enough". Having coached runners for 25 years and counting, i couldn't with a clean conscious hold them back by not letting them do the stuff they need to do.

Good to see some open minds being brave to call this training out for what it is. Good base training, but not really grounded in any science or what we know DOES work, just a lot of speculation. It probably falls into 'OK to sub-optimal training'. Certainly no better than that. Looking at some of Fitzgerald's new Norwegian plans, I would probably say they tick more boxes. This book is also a bit of a disingenuous claim to be Norwegian, so you can't blame MF for doing the same.

Hard to tell with some people, if they are trolls, it's satire or they are being serious.

Fwiw I think by about page 3 on the book it is established there is no real "Norwegian singles method" and the fact it's the title but crossed out, should also be a bit of a clue there's nothing Norwegian about it. it's just a name that stuck from the thread that everyone started using.

Just finished the book. The chapter on pacing alone is worth the cost of the book.

One thing that really struck me is it seems that Sirpoc has spent so much time testing and analysing things to really find out what works. It's impressive but I am also left wondering how he fits it all in along with having a job, family and other life stuff that eats time.

It's like Sirpoc is out there measuring the impact of crosswinds on lactate and I'm struggling to find a matching pair of socks for my run. It's just levels ahead.

Is this Trolling? Who knows.

Yes, it is a base period plan and that is the whole point. 95% of us are so aerobically deficient that we need a base period of years to get us to the point of adding "icing to the cake" - our cake hasn't even had its ingredients mixed yet.

Build a huge base, spend years building a base, then layer Pfitz or JD on top and you'll be a better runner. This is what top East Africans do. Spend an entire childhood building a base.

The proof is all here, in this thread. Hundreds of people have tried this "base training" and seen huge improvements, all with minimal fatigue

Do worry it’s just nick bester having a conversation with himself, just trolling as it’s simple method you can’t sell repeat business.

The book is great and the method gets the hobbyist 90% there, once they are there then double thresholds would be what they move too then you can hammer competition sharping vo2max sessions as you have the headroom but not many of us are going to the Olympics or worlds.

One thing that has puzzled me is why other cyclists who run, have not come up with something similar. There are many like Sirpoc who fully understand sweetspot cycling and also run. Every triathlete hobby jogger and elite, is both a runner and a cyclist.

Inigo San Milan and Seiler are cycling based, but still push the polarised approach for running.