Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Disagreement is totally okay! I think this is a really interesting disagreement because it involves some fundamental conflicts between models of training and endurance.

Like when people bring up EIM - EIM and NSM are just very different models. According to EIM, the goal is to develop a supple, reactive stride, so easy runs are bad. According to NSM, stride isn't a factor, and easy runs are good. They point in two opposite directions and make opposing predictions about what works and doesn't work in training (and EIM did not work for me).

After going back and watching Magness' video, I think his critique really isn't about the target athlete or target audience*, but instead comes out of his model of endurance, which is informed by Bakken and Canova. That's why he talks about the balance between aerobic and anaerobic systems, and how letting that balance shift too far in one direction can be detrimental. So he looks at NSM and thinks: That's okay for a while, but you really need a bit of anaerobic work in there to maintain balance. So I think Magness' changes aren't for the sake of change, but rather emerge from a different systematic understanding of endurance and racing (in a way that the usual "but I wanna do hills too" doesn't).

(*One caveat: I suspect his intended audience of amateurs does include HS athletes, who do have to worry about 400/800 speed, which are events that very few of us apart from Fisky are running. Someone else said Magness had only worked with elites, but Houston had 0 scholarships for distance athletes, and he's talked about developing kids who came in with motivation but not outstanding talent.)

Is Magness right? I don't know. Science of Running was my guide from 21 minutes to sub-18 for 5K 10 years ago. And bastardized Canova worked for me 5 years ago to break 1:20 for HM. But NSM has worked really well for me, too, and I can contemplate continuing the with it indefinitely (unlike, say, a Daniels plan with its I, R and T-paced workouts).

In any case, I've ordered 2 copies of sirpoc's book and look forward to reading it. It's still topping the "Hot new releases" in the Running & Jogging category on Amazon, and now appearing at #8 among the best sellers in that category as well (along with Thompson's recent book, McDougall's Born to Run, and Haruki Murakami). It has 10 reviews and a 5.0 rating. Someone get it on Goodreads!

Diminishing returns. Everyone will reach that point in all training, in any sport. Is a hobby jogger likely to reach that? Probably not , if they can safely increase load. The main problem with running is going to be more what you can recover from, before the load versus performance stops increasing.

I know that if I increase overall load, I'll almost certainly perform better. I can drop the training off, then in the end I'll get worse. When I train for a marathon, I've pb usually at other distances. Because I have increased load and I'm nowhere near diminished returns. This was in a part of the book as well. This probably applies to us all. Just where that point of increasing load versus no longer increasing in performance predictably, is totally unknown.

It's probably why there is also a small number of people who haven't improved on this method, this happened to them earlier than most.

I think that's where he is probably wrong, it is definitely more than OK for a while, if that is his view. It's probably OK forever, for most of us. For two reasons: one it's most likely to keep us fit and healthy and two, as above we probably aren't going to reach the point where we don't improve. For most of us, the limit is the time we have available or other things in life taking over. So we fall into the trap of rushing the aerobic development and leaving way too much of that tank empty, then our coaches or the plans we follow panic and try and fix it with intensity.

We have to then reset, do it all over again. That's the cycle of hobby joggers destruction. Obviously you can go outside the parameters of NSM (in fact sirpoc has never said don't) but the problem then becomes, where do you draw the line? You do one hard session, nothing bad happens, you then fall into the trap of doing it again because the confirmation bias was that it was fine, then it becomes regular and then you are back towards the cycle of the wheels falling off.

It's been mentioned before, but most who have seemed to get pretty fast off this (I'm 16 flat now down from 18:20, I don't know if that's me included) have not gotten greedy and just stuck to it week after week, with infinity in mind and most are still improving. Taking the slow road and getting paid off, just much further down the line.

If you go on Strava quite a number of people have made a mess of it. Mainly because they don't see the long term value, haven't improved over 10-12 weeks and rush into bad decisions. Then blame the lack of the traditional elements.

So this is probably one of the few areas where I disagree with what sirpoc has written as I understand it (I might just be misunderstand things) but I do not think CTL/Fitness works like this AT ALL. I know sirpoc had a really nice graph that matched his improvement in his 5k times, but I think that is more incidental of how he did his training (ie. extremely intelligently).

I used intervals before doing subthreshold training, and my highest ever Fitness/CTL was during a traditional marathon build just because of the relative volume I was running at (and the amount of hours I put into it). But I was still slow AF. I still am slow AF, but faster than I was then at the higher Fitness/CTL. Like, 30mins in a marathon faster. That is just because I have been running longer while maintaining a relatively high CTL.

My personal opinion is that CTL/Fitness score is ONLY useful as a measure of the volume of work you have done recently, which CAN be useful as a measure of RATE of improvement.

To borrow other exercise science terminology that I know better, assume you have the following values (which are very individualistic):
- MV (Maintenance Volume): Minimum volume required to prevent regression
- MEV (Minimum Effective Volume): Starting point for improvement, varies by training experience
- MAV (Maximum Adaptive Volume): Sweet spot range between MEV and MRV for optimal gains
- MRV (Maximum Recoverable Volume): Upper limit before recovery fails and gains stop

Fitness/CTL is useful for measuring the volume of aerobic work done, and can apply to the above definitions. You need a certain CTL to maintain your fitness, a certain CTL to improve, and there is a maximum CTL that you can handle without injuring yourself. Importantly, as you get more fit, all these values increase (especially when you are really pushing near your genetic limits, where basically all these values converge - the amount you need to improve is more than you are able to recover from, and you basically get stuck with MV being your MRV). So you need more to maintain, and more to keep improving.

I just think Sirpoc was able to increase his CTL at basically the exact rate that he was improving, so that he had near linear growth. He kept his CTL in the MAV area for 2 years (which is insanely impressive) because this training is so well designed to do exactly that, whereas most training you do 2-3 weeks where you end up above your MRV and need to deload or risk burnout or injury.

But when he was an 17:30 5k runner, if he had suddenly taken a week or 2 vacation to do a training camp and push his CTL up to where it was pre-London (which I think is pretty doable), I don't think he would have suddenly been able to run a 15:01 5k. It is the load you maintain OVER TIME that leads to an individual rate of improvement.

So there MIGHT be a way to calculate what someone's rate of improvement from a history of CTL and project a different rate of improvement if they can maintain a slightly higher CTL, but I don't know if that would be very useful as, like I said, you need more load to keep improving anyways.

Also, I think people generally vastly overestimate what MV and MEV are. It is why so-called "Weekend Warriors" can actually get surprisingly fast on surprisingly little volume. It is consistency over time (i.e. maintaining a load for an extended period of time) that is important more so than just hitting a high load/CTL once.

End rant.

Yeah some good points here, although I think it is mentioned he doesn't expect everyone's progression to look like that based on increase in fitness. For him, it's probably because of ramp rate. That's the thing that surprised me the most, how crazy low it is compared to traditional methods. The patience and precision required to plan and carry that out over such long term, with such focus is almost mind blowing and genius to me.

I just finished the book, it really is great. So far beyond my expectations. Linked to the interesting discussion above, I really enjoyed the thought process about how he solved the marathon staying true to NSM with basically just the "sirpoc" special block.

It's interesting to note how hard a marathon really is to deliver. Someone who clearly has as much of a grasp on what works and doesn't as sirpoc, even he seemed intimidated by it and wasn't actually sure if the "theory" would work out, having planned it all months before. You can tell from reading it, whilst he doesn't give too much away or much credit to himself, he was really pleased with that. I mean who wouldn't be, with a 2:24 marathon when you are already into your 40s on debut on around 100km a week average. Thankfully he did it, as I have recently ran a lifetime marathon pb, off a very similar build that I would never have thought to even dream of trying had he not, but in my 10th attempt!

Argh i did a sweet spot session on bike same day as sub t on run and ever since my hamstrings have been sore…not getting any better, so am going to take 3-5 days off see if the aching goes away. Silly silly me. I was just getting back into running too and thought that the bike sweet spot was a low risk…immediately felt bad running the next day.

last time my hamstrings felt like this i had to pull out of a marathon, as I kept training until every stride i took running felt like daggers. Haven’t got that point yet, but the aching has not gone away.

so please be careful if you do sub t cross training same day as a sub t run. It’s maybe not as low risk as you think

So I think I agree with you. Own, read, and love the book. I more have issue with the characterization of load/fitness (or specifically it is with how I interpret what has been written, which admittedly could be very off from what other people understand and what was actually meant).

My view on his ramp rate is that he somehow managed almost perfectly map his ramp rate to his rate of adaption, so he always had enough load to improve and was always adding just enough load that he would continue to improve as he got more fit. Stayed in MAV, never hitting going to fast and hitting MRV or too slow and hitting MV. Which is VERY impressive to me.

(sidenote, one can have a flat, or even negative, ramp rate for a time and still improve IMO if their load is still above their MEV, but eventually they will improve to the point where their MEV exceeds their current load [AKA plateau] and will need to increase load to keep improving)

A higher ramp rate would MAYBE lead to slightly faster improvement over the short term, but then would eventually exceed MRV and would need to de-load or risk injury, which would then lead to a period of time where one isn't improving and may be slightly regressing (especially if injured) and, over the long term could lead to slower growth than the conservative approach.

I do think the above idea is well explained in the book, but I think some people look at the fitness/CTL number as a one-off number that has meaning on its own and that hitting a higher fitness number = they are faster. Hitting a high number means you have done a lot of work but their is a limit to the amount of adaptation that the body can due in a short time period (i.e. a max rate of improvement), which is why you cannot generally mat fitness to performance. The fitness/CTL score is too heavily weighted on the short term to be useful for judging anything outside of judging whether you are likely doing enough work for your fitness to be improving, maintaining, or regressing over the last 41 days.

Also, I need to proofread more. Or register so that I can edit posts. Oops.

Just watched the Magness video (thanks for linking and discussing y'all! And Steve I doubt you'll ever read this, but I did appreciate your video and do appreciate your contributions to the running world.)

It was interesting to see our very own Paul Luttrell (I've been enjoying your videos btw! and congrats on the continued progress!) and Steve have a back and forth in the comments.

Still letting things percolate in my head, but I can see where they're both coming from.

Steve talks a lot about "the kink in the pipe" and maximizing genetic potential, as well as the individual athlete's goals, ability, etc. and I don't believe I heard him mention time constraints.

As discussed here, for a time-limited hobby jogger, who not only has limited training time but also limited training-planning time and a general interest in 5ks to marathons, the norwegian singles method is a simple, streamlined, sweet-spot method that works out the biggest kink. It very well may be that most hobby joggers will never put enough time into training (or avoid injury for long enough) to have "the kink in the pipe" move.

I do feel bad for Steve; he seems like he knows his stuff and shares a lot of great content for free and generally a kind guy, and he mentioned in the comments how he has discussed pros and cons of training methods and how some of us can come across as zealots... (although I take your point Paul that many of us come to it with a chip on our shoulder).

Very likely that if we had Steve Magness as a personal coach we'd all progress faster than with NSM, but the fact is that we don't, and that training planning is as much a consideration for the time-crunched runner as actual training, and NSM is about as 'set and forget' as it gets. With the explosion in popularity of 5ks through marathon over the last 20 years or so along with a lot of crappy runfluencer advice, NSM is very valuable to a lot of folks.

I am curious over the next 2-5 years, if this thread continues, if it'll evolve to having a ream of folks finally maximizing their aerobic base, and then ready to have the conversation that Steve is having in that video. (Seems like Sirpoc is there now, and looking at gentle cycling doubles rather than any hill work; maybe you'll be there in a couple years Paul! I'm well behind y'all)

I am also curious about older folks and NSM and "hill work kink in the pipe". I'm close to Paul Luttrell in age, and come from a fast-twitch background, so it'll be ages before that becomes my kink in the pipe. But how many of us here are in our 60s? 70s? 80s? And are already super aerobically developed?

Anyway I'll cut this ramble here. I appreciate the video and the thought provocation. I like NSM as it seems viable for life; lots to think about.

Cheers.

It almost would be good to do proper MAF (like pre-pre-training), along with light weight and/or bodyweight training to handle the pounding of running, then roll into NSM vanilla. It's about doing the right steps in the RIGHT order...that is what I am thinking...!

The small block of MAF could prepare you to do the NSM from sirpoc's book.

That's what I did.. Ct5K then 4 months building to running 7 days a week, another 6 months running gently by feel with lots of rolling hills, a few months of NSA in the early spring, back to cycling and running this summer then eased back into NSA in October this year.

Coming up to 2 years of running with no injuries in my early 50s. Also doing casual body weight exercises near daily.

I find NSA really boring and hate the Garmin slavery of it but it does work. Just had the click this time around where your easy paced HR falls on the same paces which for me is the first milestone.

The Cog has been maligned but more is more until it isn't. Much of the chat around intervals.icu seems to confuse the map and the territory - without accurate power CTL is never going to be accurate. It's indicative just like HR and RPE. How your legs feel each day is just as important.

If we are talking of older runners, I'm in my 60s and feel amazing using NSM. I wish I had this when I was younger, rather than the college background and being hammered into the ground.

I read the book, it's amazing btw. This is what struck me:

Hobby jogging and elite running are effectively different sports. I hadn't thought about it until now. But, essentially we have been trying to solve hobby training with elite principles. It doesn't make sense really when you think about it.

What works for elite runners is unique to the fact they are far long past the easy improvement curve compared to us. Until you get into that mindset of slowing down and thinking what's important, you'll never really understand NSM. The elite runner has already completed NSM or a version close to it by default and they are worrying about the rest, which we almost certainly don't need to.

It's a logical explanation when you think about it, and isolating the issues that matter and forgetting about the rest, makes total sense and it's likely why so many of us (even though we have an incredibly long running background) have turned the tide of time.we are finally getting the best value out of our precious hours.

Sorry to hear that! It's incredibly rare to get a hamstring injury on the bike. In fact, I'm not even sure I've ever got injured on the bike switching between modes in 39 years! (Other than crashing!) Is your saddle height or set back terribly wrong or do you know your correct seat height? The majority of people have their saddle too high which could cause problems. But to do your hamstring on a bike at Subthreshold is almost unique!

Looks like Magness latest YouTube video is a direct result of the discussion here over the last few days. This was quite good discussion on aerobic development.

I hope people take note of this, as I think this is pretty much it. I've just had a PB year at all distances thanks to NSM and I'm 45. Most of these were set 15+ years ago. This is the first time I've ever followed a coach or training plan where it's all made sense, after you get into the groove.

Maybe that makes me a zealot. Although, I think guys like Magness see an outsider come in and feel a little bit threatened, it's almost Moneyballing running. Although, sirpoc I think deliberately downplays himself as a nobody and just a plasterer, probably so he can not have to get involved in the debate. He probably thinks we are all w*ankers for discussing it in this depth lol But you only have to read the book to understand he is one of the most intelligent thinkers on training I've ever read. Part of it is because he isn't hampered by running logic, which is mostly flawed.

As more and more people have completed years of this and still improving, it's harder for people to justify and say "what about if I improved this method doing this". The two fastest guys I know are cheetodust and sirpoc. I mean really, are we saying if they had an elite coach they would have gotten faster? I find that highly unlikely, as the reason they have gotten so fast is they are maximising the easy aerobic engine gains still and making sure they stay healthy to stack as many bricks as possible. Once you go outside of that, you start to stray from the whole purpose of this. Sure it's boring at times and would be nice to spice things up. But really, what do you care about, looking good at the track training night or caring about race day?

It’s a fatigue/stress thing I assume not acute. Probably trying push it too much after time off for a broken shoulder and trying rush back to fitness when was first sub t week after 8 or so weeks, I’ve been fitted, ex triathlete for 20 years. Just putting too much stress through my legs and been sore ever since without losing that soreness

Biggest misunderstanding is coaches like Magness thinking of developing all aspects in athletes. The younger or the closer to elite, the more you need to turn each stone. Especially for young athletes where the eventual best distcipline may not even be know.

Hobby jogger (across a huge range of performance) might care more about PB given time constraints.

Thanks to all the pro coaches taking part in the discussion.
Horses for courses.

Good to see some debate. Again, I've said this many times and I will continue: this is not the only way to train and to double re-iterate, for an elite, this would obviously be stupid and naive to "just" train this way. For the rest of us? Well I will still continue to train this way and I think it's still the best way for me to improve on a personal level.

Hopefully I've put enough out there now to let everyone make their own decisions. I was hoping, that's what the book would do and in general I think that's the case with the initial feedback.

On that note, I have submitted a reflowable epub to Amazon. It works great even on my phone, so it's going to be a much better option. I think overall, the paperback is still nicer to have, but I think this is going to be way better than the replica. So thanks for all the feedback for that, hopefully people are happier now. Oh, because I tried to change the format for it, Amazon have banned me from doing pre-orders ha ha. So, it'll just drop I guess when they feel like it.