Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I have a question on load.

In the summer I was running 6 days a week, about 9 hours a week with 3 sub t sessions.

I've now got time to run 7 days a week with the easy runs spread out over more days and 9 hours of running still.

My load is lower now because I'm not squeezing it all in to 6 days. Same time running, same number of subT runs but lower load.

Anyone else had this?

I don’t want to bring the banned Seth de more megathread but is this why his 9 hours ( recruiting red blood cells on a mountain) easy running actually work, and if he didn’t boom and bust with his crazy scientist approach would actually have meant he would have run quicker?

Some Washington and Oregon clubs are talking about opting out of USATF for other events. Nike added middle school races at NXR Northwest and Oregon has a middle school championships that attracts over 1500 athletes. Those events are easier and less costly to attend plus offer far better organization and experience for the kids.

USATF is really dropping the ball on youth sports! I feel like the national leadership doesn’t give a 💩.

So does that mean that the model needs to be modified to work better for running? Or the input? Both? What does sirpoc say?

Why not use GOVSS, which was made specifically for running? Xert’s XSS scoring model based on 3 parameter CP works quite well, behaving similarly to GOVSS and Bikescore (Skiba metrics).

In my opinion, the Xert system is more robust and describes training and workload better than any other mathematical analysis method.

Couple in the Bannister model alongside the PMC and you get even more insight.

Isn't GOVSS just a derivative of McGregor's rTSS? And wouldn't the model itself need to be adjusted for running as well?

Or maybe it doesn't really matter and what's important is how the PMC encourages people to be less myopic when thinking about training?

I'm not sure really what I think. Myself and Hard2find were talking about how to improve it, but we just never really bothered or it didn't go anywhere despite quite a lot of discussion. Someone like that with the tech skills and the knowledge, is the person to do it. He's probably off mining bitcoin or something, who genuinely knows what that guy is up to and I feel I know him quite well thanks to the thread. One of a couple of true geniuses I've met along the way.

We get easily distracted, probably talking about how bad tymewear is or more likely about music. In all honesty, for Subthreshold training (with the assumption you stick to the same routine), it works pretty well, assuming you don't flip-flap between load models and keep your input parameters the same. I think we just ended up thinking "meh, it'll do".

It's certainly not perfect though, especially at either end of the intensity scale, and if someone came up with a better way that's just as user friendly, I'd probably use it.

I also want to note, I highly would discourage anyone from doing LT1 everyday (good luck also getting that dialled in, will be tricky day to say, the target window is narrower than targeting a broader range of sub lt2), but am genuinely interested in what happens if someone survives. There's definitely been people who have done this and it's nothing new, but I think breaking it up into chunks makes more sense, to control the mechanical stress as much as you can, but even then, I think it's best left on paper.

Sirpoc did a workout recently comparing the pumas with the do-win and his conclusion was that they are about the same speed, with a slight edge to the do-wins. Then you factor in comfort (do wins could be taken to the HM and even the marathon) and price (do wins cost almost a third of the pumas) and it's an absolute no-brainer.

I have my pair that I will take for a workout tomorrow to get my own thoughts. I'm a huge fan of the pumas, I broke my 5k pr in them by over 30 seconds despite gale force winds. Some of that was down to NSA, but the shoes really are next level compared to other racers (vaporfly, alphafly), so if the do-wins are even better than THAT for £100 I would be beyond impressed.

Side note: my pumas in size 7.5 UK weight 162g, the do-wins in the same size weigh 145g. From some quick research I think only the adidas pro evo line weigh less (~130-140g range).

Are you guessing? No time to perform a quick search? McGregor rTSS is simply TSS with NGP instead of NP. Completely derivative. Well, PMC is derivative, but that’s another conversation.

GOVSS is specifically for running. You can read about it here.

https://runscribe.com/wp-content/uploads/power/GOVSS.pdf

Uses similar averaging for xpower as normalized power. Uses the shape of lactate curves for the scoring system.

Easy to code and employ. Same 100 point scoring system for 60 minutes at CP/FTP. And you can even use your own lactate curve shape to further individualize the calculation.

What about the load scores from Daniels running formula, based on VDOT? They seem more realistic (although only empirically). I read the book and noticed they were not mentioned (or I missed), but I use them for a long time and they seem a reliable measure of load. At <70% max HR one gets 0.1-0.15 unit/minute, MP is approx 0.5, threshold is 0.7 and VO2 max 1.0. The simple quadratic formula probably values easy paces too much - 70% of threshold speed is only half as efective, while most consider 60 min at such speed as recovery, while 30 min threshold is serious work, but according to this formula both yield the same load.

"TSS is an estimate of the training stress that leads to positive adaptations, not an estimate of fatigue or damage."
That’s exactly why slow, long jogs rack up a ton of TSS points — the system places extremely high value on them. Personally, I think this does not makes sense for running when you consider running economy: sometimes faster workouts aren’t objectively “better” than a slow long jog in terms of raw aerobic stimulus, but they improve economy, which makes you faster in the long run. The speed gains comes from that efficiency improvement too, not only from a bigger aerobic stimulus. In my opinion load is not load. Faster workouts are much more important for less experienced runners.

So why isn't it called TAS, for training adaptation score?

It comes down again to all of the systems have flaws, right back to TRIMP. Daniels to me is comical the high value he places on vo2 max work, as if it's some miracle intensity. All any system of accounting for load is going to do is provide an estimate. Not a lot of it matters unless you are collecting sound data anyway.

I agree and disagree. There is a factor of running economy, in running, but I also feel that is vastly overrated as well. Too many of these things come down to us as runners saying "but running is special". It probably is, but also as above we hugely overstate it's position as being unique in the aerobic training world.

We have definitely come back to a topic that we have done before. But that's OK. I think my view has changed a lot, as a lot of people I have seen improve like this, often have shared data in that their measurable load has increased. There's nothing hugely surprising about this, as sirpoc pointed out in his book, marathoners often pb across the board in a build because they have probably ran more than ever before. He even says you can isolate load as simply hours trained, assuming you train the same way, with same work to easy ratios.

Again, this isn't something majorly new to runners, who have been logging hours in diaries for years. Go back 50 years to old guys who coached from old note books. They were setting PBs usually when mileage/hours spent running was at it's highest.

Using something that can be mapped in a PMC just makes it more plug and play, user friendly or easier to make sense of it. Any way you use is serving it's purpose only as an estimate anyway?

Yepp, Hadd phase 1 early stage...you probably know the evolution from there with one of the LT1 pushing the pulse upwards.Many japanese marathoners train similar way after build up: 1x LT1 60-90min, 1x LT1-LT2 progressive or broken tempos @HM pace(40-60min) + easy long run + easy days between.

So we can learn a bit from them about doing LT1 + easy in building phase.That was the original question.

I don't advocate for vo2 max workouts to be clear, but for 2x2 min faster stuff, after a threshold session, which shouldn't wear you out. e.g. 8x3 + 2x2 . Perhaps more important for beginners. Running economy is the muscles, movement, and then some neural stuff, its not all about the aerobic base.

I don't disagree, but beginners are likely to improve no matter what and keeping things purely aerobic is likely the lowest hanging fruit and easiest to control. Even doing 3 min reps will improve economy a lot in the context of NSM. I would agree with the general premise that these things are vastly overrated

$100 plus at least $30 shipping, before tax (I didn't do the full order but did a rough shipping calculation). I don't see the point.

That'll only save you a few bucks compared to going to your runner owned local small business owned running shoe store, trying on a bunch of different shoes & using them on the treadmill, making sure they fit, & walking out 30 min later with a new pair to use later that day.