Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

jeyuu wrote:

1500m-enthusiast wrote:

Great comment, and I'd agree with the sentiment.

It's still strange to me the attitude around here where people can't seem to talk training without spamming downvotes, getting defensive and trying to one up others rather than have open ended discussions and trying to actually learn even from people you disagree with.

I mean, yeah, it's Letsrun, but do we really have to act like the typical sports fan arguing for their favorite football teams at the bar?

Thanks again to people like you who make this thread worth following still, though.

On the whole, I've found the debate in this thread good by Letsrun standards. I came in with a pretty closed mind and will hold my hands up and say I found this silly and also felt there's no way you can run a good marathon from nsm. I was definitely wrong about then.

Then it ultimately comes down to me for setting aside what I thought I needed to do training wise and look at what fits me better. But I can see why some people will still think Canova, pitfz or any others are a must for a marathon. Having been around in the early 2000s is very, very hard to shake this stuff.

come on now wrote:

jeyuu wrote:

I agree with most of this. NSM is likely better, for most people. Which is why it's so good. It fits the broadest population. For me, there's no right way to train, but I've found watered down Canova builds still pretty hard. I also feel unless you are doing it up to the level it's designed for, it's probably losing its effect. I do agree though, if you have already trained like that, the damage done through the college system, you may as well keep rolling the dice and it'll be familiar.

For anyone else, NSM is designed for them. That's the point and why so many people file positive reports. It works on everyone's gaping erobic hole and they don't even really realise it.

It's impossible to ignore. Sirpoc didn't really know running. So ignored all the traps we fall into and looked at what worked elsewhere and built it from the ground up. Bakken gave some confirmation on the way, which is good for both of them as there's at least two voices now battering home the same message. The other thing is once you "complete" NSM, you havd a natural home on classic Bakken. There is progression almost all the way to the top.

Someone else mentioned it, but for me the greatest thing about NSM is it's clear who it's for, and who it's not for, then advises you to go elsewhere if you fall into that category.

You think Bakken knows about any of this nonsense? I'm sure he's disgusted his name has been brought up! Come on now.

To compare sirpoc to also someone like John Davis with all his qualifications a joke. I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would dare to train a marathon and just do easy long runs in the build up. That's just stupid. Sooooooo stupid.

1500m-enthusiast wrote:

I'll chime in as someone who started being coached by John this past season. I will say that yes: his training is very Canova styled principle wise (in terms of the type of workouts and the basis for calculating training paces) but the actual scale of volume and intensity, and the structuring of how intensity is distributed across weeks and months is far from being only suitable for top world class elites like Canova himself, at least in my opinion.

There were many weeks where I felt like I could have pushed the volume and intensity a fair bit, but he held me back to ensure I didn't start to overreach. Progression week by week, even month by month has been very steady and conservative, and there's always a big emphasis on staying on the slower end of pace ranges, and working into the effort feeling controlled even by the end - I'm doing easy runs sometimes a minute per mile slower than in my college days.

Honestly, the number one recurring instruction I've been given is "to not push or go faster even if you're feeling good," and the training definitely feels very individualized. I've been getting a lot of feedback and adjustments just from back and forth talk almost daily.

Having said that? My gut tells me NSA is still probably a better bet for guys who haven't gone through the US HS / collegiate system like I have. I have, so that's why I thought his coaching would be a good fit for me, and so far it's worked really well in keeping me healthy and having fun.

Finally, I think his book is still incredibly interesting even if you don't end up training the way he outlines, if nothing more for the physiological analysis he includes. If you're a training nerd like I am, definitely cool to delve into.

Man__Moth wrote:

hjkfhsd wrote:

Maybe just miscalibrated. I'll have to try again. This is the first time I've used the meter in a workout situation.

I shouldn't be that far out of shape. I ran an 18:30 - 18:45 effort a month ago, and only took about a week off after XC.

In the past (a year ago when my XC PR was 19:44), 6:27 pace was approx 2.5 mmol (this on a potentially miscalibrated treadmill), with HR at 173, I didn't hit the 6s until 5:44 pace with a 1% incline and at the end of a 3:00 step test, and I described this in my log as "hard but not falling off the back". Of course, the treadmill is probably not accurate, but the perceived effort of 6s back then was nothing like how easy it felt today...

I dropped 1:30 from my 5000m PR in the past year mostly by adding volume (50-60mpw vs 35mpw) and staying with standard HS VO2 max style intervals. I've only been running a little over a year and a half. Hoping that a switch to more threshold style intervals in the off season will lead to better results (I tend to come into the season in dramatically better shape but hit peak within a month and then it's a plateau even through the taper).

Thanks for the advice. I'll stay with 6:25 pace for now and figure out what I'm doing wrong with the meter later...

Your peak HR reaching within 5bpm of your max HR is another piece of corroborating evidence suggesting you were well above LT2.

There's no chance that was sub-threshold.

If you've taken time off, and you've also done lots of VO2 Max work recently, then it's likely that your aerobic development isn't particularly good. Therefore, the Vdot estimates for what constitutes LT2 pace (for you) will be overly ambitious. These estimates are equivalent performances, but if you're better at shorter distance events, then the pace you can sustain at LT2 will be much slower.

come on now wrote:

jeyuu wrote:

I agree with most of this. NSM is likely better, for most people. Which is why it's so good. It fits the broadest population. For me, there's no right way to train, but I've found watered down Canova builds still pretty hard. I also feel unless you are doing it up to the level it's designed for, it's probably losing its effect. I do agree though, if you have already trained like that, the damage done through the college system, you may as well keep rolling the dice and it'll be familiar.

For anyone else, NSM is designed for them. That's the point and why so many people file positive reports. It works on everyone's gaping erobic hole and they don't even really realise it.

It's impossible to ignore. Sirpoc didn't really know running. So ignored all the traps we fall into and looked at what worked elsewhere and built it from the ground up. Bakken gave some confirmation on the way, which is good for both of them as there's at least two voices now battering home the same message. The other thing is once you "complete" NSM, you havd a natural home on classic Bakken. There is progression almost all the way to the top.

Someone else mentioned it, but for me the greatest thing about NSM is it's clear who it's for, and who it's not for, then advises you to go elsewhere if you fall into that category.

You think Bakken knows about any of this nonsense? I'm sure he's disgusted his name has been brought up! Come on now.

To compare sirpoc to also someone like John Davis with all his qualifications a joke. I don't think ANYONE in their right mind would dare to train a marathon and just do easy long runs in the build up. That's just stupid. Sooooooo stupid.

NSM at your peril wrote:

letshobbyjog wrote:

I’m confused by your first paragraph; are you unfamiliar that Bakken did a foreword to sirpoc’s book?
And I’m unfamiliar with John Davis, but are you saying (on p. 4xx of this thread) that you think sirpoc’s nsm marathon training is stupid?
I can never tell if people are trolling or not… it’s so hard these days.

You don't know who John Davis is? Then I guess you don't know much about running.

Also, how are we to know Bakken actually wrote anything? Could just me make believe like everything else in this thread.

Canova plans ARE the marathon and if you don't know that, running is not the sport for you.

This so called 'method' might be a bit of fun for beginners, but there's zero evidence outside one guy it even works. Even then, we are taking his good faith that it's what he did. But even then, there's a good chance he didn't tell us the whole story so he could shill us books.

For anyone reading this, please please please don't put yourself through sirpoc NSM. There is another Norwegian singles method book sirpoc probably copied, Norwegian singles method for 30 days that is a fantastic book and well worth reading alongside John Davis work. You'll thank me later.

NSM at your peril wrote:

letshobbyjog wrote:

I’m confused by your first paragraph; are you unfamiliar that Bakken did a foreword to sirpoc’s book?
And I’m unfamiliar with John Davis, but are you saying (on p. 4xx of this thread) that you think sirpoc’s nsm marathon training is stupid?
I can never tell if people are trolling or not… it’s so hard these days.

You don't know who John Davis is? Then I guess you don't know much about running.

Also, how are we to know Bakken actually wrote anything? Could just me make believe like everything else in this thread.

Canova plans ARE the marathon and if you don't know that, running is not the sport for you.

This so called 'method' might be a bit of fun for beginners, but there's zero evidence outside one guy it even works. Even then, we are taking his good faith that it's what he did. But even then, there's a good chance he didn't tell us the whole story so he could shill us books.

For anyone reading this, please please please don't put yourself through sirpoc NSM. There is another Norwegian singles method book sirpoc probably copied, Norwegian singles method for 30 days that is a fantastic book and well worth reading alongside John Davis work. You'll thank me later.

dutch ultra approach wrote:

Hi guys! Two things. Firstly, a quick update on NSM for ultras.

Now I'm sure sirpoc absolutely did not intend this, but it worked great for me! I think the key is NSM still brings a fantastic base and all you then need to do is pace the ultra sensibly along with fueling. I ran a 80k race last weekend and finished the course in 29 minutes faster than previous years, just using NSM as a base and a much longer run on a Sunday than recommended and a super stretched medium long run usually on one of the easy days. Other than that, it would be considered classically "vanilla".

A bit like you marathon guys, I just felt super strong! It's probably optimal for my lifestyle and keeping me healthy, opposed to anything more aggressive ultra wise which I also found can take over all my spare time just recovering. Anyway, just thought I would add this as it seems it's testimonial season so thought I would share mine for any other weird ultra obsessives like me :)

My second point, is has anyone seen sirpoc training lately? I feel like he has made a huge jump back to London level. A while back how he posted he's basically going to do vanilla + 2 sessions cycling, what he called a "free hit". His reason being the recovery is sped up cycling in the morning, to the point by lunch the fatigue has vanished.

He ran yesterday 4*3km , finishing well under LTHR and averaging around 3:18-19/km. I know he raced a couple of weeks ago and it was "only" 15:04 but it just seems that kind of workout seemingly relatively comfortable is way above that. I just wondered if that really is it, the next key when you are maxed out is not necessarily running doubles but cross training to unlock a bit more. I know he said ask him in half a year, but it just seems like there might be something unlocked in just a few months.

Not everyone always agrees btw, but by Letsrun standards the debate is pretty civil!

yet another expat cyclist wrote:

Ok, book digested. This is essentially the most bread and butter kinda training model adapted to running, and this is a compliment. This means: working from well known first principles (overload, progression, specificity, even if the last one tends to be somewhat de-emphasised) as opposed to not seeing the forest from the trees (endless musings over this vs that session or this vs that coach's approach to this and that distance).

As in, the quantity of sustainable training load has a quality of its own. From an evolutionary viewpoint, I think this makes sense. Our species would be a pretty flawed organism if its ability to enhance key physical capacities depended on the level of sophistication and precision that training chit chat often seems to imply. Putting the emphasis on the main constraint, ie building aerobic capacity over a prolonged time period, is most welcome. Training high level athletes who already have the capacity is different. NSA is for average joans and joes, which is great.

Perhaps the finer details begin to count when an athlete has perma-stagnated on the time they have available. Before that putting in the work rules the roost. And the sweet spot model is pretty awesome framework for doing just that.

The basic information has been out there for a long time, too. Sirpoc refers to Holloszy and Coyle's classic paper in the book. Cannot link studies, but Gollnick et al 1973 "Effect of training on enzyme activity and fiber composition of human skeletal muscle" kinda lays out the rationale, even if the protocol is rather extreme in form (1hr all out, 4 times a week). But it shows that peripheral aerobic enzyme activity in working muscles (proxy for metabolic capacity, or more practically, threshold) can be essentially doubled with a threshold training regimen over 5 months. Another cue is Hickson et al 1977 paper "Linear increase in aerobic power induced by a strenuous program of endurance exercise" on a frankly mind-bending 10week vo2max protocol. They recorded insane improvements in central oxygen carrying capacity of around 40%, but with many subjects wanting to just quit.

So, while no one in their right mind would copy the training templates, what the classics show is that there is more bandwidth for growth in the peripheral muscular metabolic capacity adaptation emphasis vs vo2max, and even taken to "extremes" it's more sustainable. And a threshold + easy mix also enhances central factors, ie. vo2max. So the it just makes sense to do lots of it.

The hard part of course is for individuals to dial in the day to day excecution. Especially in running, where withstanding ballistic loading adds an important constraint. This thread and Sirpoc's book IMHO contributes to just this. To me, subt is modernised Lydiard 3/4 pace chopped into digestable chunks that reduces injury risk and fatigue.

same! wrote:

The thing about shoes wrote:

I'm a new runner, only been running since the start of 2025 ... Somehow starting to google running and browsing Reddit quickly guided me to NSA

But after spending a couple of months here when ever I peek outside this thread it really seems like an alternative dimension ..

Everywhere else seems to focus on fast workouts .. Worst offender is r/advancedrunning, where self proclaimed coaches post that the key to a fast marathon is threshold running on tired legs

-

But what made me write this post is "Marathon Excellence for Everyone" (2025) by John J. Davis, Ph.D. Amazon has been trying to sell me this book after I bought Sirpoc's book.

The cover is nice and the selling point is also nice: Expert coach and scientist John J Davis gives you up to date science based advice.

But when I browse the preview it seems very VO2max focused and like something that would run you into the ground if you're above the age of 23 ???

Anyone with an opinion on this one?

The book must be sponsored as the same happened to me. I bought it. It's a good book, but I wouldn't recommend it for beginners or even hobby joggers. You have to be very wary of what you can handle. For marathon stuff, it's incredibly Canova inspired. I don't think that is a bad thing for elites, but for hobby joggers this falls into the same trap as pitfz. I like John's writings, but I think he's probably from the school of scaling down what has worked for Canova training elite runners. This is the absolute key thing to avoid for most reading this thread.

I follow him and Grandma's guy on Strava, Jon is also in the NSM group. They both ran that day. John had a very intensive build, as you would expect for someone from his view point. There's no definite correct way to train for anyone! Grandma's guy from here ran the sirpoc build, just 100km a week and his race report was how strong and fresh he felt and finished a decent amount ahead.

Very hard to compare people, but I think that's probably the difference between NSM right up to the marathon and anything else. It probably is the most relevant to most of us and likely to deliver the best results. The question is more "why", at this point.

P.s advanced running is a mess. This stuff is alien to them. Every thread you will be told to run 5k pace work regular.

Gaslit wrote:

That's my biggest problem with this method.

To start - I'm a fan, especially the 70% (probably will get some lab tests out of curiosity since it can vary A LOT between people anyway) of MHR for easy runs - this has made me feel so much stronger in my workouts, it was worth reading the thread for anyway.
However, I absolutely cannot agree with the CTL. Yes, if you train the same way week in, week out, the CTL will correspond with performance quite well, but so will mileage, time, and everything else you can think of (even elevation gain if you run the same route day in, day out).

My previous PR was 44:XX on a ~60 fitness score on intervals ICU; now it's in the low 40s, and my load is about 35. Weight is the same, by the way; I'm just training differently. So, for me at least, I like to try out different training methods, and load is not really a good indicator of my fitness.

This CTL idea would also go against Jack Danniel's VDOT adjustments - 11% down for 42 days is absolutely not even close to what will happen with your CTL graph - and yet, from experience, it is a lot closer to what would happen to me in reality. Also, to take it to the extreme - a sub-13 runner taking a 6-month break would both have CTL of 0 and be faster than I ever will. (I know it is individual, but then you can compare his CTL 0 time to his CTL when he was running 17 mins, for example - the main point is, there are permanent fitness adaptations).
=
Also, I have to comment about the shoes - maybe because I’m in the EU, but most of the shoes are maybe 50EUR cheaper than MSRP of the western shoes - but I can send them back easier, try them in store, and most importantly - they go on sale 50% off regularly, so it’s actually cheaper than the chinese brands? Maybe because I’m checking on Aliexpress, but it’s not the low price hack I was promised, hah.

Podcast critique wrote:

dutch ultra approach wrote:

Hi guys! Two things. Firstly, a quick update on NSM for ultras.

Now I'm sure sirpoc absolutely did not intend this, but it worked great for me! I think the key is NSM still brings a fantastic base and all you then need to do is pace the ultra sensibly along with fueling. I ran a 80k race last weekend and finished the course in 29 minutes faster than previous years, just using NSM as a base and a much longer run on a Sunday than recommended and a super stretched medium long run usually on one of the easy days. Other than that, it would be considered classically "vanilla".

A bit like you marathon guys, I just felt super strong! It's probably optimal for my lifestyle and keeping me healthy, opposed to anything more aggressive ultra wise which I also found can take over all my spare time just recovering. Anyway, just thought I would add this as it seems it's testimonial season so thought I would share mine for any other weird ultra obsessives like me :)

My second point, is has anyone seen sirpoc training lately? I feel like he has made a huge jump back to London level. A while back how he posted he's basically going to do vanilla + 2 sessions cycling, what he called a "free hit". His reason being the recovery is sped up cycling in the morning, to the point by lunch the fatigue has vanished.

He ran yesterday 4*3km , finishing well under LTHR and averaging around 3:18-19/km. I know he raced a couple of weeks ago and it was "only" 15:04 but it just seems that kind of workout seemingly relatively comfortable is way above that. I just wondered if that really is it, the next key when you are maxed out is not necessarily running doubles but cross training to unlock a bit more. I know he said ask him in half a year, but it just seems like there might be something unlocked in just a few months.

Not everyone always agrees btw, but by Letsrun standards the debate is pretty civil!

I am using it to train for a 50km ultra right now - only difference I am going to make though is to do 2 back to back long runs on the weekend, first day with some 'steady (ie mid zone 2, but lower than mara effort - around the heart rate i think i can hold (130), intervals of 30 to 45 minutes - building to 2 x 45 mins with 10 to 15 easy between) - then next day a a long easy day.

now it's time to wait for me to be flamed.

i don't really have time to do a longer run mid-week unless i am up at 4.30am....