Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

One way to think about it is in the old days of Letsrun you'd have a bunch of threads with people (some pretty fast, well trained guys at that, too) saying they could just run steady mileage, nothing near race pace for months on end and then race close to their PRs if not outright improve on them.

This method is basically a more thought out, more modernized, more refined version of saying what if we did that, but instead for 2-3 months the entire year, and then more until it simply stops working?

I'll admit I was definitely skeptical at first too and took a while to work out things, and still think there's some room for individualization re. the inclusion of 1 min reps (see the podcast where Andy spoke with sirpoc about this), but after reading the book for myself the more it all makes sense.

No periodization is just stupid. An infinite base phase is just sub-optimal. The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.

I would counter and argue that heavy periodization is stupid for most hobby joggers. Why build up to a peak you aren't ready for, in an arbitratory amount of time? This is what leads to the boom and bust cycle. You pile on the training in a rush, to get ready for your key race. Probably end up adding in intensity, way before you are ready or it's even needed. I've been there, done that. The performances aren't great at hobby level and to me this is the stupid thing to do.

I think people can't quite understand how drastically aerobically under developed many of us are, even 6-7 day a week runners. We just don't do enough of the stuff we need to do, to even get close to our potential. All NSM does is provide you with the tools and the structure to do this is a clear, sensible and manageable way, with checks and balances in place to remain disciplined to stop you falling into old habits. There's some nice additions, like how to actually race not stupidly as well, which is again something we mostly all do.

Some people will never get their head around it.

To be fair to sirpoc, I don't think he ever says don't do anything. He's giving you the facts as he sees them (which are very convincing) and adds the caveat that when you are going to change something up, just ask yourself why and then what you are actually going to get out of it.

I will admit I've wanted to add a few things in, but the reality is when I really ask myself the "why" I need to, there's never really a good enough reason, it's more a want. Especially as I'm still improving. That certainly isn't the case for everyone and of course there will be reasons why you have to change something up.

See, I thought the same too, until I really thought about it again having been out of the collegiate system for a good while now.

Periodization has been such a big part of any running training philosophy since Lydiard (and for good reason). But the real point of contention at the heart of the debate is, "how long does it take to build an aerobic base before we move onto other things?"

I'd always taken it for granted that 2-3 months was all it took, because that was what worked given the constraints and demands of the system I had always known. But when you look at the training of elites who rarely race and spend most of the year in base training, you start to realize the 2-3 month base period really is suboptimal. It's just simply not enough time.

Then the next question is, "what should the base period look like?" Big picture wise, most modern schools of thought all agree easy and sub threshold are the main focus, but NSA goes one step further and says "most of us don't need hill sprints or mechanical top end speed work to continue improving". The experiment has been trying to figure out whether or not that small yet crucial detail is true, and honestly I have to admit it's pretty convincing.

**

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think the Friel Test is garbage for running.

It might be accurate for cycling, but having been someone who would regularly overcook 30 minute continuous "tempo" runs in years gone by - being well above LT2 HR for the last 20 minutes of an all-out time trial doesn't seem that difficult to me.

Maybe I'm pulling numbers out of my *rse here, but I suspect I could get close to averaging 10bpm above what I estimate as LT2 in one of these time trials.

I might even try it one day - if there are no races on the calendar and I need something to break up the training.

Just run longer. Do a 40-60 minute time trial. It’s challenging but not hard to run nearly an hour at threshold. I do it a few times a year.

So, running 40 - 60 minutes at a pace that is sustainable for roughly an hour is not hard?

Only on LRC...

Question for Sirpoc: Obviously you have had a great amount of success with both biking and running. Have you considered trying to maintain the 3 subthreshold running days and the long easy run, while substituting cycling at a moderate (recoverable) pace for the other 3 easy run days?

If the race is not comparable to a classic flat(ish) road marathon, for example legitimate hills or sections where you are expected to walk, then I agree, a typical marathon build would need to be more specific to the event.

My initial comment was aimed at purely the increased distance of a 50k over a marathon.

The overwhelming majority of (HoJo) runners are sub-optimal. Their sleep is sub-optimal, their recovery is sub-optimal, their nutrition is sub-optimal, their lives are sub-optimal. If (big if) this method is sub-optimal, it is significantly more appropriate than optimal by definition.

Hello. Nick! Try reading the first 50 pages of the thread again, and then maybe even you will understand.

Now you're using multiple names again, Nick.

Doesn't the book say 96-98% of a Friel test to use as your LTHR? Which makes perfect sense training like this, where your LTHR is in effect your safety net, underestimating is always going to be better. I always assumed this was the case anyway. I didn't think anyone was using 100% of it.

I'm with you on this. Also out of a college background. We periodize in college , because we have to by the nature of the schedule. That's it. There's no real other reason for it. There's a start, middle and end so everything is forced into things like you mention, 2-3 month base and we are trained to move on through the gears in a rush. It doesn't make any sense really.

I look back over all my previous training back in those days and am legitimately annoyed about how I trained and do wonder if something like this would have been better. I feel I fall into the category of decent performances in spite of my training, rather than because. I then spent years replicating that training, to only break down, disappoint, time and time again. I'm almost 40 now and training like this for avout 15 months has made me realise how long a base build for most of us actually needs to be. I'm still seeing gains, just doing vanilla over and over again.

Yes, a bit below MP everyday might well be the method that yields the highest CTL, at least on paper. There are several reasons for this. They range from genuine (it probably yields most load) to inflated TSS numbers (improvement is not necessarily translated into an higher threshold unless it is specifically updated, as there are less hard efforts and the algorithms of whichever platform may not pick improvement up, so accumulating more TSS becomes easier).

But going by Sirpoc's book, clearly the conjecture of NSA is not that it yields the highest number of TSS on paper. In fact, in this regard it's beaten by a traditional template in Sirpoc's example given in the book, and by extension would be beaten by the below MP approach.

Instead, it is supposed to have an advantage in the proverbial long run by allowing the beat go on indefinitely, without fatigue and/or injury. So one key question is: is below MP everyday sustainable that way, to cash in the theoretical advantage?

Chasing CTL or TSS for the sake of TSS was never the point of TSS. It's just a tool to aggregate and help see the forest. Also one pithy Coggan aphorism something to the effect that it's called training stress score and not adaptation score for a reason.

Just to add another datapoint for people worried about losing top end speed. Been following the Sub-T lifestyle for 6-7 months. Reps typically around 3:35 to 3:40 per km. Just tried 3x 1 km hard efforts (with very long 1 km jog rest) and hit 3:04, 3:06 and 3:05. Not a single stride or hill sprint to be seen. Age 44.