Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

JohnGordon25 wrote:

This is my first time in this thread and I saw a few posts asking about estimating LT1 and LT2.
I've done over 2,000 lactate tests in the past 2 years. A few things that I have learned that others might find helpful. Apologies if some of this has already been covered.
Lactate is a great tool but you need to know how to use it. I've seen some horrible testing protocols from lactate tests performed in labs. Improper warm-up, testing from the same location without cleaning the area, and using strict numbers like 2.0 for LT1 and 4.0 for LT2.
Something that has caught me off guard is how insane the individual differences are between athletes. For example, here are two athletes whom I have regularly tested over the past year.
Athlete A will hit 3.0mmol/l at right around 6:20-6:30/Mile and Athlete B will hit 3.0mmol/l at 5:50-6:00/Mile. Obviously, I'm doing this to prove a point, so you probably already know that Athlete A is faster than Athlete B, but what's shocking is the gap between them. Athlete A has run 15:00 for 5k and Athlete B has run 17:40 for 5k.
In my experience there’s no single definite way to determine threshold pace, so I use a combination of methods.
Lactate: Ramp test, testing in session, MLSS and track numbers over time. Lactate testing in session helps athletes learn RPE.
1 hour race pace: This is good to get a general idea of your threshold pace but individual differences in TTE make this unreliable. NEVER use a 5k or shorter race distance in a running calculator to find your 1 hour race pace. Running calculators typically overestimate threshold pace.
Breathing/talk test: Not reliable in my experience. This includes the new Tymewear device. The Tymewear device can be helpful to track continuous data, but I would not use it as a standalone metric.
Effort: If an athlete is honest about their effort level, this is a great way to identify threshold.
Heart Rate: Helpful to look at continuous data, but would not use it to guide threshold workouts.
My advice to athletes is not to over index on any single metric. Use a variety of tools and experiment.

JohnGordon25 wrote:

This is my first time in this thread and I saw a few posts asking about estimating LT1 and LT2.
I've done over 2,000 lactate tests in the past 2 years. A few things that I have learned that others might find helpful. Apologies if some of this has already been covered.
Lactate is a great tool but you need to know how to use it. I've seen some horrible testing protocols from lactate tests performed in labs. Improper warm-up, testing from the same location without cleaning the area, and using strict numbers like 2.0 for LT1 and 4.0 for LT2.
Something that has caught me off guard is how insane the individual differences are between athletes. For example, here are two athletes whom I have regularly tested over the past year.
Athlete A will hit 3.0mmol/l at right around 6:20-6:30/Mile and Athlete B will hit 3.0mmol/l at 5:50-6:00/Mile. Obviously, I'm doing this to prove a point, so you probably already know that Athlete A is faster than Athlete B, but what's shocking is the gap between them. Athlete A has run 15:00 for 5k and Athlete B has run 17:40 for 5k.
In my experience there’s no single definite way to determine threshold pace, so I use a combination of methods.
Lactate: Ramp test, testing in session, MLSS and track numbers over time. Lactate testing in session helps athletes learn RPE.
1 hour race pace: This is good to get a general idea of your threshold pace but individual differences in TTE make this unreliable. NEVER use a 5k or shorter race distance in a running calculator to find your 1 hour race pace. Running calculators typically overestimate threshold pace.
Breathing/talk test: Not reliable in my experience. This includes the new Tymewear device. The Tymewear device can be helpful to track continuous data, but I would not use it as a standalone metric.
Effort: If an athlete is honest about their effort level, this is a great way to identify threshold.
Heart Rate: Helpful to look at continuous data, but would not use it to guide threshold workouts.
My advice to athletes is not to over index on any single metric. Use a variety of tools and experiment.

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.

long story short wrote:

The whole premise of this thread, is sirpoc lactate tested to find if there is a broad ish range you can train, to take away the hassle of lactate testing, like sweet spot cycling.

TL;DR there probably is. The aggregate gains you can get from this area broadly below Lt2, which really isn't that hard to identify, is beyond what most people have experienced before. I think someone posted a few pages ago there's not 9000 posts and 450 pages for no reason. This is something that was maybe niche, then a bit of a fad and now something that has started to become accepted and mainstream.

Of course you can dial it in more. But what the raw numbers are or if that's even necessary IMO, isn't relevant for hobby joggers who just wanted the benefits of what essentially is a running copycat of sirpoc's time trial training.

That isn't to say your post isn't interesting or useful, just if you haven't read the thread, it's likely less relevant than you think (spoiler, there is no "Norwegian" Singles method, it's just a name that stuck).

former canova guy wrote:

Skip most of the last 200 pages wrote:

I have both books, and Marathon Excellence is great. The author is more of a Canova disciple, so has a different philosophy towards running, but one that's much more modern than Daniels or Pfitzinger. He has a strong background (PhD) in sports physiology, and is also a fairly accomplished coach (in his spare time, mostly). Check out the author's website, runningwritings.com - he publishes probably the highest quality writing I've found on running. I suspect amazon is pushing Marathon Excellence as both are self-published books on running that have been sleeper hits.

Marathon Excellence probably has more "fun" plans, if you're training for a marathon and like variety, while NSM is the more conservative, long-term focused plan.

Must confess I used to be a big Canova guy. But ultimately, I think for hobby joggers it doesn't make sense. John is definitely as big a Canova guy as you will find. Nothing wrong with that, it probably just doesn't apply to most of us. Stuff to learn and understand, but likely not anything I would ever apply again having trained for a marathon via NSM.

Just my ancedotal evidence (although seems to play out for others) that NSM with the special block, I felt better than any marathon I have ran before, most of which are the type John would likely endorse. Nothing wrong with that, but having done both it's a no brainer for me. Felt fresher, felt stronger, less fatigued and never felt so sharp on race day. It's the 90%+ of MP paced runs that bury or injure most hobby joggers.

It's as mentioned, a good book and a more modern version of Pitfz, absolutely worth a look if you want an updated version of that. You could argue more reward at the end of it, but far, far too much risk for me now, having seen the other side. I imagine that's the same for a lot of us, who have done this for a period.

Goes without saying, if I was elite I would be on the Canova side of the fence. NSM tells you who it is for, I really appreciate it's honest about that.

Ugali Bolognese wrote:

I saw Canova at a market in Sestriere yesterday. I told him how cool it was to meet him in person, but I didn’t want to be a douche and bother him and ask him for photos or anything.

He said, “Marathon is very specific no. So you must make the strength and extension of quality to suit this. And it is in the extension of quality that we make the adaptation necessary for the effort to make. We also do the hills for physiological improvement on calf muscles and economic improvement. For example, for the 1991 cross country trial we make with Kiprutojenich five times three thousand meter in eight minutes and keep remember this was at elevation of 2,000 no, so maybe equivalent seven and thirty seconds for the 3,000. And then in Oslo he still run world record so it show that it’s needed to make the strong specific work for extra motivations.”

I was taken aback, and all I could say was “Huh?” but he kept cutting me off and going “huh? huh? huh?” and closing his hand shut in front of my face.

shirtboy2022 wrote:

bakkens 100 day marathon had the Canova style approach

Sirpocs approach is pretty much Canova at the end which is all that matters

Where ppl miss the plot is everything that is done BEFORE that last 6-8 weeks which absolutely devastates the non professional (and some professionals).

Canovas principles are solid but the implementation needs to be about 20% more conservative

The notion of building the speed above marathon pace then funneling/extending it through the finish phase is exactly what was done by Voldemort during the run up to London.

If that’s not a great adaptation if Canova to hobby jogger i dont know what you’d be expecting at this point

So much of Canova is about arguments solely on paper that never materialize for the adherents on the actual day; this is a notch in the column of ‘yeah this actually makes sense IF done slightly differently’

this could be it wrote:

shirtboy2022 wrote:

bakkens 100 day marathon had the Canova style approach

Sirpocs approach is pretty much Canova at the end which is all that matters

Where ppl miss the plot is everything that is done BEFORE that last 6-8 weeks which absolutely devastates the non professional (and some professionals).

Canovas principles are solid but the implementation needs to be about 20% more conservative

The notion of building the speed above marathon pace then funneling/extending it through the finish phase is exactly what was done by Voldemort during the run up to London.

If that’s not a great adaptation if Canova to hobby jogger i dont know what you’d be expecting at this point

So much of Canova is about arguments solely on paper that never materialize for the adherents on the actual day; this is a notch in the column of ‘yeah this actually makes sense IF done slightly differently’

"At the end which is all that matters". This could be it. I'll be honest, when it was clear sirpoc was building up to London I didn't think he had a hope in hell of running even 2:35 maybe six weeks out. The training legit seemed way too soft and conservative. But then 2:24 on that day, with relatively little mileage in a race where everyone else fell apart, was outrageous for a first marathon at his age.

So then I looked to how and why. The build kept him aerobically strong with just slightly extended NSM. Then when the time came, he basically added in a touch of specificity for the unique demands of a marathon. Are we basically saying for hobby joggers, staying fresh and going big at the end is really it? I think we might be. I agree, the damage seemingly for non elites is going way too big, too early, and then 6-8 weeks out you are already fried to a crisp.

this could be it wrote:

shirtboy2022 wrote:

bakkens 100 day marathon had the Canova style approach

Sirpocs approach is pretty much Canova at the end which is all that matters

Where ppl miss the plot is everything that is done BEFORE that last 6-8 weeks which absolutely devastates the non professional (and some professionals).

Canovas principles are solid but the implementation needs to be about 20% more conservative

The notion of building the speed above marathon pace then funneling/extending it through the finish phase is exactly what was done by Voldemort during the run up to London.

If that’s not a great adaptation if Canova to hobby jogger i dont know what you’d be expecting at this point

So much of Canova is about arguments solely on paper that never materialize for the adherents on the actual day; this is a notch in the column of ‘yeah this actually makes sense IF done slightly differently’

"At the end which is all that matters". This could be it. I'll be honest, when it was clear sirpoc was building up to London I didn't think he had a hope in hell of running even 2:35 maybe six weeks out. The training legit seemed way too soft and conservative. But then 2:24 on that day, with relatively little mileage in a race where everyone else fell apart, was outrageous for a first marathon at his age.

So then I looked to how and why. The build kept him aerobically strong with just slightly extended NSM. Then when the time came, he basically added in a touch of specificity for the unique demands of a marathon. Are we basically saying for hobby joggers, staying fresh and going big at the end is really it? I think we might be. I agree, the damage seemingly for non elites is going way too big, too early, and then 6-8 weeks out you are already fried to a crisp.