Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

ramp rate wrote:

Out and Back is a loop wrote:

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!

TrailsAreBetter wrote:

Absolutely agree, and I felt a little hesitant even asking my question for that reason.

Thanks all for the replies. Sounds like the effort/heart rates he's reaching is nothing out of the ordinary for him, and the explanation of the ramp-up throughout the workout by strava snoop makes sense too. Especially given that this is someone who has spent so much time with this method and is clearly very in tune with his own body and overall training system. (And if they're right that sirpoc has "leveled up" again, I look forward to seeing the results.)

It is also easy for me to forget, given the impressive times he is reaching, that this is a guy in his 40s. A ramp-up to "full speed" throughout the workout instead of from rep 1 could make sense as an acute injury prevention method too, yes? Or has the discussion around this centered more around the "preventing overcooking" idea? In my head the danger of overcooking is more about chronic fatigue and possibly overuse injuries than something like a hammy pull from starting rep 1 too fast or whatever.

Mona Magic wrote:

In Australia, until very recently, we’ve seen our marathoners unable to get near the times of De Castella and Moneghetti from the 80s and early 90s, which I’ve always found puzzling. I recently read both Sirpoc’s book and Moneghetti’s 1997 training diaries and interestingly found them to be pointing in the same direction in terms of fundamentals (even if execution of sessions very different).

To elaborate for anyone interested:

Mona did basically the same training week in, week out all year round, year after year. Mostly same places, locations etc, so all completely dialled in over years (the fartlek around the lake in Ballarat being the most famous in Australia).

Easy and long runs were generally very easy, 4.15-4.30 min/km pace for easy runs (for a 2.08 marathon, 13.25 5km guy). Note this is even slower than Sirpoc recommends in the book.

Sessions were restrained. Even the ‘Deek quarters’ session he would do most weeks (10x400m with 200 float) were only done at ~5km pace. The other main session was a 20min fartlek, which were generally ~3min pace avg for the 20min, so just slightly faster than marathon pace. Saturdays would be something like 7km effort on a cross country course at marathon pace or a bit slower, as part of a longer run.

So nothing particularly hard week to week, but it allowed the sustainable accumulation of huge amounts of volume (200km+), with very few injuries and no boom/bust cycles. It also allowed regular racing over a range of distances from 5km to marathon, but again, very sustainable and repeatable. And over literal decades too, a couple of years ago he ran sub 15.52 for 5km as a 60 year old.

Just like NSM, there’s absolutely zero magic here. It’s just training that allows you to keep training and keep building over years.

This is a long way of repeating what others and Sirpoc have said, the real value of NSM is a detailed framework for understanding how to train effectively and sustainably over the long term. But while many on the thread have talked about how NSM is effective because it is not a scaled down elite plan, some (probably mostly older) elites have trained in a broadly similar fashion with great success.

bad coaching wrote:

Mona Magic wrote:

In Australia, until very recently, we’ve seen our marathoners unable to get near the times of De Castella and Moneghetti from the 80s and early 90s, which I’ve always found puzzling. I recently read both Sirpoc’s book and Moneghetti’s 1997 training diaries and interestingly found them to be pointing in the same direction in terms of fundamentals (even if execution of sessions very different).

To elaborate for anyone interested:

Mona did basically the same training week in, week out all year round, year after year. Mostly same places, locations etc, so all completely dialled in over years (the fartlek around the lake in Ballarat being the most famous in Australia).

Easy and long runs were generally very easy, 4.15-4.30 min/km pace for easy runs (for a 2.08 marathon, 13.25 5km guy). Note this is even slower than Sirpoc recommends in the book.

Sessions were restrained. Even the ‘Deek quarters’ session he would do most weeks (10x400m with 200 float) were only done at ~5km pace. The other main session was a 20min fartlek, which were generally ~3min pace avg for the 20min, so just slightly faster than marathon pace. Saturdays would be something like 7km effort on a cross country course at marathon pace or a bit slower, as part of a longer run.

So nothing particularly hard week to week, but it allowed the sustainable accumulation of huge amounts of volume (200km+), with very few injuries and no boom/bust cycles. It also allowed regular racing over a range of distances from 5km to marathon, but again, very sustainable and repeatable. And over literal decades too, a couple of years ago he ran sub 15.52 for 5km as a 60 year old.

Just like NSM, there’s absolutely zero magic here. It’s just training that allows you to keep training and keep building over years.

This is a long way of repeating what others and Sirpoc have said, the real value of NSM is a detailed framework for understanding how to train effectively and sustainably over the long term. But while many on the thread have talked about how NSM is effective because it is not a scaled down elite plan, some (probably mostly older) elites have trained in a broadly similar fashion with great success.

So what is the issue? Coaching? Literature? Why are the only elites we can reference training like this already drawing pensions? The bad coaching of the 90s we haven't shaken? Do we need these coaches to retire themselves? By the 2000s Bakken was a lone wolf and I suspect people thought he was weird and from outer space.

The fact some people still believe this kind of training for hobby joggers is suboptimal despite all the evidence, tells me there's still tons of influence out there from loud voices who don't even get this training. They are so wrapped up in icing a cake that hasn't even been baked yet. Why is running still in a relative dark age when it comes to understanding these things compared to other sports? I find it all very odd.

Mona Magic wrote:

In Australia, until very recently, we’ve seen our marathoners unable to get near the times of De Castella and Moneghetti from the 80s and early 90s, which I’ve always found puzzling. I recently read both Sirpoc’s book and Moneghetti’s 1997 training diaries and interestingly found them to be pointing in the same direction in terms of fundamentals (even if execution of sessions very different).

To elaborate for anyone interested:

Mona did basically the same training week in, week out all year round, year after year. Mostly same places, locations etc, so all completely dialled in over years (the fartlek around the lake in Ballarat being the most famous in Australia).

Easy and long runs were generally very easy, 4.15-4.30 min/km pace for easy runs (for a 2.08 marathon, 13.25 5km guy). Note this is even slower than Sirpoc recommends in the book.

Sessions were restrained. Even the ‘Deek quarters’ session he would do most weeks (10x400m with 200 float) were only done at ~5km pace. The other main session was a 20min fartlek, which were generally ~3min pace avg for the 20min, so just slightly faster than marathon pace. Saturdays would be something like 7km effort on a cross country course at marathon pace or a bit slower, as part of a longer run.

So nothing particularly hard week to week, but it allowed the sustainable accumulation of huge amounts of volume (200km+), with very few injuries and no boom/bust cycles. It also allowed regular racing over a range of distances from 5km to marathon, but again, very sustainable and repeatable. And over literal decades too, a couple of years ago he ran sub 15.52 for 5km as a 60 year old.

Just like NSM, there’s absolutely zero magic here. It’s just training that allows you to keep training and keep building over years.

This is a long way of repeating what others and Sirpoc have said, the real value of NSM is a detailed framework for understanding how to train effectively and sustainably over the long term. But while many on the thread have talked about how NSM is effective because it is not a scaled down elite plan, some (probably mostly older) elites have trained in a broadly similar fashion with great success.