Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I don't think anyone has said it works for everyone? Just that it probably applies to the broadest amount of the general population. As an excellent training philosophy. What training would be one size fits all? One of the reasons I like NSM the most is the honesty. It'll probably work, but no guarantee - and even then, it'll take time. No miracle, no thrills, just commitment and hard work.

I haven't improved much on NSM, but I still have improved. It took a while to get there. But two things that are big:

Firstly I don't feel beat up. I'm fresh, virtually everyday, which brings more enjoyment to running.

Secondly, I haven't had a "stopping" injury in the whole time. Maybe that's luck. But I am very, very injury prone to intensity of the past and this has steered me clear thankfully, (for now!)

I've shaved a handful of seconds off my pb for 5k. Who is to say though, if the consistency keeps going, that won't turn into more the next year? I guess that is the point.

Maybe that's too slow for some. But for me it's a big positive. Training is absolutely stress free now and I can move onto worrying about things sirpoc covers excellently, like tapering or race pacing to gain some more of an edge.

There's always people coming to the thread that say "change this" "do this" but then do neither of: backing up their criticisms with example plans to replace NSM, or more importantly don't have any sample size like NSM to show it works for a large percentage of people, who have stuck to it for a long time.

The value of the thread 2.5 years in, is a lot of people have done this now for a long time, without a break and still continue to see an upturn in results. The actual results we are seeing across a spectrum of runners of various abilities, is WHY we are still here.

I want to get some 400 / 800 times on the books before I'm too old (42 now) without losing the aerobic endurance I've built up.

I was thinking to shorten one of the Sub-T sessions by half, then add 800 - 1600 worth of intervals with longer rests.

The rest would be vanilla.

Anyone done something similar?

If performance isn't improving, then no, you aren't "building fitness". The former is a direct reflection of the latter.

Speaking of stupid comments.

en.wikipedia.org

Reductio ad absurdum

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum, (Latin for "argument to absurdity") apagogical argument, or proof by contradiction is the form of argument that attemp...

Open link

Assuming that you are not trolling; this has been done and dusted now many times: pretty much everyone who has followed the weekly VO2 max intervals (done mostly too fast) and the LT2 (done inevitably too fast) "tempo run" that you propose stopped improving after a few weeks/months. On a bigger scale European and American distance running basically went down the toilet in the 1990s when people embraced this approach and this included even the elite level athletes. The few exceptions were people who were not training this way and who were more influenced by Lydiard than anything else.

As opposed to your ‘clever’ motte and bailey youve been trying to run the last few pages?

I think this is a fair point. The method has an incredible amount of real world, real life feedback, across multiple platforms. It's definitely on someone else to show and prove another way is better for non elites. NSM has proven itself. I was skeptical but at this point for a mass percentage of the population to follow one particular philosophy, it's incredibly hard to argue against.

Having said that, if someone COULD show us something better for non elites, lay it out with facts, arguments, back up by real world performances, i would happily jump on it.

I would guess I'm not the only one who feels like this, I just want to get best value out of my hours invested. I've been running 23 years. This ticks the boxes important to me more than any other training philosophy I've encountered.

I think that the success that many seem to have training this way is really more of a reflection of how poorly hobbyjoggers seem to train in general.

IOW, "In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king".

It seems like you answered it yourself why they went down the toilet? They didn't have a clue how to perform that kind of training the best way. As you told they did VO2 max and LT2 too fast?

Same with most NSM runners then?They didn't have a clue how to best perform with VO2 max and LT2 and went down the toilet too? Alot of people in that toilet then..... ;))

Jokes aside, the NSM gave them a 'lifeline' then , and that is good, even if it seems to take alot of time to see any improvement, if it ever happens.

right, using ‘tried and true’ schedules and methods that ppl have been yammering on about for decades

this is not a ‘how’ problem it a ‘what’ problem — you think everyone in this thread is a ‘couch to 5k’ person?

that really must be your premise at this point

Ahaha! ) That comment made my day. Thanks!

Don't buy this. I've followed Daniels (highly regarded) and had top coaches that have fried me. Are we saying throw Daniels away in the trash with NSM? What training are we then left with? What training do you like?

Most of us can easily pick up Daniel's (any edition) follow it and be ruined. So are you saying this is essentially Daniel's and co fault?

So how fast did you run with your VO2 max and LT2 run each week which you knew how to execute correctly and how fast did you run with NSM?

Totally agree. Doesn't make sense. Daniel's you can follow absolutely to the letter, but long term it usually ends the same for hobby joggers. So it's really is poor argument that we "don't know how" to execute these sessions vo2 and threshold sessions. Because you can literally follow it by the book by the probably best known coach for it and still end up in the sh*t.

I've been experimenting with something inspired by this while building a base as a race walker, feeling pretty good so far. Last week was:

Monday: off

Tuesday: 60 min at a very slow pace (5 mph) with the first and last 10 min at a 5% incline and the middle 40 min alternating 4 min at a 10% incline/1 min at 5%

Wednesday: 60 min easy progression (gradually progressing 5.8 to 7 mph on the treadmill)

Thursday: 60 min very easy (5.8 mph)

Friday: 60 min at 5.8mph with the first and last 10 min flat, middle 40 min alternating 4 min at a 4.5% incline/1 min flat.

Saturday: 60 min easy outside (~10 min/mi)

Sunday: 60 min at a 5% incline, progressing from 5 to 6 mph over 55 min plus a 5 min cool down.

I have to use the treadmill a lot living in Minnesota in the winter. Using the incline makes it easier to include a wider variety of workouts. The paces are pretty slow right now, but will pick up. I'll probably progress this by increasing the total weekly training time to 7 hours/week without adding any sessions. I might also alternate the Sunday progression with a long day every other week. My target race is a half marathon in late April, so I'll probably do this until late February then mix in some faster stuff and then progress to race-specific workouts.

You have been given ample chance now, to outline or share your own training as to how best a hobby joggers can include regular vo2 max and threshold workouts, whilst still improving over the long term and it being sustainable over a period of time.

But, we all know you are not going to put yourself out there and actually take the time to contribute, to what could be an interesting debate. In that sense, everything you post forthcoming is lately irrelevant. I hope you got the attention you were looking for.

Not sure about the 400. That's a different animal. But cheetodust I believe ran a pretty good 800 off NSM vanilla. It's probably not the best for it, although Warholm has obviously used threshold training as a base for the hurdles, which is even more anaerobic than the flat.

In a sense you're right. That's why this method came about in the first place: there weren't any training philosphies that addressed the gaping hole in most folks training: aerobic capabilities. Most of the popularlized training philosphies out there base their metrics, broadly, on prior aerobic development. Even the Daniels caculator assumes aerobic contributions are close to maxmized, which is where you can see benefit from VO2 and LT2 workouts, because they squeeze a bit more fitness out at the right times.

But it's not just that anyone can figure out what we have as the MOST EFFICIENT way for hobby joggers, with their suboptimal life contributions to "perfect training", to train. That's why there's a book and almost a 10000+ thread. It's well crafted for the right audience, not just a result of poor hobby jogger training. But it sure does solve that problem pretty well.

Hilarious to see vo2 stalwarts, (who won't share their own methods) likely horrible coaches themselves with a vested interest, losing their mind because training for most of their clients has been solved in the sense that they can pick up a book and fire their coach. Brilliant. Love it.

Whereas they could embrace it and pick up clients who still want the guidance and are more likely to work with them long term, once you give them consistency and the removal of a boom and bust 16 weeks and moving on to new things.