Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

atoponce wrote:

TheGodFraudster wrote:

of course it's refreshing, you're literally just jogging. lmao

Sorry to burst your bubble, but according to research by (Peter Coe), you get no benefit from running below 55% vo2max (63-70%) and barely any benefits at 60%. (70-75%)

Salazar (who was 16 mins faster than your godfather in old rubber shoes btw) said you're just burning calories running that slow. If I were you, I would keep it at 70% HR and gradually move up to 75%. If you are too tired, then you're either, unfit, or your workouts are too hard.

I was curious to see how accurate this claim is, so I dug a little bit. and it seems they agree. That is, if you want to train heart stroke volume and improve myocardial contractility, you need to run closer to your AeT.

Link:blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2023/10/23/the-erro...

They find (emphasis mine):

British Journal of Sports Medicine wrote:

This suggests that the force of myocardial contraction in most cases increases with increasing load, manifested by an increase in ejection fraction and not always in an increase in stroke volume, which is an indirect measure of myocardial contractility distorted by the effect of heart rate on EDV. This exposes two major pitfalls of the concept of “maximum stroke volume training” at easy running:

* when a reflex sympathetic increase in stroke volume at light exercise, compensating for the postural decrease in stroke volume, is misjudged as a real increase in myocardial contractility, which has a training effect, and;
* when the lack or modest increase in stroke volume as heart rate increases is misjudged as the lack of increase in myocardial contractility, which is supposedly useless for myocardium training.

Simply put, the concept assumes a training effect where there is none, and misses it where it exists, that is, it is turned upside down.

This does not mean that low heart rate running is useless. Its good tolerance allows for higher volumes of running, which results in increased basic endurance, from the muscle recapillarization, strengthening of muscles, bones, joints and ligaments to dilated myocardial hypertrophy and brain and fatigue resistance, but increased myocardial contractility is not in the list.

I might be misinterpreting the finding however.

obturator wrote:

Any comments on this study from the science guys/gals on here? I might take a closer look at this study at work today if I get some time.

Interesting I've been trying to figure out why I made initial improvements with NSM, then got a little slower, then little more slower, & then just maintained. Combed over my loads, mileage, subt workout paces with a fine tooth comb & nothing makes sense. Didn't even think about looking at easy pace.

When I started I went by my wrist watch HR monitor (which is obviously off) & ran easy paces 8:00 min/mile (4:58 km/min) sometimes even 7:45. Ran 8k in 5:50 pace. Wasn't until I had an idea of fitness when I plugged time into Lactrase & it said my easy pace should be around 8:30 min/mile, so I slowed down. Also got a chest HR monitor. Then next race result was a little slower. Later I slowed down easy days even more after reading people on here faster than me running easy paces of 9-10 min/mile. Could be a correlation? Or could be I wasn't increasing load enough? I'll have to experiment.

Started the book last night & read sirpoc say he's a high responder to training (see chart p. 9) & others might be more of a high responder to intensity, which is where I've often thought of myself. I never get injured or really burned out too easily physically (more mentally, lol) so maybe maybe I respond better to easy runs more at 75% or even higher especially if runs at 70% max HR or less aren't beneficial aerobically, but are more to aid recovery (even though I've questioned if that much recovery is necessary considering these subt workouts are 4-6/10 efforts). Just some random thoughts that go through my curious head.

recovery insight wrote:

obturator wrote:

Any comments on this study from the science guys/gals on here? I might take a closer look at this study at work today if I get some time.

Interesting I've been trying to figure out why I made initial improvements with NSM, then got a little slower, then little more slower, & then just maintained. Combed over my loads, mileage, subt workout paces with a fine tooth comb & nothing makes sense. Didn't even think about looking at easy pace.

When I started I went by my wrist watch HR monitor (which is obviously off) & ran easy paces 8:00 min/mile (4:58 km/min) sometimes even 7:45. Ran 8k in 5:50 pace. Wasn't until I had an idea of fitness when I plugged time into Lactrase & it said my easy pace should be around 8:30 min/mile, so I slowed down. Also got a chest HR monitor. Then next race result was a little slower. Later I slowed down easy days even more after reading people on here faster than me running easy paces of 9-10 min/mile. Could be a correlation? Or could be I wasn't increasing load enough? I'll have to experiment.

Started the book last night & read sirpoc say he's a high responder to training (see chart p. 9) & others might be more of a high responder to intensity, which is where I've often thought of myself. I never get injured or really burned out too easily physically (more mentally, lol) so maybe maybe I respond better to easy runs more at 75% or even higher especially if runs at 70% max HR or less aren't beneficial aerobically, but are more to aid recovery (even though I've questioned if that much recovery is necessary considering these subt workouts are 4-6/10 efforts). Just some random thoughts that go through my curious head.

How long have you been doing this for? I had a wobble around the middle. Someone else posted on Reddit, about how sirpoc actually has had a couple periods where he took a small step back (although I think one of those was a COVID bout), then a big breakthrough again. A couple of times where 4 months of not a lot happening.

My view was somewhat similar to yours. I am running these at 5/10 RPE mostly. So my view after a few months, I mean, how really hard is this to recover from? Having ran this way a year now, I probably have re thought that, if you really want to do 3x workouts a week, for a whole year, you probably can't get away with 75% MHR everyday. It's just a compromise that is almost non negotiable now for me. I am also firmly in the belief that the third workout, is the key to everything really and the X factor, without intensity and i can't get through third workout in without easy days being really easy.

Sirpoc would also be the first to admit, this obviously isn't going to work for everyone. Nothing can. It's not possible and that he has seen examples for even after 4-5 hours a week, they quite quickly reach the point of needing to add in harder intensity. From the mass case study of what we are seeing here though, whilst that can be the case, the vast majority of us are probably going to improve a lot more still taking the easy gains, easy runs really easy and spamming Subthreshold 156 times a year. That seems to be the case for others who have had huge success training like this, even though they are seasoned and lifetime runners.

How you measure load can obviously vary, but I think I probably subscribe to his general view that the impact of load (over a long period of time, rather than the isolation of a single session) genuinely probably is the biggest driver of gains, rather than anything specific we do. Maybe that is too simple. But it you follow vanilla NSM this is probably why so many have had success.

recovery insight wrote:

obturator wrote:

Any comments on this study from the science guys/gals on here? I might take a closer look at this study at work today if I get some time.

Interesting I've been trying to figure out why I made initial improvements with NSM, then got a little slower, then little more slower, & then just maintained. Combed over my loads, mileage, subt workout paces with a fine tooth comb & nothing makes sense. Didn't even think about looking at easy pace.

When I started I went by my wrist watch HR monitor (which is obviously off) & ran easy paces 8:00 min/mile (4:58 km/min) sometimes even 7:45. Ran 8k in 5:50 pace. Wasn't until I had an idea of fitness when I plugged time into Lactrase & it said my easy pace should be around 8:30 min/mile, so I slowed down. Also got a chest HR monitor. Then next race result was a little slower. Later I slowed down easy days even more after reading people on here faster than me running easy paces of 9-10 min/mile. Could be a correlation? Or could be I wasn't increasing load enough? I'll have to experiment.

Started the book last night & read sirpoc say he's a high responder to training (see chart p. 9) & others might be more of a high responder to intensity, which is where I've often thought of myself. I never get injured or really burned out too easily physically (more mentally, lol) so maybe maybe I respond better to easy runs more at 75% or even higher especially if runs at 70% max HR or less aren't beneficial aerobically, but are more to aid recovery (even though I've questioned if that much recovery is necessary considering these subt workouts are 4-6/10 efforts). Just some random thoughts that go through my curious head.

How long have you been doing this for? I had a wobble around the middle. Someone else posted on Reddit, about how sirpoc actually has had a couple periods where he took a small step back (although I think one of those was a COVID bout), then a big breakthrough again. A couple of times where 4 months of not a lot happening.

My view was somewhat similar to yours. I am running these at 5/10 RPE mostly. So my view after a few months, I mean, how really hard is this to recover from? Having ran this way a year now, I probably have re thought that, if you really want to do 3x workouts a week, for a whole year, you probably can't get away with 75% MHR everyday. It's just a compromise that is almost non negotiable now for me. I am also firmly in the belief that the third workout, is the key to everything really and the X factor, without intensity and i can't get through third workout in without easy days being really easy.

Sirpoc would also be the first to admit, this obviously isn't going to work for everyone. Nothing can. It's not possible and that he has seen examples for even after 4-5 hours a week, they quite quickly reach the point of needing to add in harder intensity. From the mass case study of what we are seeing here though, whilst that can be the case, the vast majority of us are probably going to improve a lot more still taking the easy gains, easy runs really easy and spamming Subthreshold 156 times a year. That seems to be the case for others who have had huge success training like this, even though they are seasoned and lifetime runners.

How you measure load can obviously vary, but I think I probably subscribe to his general view that the impact of load (over a long period of time, rather than the isolation of a single session) genuinely probably is the biggest driver of gains, rather than anything specific we do. Maybe that is too simple. But it you follow vanilla NSM this is probably why so many have had success.

Eliud Bekele wrote:

runners are clueless wrote:

Is that enough to also maximize anaerobic capacity, though.

I'm thinking that even a hobbyjogger would need a "special block" of training (plus a good taper) to run 5k as fast as absolutely possible.

I have wondered what a "5K special block" would look like under NSA.

Like sirpocs marathon block, it would be unsustainable in the long run, but it should still be low enough on the intensity scale to keep you from being fried come race day.

Maybe we just go a little more aggressive on the ramp rate for 6-8 weeks before the race and then dial it back for the week after when returning to vanilla?

Maybe something as simple as swapping out the 3x10' session with a 25x60" session at 10k pace in one week and a VO2max workout in another (though IMO a true-threshold workout would probably accumulate more training load).

Possibly trimming the long run down as well to lower fatigue, though this might result in a lower training load than vanilla NSA.

Idk, I think most of us agree that vanilla NSA is the best base-building plan for hobbyjoggers, but a special block for the marathon is necessary to excel at that distance, so logically a special block may also be best to squeeze out the last 5% in shorter distances if it's your A-race. For a random parkrun I probably wouldn't bother though as the increased injury risk versus vanilla NSA means it's probably not worth it.

The thing about shoes wrote:

Eliud Bekele wrote:

Dynafish Xiaonian (40km)

At £85, these are cheaper than the EVO SL and almost a third of the cost of an ASICS Megablast, yet it is a tier above both.

I have only ran 40km in this shoe and I can already say it is the best daily trainer I have ever worn, and possibly the best daily trainer ever made. This is the pinnacle of max stack design, coming in at only 180g despite having 41mm of foam and amazing stability. It's super soft but responsive while also having a rocker more aggressive than some racing shoes. The only flaw is the lugs on the outsole are pretty small so it isn't the best in slippy conditions, but otherwise I genuinely look forward to my easy days and long runs in this shoe, which is something I never thought I would say under NSA.

I can't seem to find the Dynafish Xiaonian on Aliexpress.

The only seller I can find is 120 quid+ and does have it my size (US8½/EU42)

Anyone got a link to somewhere a Scandinavian could purchase it?

Once was wrote:

Eliud Bekele wrote:

I have wondered what a "5K special block" would look like under NSA.

Like sirpocs marathon block, it would be unsustainable in the long run, but it should still be low enough on the intensity scale to keep you from being fried come race day.

Maybe we just go a little more aggressive on the ramp rate for 6-8 weeks before the race and then dial it back for the week after when returning to vanilla?

Maybe something as simple as swapping out the 3x10' session with a 25x60" session at 10k pace in one week and a VO2max workout in another (though IMO a true-threshold workout would probably accumulate more training load).

Possibly trimming the long run down as well to lower fatigue, though this might result in a lower training load than vanilla NSA.

Idk, I think most of us agree that vanilla NSA is the best base-building plan for hobbyjoggers, but a special block for the marathon is necessary to excel at that distance, so logically a special block may also be best to squeeze out the last 5% in shorter distances if it's your A-race. For a random parkrun I probably wouldn't bother though as the increased injury risk versus vanilla NSA means it's probably not worth it.

There have been some posters that said the 400s or 60s reps (some even the 45s reps) have been really beneficial for them for the shorter distances. Adding a weekly VO2 max workout would, I think, probably tip the balance of the method. You’re already threading the needle with three sub-t workouts a week. I think replacing a sub-t with a true VO2 workout would put people in a hole pretty quickly unless the volume was really limited. But at that point why not just race more frequently? Every two or three weeks, instead of every four to six, leading up to an A race 5k. All that being said, Sirpoc’s 5k PB came a few weeks after his marathon block. While it may seem like doing VO2 work would lead to a 5k PB, maybe the answer is just increasing load.

Parkrunner2 wrote:

recovery insight wrote:

How long have you been doing this for? I had a wobble around the middle. Someone else posted on Reddit, about how sirpoc actually has had a couple periods where he took a small step back (although I think one of those was a COVID bout), then a big breakthrough again. A couple of times where 4 months of not a lot happening.

. . . .

This is timely as I'm at right around the 3 month point and up until about a week ago, I was seeing very gradual but consistent improvements. Now my last few sub-t workouts have taken a small step backward (~3-5 seconds per mile slower with the same HR). I'm not sure what's going on. I feel fine overall and my easy runs are typically run at 60-65% MHR.

I'm hoping this is a temporary thing and it could be due to life stressors. I will continue doing what I'm doing and certainly not push the pace if I don't feel up to it.

Have others experienced small steps backwards like this after a few months?

Once was wrote:

Eliud Bekele wrote:

I have wondered what a "5K special block" would look like under NSA.

Like sirpocs marathon block, it would be unsustainable in the long run, but it should still be low enough on the intensity scale to keep you from being fried come race day.

Maybe we just go a little more aggressive on the ramp rate for 6-8 weeks before the race and then dial it back for the week after when returning to vanilla?

Maybe something as simple as swapping out the 3x10' session with a 25x60" session at 10k pace in one week and a VO2max workout in another (though IMO a true-threshold workout would probably accumulate more training load).

Possibly trimming the long run down as well to lower fatigue, though this might result in a lower training load than vanilla NSA.

Idk, I think most of us agree that vanilla NSA is the best base-building plan for hobbyjoggers, but a special block for the marathon is necessary to excel at that distance, so logically a special block may also be best to squeeze out the last 5% in shorter distances if it's your A-race. For a random parkrun I probably wouldn't bother though as the increased injury risk versus vanilla NSA means it's probably not worth it.

There have been some posters that said the 400s or 60s reps (some even the 45s reps) have been really beneficial for them for the shorter distances. Adding a weekly VO2 max workout would, I think, probably tip the balance of the method. You’re already threading the needle with three sub-t workouts a week. I think replacing a sub-t with a true VO2 workout would put people in a hole pretty quickly unless the volume was really limited. But at that point why not just race more frequently? Every two or three weeks, instead of every four to six, leading up to an A race 5k. All that being said, Sirpoc’s 5k PB came a few weeks after his marathon block. While it may seem like doing VO2 work would lead to a 5k PB, maybe the answer is just increasing load.