Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Like the pot calling the kettle black?

You haven’t demonstrated that you’re not a clueless one.

I think my comments was not clear, I am not suggestion people do VO2, speedwork or sharpeners. I was suggesting if you did not, if you just stick to this method, you can run a decent 5k because it’s not like your body would not know what to do.

For decades the plain vanilla system for TT cyclists doing 10s has been two sessions aimed at threshold, one at VO2max, and a longer ride each week. Back that off a bit 'cause it's running and you have NSM.2.

I started this method several months ago, in the spring. Massive success. PBs across the board. I considered myself to be fairly injury prone. I religiously strength trained. I did band exercises. I foam rolled. I did mobility. Life changes have constrained my time, which brought me here in the first place. Since switching to this method I’ve felt healthier, my body overall feels better and I’ve been injury free for nearly the longest stretch I’ve had in years. I don’t do any of that stuff anymore. It’s kind of crazy how run influencers say you HAVE to be in the gym, do mobility, etc. It really makes me wonder, again as somebody who swore by it all. I’ve changed my mind completely. Now I think that it really comes down to smart training and load management.

and tbh, the best vo2max workout you will ever do is to just hop on a parkrun, more effective than "vo2max intervals", and way more fun.

You're right, I know nothing about the body adapts to training and how to quantify and manage load.

I think there's certainly a time and place for strength training, stretching and all that jazz but only if you really know what you're doing. Most runners probably go too hard in the gym and cause significant stress and fatigue to their body - increasing injury risk or preventing their body from absorbing a lot of the training load from running.

Yo, this mf is really getting quick. Kudos to you, NSM really seems to have been working for you. Another real clue to keep it consistent and basic. I didn't realise you were this poster, I already followed you before from Strava group.

I see. Then were thinking the same

I’ll be honest, at the stage, I’m not even sure what people are referring to when they say VO2 work. I always thought a session might be 5 x 2:30-3:00mins @ 3k pace, which is why I never did them. It was miserable.
Whenever someone jumps in and suggests doing VO2 instead of just Sub-T, they never explain the session/suggestion. It’s typically, “do some 200s”. Are people just using “VO2” as a catch-all for everything harder/faster than threshold???

I know V02 as being defined via Jack Daniels. Daniels describes it as 12-13 minute pace ishhh. It's like a mixture between 3k/5k intensity. Typically, you would do intervals with equaly or slightly less than equal of this rest at that intensity. An example would be doing 1000m repeats in 3:30 and resting 3:00-3:30 if your race pace for 3k is 3:30-3:45.

It should be used for pros who are at or near 13 min for 5k and the rest can be tailored to be more event specific. We however, most of us at least, are not aerobically trained enough to gain enough from this type of workout comapred to the risk it prevents in recovery vs. the stimulus come race day. That's why Sub-T is good for most of us comparatively. Safe stacking.

Why wouldn‘t you benefit from this type of training? Only for pros? That is ridiculous. Like, you could die from running a little faster than threshold.

This is becoming more and more like a cult. God forbid you do some faster sessions. You will burn out and hurt yourself badly.

Anyone can calculate numbers. You seem to not understand physiology.

Of course nothing bad happens on its own. But for me, throwing in a hard classic vo2 workout, it then becomes very hard, on a regular basis, for me to then do two other Subthreshold workouts a week.

I've tried it. It just doesn't work out. But the flip side, is it seems for a lot of people, the 3 Subthreshold workouts alone, equate to better development than any other combo that includes vo2 max.

It's really that simple. I would guess most people who have tried both training this way for a long period of time, versus regular harder work, can probably relate?

It's just simple logic. Sure, I can maybe do a vo2 max workout next week and 2 workouts, if I had to. But it's a bad habit to get into, when the name of the game is consistentl. Also you just don't recover the way an elite runner has a luxury of.

It's actually nothing against vo2 max workouts, it's the same principle when you apply it to say long runs at 90% of MP. Yes I can do them, but again I'm making a compromise somewhere along the line with the 3 workouts, plus more disproportionate recovery cost versus benefit.

The best thing about Subthreshold is you can almost guarantee recovery and keeping fresh, and that's without considering the accumulated load over time is also probably greater once you get past a few months.

Some people just cannot wrap their head around this. Which, is mind blowing to me.

If I stopped improving, obviously I would probably try and add some more risk in, to get further gains. But until then (and I still haven't had a sensible answer to this), what is the point? If I'm better at every single distance, even down to 800 and still improving, surely it would be stupid to change a winning formula? Am I the only one who finds this suggestion totally insane?

Yes, I know nothing at all.

You are wrong! One of the few who understand running physiology here.

Why wouldn't I? Idk maybe the 3 years I spent stagnating in college and the 1 year I tried it on myself at lower intensity and still stagnated. But of course, I'm just one case and in the names of science, that doesn't mean in jack. But hundreds of subjective testimonials? Seems legit to me. And it is. I'm nearing my prs in everthing after only 10 weeks after not even touching them in 5 years. But does it work? Couldn't tell you.

I ran a park run this morning except it wasnt 5km, it was 5.2km according to my garmin due to either GPS error or weaving in and out of people and starting further back from startline.

The time i ran through 5km was a PB call it 19min but due to the fact I ran 5.2km it wasnt a PB anymore and park run official time was 19.40.

What should I plug in to vdot, 19 or 19.40?

Park runs aren't always measured reliably but GPS can also be off for a variety of reasons. I would always use chip time (the 19.40) over my GPS 5k time. Much better to slightly undercook it than overcook it if 19 flat is not truly representative of your 5k fitness.

If it truly feels too low after a couple of weeks, go and do another parkrun to set a new benchmark.