Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I mix up my s/t sessions between road and treadmill. Road feels easier mentally. Aerobically both are similar, maybe road slightly easier as out in the fresh air. However road definitely feels harder mechanically. Wondering if I should ease the pace a bit on the road?

I’m in the same camp. I was an ok but injury prone runner in high school. Religiously did core workouts, hip/glute mobility, rolling, etc. Barely ran for most of my 20s because I got fed up with the injuries. Late 20s I finally built up to ~30 mpw on 4 days, still dealt with a bunch of niggles despite doing all the ancillary stuff.
Then I found this thread. Two years of vanilla later I’m running 55+ mpw on 7 days. No notable injuries and barely any niggles, and I haven’t done a single ancillary workout in that time. Nearly 3 mins faster over 5k now, but my “easy” pace is only ~20 secs/mile faster. I never needed the ancillary stuff in the first place, I just needed to train more sensibly. Go figure.

If you look at Strava results of other runners that might give you a sense of whether the issue was your watch's GPS or the course being long.

Failing that, I'd use the 19:40 as a starting point. Better to set workout paces a little too slow than a little too fast.

Congrats on the PR (ish)!

This sounds like it has some similarities to the Summer of Antonio type of training that was posted a while back on these boards by another self-claimed expert coach who used to write a lot on running message boards. The Summer of Antonio was fundamentally flawed in that it had intense weekly VO2 max reps which were at first too short with too long recovery and then, as the training cycle continued, became too long with too much volume and too long recovery and a weekly tempo run which was too short and too fast for every distance even down to runners training for 1500m; in fact I would guess that even Jan’s training was better than this. Needless to say, there weren’t too many people posting on the thread about their improvements and successes with this type of training.

Today, with the training software and applications (such as Strava, Intervals ICU) where training workouts and metrics can be shared among literally thousands of runners, we can try to assess which training approach is likely to be the most successful in a much more democratic manner. It’s no longer enough to come up on the Internet, or to be a coach by the track, and just claim that your training approach is the best – I think we are finally entering a new era in running training and we may be very late to the game compared with sports like cycling and triathlon.

The success of the NSU has come about largely because runners, in particular SirPoc and a few others in this thread, have shared their training metrics, race results, and experiences in a very transparent manner for over a few years now. If someone else such as Jan has a better method, they are completely free and welcome to prove it (even SirPoc never claimed he had the ultimate training approach). They can create a Strava group (or a group in some other application) and share the training that they do over the following months and years. If it turns out that there is something that is demonstrably better than the NSU, I think most posters on this thread will be open and interested in that training approach. If it's not better that’s OK as well as people can still analyze why it was not successful which gives us useful information.

I'll add to the NSM injury stories - I started getting more serious about running when I retired at age 61 - and for the next 4 years I never made it more than 10 weeks without some niggle turning more serious and forcing me back to walking or superslow fartlek
for a month or two to just get back to where I originally was training-wise.

I started NSM last May and about 11 weeks in I got a niggle that turned serious - only it wasn't. Instead the 'injury' was 95% gone in 3 days and I was right back on schedule.
And it's been that way ever since. I've now gone almost 8 months without any real injuries on NSM. Niggles just don't get worse like they used to.
I haven't had the successes others have had with new PBs and the like, but the ability to be 66 years old and run 7 days a week averaging over 100k is far more important to me.
Even in my 20s I never came close to pulling off a schedule like I can with NSM.

daniels guy just getting back into coaching after a decade off and playing catch up

before i read 500 pages to catch up,

If one were interested in incorporating some of this into method w/o going all in, how would you appraise the following.

Coming from a Daniels school of thinking, how would this look as a middle ground:

cut V02 work volume in half, (~twice month) and back off on intensity

let CV replace that V02 work (this is race specific for 10k runner so want to keep)
break CV into doubles sometimes

increase overall volume of subT work and just load up on moderate tempo with an emphasis on breaking it up in sections and focusing more on total time over the week rather than longer continuous tempos or pushing the pace. Let this be 50% or more of the total quality work.

keep some speed reps, strides and short hills with full recovery

that's kinda where i have landed after absorbing some from Norwegian, Magness, Tinman etc in a brief catchup attempt and thought about how to utilize best with my particular athletes.

I think they still need significant stride/efficiency work, so want to keep some speed work but will let the CV be the V02 work and use long rest speed reps for faster work and hills.

I know i'm mixing and matching in ways that might make people roll over in their graves while still alive....

so....ok time to throw rocks, what am i screwing up the most?

^My response to 500 page shortcut

I never said anything at all about wanting to do NSM.

To be slightly less snarky, there's a really good summary on page 60. I'd start there.

thanks!

Alright, and that's fine. But it doesn't quite make sense to incorporate small parts of this method. The philosophy is to maximize aerobic gains from below by maximizing training load using exclusively sub threshold and easy running. The idea is that the vast majority of runners are severely aerobically undertrained and can maximize bang for buck over a long period of time with this approach. Since the whole point is to maximize subT running, mixing and matching with other philosophies dilutes all the advantages.

why would it dilute ALL advantages? When I hear maximalist statements like this I need to hear some basis for them otherwise it sounds a bit like people a little too committed to defending their chosen philosophy. Not trying to be snarky either, you might indeed be right.

I've had my best success in the past mixing and matching from various programs based on how athletes respond and recovery. The key is understanding the total workload tax, recovery response etc of each athlete to various methods.

If this was truly the cutting edge then every pro would be doing it or losing , but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I think there are definitely ways to benefit from advancements in training philosophy and incorporate them to modify ones approach w/o replacing an entire approach that has worked. I'm not coming to this because I haven't had success with other approaches. I'm trying to use new understandings to improve approaches that are already working.

I'm not sure why there seems to be an insistence on all or nothing approach. It's highly unlikely that NSM is the end of the evolution of training theory. It's going to be replaced eventually with something that works better. And that will probably require using what is good about the Norwegian method in conjunction with something else. Advancement takes experimentation.

If this thread is dedicated to only adopting NSM w/o question, I apologize. Please direct me to the one where it is allowed to be discussed.

Okay, I think there's maybe a misconception here. This method is not for pros. It's for hobby joggers trying to maximize limited time. Nobody has claimed it to be the end of training theory, and in fact from the outset it's been openly stated that if you are already training 10 hours per week this also probably isn't ideal for you.

It also isn't necessarily the best method for improving quickly. It's been hypothesized multiple times in the thread (by proponents) that if you want to run really well at The Race in eight weeks, you're probably better off with a Daniels plan. However, NSM lets you sustainably stack gains with minimal setbacks/rest for months and months on end.

There is nothing wrong with thinking about how to improve the method. However, your original question was about how to take lessons from this approach into a fundamentally different framework. To me at least, the question just didn't quite make sense--the basis of the method isn't doing a magic workout or even running your easy days easy. The basis is the question, "how do we sustainably maximize training load on hobby jogger volume?" This method is what has been landed on as the best answer anyone can come up with so far.

thanks for the page link btw, that was useful start but also did not seem to indicate that there wouldn't benefits to be gained by incorporating more SubT into a more balanced training program. replacing some of the higher intensity with SubT.

I have an athlete that hold an unusually high percentage of their mile pace for a HM. They are only losing 5-6 seconds per mile from 5k to 10k and from 10k to HM. Their mile time is only fractionally faster than their 5k pace. they are a bit of an outlier on the speed/endurance spectrum.

So while I recognize the merits of the Norwegian method, in this particular case the athlete is severely speed limited. I think the athlete would miss out on a lot of potential gains by only focusing on SubT pace.

Their threshold endurance is already off the charts high genetically. But you have to be able to run a pace for 5k before you run it for HM. If they can't hit their goal HM pace for 5k, that's an issue that I don't think more subT is the best solution for.

On one hand maybe full Norwegian would suit them. It's in their wheel house. On the other hand, if they are severely speed limited, a little bit of speed work could go along way. I might be wrong. I'm willing to experiment and see what works.

yeah, as usual most internets arguments are based on mutual misconceptions and I admit my guilt here as well.

My takeaway is this has been a useful exercise, and I've gained some approaches into how to incorporate some of the methods here. Thank you!

I'm looking at applying it at a fairly competitive level, so now i understand the confusion.

Mixing and matching can often be a complete disaster, especially at the hobby level without the experience to know the science behind each method. its often a disaster even well beyond hobby level....

The 'more is more' approach often leads athletes to cherry pick magic workouts rather than taking the time to understand the approach as a whole. I'm trying to absorb the whole rather than the details, absorb what has been learned by this approach so that it can shape and influence my overall approach even if i don't adopt it wholesail. For another athlete I wouldn't hesitate to go full Norwegian, it's just the pain of constant lactate testing that's steering me from that.

so this thread dive is me diving in to fill that gap as much as i can. as quickly as i can. thank you for your help with that

No problem, and for context this thread is full of people saying "okay I'm doing NSM but I'm doing VO2 1k repeats for the third workout instead and doing strides, and after two months I feel exhausted and haven't improved, why isn't this working for me?", very much to your point of mixing and matching being a disaster at hobby level. It's also full of people insisting that this method has no value whatsoever and that you Must do speedwork to get faster. The initial question sounded along those lines to me which is why my initial responses took the tone they did.

totally understandable

the exact reason I'm not going full Norwegian doubles for an experienced athlete is that you have to be REALLY disciplined to keep the paces moderate enough or you'll get wrecked.

I have more experience monitoring that workload in a more daniels based approach, so for training someone at a fairly high level I trust it more in this situation just because a much better feel for when and how often to reign thm in...but I do respect the science and results behind the Norwegian approach. it obviously works.