As I think most people agree here, the third workout a week is key. Or at least a large part of it.
Why should the third workout in the 7-days cycle be "key"? It's just a way to get to x training load. If two identical twins runners with same baseline fitness train with roughly the same weekly load, but one does 3 sub-threshold (3x30' at pace) sessions per week while the other does only 2 (2x40' at pace) but runs 20' longer in the weekly long run, why should the 3x subT guy improve more? The advantage for the 3x schedule is that you can scale it up more easily without having to hit very demanding sessions, but I think the core of the method here is sustainable long term load increase
One of the very best comments on this thread from people 'outside' the NSM.
Why should the third workout in the 7-days cycle be "key"? It's just a way to get to x training load. If two identical twins runners with same baseline fitness train with roughly the same weekly load, but one does 3 sub-threshold (3x30' at pace) sessions per week while the other does only 2 (2x40' at pace) but runs 20' longer in the weekly long run, why should the 3x subT guy improve more? The advantage for the 3x schedule is that you can scale it up more easily without having to hit very demanding sessions, but I think the core of the method here is sustainable long term load increase
I think just in the sense you can spread the load. You might be able to to 80 mins of workout a week, in two sessions. But by spreading it out for half an hour , but 3x a week seems to be the thing that adds up over time. There's not really many other ways IMO that you can fit in 90+ minutes work over the course of a week, infinitely. It comes back to the same principle talked back on in the weekly pages which has played out, do you want two workouts with 100% of the benefits of training or three workouts that only give you 90% of the benefits. Obviously that's a crude and overly simplistic way of looking at it. But essentially that's the core of this.
Brilliantly worded reply and just all around excellent posts from everyone on page 486, probably amongst the best so far. Thanks again to James and co for continuing to check the thread and chime in every now and then!
I have to say I didn't expect to have my views challenged and changed this much a hundred pages back. Genuinely want to apologize for how dismissive I was coming in though. Looking forward to seeing how things play out as we approach the big 500 going into 2026!
You know what, this is me. My views have changed.
My journey was this:
Someone said to me have you seen the Norwegian Singles Method?. Response: there's no such thing and that sounds silly. (I like how the book deals with it).
Saw the thread early: dismissed it.
Saw about two years later the same guy originally posting just ran a debut 2:24 marathon off an adaption of it: Went back to the start, still not sure if made sense.
Then had to challenge some of my own beliefs. But why do I need what I think I need? The answer comes down to a coach now in his 60s and probably far behind the curve, told me I needed it.
Like your handle, I actually enjoy middle distance. But here is the thing. My mile has gotten faster without anything my gut instincts tell me I need. Now I have a huge, for me, regional mile race coming up in April, where I probably will sprinkle in some sharpening, because I care about that one race and even if it gets me a quarter second, it'll be worth it for that race. But outside of that, I'm just going full vanilla until I stop improving.
I think once I read the book, it will be hard for me to shift my views on this now, until ultimately someone comes up with a better laid out argument for a semi-quick hobby jogger like me. The book was that convincing to me.
I really also appreciate how sirpoc himself is incredibly honest. This might not work. It might not be for you. It's not for elites. But here are the tools for you to take control of your own training, but there are no miracles. It's refreshing really.
Poster Cheetodust, who I believe is over 40, has run 2:00 for 800 and 4:20 for the mile without adding anything mile or 800 specific. I’m pretty sure no strides or faster running. What’s interesting to me is how several posters in this thread have lumped Cheetodust in with being on the “purely vanilla” plan, or saying that he is one of those that has stuck very closely to the method. I’m not saying this to knock him. I’m calling it out because I find it fascinating. From some Strava stalking, Cheetodust has some interesting variations. He does 3 x 2 mile, 5 x 2k and 6 x mile. No 3 min/1k reps. He also does a lot of biking. No long run either. In the discussion of adding faster reps or talking about how k reps are fast enough for a 5k race, I find it so interesting that we have a guy who has run 2:00/4:20 and broker 15:00 while running nothing shorter than mile reps.
The wild thing here, is that guys like Jan who are absolutely obsessed with the cult of vo2 max and love specificity so much, they are ignoring the actual specifics need to be tailored from a world class athlete to a hobby jogger. There has to be some beauty in the irony of that. That is probably a more important definition of specificity than actually anything related to event specific.
As I think most people agree here, the third workout a week is key. Or at least a large part of it.
Why should the third workout in the 7-days cycle be "key"? It's just a way to get to x training load. If two identical twins runners with same baseline fitness train with roughly the same weekly load, but one does 3 sub-threshold (3x30' at pace) sessions per week while the other does only 2 (2x40' at pace) but runs 20' longer in the weekly long run, why should the 3x subT guy improve more? The advantage for the 3x schedule is that you can scale it up more easily without having to hit very demanding sessions, but I think the core of the method here is sustainable long term load increase
Take this to the extreme: why not do it all in a 1x90' session? Because supercompensation is a thing and doing too much in one session introduces too much fatigue. The body can only absorb so much from one session. For most people in the hobbyjogger category, that seems to be around the 30 minute mark for subthreshold, but for some even that is too much and starting off with 24 minutes is better.
I tried NSM from April to Ocrober, but didn't see much success, so went back to more continuous, but still sub-threshold heavy work, which broght me back to decent shape in two months. Since my heat tolerance is quite bad, I am aware that the test was too short and during the wrong time of the year, so I am willing to give it another go, since I enjoyed such training.
However, I have one concern: I am aready quite strong at (sub)threshold, HM is probably the best distance (about 1:16), while my 10ks always suck. On the other side of the spectrum, I currently lack the muscular durability (and maybe also fat oxidation) to run a strong marathon, just recently ran 2:48 (my PB is 2:38 from many years ago, back then I could run HM in 1:15, so it's not like I am naturally bad at marathon). So I wonder if I maybe need some periods of just running and boost my LT1, then go to LT2.
I went back and forth with the smart (yet still quite naive) edition of chat GPT, and we came to the conclusion that I would probably benefit from HADD phase for several (6-10) weeks twice a year, get to a quite high load, then go to the NSM, and repeat such cycles. Has anyone thought of such approach? To me it seems, that doing intensity all year long ruins some of the muscular durability and adaptation to continuous running when not only ST fibers are active. Some people can apparantely do it, but I wonder if some of us might be better off with some further tweaks.
As I think I told you are welcome to contact me in private. I check what I can so no stalker try to cheat me. 😎😉
Great coach will answer any question in public and is able to deal with any questions his answer will bring.
Come on now Jan, show us what you got. At this point your either scared or not able to answer the question.
Your not realy that great of coach than are you?
You are welcomed to my thread the " Comeback journey to a sub 20 min at age 66 " where I in basics have explained and explain how my successful the Dancan system is built and how it works. You don't seem to be one of my longtime stalkers so I gave you this answer here.Wish you a happy new year. 🖐🧙♂️
Why should the third workout in the 7-days cycle be "key"? It's just a way to get to x training load. If two identical twins runners with same baseline fitness train with roughly the same weekly load, but one does 3 sub-threshold (3x30' at pace) sessions per week while the other does only 2 (2x40' at pace) but runs 20' longer in the weekly long run, why should the 3x subT guy improve more? The advantage for the 3x schedule is that you can scale it up more easily without having to hit very demanding sessions, but I think the core of the method here is sustainable long term load increase
Take this to the extreme: why not do it all in a 1x90' session? Because supercompensation is a thing and doing too much in one session introduces too much fatigue. The body can only absorb so much from one session. For most people in the hobbyjogger category, that seems to be around the 30 minute mark for subthreshold, but for some even that is too much and starting off with 24 minutes is better.
There seems to be an obsession with running 35/40/45 mins per session currently but 90 mins, split into 3 sessions seems to work for so many why not just do this?
Poster Cheetodust, who I believe is over 40, has run 2:00 for 800 and 4:20 for the mile without adding anything mile or 800 specific. I’m pretty sure no strides or faster running. What’s interesting to me is how several posters in this thread have lumped Cheetodust in with being on the “purely vanilla” plan, or saying that he is one of those that has stuck very closely to the method. I’m not saying this to knock him. I’m calling it out because I find it fascinating. From some Strava stalking, Cheetodust has some interesting variations. He does 3 x 2 mile, 5 x 2k and 6 x mile. No 3 min/1k reps. He also does a lot of biking. No long run either. In the discussion of adding faster reps or talking about how k reps are fast enough for a 5k race, I find it so interesting that we have a guy who has run 2:00/4:20 and broker 15:00 while running nothing shorter than mile reps.
Regular cycling is relatively new to cheetodust, I've followed him for a while. Seems to be following the path of adding this in, like sirpoc. Will be interesting to see after his marathon, if Wigglewaffle goes the same way. Sirpoc himself has posted a few things elsewhere which to me suggests he has a good idea of a relative value, or guide to cross training, probably more so than even is in the book. Just a size, to this post.
Like being "aerobically underdeveloped", it actually isn't. Even the original use of the term in reference to glycogen storage has fallen into disfavour.
Alternatively, you could say that "super compensation" is a thing the way that, e.g., Friel's "decoupling" is a thing, i.e., it's just a buzzword used by coaches and athletes to talk about things that that really don't understand.
The wild thing here, is that guys like Jan who are absolutely obsessed with the cult of vo2 max and love specificity so much, they are ignoring the actual specifics need to be tailored from a world class athlete to a hobby jogger. There has to be some beauty in the irony of that. That is probably a more important definition of specificity than actually anything related to event specific.
Well, " the wild thing here" is that I'm not obsessed with the "cult of vo2 max " and "would love specificity so much" . I say you are wrong saying " they are ignoring the actual specifics need to be tailored from a world class athlete to a hobby jogger."
I've coached several world class athletes with the same basics method as all hobby joggers I have coached. No need to change the basics , just relatively to do it on much less mileage so it fits in to an ordinary life with a job, family, kids, wife/ husband, friends, maybe other hobbies, and so on ....🖐🧙♂️
I have a huge, for me, regional mile race coming up in April, where I probably will sprinkle in some sharpening, because I care about that one race and even if it gets me a quarter second, it'll be worth it for that race.
Wasn't that Lydiard's approach, just scaled down for hobbyjogging? I.e., as much plain vanilla endurance training as you can handle for months and months and months at a time, then just chuck some more intensity on at the end.
In page 7 of his book, Sirpoc states "the overall training load is the dominant driver of fitness gains, far outweighing the specific composition of the workouts".
By the same reasoning you are providing, but taking it to the other extreme, why don't you then do the same training every day of the week yielding an even training load, which adds up to the same training load achieved with vanilla NSM? To be more specific:
Let us say that your vanilla NSM is the following 7 hour week as outlined in Sirpoc's book: 55' | 3x11' | 55' | 5x6' | 50' | 10x3' | 85' yielding a total training load of X. In our example this training load is not evenly distributed, the training load varies day to day.
Why not fill this 7 hours so that our training evens outs with an equal training load every day? For example, we could just run the same every day, a 60' continuous run at an even pace, which we would have to find out to get the desired load of X/7 every day. Why isn't this better, since we are providing an even distribution of the stress, witch equal overall training load? I guess you could argue physiology and that you need to mix it up with different paces, well in that case you could still even things out with different workouts every day, but with the constraints of the training load being X/7 every day and 1h/day of training, instead of NSM which unevenly distributes the training load.
If Sirpoc is reading this, I remember you mentioned the aspect of load playing a role in fitness.
In intervals.icu, I noticed that in order for me to improve fitness during Sub-T sessions, I need to achieve a load between 68-72. Anything lower doesn't help improve and I imagine anything above would overcook me.
All my RPE's are between 5-7.
That's simply because that's what you have been doing for a while. Someone presently at a lower load would see an increase at less than 68-72, whereas someone presently doing more would see a decrease.
IOW, there's nothing really magical about 70ish. That's true even if you factor in overall weekly duration, as individuals differ in their capacity to tolerate/benefit from training. The best you could do is just offer general guidance, such as shoot for a load of XX while ramping at less than Y.
