Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

So too does a lack of variety in training, at least for most people.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Monitoring training in athletes with reference to overtraining syndrome - PubMed

These suggest that simple methods of monitoring the characteristics of training may allow the athlete to achieve the goals of training while minimizing undesired training outcomes.

Open link

This is easily the biggest grift in all of running history. Dude made a whole book on basically jogging just to get $$ .

Not sure what you're implying or trying to argue with this.

That study's calculates monotony in training on a weekly basis as the daily mean divided by standard deviation, then multiples the weekly training load by this monotony score to create a strain score.

Flaws of calculating strain this way aside, by this method of judging monotony NSM would be considered to have some variety.

Direct quote from the discussion section:

The results of the present study, together with the animal model data of Bruin et al. (2), suggest that strategies designed to minimize training monotony (and thus training strain), primarily multiple "easy" days within each week may allow a given training load to be accomplished with comparatively fewer negative outcomes. As an example, at a training load of 4000 units per week (comparable with the load undertaken by many contemporary elite athletes) there is a large reduction in training strain when "hard" training days are only performed 4 d·wk (with 2 "easy" days and 1 "off" day) compared with slightly less severe "hard" days performed 6 d·wk (with 1 "off" day) (Fig. 5).

The overall lesson from this study seems just to take proper easy days. It doesn't really speak to if something like NSM has enough variety or not.

Thanks for the response. Were you able to pinpoint roughly how much faster it made you over, say, a 5k? And does it mostly improve just your finishing kick or did you overall get slightly quicker?

Variety is the spice of life.

right and it doesn’t make power in the way you would think

that’s the problem

It doesn't "make" power at all. It calculates power from measurement of acceleration (and wind resistance).

Are you always this insufferable? Or do you just enjoy getting downvoted into oblivion?

you brought this up as a ‘gotcha’

now you want to act like you’re educating ppl about it

hilarious

“Stig wrote:
(I wish we had power meters for running!).”

link to Stryd

Imclueless: “Where have you been?””

just to refresh your trolling

so take your time in your response, but if you just want to be a C that’s great, you’ll be F ed and treated accordingly

You asked a question, so I answered.

WTF are you whinging about??

I pointed out the existence of Stryd to someone who surprisingly had never heard of it.

I then responded to your grammatically incorrect post by explaining how Stryd calculates power.

thank you, professor

you’re continued douchebaggery adds so much to the dialogue

again, what type of power?

as usual missing the point

As if your posts somehow elevate the conversation?

What do you mean by "type"? Power is a physical concept.

mechanical power you knob

stop blowing your cat for five minutes and contribute here