Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

excyclingbrit abroad wrote:

runners are clueless wrote:

Stryd measures force based on the acceleration it creates

Most cycling power metres measure force based on the material deformation they create.

Conceptually, what's the difference?

Or to turn things around the other way.

What do you think it is that Stryd measures, and why is it quite good at predicting running economy (R squared greater than 0 9)?

Maybe it's just a fancy party trick, like the one Schroedinger's cat always used to pull out?

Another ex cyclist here. Maybe we all found the thread by googling running sweet spot? Seriously, that's how I found it.

Btw, whatever your argument that I can't keep up with, and whatever it measures, as someone else pointed out, a cycling power meter you can put in any situation and it works. A Stryd, as fun as I have had playing around with one, just doesn't. That makes it maybe useful for someone who runs in the same conditions, 90+% of the time. But, for most of us, utterly defeats the point of power. In that power can/should give you a cost of the effort, indoors, outdoors, in the cold, hot etc. 250w is 250w (I've just given away how bad a cyclist I am with my FTP) and you can adjust accordingly.

With a Stryd you are relying on a fancy algorithm within a what is basically an expensive Garmin foot pod. Not that it doesn't have value, but until you can do something like run into a massive headwind or up a steep hill and rely on it, it's hard to really even call it power.

Just my two pennies.

Btw, great thread for the most part. Starting to see the gains of this now 4 months in. Thanks to all the testimonials, a great help and confidence that even if early on you don't see many gains, to keep going. Although I have only been running two years so I guess I still have noob gains.

Very much in the spirit of how British time trialists train, which isn't surprising given sirpoc background and how he was a local legend in that as well. Great book as well. Btw, if he still reads this, would be great if you could perhaps release even a small guide for aero testing? Even just knlkne. Especially as I am thinking about giving some time trialing a go again. A friend of a friend told me about your legendary CDA on the cycling scene. It's a shame you can't shave 1-2+ minutes off your time doing what you did for cycling in running lol the ultimate cheat.

500 pages here wrote:

ews1982 wrote:

So is it dogma to stay at the orginal layout? Or is it that nobody is giving us an addition that actualy makes sence. But then are still telling us we need to do additional stuff anyway because the elites train like this, or the great choaches are saying so, or a study shows it, etc. But without making a senseble tweak to work with.

So can you give us an exemple of the "additional stuff" in a way that it fits the the system?

I honestly believe that if you can improve the system that loads of people would use it.

I'm not interested at all in 'improving the system" nor in telling people what they should or should not be doing in their own training. to each their own, what ever works.

I was interested in how the lessons learned from NS could be incorporated into a more balanced program. I like training variety so this is not the program for me or my athletes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something useful to learn from it.

But it's obvious that this thread is for pure converts only.

old_skool50 wrote:

Idiotonthenet wrote:

I think the thread in recent weeks underscores the importance of the book and why it was the right thing to do.

If you were interested in learning more about the approach, you'd understandably be a bit put off by all the trolls (and follow up unhelpful responses) which have clogged the thread up recently.

So to anyone who's new to the thread but feeling a bit lost, ignore all the recent posts and just go and buy the book, it will be the best investment in your running that you can make.

100%. Buy the book.

I still think the thread has something to offer. There's been some great testimonials again lately and good debate. It's still good by Letsrun standards i think. But as ever, LRC has some guys who just like to post for attention. Then what they are saying is never then backed up with proper counter evidence. What spoils it is the "this is stupid you need to do this instead" never with any other reasoning usually than just because. Or someone turns up and posts "but what about adding this" as if they are the first person to suggest it.

People also forget there's been a lot of useful change. Cross training being introduced, 6 days schedule debates, probably the acceptance of the long run not being important for up to 10k. Even that specificity is very useful if you have one particular short term goal at a middle distance. But in general, the vast majority of evidence points back to the basics or at least, the spirit of them.

I do get how it could put people off. But I think if you are confident in understanding how LRC works there's still some good stuff in here.

Maybe im just being old and nostalgic as this thread was my entry point point to better running

ews1982 wrote:

500 pages here wrote:

I'm not interested at all in 'improving the system" nor in telling people what they should or should not be doing in their own training. to each their own, what ever works.

I was interested in how the lessons learned from NS could be incorporated into a more balanced program. I like training variety so this is not the program for me or my athletes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't something useful to learn from it.

But it's obvious that this thread is for pure converts only.

Before you said:

"except if you suggest doing 'additional stuff' in this thread you get downvoted 50 to 1 and told "your NOT doing it right!"

Maby I took it wrong but seems like you want to follow the system + additional stuff. Hence my question what would you add and hence people telling your not doing it right. The additional stuff just isnt done within the program. Its not cult, its just the way the program works. People just seem to have a shi*ton of problems to accept that.

Now your asking which lessons can be learned from NSM for your own program. Thats a differtent question imo.

Im pretty sure it has been asked before and general advice would be to try the system for about 6 months and see what happen instead of mixing it with other programs. But its up to you.

If you do want to take some lessons:

- easy at max 70% seems to be great for lots of people. Better recovery but still good enough stimulus. But it seem to be more boring for a lot of people. You get used to it tho.

- stop with classic periodization and use load as a guide for a weekly (or longer) program that you can do indefenetly.

- subt workout on its own are not as intensive so it might be good for older runners you coach.

- more intensive running is probably more harmfull than helpfull. I learned this, I think lots of others here would agree but im obv not speaking for everyone.

Maby other lessons from others. Good luck trying to use the lesson for your own program, hope they are helpfull

frustrated injured runner again wrote:

Giro wrote:

What did you get down to in the 800? I’m assuming with this method that you lose some speed but a number of people have run shockingly quick 800s and miles using this method despite not doing anything faster than threshold. I’m curious how much speed you really “lose” with this method. Strides/mechanical efficiency seems to be overrated, at least more so than we think.

I got down to a 2:11. This was off vanilla. I was trying to get a bit more out of it, by adding in the extras. That was a PB by around 4 seconds. I ran 16:30 as well in a 5k. Any speed you lose, most of us can make up with with aerobic gains to counter it. Even down to the 800. As I said, I think you can only really fit so much in for hobby joggers, really the thing that matters the least (by far) is specificity and targeted speedwork. Obviously it would be nice to have it all. But the easy gains are so easy if you are willing to grind away and put the work in, that the benefit is much greater than anything you lose at the sharp end.

JohnGordon25 wrote:

runners are clueless wrote:

You asked a question, so I answered.

You feel isolated. No friends, no family, and nobody cares about you. You're an outcast, spending your days alone at home, posting on message boards, hoping for even a little attention. You will spend your life questioning why everyone seems to dislike you or why strangers instinctively avoid you. Sensing the hate, contempt, and misery you try so hard to conceal. To prevent a lifetime of suffering, here's some advice that no one close to you will share. Start by getting your life in order. Clean your room, tell the truth, and genuinely commit to improving. Be kind, honest, and authentic. Stop deceiving, manipulating, scheming, falsifying, minimizing, misleading, betraying, and rationalizing. Your life can and will improve. Others will want to be around you, and you won't have to sit alone filled with agony. Embrace life’s joys. It's never too late.

Giro II wrote:

frustrated injured runner again wrote:

I got down to a 2:11. This was off vanilla. I was trying to get a bit more out of it, by adding in the extras. That was a PB by around 4 seconds. I ran 16:30 as well in a 5k. Any speed you lose, most of us can make up with with aerobic gains to counter it. Even down to the 800. As I said, I think you can only really fit so much in for hobby joggers, really the thing that matters the least (by far) is specificity and targeted speedwork. Obviously it would be nice to have it all. But the easy gains are so easy if you are willing to grind away and put the work in, that the benefit is much greater than anything you lose at the sharp end.

2:11 is pretty quick for nothing faster than 12k to 15k pace. I’d be interested to see you continue to run 800s as your 5k improves. What could you run in the 800 if your 5k improves a minute? As a former collegiate athlete, the strides, hill sprints, etc. are the hardest thing for me to give up for this method. But I’m also older now and have no interest in returning to the track. I’ve also gotten injured a number of times doing short faster running, so I’m more convinced every day to give this method a shot.

xfactorx wrote:

I went down a power/Stryd rabbit hole recently and have a genuine question. The conditions I run in are pretty much opposite of sirpoc - he runs in flat and windy conditions, while I run in undulating and calm. I read the book and spent a lot of time on the pacing section, for both training and racing. I totally agree on the theory that you need to take hills, wind, etc. into account, but in practice, I don't see any way that I can map out a 10K race and remember that mile 1 which has 100 ft gain, 30 ft loss should be pace X, mile 2 which has 70 ft loss, 20 ft gain should be pace Y, etc., and also know in real time what my pace up a specific hill segment should be to make sure my average for the mile comes out right. I tried this in a 10K race and overall paced it much better because I at least knew to let my pace drop on the hills, but I don't think this is something that I can do with a lot of precision each race. I should note that every race I do has similar undulating conditions.

I started looking into power to see if it could at least be another data point for me to look at, and it really seems like it could. I'm not really interested in a $300 Stryd based on what most people say about it, but my Garmin watch has been silently estimating power for a year, so I had a lot of data to look at. I was very surprised by the data, which I had been completely ignoring, since I had no idea how to evaluate it.

First, my estimated power values are remarkably consistent across intervals of the same duration. Based on advice in the book, I switched my intervals to be on an out and back in as flat of an area as I can find, but there is still some up and down, so using pace as a metric during intervals is annoying. I have to think first half of rep is pace X, second half of rep is pace Y, then the average is my target pace. Obviously not impossible, but easy to mess up by says 5 seconds if I let my effort slip. It seems like power would be a viable metric to use as my guide during intervals. If I know my fitness lets me achieve 405 W on 6-minute reps, I can just look at that, and the pace and HR should fall in line. The risk seems pretty low here, so I'm planning to try power side-by-side with pace for a few sessions.

Second, my estimated power values in races seem to line up with the rules of thumb for converting interval paces to race paces from the book and reflect my subjective feeling of leaving something on the table in races. For example, in my recent 10K, my estimated power averaged 422 W, while my last set of 3-minute reps before the race averaged 412 W. Using the 0.96 conversion, I get an estimated 10K power of 412/0.96 = 429 W. That race had 400 ft of elevation gain and 400 ft of elevation loss, spread across a series of ups and downs, and I went conservatively to make sure I didn't blow up, but I recovered within minutes of finishing - lungs were definitely not on the floor. Given the ups and downs, I think power would have helped me keep consistent effort throughout the race and potentially left less on the table.

Anyone have experience or opinions on this? I'm happy to be a case study and report back later.

Harpoonz wrote:

(Yet!) another long time reader here. Just thought I would throw my experience into the mix. I have been running on and off since my early 20s. 39 now and found this thread mid 2024. Started a diet of "vanilla" NSM as it's become to be known. I was always a big intensity guy and probably still am at heart, even though I know it doesn't make a huge amount of sense in retrospect. I strongly suspect people of my age, or around it, will understand that it's a hard thing to shake, being married to the idea of harder training is 'better'. My view is a lot of coaches are still caught in this trap.

I was running classic blocks usually, boom and bust, periodization , no real long term base but had reasonable success. Ran everything from 1500 up to marathon. I had stalled progress for a bit but my PBs were as follows:

4:40/10:01/17:24/36:20/1:21/2:52

I probably got quite a bit weaker as the distance went on. But not a bad spread and was quite happy. I stumbled on this thread and just thought what did I have to lose? A few people had already posted by mid 2024 that I could relate to. 17-18 minute guys who just were at the point of feeling burned out, or repeating the same cycle over and over again.

I actually didn't have the slow start some did to NSM and I felt fresh quite quickly and results came to me quite fast. I suspect it's because I had managed to keep far more consistent and higher mileage within a short space of time, opposed to a real rollercoaster of boom and bust time after time . Within 3 months I hit a few PBs and by a year on Vanilla I had got down to: (I sometimes did strides, but not regularly, just if I felt particularly sluggish one day I would, but as time went on I needed this less. Note: I really appreciate the book and how sirpoc never tells you NOT to do something, but to consider what it brings to the table. This method has really got me thinking a lot more sensibly, which I think is overlooked).

4:13/9:08/15:49/33:01/1:13/2:33

The results were amazing to me. I totally fit the classic of 'reasonably seasoned runner', adding in a large base I simply never had time to build and consistency, then making the big breakthroughs.

I really enjoy the shorter stuff and was getting bored, so I thought I would take what I had as a base and add in some targeted raw speed and VO2 work over 14 weeks and see if I could really do damage to my 1500 and 3k. The only thing I really changed was most Saturday's and more in line with stuff that was either classic X-factor Norwegian workouts or even some all out max speed turnover on hills with full rest as a someone else mentioned and got injured. (Luckily I didn't). I also did a couple of the real classics (Jan will have approved of my 400s, very much in line with what he suggests! LOL)

Within a month I was struggling to hold the schedule, which I hadn't with vanilla. The whole recover seemed to be shifting out of controllable. Still felt doable, but I knew this was a build that was unsustainable, but really wanted to see what results it yielded so went for the full amount of time I allocated.

The results were disappointing. I ran only 9:10 for 3k and a 2 second pb for the 1500. Was this worth it? Who knows. I ran a PB and 2 seconds at 1500 is nothing to be sniffed at. But I needed a bit of recovery from the whole build. There were also a few weeks during where I had to shorten planned runs and I've taken a step back in my overall fitness in the coming weeks. Ran a disappointing 34:20 this weekend just gone. Which makes sense, I've had to recover/decrease load from the periodization of targeting the shorter races with some taxing intensive work and that is really the epitome again of the boom and bust cycle NSM looks to counteract. I'm just an example of one person, but my experience is what you are giving up in the consistency, the steady build, isn't worth the returns you get from adding intensity when you still might be improving anyway.

My views have probably come round to until someone lays out something better, NSM or bust for me. I think someone summed it up well, you have to make some compromises when it comes to training, and regular harder intensity (anything above LT2 with the disproportionate recover it brings) is the first thing you should take out and the last thing you should add back in. If you had asked me this two years ago, I would have said this is simply a foolish statement. But hey, here I am.

P.S. I think the big that attracted me to throw in my post was the mention of 800s, and that I think I am going to try a 800 as I have never run one in a race, then try another 1500 in the spring and we will see how they go on the back of another 3-4 months of Vanilla NSM and building back up, hopefully to where I was at with all the PBs I set.

xfactorx wrote:

I went down a power/Stryd rabbit hole recently and have a genuine question. The conditions I run in are pretty much opposite of sirpoc - he runs in flat and windy conditions, while I run in undulating and calm. I read the book and spent a lot of time on the pacing section, for both training and racing. I totally agree on the theory that you need to take hills, wind, etc. into account, but in practice, I don't see any way that I can map out a 10K race and remember that mile 1 which has 100 ft gain, 30 ft loss should be pace X, mile 2 which has 70 ft loss, 20 ft gain should be pace Y, etc., and also know in real time what my pace up a specific hill segment should be to make sure my average for the mile comes out right. I tried this in a 10K race and overall paced it much better because I at least knew to let my pace drop on the hills, but I don't think this is something that I can do with a lot of precision each race. I should note that every race I do has similar undulating conditions.

I started looking into power to see if it could at least be another data point for me to look at, and it really seems like it could. I'm not really interested in a $300 Stryd based on what most people say about it, but my Garmin watch has been silently estimating power for a year, so I had a lot of data to look at. I was very surprised by the data, which I had been completely ignoring, since I had no idea how to evaluate it.

First, my estimated power values are remarkably consistent across intervals of the same duration. Based on advice in the book, I switched my intervals to be on an out and back in as flat of an area as I can find, but there is still some up and down, so using pace as a metric during intervals is annoying. I have to think first half of rep is pace X, second half of rep is pace Y, then the average is my target pace. Obviously not impossible, but easy to mess up by says 5 seconds if I let my effort slip. It seems like power would be a viable metric to use as my guide during intervals. If I know my fitness lets me achieve 405 W on 6-minute reps, I can just look at that, and the pace and HR should fall in line. The risk seems pretty low here, so I'm planning to try power side-by-side with pace for a few sessions.

Second, my estimated power values in races seem to line up with the rules of thumb for converting interval paces to race paces from the book and reflect my subjective feeling of leaving something on the table in races. For example, in my recent 10K, my estimated power averaged 422 W, while my last set of 3-minute reps before the race averaged 412 W. Using the 0.96 conversion, I get an estimated 10K power of 412/0.96 = 429 W. That race had 400 ft of elevation gain and 400 ft of elevation loss, spread across a series of ups and downs, and I went conservatively to make sure I didn't blow up, but I recovered within minutes of finishing - lungs were definitely not on the floor. Given the ups and downs, I think power would have helped me keep consistent effort throughout the race and potentially left less on the table.

Anyone have experience or opinions on this? I'm happy to be a case study and report back later.