Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Can u guys just kiss already 🫵👯‍♂️👨‍❤️‍💋‍👨

What’d say Andy?

i can let you get back to your dietary nitrate research while youre on sabbatical?

Their back and forth in this thread does display a heated rivalry.

I’m going to attempt to redirect the conversation into something more productive. I’ve been running 5 x LT1 intervals, 90 min long, 30 min easy for the last 5.5 weeks.

A 7 hour week of vanilla NSM would yield a weekly load of ~370 on intervals.icu and I achieve around the same load on 6.5 hours training this way. It’s not a game changing optimisation, but it’s allowed me to be consistent during a very demanding time in my life and avoiding the paces I hit in the 6 and 3 minute reps has reduced my Achilles soreness.

It’s summer here and there’s been huge variance in temperature and humidity so I’ve run sessions anywhere between 10C to 26C and 50-95% humidity. I also have had to change the location of my sessions pretty frequently so it’s been difficult to draw like for like comparisons to accurately assess my progress. But I have three sessions performed on the same course in ~18-19C and ~85-90% humidity, pace and HR listed as averages below:

November 27: 4 x 8’ @ 4:11/km (146bpm)

December 18: 3 x 10’ @ 4:08/km (143bpm)

January 5: 3 x 10’ @ 3:58/km (144 bpm)

At this point I think the likelihood that my curve has shifted to the right is very high and I believe I will PB once the weather cools down. Obviously the big thing that remains to be seen is whether not touching anything remotely close to 5k pace will matter significantly.

Training this way does feel slightly less sustainable than vanilla NSM. More from a mental standpoint than physical. I am probably going to switch back to vanilla when I have more control over my work timetable in March, but I think I could comfortably switch back and forth when I need to and stay on the same trajectory.

not an increase in time

5 days a week totaling 6.5-7 hours

lt1 sessions on the bike doing no less than 50:00 up to 80:00

lt1 running sessions of at least 32:00 going up to 40s

doubling at least one day

Did you write this plot point in an otherwise excellent movie?

(Spoilers for The Matrix: humans are batteries)

I had almost the same experience. Set a new 1500m pb on vanilla NSM, then switched to conventional middle-distance training and took another 2 seconds off over 10 week period. I stuck at it for a full year and by the end of that year my 1500m was 5s slower than it was on basic NSM. I also didn't get any quicker over 800m... I got more comfortable running fast 200s but this turned out not to matter very much. Now back to basic NSM.

Yes, very similar experience. I was very happy with the PB, I just don't think it was worth it in the grand scheme. I can only speak for me.

I also probably was running at the sharp end of repeats, everything faster as the weeks went on. But still nothing actually really in huge race gains.

I actually can't see myself ever adding this work back in.

No, you don't.

F = ma. Therefore a = F/m. Furthermore, the 1st derivative of a is v. P/m is thus a x the 1st derivative of a. Multiplying by m is necessary only if you want to know P and not just P/m.

Following on, the 2nd derivative of a is d. Add up all the horizontal d values during a cycle and you have your stride length. Add up all the vertical d values and you know whether you're going uphill or downhill.

Etc.

The tricky part is dealing with noise in the measurements and in particular determining when the foot leaves the ground. This is why soft surfaces can cause issues.

Did you know that the original Stryd was a chest strap HR/power metre combo? And that before that it was a footpod not called Stryd that didn't calculate power?

Lydiard would be proud - then appalled.

Integral, not derivative. And you're not just moving a single mass around - there are lots of masses on springs, and all you know is the sum of the masses.

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

As for multiple masses, that all gets swept under the rug when considering external power. It's basically why you you can successfully model walking and running using a single infinitely small mass bouncing on a spring.

If Stryd measures mechanical power, why does it need a wind sensor?

Anyone tried doing a progression run instead of one of the sessions? There is no way I could do 3/6/10 minute intervals every week even if it is most effective - after all, running is supposed to be fun.

i think varying the stimulus and response, while still keeping the effort controlled would help the monotony aspect - maybe doing some short repeats of 400-500 at 10k pace would fit that boat too.

The original Styrd didn't have one, and therefore didn't account for power needed to overcome aero drag. It therefore underestimated total power by up to 5% or thereabouts, depending of course on conditions.

"Variety is the spice of life."

The spice is vital to space travel. But not running.

How are you determining your LT1?

I think that depends on who you are. Personally, I can do the same workouts over and over and over and over again and not be phased. Others, though, get bored/burned out by the monotony and feel a strong urge to move on. This is where coaches who know their stuff can be handy, as they can sub in novel workouts to alleviate the tedium while still pushing the ball forward in the right direction.

The important thing to realize is that there is no magic in any particular workout - only the big picture really matters.