Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Just did a 10x3 min workout today trying to use Garmin power. 6 mph (~10 km/h) wind from the south. My 3 min reps are odd number N->S, even number S->N (not going to do bother with a 180 turn on a 3 min rep).

Garmin power failed miserably. I was targeting something like 410 W and to match effort according to HR, I needed go about +25 W into headwind and -25 W with tailwind (~435 W into headwind, 385 W with tailwind). I overcooked an early rep and wound up running a bit more conservatively, but reps 9 and 10 are a great example:

Rep 9 (6 mph headwind): 6:15 pace, average HR 160, max HR 168, average power 426 W

Rep 10 (6 mph tailwind): 6:06 pace, average HR 159, max HR 168, average power 375 W.

I knew it was fubar from rep 2 (6 mph tailwind): 5:35 pace, max HR 171, average power 407 W.

I've turned off the "account for wind" setting and will do wind pace adjustments manually from now on. I do intend to to continue to see if Garmin power is useful for the elevation adjustments. From what I can tell, it should be more responsive than GAP.

It's a bit counterintuitive. Basically, because your ground speed is low into the headwind, you spend a longer amount of time in that section versus a relatively shorter amount of time at a higher speed with a tailwind. A smaller increase in speed for a longer time in the headwind is usually worth more than a larger increase in speed for a much shorter time in a tailwind.

I think aponce is one of the better posters. I do find I hugely disagree with a couple of his Reddit posts, where he says NSM isnt great for a marathon. A significant number of people now PBd using it, all seemingly seasoned marathoners.

He is a big power guy and I know is a fan of Pallandino , who is "selling" NSM plans for the marathon, that don't necessarily like up with the philosophy.

Thank you! Not dogging him, it just seemed Floberg (not even the real floberg probably) was randomly dogging him.

Will try NSM for marathon down the road but want to get the basics down first. 3E-3ST-1 LR or off. Rinse and repeat.

I'm just wowed that nobody really stumbled upon this training method before sirpoc. Sure there may have been men/women who did volume loading and did some "steady" runs but nothing as regimented (?) as what sirpoc started doing in 2023. Discovering something like this in the '80s or '90s could have helped American running make a breakthrough earlier, vs. high intensity, low volume, etc.

Imagine Bob Kennedy on NSM. Love that guy.

This so called NSM is nothing for elite runners who has all day to train and recover proper. I hope you understand this?

Correction; elite runners have all day to train and recover proper.

As mentioned in the very first post of this thread, it was Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen who ran 3 subT days, 3 easy days and a LR, back in 2021. It's all on Strava

Indeed ... and also training like that is common place in cycling, so nothing new

But the thing is .... Not many paid attention to KI until Sirpoc mentioned copying him with great success in post 9 on that first page

It's the old "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around ...." saying.

To be fair .... Sirpoc did popularize MSN both by being open and sharing and also by backing it up by doing the walk and not only the talk ... Now it has culminated with his book.

The internet is littered with intellectuals that claim to be experts .. but we've been lucky to have had someone genuine for once in Sirpoc and he tends to be quite humble about it unlike so many others :)

Will NSM work for woman too ? Only ever read testimonials from dudes.

I used one of Palladino's marathon plans for Chicago, specifically his level 6 plan, running 8 times across 6 days. I do not plan on using that plan for my next marathon and I certainly do not support his recent effort of selling NSM plans.

After giving it some thought, this is how I am planning on structuring my original thought process, alongside the rationale for it.

In the spirit of the thread and key themes from sirpoc, I still mainly want to emphasize that volume, load and consistency will be the main drivers of my plan. Starting next week, I am planning on 7x easy runs. Starting at 60 min per run and increasing 1 minute on each run each week, so I can safely build (7 min/week, for 24 weeks).

My main target race is an October marathon, so I'm giving myself 6 months of monotonous, progressive easy volume until I can implement the marathon block specified. I plan to do a time trial or race of primarily aerobic nature every 4 weeks to see where I am at.

As for my reasoning:

1) I am currently dealing with a lingering dysfunctional glute that flares up duirng intensity work/races (yes, even sub-T). Easy volume, it is unaffected, which gives me a chance to increase my strength training volume to address it.

2) Intensity has always had a place in my training diet, mostly in the form of true threshold, VO2 or raw speed work. Not once in my training have I done a true easy base, especially towards the 8+ hours/week range. This is what I'm hoping to change moving forward, as I think it's a major gap in my own personal training history.

This is NOT a recommendation to follow this plan nor is it a suggestion as a better alternative. This is merely something that I think as an individual, addresses my current needs better for my future goals. Looking forward to where this gets me.

Baseline times in the last 3 months: 4:52 Mile, 17:46 5k, 29:13 8k.

Targeting a half in March/April, my PR for the distance is 1:27:46.

Only if you always run right around LT 1.5 between November and March when there's a blood moon. Otherwise no, female bodies are like aliens.

No, because women are different species

Not familiar with how swimmers from East Germany trained, are you?

Let's see.

Multiple "sub T" days per week? Check.

Done as intervals vs. continuous bouts? Check.

Intensity determined/verified based on lactate measurements? Check.

Or, I suppose you could go all the way back to Zapotek for inspiration if you insist on only considering running.

When it comes to training there really is nothing new under the sun. Only variations on a theme.

That's a legitimate question. There's lots of evidence of sex-linked differences in the molecular responses to exercise. This is one of the (many) questions that MOTORPAC was intended to address.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

AMPK and PGC- α following maximal and supramaximal exercise in men and women: a randomized cross-over study - PubMed

We tested the hypothesis that AMPK activation and peroxisome proliferator gamma coactivator 1 alpha (PGC-1α) expression are not augmented as exercise intensity (power output) increases from maximal to supramaximal intensities...

Open link

If nothing else, the optimal frequency, intensity, and/or duration of the "sub T" intervals could be different in women vs. men (or older vs. young individuals, etc.).

Throw us a link to your Strava .. I'd love to see how an expert like you trains :)

As you say, " subT's" have been used in successful running too since many decades ago.The only difference they weren't called " subT's" and in most cases the best runners supplemented them with faster paces too.

Right, if anything what sets the current craze apart is what it doesn't regularly include, which is training at "supra T" intensities.

'Supra T' ?? What kind of pace and lactate level would that be?