Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

This is where you are wrong IMO. You are using your own experiences to put onto others. I have been running way longer than sirpoc. I've gone many years stuck around high 19/20 and now have run a high 16 using NSM. I ran double digit marathons before, never broke 3. Have run two since training NSM and have now ran 2:40. I've seen others in this very thread with as ridiculous progress. I think you don't quite understand two things:

1. How bad others previous training has dug people a whole, over many, many years.

2. About responders. There's a good bit in the book about this. For some of us, you can really almost cheat by using speet spot and just keeping topping up fitness with it and that alone. I have never, ever trained this way as it never occured to me, but, clearly I am a low initial performance, but high responder.

If you consider cycling, sirpoc FTP was around 310w. Someone asked him what his baseline level/untrained was. It's around 165-70w. So an incredibly low starting point, but, as with me, a low initial performance and high reposnder to training. I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about much from the book as to digs into the issue of what talent actually is. It's come up a few times here but nobody seems particularly interested.

Fwiw, in the Strava group early on he shared his first ever 5k TT from Garmin connect. HR average was 177bpm and I think the pace was about 5:35/km I think. You are falling into the trap of this having not played out how you expect it to, based on your own experience.

I personally don't see how he could. He clearly doesn't or didn't respond to intensity over volume or just hitting sweet spot. That was the key to unlocking for him and for me. And many, many others posting in this thread. We are acting now like this is still just one person. Sirpoc isn't even the fastest marathoner or 5k runner training in the same format. That doesn't mean everyone will get fast, but huge amounts of people have made what almost looks like ridiculous progress, given their own anchor point of times they seemed infinitely locked to.

But that doesn't mean any of this happens overnight, it takes a long, long time of consistency. I don't think some people realise how long.

This is where you are party right, but looking at it through the lens of cycling too much. Think about the % of FTP you would need to do 3 mins at sweet spot. It's obviously much higher than 94% of FTP. But nobody does really this on the bike, why would you? So it's not given in the range. It's really just about manipulating power and intensity for the desired psychological response. All sweet spot is, is an intensity that you could do again and again, day after day, if you wanted to. The perfect balance of load versus recovery. That's all it is.

Agree with everything you say except...

for some it actually doesn't take thaaaat long? Sirpoc is on page 2 (2 years ago) writing he's been improving for 9 months. Say it's roughly 3 years to 15min for him (probably less as his 5k PB is not totally recent?). That's actually hitting it out of the park in terms of improvement rate?

That's still well over 2 years of consistent, boring training, to go from 18 to 15. This is where people are finding it a tough seller. They don't want to think outside the concept of 12-16 weeks most of the time before they move to the next thing. But it also shows you there are also no miracles in play.

No you are correct. I have never understood this. Most of the scenarios I see people say power is working, are situations they are consistent and repeatable enough that pace would have worked as well, or even HR training.

Where you need power (such as taking your bike off road cycling, putting it on the trainer, or even out on the tarmac on a really windy day), you can replicate power still 1:1 as it's not affected by anything else. Whereas this is obviously where (as people have shared their experiences) that running power fails for a lot of users. Which is exactly where you could have needed it.

Probably the smartest comment in all of this mastodon thread ! All this babbling about power when it all comes down to pace and velocity in the matter of running LoL

I wouldn't engage lexel. You are basically right, of course. But that's your choice. Fwiw, here is a direct quote from Coggan.

"I have always considered "sweetspot" more of a concept than a specific training intensity, but when someone twists my arm I have pegged it as extending from the classic level 2/3 border up to FTP. "

Followed up by

"As for duration and whether to break things into repeats (I wouldn't consider them intervals) or not, that really depends on the context. Basically, though, you want to do as much as you can (given the time you have available, of course) while still recovering adequately from day to day"

Finally

IOW, "sweetspot" training is really just Lydiard's "best aerobic pace" training for building your "base", the only difference is that fatigue when cycling tends to be more local in nature, such that cyclists often perceive such training as harder than a runner might"

Lexel will likely come back, stuck in his ways, and assume sweet spot is a particular intensity. Because, that's what lexel does. We love him for it (better than the new trolls). But his biggest flaw is he reads information and then can't think outside of the information he's absorbed.

Forgot to Quote Post: #10364 : I'm one of these dim runners. I've been doing NSA for about a year. I run 7,5h per week and I do 10x1k@3:54 and often 2 days of 3x3k@4:06 that equates to 25% time spent at SubT. I haven't gotten injured, I have sprinkled in some "special blocks" for one trail race and a marathon in this time but no other alteration. Are you saying if I reduce my sessions to e.g. 10x3min two times a week and a 3x12min I'd be faster? Can't see how that would work... but as I wrote, dim.

Your progression is simply mind blowing to me and this is coming from someone who has been following NSM to a tee for 4 months now. It makes me wonder just how bad your prior running was? Would you mind sharing your typical training week leading up to one of your pre-NSM PRs?

A good comment I say. Of course reducing time in the reps ( and switch a 3 x12 min to another 10 x 3min ) at same pace as now wouldn't make you faster.

If you should change something to be even faster you need to switch one of your 3 x 12 min to a maxVO2 interval at 5 km race pace. It would do wonders! 🇸🇪🧙‍♂️🇸🇪

I know what he has told us and seems like a good guy. With his ability, you really think he was stuck at 19 minutes? He was 38 yo at the time with a great endurance base If he went directly from cycling to running. At 51 I was easily running 5ks under 17 in a year and that was after a terrible cycling accident that thrashed my lungs and lots of broken bones.

Where are all his Strava runs before appearing on LetsRun in July of 2023? Maybe there are only the few he posted and that would explain not being able to lower his PR.

I do think he would be close to his current PR using traditional training. It isn't magic and he would tell you as much. It is a solid plan that focuses on what matters most and is simple. I've been doing almost what he is doing for the last 2 years and it has destroyed my performance. I run my TH runs slightly too fast and I got a tiny bit slower each month. His plan if done correctly eliminates that imperfection.

Is your threshold pace up to date? How did it progress over the course of the last 12 months? What races did you do to check? Was the trail run very long (high fatigue)? Did you monitor your ramp coming back from the marathon? How long is your easy run? How long is your long run?

Yes you are a bit over target on the workouts but there are many things to check. (Not saying I have the solution if you answer those questions).

You are probably right. I am basing my beliefs on my personal experience which isn't the best approach. Wish he would post his runs on Strava so we could actually see his "real" progression and at a loss why they aren't there. He was a Cyclist and cyclists are avid Strava enthusiasts. He has talked about his KOMs on Strava. He has the data.

Regardless, doing incredibly well following his plan and as stated before it isn't going to take 6-8 weeks to see progress as many have stated. One issue I have is that it is probably too intense for my nearly 60yo legs. I'm thinking to drop down to 25 mins and maybe even 20 mins on some days until my legs can handle the speed. My last 550 meter int today was 5:44/mi and was well under TH HR. Fine while doing them but not now :)

No. Accelerometers and other sensors are used to determine the power required to create motion. Most of the latter is the result of having to launch your body forward and upward against gravity (only to come crashing back down to earth to have to do it all over again). A small amount - <10% under most conditions - is required to overcome wind resistance.

Pace is derived from these raw measurements, rather than the reverse.

Which CP?

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Critical power: How different protocols and models affect its determination - PubMed

Estimations from CP3-hyp were found to be the most accurate, independently of TTE range. Models that include two trials between 12 and 20min provide good agreement with the criterion method (for both CP and W').

Open link

I think for an above-average adult with enough base to step into NSM, going from 18 to 15 in 2 years is, in fact, a miracle. Something like 21 to 18 or 20 to 17 is probably a better argument for realistic improvement over 2 years, particularly for people moving from 5 day per week boom/bust training cycles with seasonal dips to steady year-round training.

What if it is hilly where you live?

This is incorrect. Accelerometers measure acceleration, which is the change rate of speed, i.e. pace.

Speed in turn is the change rate of location. So for example by using integration of vertical acceleration data, you can calculate the gradient you're on.