Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Again, 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

The book talks about volume based and intensity based responders and places NSA in the middle. Is it possible to a pure volume based responder that doesn't respond to NSA?

Endless posts about one or two topics and terminology that are only tangentially relevant to the thread topic, and we're even getting pubmed links now. It's like having Lexel back.

BigMango what are you prattling on about? Maybe Sirpoc runs 15:00 with other plans… maybe he doesn’t. People respond differently to training, some get faster, some don’t. Sirpoc wasn’t responding to the level he wanted to with his running so he made his training plan, executed it, and he DID improve. And not only did he improve, but he and others also communicated a plan that’s new to the majority of us. Nobody made promises that an individual will get to 15 in 3 years. You have people get there with high mileage and others with low mileage. All on different plans. Whatever sirpoc’s “potential/ability” was is irrelevant; we’ve been presented in this thread with tools to help our running. And in this thread we’ve seen many people employ those tools to get faster

P.s. The quote is bolded from BigMango’s funniest moments in the stream of consciousness he posted

Far less tangential than you can possibly imagine.

Sweet spot is bang in the middle, as it gives people probably a bit of everything surrounding it. It's very unlikely in my experience cycling, that a solid and long dose of sweet spot over a period of time won't increase someone's FTP. So they are fitter.

To answer you question the way I see it, if they are already a high volume responder, this to me says if they handled it and didn't break, NSM might not be for them. Same with a high initial responder to training who also then responds to intensity, but peaks early and tails off. The gains from just hitting more and more sub t just aren't there. But people out in the fringes are rarer than those of us bang in the middle.

Which is why this thread is 10k posts long with so many testimonials. A lot of us sit in this area where it simply provides the best bang for buck, in the time we have. Not everyone will fit but, especially those who already managed huge volume. Although, I do often wonder why guys who can handle 13-14 hours a week even think to train like this when Bakken has all the answers for them anyway.

Sirpoc seems to be targeting the Seville Marathon. A few days ago he did 4 x 5k, 4 weeks out, which is a bit different from last time. I'll be curious if he tweaks anything else over the next few weeks.

He had said in a couple interviews he wants to break 2:20 in his next marathon. I hate to be a skeptic at this point, but the 4 x 5k, as well as his recent races don't suggest to me he's in better shape than before London last year. It's supposed to be a faster course and probably better weather, so maybe he still runs a PB, but sub 2:20 seems like a bit of a step up from where he's at now.

Anyway, after not watching too carefully for a while I'm back to watching his training with great interest.

He also didn't go directly from cycling to running. Not sure where this myth came from mango. There was a 4 year gap where he did nothing. As far as I know. Literally nothing sport wise, apart his main hobby of darts.

I was a good cyclist, 4.5 w/kg FTP and even after just 6 months of quitting, I only managed a 24:34 after about 5 weeks of running. With 4 years of nothing, I doubt I would have broken 30 in the first month. Currently a low 17 runner training full vanilla. Got to about 19:30 with some generic Runna plans I wish in retrospect I hadn't done for my first 18 months in the sport. Still making good progress via NSM in the last 14 months.

It's almost impossible to compare people's starting point to where they got to, as you really don't know so many of the factors. My brother ran 23:22 after about 2 weeks (5 runs) of training with only playing badminton and 5 a side football 3 out of 7 days a week for his entire adult life fitness. He's running 6 days a week and 5 hours consistently and can't break 18 two years on after what looked like an incredible starting point. Some people just really respond straight away and peak early, others just can chip away for what seems like forever. Which one you are is luck of the draw.

I can't keep up with the thread anymore, but just dropped in to see the last 25 pages since I last was here (mainly to see more of shirtboys semi heel turn) and caught this at the end.

There's 0% chance I can break 2:20. Like none. It's absolutely miles off. Let go of that ages ago. My body just isn't playing 100% and the longer runs and workouts I'm needing longer to recover than last time, which then is messing with the stuff I do in-between. It's not a terrible build, but sub 2:20 would have had to be near on perfect. Being on my feet all day at work just gives me no time to recover and I just wasn't as busy at work in the build up to London. Sometimes I wish I had a desk job. Shows you how for regular guys/girls the work/life/training balance is on a knife edge, on all fronts.

Ideally I would have just done exactly the same build again (as Wigglewaffle did twice since I last ran) as I think that was the best format if you are coming off a regular routine training like I have been.

But I figured I wouldn't push it and break myself trying, as maybe I can still pb with a scaled back version. But even that isn't looking more than just a chance. The margins are pretty fine with a marathon, it's brutal. Even a few seconds per km off where you need to be, and you are 2-3 mins back down the road over the race distance.

I think I can break 15 still in a good race. That's probably my best bet to tick a box this year.

Are you ruling out sub 2:20 just for this marathon or forever? Either way, all the best for the marathon

Yeah I don't know why, but people seem to think I put my bike down one day and then started running. I absolutely did nothing but play snooker for 10-15 hours a week for about 3 years and then also picked up and added darts to that the year after. Not sure that had much contribution to my running fitness even though I do think both should be an olympic sports ha ha

I generally agree, it's very hard to tell how good someone will respond to training, simply based on their initial performance. I bumped into a school friend at a parkrun last year. He always came minimum of top 3 in every cross country race. I used to come about 40th which was about mid pack for our year group in the boys. Neither of us trained. Both of us played football so were reasonably fit. I tried. I just wasn't very good. He just seemed a natural.

He has been running 12 years now , from when he was just about to turn 30. His pb is 16:02 and he has done a block of bigger milage weeks than I ever have. He was running 20:x Very quickly from what I can gather, within a couple of months. That's obviously very good but I finished 72 seconds faster than him over a 5k we both raced in last year. He exhibits all the hallmarks of high initial performance, but low response to training. He could probably get away with a pretty light program and still be running 16s.

I've known from cycling and de training, my untrained level is very, very low. But I can seemingly just keep responding to training. I've for the most part usually ran out of time to just train more, before my response becomes diluted or the returns like my school friend become quickly diminishing.

What all this means. Who knows. Other than everyone's response will be different. This is why I'm sure you can never say any training is perfect or will work for anyone. But this way does seem to fit a broader range of the population than most, but it'll never be everyone.

That is not what I said at all. Again you interpret someone’s comment out of context or just leave out the bulk of what they said so it suits your argument.

For power to be measured through a foot pod, it has to be a variation of velocity- ie how fast the foot pod is moving through the air. Someone said it’s an accelerometer, which again is just measuring a variation of velocity.
So yes, it will still measure something when you run on the spot because the pod is still moving.

Probably forever. I'm 42 pretty soon. Time is also a factor. They'll be a time soon where even just holding times, means I'm still improving in the sense I'm holding off natural decline. That is obviously probably not right now, but I doubt that is far off, either.

The bike is helping a lot. It's meant my 10k the other week in pretty tough conditions was a really well ran race and up there with the better races I've done. I think 5-10k with vanilla running and the bike as a top up, I can still put up some really good times. Maybe even time trial a bit again, duathlon maybe.

If 2:24 is to be the best marathon I ever run, I'm pretty happy with that. It's not a distance I'll probably do again, unless I think it's worth it. It's such a big commitment.

I more mean is it possible that someone could respond comparatively more to volume, not necessarily that they can handle high mileage, and NSA would be unsuitable to them? Like could someone be best off running load x with only easy running and would respond worse to load x with slightly less easy running and sub T? If someone skews heavily volume based responder would they be best off running all easy? Or would it not matter that much or be common at all because easy running and sub threshold are both below LT2 and that makes them more similar than different?

I read your post but I didn't agree with you. You seem to think that means I haven't read it. It is a discussion, right?

If Sirpoc would post his Strava activities prior to appearing on LetsRun that would be wonderful :) Would add a a ton of value to see this incredible progression when he implemented NSM. I can look at FOD runner's data and see his success and it's motivating but as exceptional as it is, it is realistic.

Happy it is working for you and I'm also enjoying NSM and as slow as I was when I started, I won't dropping my 5k time by a minute. Hoping for close to 2 minutes in the 10k but would be pleased with 1.5 minutes.

Just being real. THis has become idolization over reality. Sirpoc, please post your Strava data prior to July 2023 so we can learn from your progression after implementing NSM.

I still don't think he was stuck at 19 minutes. I think he wasn't raining consistently and ran 19 minutes. Big difference and I just want to see his data so I know what to expect.

Hey if you don't want more actual data that would help us all see his "actual" progression then up to you. If he was training 4 hours a week and running 19 vs now training 8 and running 15:+, wouldn't this help us all make better judgements.

Is there a strava for snooker and darts?

Yes, I'll definitely try experimenting with faster reps such as 200s at ~3K pace and 400s at ~10K pace while keeping the effort sub-t. While the longer intervals help me a lot with building strength, it seems that the shorter faster intervals are necessary to get ready to run an all out race and feel good while doing it.

Sir I just bought your e-book on amazon as a respect you deserve.