Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

It’s more than a loser like you who doesn’t run at all but just argues on the internet all day

This is what in struggling with. To myself this seems like a pretty well accepted way to spend your week? And something a lot of people have had success with. My head can't get around really how swapping 5 hours of pretty good training like this, could even be replaced with let's just say even 6 hours of just jogging under 70% MHR and 3 pretty basic sub threshold runs..

It is pretty well accepted but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. There is 500+ pages of thread here, a Strava group, a sub Reddit and best of all a good book you could read to explain why.

And what in the world stops you from just trying NSM? Are you afraid of spending two or three months on the program without progressing? That's literally the worst case scenario.

Also, have you been asked Pfitz or Daniels or the Hansons to show the receipts?

People will dive head first into virtually any training plan or tell whatever influencers tell them to do but with NSM it's suddenly, uh, let me think about this first?!

Ridiculous.

I read Daniels' in the early 2000's when it seemed like half of my running club was following it. I thought there were some useful nuggets in it but the plan never made much sense to me if taken literally...easy runs and workout paces would've been WAY too fast and frequent at my corresponding VDOT.

So I consider myself one of the lucky one's who ignored the plan, but it's easy for me to see why there were so many failed or plateaued runners who came from that type of system.

What you and others seem to be forgetting is that Sirpoc isn't the only one who is successfully training this way. Like, the original template for this was Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen -- do you think bis brother designed this Programm just to f with him? Asking for the receipts five years in makes you the moron.

What discussion, lol? Dude at least be consistent. If all you want is to see Sirpocs training log, why the f are you spamming this in this thread? Just message him personally.. Some people just love to be victims lol.

You are one of the lucky ones.

One of the things that struck me most about the book, is why sirpoc didn't think of this sooner. Seems he bought a few books, read the usual stuff and like most of us just "accepted" this is how running training is and that it's different to other sports. Which obviously is ridiculous when you say it out loud or have something to compare it with in retrospect.

Especially, as detailed, he basically just copied and scaled his own training from riding up and down dual carriageways and time trialing here in the UK, who are the epitomy of time crunched cyclists - in that they can compete at a decent level but without 5-6 hour rides you need for stage racing.

But it's not "pretty good training".

Simply put, 5 hours isn't very much time, so you can't afford to waste so much of it not overloading the systems that really matter.

Maybe I missed it, but have you ever laid out here what you do consider good training, and how blood lactate levels or HR might be applied in a useful way?

I keep seeing posts from you hammering on how everyone gets it wrong, so I'm genuinely curious as to what you think is right.

It’s like the beginning of the thread again, I can’t believe it works there must be some secret speed training, he must of not trained correctly, why couldn’t he just run x miles per week, blah blah blah.

news flash, running coaches typically are pony caused by likes of Daniels (he did some great stuff too), where the focus is on specific speed/race paces sessions and run a bunch of easy miles rather than thinking about maximising load and minimising fatigue.

This method prioritises load whereas the traditional methods got there accidentally by easy runs (if you can).

if you follow two cycles of Daniels 5k plan then you assume it must be right.

I wouldnt expect a reply as that would mean you can hold the troll accountable.

I would definitely go by pace or power, not lactate or HR.

I would also design the training with the specific demands of the event in mind, as well as the characteristics of the athlete.

For a hobby jogger focused on 5+ km distance races, that would mean doing as much threshold-raising training as possible, while avoiding anything that might get in the way of that goal.

Volume would be primarily dictated by time available and what the person could tolerate, and only secondarily by race distance/duration (hard to run a good marathon without doing at least a few really long runs - anything shorter, though, and there really isn't much need).

Anything/everything else would just be a difference without a distinction.

To add to that: if you only have 5 hours per week, or are only willing to commit 5 hours per week, well, don't expect to be as fast as you could be.

Sounds like NSM, I’m glad we can agree except power as it’s not consistent enough regardless source on consumer running devices

It also sounds like what anyone who has a clue about endurance training would come up with.

Hobby jogger training is a far simpler nut to crack than practically anything else. About the only thing easier is time trialing, at least for those with typical constraints on their time and energy.

The only reason people find this approach novel is because they've been sent down too many primrose paths by so-called experts and/or they mistakenly believe that how younger, faster athletes train is what they should emulate.

I second this!

Threshold-raising training; isn't that the crux of the whole matter? You've typed a lot of words without actually putting meaning behind the most important bit. Broadly put, you're saying do as much hard work as you can handle within the larger framework of as much total work as you can handle which is dictated by how much time you have available.

You've said no more than the basics of what this whole model is based on. And more importantly, the model gives specifics as to how to achieve the desired result. Your answer still doesn't provide an answer to how would you organize "threshold-raising training" in a specific way for someone who trains approximately 7 hours a week over 6 or 7 days? It's far easier to talk in generalities.

I've seen his strava. When he was running high 17s like me he was doing his repetitions much faster than sub threshold. He certainly wasn't doing mile reps at 6:15 he was doing them more like 5:45. The data is right there on strava. Maybe that was before he changed things up. He is talented and I don't have that natural speed. I can run 17 or 18 minutes on 3 hours a week of running but have always struggled to do reps faster than 6:00 pace. I also don't have the durability to run 7 days a week every week like him, nor would I want to tbh. When I looked at his strava I didn't see much in the way of sub threshold training.