So I looked at some training logs: Kipchoge - 1 light VO2max session every 2 weeks which could reasonably be still classified as high threshold.
Paula Radcliffe - her logs show almost no VO2max work. Mile repeats were run at threshold speed, 400s and 800s were run above threshold but those were very short and the rest periods were quite long - in effect threshold work - not typical VO2max workout at all.
Lydiard's base - no above threshold work at all.
Canova - noticed that when athletes do VO2max work during winter their FTP actually decreases.
Ingebrigstens do very little VO2max work either. Their hill session has very short repeats (like 35 seconds) and quite long breaks (like 60 seconds). Not typical VO2max work at all.
There are similar observations from cycling coaches as well (not modern influencers). Just yesterday Jonas Abrahamsen posted stats from his 4 weeks training camp: 2.5hr of sweet spot per week, 8 minutes of VO2max per week and that work was 1min on/1min off intervals - not really a typical VO2max work either.
All those guys get very very fit, beyond what any amateur could dream of on basically 0 VO2max work. Why do various influencers try to convince amateurs to do the most risky, injury prone, fatigue inducing work when their aerobic development is lacking is a question that should be asked more often.
I agree with the big picture of what you're saying, that developing ones lactate threshold is much more important than developing ones VO2 max. But there are a few points here which aren't quite accurate or require a bit more nuance.
Kipchoge - where are you getting his training logs? I've never seen these anywhere before, bar something sweatelite have purported to be his training, but they are not a reliable source. Also, even if we have his training logs, do we have them for when he was a 5k-10k athlete? Because I would be virtually certain that, at the appropriate times of the season he did plenty of VO2 max work.
Radcliffe - again, I'm assuming this is for Radcliffe the marathoner, not Radcliffe the track athlete. Radcliffe the track athlete did plenty of V02 work.
Canova - he does plenty of V02 max work for his track athletes as competition gets near:
Ingebrigtsen's - they absolutely do hard, V02 max and lactic tolerance work in the competition pre-competition phase of their training. We don't know much about what specifically they do, but they absolutely 100% do these workouts (confirmed by Bakken on his blog). This is one of the main misunderstandings people have about the Norweigian system. To paraphrase Almgren, threshold alone does not make a great 5k/10k runner. Threshold and high mileage gives one the capacity to do the (hard race specific) training needed to be a great 5k-10k runner.
Again though, I agree with your general point that the average runner will likely make far better progress if they focus on their threshold. But we mustn't overreach and claim that VO2 max workouts are not an essential part of training for elite athletes, especially when they are looking to peak for a major competition.
An essential part of training for elite 1500-10k athletes I should have said. Agree there's no real need for the HM upwards.
When just about every intervention study or case study shoes vo2 max is incredibly important for any runner and needs to work on it. Hopefully he is listened to.
So I looked at some training logs: Kipchoge - 1 light VO2max session every 2 weeks which could reasonably be still classified as high threshold.
Paula Radcliffe - her logs show almost no VO2max work. Mile repeats were run at threshold speed, 400s and 800s were run above threshold but those were very short and the rest periods were quite long - in effect threshold work - not typical VO2max workout at all.
Lydiard's base - no above threshold work at all.
Canova - noticed that when athletes do VO2max work during winter their FTP actually decreases.
Ingebrigstens do very little VO2max work either. Their hill session has very short repeats (like 35 seconds) and quite long breaks (like 60 seconds). Not typical VO2max work at all.
There are similar observations from cycling coaches as well (not modern influencers). Just yesterday Jonas Abrahamsen posted stats from his 4 weeks training camp: 2.5hr of sweet spot per week, 8 minutes of VO2max per week and that work was 1min on/1min off intervals - not really a typical VO2max work either.
All those guys get very very fit, beyond what any amateur could dream of on basically 0 VO2max work. Why do various influencers try to convince amateurs to do the most risky, injury prone, fatigue inducing work when their aerobic development is lacking is a question that should be asked more often.
So many wrong claims here by you so I felt I must correct you.
When Kipchoge was young and main goal was 1500m- 10000m he often did clear maxvo2 workouts. Then in later years going only for the marathon he often included maxvo2 as to finish of his threshold intervals ( mostly 400m reps around 62-63sec.)
Radcliffe's 400s and 800s with longer rests were at maxvo2 pace.
Lydiard's base inhold of fast 200m speed repeats to keep up 'race feeling' .
" Canova noticed athletes doing VO2max work during winter their FTP actually decreases" is also something is not the case. How do you explain Australian runners and African runners doing VO2max year around and still running at world top?
It's not that Ingebrigtsen do typical VO2max, but he still does VO2max workouts in the form of 200m hillreps.
The question should be more asked is what did so many hobbyjoggers do wrong before they jumped on NSM ?
I am relatively new to this method. I apologize if this has been discussed before, and if it has I would appreciate if someone could point me towards the discussion. I am not sure what to call these, perhaps cut throughs or cut downs? Essentially increasing the pace throughout the rep. For example, instead of a 3 minute rep at a consistent pace, I am gradually upping it each minute. I have been using the treadmill for these. Not only are these nice for breaking up the monotony, but I feel like they have been increasing my fitness. I am using them once per week to replace one of the standard workouts. I ran a 16:40 5k in November, but I would estimate I could run 16:15 now--although I am not sure as I have just been trying to focus more on this method of training and getting a solid block. (I come from a middle distance background if that means anything.)
3x(3:00 @ 9.7mph, 3:00 at 10.1mph, 3:00 at 10.5mph, 2:00 recovery jog at 7.6mph).
Maybe it's really not all that revolutionary, but personally, I'm keeping them as a staple for the time being. If anyone has some thoughts about how I might continue to use them, or if there are any pitfalls, I'd love to hear them.
The question should be more asked is what did so many hobbyjoggers do wrong before they jumped on NSM ?
That's simple. They didn't do enough volume or load, because they did too many hard workouts. Or their coaches or training plan put an unnecessary emphasis on stuff hobby runners and cyclists don't need to worry about - which is anything above LT2.
There is obviously a point where consistent load will top you out. But it's obviously not guys on 5-10 hours a week, where a huge base will outrun or outride just about any plan that has intensity as it's regular focus.
Obviously more and more people are understanding this at amateur level, but there are also a lot of minds still struggling to catch up. Despite all the evidence.
It's not that anyone was doing anything inherently wrong. No training is "wrong". This training is just better, given the restrictions and limitations amateurs have.
I think hourofpower hit the nail on the head on what matters in the real world in comments on pages 543 and 544.
As for aerobic capacity ("vo2max"), it also responds to stuff that isn't high intensity intervals deriving from endurance training lore.
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine a scene where someone has a sixpack on two occasions and thus succeeds in persuading sirpoc to take a formal vo2max test in the summer of 2023 and right before the London 2025 marathon.
No specific vo2max training in between, just NSM grind and some races. Will that ml/kg/min needle have moved? I say yes, and not trivially. Minus the races? I will still say yes.
Most importantly, real world performance did improve, as it did with so many others who adopted this template.
That's simple. They didn't do enough volume or load, because they did too many hard workouts. Or their coaches or training plan put an unnecessary emphasis on stuff hobby runners and cyclists don't need to worry about - which is anything above LT2.
There is obviously a point where consistent load will top you out. But it's obviously not guys on 5-10 hours a week, where a huge base will outrun or outride just about any plan that has intensity as it's regular focus.
Obviously more and more people are understanding this at amateur level, but there are also a lot of minds still struggling to catch up. Despite all the evidence.
It's not that anyone was doing anything inherently wrong. No training is "wrong". This training is just better, given the restrictions and limitations amateurs have.
in training news, ill be attempting the LT1 ‘everyday’ schedule with a mix of running and cycling
modified schedule due to life/work, but anything interesting or at least the cache of data from the experiment ill make available at some point
Any update on how this is going? Or maybe it's too soon for results.
Or update from Kinder Surprise on page 505 who I believe was also doing LT1 everyday but was going to wait for cooler weather to race.
I switched back to vanilla last week after 10 weeks of the 5 x MP reps. About to head out for a 4 x 2k sub T session and it’s 24C here at 5 am so I’m still waiting on that cool weather to test the fitness gains but I can tell from the sessions and looking at my HR data that the training was pretty effective, but no more than I’d expect from the vanilla schedule.
I’ve had a fortuitous change in my work roster that makes the vanilla schedule just as consistent so I switched as soon as I had the chance. I am sorry I couldn’t provide the community with a more meaningful experiment but I was looking forward to throwing in the towel. The effort level of the sessions was very manageable individually but it was still a daunting prospect to have the thought at the end of the session “just two(or three or four) more days of this to go” versus the 48 hours of respite in the vanilla schedule where you can completely switch off.
It could be noise but since switching back to vanilla my 7 day overnight RHR average has gone from 38 > 35 so I may have been carrying more fatigue than intervals icu would predict. I felt this was the case subjectively too. My first week of going back to vanilla I ran 84km vs ~80km in each of the last ten weeks but it felt like a week off. I feel I have so much more headroom on vanilla whereas I felt pretty much capped at 5 x ~30 minute MP sessions.
This headroom has been the danger for me in the past as I tend to get carried away. The MP sessions have reassured me that I can drive improvement without having to push right up to the line on my sub T days. It’s also showed me how laughable my past attempts at double threshold were but I don’t even want to get into what a mess I’ve made of training over the years.
Jason Fitzgerald’s take, very similar to Steve Magness:
“Just saw someone say they do 3 threshold workouts / week. I beg you... hire a coach. Read a running book. Learn more so you don't bang your head against a wall like this. There is a more effective, less boring way to train than doing the same type of workout over and over again”
“Norwegian Singles you say? A few points: 1/ These should be done SUB lactate threshold. Not threshold, but slower than threshold. This proves my point. 2/ Only focusing on LT workouts underdevelops anaerobic fitness, leaving a big fitness hole for those training for <10k
3/ Hill sprints/strides and short reps are recommended alongside sub-threshold workouts to maintain speed. This is critical and usually ignored. 4/ If you're more of speed-oriented runner, you'll feel flat/stale and won't progress as much as a more balanced approach.
5/ Overly focusing on LT means that you must ignore VO2 Max workouts. This isn't always smart. If periodized, it's often fine. 6/ This might be a good approach for base training. But it's HARD base training for more advanced runners. Not for most adults. 7/ Ultimately, this approach lacks balance and must be viewed as temporary. Fine for a brief period of base training, but it must be grown out of.”
Even Jason Fitz is chiming in on this? We already had a weird post/story about this from the other Fitzgerald! LOL ;)
I mean the guy you are replying to is a world class and elite athlete who has made a number of useful posts here. But yeah, he's dumb and talking nonsense.
I switched back to vanilla last week after 10 weeks of the 5 x MP reps. About to head out for a 4 x 2k sub T session and it’s 24C here at 5 am so I’m still waiting on that cool weather to test the fitness gains but I can tell from the sessions and looking at my HR data that the training was pretty effective, but no more than I’d expect from the vanilla schedule.
I’ve had a fortuitous change in my work roster that makes the vanilla schedule just as consistent so I switched as soon as I had the chance. I am sorry I couldn’t provide the community with a more meaningful experiment but I was looking forward to throwing in the towel. The effort level of the sessions was very manageable individually but it was still a daunting prospect to have the thought at the end of the session “just two(or three or four) more days of this to go” versus the 48 hours of respite in the vanilla schedule where you can completely switch off.
It could be noise but since switching back to vanilla my 7 day overnight RHR average has gone from 38 > 35 so I may have been carrying more fatigue than intervals icu would predict. I felt this was the case subjectively too. My first week of going back to vanilla I ran 84km vs ~80km in each of the last ten weeks but it felt like a week off. I feel I have so much more headroom on vanilla whereas I felt pretty much capped at 5 x ~30 minute MP sessions.
This headroom has been the danger for me in the past as I tend to get carried away. The MP sessions have reassured me that I can drive improvement without having to push right up to the line on my sub T days. It’s also showed me how laughable my past attempts at double threshold were but I don’t even want to get into what a mess I’ve made of training over the years.
You went longer than I did. I did this for a few weeks and not even as fast as MP. More like Lt1 and even I was cooked. I did 5x + a long run and a day off. Made it 3 weeks and felt toast compared to vanilla quite quickly.
It's wild how the balance just seems to work of pure of basic NSM for most people. After reading the book that makes sense. It's not like sirpoc just made this up on a whim. A hell of a lot of thought seems to have gone into making the balance work.
Jason Fitzgerald’s take, very similar to Steve Magness:
“Just saw someone say they do 3 threshold workouts / week. I beg you... hire a coach. Read a running book. Learn more so you don't bang your head against a wall like this. There is a more effective, less boring way to train than doing the same type of workout over and over again”
“Norwegian Singles you say? A few points: 1/ These should be done SUB lactate threshold. Not threshold, but slower than threshold. This proves my point. 2/ Only focusing on LT workouts underdevelops anaerobic fitness, leaving a big fitness hole for those training for <10k
3/ Hill sprints/strides and short reps are recommended alongside sub-threshold workouts to maintain speed. This is critical and usually ignored. 4/ If you're more of speed-oriented runner, you'll feel flat/stale and won't progress as much as a more balanced approach.
5/ Overly focusing on LT means that you must ignore VO2 Max workouts. This isn't always smart. If periodized, it's often fine. 6/ This might be a good approach for base training. But it's HARD base training for more advanced runners. Not for most adults. 7/ Ultimately, this approach lacks balance and must be viewed as temporary. Fine for a brief period of base training, but it must be grown out of.”
I do find this strange. But, he's probably not looked into it. As someone pointed out earlier, the best case study is this thread or the vast amount of people who have dropped all the stuff he thinks is important, yet got faster.
We aren't talking new runners. We are talking seasoned runners. A lot of guys in the range of 17-21 minutes. The type who might hire a coach if they have spare income are exactly the ones getting faster using NSM. In huge numbers.
You would have to agree with the point also this thread is a great case study.
Now, if he's talking about elites, again that's a different scenario. But it's hard to argue for anyone who has really looked into it that this isn't working incredible for a huge percentage of hobby runners. Again, I understand totally why guys like this are gonna throw doubt. It makes a mockery of everything they then promote themselves.
Also, I would add, I genuinely think NSM is as good a book as you can read about running or training (in response to go read a book comment).
The eBook version is good too, a fast read. Love that even if you close it it automatically picks up where you left off, no memorizing page #s or chapters on the Kindle.
Jason Fitzgerald’s take [...] don't bang your head against a wall like this. There is a more effective, less boring way to train than doing the same type of workout over and over again ...
As someone that has tried to get into running on several occasions I suspect that this isn't even right.
NSM is never really taxing ... even the subt days are fairly chill
But it's greatest value is that it becomes habit ... You just go out and do the same thing every day.
The value of something like this is greatly underrated for your average hobby jogger with a work/family life and often to some extent lacking a bit of sleep during the week.
-
Especially for someone like me that has an excel sheet and meetings type job the last thing I want is periodized plan with always something different and sometimes grueling after job. I want as little mental energy used as possible. Just get the job done and move on.
MSN is brilliant in that regard.
-
It's as if all those internet personalities have no idea about demographics and think that we're all high school kids :D
I'm really hoping this training is the great equalizer for older runners and those coming off of injuries, inconsistent training. There are so many fast runners on insta that make running look so easy but have never heard of NSM...this is a secret weapon in that regard.
Where would you guys argue the tipping point is though? From where you start getting diminishing returns from just stacking easy + sub-t and it becomes worthwhile to add in the other stuff? Maybe somewhere around 2hrs of sub-t or 10+ hrs a week? I guess at this point it's worth considering moving from 3xsub-t (converging on 40min a session) to Norwegian 2xDouble-T + weekly X-session?
For what it's worth I'm sure most of us are good enough with vanilla NSM on <8hrs a week but there are some of us who have too much free time...
The question should be more asked is what did so many hobbyjoggers do wrong before they jumped on NSM ?
That's simple. They didn't do enough volume or load, because they did too many hard workouts. Or their coaches or training plan put an unnecessary emphasis on stuff hobby runners and cyclists don't need to worry about - which is anything above LT2.
There is obviously a point where consistent load will top you out. But it's obviously not guys on 5-10 hours a week, where a huge base will outrun or outride just about any plan that has intensity as it's regular focus.
Obviously more and more people are understanding this at amateur level, but there are also a lot of minds still struggling to catch up. Despite all the evidence.
It's not that anyone was doing anything inherently wrong. No training is "wrong". This training is just better, given the restrictions and limitations amateurs have.
Not doing enough volume or load ( time limited hobbyjoggers) I can't agree, but as you say probably the wrong quality workouts and maybe too many of them.
As so many of them testifies they frequently got injured of course they did wrong training.
Where would you guys argue the tipping point is though? From where you start getting diminishing returns from just stacking easy + sub-t and it becomes worthwhile to add in the other stuff? Maybe somewhere around 2hrs of sub-t or 10+ hrs a week? I guess at this point it's worth considering moving from 3xsub-t (converging on 40min a session) to Norwegian 2xDouble-T + weekly X-session?
For what it's worth I'm sure most of us are good enough with vanilla NSM on <8hrs a week but there are some of us who have too much free time...
It’s a non-answer, but you can always add whatever else you want if you’ve a lot of free time. Anything additional will fall outside “NSM” framework, but your running is up to you to decide what works best. For me at least, NSM helped teach how to accurately assess training load and hammered the importance of consistency. Best practice seems to be to acknowledge risk of new training, adjust for your ability, and introduce gradually.
I think Renato Canova said it takes 5-8 years to build aerobic fitness. One key part of building the fitness is subT. This thread linked below has an example of high school teams using subT for base of 3 months then introducing workouts to peak for state meet. Renato himself advised on this base work too.
“I try explain again for you. I have woman that runs 15:20 for 5k. During this three month cycle she runs easy long runs with pace of 6:20 per mile, steady runs at 6:00 per mile, and medium runs of 5:40 per mile, and tempo pace for is 5:20 for each mile. This woman spends many kilometers between easy pace and tempo. Sometimes my friends, the best coaches in the world, they don't take good advantage of this pace that is between easy and threshold. When I read article of some coach, and they say that they believe in the method that is hard/easy, I want to cry for them.”
And for what it’s worth, Renato says to run easy long runs at 8:20 / mile pace during base building if you’re a 6 min/mile marathoner. Which kinda lines up right with NSM. I think a lot of people are around 125-130 bpm at this pace.
And for what it’s worth, Renato says to run easy long runs at 8:20 / mile pace during base building if you’re a 6 min/mile marathoner. Which kinda lines up right with NSM. I think a lot of people are around 125-130 bpm at this pace.
It sound like EZ pace is appx. 2:00-2:30 slower than goal MP in the NSM context...
9:20/mi. => 7:00-7:30 MP, or would it be narrower? (1:30-2:00 slower than MP, therefore 7:20-7:50/mi. GMP)?
Magness latest podcast (On Coaching) is about how important speedwork is, and how Ingebretson suffers from a lack of this. Maybe true at elite level, but not so important at recreational level.
Seriously?
Is Magness really out there saying that double olympic gold winner and multiple world champion/diamond league winner Ingebrechsen would do better with him as a coach?
Just Wow .. :D
But ok, if he wants to put himself in the same category as Jan then who am I to judge?
Magic Coach Magness! :)
A runner who is notorious for 1) outstanding fitness and 2) getting outkicked in the biggest races does in fact need to work on top-end speed. This has been stated by many people, many times. Steve Magness' coaching career has given him much more direct experience with people close to that level than anyone here, so playing his comment for yucks is just stupid ignorant. On top of that Magness has spent over 20 years studying the history of training, so if he thinks some elite needs to work on top-end speed, there's a good chance he's right, and that's a question that has nothing to do with NSM, and where NSM has absolutely nothing to say.
We've got a good thing going here with NSM. It's a system that works for a lot of people. Let's try not to ruin it by being complete D-bags to everyone else who comes at it from a different perspective.
When Kipchoge was young and main goal was 1500m- 10000m he often did clear maxvo2 workouts. Then in later years going only for the marathon he often included maxvo2 as to finish of his threshold intervals ( mostly 400m reps around 62-63sec.)
Bakken mentioned something along those lines on Reddit, especially (but not only) for fast twitchers, if I remember correctly.
So, what would that look like? 10x3 + 5x400? Or something like 25x400 with some progression and the last 5 reps or so above 5K pace?
Is Magness really out there saying that double olympic gold winner and multiple world champion/diamond league winner Ingebrechsen would do better with him as a coach?
Just Wow .. :D
But ok, if he wants to put himself in the same category as Jan then who am I to judge?
Magic Coach Magness! :)
A runner who is notorious for 1) outstanding fitness and 2) getting outkicked in the biggest races does in fact need to work on top-end speed. This has been stated by many people, many times. Steve Magness' coaching career has given him much more direct experience with people close to that level than anyone here, so playing his comment for yucks is just stupid ignorant. On top of that Magness has spent over 20 years studying the history of training, so if he thinks some elite needs to work on top-end speed, there's a good chance he's right, and that's a question that has nothing to do with NSM, and where NSM has absolutely nothing to say.
We've got a good thing going here with NSM. It's a system that works for a lot of people. Let's try not to ruin it by being complete D-bags to everyone else who comes at it from a different perspective.
I don't understand why so many has do hard to understand that the published JI schedules are his base training. None of us really know what his training look like closer to racing season apart from a few workouts like 6x800 with the last in 1,49 when he was peaking for that 2 mile wr attempt.