Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

jlk wrote:

Alfie wrote:

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.”

Tbh Jason is spot on. There's no science or anything behind NSM. It's silly to think this is even a thing. 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.

Dragostin wrote:

NoStupidQuestions wrote:

After an exhaustive analysis of his training, past performances, and recent darts and snooker scores : Predicting a 2:22 for SirPoc.

No pressure James ✌️

I think not unfortunately. I see sirpoc at airport the plane to Seville. Plane was full of runners only from London. He was talking and in good spirits.

Said conditions would be good but sadly he wasn't really ready to run much more than 2:30. He indicate he would be surpise himself for any better but maybe even worse is possible.

Very nice guy btw, normal, humble and asked me as many questions about my running than I did to him . He maybe find it strange I was excited to meet him but to me and many other like me he has changed my running fortunes .

He was sat in whetherspoon pub with a glass of beer. I'm travel from UK but from Eastern Europe and he is a true classic British guy lol he really is the guy we think he is and i think that is cool.

Makes Paper wrote:

HourofPower wrote:

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.

If I'm talking hobby joggers, I think it's the opposite: they didn't do enough hard workouts (at least in the sense of enough hard workouts to get the benefit they need).

And then, when they did do hard workouts, they did them without rhyme or reason and either got injured, or didn't do them consistently enough to see the benefits. I know of very few off-the-shelf training plans, or half-knowledgeable coaches, that result in a hobby jogger on a plan that has too many hard workouts. You only need to look at the people you follow on Strava to see this.

One of the best benefits of repeated subT work is the consistently high workload that I think hobby joggers often ignore or just haven't stuck to: enough hard work to get better but not enough to get injured and/or lose consistency.

Makes Paper wrote:

Makes Paper wrote:

If I'm talking hobby joggers, I think it's the opposite: they didn't do enough hard workouts (at least in the sense of enough hard workouts to get the benefit they need).

And then, when they did do hard workouts, they did them without rhyme or reason and either got injured, or didn't do them consistently enough to see the benefits. I know of very few off-the-shelf training plans, or half-knowledgeable coaches, that result in a hobby jogger on a plan that has too many hard workouts. You only need to look at the people you follow on Strava to see this.

One of the best benefits of repeated subT work is the consistently high workload that I think hobby joggers often ignore or just haven't stuck to: enough hard work to get better but not enough to get injured and/or lose consistency.

I do find it relatively amusing that this post got so many downvotes (I don't mind), when the preface of the NSM book says the very same thing. The whole idea, according to the book that resulted from this thread, is to "maximize the training load for most hobby joggers over an extended time horizon." In other words, the underlying principle is that hobby joggers haven't been doing enough hard work, and this is a way to increase (i.e., "maximize") that hard work.

Anyway, party on. I followed NSM for a fair amount of time, and then switched over to what one might call a "standard" training approach. It's been informative. (I'm happier with the results from the "standard" approach, at the moment because I feel stronger than I did with NSM.)

Makes Paper wrote:

Makes Paper wrote:

If I'm talking hobby joggers, I think it's the opposite: they didn't do enough hard workouts (at least in the sense of enough hard workouts to get the benefit they need).

And then, when they did do hard workouts, they did them without rhyme or reason and either got injured, or didn't do them consistently enough to see the benefits. I know of very few off-the-shelf training plans, or half-knowledgeable coaches, that result in a hobby jogger on a plan that has too many hard workouts. You only need to look at the people you follow on Strava to see this.

One of the best benefits of repeated subT work is the consistently high workload that I think hobby joggers often ignore or just haven't stuck to: enough hard work to get better but not enough to get injured and/or lose consistency.

I do find it relatively amusing that this post got so many downvotes (I don't mind), when the preface of the NSM book says the very same thing. The whole idea, according to the book that resulted from this thread, is to "maximize the training load for most hobby joggers over an extended time horizon." In other words, the underlying principle is that hobby joggers haven't been doing enough hard work, and this is a way to increase (i.e., "maximize") that hard work.

Anyway, party on. I followed NSM for a fair amount of time, and then switched over to what one might call a "standard" training approach. It's been informative. (I'm happier with the results from the "standard" approach, at the moment because I feel stronger than I did with NSM.)