Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I'm not against the 70% rule but I am still convinced that there's a huge difference between running 4:30/km below 70% or 7:00/km below 70%. Elites can get away with running at a really low HR because running at 4:30 will still work for their mechanics. 7+ less so.

You are confusing pace with effort though. This can be a misnomer. I've seen pros run 5:00/km and even slower at 65% of max HR. Sirpoc can run (maybe his cadence just means he's really efficient in energy use? 64% of MHR the other day and be 4:45/km and probably barely need a shower. The pro runner is still much faster when it comes to racing. It's hard to really say X pace (even if it's a % of threshold) holds much correlation.

Weirdly Jakob and co seem to have this family 140bpm cap on easy. Maybe this started with Henrik and worked it's way down, or perhaps that is just what 70% of was for Bakken when Gjert spoke to him? KI's big issue by following this is his max isn't that high really, so 140bpm average for him, even 135 you could say is barely an easy day. Whereas again, if we look at hobby joggers 137 bpm for sirpoc is 70% and I'm not sure I've ever seen him go over that for an easy run average.

Obviously % of any kind of HR, be it max, threshold, HRR is arbitrary but most people probably have an idea within a couple BPM of their max from the end of a 5k, that it's probably as useful as anything across a broad range of folks.

It's why the absolute best advice sirpoc has even given is to just have HR and time elapsed on the watch and go and run.

The hard cap sirpoc and Bakken have set is quite arbitrary, I'm sure they would agree, but the point mainly being it's a pretty low "max" target that even if someone was to run up to the hard cap, it would still be relatively easy, in comparison to just about any other easy run guide or boundaries.

If you read between a lot of the posts of where stuff is going wrong on NSM, it's often the easy days more than the workouts that are probably the cause.

What kind of X factor does he recommend?

I am a older runner, just broke 18 for the first time ever on NSM in recent weeks

Run all my easy runs about 6:30-7/km to keep HR under 70%. Like others, it's probably nearer 65%. Feels a bit shuffly and awkward, but you get used to it. I find it hard to believe it's not helping add some load or stimulus, as it would be ridiculous to suggest it counts for nothing, or basically I'm only doing 90 mins of running a week, with a warm up and cool down, if the assumption is it's a waste of time.

Used to run them more like 5:00/km and I couldn't even break 19. I think I would broadly agree, it means you are fresher for the workouts and that is very important as that is where you get your progression from 3x a week. Before I was running just a lot of easy too hard (75-80% of max) and tired, not even breaking 19 and couldn't dream of running 3 workouts a week, even subthreshold.

FTPFY.

Threshold HR would be a better guide.

I've been looking at elite runner's training lately to see how much they typically increase their mileage year to year. Not a great sample, because elites don't usually have all their training available on Strava, but I did see some interesting patterns. First, in long distance track runners it was actually pretty uncommon for them to average more than 7.5-8 hours a week over a year. I think this is because of periodization, with building up for months, tapering, taking time off, and running lower mileage in season, despite pretty high mileage totals in the peak of base phase. Marathoners were around 10 hours a week.

Second, the yearly increase in weekly time was usually .5-1.0 (if there was an increase), maybe 1.25. In this admittedly small sample, whenever this was exceeded, usually being 1.5-2.0 a week, it was immediately following a year that included injury, or the transition from high school to college. It's worth noting that this increase was usually something like 5 to 7 hours a week, and this says nothing about the risk of going from 2-4 hours a week, and in any of these cases the runners who increased by 1.5-2.0 a week were successful doing so, but probably represent survivorship bias; a lot of runners attempting to make the typically large jump from high school to college training plateau, get worse or get injured. My experience increasing my weekly time by 2.25 a week (and adding proportionally more intensity) was that I stopped improving even though I had been improving pretty quickly before I made the jump. This is definitely individual, and is a matter of risk mitigation, not being objectively correct or perfectly predicting the outcome. One of the fastest runners whose training I looked at jumped 4 hours a week in a year.

My takeaway from all of this is that NSA in singles is a really good for aerobic development even compared to elite level training because it ends up getting around the same load as an elite would over a year, and that .5-to maybe 1.0 increases in weekly time are probably a good range to shoot for once you are already at or over 5 hours a week and reduces a lot of the risk. I'm not sure what to make of the runners who jump straight to full 7.5 hours NSA. I tried that and I got way worse and then sick.

Runners whose training I looked at:

Cam Myers, Ethan Shuley, Paul Luttrell (not elite but was curious to see if I could tell why he regressed, and saw that he increased by 1.8 from 2024 to 2025, so maybe that's it), Etienne Daguinos, Vegard Vesterhaug Warnes, Graham Blanks, Marco Langon, Ryan Ford

You're conflating metabolic fitness and general aerobic fitness. As someone who has been into sweet spot training for over a decade, I'm sure his lactate theshold is much higher (in relation to vo2max and HR than a normal 40 min 10k guy.

why not just run 6:00-20, why either 5:00 or 6:30-7?

As someone mentioned, you're leaving a lot on the table and promoting bad mechanics if you're running easy runs that slow. Tbh, the posters on the NSA reddit are much wiser regarding easy runs. People here are way too dogmatic. If it feels easy, it's easy. It's that simple really.

Wrong, more like 73-74%. In his 5k/10k PR, his max HR was at around 187. His max HR is around 190 at most. Yeah, he said his max HR is mid-190s, but no way that's true.

I am not. I illustrating how fast those runs really are. They are not walking pace or anything close to that.

I don't think focusing on HR or limiting your workout to arbitrary % of max HR has any merits. % of HR is not a good proxy for effort because it varies too much across the population. Even HR at threshold varies a lot. HR at sub LT1 pace varies even more. Prescription like "65% of max HR" is thus completely worthless because it will be a very different level of effort for different people.

Again % of MHR is a terrible way to prescribe effort levels. Simple RPE scale is better. % of threshold pace is also better.

This is not to say HR is worthless. Once you know your HR at certain effort levels it's usually quite reliable and repeatable. It doesn't change the fact that it's completely worthless as general recommendation.

A translated quote from Bakken's book:

"All the planned slow training days should be run completely below 70% of the max HR, regardless if you run a couple of times per week or daily.

My experience is that this principle is valid regardless of level. For many recreational runners this means 5:00-6:30min/km, maybe slower - and that's completely correct. The temptation to push the tempo because it "feels easy" is the same for everyone. The consequence is the same: heavier legs on the quality sessions and an increased risk for injury. I've seen this time and time again how crucial this is, both for myself and for the patients I follow as recreational runners."

He has his MaxHR set at 194 in intervals.icu and has a MaxHR of atleast 191 in other 5k races. Way too much obsession with his training specifics but what a weird thing to be so confidently wrong and argumentative about

His 5k pb he hit 191 by the end. Max is gonna be at least 193 minimum. Good rule from many athletes I've had come through the lab is that true max is 1-2% higher than what you might see at the end of a 5k. He posted somewhere in this thread that he did a max HR test and was sick everywhere when he started running and it was about 193 or 194 I can't remember exact, but it was one or the other (and much higher than his cycling max HR from memory).

If he gets to the point where he can't get to within 1-2% of max at the end of the 5k, that's when it probably has decreased. But at 42 (I think he is?) I doubt it'll dive off a cliff yet. It actually decreases a lot slower in my experience lab testing much slower than common lore tends to think.

I completely disagree here. Which is fine it's open forum. But max HR is much more sensible when giving out broad instructions for easy. As most people underestimate or never have really tested to truly see their max HR. So, it will provide an even easier day, because if the person thinks they are running 70% mhr it's likely actually easier. The flip is that in the lab I see people way overestimate their LTHR. So, when they act as a percentile of that, it's likely a harder day than they think.

The one thing I have learned about talking training, even with elites who we test, is any runner gets very, very defensive when confronted about running easy days, too hard. Even when presented with that facts. It's a very strange phenomenon almost exclusive to runners I see. Cyclists really don't care, they just go slower when you tell them they should.

I've always suspected is that running is time limited, so our brains make us think we can't go super slow as our hours are capped by the mechanics and stress of running that we think we must make the most of every run and push it.

I am referring to the fact that better trained athletes can in general hold their threshold for longer. That means that for an elite runner they run 10k above threshold while a recreational runs it at or even below threshold.

This also means that recommendations like "intervals at 10k pace" don't transfer from pros to amateurs.

I am talking about paces/power output, not HR. Analyzing anything based on HR is useless across individuals as % of max HR at various intensities vary too much.

Tbh, one of the things NSM has taught me is that feel and reality are very different. In fact when it comes to easy running, in the past my reality of what was easy versus actually going by hard, presentable metrics are very different.

Looking back I think as an intensity freak I was pretty much convincing myself things were easier than they were in reality. I think the majority of hobby runners (myself included) are idiots and if you leave them to themselves the vast majority will just run too hard. That's honestly probably a truth the vast majority of us know deep down but wtill struggle to accept.

The base phase focuses on high-volume threshold work and short hills. At 40 mpw, 3 workouts plus a long run is way too much intensity. You're better off doing two threshold sessions and filling the rest with easy runs. Focus on staying strictly under your lactate limit rather than chasing mileage.

I kinda stopped paying attention once we hit the advanced runner chapter as it's above my pay grade, but for the plan, where he recommends doubling twice a week (Tuesday/Thursday) he places the xfactor workouts on Saturdays and writes the following:

X-sessions on Saturdays depending on distance and time of year:

- 20-30 times progressive 45/15

- 5 x 1000m from 10k to 5k pace

- Time trial

- 16-20 km in progressive "marathon specific" runs

X-sessions after distance:

- 5k: Hills 8-10 times 60-75 seconds or 30/30 blocks

- 10k: Threshold variations 3 times 10-12 minutes + 6-8 times 30/30

- HM: 3 times 10-12 minutes threshold or 20 - 60 minutes continuous threshold in varying tempos.

I'm just copying what's in the book without going back to find the descriptions of what how exactly the various exercises are defined.

Around my level around 5 hours a week, what he recommends is basically MSN except he again suggest doing xfactor on saturdays.

His factor suggestion here is 15-20 times 45/15 intervals starting at 10k pace and ending at 5k pace.

At this level he also suggest considering doing a double day every other Tuesday.

If any Scandinavians want to elaborate or even correct me then feel free :)