Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

And why academics make terrible coaches, you forgot the most important part, fatigue (stress) impacts adaptation (absorption) of the stimulus.

The discussion was to stop training at a pace which provides disproportionate fatigue compare to adaption, thus the cumulative load over a given distance/ duration for a week/month/quarter/year would be less when training at a fast pace.

Stop making sh*t up.

For the record I think prescribing paces as % of LTHR is also terrible.

You seem to be focused on practical observation that most people run easy runs too fast. True or not it's a practical advice for an average case that will not work for some people who don't follow that pattern.

The whole point of all the lactate measurements followers of the original Norwegian method do is to pin paces to physiological states - threshold and LT1. This suggests that giving prescriptions as % of a threshold pace and taking it from there makes more sense than doing it based on MHR/LTHR which are unreliable for the purpose across the population.

In cycling for example % of MHR was so unreliable that people came up with "15-25 beats below MHR" for LTHR. This works a bit better but is still bad so there are now 101 protocols to estimate your threshold power instead.

This is me as well. 50 years old, and was burnt out and pretty much done with running because I was tired of feeling like garbage all the time doing what I used to do which was traditional training with VO2 Max intervals and Daniels reps.

I had my highest mileage week in quite some time this week hitting 45 miles following the 3 sub T session/easy running method. And I feel better than I have in a long time. The key for me has been having the courage to be okay with running my easy runs at 9:30ish pace which is what correlates to the 70 percent of max. I never would have done that before, but at this stage of my life I'm willing to try something new to see if I can get results.

Have a 5K in the morning, we'll see how it goes. I'm a former 16 mid guy, I'd like to get back under 19, I haven't broken 20 in years so the first goal is to do that. I'd like to do it tomorrow but we'll see, I had some training interruptions with some illnesses so the fitness just might not be there yet. My 10X3 session on Monday indicates sub 20 fitness, but I've still got to execute it.

For the doubles, is he suggesting a double threshold? Or an easy run in AM, & then threshold in PM? Or is that an easy day where both runs are easy?

Then with the "x-sessions after distance", does that mean if you're training for a 5k you'd do the hills workout as your Saturday X session?

Sorry for all the questions that might be obvious to some, but this is interesting stuff to me.

Chiming in again on the easy running discussion and I have to agree. As someone who used to always aim for 75% MHR on all easy runs - and yeah, you can get away with it for some time - but at a certain point with the amount of training density you accumulate doing 3 workouts and a long run every week, you WILL be forced to back off eventually, unless you just have an outlier ability to recover.

I started to understand this once I ran low 25s in the 8k for XC despite not going faster than 8 min / mi on most of my recovery runs.

Sitting more in that 68% MHR range on easy days now has made a pretty noticeable difference from day to day and week to week that just adds up. It's the same philosophical principle for why we aim for sub T instead of trying to sit right at LT2.

Sure, aerobically, you can run 75% MHR pretty comfortably just like at 65%, but there's a certain negative turning point in the metabolic stimulus to mechanical recovery ratio there.

I mean, like, if Jakob cares enough to stay under the cap that he WALKS up hills on his easy days (and, remember guys - this is the same dude who would sometimes get yelled at by Gjert for getting bored and pushing the pace on some easy runs) I would say that's a pretty good sign that it's better to undershoot than potentially tip over.

Thanks!

Just to be clear, if you don't mind: Starting at around 5 hours per week, he recommends a double SubT day on Tuesday (every other week), single SubT on Thursday, and X-Factor on Saturday?

That's quite the difference from NSM, especially at that level.

He suggest a double threshold one in the morning and one in the evening. Either in the weekend or on the way to work and after work.

-

And yes ... That is how I interpret it .. If you're training for a 5k then it's hills as Saturdays xfactor.

How would you even structure a 5-hour-week like that though?

Tuesday: Double SubT (1:45-2:00 hours)

Thursday: SubT (1 hour)

Saturday: X-Factor (1 hour)

That leaves you with roughly an hour of easy running...?

He gives a sample week for 5 hours is with a single on Tuesdays, but immediately following that 5 hour sample week he suggests four ways to take it further. Doubles, more mileage, longer threshold days and more special exercises.

About doubles he writes:

1. Cautious double threshold in the week end or to/from work.

This is strong medicine and should be administered correct and accurately. But if you get it right then its is one of the most effective things you can do. This is especially beneficial in the weekend as that allows more load and rest than weekdays, if the weekends allows you room for more restitution.

I will say that this is an option for the experienced runner that is in between the level for this chapter and the next chapter. If you decide to go this route then especially pay attention during the morning run. It needs to be cautious and controlled.

-

So maybe not quite at 5 hours, but for runners being somewhere between being a "4-6 hours" runner (the chapter in question) and being "The ambitious" runner (next chapter).

-

It's a very different book than the traditional books that will micro manage you week after week. Even Sirpocs book had a lot of tables and a lot was clearly regimented.

Bakken prefers to line up principles and discuss those. He states in the beginning that this is not a book, where you'll find page after page with trainings plans and exactly what to do.

His approach is more give examples and then discuss how and when to manipulate that example plan.

Only the absolute beginner gets a full 12 week "couch to 5k" plan.

Bakken is not as keen on warmups and cool downs as others. His advice for warm ups is 5-10 minutes and for cool downs he writes that a few minutes is enough.

But his 5 hour plan is:

Monday: Rest

Tuesday: subt (5-6 x 6 min)

Wednesday: 40-60 min easy

Thursday: subt (3 x 10-12 minutes)

Friday: rest

Saturday: xfactor (20*45/15) or another subt.

Sunday: 60-90 min long run

-

When adding doubles it does seem like he removes a bit of time:

In the ambitious chapter a Tuesday looks like this

Tuesday: Morning 5-6 x 6 min subt. Evening 1 x 20-25 min subt.

Both books are absolutely great. Sirpoc dives enough into things for you to understand and buy in and give you the structure runners crave. The key to sirpoc's success is his ability to lay out and communicate something that could be quite complex, into something that appears quite straightforward.

Bakken gives you a lot of interesting information, but it's very much on you to put it together. This reads as something like to have his "final say" on all his words or the misinterpretation others have of his original postings. It would be a must for a coach, who has to work and athlete to a point in time.

The main difference is the hobby jogging ideas of sirpoc is just getting you fit across the board. But, even that book would say, if you only care about the 5k and below or you are an elite, you have to do more specificity or build to a certain point in time. It's no suprise this is Bakken's experience.

The core of easy running and sub threshold is basically at the heart of both. Both of which are incredibly similar. The rest is just how you piece it together. That will just depend on what your goals are.

The only thing I would say is this thread is very long and there are dozens of examples of people trying weekly X-factor and it's caused them problems. But I think that's a risk you might need to take. Maybe it'll grab you a few seconds in a 5k and for some people that could be worth it, but there comes a point where doing this you lose your "all year round" fitness.

This is just my view, but the stress of NOT having to periodize and still be beyond any fitness I've had before is what I enjoy about NSM. I can look at the race calendar in a January and pick a range of races, a range of distances and know I'm almost guaranteed to be in great shape for them, with little planning, come race day. Everyone has their own "game changer" little bits when it comes to NSM, this is it for me.

I've got a stupid question. Why can't I buy the Kindle version of the book? I live where the bombs are falling and getting a physical copy is going to take a long time. The electronic version is showing as not available. What's the story?

I'm not comparing those books in the sense of judging whether one is better than the other, just lining up how they differ. End of day they're both very concise and very suited to my Scandinavian personality :D

I'm allergic to the US style books that drone on and on and on about basically nothing as if they where paid by the page (which is the case for college books).

-

I'll touch on a few things quickly.

The fact that Sirpoc has his best 5k races at the end of his marathon blocks does clearly indicate that peridization is has value, if you want to crush a specific race. So having Bakken actually discuss how to is great.

-

The one thing that I find is both the value of this thread and missing in the book is experience. The biggest value here is that this thread shows you just how far you can get on vanilla MSN without ever going past LT2.

Bakken clearly states that MSN is very safe to train, but that it gives a slower progression than the Norwegian Model. As said he even mentions Sirpoc by name.

In his suggestions he several times writes feel free to replace xfactor with subt.

In other words going with one or the other is a question of the risk you're willing to accept, but there is no mention about the difference in with regards to one method vs. the other. Going from singles to double also comes with a warning of the added risk.

It would be nice if he had quantified where one method maxes out vs the other.

-

End of day this is a book on the Norwegian Method and not the Norwegian Singles Approach.

Both because this is his signature invention. But also because his language suggest this book is aimed at fans of Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

You need the doubles and the xfactor :)

(I play a bit of chess .. Watching NRK go wild about the escapades of "Vår mann" Magnus Carlsen in the Christmas championships makes me suspect that Jakob might also have quite a following

I love that Magnus never is mentioned by name by NRK, but only spoken about as "Vår mann" or in English "Our Guy")

I can see it just fine.

Are you in the correct Amazon store. In my country we have to buy from Amazon.com, but can't buy from say Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.de.

The "universal" link to the book that often is posted pushes me to the Amazon.co.uk store, which is a mistake, if I want the kindle and not the physical.

Thanks for sharing all this info.

Do you (or can you?) run the long run immediately following the x-factor hills session a bit faster than NSM style? Or, does Marius claim the same as Sirpoc when it comes to really easy long runs?

Risk reward

TLDR: I was going to add to my first post that I really question if the musculoskeletal wear and tear is worth it for those of us who have to slog around on easy days at an unnatural pace when the reward's so small.

I questioned this last summer when it was hot, humid and hilly. I was dealing with hamstring and plantar fasciitis issues where it didn’t matter if I was running subt or ez. It hurt the same. So I started doing ez runs faster just to get it over with. I didn’t notice any changes week to week, month to month. Especially long runs. To me there's a big difference between slogging 10 miles in 90 min, vs 10 miles in 80 min at a more natural running economy. Later is easier. I'm not joking.

Anyways, like I said, now I’m back to 70% or less most days. Surprisingly the plantar fasciitis pain went away when I slogged less. Perhaps less time on feet makes a difference? But I still question the worth frequently of 70% especially after seeing the study. Could I run at 75% and be less bored, have a more natural run gait, get an/or more aerobic benefit, and have repeatable weeks? Especially on hills where there's less wear and tear when going up, if I take it easy running down hill? Some of the famous guys posted earlier they're doing VO2 max stuff on the bike for a free hit now on subt days, which they justify as safe since they aren't running & pounding the pavement,

Regarding elites, well a lot or most of them are doped so how they absorb or respond to training is different than non-elites or clean athletes. They also don't have to worry about musculoskeletal effects from having full time jobs on their feet all day.

Easily one of the worst posts in the history of the thread. At least the trolls usually keep it short and sweet.

Hello, I started NSA 8 months ago when I read the thread for the first time. I'm 29, male, and 6'0, 120 or 183 cm, 54 kg for non freedom countries. PRs were 5:03 in the mile, 11:27 in the 2 mile, and 23:37 in the 5k. Since I've started NSA I've only gotten way worse, not better. I've regressed to 5:19 in the mile, 11:39 in the 2 mile, and 26:12 in the 5k

Here is what my training was before NSA:

Monday: 45 minutes moderate

Tuesday: X Factor hill session, but not on a usually hill and not VO2 max effort, more like threshold effort, and longer than 200m like 1600 meters usually

Wednesday: Rest day

Tuesday: 60 minute fartlek, 3 minute ons, 1 minute offs, ons were at around 2 mile pace, maybe a little slower

Thursday: Rest day

Friday: 90 minute long run finishing around 5k pace

Saturday: 45 minutes moderate. I don't track pace but its usually in the teens, like 9:00 pace?????

Sunday: football (american football)

NSA Training so you can see that I'm doing literally everything right

Monday: 60 minutes really easy

Tuesday: 30 minutes sub threshold, with 15 minute warmup and cooldown

Wednesday: 60 minutes really easy

Thursday: 30 minutes sub threshold, with 15 minute warmup and cooldown

Friday: 60 minutes really easy

Saturday: 90 minutes easy

Sunday: pickup football game (american football)

easy pace is 8:00 pace, which is the slowest I can physically go. If I go faster I feel worse because of biomechanics. Average heart rate is around 180 usually, which I think is 70% of max, but I'm not sure I haven't had it tested. Please help me I'm desparate.