Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

You love this word recently, does writing in Latin make you feel superior to all us clueless runners?

I’m surprised you keep commenting here as most of your posts get downvoted as you talk about short term limited studies, because let’s face it, these papers are generally uni students with trying to get their paper written with a single term/semester on them selves or their fellow students, rather than a long term meta study across thousands over 2 years that this thread, the Reddit, the Strava group, and probably the book buyers

Taking a break from the bickering...

Been off the thread for a while. Any update on the shirtboy et al experiment with LT1 everyday?

There was a guy who posted, with the help of sirpoc to plan it out I seem to remember, who did it but felt more cooked and was glad to go back to basics of vanilla NSM. But that was running.

Cycling of course is more likely to be possible. In fact, the whole original idea is if you had to, you should be able to do sweet spot on the bike daily. You just aren't going to have the same problems you run into with running, which seemingly has to have the buffer of very easy days (yes very easy despite what people seem to think!. I think shirtboy was suggesting a hybrid, where you run around LT1 and then also a compromise where you sandwich the running LT1 days with some low level Sweet spot cycling.

This could work. Anything could work. Although the two patterns we are seeing with consistent success are still for the most part, just basic vanilla NSM, up to a certain point.

The second way the thread has developed, again, seemingly with good success for sirpoc (one second off his 5k pb) and others, is a good amount of cross training, but still with a solid base level of running. But again, totally in the spirit of best bang for buck and a gateway to doubles after a full year or even two of vanilla. This seems to be the sensible move as you can slowly increase training volume, without battering the body with 10+ runs a week. Sirpoc himself I think about 4 months ago, which was an eye opening to me, is that he can't or won't judge the effect of the cross training until the summer of 2026.

Yes. This is basically better than any intervention study. I don't think there has ever been anything on the internet, like this, where so many runners follow something with such narrow boundaries. Ok, so a few people might make small tweaks. But, the vast majority of people are just doing lots of easy running, much easier than normal - and 3 Subthreshold runs a week, somewhere above LT1 but believe LT2. it's been a goldmine for learning what works.

Scott is focused on Ultra running, right? For them, having LT1 as high as possible is the goal, since they run mostly in Zone 2. Does this also apply to distances where you run at or above LT2? I guess higher the LT1, the more fat you utilise at any speed, which is beneficial for aerobic activities.

Yes, Scott is focused on Ultras and also muscle endurance a term not mentioned here in the whole thread. His concept is to built up from below, shifting LT1 to the right as much as possible and then touching on LT2.

He is correct with his thinking that too much LT2 work (lets call it that way for a second), is counter productive for LT1 because the anaerobic encymatic pathway will be strengthened too, weakening the aerobic pathway.

So it depends which race you are preparing for.

Do you really think I care?

The point is to educate runners so that they are just a little bit less clueless, and aren't sucked in by misinformation spouted by coaches and other influencers (e.g., "' 'threshold' can only be improved from below ") to justify their training philosophy.

"Muscle endurance" is like "aerobically underdeveloped", i.e., a nonsensical term with no clear definition and no scientific foundation. Exercise is performed with, and primarily limited by, your muscles, so why not just say "endurance"?

Of course, that's not even to mention the fact that most coaches and athletes use the term to refer to the opposite end of the intensity-duration relationship than you did . . .

This thread is hilarious. The amount of clueless folk who come to this thread is like fly's to s**t. Their own egos love it because they have an audience due to the popularity of the thread. We've seen many come and go over the last couple of years. This guy is one of the more clueless ones himself but is convinced he isn't one of the idiots himself.

The reality is that runners are apparently just now discovering what cyclists finally realized about 25 years ago, when power meters became widely available: contrary to the claims of numerous coaches and influencers (e g , Seiler), there is no such thing as a "grey zone" or "no-go zone".

Instead, training at those intensities can be highly effective at improving endurance exercise performance.

Meanwhile, exercise physiologists have understood this all along, which is partially why the vast majority of training studies ever conducted have had participants exercising extensively, if not exclusively, at "sub-T".

And you think people take you seriously at this point?

I remember when I was reading Sirpoc's initial posts, it felt so strange to me how he kept mentioning Andrew Coggan and how strange he is. I thought, now there is a man obsessed with another, since Sirpoc just kept mentioning him without any prompt or seeming relevance to what he was saying. However, now that I see how Coggan communicates, I kinda understand Sirpoc. It really is fascinating how a grown man can just bicker on and on online, as if he doesn't have anything more interesting to do with his time. And at the same time somehow believes he is useful to the community. Truly bizarre. I do wonder how this man behaves in person though.

Primarily limited by? So it's limited by other things too? Meaning there's a good reason to clarify different kinds of endurance?

Even if there were, "muscular endurance" doesn't cut the mustard, because there are multiple mechanisms that may contribute to fatigue. Saying things like "aerobically underdeveloped" and "muscular endurance" is just a way of pretending that you understand the underlying physiology when you really don't. That's why you find the terms being used by coaches and athletes but not by actual scientists.

It sounds like sirpoc (and you) are the ones obsessed with Coggan.

Sirpoc must have cold sweats at night. He must have thought he saw the last of Coggan when he left the time trial forum and yet managed to somehow bump into him in a second life. He was actually very complimentary of him in the book, I think most people's problem with Coggan is he online persona is so toxic .

I don't think you are actually Coggan. As much of a handful and arrogant as he can be, he doesn't hide behind a username like you do.

You've made many bold claims about yourself, but never with any evidence.

Using vernacular doesn't categorically mean you don't understand the underlying processes. It's just means you're using plain language. Coaches and athletes use such terms because they are applying principles in practice, not discussing the underlying science in real time.

Get off your high horse.

Isn't LT1 marathon pace? I tried doing lots of that in the past and wound up injured.

I haven't made any claims about myself.

So could you please provide a cogent definition of "aerobically underdeveloped", so that everyone here knows what it means? "Muscular endurance" as well? Because I know that I can't.