Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I love reading people's stories like these. And you haven't even got the obligatory 2 downvotes yet, haha. Well done on the progress.

If you're attempting to point a finger at me, you're sorely mistaken. I have always been a big fan of training in zone 2 of the 3-zone Norwegian system - in fact, you could say that I'm the OG of it.

Hmmm, let's see.

The OG (original gasbag) of zone 2...

Runners Are Clueless, RAC...

Andrew Richard Coggan, ARC... possibly christened Richard Andrew Coggan and chose to swap his names around?

Enquiring minds want to know. Well, not really.

Whatever you think of Coggan, he isn't a coward and when makes bold claims or trolls, he will let you know it's him. Runnersarecluless is a nobody, who wants you to think he's a somebody because he can get attention in a popular thread.

Classic Letsrun attention seeker, who comes on here to try and be clever to make himself feel better about his average IQ and lack of athletic ability. Loves to live in his dream world and probably believes some of the frankly ludicrous athletic exploits and claims he's made up about himself.

You seem to have me confused with someone else. I haven't made any claims about my performance ability here.

Hard to keep up. You are at least 2-3 different posters here. Often replying to yourself I've noticed, a very strange poster. You seem to want some sort of validating and to be told how smart you are.

So can training under threshold. Or do you think Swedish runner Almgren could be better of with your prescription?=)

Yes, I reply to myself when I belatedly think of something to add, or need to go find a reference and don't want to risk losing what I have already written. The alternative would be to simply edit the original post, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that?

Only me, myself, and I here.

Who? And what prescription? I haven't made any specific training recommendations.

And that is why your posts are mostly useless for this thread. I wish you would find something else to do when you are bored than to spam this thread. But I guess that wont happen, so I'll just have to just ignore your posts like I do with most of the attention seekers in this thread. So carry on..

Since most elite programs (like the Ingebrigtsens) use DT on 160–180km weeks, your plan to use heavy cross-training to fill the gap is crucial to prevent injury while still building the necessary mitochondrial density.

New type of scam post? Add a scam link into the post being replied to.

Au contraire. Just think of all the myths that I have busted, and how you are the wiser for it:

1) that there is such a thing as being "aerobically underdeveloped";

2) that LT1 and LT2 exist and get closer together with training;

3) that you can only push up "threshold" from below and can't also pull it up from above;

4) that fatigue impairs the adaptations to training;

5) that people who are mostly FT in their running muscles are anything but rare; and perhaps most importantly

6) that "not-NSM" represents some sort of true paradigm shift in endurance training, unique to a small community of runners.

Have I missed any??

As someone in your age bracket, curious what your workout weeks look like. Are you hitting it 6 or 7 days, full rest days...long runs. How many and how long are your SubT workouts?

Oh, ok.. you actually do think people take your posts seriously. Weird.

People should. But as the saying goes, you can lead a horse's ass to water, but you can't make him think.

I often like runnersareclueless post because they get me back to reality when I get carried over by people claiming the magical power of NSA. I don't mind their dry/scientific tone (probably because I'm a mathematician), but I see how this can be perceived as aggressive and arrogant by others.

On the other hand, I agree that we can't ignore the huge body of people having great results with NSA, and we shouldn't base our training only on papers and studies. A good scientist has to keep into account both (experience and literature). I think NSA gives a good recipe to train following well known principles and keeping load under strict management, which is the thing I struggle the most with.

We are all aiming in the same direction, so let's try to be open and positive, and keep moving this fantastic thread forward.

The problem with runnersareclueless is that it's just nitpicking without any application.

Someone uses the phrase "aerobically underdeveloped" and everybody knows that in this context it means that the marginal gains you'd get focusing on sub-LT2 training are far greater than the marginal gains doing speed work or what not.

But seems like deciphering context isn't his strong suit, so off we go into a rabbit hole discussing that there is no literal meaning of that phrase

It's important for him to point out that you can move LT2 from both below and above and not just from below like this thread recommends. Trouble is that the vast majority of posters here are well aware of that and are just arguing that you get the most bang for your buck by doing it from below .. At least while you're "aerobically underdeveloped" :D

And so on ...

As already implied ... I'm guessing that what pisses people off and not the "dry tone", but the lack of engagement. It's just nitpicking random phrases, but no advice, discussions or call to action.

-

But if it makes him happy then fine .. No harm .. Unlike our Swedish wizard, he is not trying to scam anyone ... All is good :)