Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

ZAP! ⚡️

It's a logical question, no?

That is just dumb.

The adaptation comes from the combination of the intensity and the duration.

if you exercise at the higher intensity, the duration will be less, over the season.

You don’t appear to get what this thread is all about. The lower intensity is allowing people to run 7 days per week when they previously couldn’t. The increase in frequency makes up for the decrease in intensity.

So run an 18 min 5k one week and a 1:25 HM the next, you think it is reasonable that I lost fitness over the week? I think that is nuts. I expect you are still in 18min shape but that hair worse at the longer stuff.

Now the question is do I run at 6:20 or 6:30? You probably do both. 15ks off the 5k and HM off your HM. If you believe more in 45/75/120 min efforts, you can do some math but in the end you are looking for a precision and level of knowledge we don't have.

Warning: long post, another post with some feedback!

Here we go:

First things first: I have been running on and off since 2005. A couple of stints at Tri in there, but generally a runner who has consistently trained.

Focus for the last decade has been the marathon, which has taken me all over Europe and usually results in disappointment after big expectations.

My last two marathon builds have been Pfitz via an online coach who tweaked it to my needs. The first resulted in a 2:48 and the second a blow up and 3:02. With Pfitz I was running more, but my assumption is the load created was more and the fatigue too great to benefit from it. Pfitz sometimes feels like survival mode. I also tried a Canova build from a coach I had and that was just so hard, I ended up with a stress fracture. Personally I think you need huge mileage and a history of it to use the amazing stuff Canova has shared. If you don't have that history of big mileage or the ability to do it, Canova is probably not for hobby joggers and why would it be, he's an elite coach. NSM strikes a better if not close to a perfect balance. With Pfitz I was just overcooked most of the time. I've been chasing breaking 2:45 for a while now. I've gotten older but shoes have brought it back in reach again.

Go back in time to April last year and a friend tells me about a guy my age, running less, who just ran 2:24. I assumed he was some ex elite, but no. I looked into it and found this thread and it was just a normal guy with an unconventional approach to the marathon. I also thought this seems too good to be true!

I read a lot of the posts. One thing that struck me was it wasn't a standalone marathon plan that was used. It was a long time project to maximise everything. So, like someone putting their last €20 on black, I dived into NSM.

After about 13 weeks I felt so much better. Easy running was so much easier. No coach had ever approved of me running 65% MHR and just running through the trails. This also meant I felt good and enjoyed, even looked forward to, the 3 workouts a week. But this easy running was difficult for me to accept at first. It flew in the face of most easy running I have done before, and most coaches I've had would say running this easy is merely a shuffle and for pure recovery days.

They were shuffles at first, but the strange thing is they became a lot faster after 4 months at the same effort. I almost just got more efficient at running, with very little muscular fatigue. It was quite strange to suddenly be running 1.5 minutes per km faster for the same effort. So you might shuffle at first but it all comes together, and as I say I really do feel fresh for the workouts.

At the end of this 6 months or so I had completed 3 workouts a week that closely resemble what became the vanilla plans in the book, every week apart from one day I was sick. I used distance but scaled to time that was close to either 3, 6 or 10 mins. For the marathon blocks I did distances that scaled to 16 min repeats. I decided to bolt on the marathon plan. I had the book at this point and reading that gave me huge confidence rather than just paces and numbers online. Plea: read the book, promote the book, help this inconspicuous and modest man get the message out there! I even emailed sirpoc to say thanks and he took the time to reply and congratulate me (incoming spoiler!)

I had got within a hair of my lifetime 10k on the basic plan so hoped the marathon plan would send me over the edge. Again, it was a bit blind faith as after 3 weeks it felt so easy compared to any marathon plan I've done before and I've done Pfitz and Hanson and as mentioned even a Canova build. It was just more of the same. I will concede, near the end it got tough but having read the book that seems to be by design! It's a fraction of the toughness I have felt by the middle. This work comes unusually late. I didn't run a half 3 weeks out but 4 weeks out and had done all the other workouts exactly as per the book up to this point , with a couple of the really specific ones coming super late as mentioned.

I followed the race pacing guidelines in the book (this might even be the hidden gem inside the cover) but couldn't quite believe my fitness could be within the race prediction calculations described in the book based on the 10 min repeats. Yet I went out with that goal in mind and simply couldn't believe how easy it felt compared to training. I just kept getting stronger and hit a lifetime pb of 1:15. I was almost stunned and felt like maybe the course was a KM short or something lol

Once I took stock and assessed, I realised I had leveled up and realised I had a chance, a real chance at sub 2:45.

Followed the taper, which again is late and unusual. I felt terrible in the week leading up to the marathon, in fact way worse than I ever have. Maybe nerves? As I knew i was close.

Race day: didn't sleep. Carb loaded the last bit in the morning. Again, reading the book helped here, as I don't really think it worries much more than carbs are carbs. I had carb loaded every time before but stressed over every little thing I'd eaten, making sure I had eaten the "right" things or what people say you should. This newish approach for me made the whole thing quite relaxed and it was really only my sleep that was affected from nerves.

The race itself! Well, I got to the start in plenty of time and found my place in my start corral. I tried to get to the front as my goal was up the road in the next group. Luckily it was well organised.

At the start, I quite quickly got onto the back of the group in front which was perfect for me. At that point, I just relaxed and let the KMs tick by. Again, the book helped here as this is the easiest I've ever felt in a marathon but I didn't push it. In fact, took a leaf out of sirpoc's book and whilst I don't usually look at HR I kept a glance on it just to check nothing crazy was happening. That was it really, I kept getting stronger, I was fuelling with 40g of carbs every 20 mins and felt amazing until 30km. Then I knew i was in a race but even though I had to dig deep, I never got the impression I was in trouble. Once you have done a number of marathons, you know when you are going to blow and it's more of when not if. Anyway, I made it to 40km and then just emptied all I had in the tank.

I saw the clock. It was 2:39:xx and I had maybe 100m to go which felt like an eternity. And there it was, pressed stop on my Garmin and I see 2:39:39. Not just breaking 2:45 but broke 2:40. I couldn't believe it. Still can't believe it. Don't even know how this has happened to me.

Thanks to sirpoc (obviously), but also anyone who has contributed in a positive way. Is it too good to be true? No. It's still hard work. In fact, I've run more overall in the last year, whereas before I was running more in small to medium builds and then mileage was taking a crash. It's the aggregate gains. Also, there is an excellent graph in the book that basically depicts what I was doing versus the benefits of nsm long term. This is the key. This training can bring you the consistency that is as close to a magic pill as you can get.

This consistency has been huge for me. I have been completely injury free for the first time in years. I've also broken the boom and bust cycle that a lot of people in this thread have mentioned being stuck in.

I am yet to break 17 for the 5k. I will do this hopefully in the next couple of weeks. This is more of a when, rather than if, based on where my fitness is now.

Thanks again!

Thanks for taking the time to post. Ultimately, it's been said many times, but this is the core of what this thread is about.

Completely agree by the way about the pacing part of the book. I would pay for that alone. It's that good and has revolutionised this stupid runners race strategy for the better.

Also, it seems now this becoming more mainstream, there is a huge amount of people posting PBs from the Strava group. I think that book has been out now long enough people have really had enough time to train and cash in and are seeing better performances.

Lol. Havent been here for a couple of months and thought I have a look. People still debating runnersarecleuless and the magic coach. Thats insane. Impressive they can keep finding people to continue with them.

Any actual interesting going on or just more of the same?

Not necessarily, at least/especially when it comes to the "filler workouts" between structured sessions.

Regardless, the question is really unaddressable unless you fix one variable or the other, which is why I prefaced my answer as I did. The key point is that there is no such thing as a free lunch, as the OP (and many others) like to claim. That is, you can opt to go easier to reduce strain, but recognize that that also diminishes adaptations as well.

As for "missing the point of this thread", you apparently missed (or have chosen to ignore) my comment about how choosing to go easier or harder during such sessions is a separate question, i.e., context and balance matter.

Again I'm surprised that this apparently isn't addressed in detail in the book. If you're going to prefer a system primarily built around doing three "sub-T" workouts per week, isn't job one to law precisely how to determine "T pace".

As the OP's question, I think that the answer is obvious: use the HM performance, not because it is more recent (fitness wouldn't have changed much in just a couple/three weeks, at least not enough to matter, but because 1) the duration puts it closer it's closer to actual "T", and 2) in this context, it's always better to be conservative, and not routinely overcook things because of an inflated estimate of your true capabilities.

More of the same. I think most people left for reddit or stick to Strava for discussion. I check this thread maybe once a day & most the time regret it.

Reddit group is a lot more chill & you actually get responses for questions. Ask a question or make a post & you'll get at least 10 responses, vs LR where you'll get 1 response, downvotes, & maybe some snark, lol. Also Bakken & Sirpoc are there (reddit.)

When I want cheering up and feeling down, I remind myself of how much time runnersareclueless wastes on here, and the fact he is in fact the clueless one and nobody listens to a word he says anymore. Yet he still wastes his time to post.

Strava isn't too bad. The forum or chat board isn't great. That's not NSM groups fault, just the Strava format. Also, nobody can hide behind a troll account.

In general, Reddit has provided some of the best chat though. And a surprising lack of trolls.

You should count your lucky stars that at least some apparently listened to me initially.

Honestly, to say you have added nothing to this thread is an understatement. As the other poster said, it's hilarious how much time you waste and just about nobody pays you any attention. Even lexel has more respect than you.

I'm exactly in your boat at this moment, lol. Since the book has come out, which answered the few questions I had that hadn't been answered before, I haven't really read this thread any more.

Interesting to see that it's still the usual suspects playing "somebody is wrong on the internet".

Lexel may be wrong on some things but at least he is training-focused and is on topic!

I like to amuse myself by thinking of how runnersareclueless is scrambling around to find spare devices to give himself 3-4 upvoter a post. Only to be auto downvoted into oblivion anyway. I assume nobody else actually reads what he says either?

No, actually I don't think this is super important. There are lots of methods for determining LT2, VT2, AnT, CS, CP, FTP, Etc. There are a variety of methods for determining something roughly equivalent to LT1. This all creates a fairly sizable zone between LT1 & LT2 where the work stimulates solid running performance adaptations at significantly less "cost" than efforts that are obviously over the LT2 equivalents. It's relatively easy to ballpark a workout pace that's somewhere in this zone.

Similarly, it seems that running at very low intensities (<70% MHR) give most of the benefits of running between 70% MHR and LT1, but at significantly reduced costs. Obviously all of these things are on gradients rather than more strictly binary, but sometimes thinking of these breakpoints helps people put safe and effective plans into action.

The main premises here seem to be:

1. Maximize working time per week in the zone between LT1-LT2 (ish).

2. Get in as much other running per week as you can at low intensity (<70% MHR), knowing that you can get much more volume of easy running, while staying fresh enough to get in more under item 1 if you keep this intensity low.

By doing these two things consistently over time lots of people are hugely improving their running performance via a framework that is simply implemented.

Meanwhile, RAC, while I do find your nit-picking and playing at semantic arguments abrasive, I would still be interested to hear any generalized actionable thoughts you might be able to share on this training system. You clearly aren't convinced of its utility, so other than "it depends", what do you think are the obviously improvements to implement?

If threshold was a at 50-60mins effort is a 85 min effort really closer than 18 min effort? Being conservative is good but at some point you get too conservative. You are alr ady backing off 10s to be conservative. Why back off another 10? After all the issue with your HM is as likely to be durability as much as threshold related ..

Realistically you do stuff off 5k pace because it is a lot more reasonable to do 5ks every month. If you run 4 HM/year how are you adjusting paces in between? A lot easier to bang out a dozen 5k and always have a somewhat decent reference point. And the. Run at the top or bottom of the range based on how you handle it...