Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

"Nobody"? So are you saying that runners really are clueless after all?

Okay, to be serious: lots of people have figured it out before. Lots more, however, apparently have not, either because they have been distracted by the newest shiny thing ("polarized" training, anyone?), have been distracted by influencers, are under the mistaken impression that the way to be elite is to copy how elite athletes train, etc. Meanwhile, neither basic human physiology or the best way to improve it have ever changed.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate posts like this.

This doesn't have anything to do with Jakob and I think his injuries are cause of heel rub

Nice to see you stuck to your +4 rule after getting called out. Even this post comes with the standard immediate upvote to yourself +3 burners. The giveaway is nobody, literally nobody but yourself would upvote this waste of a post. If nothing else, you are consistently deceptive and dishonest.

Haha. I have James as a constant upvoter, can't be more happy :)

Coggan and me we are a different generation, not raised with that social BS.

A few words to science: Especially in the last 2 decades, sport science catched up big, often motivated from real field cases. Professional athletes with success are interesting. What have they done to be successful? We should also not forget that all the medicine we take has a more or less scientifically background.

So nobody should fear science in general, nobody should fear try & error or any practical approach. It all has its place.

Haha, that was actually the moment I stopped reading. Didnt make sense to continue. Read the thread from page 1 tho and loved it. Have the book and have the answers. Only would like to see successful deviations form the vanilla.

Its like the guy some post above says; the tread has run it's course. Guess there is nothing left than feeding runnersareclueless.

I guess that's why sirpoc doesn't post anymore and some of the other good posters. Reddit seems a lot better.

I mainly don't post, because I don't have anything useful to add, so I just stay quiet. Maybe I'll post again about cross training in more depth down the line.

I confirm I upvoted this post. Having spoken to him for a bit, turns out lexel is a really nice guy.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate posts like this.

The other 8 are me and my bot farm

Lol. The moment I think there's no point to continue reading....hard2find shows up:)

And now yours has exactly 4 downvotes. This is sad work.

Sirpoopy and Tard2find provide comfort to the thread

Thanks. You just with this makes very clear your training before NSM was in practise absent and whatever training method you had used after would have most truly resulted in the same improvement or even better.

Anyone else find TSS’s estimation of low zone 2 zone high zone 2 really weird? Low zone 2 or 60% max heart rate is 50 tss an hour and high zone 2 or 70% is 60 tss an hour. With 1/5 threshold 4/5 easy high zone 2 would be 64 tss an hour and 512 tss in an 8 hour week while low zone 2 would be 56 and in an 8 hour week 448. I don’t believe that. This would imply an elite runner running 80 miles a week at 6:30 average pace with low zone 2 (like almost all elites do) and 20% threshold would only be getting 485 tss a week. An elite runner would have to do 85 miles a week (around average for an elite runner) to match 512 tss. This just seems super off. There’s no way 8 hours a week of high zone 2 and 3 sub threshold sessions is elite level training.

I would first say that I have been following this thread off and on since the beginning and thought it was an interesting idea, but it wasn't until I read the book that the light bulb went off. I looked at my historical data on Intervals and saw the saw-tooth boom-bust and marginal race results and knew that NSM was my path to nirvana. The only problem is, I totally missed the part about Sub-T should actually be *under* threshold pace (I know, wow!). I think I have a malady where I cannot not run too fast!

So now I plan to modify the vanilla plan by starting from scratch with all my runs being easy at first. Currently my Intervals.icu "fitness" is at 40 so I will choose a time/length of easy run that will give me a daily stress of 40-50 with a longer run on the weekend. I will keep this up, keeping my daily stress just above my Fitness until I hit the weekly time limit I have due to my busy schedule. Then, when I am more fit and hopefully more disciplined, I will slowly add in Sub-T. Perhaps pick up the pace on the middle 10 minutes of an easy run one day, then perhaps do 2x5min pickups on another day, etc. I hope to slowly build the Sub-T workouts to the standard 3x10, 6x5 and 10x3.

Has anyone ever tried this approach?

Ofcourse its not novel, not even the name of the method is novel - it is a play on "norwegian doubles". The person most associated with the double threshold (if we disregard the Ingebrigtsens), Marius Bakken, has even written the foreword of the NSM book. Its not a big secret.

Speaking of, in the fifth sentence of the preface of the book we can read:

"I didn’t invent a new way of training. All I did was explain why I thought that a validated cycling training technique may work for running".

I think you have constructed an image of what people in this thread are like, and cant stop fighting against that image. But you are going against windmills.

No, in pointing out the lack of novelty I'm just responding to actual posts here, in which people act as if "NSM" represents some revolutionary breakthrough. They may, in fact, be in the minority, but their not in the minority of actual posters.