Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Thank you very much.

As discussed (so this is for this thread), with the high correlating formula LTv = %LT *VO2max/CR (CR ... cost of running), one problem is to integrate vlamax here. %LT inversely correlates with vlamax, but it is not identically. That leads further to the possibility that vlamax is indeed not real and an auxiliary variable. Coggan called the concept of vlamax 'bogus concept' onces, maybe he was right :)

Question regarding cycling vs running threshold and heart rate zones.

I’m currently following a form of NSM, but to account for my injury history, I’m using Zwift two cycling workouts a week instead of full time running. The plan is to slowly transition to more running workouts, but I want to be careful for now.

I’ve seen people here mention using HR for cross training. My current FTP is 300, whenever I do workouts based off this, my heart rate is solidly in “zone 2” and will typically be around 140bpm

Should I be looking to have my heart rate more similar to what it would be running a threshold workout (probably around 160bpm), or is the power output the only thing that’s important here?

Yes that is me and yes I have ran at least one marathon, mostly two every year actually since 1988.

The first person in the club got onto this thread early and having gotten steadily worse for years, I jumped on the bandwagon to try and at least halt the decline. Had huge success using the basics method for my fastest 5 and 10 races since 2015 and yes I broke 3 again for the first time in 15 years and it's strongest I've felt in a marathon since probably London 2005 where I really buried myself in the build but came out of it luckily strong, which obviously is often not the case. Hopefully this will provide a chuckle, but a competitor of mine joked he thought I might be doping. I just don't think really seasoned runners at my age often turn the clock back much.

I just wish I had trained like this in my younger years and im kicking myself for all the things i did wrong which i can almost tick off on a checklist that represent why a lot of people have ended up latching onto thid method.

For the old old boy posting who is 70. I haven't changed anything and have brought all my easy runs within the parameters set out here. My max HR has slowly declined over the years but I still feel keeping as a % of max keeps me honest and a pretty simple anchor. There has to be a cut off somewhere and i still feel even with a lower max, these runs feel truly easy. The workouts I try to follow the paces which work well, I'm on the track or a treadmill so this is easy. The freedom to just go and run at 65-70% of max on long runs has been a real eye opener and also made running more enjoyable and social on a Sunday with groups.

Not only have I halted my decline I have actually started to improve to levels from when I was late 40s and early 50s. Having turned 60 a couple of years back I really see this as almost too good to be true.

One thing I have avoided is trying to get cute with it. I'm riding the wave and sticking to what is laid out in what is now in print and available to all. I'm just enjoying my running and being in this new rejuvenated golden period for myself.

Old boy here, thanks for that report.

Very impressive to break 3 after 60! I never could after 56. The method sure seems to work for you. I assume you are crushing your previous age-graded times -- correct? I just want to stay where I've been without injury.

What's your estimate of your running LTHR? Ezekiel posted a day ago equating a 162-163 on the bike with a 179 running. That's about in line with what sirpoc says in the book (bike 5-15 beats lower than running), and is also in line with what I've seen looking into it on my own. My experience introducing a second threshold session on the bike is that keeping it ~15 bpm lower than my sub-T runs is about right RPE-wise.

That was very much the question and no it does not vary to this training methodology as provided multiple time, if you can do more you don’t do think. All theory and no practical application again, please step it up professor for the kids in the back row

I would say 165-75 depending on a few sleep, stress, etc.

typically my threshold power on the bike is hitting 150ish bpm. It could also be I have to do another FTP test. RPE-wise the bike is certainly easier, but I’m not sure if that’s just because I come from a running background originally.

I've been chronically injured in the past and have been using the guides in the book for NSM cross training. Seems to be having really good success and recently just ran a PB of 32:14 for a 10k. Sub 32 has been a goal for a long time now, in touching distance. I actually feel like this might have helped me get over a stop start running career, but I've kept the cycling in as it's worked so well.

One thing I have found is the HR guide for this spot on. I have power now, but when I was initially riding I was going just by HR. When I'm doing a session that would be bang in the zone we are looking for a running session, I'm around 10 BPM lower for the ride. Again this seems to line up quite well with RPE over a large sample. Max is probably around the same difference, 10bpm lower.

I tend to do the easy rides however a little harder and target mid zone 2 with power. HR comes out as around what it is for an easy run. I don't really mind this, sure it's a little harder I would guess but the fatigue you take out of an hour low-mid zone 2 is very minimal on the bike. I find if I go around the same % of max on the bike it's so easy, I barely sweat. I'm very diligent when it comes to running easy still though and even 65% feels significantly easier to recover from than 70% max.

Just my two cents.

Scullion appeared in a podcast called 'Untapped' yesterday, and it took him 41 seconds for his first "two-oh-nine" lol.

Hey everyone,

I am currently building up to the 6 days a week version with 4.5h of running per week and have a question about heart rates. For context: Been running somewhere between 2-4 hours per week with massive breaks due to injuries (some running related, some not) for the past 2-3 years (as in probably ran half the weeks 2-4 hours, half the weeks no running at all). Now I am taking the cautious approach of NSM, instead of running death intervals once to twice a week and all my "easy" runs at 160-170bpm, building up actual aerobic endurance.

During my old training approach I raced two 10ks 51 and 49 minutes, both were run relatively shortly after returning from prolonged breaks (3 and 6 months respective). My question regards the threshold heart rate (as thats usually described as maximum average heart rate you can sustain over 60 mins in both works). During the 51 minute 10k I averaged 182 bpm (meassured via watch), during the 49 min race 188bpm (meassured with chest strap, 196 max, 190 average last 20 minutes).

This leaves me the question of if I actually take those results (especially the 190bpm of my last 10k) as my threshhold heart rate ? I never seem to be able to hit it in my trainings runs as even at my 5k best of 22 mins (peak fitness shortly before a non-running related injury in a time trial on my own) I only hit a maximum heart rate of 186 (chest strap meassurement)

Which leaves me with the question of can the influence of race adrenaline be that high? And if so, do I adjust my max heart rates and sub-t heart rate zones (as I can not buy a lactate meter as of now) for training based on that or just take the maximum values as recorded during races?

No, it wasn't. It was claimed that,in reference to a single workout, all that matters is duration, not intensity. Obviously, that is false.

Moreover, although you may not realize it you actually agree with me.

Maybe if you stopped goofing off in the back row you would be able to keep up.

I have compared my HRR from now and what it would have been 50 years ago (have assumed max of 200, and resting 40, back then). In both cases it comes out, within a few beats, that 60% HRR equates to 70% of max hr.

Here's the post to which I responded. No mention of overall training load, impact of one workout on another, etc., just the bogus claim that all that matters is "time on your feet".

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=12130781&page=579#post-11594

So?

Not relevant to this thread, but the video is well worth a watch.

Your assertion that 80% of max HR is no more strainful than 70% of max HR, for oldies is nonsense.

The data that you have provided does not support your claim.

To be more specific: the physiological strain of exercise is more closely related to the intensity relative to muscular metabolic fitness (a.k.a. "threshold") than it is to the intensity as a function of cardiovascular fitness (for which either % of max HR or % of HR reserve can be used).

Consensus is a LLM trained specifically on the scientific literature. It can still get the details wrong, but is nonetheless a handy entry point to published findings, if only because it lets you pose questions in natural language vs. trying to hit upon the right search terms in, e.g., Pubmed. Here's what it has to say on the topic at hand.

https://consensus.app/search/aging-effects-on-lactate-threshold/Sj0m1l0cR-6UpK3vfsXQrQ/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=clipboard

Between using multiple devices to post up votes and down votes, and post links with very tenuous associations, you are a busy man.