Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

It's been thrown around a bit, 30 minutes LT1 or MP every day being one example. As someone who was really intrigued by the idea and briefly tried it, I think the biggest issue is mechanical wear. I think running MP is reasonably similar mechanical wear to the sub-T paces in this method, while both are substantially less than mechanical wear than VO2 max paces. If you push the ratio higher, I think you risk breaking down mechanically, which is exactly what happened to me - started developing various overuse injuries within two weeks.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question. But can’t MP and Sub-T be very close for a lot of runners already? If T is ~1 hour race pace.

For what its worth, in the book Bakken describes an "X session" workout that can be tailored more towards your race.

I read this as either a long easy run of 2-3 hours, or a shorter third quality session in the midweek. It can be added once per week while keeping an eye on your recovery between sessions. If you feel you're losing control, pull it off the schedule until you feel you're back on top of things.

I was one of the guys who tried this. Sirpoc advised me not to try it on Reddit lol but helped me come up with a plan nonetheless. He predicted that probably my body would just not be able to tolerate it and that running in general, was probably too hard to do sweetspot daily, whereas you can likely get away with it cycling, or certainly do it a lot longer.

I did a bit extreme, but did 5 days Lt1 ish (slightly slower than m pace) and a very easy long run. The time in zone wasn't as much as you would expect over a week, it was under 50% based on the fact I did a warm up, cool down , rests and around 30-40 mins a session, plus obviously 90-110 mins very easy on a Sunday.

I was pretty cooked tbh after 4 weeks. I dragged out to 6.

My load went up, I probably held onto fatigue a bit longer and performance mostly stayed the same. My feeling was my legs and generally lethargic nature was preventing me from really making use of the extra work.

I believe he mentioned that a couple of other people had tried similar, with similar(ish) results. He also said to me being injured last summer with just the elliptical and bike, was a reminder if just how much more you can get away with when you aren't running and recover.

I certainly wouldn't go back to it again.

Flip side is thwt I have tried a couple of 45/25 workouts about a week apart. They also feel pretty hard mechanically. I did one on Saturday for the second time and I still feel a little bit of soreness in my legs I haven't had from training in a while. Maybe I'm just weak lol

Cheetodust is US and Well into masters. The Seville 2:32 guy 40+ Sirpoc himself is in his 40s. Old_skool50 posts here. Past 50 and well under 3 hours. The twin sisters? They are in their 40s. All of these people I think are probably well inside the top 10 in their age brackets at masters level nationally from what I remember. All can be found on Strava or post here regularly.

Grandma's guy is a college coach himself and training like this and ran 2:23 on 100km a week and also annihilated his pbs. OK he's not a master but think about that. A knowledgeable, college coach who is invested in this.

But you are totally blinkered in what you are looking for. The posts you should be reading are the % of improvement seasoned runners are getting here. There's the guy who posts on here and Reddit I think, couldn't break 3 hours in like 15 marathons and then with NSM runs 2:48 and then like 2:42. Also old by the way. But also guys who have ran multiple marathons and then just knocked off half hour like it's nothing from their PBs.

You could add me to the list. I ran 8 marathons over the past 7 years and I'm 48 now. I had a pb of 2:53 and then with NSM on my first attempt I ran 2:37 and I genuinely think I might have a shot at 2:30 later this year.

Or the dozens of runners who have talked about having coaches, dumping their coaches and then running huge marathon PBs.

The list is endless. Which is why the thread is about a million pages long and annoying at times. I don't really know what you are looking for, some sort of validation? A guarantee it'll work? Masters jumping on this has posted about how it's great because they suddenly are doing so well they have an advantage over their competition.

We have well into the hundreds, if not thousands of testimonials for you to go and read and see if this training is for you across the thread or groups on other formats. If it's not, that's absolutely fine. If I could handle a Canova build I would absolutely do it. But I would be more likely to see the inside of a coffin than the start line of a marathon.

Thanks, well said and some good examples -- including you!

Hey guys I just read Marius Bakken's book and need help understanding some things.

I noticed that rather than adding easy doubles into the schedule before progressing to double threshold, he provides schedules that jump straight to double threshold without easy doubles. If anything he cuts back on the easy volume compared to NSM.

Is the main purpose of easy runs in this model just to actively lower muscle tone to prep you for threshold work? Obviously you still get base-building benefits but that doesn't seem to be the priority here. It seems very different from most models which would advocate for more easy volume before adding in more higher intensity work.

I agree. I was going to post something similar. Who am I to question Bakken but there a few things that either go against logic or don't make a great deal sense, contradictory.

I tried doubling, it's hard as a hobby runner. Actually, it's REALLY hard for a lot people.

First time I jump in, I just went straight from singles to doubles on the workout days. Was total mess and a disaster and I always felt there wasn't a big enough buffer between workouts, with easy running.

Second time, I jumped in with easy doubles, feels a lot better when I finally got to double threshold, but still very hard and unsustainable and didn't fit in with my life and I was on edge a lot of the time.

I've fallen back on the basics of NSM, in understanding I probably could get more, but i can run this way no problem all year round. That 52 week a year consistency is where I'm at.

I listened to a couple of the podcasts he went on to promote the book. On the "GO RUN PODCAST", right at the 53 minute mark, he said a pre-requisite to double threshold is being comfortable running doubles "some days". He specifically mentioned an easy run in the morning and a threshold run in the evening.

Thanks for sharing, didn't realize someone had actually gone ahead with this under SirPoc's guidance.

Could you outline the sessions you were doing? Was it continuous or intervals (in which case, what was the duration/rest)? Same thing everyday or switching it up?

And how did you determine the pace? Were you measuring lactate or basing it off heart rate or something else?

I'm really interested in the idea of this training approach (hence all the questions) so would love to hear more detail if you can.

I asked this question to Sirpoc. It's in the Summary someone made and linked to many pages ago.

Sirpoc replied there's probably a range of sub-threshold paces that are useful and marathon pace is at the low end of this range.

Having all 4 horsemen of the letsrun apocalypse - Runnersareclueless, Lexel, the wizard (My personal hero <3), and negative splitter - comment in the last day truly means this thread has expired. See you all at the Valhalla parkrun, pint and mars bar in hand, shuffling along at 200 strides per minute

Yeah I wonder if perhaps additional easy volume is a bit overrated. Obviously it's a very safe way of adding load but it can't beat the efficiency of subthreshold (as long as you don't overdo it).

I tried a variant of NSM (sacrilege I know...) where I gradually added in easy doubles to every day (except for the long run) and extended the subT session a bit. Weekly volume was 10hrs (3x40min sessions) instead of the standard ~7.5hrs (3x30min sessions). Over 20 weeks I did drop some time in the 5k but then kind of stopped progressing. I think most of the gains just came from the longer subT sessions and the extra easy runs didn't really contribute meaningfully, at least not in a way that outweighed the extra recovery demands (even at 65%MHR!). You're probably better off saving your energy for the sessions and viewing the easy days more as a muscle tone reset than a day to accumulate volume.

Why run easy at all then? Why not just cross train on the bike or elliptical? Why is anyone bothering with easy running? Wouldn't we be just as fast with 90-120 minutes sub threshold a week and forget the rest?

I'm sure this thread will endure as stories of success, and perhaps failure, with this intriguing method continue to pour in. I hope it works for all of you and can't wait to see what it does for me (with a few faster long runs sprinkled in).

To be fair I think he was talking about the addition of easy volume on top of NSM, not advocating for the removal of 80% of the week.

Normally you'd focus on getting your base of easy volume and then adding everything else on top (classic Lydiard) but in Bakken's book he instead talks about threshold training being the fixed center with everything else (aka easy runs) only being added in a way that does not compromise that center . My guess is that Cereal Overtrainer inadvertently added just a little bit too much volume (easy and threshold simultaneously) that ended up taking away from the consistency of the threshold sessions.

What I don't fully understand is why the easy days seem so conservative in the given schedules. He even includes rest days. I'm just curious whether this has to do with factors like muscle tone or if I'm reading into it too much and he's just being conscientious of the time crunched individuals out there (i.e. hit your high-return workouts consistently before adding in 2 more hours of low-risk, low-return easy running)

I'm pretty skeptical about Bakkens discussion of muscle tone. Book is arriving tomorrow so I'm looking forward to reading up on it & may very well be proven wrong. He's the only person I've heard mention muscle tone theories related to running.

I've tried palpating every now & then after/before workouts the last couple weeks. Nothing. Are people feeling/noticing a difference in their tone?

I know that is a lie.