Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

You guys are just too weak. Back to r/running!

Is there any sort of consensus reached here? This is a tome.

The consensus seems to be that this method works for time-constrained hobby-joggers who seek to avoid injury and run good but not stellar times.

This. I don't think it's the ideal method if you want to put all your eggs in one basket and target one specific race and maximize your performance.

On the other hand, if you are time constrained and want to be in shape to run close to your best any day of the week, then it will work well.

Plot twist - you may end up surpassing any other method in the long run by staying healthy and training consistently for a longer period of time than you could with other more demanding methods.

I'm not sure about that. Are sub 15 5ks or Sub 2:30 times not stellar for hobby runners? Or am I just misinterpreting what is stellar. Of course not everyone who has used that method is fast, but there are also plenty of fast guys and gals. What seems impressive to me is it works for such a broad range of runners. Anything from what I consider these really fast times - especially for masters - but also much slower runners seem to have also had great results. The common denominator seems to be runners who have dedicated a decent amount of time previous, but lacking the structure or consistency to really make progress.

I posted a while ago. I was pretty down on this method. Actually, I full on thought it was dumb. It was around when Magness posted. What he was saying made sense, sticking to a pretty flat program with very little periodization in my opinion was lacking in all sense.

However, curiosity got the better of me and I started to train like this. It's very hard to ignore the feedback. It's rare we have ever had a thread like this on letsrun with so many people having such positive feedback. Sure, it's not been for everyone, but the strike rate is shockingly high. 6 months later, I'm faster than I have ever been. I'm just coming off the back of a 1:09 and a 15:15. Huge PBs.

When I look back on things, I realized I was missing or underestimating the amount of consistency it would bring. Could I have done more in the buildup to a race in 8 weeks after I started? Sure. But, after 6 months of sheer consistency, the gains have hugely outweighed anything I could have got from traditional peaking or intensity, especially as it gives you a better chance to stay healthy.

Is it for everyone? Definitely not. Some people can handle boom and bust cycles. Some people can handle weekly intensity. Some people are elite and that last few percent of training is the difference maker. But even the sub elite can benefit from this in my opinion, especially as they are likely to come with full time jobs, family and other responsibilities.

I think the other general consensus is that you can still get very fast on 6-8 hours a week - with people often surpassing performances on 10 hours +. Mainly due to the boom and bust nature that this training simply isn't sustainable but also that training more than your body can absorb of time and load might put you in a state of constantly having too much fatigue and leaving race time on the table.

Can anyone remember who posted about doing LT1/MP everyday of the week? and roughly what page of the thread it was?

"Are sub 15 5ks or Sub 2:30 times not stellar for hobby runners?" They are, really anything sub 2:40 is outstanding for a fellow hobby jogger, but I don't recall seeing a lot of sub 2:30s or sub 2:40s in this thread. There is Sirpoc himself of course, but that's one guy who did it only once, right?

The page number is 152.

Maybe he's a househusband or works from home, and has the option to spend a few hours on the sofa after his double session?

Actually seems quite smart to split up your intense day into two sessions with just 2-3 hours break - no time to get stiff - then to have more hours until the next double threshold to focus on recovering.

One more thing on doubles: each person has to find a training schedule which fits their life, and this factor is way more important than any physiological theories, because if it fits well then you will be consistent.

I had some great years when I had a shower at work, and a nice route around a park. I'd take a pile of clothes in on Monday morning, back on Friday evening, and got two runs most days in less time than commuting would have taken. The runs grew from 3 miles to 5 each way, with fartleks or intervals on the way home a couple of nights a week; and before long I was doing 60-70 per week, with no real stress or mental effort.

At most other phases of life, doubles would have been inconceivable.

There's been quite a few guys who have now ran sub 2:40. Sirpoc isn't actually the fastest marathoner either now. A decent amount have broken 15 in a 5k, including two guys who posted about being at the same 5k as sirpoc recently. They were much younger though, in their 20s and one in his teens. But their training is also on Strava, it's basically just NSM vanilla.

It's hard because the thread has so many pages, it's incredibly difficult to find the stuff you want.

Hard to navigate the thread, as the previous username mentions, but I first posted about this on pg 444 (post#8865). There was a series of good replies in response to that. Also some scattered posts about it before then. There is also some discussion around pg 505, and again in pgs 530-540ish. Users shirtboy2022 (and some other shirtboy alter egos) and Kinder Surprise had stated they were trying it, don't know if they did end up following up. I remember someone actually did report back on it a few weeks (months?) ago and had a good post but I can't find it.

Unfortunately, this topic seems to be continually squashed in this thread by those who refuse to hear anything other than the SirPoc gospel despite this initially being his idea. The old fogeys of the thread will remember cross-training and double easy days being ideas that were continually shot down by the zealots until they realized the man himself was doing them. These zealots being the same people complaining that this thread is dead when they're the ones killing it...

I get it, we all do: vanilla NSM works as is. Can we move on now, and talk about variations without having every idea shot down? This isn't life or death, we can ask questions, try new things, make tweaks here and there, see what happens, have *gasp* fun with it. Isn't that how SirPoc ended up at this method in the first place, by NOT being a slave to accepted training methods?

594 pages of mental masturbation gymnastics.

A couple of people have posted about the Lt1 every day I seem to remember in the last month. Both were Vanilla flavourists before, both pretty much reported the same. Felt close to toast, unsustainable and went back to vanilla. I definitely think of all the variations this is the one with no legs. Sirpoc apparently told one the guys not to do it, but he insisted on experimenting antway. If you use the bike, then it's probably possible.

Cross training even when you don't need to, seems to be the best and most logical path from running 7 days a week. I think, if you count up the feedback to this, the vast majority see it as a net positive in terms of variations and a lot of people note they have kept it in wcen if they have been running post injury. Sirpoc himself still being about the same level, despite less running so he can keep some cycling fitness as well, seems to check in with this.

The final TL;DR is that when talking doubles, most people felt running double workouts has been too hard. This isn't everyone, again just most user feedback and seems to be across a broad range of runners.

I was listening to an interview with Ingrid Kristiansen. It can be found on Youtube.

Some takeaways:

-Never run above threshold in training.

-Typical interval session: 4x2km or 9x1km.

-Frequent tempo runs

-A weeks and B weeks, usually AAB schedule. B has shorter everything and one day off.

-Really slow on long runs, no really long runs, important to not strain during long runs as intervals/tempo during the week is more important.

-Strength training: she was jumping a lot when cooking to strengthen the legs. She also has done a lot of cross country skiing (her first sport before she started running).

She was world record holder at 5k, 10k and marathon, was multiple World Champion and won many major Marathons (Boston, New York, London etc.).

Her hey day was 40 years ago but some coaches still claim you "need" speed work or that you "need" to raise the ceiling with VO2max work even when you are an amateur who will never come close to her PBs.

Steadfast Running?

... if you ignore all the people that got injured, that is.

Most runners get injured. There's definitely less injuries training like this. A lot of injury prone runners have commented how they finally have had stretches of long periods with no issues.

There's two types of runners who never get injured:

Those who are bomb proof and survive just about anything; so really don't need to train like this. These are the runners who can survive and thrive on stuff like pitfz.l for regular and multiple builds.

Secondly, there is the type of runner who is a social runner, jogs around 4-5 times a week and with zero intensity. They do it for other reasons, rather than doing workouts to chase performance. We have all probably met runners like this and they have a good chance of going decades without an injury.

If you consider, someone posted at one point how sirpoc did something crazy like 120 weeks in a row, before any issues, and someone with way too much time earlier in the thread, noted he got to over 300 workouts in a row in that period without an issue.

For me, I have never managed to go more than 6 months without an injury, or at least the onset of one that has forced me into down weeks to recover. I'm 13 months into NSM and not a single issue other than the fact I'm getting so much faster than I anticipated, performances I never dreamed of getting near again at my age are coming into view. But it's obvious, the deeper you get into this, the higher the risk - as you end up running more and chasing performance more.

But, that's running. If you are bothered about getting injured running isn't the sport for you as it'll happen to almost everyone (note not all) at some point, no matter how you train.

You guys would make great politicians. Before it was "NSM prevents injury", now it's "okay, NSM doesn't prevent injury but most runners get injured". Next up: "NSM does cause injury, everybody knew that!!"