Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Piocycling wrote:

Which says a lot about those "experts" as threshold based training is well known to work very well for a very long time. I've quoted an interview with Paula Radcliffe earlier in this thread who said very clearly that she never run above threshold in training. She was a world record holder at 5k, 10k and marathon. There are other examples as well. One from cycling is Lance Armstrong and other Dr Ferrari's athletes who said they were forbidden from going above threshold in training as well. Armstrong might have been doped to the gills but that makes the case for threshold training even stronger (he could have handled high intensity much better due to doping and still didn't do any of it).

Again, Paula Radcliffe has done 0 above threshold work in training and hold 5k, 10k and marathon world records at the same time. (Sub) threshold only approach apparently works for at least some people pretty well. Maybe it doesn't work for all but blanket recommendation "you need speed training" is just moron territory in light of multiple examples contradicting the advice.

It seems a lot of successful endurance athletes only do "micro" periodization: an easier week sometimes (or Hard-Hard-Easier schedule). Cyclists used to do Hard-Medium-Easy 3 day cycles. The idea that you need weightlifting like periodization with multi-week blocks in endurance sports is unproven to put it mildly. Insisting that it's necessary makes you just ignorant.

yikesington wrote:

That's the only thing about NSM I somewhat disagree with.

If your A race isn't a marathon but a 5K, why shouldn't implement a small special block for that once or twice a year? Doesn't have to be much but 3-5 "x-factor" workouts over the course of 6-10 weeks where you switch the 10x3 against a fast 30x45/15 or whatever seems reasonable to me and barely impacts load. (Or drop the long run after x-factor, and load is probably the same or less.)

Only speaking from my own experience obviously, but I did three parkruns over the course of 6 weeks on vanilla NSM last summer and the first one felt mediocre at best, the second one a bit better, and the third one was ~50 seconds faster and at a lower average HR.

I'm well into my 40s though -- maybe younger people can handle faster race paces easier without practicing them.

colder and wiser wrote:

The description of NSM that sticks in my mind is from sirpoc himself: High volume, but not high mileage. That didn't make much sense at the time, but it does now. My weekly mileage on NSM race build-ups hasn't been anything special, but my weekly average mileage at MP or faster has doubled, even compared to marathon buildups with long MP tempos (that then required long recoveries for my old legs). The basis in cycling sweet spot training is critical for understanding NSM.

Outside of the marathon special block, periodization really isn't part of NSM. It's just building up and then sustaining the same workouts each week over a long time horizon. People have latched onto that as a weakness, but it's also a critical part of what makes the system work.

While this is a great thread, do keep in mind that this is still LRC and reading comprehension is sometimes poor. While I am admittedly a certified Magness fanboy, what people here will tell you, and what Magness actually said, are miles apart.
Best to listen to his take yourself.

Magness has a good argument for varying NSM even while people are still improving just with NSM, for example: Ignoring anaerobic training gets aerobic vs. anaerobic fitness out of balance, which might not matter for marathoners, but does matter for 5K runners; this is all based on Bakken, who people here love, but they treat Magness like a heretic for saying it, even as they try to add 45/15 workouts to their training because Bakken says so. I think Magness is likely correct, but I'm sticking with vanilla NSM anyway.

colder and wiser wrote:

The description of NSM that sticks in my mind is from sirpoc himself: High volume, but not high mileage. That didn't make much sense at the time, but it does now. My weekly mileage on NSM race build-ups hasn't been anything special, but my weekly average mileage at MP or faster has doubled, even compared to marathon buildups with long MP tempos (that then required long recoveries for my old legs). The basis in cycling sweet spot training is critical for understanding NSM.

Outside of the marathon special block, periodization really isn't part of NSM. It's just building up and then sustaining the same workouts each week over a long time horizon. People have latched onto that as a weakness, but it's also a critical part of what makes the system work.

While this is a great thread, do keep in mind that this is still LRC and reading comprehension is sometimes poor. While I am admittedly a certified Magness fanboy, what people here will tell you, and what Magness actually said, are miles apart.
Best to listen to his take yourself.

Magness has a good argument for varying NSM even while people are still improving just with NSM, for example: Ignoring anaerobic training gets aerobic vs. anaerobic fitness out of balance, which might not matter for marathoners, but does matter for 5K runners; this is all based on Bakken, who people here love, but they treat Magness like a heretic for saying it, even as they try to add 45/15 workouts to their training because Bakken says so. I think Magness is likely correct, but I'm sticking with vanilla NSM anyway.

LarsL11 wrote:

Piocycling wrote:

Which says a lot about those "experts" as threshold based training is well known to work very well for a very long time. I've quoted an interview with Paula Radcliffe earlier in this thread who said very clearly that she never run above threshold in training. She was a world record holder at 5k, 10k and marathon. There are other examples as well. One from cycling is Lance Armstrong and other Dr Ferrari's athletes who said they were forbidden from going above threshold in training as well. Armstrong might have been doped to the gills but that makes the case for threshold training even stronger (he could have handled high intensity much better due to doping and still didn't do any of it).

Again, Paula Radcliffe has done 0 above threshold work in training and hold 5k, 10k and marathon world records at the same time. (Sub) threshold only approach apparently works for at least some people pretty well. Maybe it doesn't work for all but blanket recommendation "you need speed training" is just moron territory in light of multiple examples contradicting the advice.

It seems a lot of successful endurance athletes only do "micro" periodization: an easier week sometimes (or Hard-Hard-Easier schedule). Cyclists used to do Hard-Medium-Easy 3 day cycles. The idea that you need weightlifting like periodization with multi-week blocks in endurance sports is unproven to put it mildly. Insisting that it's necessary makes you just ignorant.

Agree with everything other than I think Paula only has the marathon record. Its Ingrid Kristiansen who had all three at the same time.

yikesington wrote:

colder and wiser wrote:

Outside of the marathon special block, periodization really isn't part of NSM. It's just building up and then sustaining the same workouts each week over a long time horizon. People have latched onto that as a weakness, but it's also a critical part of what makes the system work.

That's the only thing about NSM I somewhat disagree with.

If your A race isn't a marathon but a 5K, why shouldn't implement a small special block for that once or twice a year? Doesn't have to be much but 3-5 "x-factor" workouts over the course of 6-10 weeks where you switch the 10x3 against a fast 30x45/15 or whatever seems reasonable to me and barely impacts load. (Or drop the long run after x-factor, and load is probably the same or less.)

Only speaking from my own experience obviously, but I did three parkruns over the course of 6 weeks on vanilla NSM last summer and the first one felt mediocre at best, the second one a bit better, and the third one was ~50 seconds faster and at a lower average HR.

I'm well into my 40s though -- maybe younger people can handle faster race paces easier without practicing them.

Parkrunner2 wrote:

yikesington wrote:

That's the only thing about NSM I somewhat disagree with.

If your A race isn't a marathon but a 5K, why shouldn't implement a small special block for that once or twice a year? Doesn't have to be much but 3-5 "x-factor" workouts over the course of 6-10 weeks where you switch the 10x3 against a fast 30x45/15 or whatever seems reasonable to me and barely impacts load. (Or drop the long run after x-factor, and load is probably the same or less.)

Only speaking from my own experience obviously, but I did three parkruns over the course of 6 weeks on vanilla NSM last summer and the first one felt mediocre at best, the second one a bit better, and the third one was ~50 seconds faster and at a lower average HR.

I'm well into my 40s though -- maybe younger people can handle faster race paces easier without practicing them.

I do think there's something to what you're saying. It seems like if all you do is strict NSM, you might need something to "wake up" or jumpstart your 5K pace. This is not an issue if your focus is long term development, but if it's a 5K that you really care about, I think it might be beneficial to do something faster in the weeks in the leading up to it. I noticed this in my first 5K after several months of NSM and no racing. Each mile was progressively faster, almost like I finally figured out what 5K pace was towards the end. I have zero doubt the next attempt will be way faster.

I agree it doesn't have to be much, maybe even just a solo 5K or 2 mile time trial 10-14 days before or a couple of 45/15 workouts.

yikesington wrote:

colder and wiser wrote:

Outside of the marathon special block, periodization really isn't part of NSM. It's just building up and then sustaining the same workouts each week over a long time horizon. People have latched onto that as a weakness, but it's also a critical part of what makes the system work.

That's the only thing about NSM I somewhat disagree with.

If your A race isn't a marathon but a 5K, why shouldn't implement a small special block for that once or twice a year? Doesn't have to be much but 3-5 "x-factor" workouts over the course of 6-10 weeks where you switch the 10x3 against a fast 30x45/15 or whatever seems reasonable to me and barely impacts load. (Or drop the long run after x-factor, and load is probably the same or less.)

Only speaking from my own experience obviously, but I did three parkruns over the course of 6 weeks on vanilla NSM last summer and the first one felt mediocre at best, the second one a bit better, and the third one was ~50 seconds faster and at a lower average HR.

I'm well into my 40s though -- maybe younger people can handle faster race paces easier without practicing them.

big warm up guy wrote:

strides ftw wrote:

Isn't James Copeland the UK Masters 5k champion with zero "X factor" sessions?

It's a fair point. Especially when you see how the race went and he finished with a 2:50 last k. I would guess that meant he was so aerobically strong, that it just meant he kept the pace so high nobody could use any kind of kick or sprint to pass him. This is probably the fastest way to run a 5k or win at amateur level (no disrespect to sirpoc 5k national masters champ is fantastic) but it can get you in trouble at the elite level which end up really tactical. Then all you do is drag the kickers to the finish and get out kicked.

I think strides is probably in the category of not enough evidence either way. There's definitely not definitive evidence for it working.

The odd 5k keeps the system ticking over. But likewise, similar to cheetodust and the advice he spoke about from shirtboy and sirpoc, I have found a slightly more aggressive than warm up is all I need for Mile, 3k and a 5k.

We are talking small margins anyway. Most here will just get much faster at a 5k spamming subthreshold. Lots of people have reported that don't have that change of gear, but who cares when you are up to minutes and minutes faster?