Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

What always amazes me when we talk sirpoc, Bakken or anything to do with this is the excuses people make to NOT really run easy. Like, really easy

When you ask 100 runners to do an easy run or show you what that looks like, 99 of them will no doubt run too fast.

This isn't a criticism of anyone in particular, as I am often that person. But easy is always easier than you think.

70% of MHR just reels as many of those people in as possible.

It is strange that if you told someone in their job that working less would result in more money they'd do it. People seem to want to run fast when there is simply no need

Ingrid Kristiansen was WR holder from 5k to marathon at one point and ran her long runs easy with people who were 90 min HM runners and also her husband. There is no rush, take it easy. Alex Yee is on Strava and runs 4:15 up to 4:20 per KM for easy.

People love to copy the pro workouts but not the easy miles

This is a good post and I agree.

BUT I would say not everyone of those in your example runs specifically too fast, I think I would change the example to faster than they need to run.

The guy asked why Cam Mayer heart rate was was so high and I gave him my thought on why it probably isn't. Its not that complicated.

My personal thought on easy runs is that easy is not a pace or a heart rate, its just a feeling. If I felt that 4:00/km was a sustainable easy pace, HR, Sirpoc, God or any calculator will not stop my from running 4:00/km.

75% of max heart rate does feel easy

70% feels easier

65% feels barely above a walk

It takes a lot of effort to get comfortable running in the 65-70% range if you’re used to running “easy” closer to 80%

Me.

Guilty as charged.

Okay, so clearly 72-75% max HR is still pretty easy, I did this for a while. When I fell below 70% and then further still, I realised I didn't need to add the small but extra fatigue running closer to 75%. It probably had zero benefit or close to it even at the same minutes ran.

But the huge upside is that running a lot easier has allowed me to run the 3 workouts a week with no issues, but also increase volume overall. It's a double win. Actually a triple win as I enjoy it more.

This is something I really wish I had listened to at the start of NSM. I think deep down we are all worried about what our running friends will think if we run super slow? I think this is the heart of why people probably run easy days harder than necessary.

Maybe it's just me, but these days I'm actually super stoked to post by 9-10 minute mile easy runs on Strava and then rip faster races than ever before.

I use a garmin 235 wrist based heart rate monitor. At my job, I look at, think about, manage, and control cardiovascular function all day everyday. I find my wrist based heart rate to be accurate and I don't really care which way it is biased because I do not see a lot of variation in the measurement. When my RPE goes up, my heart rate goes up accordingly, and when my RPE goes down, my heart rate goes down in a corresponding fashion. My wrist HR is consistent day in and day out irrespective of what I am doing. If someone cuts me off in traffic, it picks up the tachycardia. The prevailing dogma is to poo poo wrist based HR monitors, but they work just fine. I have even hooked myself up to an EKG to compare.

Needing a laboratory obtained maximum heart rate is unnecessary in my opinion unless you're looking for that extra 0.1% of performance and are using a chest strap in addition. I think triangulating pace, wrist based heart rate, and RPE works well enough. As a 40 year old, the max I've observed on my wrist has been 185-189 in races over the last 6 months. 70% of that range is 129.5 to 133. 140 of that range = 75.7% of max heart rate to 74.1%. I just try to keep the HR below 130 and if it goes above 140, I will dramatically slow down to control the heart rate. So, 130 goal with 135 soft limit. 140 hard limit.

The rest is splitting hairs. I don't think I'm leaving a lot on the table by avoiding 5 bpm HR in case i underestimated my max. Over a 60 minute run, that's 300 beats.

Get old and slow enough, and a mile starts to be in that range ;-)

When young and fit as a mid-d runner, I would typically get to HR 170-ish in 3000m races. 1500 wasn't quite long enough. I could reliably push it higher in shorter-recovery interval sessions and get to 180-185, my highest HR ever. 8x100m sprint with 15sec rests, after a solid warmup, gets it there.

The other classic session for maxing, recommended in the 80s as well as by Bakken last month, is finding a decent length hill, doing an all-out interval session - maybe 6x90sec or 3x3min - and really going for it on one of the middle reps.

True, but it can be done. I was regularly at 80-85% on easy runs. They felt easy (usually) and I thought I couldn't run at 70%, or it was so stupidly slow I just wouldn't do it. Started running with a beginner recently and finally really slowed down and one day it just clicked. Now 70% (well, 72-74%) is no bother and actually enjoyable. It's taken YEARS to finally feel what easy running is.

So so much word salad on the last 2 to 3 pages of this thread. Why do people over-complicate and over-analyse what an 'easy pace' is? If it feels really easy, it is easy.

Feel would always be the best option obviously but to some extent I believe if you're doing your easy runs too slow you're leaving some fitness on the table. Not enough to justify the potential fatigue added by going faster but still a little bit. The method is 75% easy runs after all

Taking myself as an example, I got to 16:36 on this method and I was doing my easy runs at around 5:30/km. I think this was a byproduct of when I was an 18 min guy and my easy pace just didn't get faster because I got too used to running that pace. I also used to get weird niggles because I was forcing myself to run that slow. Over 6-7 weeks I made an effort to run my easy runs 10-20s a km faster, and my 5k dropped to 15:59. Granted they were in very different conditions, one was in a parkrun where I was sleep deprived and the faster 5k was in the evening in a fast race. I do think the the effort was quite similar though.

Now I would not advice anyone tries this because I am young and I'll probably recover from most abuse I put my body through but it's food for thought. I still believe most people should stick to the <70% max hr rule because it helps develop 'feel' for easy and then you can disregard it. Sirpoc has ascended even above that because he can probably perform any of the workouts without a heart rate monitor or a lactate meter and still get extremely close to that sub threshold state because he knows what it's supposed to feel like. I've been doing this for 10 months and I still barely know what tf I'm doing lol

tldnr

No tldr it's mostly just word salad

The last few pages are really nothing to do with NSM.

It's a story as old as running coaching itself.

Coach: "Slow easy run today"

Runner: "OK"

Thoughts inside runners head : "Sure I'll take it easier today, but I'm not running that slow and easy, I can get away with a bit more".

Runner then never really understands that they could have run easier still, for close to the same physiological benefit and the added extra boost in recovery.

It's amazing, I have had conversations with so many who will swear blind that running super easy doesn't apply to them. Or how their clearly not super easy run, is easy. RPE is terrible for this, people kid themselves.

The difference I think here is this thread is the easy run has such a low HR marker, even if people unnecessarily run to the top end of that to prove a point, it's likely still very easy compared to other programs. That's really the point by design, I guess.

Running really, really easy is actually one, if not the most important, core principles of NSM (and double threshold for that matter)

The whole point of NSM is stacking weeks/months/years of 3 subT sessions a week on top of each other. This can only be achieved by running slower than slow on the easy days.

It is so overlooked. When people say "what difference does it make if I run too fast?" they missing the entire point of the method. Intensity and load management.

People religiously stick to certain paces/effort/mmol reading on workouts but miss a key ingredient which is running super easy to recover.

It is so interesting when people are built so different. I am a 40:00 10k runner. I just ran my 60min E - 5:10/km - 120 bpm avg (69% MHR/59% RHR)

One thing to consider if the easy run is extremely easy and the legs then checks out as really fresh on the ST session is to invest that into more reps on the ST session.

I think using a percentage of MHR to determine easy pace is a great starting point, but it’s not necessarily gospel.

Using a chest strap HRM, I’ve had easy runs where I can take six steps per breath, sit at 67–70% MHR (around 55% of 5K pace on flat ground), and feel completely fine—if not a bit bored. I’ve also had runs at 65–70% MHR that felt too fast despite feeling fresh.

As others have said, in winter I can run upwards of 1:00/km faster than at other times of the year while still being at 65–70% MHR (around 67% of 5K pace). On the other hand, if I go out after a double espresso or try to squeeze in a quick 30-minute run at lunch, I can struggle to stay under 70% MHR at much slower paces—well below 65% of MAS. If I had a lactate meter, my hunch is that lactate would actually be lower in those latter scenarios.

There’s likely nothing wrong with relying on the talk test or RPE, as long as you’re being honest about the effort.

That said, I’m not advocating for anyone to intentionally run their easy runs faster, and I’m not in a position to make training recommendations—just sharing that there are likely some nuances here. I’m also well aware that the 70% MHR cap is a useful guideline, as it probably prevents most easy runs from drifting too hard.