Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

hrv is a signal. rhr is a signal

also, checking lactate earlier in thethe day session to make sure your low hr is associated with ‘normal’ lactate #s

you can either reduce pace or pull the plug altogether

use Bakkens red/yellow/ green system

or Mitch Hedbergs Banana joke

whichever helps you more

HR and lactate have a correlational but not causational relationship. Like you noted, it trends higher when sick, rundown, etc.

Since you're acclimated to altitude, being at altitude is not a cause of your sickness which it could be for folks doing altitude camps, to which I'd say HR and fatigue would be a more direct result of the altitude itself.

Lactate production is a byproduct of increased demand of oxygen during exercise to which anaerobic energy production occurs. If you're running altitude-adjusted paces and still physiologically operating at the same metabolic intensity, then great. You're good and dont need to worry much about HR. That's why lots of pros do lactate readings at altitude. If you're still adjusting to altitude, it will take a while to adjust your intensity control and acclimate so your HR adjusts. Training to what you feel mechanically is your paces at sea level will result in more drastic HR spikes since there's more demand at that relative intensity compared to sea level.

Essentially - lactate production doesn't care about HR. You'll reach metabolic thresholds at lower HRs because the oxygen is farther apart in the air. So the timing of response in lactate buildup occurs faster BECAUSE oxygen is less abundant. Its kinda a weird backwards thinking.

At sea level, the relationship between heart rate and lactate accumulation is a bit more linear because of how much easier it is to reach consistent percentages of your true max. Hus calculating for humidty and heat and cold is more straightforward. Operating at the same intensity at altitude, you almost dont have enough time for your body to get up to that percentage of Max hr before your body goes anaerobic metabolically.

Has anyone just had a PB come out of nowhere? I'm about 11 weeks in. Honestly, pretty disappointed and close to giving up. Nothing really seemed to have improved and then suddenly this morning run a 26 second 5k PB set back in 2021.

I know people have said it takes time to improve. But there have been no indications, easy pace or really workouts, other than HR seemed to maybe drop a fraction for the paces last week. But I assumed that is because I went easy on Tuesday and scaled nack to just 8 reps of 3 mins on Thursdays in preparation for today.

I’ve recently been thinking about something, and I think this thread has the right minds for it.
Let’s consider a training plan based on time and intensity, say, 7 hours per week, with 75% easy running and 25% sub-threshold work, following NSA guidelines. We give this plan to two runners: one is a 15-minute 5K runner, and the other runs it in 25 minutes. Let’s assume both execute the plan perfectly in terms of intensity control, recovery, etc.
Is the 25-minute runner more likely to end up overtrained or struggle with recovery?
a) No, since both are running at appropriate paces.
b) Yes, since the 15-minute runner is likely more accustomed to higher training loads.
c) Yes, for the reason in (b), but also because being a 25-minute runner may indicate that they are not yet ready for 7 hours per week at the prescribed intensity, no matter how diligent they are with pacing.
In case it’s not obvious, I’m trying to understand whether, as a slower runner (currently 22–23 minutes for 5K), I’m doing myself a disservice by attempting NSA at 7 runs per week (roughly 6 hours total) and 3 sub-threshold workouts. I’m very strict about controlling intensity (both for sub-threshold and easy runs), and I’ll feel great and make progress for a few weeks, but then my paces drop by 15–25 seconds per kilometer across the board for 1–2 weeks before I feel good again.
Maybe I’m simply not ready for this volume of training.

It depends much more on running experience than absolute performance. You're conflating the two. If you replace 15min runner/25min runner with seasoned runner/beginner the question makes more sense.

That's not to say there isn't a correlation between running experience and absolute performance, but it may not be that high (except near the extremes). There are lots of confounding variables: age, weight, talent, etc. A 17min runner (15 may be a stretch) may have very little running experience but just be young, talented, and fit from cycling. They may not be ready to handle 6 hours/week of NSM though. A 25min runner may have done 80km/week for years but be old, untalented, and heavy. They could handle it easily.

Having said that, paces fluctuating so much regularly is probably something completely different. Are you losing 15s/km on ST workouts at roughly the same HR, RPE, breathing? That's a lot. I'd look for other reasons - life stresses, diet, sleep, iron, etc. How do you feel when paces dip? What's your running history? Age, weight, M/F, etc?

Looking at this sort of analysis the opposite could be argued. The reason for the easy intensity is to reduce muscular load and also the issue of muscle tone.

The faster runner running for 1 hour at less than 70% of max (say 6:xx per mile), is putting much more force through the ground with each step, and is covering more miles. The slower runner, say 11:xx per mile, is putting much less force through the ground with each step and is covering much less distance. Same for the S/T miles. In theory, the slower runner should recover faster than the faster runner, but it doesn’t really work this way.

Does this mean the slower runner can run faster, no.

But, running for the same duration, rather than mileage, tends to equalise things, but of course the less experienced runner needs to build up in a careful and sustainable manner, the same as any other training programme.

Hi all,

been following the approach for seven months and my paces won't budge down. Either in session or races.

Coming from high mileage Pfitz plans - was doing a 5k plan when i jumped ship - it stands to reason fitness would drop. In the weeks leading to changing approach i was doing 90-100k weeks (9 to 10h on feet).

Started with 7.5h and slowly added easy time. Current schedule had me doing easy doubles (45AM-35PM) and 105 long run. 80-85k on 8:40.

M32, running since October 2023. After the first month in which all i did was hammer 5ks (started with a 22:30) ive been very consistent with training. Never had an injury.

Did a 5k TT on mid-October last year, one month after starting, in 19:03. 26" off my PB from April last year. Was peaking for a marathon at that time.

Last race on the 12th of this month. Just short of a 10k. 4:06 avg. A Vdot equivalent of a just under 20' 5k.

Easy runs are 6:30 to 7:00. Long run today as an example in 6:56, 125 bpm avg.

Sub-T peaking in the late 170s. Have recorded 201 (on this last race peaked to 195). Recent Half was 179 avg.

I am dreading the feeling that i've stalled because i started doing a lot of miles too early on my running journey. Feels that i am justing burning shoe soles at this point.

Will drop to the 6.5h plan. Accept more fitness loss and try to eventually break this rut.

An aside. As i recall from the book, sirpoc was bike commuting during a period of his life. Does he still do it? My commute is short, two miles each way. Sometimes two times if i have lunch at home. This is not negligible load wise but certainly does more good than harm ? At leat for my wallet...

Thanks and have a great week.

I’m assuming that 80-85k is weekly distance. What is “on 8:40,” please?

And 170s, 201, 195, 179 are peak and average heart rates, correct?

8h40min peak weekly time on feet.

Yes. My HR peaks on late 170s on sessions. Once or twice 180-181. 201 is my max ever registered. 195 was max on last Sunday's race. 179 was average HR on my most recent HM.

I’ve tried following NSM and did so for 12 weeks. Eventually had to modify a bit due to a chronic insertional Achilles issue that flared after being dormant for a long time. Moderate to hard running every other day just isn’t sustainable for me in the long term. That and I’m pushing 60. I find I do much better with two easy days between sub T sessions even when doing them at the prescribed intensity. . I also found I hated doing the LR on tired legs, it took the joy out of it for me and ultimately I do this for fun. I’m still getting in 90 minutes of work a week on 7-8 hours of running though and have seen fitness improvement.

I think people are running easy runs too slow. Its almost a competition on how to do them as slow as possible. But if the intensity does not matter, why do it?

Run your easy runs in a pace that feels easy. You should be able to have a conversation if you were running with a friend. Dont go slower, dont go faster. Forget about the 70% thing. I think thats the only bad advice in Bakkens and Copelands books. The reason for my opinion is that people set their max HR too low.

If you start running 75% of your volume 1 or 2 min slower than you did before that is going to make you loose fitness. For a really fast runner however, 70% rule makes more sense, even if you are not really sure about max HR. The pace would be fast enough.

7 min/km for a 19 min person in 5k is just nuts. Stop it=)

Wait, hold up. How is reducing volume going to make you faster?

Hard disagree here. I'm not that fast, came into this as a 20:14 guy which was also around 4 years old as a PB. I'm not particularly old, 37 so there's life in me yet 😀

I started NSM last summer and just ran at what I considered easy, looking back clearly way too fast, around 5:30/km and HR was hugely above 70%. Totally burned out, trying to also manage 3 workouts a week. Took Christmas and the new year to reset as I had made zero progress, which matched the last 3-4 years of running.

Started fresh and tried to keep easy running between 65% and 70% of max. This often had me 6:30-7:00/km. Yes, it felt stupidly slow, but nearly 4 months on I feel amazing, the whole thing feels repeatable and last weekend I ran a new PB of 19:29. OK, I'm still slow, but slowing down and recovering properly from the workouts has allowed me to get through a plateau by remaining consistent and fresh.

You can probably put me in the category of being offended of the idea I should run this slow, if you had told me this a year ago. We are strange creatures us runners, we see running slow as some kind of weakness. My easy pace has also started to pick up a bit now, for the same relative effort and HR. It requires real discipline though to stick to and I think for some folks, they will just never be able to do it.

The easiest way to offend a 18-22 min range runner (someone who takes the sport seriously but isn't really fast compared to sub elites) is to tell them to run their easy runs slower, or that they are running too fast. They will give you every excuse known to man why they can't run slower. Here in the UK they are the most common type of club runners. If you are in a running club, you will know at least one of these people.

Most people's feedback for NSM who have invested in this long term, always say you have to be really, really have to be careful of the easy days. Intensity control here seems to be as important, if not more so, than the workouts. Your example has been said here many times and how it's played out for me.

I've even lost a running friend from Sunday's long run because I am now doing it over 60-90 seconds per km slower than previously, despite being significantly faster in races. He still won't believe in anything I'm doing, despite me now distancing him by over a minute in a 5k, whereas for 5 years straight I didn't get near him.

At this point i can only explain my failure with accruing fatigue. Even if don't see no signs of it. Dropping the doubles, increasing recovery time. It's driving me crazy but the other path leads to even more time on feet. I don't want to believe i need to be 10 hours out there to break 18. Hell, even breaking 19 seems out of reach at this point.

There's nothing wrong with jogging slow. Many people running anything from 17-25 minutes make themselves run 7 minute miles all the time because they are self-concious of their pace on strava.

Thank you thread, than you sirpoc. Thank you anyone who has made this thread what it is. Chaos at times, but here Reddit and Strava if people hadn't shared their stories I probably would have dismissed this as nonsense.

Currently celebrating in a way I (hope) sirpoc will approve of, a beer and a burger post race, with the city buzzing full of runners.

I'm not fast. I've never been fast. I will never be fast. All I have ever wanted to do in many years of running Manchester is run sub 3. Tried everything, you name it!

Managed to execute exactly the plan minus the half in the buildup. Ended up swapping that with a MP session, somewhere around what would be the same load.

Not only did I break 3 hours, I was closer to 2:50 than 3. Lifetime running goal achieved ✅.

I dont really get how this works. Have people who runs a 19 min 5k, and do easy runs at 7 min/km never trained before in their life?

If I run at 70% of max HR my pace is way faster than others in my category. I actually run my easy runs close to 65%. I thougt I was an outlier, but I tested on my wife and her brother. The same results.

Could be down to lots of factors like age, terrain, fatigue levels, sleep, long legs, the list is endless.