Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Sure, but normally when you speak about easy pace, you mean a flat road or track, not going up a mointain, hungover=)

I'm a 18:35 runner. Not particularly talented or fast so I would imagine my opinion doesn't carry much weight. But NSM has worked well for me, no miracles but that's not the point of it in my view. I've slowly chipped away from a high 19 since around May last year. I'm sure I could have got just as fast more aggressively, but I'm enjoying getting and feeling stronger over a period of time, the long term project appeals to my nature.

A few things:

1. I know my max HR from lab testing. Whilst I'm not a good runner, I work at a university with a great physiology department and I've been lucky enough to have access to great testing with them. I also know my LTHR, vo2 max and my own lactate curve to what i would consider a professional standard.

2. Everyone is different, but broadly when I've seen people run easy in a lab or they have been asked to, they run much faster than they probably need to and lack the reality in ones self of what easy actually is.

3. My easy runs are around 5:50-6:20/km for true easy, between 65-70% of max. Daniels plans would have me running easy around 4:48/km at the top end, which was sirpoc's easy run today who is close to 4 minutes faster in a 5k over me. A lot of what we consider easy, is biased based on how hard the easy runs of plans we have been prescribed in the past are. I think that is a big factor in play here.

4. There is also a huge range of easy running paces, relative to effort. There really isn't much correlation to a guys easy pace and their race pace. Factors like economy, efficiency, cadence, vertical ratios etc I'm sure all come into play here.

The best advice I still think is in the NSM book. Just put HR on your screen and go enjoy easy running and forget about pace. It all seems to work out or the physiology works it out in the end.

Since you cant get it, it must be that everyone else is wrong except you! Haha

There is a huge different in running 4:50 min/km and 7 min/km.

All things you listed can be true, but the fact still remains: If you don't know your true max HR, don't use a 70% of maxHR rule.

Can you explain why a 19 min 5k runner would need to slow down to 7 min/km to reach an easy pace below 70% of maxHR?

For the 100k, training volume is a more important predictor of success than is aerobic capacity, so I think the answer to your question is "yes." Prioritize the specific work over doing more sub-T and recovery.

I can’t tell you why, that’s a different question and definitely an interesting one for the scientifically inclined.

But I can tell you that if someone runs 5Ks(with a HR monitor) they probably have a ballpark of their maxHR and then they just run at different paces until they get to around 70% of that. If that pace is 7min/km or 7min/mile then that is what it is. One of the main things that’s been observed in this thread is that it’s very common for that pace @ 70% to be a good bit slower than old rules of thumb or modern calculators. And not only that, but people find more success with the surprisingly slow easy runs

For practical purposes, most people have probably got within a couple of % of their max HR in a 5k at some point. A couple of beats a minute missing aren't really changing much here in the grand scheme of things. If you think it is, then you are over managing everything far beyond what's needed on the easy days. The highest I've ever got in a 5k is within 2 beats of my true known max. I could use either of those values and the easy run as a % of max would be almost identical.

Ok, if you have a lack of all out 5k race data, it could be a problem. But even then, if your MHR is higher than you think, the added benefit is you are being extra cautious by default and being cautious is a plus not a negative in my view.

I've started to learn as far the aerobic benefits go, 60-65% max hr is likely as good as 70-75%. This was a big change for me to accept, but I can't argue with the results for me and others. The added value for me is that by slowing down, I can increase volume a lot easier and still feel fresh whilst getting faster. The whole process of 4E + 3Sub t has become easier.

Someone did post up something really interesting on Strava. Strava unfortunately is hard to search. It was last year sometime, maybe around when the book came out? Somebody else might remember. Anyway, someone posed the question about what did their easy run pace under 70% of max look like versus their 5k current fitness.

There was almost no correlation whatsoever between race speed and easy pace. Like none. It's the same when you look at pro runners. Dan Nash is running crazy fast for like 65% of MHR sometimes less, then there are guys faster than him in races running much slower on easy days, nearer 70% of MHR.

This is just my opinion, but when I see these questions come up here or elsewhere, that when people are getting their panties in a twist over the easy running, likely they never will stick this out, although of course there will be exceptions to this as well.

Which is fine, there's more than this way to train. But if you are going to succeed like this, easy is likely a lot easier than you are used to. I agree about the mid pack runners pointed out my old_skool50 , they are the worst for this. They think people care about their easy days on Strava and will fight you to the death of you dare to suggest 77% of MHR really isn't an easy run.

No runner under 20 mins 5k should be much slower than 5:00/km for their easy runs. It's just stupid to think they would be. If you can't run this kind of pace day in, day out and it not feel easy find another sport because you are too weak for running.

This thread has really separated the men from the boys and sadly looks like the sport is full of boys nowadays.

If there is no correlation, than the 70% rule does not makes much sense does it?

For my own part I cannot run easy runs att 70%, its a bit too fast to be real easy. But if I would run my easy runs 3 min slower than 5k-pace.....my HR would be higher when Im on the toilet=).

Sir, I know many, many 2:40 and 2:30 marathoners who rarely run under 5 mins per km for an easy run. There are no prizes, no medals handed out on easy days, my friend

You give no proper reason for running faster though. Why?

You are sure about that? Really? Its not that you just havent understood everything, it must be that everyone else has recorded their max hr wrong?

I dont get why you are so confused? You both complain about people running their easy runs to easy, and say that 70% is too fast. Well then you should rather run at 60-65% or whatever, problem solved.

I should add, everyone agreed that we were probably looking at 1 or 2/10 RPE max for these easy runs to get to their easy pace, no matter what the relationship between 5k speed and easy pace was. That enough, tells you that there is probably not much correlation in pace, but everyone is roughly talking about the same intensity at somewhere under 70% of max.

This comes up time and time again. Anyone can run as hard as they want, any day. But whether you needed to or not, is more the point to be challenged or at least up for debate. How long you can truly sustain it for whilst still trying to implement and increase load, is also up for debate. Some people can survive a lot more than others, that's also a factor. But I would probably say time and time again, people's experiences have played out that being super cautious has far more upside, than pushing the limits of the easy running for what really often seems for no particular reason.

I speak as someone btw who used to be obsessed with what my workouts looked like and what my "easy" pace was. Ultimately, I was just an idiot kidding myself and I don't have a problem with admitting that. I'm pretty angry at my younger self.

Well, for one thing. People are starting to complaining that the method does not work for them. One reason that pops into mind is that they spend 75% of their weekly volume at walking pace....
I think NSM is great and Im getting really good progress from it myself.

I know a sub 29 guy who doesn’t like going below 7:20 for easy runs and never will go below 7…if you works out 3 times a week you need slow recovery. For reference, that’s about 2:40 slower per mile than race pace - 4:40 vs 7:20

Ok, so this is how I think.
If someone runs 5k at 19 min, you are not elite by any means, but you still is fast compared to most people that runs. If we take that runner and let him run at easy pace. Conversational pace, feels easy and no struggle by any means. I refuse to think that this runner needs to go down to 7 min/km to get to that intensity. It does not compute for me=)

I would love to go out for a run with these people and see how they are reacting to 5:30, 6:00 and 6:30 min/km. My guess is that almost every 19 min 5k runner would run real easy at 5:30 - 6 min/km. If their HR shows 75-80% at that pace, my first thought would be that their max HR is set too low.

I know I sound arrogant about this, but come on, you know Im right about this one ;)

Trollage.