Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

If you are running below 70% of your max HR yourself on your easy days... Then I don't understand the purpose of your posts for the last two pages?

Oh .. You added something after I replied

I suspect the "anger" is that you assume they don't know their max HR, which most people will know.

-

Instead I suspect you wrongly assume that they are 19-20 min 5k runners too ... When people running easy at 7:00 min/km or whatever you it is you call "walking pace" are going to be some minutes slower than that

Maybe. But I dont think im that much of an outlier. I have a friend who works at a lab and do about 600 test a year, and he says people, for the most part have a lot higher mxHR than they think.

Jebus christ..

My point is that you should run easy runs slow enough, but not slower just to get under 70% of maxHR. If its really, really slow.....and you are reasonable fast.....maybe your maxHR is wrong?

If I had to take a guess. less then 1% of all hobby joggers would now their real HRMax. Why do you think most people know that?

So you are advocating for people to run their easy runs faster than 70% max HR, just because your pace when being <70% max HR is comparatively faster than them?

Also, do you think that people that are actually measuring their HR whenever they go out and run are wrong in their maxHR by more than 5bpm?

I think its time to stop this discussion and move on. You will never convince these guys. But the problem is not that people don't know their MHR. The problem is that the 60-70% MHR limit it a simplification of 60-70% heart rate reserves (HRR) as the best aerobic zone. I think 60-70% MHR works fine for people with "normal" heart rates, but my feeling is that it forces people with 200+ MHR to run too slow. Anyways HRR is a much better method of measuring intensity as it takes your resting heart rate (and therefore your fitness) into account.

Here is a link to the study that I think people get their 70% limit from, but as you can see they are not using HR/MHR to express intensity. https://paulogentil.com/pdf/The%20effects%20of%20training%20on%20heart%20rate%20-%20a%20longitudinal%20study%20%28Karvonen%29.pdf

In a thread of dumb posts - and of all the gold here there have been many - the dude seemed to be suggesting people are probably about 20bpm off their max lol this might be the most ridiculous suggestion in the entire thread.

I can tell you now, if you have a reliable HR monitor and you run all out 5ks, you are getting within a couple of beats, 5 at worst. Even then, what you can actually reach in a running situation is likely as good as you need to worry about anyway.

The fact you might need to know you absolute max to the exact figure when you are broadly only using 70% as a rough guide anyway, is laughable, especially as we are splitting hairs over a few beats at malt.

At worst if you don't know your max to within a couple of beats all you are doing is safeguarding your easy runs a touch more anyway. It's win win.

It's a speed limit, not a target speed.

Floberg just ran sub 2:30. Sirpoc is an injured wreck.

Checkmate NSM cultists.

By the way, I am by no means saying that this is a fact either. These are just mental models used to simplify something that is very complex, and this is worked quite well for me as someone with a very high heart rate. There is also no causal relationship between heart rate and aerobic intensity. It is therefore wrong to pass any of these methods of quantifying intensity as facts. This is my biggest problem with the 70% MHR brigade. They are good to use as a starting point, but its up to every single of us to find out what works for us. The main goal of controlling intensity is to be able keep doing this day in and day out without injury. Not to have the lowest heart rates or the highest easy paces.

British man who without a shadow of a doubt has no absolutely no idea who Floberg is, is a best selling author, ran 2:24 in his 40s, is his country national masters 5k champion, was even better in another sport, goes gome devastated. Of course. Gotcha. Not really worth even trying to troll when you consider all that, best off just picking a softer target.

So what you are saying is that in the almost 6 mins and almost 2km in distance faster sirpoc is than floberg, he could have ordered a downed his first pint?

Man runs slower than other man at every distance, but checkmate called in attention seeking confusion.

What other sport?

Cycling. Sirpoc's results were much even more impressive there.

It's funny, maybe running isn't even in his top 3 sports. Someone asked him on Strava if he really does love darts and snooker. He said he plays them and devotes as much time to them as running, if not more. 136 highest break and multiple 10 darters.

One thing I do know and I agree with above and have no doubt, if someone asks him if he knows who Floberg is, he will have absolutely no idea. Clearly he doesn't waste time on Instagram and the like.

I sometimes wonder if other people who contribute here do other things, or other hobbies. Or if we are just all obsessed with running as I am, despite me just being pretty average!

My max HR is 211. I have absolutely zero problem running still at 65% of max. Feels about right in terms of the easy day as a buffer between workouts. I certainly wouldn't want to run any faster on the really easy days. It might creep to 70% average on a long run, as per another poster. Any more and if just be kidding myself. This is just what runners tend to do. It's a story as old as running itself, pushing the easy days. Almost certainly the number one issue with most hobby jogging. I think everyone would agree you are better under cooking than over cooking on these easy days.

We are lucky we have vast numbers of people who have given their feedback months, years into this. Again, just about everyone probably learned a lesson here or there with NSM that even what they thought was easy, was probably too hard.

You are really trying to over complicate things, with what is a really, really simple way to understand and ensure easy running for 99.99% of people. You are so overthinking it, you are almost arguing with yourself.

It is obvious that some websites and influencers mix up %ages of MHR and HRR.

I don’t know about others, but for me, 70% of HRR is significantly higher than 70% of MHR.

If “true max” can only be obtained in a lab, how relevant is it to training outside?

How higher are these lab tests than results from hard intervals/hill reps/short races etc? I suspect only a few beats?

Love doing the method. Having success. However, am getting conflicting info--I've read 90s for the 10- to 12-min. reps on reddit but I've always thought it was 120s for the longer reps and 60s for the shorter ones (3x10 up to 5x6).

Floberg ran well, in fairness to him, but now will be even MORE insufferable with his sub-2:30.