Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I think this is it. Junk miles a lot of people will tell you is the really easy stuff. One thing NSM has taught me is that actually junk miles are actually the stuff I was previously doing my easy runs at. OK, there is no such thing as junk mileage, it's all some sort of effect, but the 72-77% range where a lot of people run their easy runs (I was definitely one of these!) is actually the area that doesn't really give us much. It's too hard to act as a gateway for freshness to the next workout but the extra benefits aren't huge proportional to the fatigue you are crewting.

Caveat here could be also that it could create a situation where your easy running is close, maybe beyond Lt1 everyday. Which, is quite easy to breach as it's a trick, as at the time it still feels pretty easy.

I honestly believe it's actually as hard to buy into this mentality and stick to the discipline, than it actually is to physically carry out the training.

Someone already posted about this, who works in testing. They said the vast majority of people were within 1-2% of what they believed their max to be. Which, makes sense. Anyone who does lab work probably collects data and will have been put in a race situation where they probably ran a 5k and almost died. I would guess 99% of people in this thread fall into that category.

The other factor is, having done a max HR test along with other lab work, it out me in a situation I've never - and will never likely replicate again. It was also within 3 beats of what I had recorded outside of the lab.

When we are talking about using MHR simply as an anchor for the over and under on easy running, that'll absolutely do. As pointed out by a few other people, worst case is you have just created a safe buffer zone around the top end of your easy. We aren't using MHR for anything else, anyway.

I've had conversations with my friends, many of which still use facts like this to justify running harder for easy pace.

How much higher and how much does it really matter?

5 beats higher then believed, who cares

10 beats? Makes a small differnece I suppose. But it wont go from 7:00 to 6:00

20 beats? Dont believe people think there max is gonna be around 180-190 when it actaully is 200-210.

So even if you are right, how much beats are we actaully talking about and how much difference would it make in the example of a 7:00m per k runner?

Who? Another narcissist selling ads on YouTube?

Does it matter much?

There was a poster here that let his breaks be the time it took for his pulse to drop below LT1 ... I kinda like that version

-

But then again .. I'm not one that is particularly afraid of leaving a wee bit on the table. I'll worry if I ever stagnate big time.

The discussion in this thread usually is:

Older hobby jogger: I like NSM. It ensures consistency and that has made me fitter than ever.

Critic: Oh noes .. You're leaving performance behind, be better if you (insert faster easy runs, speed work or whatever is the flavour of the day)

Bakken call it the "grey zone" (the area where it's easy enough to not give much of an added stimulus, while the recovery costs is comparatively high for the effort).

I started NSM a couple of weeks ago. I'm used to training with HR and always prefer that over pace or power.
The last 2 years I have some trouble with injuries and motivation. Done other sports and strenghtraining. I never stopped running, but a bit less than I'm doing now.

My question is about LTHR. Typical 10k races for me avarage 172-175. Thin my best half marathon had an avarage if 170. When I have done subT-workouts I have rather an avarage of 155 on my 5x6 min with max HR hitting 160-161.
Am I beeing to careful? I have a feeling that my HR always is a bit raised when I do races, but Im not sure how that would work.

Thoughts?

Do the Friel test.

it's a 30 min solo time trial.

Specifically do not use a race nor do it with other runners..

Try to do it on a flat couse or a track.

Warm up well, you'll have an idea of your 5k pace from races. Aim for a couple of seconds slower per km than that and hold it for the full 30 mins.

Don't go off fast and die.

Take average of the last 20mins of your test HR (ignore the first 10 mins).

I just pulled data each min off the Garmin Manually and stuck it into excel.

multiply that number by 0.98

That is a good estimate for LTHR.

It's a hard session so take it seriously.

Everyone here posting knows enough about their max to use as a general guide for easy runs. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Half of these posters are creating issues where there are none.

A lot of these guys want to appear clever, bring something to the table, but all they end up doing is over complicating what is a very simple piece of information that is applicable to the average hobby joggers training.

The notion we should all go to the lab to find out true max (it's the only way, really) so we can dial in exactly HR max for easy running is obviously laughable.

I have a lot of data on 5k, 7,5k and 10k on training. For those runs it seems my LTHR always lands at 171-173.

But when I read in Copelands book he can start a workout session about 10-15 beats below and at the last rep touch his LTHR. It does not say if he is increasing pace or not, I guess not?
If I start my workout hitting 160 at first interval, my HR will not raise for the other intervals if Im not picking up pace.

Same pace.

He spoke about this in the early days of the thread. it's become too long to read but just about still worthnit for Sirpoc, shirtboy and hard2find's posts.

The message was very much that the aim of the game is 3 sessions a week. Capping at LTHR keeps you legs fresh for the next one. That's it. He started 10 beats under because he didn't want to exceed LTHR.

His other line is it's a state not a pace so LTHR pace is different at different interval lengths.

I started alternating 1km reps and 9min reps buy they were more or less at the same pace so I went to the classic, 3mins, 6mins, 10mins. running the 3s at 6:35 mins/mile, 6s at 6:45, and 10s at about 6:55

When I started about a year ago these were about 7:20 for 3mins and about 7:30 for 9 mins

I don't understand why everyone is arguing about easy pace..I run these very easy but found of I drop them (life happens) my session the next day tends to be worse. I think you need the blood flow or the hormones or even just the mental release from thinking about pace and time

The "just run baby" fella has a point there.

I do 60s jogging rest for all reps including 10min. As long as you're in the Goldilocks zone of rested enough but not too much it doesn''t really matter. (Jogging rest helps to keep it aerobic if you're a sprinter type and start each rep too bouncy/fast otherwise.)

I have to agree with you on this one. Clearly there is something weird ongoing if one "has to" run 7 min/km for a sub 19 5k runner to get his/hers avgHR during 10km run under 70% of MaxHR. Unless you are training very warm or hilly conditions. I guess it is as you suspect, that the maxHR estimation is wrong or that individual has like really bad base endurance. If the latter is true, then maybe the one should really run that slow. Or maybe the case might also be that he/she is running ST's too fast and that stress shows in next day's easy runs.

If I do the 5x6 min at the same pace, and start 10 beats below LTHR, my HR will not raise during the workout (It only does if I pick up the pace)

You can run a bit faster so I'd say for all reps (as long as your confident in your LTHR estimation)

It does actually touch on this in the book. He is running slower pace on the early reps than target pace, not even on purpose but by the fact it's just a 10 min jog warmup and it takes a while to get going.

Fwiw I agree with his take, this is actually a good safeguard as a consequence of the lack of warm-up, so you don't go too hard on the early rep (or two on the shorter ones). Pays to be time crunched and just do a 10 min jog to wake the legs up.

Really easy runs are a good gateway to the next workout. Obviously over time if you just did the workouts and dropped all the easy running you would get worse.

Someone once suggested to sirpoc he did that. I mean it's ridiculous to think he would still be able to run 15 flat or a 2:24 marathon in a year if all he did was 3 workouts a week. He would probably still be fast ish, but when you consider the fact, really easy running has to be worth a decent amount towards the bigger picture.

You could make a case for potentially taking out all the easy running, with cycling. But that's a different argument.

Not one person if all they did was the 3 workouts a week, for a year, but having all the other days off, would remain as fast as they are.

I ran a lot of my easy that slow for it to be truly easy. Sure, it was embarrassing and humbling. But it was really all I could do to recover between workouts. In time, my easy pace as gotten almost 90 seconds /km faster for the same effort. I don't really worry about it anymore.

My race times are trending down and down which is all that bothers me.

Hi all, just a quick update. Have been with NSM for about half a year, all going to plan until the old knee flared up - turns out my meniscus is done.

Now I'm doing pretty much the same on the bike: 10-12 x 4:00/1:00, 5-6 x 8:30/1:30, 2-3 x 20:00 / 2:00. This works well and should get me to surgery and hopefully recovery.