Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Yesterday in the AMA someone asked Bakken about FT runners & he seemed to recommend 2x a week progressive model workouts if I'm understanding his response right. He doesn't mention anything about working up to 3x a week, but mentions working up to double threshold 1 day & a then single workout another day to allow 5 recovery days in between since FT runners have much higher muscle tone.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1sld7lz/ama_im_marius_bakken_former_olympian_and/ohgzn7l/?context=3

john Korir Boston Marathon record holder regularly does 1 hour easy runs at 8:30-9:30/mile! He should really be speeding those up if he’s serious about this running thing 😂😂😂

8:30-9:30 is still running though, but your average joes with a 23 mins 5k PR plodding along at 11:00 is just glorified brisk walking which mechanics is completely different. They'd better run at 9:30-10:00 if they want to get better.

And don't get me started on the terrain he's running on. It would be more like 8:00 on flat roads. Still very slow for his caliber, but again that's running.

Hahaha at least we’ve narrowed it down! 10min/mile is acceptable, but 11 is not. Can I get a ruling on 10:30?

probably get dovnvoted to oblivion here, but I experienced something similar in reverse as well.

I tried running every day (v.s 4-5 days a week) and then extended my easy runs to 45 mins (v.s 30-40) but slower, strictly keeping them at around 65% MHR (around 125-130 for me, with a MHR of around 195) v.s 70%(around 135-140 low). If it's not humid or hot, I didn't even break a sweat after run. 10 weeks later I did a 5k TT and I actually ran more than 1 min slower. I don't know, my legs just didn't feel springy at all and I just couldn't get my HR up.

I think aerobically I might have improved, but it just failed to translate into better performance so I revert to the old way - running fewer (4-5 days per week), shorter but faster (but still easy, RPE of 2-3, btw, funnily enough, RPE when running at 120ish to 130 or even 140 ish HR is not that different to me) easy runs and I seem to have be trending up again.

Maybe that's because I'm an old fart who needs more recovery than you guys, haha.

edit: btw, I didn't even do long runs and still don't.

It's hard to pin Bakken down. He kinda just says everything. The man is a pioneer, but he is often very contradictory. I'm not saying on purpose, he just seems to kind of speculate really with everything he says week to week , month to month that it always kind of becomes different his message. I don't find it particularly helpful.

What were your workouts like in that period? Identical? Curious if you were doing 4 easy and 3 subthreshold? I think this stuff is interesting to look at.

Once I got onto that, over about 5 months I got faster. The third workout was the key to upping the load. In the end I just got way fitter, having been slower initially after a month or so. And yes I agree, my easy runs are now so easy I don't even really need a shower! But, it really allows me to do 3 solid workouts a week. It's not the workouts themselves that are magic, it's slowly increasing load.

I think everyone is finding in the end, if you can increase that load over a long period of time, there's an excellent chance you will get faster. Those who have come down from higher mileage to this, no suprise it's really not doing much for them. But the reason the majority are improving is if you take the previous 6 months, then their first 6 months of nsm, it finally allowed them to not just stay healthier, but run or generate more stimulation towards their fitness than the previous 6 months.

Same with guys who could already handle more intensity crammed via either workouts or easy runs on 4-5 days, versus whatever they are now doing over 7. They may have been better on 5-6 cramming it in, than 7 days. I've seen a few people like this who running at a harder intensity almost all the days, probably creates as much load as 3x subthreshold and 4x very easy. They just happen to be able to handle that and that is better for them.

But the ramp rate in built is so small, I think it's very hard to guage over such a short amount of time. I lump in people who say they have improved or not improved by the way in that, neither can tell what is truly happening I don't think until quite a lot longer down the line.

There's a lot of very knowledgeable people like that. A wealth of knowledge, but not the best at communicating that knowledge. Like they need to remind themselves to stay on message and be focused when they talk and present.

I think of Jack Daniels, who was incredible with his book and knowledge. But he tended to get kind of folksy when he talked. A more old fashioned and informal sort of way. It's a friendly style, but tends to sort of wander off the message at times.

Has anyone else been adding in the bike to a Tuesday and Thursday in the morning? Sirpoc is kind enough to talk about the intensity as I asked him via the Strava comments, above Lt1 but probably slightly lower than SS, but with a run then in the PM. I'm a sheep and really bad at making my own training decisions so I've just ended up copying him.

This to me solves the doubles puzzle. Running doubles I'm cooked! But this feels very manageable and after now 14 weeks of this I have taken a huge step forward in fitness, after a plateau of NSM just running. I was stuck at 17:14 and have just now ran 16:45. I will say the NSM running alone got me from 18:4x to the 17:14 after years of trying to crack 18 so this isn't a complaint, i just didn't really have any volume i could then add in singles, but this took 17 months and zero injuries to get to.

It feels like the rest of my week is almost identical, but just adding this on has made huge gains (knocking 30 seconds off from 17:14 is a huge gain IMO). Maybe I have dialled back my easy running a touch in terms of intensity 65% max HR cap)

The fatigue cost is minimal from these morning part of the double, if any fatigue actually and sometimes I actually feel better in the evening run.

Is this "free hit" of "baby doubles" as sirpoc has been calling it, really this likely to have had such an impact? The interesting thing is sirpoc seems about the same fitness level, but with less running + cycling. Perhaps if he could get up to his old running levels + the 2 baby doubles he can go beyond the 15 flat mark? I'm sure he's two steps ahead of us all but just asking that question.

I think this is why so many people got on board with sirpoc - he's really good at communicating.

People love to try and argue some of the nuances with this approach but Sirpoc was always clear with the over-arching principles of this method. People understand it and have been able to apply it resulting in success.

Got any examples here? I don’t hold that view of him to say the least.

He talks about training like any responsible MD would do. The body is complicated, it's nuanced, it's often not black and white. The requirements are different depending on training/injury history, age, sex, available training hours, muscle fiber composition, life stressors, and so on. You have to get the full picture to make your own decisions. But getting that full picture requires time, which time-crunched hobby joggers probably don't have.

People who just listen to random quotes from him are probably often better off not listening to him at all. Some recent examples are "Bakken says x about strength training" or people who reads about 45/15 and try it right away while ignoring the section about risks when introducing new things.

Muscle tone. Mixed messages. When to use it, when it's applicable, do we even need to worry about it. Sometimes vague, depending on podcast he's been on.

45/15. Who is it for? When? What intensity? Again, different answers in the book, Reddit and now the Reddit AMA.

Doubles. When to add them. Who are they for. What is the minimal risk for hobby runners? Is it NSM or is it something else? Again, opinion seems to change.

This isn't a criticism either, but he's often spitballing ideas on the fly. Which is good, we should always be rethinking. But makes it hard to apply. I agree this is a bit like old Daniels lectures or seminars. You apply something and then you are like "damn, last time i watched a lecture you said something totally different". Not that we should be spoon fed, but when people have a definitive opinion on something from an expert, it makes it much easier to make good decisions in your own training.

Is there any good places out there to talk about Bakken and his training philosophy like this thread for NSM?

This is fair and unfair.

Unfair in the point that he's often responding to questions for different audiences which is great. Obviously hobby runners don't need to know about high end sharpening and periodization very much, or doubles. But sometimes this is interpreted into being for all.

But fair in the conclusion that does create some confusion of where the boundaries and crossovers are. English as a second language, no matter how fluent you speak is always going to be harder to communicate in as well.

I am adding a bike after doing a marathon block with running only. I only have access to a peloton at the moment which has pretty dubious power numbers, so working on HR as well for the bike. Right now as a build back from marathon 5 weeks ago the bike is replacing one of my 3 workout days, but eventually I plan to use it as a double after my sub LT session twice a week. Possibly replacing/supplementing a long run every so often as well when it gets unbearably hot here in the summer.

While running 120-140 miles per week and 2X a day for context.

He actually just seems to give lots of detail and contingency considerations in his advice. Sorry your comprehension is low.