Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

jma · 2023-07-24T18:51:51-04:00

What does the model look like in the base phase, while building up to the threshold? I was reading this thread about K. Ingebrigtsen's training, https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=11836681, 3Q + a long run seems to be a bit much at lower mileage (40mpw). Is it needed? Would another easy run work instad? How should the model be adjusted for that mileage?

Training Advice/Discussion

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 629 of 661

1 628 629 630 661

Next Last

1 month ago 05/01/2026 12:54pm EDT

re: How does it feel to feel?

How does it feel to feel? wrote:
What are some indicators that your ST workouts are in the right ballpark, if you don't have lactate or HR monitor? RPE, breathing, manual HR - anything else?
Taking HR manually averages 88-90% MHR after the last rep and around 85% after the first rep.
I'm breathing purposefully by the end of the workout but almost never hard. If I get close to needing to breath faster than 3/3, it feels like I'm above LT2. I never get close to that VO2max rep feeling unless I've briefly gone way too fast for some reason. Sometimes I'll do 1-3 reps breathing 4/4.
ST days are usually RPE 4, sometimes 5, but RPE is subjective and everyone has their own scale. (Mine's about 5-6 for a 30min continuous ST run, 7-8 for VO2max reps, 10 only for running from a lion).
I'm slow (21:30ish), ST cadence around 172, and go around 1% faster than NSM book paces.
I guess all of that sounds about right but I'd like to hear of any other rules of thumb if anone has any.

Bakken's talk test: 3-5 (short) words on one breath.

1 month ago 05/01/2026 12:56pm EDT

re: Scandinavian runner

Scandinavian runner wrote:
Bakken's talk test: 3-5 (short) words on one breath.

That's a good one. I've always had a mental block talking out loud while running alone to test this but I'll make an effort.

1 month ago 05/01/2026 1:41pm EDT

re: How does it feel to feel?

I use paces as a rough guide and make slight adjustments for each session based on wind and temperature. HR is inconsistent if you live somewhere where temperature changes by a lot day to day so I wouldn't put much stock in that. Most important is the talk test as indicated above! I've adopted Steve Magness' phrase of "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate." Say this out loud in the final 30-60 seconds of the rep. If you can say it on one breath, you're likely under LT2!

1 month ago 05/01/2026 2:12pm EDT

re: How does it feel to feel?

For me I pay attention to breath rate. If I start to notice I'm straying from controlled, hard breathing into more erratic breathing, I'm pushing too hard. I've noticed once I get to right about the end range HR of sub-T my breathing starts to transition. Usually towards the tail end of the last rep I'm on that border where my breathing is getting a little labored but I'm still in control. If I'm sucking wind during, I'm working too hard.

1 month ago 05/01/2026 2:46pm EDT

re: FelixSprock

FelixSprock wrote:
For me I pay attention to breath rate. If I start to notice I'm straying from controlled, hard breathing into more erratic breathing, I'm pushing too hard. I've noticed once I get to right about the end range HR of sub-T my breathing starts to transition. Usually towards the tail end of the last rep I'm on that border where my breathing is getting a little labored but I'm still in control. If I'm sucking wind during, I'm working too hard.

That's pretty much where I'm at, maybe I'm breathing just a smidgeon easier, but it sounds familiar. Useful to hear, thanks!

1 month ago 05/01/2026 2:49pm EDT

re: AOB33

AOB33 wrote:
I use paces as a rough guide and make slight adjustments for each session based on wind and temperature. HR is inconsistent if you live somewhere where temperature changes by a lot day to day so I wouldn't put much stock in that. Most important is the talk test as indicated above! I've adopted Steve Magness' phrase of "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate." Say this out loud in the final 30-60 seconds of the rep. If you can say it on one breath, you're likely under LT2!

There's no way I'm running round the neighbourhood saying that out loud, lol! I could pretend I'm on a call: "I'm on a run at the moment so see you later". Such a weird thing to do though :)

1 month ago 05/01/2026 2:54pm EDT

re: AOB33

AOB33 wrote:
I use paces as a rough guide and make slight adjustments for each session based on wind and temperature. HR is inconsistent if you live somewhere where temperature changes by a lot day to day so I wouldn't put much stock in that. Most important is the talk test as indicated above! I've adopted Steve Magness' phrase of "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate." Say this out loud in the final 30-60 seconds of the rep. If you can say it on one breath, you're likely under LT2!

Although at 13 syllables, "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate" in one breath is a lot more than Bakken's 3-5 short words as Scandie runner said.

1 month ago 05/01/2026 3:18pm EDT

re: How does it feel to feel?

How does it feel to feel? wrote:
AOB33 wrote:
I use paces as a rough guide and make slight adjustments for each session based on wind and temperature. HR is inconsistent if you live somewhere where temperature changes by a lot day to day so I wouldn't put much stock in that. Most important is the talk test as indicated above! I've adopted Steve Magness' phrase of "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate." Say this out loud in the final 30-60 seconds of the rep. If you can say it on one breath, you're likely under LT2!
Although at 13 syllables, "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate" in one breath is a lot more than Bakken's 3-5 short words as Scandie runner said.

I went back to Bakken's books to verify, and the info is a bit different between the Norwegian and English versions.

The Norwegian book says:
* 3-5 words: around the threshold
* A sample sentence with 21 syllables: too far below the threshold

The English book says:
* A complete sentence: below threshold
* A few words: around threshold
* Single words: well above

Both books say:
* Use the same text/story/lyrics every time, so you know at what word you need to stop for a breath. That way, you can soon map the session intensity to a specific word.

1 month ago 05/01/2026 3:36pm EDT

re: Scandinavian runner

Scandinavian runner wrote:
How does it feel to feel? wrote:
Although at 13 syllables, "I feel good, I feel great, I want to communicate" in one breath is a lot more than Bakken's 3-5 short words as Scandie runner said.
Both books say:
* Use the same text/story/lyrics every time, so you know at what word you need to stop for a breath. That way, you can soon map the session intensity to a specific word.

Very useful again, thank you. I'm going to try simply counting aloud - it makes its own scale and if overheard would just sound like someone doing something technical to do with their running.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 9:13am EDT

re: jma

I have been following NSM for 18-months running 6 days a week. Certainly the most consistent period since taking up running. For much of last year my schedule was:

ST - E - ST - E - ST - R - L

This gave me 5:30-6 hours of running a week. This had to be scheduled around work and a young family.

The above was sustainable and I got a 2 minute PB over 10k (38:43) although my previous PB was soft. A couple of HM where I was within a minute of my existing PB (1:26 high) and some 5ks (high 19s/20) which were a minute short of my PB. With this schedule I was maxing out my load. Looking at increasing volume/load sustainably has led me to the following schedule:

E - E* - ST - E - E* - R - L+

E* is a run commute and L+ is a long run with 30m at HM/M+ within. This way I have gradually increased total time running from 6 hours to 7 hours.

Whilst volume has increased, relative intensity has reduced because I've dropped a ST session. I could add one to the Friday commute but I don't think that's realistic week in week out. Whilst I've moved away from plain vanilla NSM (as much as I was doing it over 6 days) I've tried to stick to the principles of sustainably increasing load which is what the current schedule is doing.

Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness. I run using Stryd and my critical power tests are flat compared to this time last year. With a greater emphasis on easy running it might simply be the case of waiting longer for the aerobic benefits to translate. Or it serves to highlight the benefit/importance of the third ST session and how much bang for your buck it provides.

I have a 10k and HM this month so time will tell if it translates into races. The 10k is not a PB route, but the HM is the same as previous years so a good benchmark.

Would be interested to hear any feedback/criticism or if anyone has had to adopt a similar approach and how long it took for improvement to show.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 10:38am EDT

re: Ashwagandha

Ashwagandha wrote:
I have been following NSM for 18-months running 6 days a week. Certainly the most consistent period since taking up running. For much of last year my schedule was:
ST - E - ST - E - ST - R - L
This gave me 5:30-6 hours of running a week. This had to be scheduled around work and a young family.
The above was sustainable and I got a 2 minute PB over 10k (38:43) although my previous PB was soft. A couple of HM where I was within a minute of my existing PB (1:26 high) and some 5ks (high 19s/20) which were a minute short of my PB. With this schedule I was maxing out my load. Looking at increasing volume/load sustainably has led me to the following schedule:
E - E* - ST - E - E* - R - L+
E* is a run commute and L+ is a long run with 30m at HM/M+ within. This way I have gradually increased total time running from 6 hours to 7 hours.
Whilst volume has increased, relative intensity has reduced because I've dropped a ST session. I could add one to the Friday commute but I don't think that's realistic week in week out. Whilst I've moved away from plain vanilla NSM (as much as I was doing it over 6 days) I've tried to stick to the principles of sustainably increasing load which is what the current schedule is doing.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness. I run using Stryd and my critical power tests are flat compared to this time last year. With a greater emphasis on easy running it might simply be the case of waiting longer for the aerobic benefits to translate. Or it serves to highlight the benefit/importance of the third ST session and how much bang for your buck it provides.
I have a 10k and HM this month so time will tell if it translates into races. The 10k is not a PB route, but the HM is the same as previous years so a good benchmark.
Would be interested to hear any feedback/criticism or if anyone has had to adopt a similar approach and how long it took for improvement to show.

You could just increase the length of your easy runs and ST sessions, which you can find in the NSM book.

As for Stryd you need to have max efforts at various distances for its estimated critical power to be accurate.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 10:52am EDT

re: Trille

Trille wrote:
Ashwagandha wrote:
I have been following NSM for 18-months running 6 days a week. Certainly the most consistent period since taking up running. For much of last year my schedule was:
ST - E - ST - E - ST - R - L
This gave me 5:30-6 hours of running a week. This had to be scheduled around work and a young family.
The above was sustainable and I got a 2 minute PB over 10k (38:43) although my previous PB was soft. A couple of HM where I was within a minute of my existing PB (1:26 high) and some 5ks (high 19s/20) which were a minute short of my PB. With this schedule I was maxing out my load. Looking at increasing volume/load sustainably has led me to the following schedule:
E - E* - ST - E - E* - R - L+
E* is a run commute and L+ is a long run with 30m at HM/M+ within. This way I have gradually increased total time running from 6 hours to 7 hours.
Whilst volume has increased, relative intensity has reduced because I've dropped a ST session. I could add one to the Friday commute but I don't think that's realistic week in week out. Whilst I've moved away from plain vanilla NSM (as much as I was doing it over 6 days) I've tried to stick to the principles of sustainably increasing load which is what the current schedule is doing.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness. I run using Stryd and my critical power tests are flat compared to this time last year. With a greater emphasis on easy running it might simply be the case of waiting longer for the aerobic benefits to translate. Or it serves to highlight the benefit/importance of the third ST session and how much bang for your buck it provides.
I have a 10k and HM this month so time will tell if it translates into races. The 10k is not a PB route, but the HM is the same as previous years so a good benchmark.
Would be interested to hear any feedback/criticism or if anyone has had to adopt a similar approach and how long it took for improvement to show.
You could just increase the length of your easy runs and ST sessions, which you can find in the NSM book.
As for Stryd you need to have max efforts at various distances for its estimated critical power to be accurate.

As they are undertaking critical power tests I think we can assume they understand keeping an accurate CP.

Fair point on increasing volume on E/ST. I suppose it'll come down to whether they have time to do so? Only they can answer that.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 11:33am EDT

re: bishop muzorewa

bishop muzorewa wrote:
Trille wrote:
You could just increase the length of your easy runs and ST sessions, which you can find in the NSM book.
As for Stryd you need to have max efforts at various distances for its estimated critical power to be accurate.
As they are undertaking critical power tests I think we can assume they understand keeping an accurate CP.
Fair point on increasing volume on E/ST. I suppose it'll come down to whether they have time to do so? Only they can answer that.

The CP tests are quite stressful, though, as they really are max (close) effort. I find them very hard to do.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 12:44pm EDT

re: Trille

Trille wrote:
bishop muzorewa wrote:
As they are undertaking critical power tests I think we can assume they understand keeping an accurate CP.
Fair point on increasing volume on E/ST. I suppose it'll come down to whether they have time to do so? Only they can answer that.
The CP tests are quite stressful, though, as they really are max (close) effort. I find them very hard to do.

Agreed. I found replacing the standard 3'/12' CP test with a 1 mile TT just as effective at dialing in my CP, provided I'm also balancing it with a 5K TT some weeks later.

This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted. Reason provided: clarification

1 month ago 05/02/2026 1:13pm EDT

re: Ashwagandha

Ashwagandha wrote:
I have been following NSM for 18-months running 6 days a week. Certainly the most consistent period since taking up running. For much of last year my schedule was:
ST - E - ST - E - ST - R - L
This gave me 5:30-6 hours of running a week. This had to be scheduled around work and a young family.
The above was sustainable and I got a 2 minute PB over 10k (38:43) although my previous PB was soft. A couple of HM where I was within a minute of my existing PB (1:26 high) and some 5ks (high 19s/20) which were a minute short of my PB. With this schedule I was maxing out my load. Looking at increasing volume/load sustainably has led me to the following schedule:
E - E* - ST - E - E* - R - L+
E* is a run commute and L+ is a long run with 30m at HM/M+ within. This way I have gradually increased total time running from 6 hours to 7 hours.
Whilst volume has increased, relative intensity has reduced because I've dropped a ST session. I could add one to the Friday commute but I don't think that's realistic week in week out. Whilst I've moved away from plain vanilla NSM (as much as I was doing it over 6 days) I've tried to stick to the principles of sustainably increasing load which is what the current schedule is doing.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness. I run using Stryd and my critical power tests are flat compared to this time last year. With a greater emphasis on easy running it might simply be the case of waiting longer for the aerobic benefits to translate. Or it serves to highlight the benefit/importance of the third ST session and how much bang for your buck it provides.
I have a 10k and HM this month so time will tell if it translates into races. The 10k is not a PB route, but the HM is the same as previous years so a good benchmark.
Would be interested to hear any feedback/criticism or if anyone has had to adopt a similar approach and how long it took for improvement to show.

Based on those performances and the new schedule you may just be a low responder, but it depends what your training was like before NSM. How did that CTL compare?

How long was the 5.5/6h to 7h transition and what is CTL now compared with then?

Is the rest day mandatory?

Is E* just E done as doubles or is there something more different to it?

My experience has been that the 3rd workout and 7 day schedule makes quite a difference, both of which you're now missing.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 2:25pm EDT

re: Trille

Trille wrote:
bishop muzorewa wrote:
As they are undertaking critical power tests I think we can assume they understand keeping an accurate CP.
Fair point on increasing volume on E/ST. I suppose it'll come down to whether they have time to do so? Only they can answer that.
The CP tests are quite stressful, though, as they really are max (close) effort. I find them very hard to do.

As it happens I did a CP test (3 & 12) last night. Since adopting NSM my 3' power hasn't changed significantly which isn't surprising as I'm not training that side of the curve. The 12' is more complicated as shoes have changed and frustratingly with Stryd I find the reported power can vary across shoes. When looking at pace/distance covered in the 12' segment at present my effort is about 200m shorter than this time last year but 2w higher with similar air power. Probably easier going back to pace as the primary metric.

This all comes back to my wonderment that increased easy running isn't overcoming the loss of stimulus from the ST session.

From a sustainability perspective I think 7 hours is about it for me at the moment until if/when it becomes possible to run 7 days a week.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 2:53pm EDT

re: Ashwagandha

Very hard to tell progress by power like you, it's all over the place with different shoes. Like many others, wind isn't probably picked up correctly.

Much easier to just find a regular loop or something that you can run and you'll see over conditions, seasons, weathers it'll all even out and you'll know if you are faster or slower over 6-12 months.

1 month ago 05/02/2026 3:09pm EDT

re: Long haul truckin

Long haul truckin wrote:
jecht wrote:
Appreciate you! After reading this, I'll go back and re-read my Faster Road Racing just to get a refresher. While I am sticking with NSM for now
That seems like the right call. Consistency — stacking quality week after week, month after month, year after year — is the path to results, and NSM is as strongly geared at that path as anything you’re likely to find.

Exactly. I read the FRR book and then closed it after 5 mins. Sticking with NSM. Was cool reading about some training plans but after actually doing NSM since last year and sticking with it, I've been able to stack mileage consistently and not get hurt. Vanilla is the way to go. Boring but effective. I don't have to think too much about my training weekly, and I don't need to spend $ to get a coach.

Had a coach last year who was really experienced but they'd recommend workout week like this: EZ 7 on Monday, Progression run from MP to 10k Tuesday (6 miles), EZ 6 Wednesday, 11 miles on Thursday, with 9 at GMP (!). EZ run Friday, 18 on Saturday, rest on Sunday. I modified the training plan and broke up the coach's recommendations into ST runs and shorter intervals to stay healthy. Wound up getting an ear infection and ran a 1:33 half in a monsoon last fall for fun.

After my half last year I took time off to work on a few mental things and dancing post-divorce, fix some mechanical imbalances and do ART, then gently ease into running again, with a true focus on sticking with NSM as prescribed (E-ST-E-ST-E-LR-E or Off on day 7).

Also, appreciate everyone's contributions re: the talk test. I will do that when I do my NSM sessions next week as a rough gauge. Glad this thread is still going strong!

This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: edited for clarity

1 month ago 05/02/2026 3:35pm EDT

re: Colin Robinson

Colin Robinson wrote:
Ashwagandha wrote:
I have been following NSM for 18-months running 6 days a week. Certainly the most consistent period since taking up running. For much of last year my schedule was:
ST - E - ST - E - ST - R - L
This gave me 5:30-6 hours of running a week. This had to be scheduled around work and a young family.
The above was sustainable and I got a 2 minute PB over 10k (38:43) although my previous PB was soft. A couple of HM where I was within a minute of my existing PB (1:26 high) and some 5ks (high 19s/20) which were a minute short of my PB. With this schedule I was maxing out my load. Looking at increasing volume/load sustainably has led me to the following schedule:
E - E* - ST - E - E* - R - L+
E* is a run commute and L+ is a long run with 30m at HM/M+ within. This way I have gradually increased total time running from 6 hours to 7 hours.
Whilst volume has increased, relative intensity has reduced because I've dropped a ST session. I could add one to the Friday commute but I don't think that's realistic week in week out. Whilst I've moved away from plain vanilla NSM (as much as I was doing it over 6 days) I've tried to stick to the principles of sustainably increasing load which is what the current schedule is doing.
Whilst my CTL is higher than what it previously maxed out at under the more vanilla approach, there haven't been any tangible increases of fitness. I run using Stryd and my critical power tests are flat compared to this time last year. With a greater emphasis on easy running it might simply be the case of waiting longer for the aerobic benefits to translate. Or it serves to highlight the benefit/importance of the third ST session and how much bang for your buck it provides.
I have a 10k and HM this month so time will tell if it translates into races. The 10k is not a PB route, but the HM is the same as previous years so a good benchmark.
Would be interested to hear any feedback/criticism or if anyone has had to adopt a similar approach and how long it took for improvement to show.
Based on those performances and the new schedule you may just be a low responder, but it depends what your training was like before NSM. How did that CTL compare?
How long was the 5.5/6h to 7h transition and what is CTL now compared with then?
Is the rest day mandatory?
Is E* just E done as doubles or is there something more different to it?
My experience has been that the 3rd workout and 7 day schedule makes quite a difference, both of which you're now missing.

Yeah the rest day is mandatory; family life. The E* is a run commute so just a longer easy run really. I guess it's for my own mental accounting that I separate it from the rest.

Pre NSM I ran and would just throw sessions together at random so the simplicity/repeatable nature of this really appealed. I didn't track load before NSM. CTL this time last year was 56 vs. 61 today. Last year on the 6 day version I peaked at 59 whereas on current trajectory will peak at 68. I can't run to infinity because of school holidays so always have a download weeks alas.

1 month ago 05/03/2026 12:22pm EDT

re: How does it feel to feel?

How does it feel to feel? wrote:
Scandinavian runner wrote:
Both books say:
* Use the same text/story/lyrics every time, so you know at what word you need to stop for a breath. That way, you can soon map the session intensity to a specific word.
Very useful again, thank you. I'm going to try simply counting aloud - it makes its own scale and if overheard would just sound like someone doing something technical to do with their running.

Was thinking the same, its all seems to be made overcomplicated. If you can count till 5 out loud this means your under LT2. Or am I missing something?

Page 629 of 661

1 628 629 630 661

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Jump To A Page

Follow Scandinavian runner

Block Scandinavian runner

Follow AOB33

Block AOB33

Follow FelixSprock

Block FelixSprock

Follow Scandinavian runner

Block Scandinavian runner

Follow atoponce

Block atoponce

Follow jecht

Block jecht

Follow ews1982

Block ews1982

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.