Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Thanks. On one hand this seems obvious but on the other hand I kind of assumed threshold HR would be the same across similar aerobic activities. I figured I just sucked at going hard on the bike/wasn't adapted, which seems to at least be partially true.

Hi All,

Sorry if this is in the previous 634 pages but...

I'm interested in trying out NSM. Thing is, my intervals.icu fitness score is already in the mid 60s, and when I plug in classic NSM type sessions, they look to only produce a load in the mid 60s. If my easy days will obviously be a lower load, I'm wondering how you all would recommend manipulating the variables to keep fitness / CTL pushing into the higher 60s and 70s? Or would I probably just be better off with a classic double threshold program, time permitting?

I'm interested in moving away from a highly polarized system and do something more threshold / sub-threshold based.

Thanks for any guidance.

how many hours do you now and how many do you plan to do with NSM?

it will get closer over time, especially if you start incorporating any intensity on the bike

my cycling max hr is pretty in line with my running max, but id say cycling lthr is still 5bpm under my running lthr

this is after 4 years of a lot of ‘cross training’ on the bike, for context

not using your arms probably accounts for the gap?

Don't worry about it as long as NSM has more intensity than your previous plan (it probably has). Usual training load measures overestimate easy running and undervalue sub-threshold/threshold work. If you can handle more sub-threshold then the logical step is to start doubling on one out of 3 days but before you do that remember that the man run 10k below 31minues on vanilla.

I’m glad to see KI is doing some longer workouts. He did at least three half marathon length continuous workouts/tempos. Though he still does 1k reps for some reason. He’s more slow twitch so that’s probably why.

I got my fill of marathons done in my 20s post college so it’s been awhile, but plenty of long continuous workouts (think 10-13 mile tempos) is important to a successful marathon in my opinion. Though I admit I stopped caring or following marathon training the last 20 years, lol. Leave that crazy race to the durable folks in their 20s.

Has anyone looked into Keith Baar style tendon training? Specifically the twice-a-day low intensity isometric holds that made waves through the climbing community via Emil Abrahamsson? Additionally, Baar has been on a lot of fitness podcasts in the last few years discussing it, though mostly not specifically for runners.

It seems like a very good min-max addition for runners so I thought I'd bring it up in this thread, since I personally see NSM as rooted in min-max philosophy both with respect to time and effort.

I haven't nailed down an exact routine yet but I've been trying a variety of isometric holds, keeping in mind that they shouldn't be too difficult nor too easy. There's potential for targeting multiple tendons simultaneously. The intensity is so low that you can do a continuous circuit, rotating through body parts. Additionally, I believe such a routine can completely replace any prehab, activation or stretching people might be doing. And while the perfect routine might be something you'd want to set aside time for, some tendon training you could sneakily do in the office, on the bus, while standing, etc. Or you can do an entire routine while watching TV.

And with respect to the discussions on concentric strength training, I believe isometric training to be more valuable to more people, take less equipment, take less time, be less fatiguing, etc.

In order of things I'd add from a min-max standpoint (considering both time investment and effort vs benefit to running performance [factoring in health / injury prevention]), daily or twice-a-day low intensity isometrics are the easy first choice, then a weekly high intensity isometric (4-6s max effort), and lastly concentric strength training (which I'm not even sure is worth it at all if you're doing these first two and you're also doing some sprinting/bounding/hopping during your runs).

What isometric exercises and what tendons will you target? Finger tendon strength is something highly specialized.

Have not looked into Kieth Baar specifically but will! Thanks for sharing. Isometrics are will known for protective effects and pain reduction. I am very prone to insertional achilles pain from haglund's deformity and do 2x30sec iso calf raise holds three times per day. It has helped a ton in managing pain!

Other than using time, how do you vary the intensity with isometric hold?

You can make the position more challenging. A common example is going from an elevated plank to a horizontal plank. Depending on the position there may be a skill acquisition period as well, like learning to do a planche hold for example.

You can also voluntarily maximally contract the muscles you are targeting. Using the RPE scale you want MVC to be 9 or 10/10.

There's been a lot of interesting followup in the climbing community about what works and doesn't work about Abrahangs. As I read it, the general consensus now is that it can be helpful for prehab/rehab of tendon/pulley injuries, which will lead to short term maximal strength gains as the body/CNS becomes more comfortable pushing harder. But it's not particularly useful for long term power gains, except through injury prevention.

On the running side, I would say eccentric movement is more prevalent as it provides similar benefits but it's more effective at healing/strengthening tendons and ligaments. (It's hard to impossible to do controlled eccentrics with your fingers on the climbing side, so isos are preferred.) For example, the standard of care for Achilles issues (which may be the most common injury for experienced runners), is high-rep, weighted eccentric calf drops, twice a day. 20 years ago, the gold standard was surgery, but they found that eccentric movement was effective for 90%+ of athletes struggling with long term acute tendinopathy.

I just listened to the his interview on the Marathonlappet podcast .. He was actually asked about his thought on NSA .. Seemed like he never had heard of it and was quite dismissive

Something like "Yeah .. It's probably a great way to get into running and a good base phase when you have a longer stretch without any races, but meh ... "

-

I ordered his book too, but it has yet to arrive.

Based solely on that podcast, I get the feeling that he has no clue about what it is to be a hobby jogger, despite them saying that half the book is being aimed at new runners.

Tho to his credit, he does make the point that consistency over years and not measuring improvements over weeks, but over months is what made him good in the first place.

At least his book is half price of Bakkens Norwegian book, so no big deal .. Hopefully a fun read :)

I think we have had lots of people like this drop into the thread, or offer there expert opinions on NSM. It usually comes down to a lot of people, who actually do have a lot of great knowledge about training and elite running, having absolutely no clue how best to apply such knowledge to hobby runners. Or at least not understanding the challenges amateurs face.

Probably that's why NSM has caught on so well. Hobby joggers face totally different problems and it was designed with that all as a starting point, then just fitting in the key elements with the time we have available, of cramming in the best parts of training and leaving the overrated bits out.

It's usually elite runners or coaches who can't get their head around some of this, in that nobody can possibly cover all bases consistently on 5-8 hours a week. So you may as well just prioritise the stuff that'll get you the most gains, or at least the most likely to.

Tbh this is it. I've been coached by an ex elite runner who now coaches other elites as well as offering hobby joggers coaching services. It was poor. Not because he was a bad coach for elites, but because he had absolutely no idea how it was almost impossible for me to fit in his plan with a 9-5 and two kids and a wife. What he valued looking back was overkill for my level.

I'm never going to quite make even sub elite, let alone elite, so something like NSM appealed and have now had much better success.

If you gave me sirpoc , I'm sure I would have been better coached than the elite coach I had. Likewise, if I woke up one morning and suddenly found an extra 3 minutes in a 5k in terms of ability, I'm sure the elite coach would be a better option for me to compete for international than sirpoc.

You're probably right that Almgren has little knowledge about what it is to be a hobby jogger, but there was one piece that I thought was interesting: he said that elite runners immediately feels when they pass LT2, while recreational runners don't. However, he didn't write the reason why.

Following my conversion to NSM, and the realisation that hobby joggers copying scaled down elite training is not optimum. I now see Steve Magness in a different light. He posted a YouTube a few months ago on a masterclass on periodisation. He filled up a white board with every conceivable interval (differing paces/distances/recoveries) under the sun. It was expected that the paces could be increased every week. It would be insane for hobby joggers to attempt to follow such a plan. He is the antithesis to Bakken, who strongly advocates against such variety. Yet he promotes his book, go figure.

Stephen Scullion did a YouTube interview the other day about the sub 2 marathon. He was asked about the difference between hobby joggers, sub elites, elites etc. Not sure if people want to categorise him as an elite or sub elite, but he said that a 2 hour marathon was light years away from where he was as a 2:09 PB. A 2:09 is light years away from say a 2:24. He said he could take 10 months off training, put on a bit of weight, and easily go and run a sub 3 hr marathon, probably easily run a sub 2:40. So, him as a beginner or out of training is light years away from someone trying to say break 4 hours in their early marathon progress. This sort of puts it into perspective how ridiculous it is think that hobby joggers should be copying elites. But that appears to be what many coaches are doing.

I guess because the elite one had done a lot of testing on themselves and are out there running sub-threshold 5 times a week.

Overcomplicating things without any evidence behind them is not a sign of expertise.

This is just clueless design. You can't predict when or even if you are able to increase paces. Progress is not linear, life gets in a way, infections and other problems happen, sometimes you body doesn't respond to training very well sometimes it responds amazingly. All those nice plans with progression built-in based on time passing is just moron level design detached from physiological realities.

This is why Sirpoc in NSM doesn't do that. He gives you paces for your current level. When those start feeling too easy or you prove your level in actual race or time-trial you increase them (go to another row in the table). It may take 2 weeks, it may take 3 months. No one is able to predict it. Pretending you can makes you a moron, not a good coach.