Yes, I am 18 years old now and have run 29:15 for 10k (road) and 14:06 for 5k down from 14:35 and 29:57 last year, experimented a lot last year with what worked for me load wise, so only have been following this exact plan for 4-5 months. Previously, I was doing a three-workout week schedule with two double thresholds and one harder effort at around 15 mpw less and felt more fatigued on that schedule, and yes, I have incorporated one race pace session per week in the weeks leading up to my races.
Legs Forked Score - on a scale of 1 to 10 how forked are your legs? 10 is after a marathon and you can't walk down stairs for a week, just totally forking forked. Buggered beyond belief. 1 or 2 is how your legs should feel the morning of an ST workout.
HR is as good a starting point as we have I still think. Especially for easy running and pitching them. For workouts, obviously it can be pretty variable, this is what DFA a1 might be very useful. I use the word might, as I'm still not convinced or have enough data.
But even for easy running, DFA a1 could maybe tell you something HR itself doesn't.
Take my two runs yesterday, this is a very basic example. The morning felt like a slog, felt tired, it gave me a training readiness of about -15 (this is bad). HR wasn't sky high, but reasonably slow for the effort. DFA a1 was under 1.0 average for the run. That's low for me. But the key being DFA still sat on a plateau, it didn't drop, it was just lower. So it indicates fatigue, but intensity was still controlled and it was definitely still an easy run, nowhere near any marker to worry about.
The evening run was opposite, I felt great. HR was a bit higher by a couple of beats, but felt so much easier. DFA a1 was back to being north of 1.1, which is what I'm usually seeing on my easy runs. Pace (not that this matters) was also significantly faster. Again, DFA after stabilising after the first 10 mins sat on a plateau which indicates intensity was controlled and the higher number more likely just representing there was clearly less peripheral fatigue.
This is just a very very basic example of something HR might not be able to tell you, but DFA a1 can if you have consistent markers.
What can I do with that information? Not a lot. I would have completed both runs almost exactly the same anyway. Maybe yesterday when I got a -15 RA on the alert panel I could have slowed down more? But the run I did was still incredibly easy in the grand scheme. If yesterday evening it was still in the same situation as the morning? Maybe when I hop on the bike in a minute I could really dial back the session.
I don't know. It remains to be seen for me how I could use or apply it going forward, but certainly has the potential to be very useful on paper.
How are you cropping the data? Removing the first 90 seconds of Dfa from a rep? I have also seen much lower values running.
How are you cropping the data? Removing the first 90 seconds of Dfa from a rep? I have also seen much lower values running.
I'm taking out the first 90 seconds of reps running and the first 2 minutes cycling. The DFA value you see is the rolling value of the last 200 beats, assuming you are using AlphaHRV. So, when you are at a highish intensity, that rolling window closes quicker, but you still need 200 beats for the old data (either you warm up, or standing around during reps) to clear out. The higher your HR, the quicker the old non workout data will clear (this is why I crop the reps later cycling).
I hope that makes sense and that's a very basic way of understanding it, which means for me the first 90+ seconds of a rep is effectively the start point where I'm just collecting workout data that's not from the rolling window of the warm up or rest. Quite important to understand this. It's very easy to crop it out in intervals .icu though. Once you have fiddled around with it lock the intervals. Using my phone they have a weird and annoying habit of changing at will when I click on the graphs.
Also, maybe they could give an option in the app instead of showing the raw value from the rolling window, maybe show the average raw value for the last 30 seconds on the display? Sort of like you would do with power data. That would keep the value a bit smoother to look at and take out any momentary peaks or dips. Some people have said they glance at it 4-5 times over a few minutes and average it out in their head. I'm far too stupid to be able to workout and do mental maths.
Most people I've seen so far have had much lower values running than cycling for DFA a1. As long as you data is consistent (which isn't a given considering Hard2find isn't managing to get data that makes sense) I don't see that this matters. In fact, perhaps the lower value for running represents the increasing autonomic or pysiological cost of running over cycling. For me, at subthreshold cycling, DFA is closer to an easy run, then a sub threshold run. Maybe that's also why cycling is such a free hit, the fatigue cost even at half an hour sub threshold isn't much worse than the equivalent time easy running. This could be important. Or it might mean nothing. But it's certainly something to ponder on.
RR values also look excellent to use, and for the first time I'm getting some great data here above easy, which is the point at which Garmin's native RR metric seems to fail. The RR values collected by the AlphaHRV app seem very close to the RR data I got from tymewear (RIP).
There's also still the fact this could be very much like running power. Some people will find the data consistent and useful, others rubbish. You probably don't know until you play around yourself, keep the h10 strap as tight as you can handle and make sure you turn on 1s recording and HRV logging on your watch.
For anyone interested, my last two rides I didn't look at DFA, just tried to ride to Lt1 power and see how it all fell with DFA and RR after cropping out the first 2 mins of each rep. The useful thing here would be if there was a day it felt harder, so reduced the power by 10-15w but still had around the same DFA and RR. This is potentially why it's very useful to really dial in intensity to the nth degree should your training require that.
3x10 Tuesday:
Average power: 233w
Average HR 140
Average DFA a1 0.78
Average RR 38.3
3x10 today:
Average power: 233w
Average HR 140
Average DFA a1 0.76
Average RR 39.1
I must say, I am quite proud of my ability to average exactly 233w over both rides with a 10+ year old bike + power meter , dumb turbo trainer that cost £30 from halfords, (no erg mode here! ) and only 5 usable gears ha ha I should really fix my TT bike up and race.
Using the control of the treadmill, I'm also seeing similarly consistent data for 5x6 reps. But definitely need a lot more time for all of this. That's probably enough on all this now, I'll collect data and maybe post up final thoughts when I've either got 6 months worth of before if I give up and deem the whole thing pointless ha ha.
This is very much something that again I want to make clear most people don't need to remotely be worrying about. We are so far into the weeds for most people I almost didn't bother posting. But I do agree, if it's useful (as someone pointed out) it's very useful for users of the "British Time Trial Method". Didn't catch on either, much like LFS.
Legs Forked Score - on a scale of 1 to 10 how forked are your legs? 10 is after a marathon and you can't walk down stairs for a week, just totally forking forked. Buggered beyond belief. 1 or 2 is how your legs should feel the morning of an ST workout.
Legs Forked Score - on a scale of 1 to 10 how forked are your legs? 10 is after a marathon and you can't walk down stairs for a week, just totally forking forked. Buggered beyond belief. 1 or 2 is how your legs should feel the morning of an ST workout.
This is it ha ha.
LOL - not sure if you're forking with me but I like it!
We do agree that doing different length intervals for each ST workout (3min, 6 min and 10 min) is mostly to ward off boredom, right? (I tend to remember sirpoc writing something along those lines).
The park located just outside my door is a nice 7,5 min loop, so by far the easiest solution for me would just be to do 4 times that 7,5 minutes loop ever every time.
Yes, I am 18 years old now and have run 29:15 for 10k (road) and 14:06 for 5k down from 14:35 and 29:57 last year, experimented a lot last year with what worked for me load wise, so only have been following this exact plan for 4-5 months. Previously, I was doing a three-workout week schedule with two double thresholds and one harder effort at around 15 mpw less and felt more fatigued on that schedule, and yes, I have incorporated one race pace session per week in the weeks leading up to my races.
Good stuff! Stay healthy and you’ll keep improving. I ran my road 10k PB (29:19) at 28 years old so you’ve got time! I took another look at your schedule - are you taking Sundays off? Maybe I missed something. Bakken has said in his book and on numerous podcasts that there is a lot of opportunity for experimentation so nice job applying the principles into something that works for you.
We have seen many iterations from different athletes:
- Marco Langon. Closer to your structure…
- Hobbs Kessler. Double T on Tue and Sat. No long run. Probably appropriate for 800/1500 guy.
- Vincent Mauri (recent 2:05 marathon debut). 1 double t day, 1 fast long run, 1-2 very fast strides day (26-28 for 200m). Easy runs not that easy (~6:00/mile).
Many more but that’s a few that come to mind. If we’ve learned anything from Bakken and Sirpoc, it’s about finding a schedule that balances adaptation and fatigue and can be repeated for many months.
Problem being when you get faster and it's no longer a 7'30" loop anymore!
Just do 1.3 laps for 10' reps, ⅘ of a lap for 6' reps, ⅖ of a lap for 3'?
It'll be fun when you realise you've gradually reached the point where you're finishing you reps a little bit farther on than the last time. If you finish far away from your doorstep, just think of the walk back as a cooldown.
1) Is anyone else's Garmin crapping the bed when the AlphaHRV data field is active? Feels like it's way more sluggish than usual when pushing a button. Sometimes even time / seconds seem to freeze, which ... is not optimal.
2) Does DFA a1 stay fairly even for you over the course of an interval? Mine seems to jump around a lot when running, despite artifacts sitting at 0%. Maybe my HRV is just all over the place in general, idk.
3) Do you find any of the data actionable? For easy and long runs I definitely see the potential value; my baseline for easy runs is somewhere around 1.15-1.20, so if I fall below 1.10 early on, that might be a sign to take it slower than usual.
But for 4x10 subT intervals, for example, I've seen the first interval at 0.6, the second at 0.8, the third at 0.7 and the fourth at 0.85 or something along those lines, despite running at same pace. Not sure what to learn from that really -- other than maybe to improve my terrible warm-up.
I altered the typical version of the norwegian approach, and tuned it to about 85 running miles per week, with racing focus on 5k-10k, and have seen significant success.
Monday (~20 mi):
AM: 2mi wu + 4x3k @3:35-3:40 (3 min jog) +1.25mi cd (grass, dirt or other technical terrain)
PM: 1mi wu + 10x1k @ 3:08-3:10 (60s full rest) + 1mi cd (track)
Tuesday:
AM: 8mi easy + 4 strides
PM: 30 min XT
Wednesday:
AM: 8mi easy + 4 strides PM: 30 min XT
Thursday (~19 mi):
AM: 1.5mi wu + 6x2k @3:30-3:35 (2 min jog) + 1.5mi cd (grass, dirt or other technical terrain)
PM: 1mi wu + 20x400m @70-72 (30s full rest) +1.5mi cd (track)
Friday:
AM: 8mi easy + 4 strides PM: 30 min XT
Sat: 15 mi easy (gravel)
Key notes:
Two sessions rather than three - Have found that I recover better with two days in between workout days, not because I am above threshold effort, but the sheer volume requires two days to recover from.
Surface notations - Taking a nod from the Ethiopians, I have found that doing the volume-heavy morning threshold sessions on a cross-country loop or other technical surface and the long run on gravel provides muscular benefits in the lower leg muscles (gastrocnemius, soleus, and Achilles tendon), improves running economy, and decreases jarring impact upon the knee, instead strengthening the stabilizer muscles. This incorporation is roughly 35% of total weekly volume being done on a softer surface than asphalt or concrete.
Absence of hill-work - "The intention of hill work in the Norwegian approach is to maintain high-end speed and neuromuscular turnover," according to Bakken, as short bursts of speed helps prevent the neuromuscular system from becoming too attuned to a single, moderate pace, or threshold effort. However, strides can incorporate this same stimulus, without the spike in lactate and soreness that comes the next day with hill repeats.
Incorporation of XT - The primary proponent of the Norwegian method being volume, the incorporation of greater aerobic stimulus is therefore positive, but comes at the cost of injury. Arc trainer, which shares the most similiarities of any machine to traditional running, can provide similar aerobic stimulus at the Zone 1 level without any mechanical cost.
This is a biweekly system, with alternate evening workouts, but as this post is already long, I can provide the full system in another post if there are further questions.
This is great but the scope of this thread is basically for people who don't have time/can't double threshold
The title of the thread is “Modifying the Norwegian Method to lower mileage.” It is not limited to discussions of vanilla NSM. That’s one version of it. Many people are very interested in lower mileage double-T methods that work. Heck, even Sirpoc is doing hybrid bike-run double days.
Problem being when you get faster and it's no longer a 7'30" loop anymore!
Just do 1.3 laps for 10' reps, ⅘ of a lap for 6' reps, ⅖ of a lap for 3'? is
It'll be fun when you realise you've gradually reached the point where you're finishing you reps a little bit farther on than the last time. If you finish far away from your doorstep, just think of the walk back as a cooldown.
This is just a silly answer :)
-
First of all it implies that I'll very quickly will get faster
Secondly I have the same problem with your 1.3 lap becoming 1.4 lap etc.
Thirdly your answer does not in any way address my question, which is if there is a particular reason that we do different interval lengths other than to relieve boredom?
-
I could off course be a slave to my Garmin and let it beep every whatever after whatever number of minutes I've decided on followed by a beep after the appropriate rest, but it's just mentally easier to run from A to B than spending energy on your watch.
There is a reason our hero's like Sirpoc write 10x1000m or 12x800m on their Strava and not 10x3 minutes or 12x2minutes and 40 seconds :D.
In fact, perhaps the lower value for running represents the increasing autonomic or pysiological cost of running over cycling. For me, at subthreshold cycling, DFA is closer to an easy run, then a sub threshold run. Maybe that's also why cycling is such a free hit, the fatigue cost even at half an hour sub threshold isn't much worse than the equivalent time easy running. This could be important. Or it might mean nothing. But it's certainly something to ponder on.
I suspect here you have nailed it. Or come close to understanding why cross training is so powerful. You are still using a workout to improve on lactate clearance and shifting your threshold up from below, but you have explained something that can help us identity the true cost of a workout. In my mind this totally explains why you say you are so easily recovered AM from the bike for your PM run.
Problem being when you get faster and it's no longer a 7'30" loop anymore!
Just do 1.3 laps for 10' reps, ⅘ of a lap for 6' reps, ⅖ of a lap for 3'?
It'll be fun when you realise you've gradually reached the point where you're finishing you reps a little bit farther on than the last time. If you finish far away from your doorstep, just think of the walk back as a cooldown.
I've run into the same situation--I normally am able to do 3x9 min. reps and it takes exactly 3 mins. per loops. As I've gotten faster I've finished a bit farther in 9 mins. It's wild to see--not huge gains but I've gained extra 100m-200m over the last few weeks. Paces have gone from 7:50 to about 7:40 on the 9-min. reps. I do the walk back to the start as the cooldown, 90s recovery.
1) Is anyone else's Garmin crapping the bed when the AlphaHRV data field is active? Feels like it's way more sluggish than usual when pushing a button. Sometimes even time / seconds seem to freeze, which ... is not optimal.
2) Does DFA a1 stay fairly even for you over the course of an interval? Mine seems to jump around a lot when running, despite artifacts sitting at 0%. Maybe my HRV is just all over the place in general, idk.
3) Do you find any of the data actionable? For easy and long runs I definitely see the potential value; my baseline for easy runs is somewhere around 1.15-1.20, so if I fall below 1.10 early on, that might be a sign to take it slower than usual.
But for 4x10 subT intervals, for example, I've seen the first interval at 0.6, the second at 0.8, the third at 0.7 and the fourth at 0.85 or something along those lines, despite running at same pace. Not sure what to learn from that really -- other than maybe to improve my terrible warm-up.
1) Yes on one of my older watches, this was the case. A newer model with update, is fine.
2) No, it doesn't stay stable exactly second to second. As sirpoc points out, it's part of a moving average. So, his idea seems to be very good. Maybe they can give you a way to just display the last 30 seconds of raw data. I would find that useful.
We do agree that doing different length intervals for each ST workout (3min, 6 min and 10 min) is mostly to ward off boredom, right? (I tend to remember sirpoc writing something along those lines).
The park located just outside my door is a nice 7,5 min loop, so by far the easiest solution for me would just be to do 4 times that 7,5 minutes loop ever every time.
I think the consensus is the length of rep will not make much difference. I do think many of us who do the standard 3, 6 and 10 like the variety though. If you're running around a loop, you could still experiment with different rep lengths.
My personal theory is that doing at least 1 workout a week of shorter reps (e.g. 10 * 3 minutes) provides a slight benefit for 5K/10K training since it enables a faster pace. Perhaps it's purely psychological though.