Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Anyone who has forgotten to turn off their GPS device when doing an indoor workout then looked at Strava or Garmin Connect afterwards has already "done the experiment".

What they probably don't realize, but what this study demonstrates mathematically, is that those random errors in estimated position don't cancel each other out.

Fwiw, this is also totally different to two agents who have given me totally different advice when it comes to calibration.

TL;DR so I don't clog up the thread with anymore unnecessary Stryd talk: they are making it up as they go along. But a lot of us have realised that for a while when you try to use the device in a range of situations you might find useful.

You have to remember, there are a lot of intelligent people in this thread wasting their time with all sorts of useless data, so this was bound to be a refuge for those who have been ignored, blocked or called out some of the silliness that arises with them as a company.

As I said, it's a total shame as when someone does come up with a power solution that is consistent, it could provide another tool in the armoury.

The Stryd employee StrydAngus writes on Reddit that calibration is not needed and poster should concentrate on training instead. In a condescending tone. Just go look what Stryd employees writes.

I’m a Stryd Pioneer myself and find the pod useful, but when someone has questions after testing Stryd employees goes on attack: User error.

yeah id say that accurately describes what you’re doing here

we say watches are accurate outside and you talk about mathematical proofs and running in a basement

This is an underrated point that often gets swamped by people trying to compare NSM to Lydiard etc. NSM isn't Lydiard (or whatever your favorite point of comparison is), and it's not one more point in the perpetual swing of the pendulum between speed and volume. Running coaches have drawn influence from other endurance sports before, but the specific influence of time trial cycling seems unique. One of the ingenious insights of NSM is that a time trial in cycling is quite similar to the race demands of most hobby joggers, where covering the distance in the shortest time possible vastly outweighs the importance of outkicking any competitors at the end of a race.

Doable for Jakob is not the same as doable for someone using crude approximations of LT2.

its pretty simple, the worse your approximation, the more safety margin you need to not accidentally overcook the workouts. Bakken believes the cost of going above is higher than running too far from LT2.

Honestly, this is such a good point. I think I finally understood this when I read James writing about it in the book and a lightbulb went off. Why had I been following plans for years which essentially set me up to kick in a race against 10 other guys at the end of a championship lap in a 5k, when this has never been the reality of any situation I've ever been in at a race. It's silly when you think about it.

You might race against 500 other guys and gals in your local 5k, but for all intents and purposes it's really just a race against the clock for 99% of us.

NSM has kept the core of any good training, the aerobic engine, so hasn't thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but as a consequence has ditched all the icing on the cake you likely really don't need very much should our goal just be to get frkm A to B in the fastest time possible. Even the pacing section (gold for anyone) really is just how a person gets from A to B in the fastest possible time.

In that same vein Filip Ingebrigtsen was on a Norwegian podcast recently, where he was asked about his hills training.

Which he proceed to describe, but then goes:

But you know what .. Hills are the first workout I'd ditch, if I was a hobby jogger. When you're time constrained you want work outs that gives the most effect. If you only have 6-8 sessions a week then it's a waste of a session [...] Mileage is the most important thing. Threshold is great as it gives you the best mix of mileage and training harder
[...] The fewer sessions you do in a week the harder you can train

(Paraphrased and translated from memory)

Also mentions that Jakob is so strong and effective in his running form that his threshold training is practically indistinguishable from VO2max training

I'm kinda shocked by how many people are blown away by the pacing section. When I read that section I thought why did he even include that?

I figured good race pacing was basic knowledge most people learned way back from their coach in junior high, high school track & XC. Guess not, because I've read a lot of comments on here, reddit etc saying how helpful that section was, so I see why he included it. Makes me wonder how bad were people pacing themselves before, lol?

After 13000 posts there for sure must be some details of NSM that’s not covered. ;)

How about this one? I did my LR today as 8x12 mins with 1-2 min rests. HR was flatter as you'd expect and it felt considerably easier than a continuous run at the same pace (NSM book easy pace). Like, ridiculously easier. Afterwards I felt like I'd hardly run. Does anyone else do this?

What benefits would this lack compared with continuous running? How much would you need to add to normal LR distance/time to make up the difference? And how short could the reps get to still count functionally as a long run in total?

Pros - little cardiac drift, HR stays low and flat. Less mechanical stress, no fatigue in legs or joints that I'd normally get on a LR (but not regular easy run). In the heat, regular access to water/towel if doing a loop.

Cons - opposite of the pros - no stimulus to improve drift or mechanics over a long duration. Or the mental side. For more sprinter-types like me, frequent reloading of the anaerobic system, so less aerobic stimulus overall (not sure how much that would apply at snail-like easy pace).

My post you replied to was facetious, but why would you run a 8*12 minutes subT session?

LR, not subT.

Just curious, but what was the intensity of the 8x12 and what was the overall load? Did you float the rests, or were they standing/walking?

Looks about right to me, if a little bit on the conservative. Never ran a very short rep in the context of NSM, so can't comment on that. But the others are at the slow end of the range I trained at while verifying with lactate. Nowhere near those easy run paces if I want to stay below 70 of HR Max at all times, though!

One question I have is target intensity for someone with a low lactate threshold. A step test in a lab put my threshold at 2.8 mmol. Last spring (early May) when I began training according to NSM, I aimed to stay below that. And I generally did. Set my target max HR in workouts to 175 BPM, and rarely went above in sessions. Think I measured lactate above 2.8 one or two times, in sessions where I hadn't exactly adhered to that max HR. Even then lactate was just 2.9 or 3.0.

Nevertheless, I managed to cook myself towards the end of summer. Was going backwards by the end of July and completely cooked by the end of August. Didn't get back into the ‘proper’ method again through winter, but have trained according to the principles only doing two sessions per week instead of three (or every now and then three times 24 minutes) per week. Fitness has been increasing slowly, and I'm probably back to around where I peaked last summer.

So I want to go back to three sessions per week. But I've been extra cautious about keeping sessions controlled. Lowered HR limit to 170 BPM. Been handling it OK, but definitely noticing the increased load. Got out the lactate meter expecting me to sit around 2.0 mmol after 8 reps x 3 minutes where I just got above 170 BPM. Instead was at 1.4 mmol!

Looking for some thoughts on what this means. Should I look to increase the intensity of the sessions again a little bit, to try and at least get lactate above 2.0 mmol? Or, given my history of cooking myself with this approach, would I be better off just sticking to something that's probably closer to LT1 for a while?

Should note that I probably ran my easy runs a bit too fast last summer as well. Although my average HR was typically 65-66% (which is what I saw Sirpoc doing on Strava, so I thought it must be fine) I typically maxed out at 72-73 % or HR max. Hills every which way I go out the door!

Sorry for the essay, lol! If anyone can get through the post, I would appreciate tips. Just reading Sirpoc's book right now, so hopefully I'll feel more qualified to answer my own questions in a few days.

I think you are in the vast minority. Often people guage what others do by their own experiences.

I was coached in high school, had a decent college coach and nobody explained or taught pacing to me, or have I seen pacing described really in such a useful way even in another running book.

You only have to have a look on Strava to see the majority of our running friends have no clue how to pace.

It's probably the biggest thing I've taken away from sirpoc's "Time Trial Method" and I've been running since 2001.

Just NSM book easy pace, same as regular easy/long runs. For me that's 6:20/km. The rests were standing as I was towelling off and making some notes. If I jogged the rests it would probably be barely slower than the run itself, i.e. it was truly slow/easy. Overall load was the same as without the rests (I log TSS in Excel: duration*(pace/FTP)^2). It came to 96, which reflects how TSS really overrates easy running.

Was there much difference overall in your average or max hr, doing the long run this way.