Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

vdot? wrote:

Thanks for a great thread!

I'm trying to figure out the best way to follow something like this without measuring lactate (not even for the first period). It would be really cool to have a lot of data from people measuring lactate, and from this create a VDOT type table of estimated paces to hold for different distances/times. This could of course end up being wrong for many individuals, but would probably not matter much in the end if one makes sure to treat the prescribed pace as an absolute max ("pushing threshold from below" as discussed previously in the thread).

Anyway, perhaps for "the hobbiest of joggers" it is sufficient to calculate Daniel's T-pace (say) from a race and just do workouts like

10x1k at T pace,
5x2k at T-pace + 3-5s/km,
3x3k at T pace + 5-8s/km.

From looking at Strava it seems like this is more or less what Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen ends up doing in practice (his HM-pace is almost his T-pace more or less).

sirpoc84 wrote:

This quoted post has been removed.

Ha ha I did train like you suggested, for like a year or so. I was slower. What do you want me to do, train worse just so it makes me running cool? Shirtboy put it perfectly , we are mostly time limited and want the best bang for our buck training and also not to get injured. I already said, this will not get me to 100% of my potential. This is a very basic version, this isn't what Marius Bakken laid out or what Jacob is doing. It'll get me close enough that I'll keep improving for a while yet, I feel.

I actually had this conversation in real life, maybe 2 months ago. My local park run, some dude was smashing me for like a year. I literally couldn't understand what I was doing wrong. Then this year I beat his time by like 45 seconds and he spoke to me after that , asked me what I had changed. I said run slower on easy days and just run lots of sub threshold. He didn't believe me in the slightest. Said it's not possible that would speed me up, that it would almost certainly have slowed me down. His times are pretty much the same as a year agk. On the same training (we were training very similar before, I have him on Strava) he clearly was more talented than me. But once I found out how to actually train "more" than him, without increasing the hours, it's my fitness overall probably beating him, rather than any engrained talent.

Dutch guy wrote:

vdot? wrote:

Thanks for a great thread!

I'm trying to figure out the best way to follow something like this without measuring lactate (not even for the first period). It would be really cool to have a lot of data from people measuring lactate, and from this create a VDOT type table of estimated paces to hold for different distances/times. This could of course end up being wrong for many individuals, but would probably not matter much in the end if one makes sure to treat the prescribed pace as an absolute max ("pushing threshold from below" as discussed previously in the thread).

Anyway, perhaps for "the hobbiest of joggers" it is sufficient to calculate Daniel's T-pace (say) from a race and just do workouts like

10x1k at T pace,
5x2k at T-pace + 3-5s/km,
3x3k at T pace + 5-8s/km.

From looking at Strava it seems like this is more or less what Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen ends up doing in practice (his HM-pace is almost his T-pace more or less).

I follow Kristoffer on Strava, I think he does the 1k maybe more like 3:25. That's faster than Threshold velocity I think, more like 15k pace, sometimes he's even faster or mess up like he did today if u see his Strava and pacing too fast and ends up way too high lactate than normal I think that's what the English guy in this thread said he does his at as well 15k pace? Of course your idea is not a bad one, slower is better with these than going to fast. But now days here in Netherlands you can even rent a lactate meter for month for like 100 euros. I think that's a good solution and not much investment if u are serious a about this like the English spoc did. Because it can be quite individual .

Pace I think is fine, if we have an idea of lactates first. Or we are just guessing a bit. But there is a big window probably to hit. Guy page before said about HR, I don't think that is horrible idea either , if you have discipline. But only really works for 2k and 3k

Sorry if my English is bad, hope you understand.

spoc wrote:

To the guy above:

My CTL hovers around the 58-62 range. Although that number is kind of arbitratory in the sense it's only really relevant to me and how I've defined by pace , to set the training loads. If you do it by HR, it could be different etc. But as I said before, relative to me and how I collect data, I was about the same pbs for a while around the same CTL range. Which was about 50-52. That was on 6.5-7 hours a week.

But now, training using the hobby jogger Norway method, I can reach that higher CTL, for the same time training. Everything I've played around with in both sports, suggests all CTL is created roughly equal. So in that sense, I could go back to running more of a classic running approach, ditch the Norway model , get a CTL of say 60 - and be around the same for 5k I am now. The problem being, it would take me more than 7 hours to get there. Maybe 9. I can't quite squeeze that in. So for the hobby jogger with a life outside of running, the Norwegian model probably gives you the best bang for your buck, even outside of doing doubles. Which I suspect is what Kristoffer, the oldest Ingebrigtsten brother, is doing.

In terms of sessions. Again, it's pretty simple. 3 easy runs a week. All under 70% of max HR which is usually about 65% of MAS for those who work in paces as well. This will keep you definitely under LT1. Long run, I tend to just keep the same and by the end I'll be almost at the upper limit of that 70% which is the goal. I think the recent studies which was excellent, on the training characteristics of long distance elite runners (2022) had easy characterised as under 70% Max HR. That seems slow. It is slow. Very slow.

The rest of the sessions are anything from 25x400 to 3x3k.
25x400 is probably around 98-99% of Tinman's CV.
10x1k is around 12-15k pace.
5x2k is around HM pace.
6x1600 right around 10 mile pace.

I run everyday, so it's 3x easy, 1x long at the higher end of the easy boundary and 3x of the above sessions. The only fast stuff I do is are the parkruns. I've gradually improved after a huge stagnation last year and the summer before. Keep chipping time off my 5k pb each month and have for about the last 9 months now. It was around the same for ages. It's not a quick fix, but over time if you stick to it I think most people will improve and I also have felt fresher than I ever have. Also less niggles, I equate that to not doing the really hard and past paces anymore.

I try to stick to that to be honest. It keeps it simple and mixes up what the body is running at. The key to this though, is all short rest. 60 seconds for everything but the 400s at 30. But having had the lactate meter for a while, it will all be around 2.5-3.5 mmol. Again, I no longer test. But I tested enough for a good month or so to know it's good enough for me. But I'm a 17 min guy. If I was Jacob, id care enough to do it every session. As I said before, I think I'm within the margin of error (as my paces I've specifically set on the safer side rather than pushing it.

sirpoc84 wrote:

HR q wrote:

I usually run 8:20 pace too. I've inadvertently done this sort of threshold work in the past, as my speed is poor even in workouts. For example my 400 repeats would usually be 6-6:05 pace and my 5K 18:07, yet I have also run 36:39 for 10K and a 1:20 half. Is the secret to do threshold 3 times a week rather than 1? I probably can't do it without getting injured.

Everything is run at sub threshold state, the pace is going to be whatever pace it takes you to get there. You wouldn't be able to do 3 true threshold runs a week, even 1 + a vo2 max session is asking a lot. But these take less out of you, but you need to know you are running in the right area.

Let's say the 18:07 is your most recent, you are running you 400s a little faster than I would, as you are right bang on about CV. If you've run that 36:39 and that's more like your most recent fitness, then for you it might just require a slower % than me of CV for the 400s (which for me let's say 98% of CV). You are likely going to fast I would say and probably at least the last 5-6 reps are pretty rough? I'm just guessing as that's all we can do without measuring lactate.

Perhaps try 10x1k or a couple less if appropriate to your mileage. But run them around 6:15-20 per mile. See how that feels.

This is where once you get going with this, as a few others have said it becomes easier as you can adjust based on the repeatability of your workouts. The racing helps as well so you actually know where you are at, not guesswork, or what you might have done a year ago (not saying that's necessarily the case for you).

sirpoc84 wrote:

Follow up question wrote:

Probably a dumb question given the intricacies of the info but can someone clarify what you mean by sub threshold? For instance my watch estimated threshold HR is 164, with my threshold zone being 157-167 bpm. Would that mean it’s more optimal to shoot for closer to 157 heart rate while doing the reps or even slower? Thanks in advance for the help!

If you know for sure (within a beat or 2) that your threshold is 164, then you have a starting point. It won't be perfect, but you can certainly so the 1k and up intervals probably by heart rate. I've never looked at heart rate during, as I do it on paced but this was married up to my lactate testing I did, which as a result I know will almost always keep my HR under threshold.

But you could aim for between 153-163 (absolute max) for longer reps, say 5x2k. If you start out the reps and try and keep the pace the same and after the first one you are nearer 153-155 by the end, you probably will keep the whole lot under. I've not really tried to do this, but you could experiment. Just looking at my runs, my LTHR is 175, I'm usually in the mid to high 160s by the end of the first couple, and the low 170s by the end of the 5th. Definitely don't start out too hard, what you don't want to do is go too far over your LTHR. It defeats the purpose. I posted way back on another page, but I purposely once went over by upping the pace in the last rep, spent almost 6 mins which doesn't seem like a lot, but I was trashed the next day compared to what I usually am. I couldn't have done that 3 times that week. So it's a fine balancing act, very controlled, very measured, as others have said, very boring.

Side note: you just wouldn't be able to control anything under 1km by heart rate. I've never tried but I don't see how you could really. Someone might be able to correct me on that. Even at 1k it might be tricky.

vdot? wrote:

Thanks for a great thread!

I'm trying to figure out the best way to follow something like this without measuring lactate (not even for the first period). It would be really cool to have a lot of data from people measuring lactate, and from this create a VDOT type table of estimated paces to hold for different distances/times. This could of course end up being wrong for many individuals, but would probably not matter much in the end if one makes sure to treat the prescribed pace as an absolute max ("pushing threshold from below" as discussed previously in the thread).

Anyway, perhaps for "the hobbiest of joggers" it is sufficient to calculate Daniel's T-pace (say) from a race and just do workouts like

10x1k at T pace,
5x2k at T-pace + 3-5s/km,
3x3k at T pace + 5-8s/km.

From looking at Strava it seems like this is more or less what Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen ends up doing in practice (his HM-pace is almost his T-pace more or less).