Why not do this with lactate meters? Much cheaper and could still detect aerobic (and anaerobic!) fitness changes in a sensitive way with the right protocol. Thinking about Olbrecht's testing every 6 weeks or so for steering athletes, he had a way of estimating vo2max from these tests but it's hard to find info on that exact calculation.
Norwegian method, oh my, what a bunch of sheep. You're telling me, that a country invented sensible training, and it happened recently?
A lot of people in this thread are definitely overselling the particular method here in terms of what I'd call it's objective value amongst all frameworks of endurance training, but that doesn't matter. It's not objective value that matters here but rather the practical value for an individual and their specific context.
The people getting excited about this method are recreational athletes with:
Limited time and/or durability
Limited fundamental aerobic ability
Limited understanding of training methods or simply don't want to expend a lot of mental bandwidth on complicated training schemes
This methods makes very effective use of available training time, addressing the core limiting factor of performance for most recreational athletes (fundamental aerobic ability/steady state running/whatever you want to call it).
It minimizes/eliminates the higher injury risk training types that aren't hugely relevant to most recreational athletes -things like high mechanical load of really fast running, high metabolic loads of really hard intervals, overexposure of fatigue from monster long runs.
It's really simple and easy to follow, ensuring that the correct things get consistently done. A program from Daniels running formula (or similar books) tends to be prescriptive in a way that takes away common sense in the daily execution of training in my observations of athletes -so the practical reality of the training is often much worse than the hypothetical value of whats in the book. The KI/sirpoc/Norwegian Hobbyjogger method/whatever you want to call is prescriptive in a way that forces common sense in daily training -thats the real value of it.
I’ll disagree mostly with you. Personally, I’ve done every type of training over the past 30 years. I ran in the 2012 trials and I think this is the most fit I’ve been since that season. I’ve never before done a type of training that leaves me without minor aches and pains. I’m able to compound week after week, which is the real secret sauce in my opinion. Not so much the magic blend of speed/hills/tempo that you see in other programs. Find a performance program that doesn’t break athletes down. I’ve tried them all. This one is great.
A lot of people in this thread are definitely overselling the particular method here in terms of what I'd call it's objective value amongst all frameworks of endurance training, but that doesn't matter. It's not objective value that matters here but rather the practical value for an individual and their specific context.
The people getting excited about this method are recreational athletes with:
Limited time and/or durability
Limited fundamental aerobic ability
Limited understanding of training methods or simply don't want to expend a lot of mental bandwidth on complicated training schemes
This methods makes very effective use of available training time, addressing the core limiting factor of performance for most recreational athletes (fundamental aerobic ability/steady state running/whatever you want to call it).
It minimizes/eliminates the higher injury risk training types that aren't hugely relevant to most recreational athletes -things like high mechanical load of really fast running, high metabolic loads of really hard intervals, overexposure of fatigue from monster long runs.
It's really simple and easy to follow, ensuring that the correct things get consistently done. A program from Daniels running formula (or similar books) tends to be prescriptive in a way that takes away common sense in the daily execution of training in my observations of athletes -so the practical reality of the training is often much worse than the hypothetical value of whats in the book. The KI/sirpoc/Norwegian Hobbyjogger method/whatever you want to call is prescriptive in a way that forces common sense in daily training -thats the real value of it.
I’ll disagree mostly with you. Personally, I’ve done every type of training over the past 30 years. I ran in the 2012 trials and I think this is the most fit I’ve been since that season. I’ve never before done a type of training that leaves me without minor aches and pains. I’m able to compound week after week, which is the real secret sauce in my opinion. Not so much the magic blend of speed/hills/tempo that you see in other programs. Find a performance program that doesn’t break athletes down. I’ve tried them all. This one is great.
Other than you being a former trials participant (which may still have many of the same limitations of a recreational athlete just operating at a higher level) what of your results and experience actually goes anything I said? What exactly are you even disagreeing with me about? What you've described thus far is better personal execution of training leading to a better personal optimization, which is great and the whole point of my comment.
I agree that this is a very good program. I simply disagree that is is universally superior (largely because literally no specific framework is).
I have been consistently following this method for the past 3 months. I had no races during that period, but 3 months ago I ran 2 half marathons, finishing in 1:22 and 1:23. My personal record (PR) was set 2 years ago at 1:19. After that, I focused on running 2 marathons and encountered a few injuries. Consequently, my speed in the half marathon distance dropped a bit, and I was struggling to return to a sub-1:20 half. I slowly started implementing this training method since about September. I did lactate testing and was surprised right away by how much faster lactate accumulates than I thought, which required me to adjust my paces accordingly. Most of my training was done on a treadmill since the weather has been poor here in the winter, and I work from 8 am to 5 pm, leaving no time for outdoor training during daylight hours. I began with 10x3-minute intervals at about 15.5 km/h, 6x5-minute intervals at 15 km/h and 10x3-minute intervals at 14.5 km/h. I successfully completed every workout and gradually increased my pace by 0.1 km/h each week. Currently, I am running at 16.4, 15.9, and 15.4 km/h. Every third week, I reduced the volume to about 70-80%, akin to a recovery week. Long run 60-90min. Now, my normal weeks consist of approximately 85 km of running, with easier weeks around 60 km. Additionally, I incorporate Zwift bike rides—easy lower zone 2 training—about 3-6 times a week, lasting 40-60 minutes, as I recover without any issues in time. On easy days when I feel fresh, I also added 6 short strides on the treadmill, lasting about 15-30 seconds, to work on a bit of top-end speed at 18 km/h with a 9% incline. I've been using a Sole treadmill for workouts, and it seems to me that all the paces I've been running are significantly faster. For instance, the 10-minute intervals I run on the treadmill at 15.4 km/h translate to easily running sub-3:40 per km outside. On my recovery days, I run at about 130 bpm. In November, that pace was about 5:05 to 5:15 per km, and now it's about 4:30 per km. I've tried following many plans before with mixed results, and this approach is the easiest to follow, and I recover much faster than ever before and feel much stronger. Anyway, it seems to me like I could run a about 1:17 half marathon right now, and I have a race coming up this Sunday. I will report on the result.
How does your weekly schedule look like? Do you run intervals Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday?
When and how many times do you measure the lactate?
Tuesday 10x3min (Or 7-8x on easy weeks), Thursday 5x6min(4x on easy weeks), Saturday 3x10min(or 2x 3km on easier weeks). Easy days are Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but each 2 weeks I skip the run on Monday to completely reset and feel fresh for next Threshold interval. On Wednesday and Friday I usually do strides at the end of the run 6 short ones 15-30sec. Sunday as a long run is 75-90min, running just a little faster than easy runs.
I did about 200 lactate tests earlier this year, wasted first 50, just to get a feeling on how the lactate behaves. Most of the test were done on with the intervals I still do. But last 2 months I did not do any lactate testing. I don't think it is necessary at all to implement this method. Just be honest with your self and especially when starting, be safe with the pace to not get over the threshold. Like Marius Bakken wrote, if you go over the threshold by 10%(Probably LT2), you get 4-5x more fatigue than staying 10% under it. That's the whole point of this method.
I think the paces I hold in intervals can be summed up as the 3min intervals at a bit faster than half marathon pace(around 5 sec per km), 6min intervals at half marathon pace and 10min intervals at pace a bit slower than half marathon pace(5-10sec).
But you have to be honest with those paces, and not take the PR that was set on optimal conditions 2 years ago. If you don't feel fresh and struggle to hit all workouts, you are going 2 fast.
If someone is doing about 60-80km of training, I am pretty sure they can pretty much jump right in and try this. Maybe start a bit safer by cutting a few intervals on first few weeks.
I was injured around hip area for 1 year, so my stride was compromised a bit over the past year. I think my running technique was pretty bad and I was not utilizing muscles in top parts of the leg at all. I think I fixed that by adding in Zwift rides, about 3-5 hours total every week. I think a bit of cross training has huge benefit and can increase load which would injure you if it was done with pure running.
It's pretty clear my CTL is through the roof since I started following method of training.
Yes, the main thing is your 3rd quality session/week and i guess it makes it a quite good training concept for slow twitcher.
For more fast twitcher, 3Q session/week are too much as the recovery time is too long (longer than 48h). They need another approach.
I was funnily just replying to Hard2find about something very similar. I understand your point, but from the cycling data dump I've been looking into and sharing with people as per my previous long post, the guys who seemed to reach actually the same peak power quicker, on a slightly lower CTL (via sweetspot) seemed to be mostly fast twitchers. In the sense, if you look at their power curves, their peak 5s power was well north of 1200w . Whereas my peak 5s power ever is like 730w or something. Someone smarter than me might be able to explain why this is. It might not mean anything. It might be an anomaly. It might not apply to running. We just don't have enough running data of good quality right now to know.
Appreciate your feedback, but you are not a fast twitcher. I tried 3 Q/week, which is the fundament of your method, and it does not work, because not enough recovery time. Simple as that.
Also with a sub-Th (sub-CS whatever you call it) intensity, you do not reach the faster type IIx fibers (and partly IIa fibers), which means you do not train them at all ! Might be not so relevant for marathon, half-marathon and a 10k race. But for a 5k and below race it might be relevant. 5k race distance is maybe just the lowest race distance you get away with it, with this method.
The people getting excited about this method are recreational athletes with:
Limited time and/or durability
Limited fundamental aerobic ability
Limited understanding of training methods or simply don't want to expend a lot of mental bandwidth on complicated training schemes
While those points may be true for some, they are definitely not universal.
I have a lot of time to train and I can easily run 100 mile weeks (not that I often do) without getting any sort of injuries.
I have averaged over 5000km/3200mi a year for almost 30 years so I believe my "fundamental aerobic ability" is doing fine.
I have been an avid student of the sport for almost 30 years. I have educated myself. I am continuously learning, I am not afraid to change what I think can be improved.
But the most important aspect, is that while not being competitive myself anymore, I coach athletes who are, or who are trying to be. And since I started implementing ideas from this method, I have observed two things in my runners:
1. Zero injuries. 2. Continuous progress, improved times and results against long-time opponents.
You talk about not wanting to "expend a lot of mental bandwidth on complicated training schemes". I have expended a lot of mental bandwidth over the years on complicated training schemes. But when it comes to middle and long-distance running, while I find it useful to have a deep understanding of how things work, I have come to the conclusion that the best training is actually pretty simple.
Why not do this with lactate meters? Much cheaper and could still detect aerobic (and anaerobic!) fitness changes in a sensitive way with the right protocol. Thinking about Olbrecht's testing every 6 weeks or so for steering athletes, he had a way of estimating vo2max from these tests but it's hard to find info on that exact calculation.
Olbrecht is one of my favorite sources! Particularly for the extensive testing and data he has published. I still have his book, even though it’s for swimming. It’s a great presentation on the interplay of the energy systems and how an improvement in one domain, can result in a regression in the other and how he feels one should approach and balance that.
Acknowledging I’m putting the cart ahead of the horse, if people have lactate meters and wanted to include that data, they certainly could! I don’t know how many of us have a meter though? I wouldn’t want to exclude anyone interested based on that prerequisite. Also, I don't know why I'm talking like I'm in charge of this haha. It would certainly require a concerted group effort.
I think the main motivator behind this group idea would be to see how consistent CTL is in establishing a personal relationship between the level achieved and performance, as well as does it matter how you reach that CTL level (i.e. your intensity distribution) and at what point does a positive linear relationship, assuming it exists, potentially uncouple. Either way, this has the makings of a fine science fair project, pulled off by the most unlikely group of randos ever haha
P.S. Regarding the lactate and VO2Max, I’ve not seen a specific equation from Olbrecht on a large generalized scale. Was that maybe in the paper he published on the 900 swimmers he tested? Regardless, yes, since both are a function of speed, having the two equations (preferably on a large sample scale) allows you to express VO2 as a function of lactate (or visa versa). Most of what I’ve seen from him is on swimmers though, so I’m not sure how transferable that specific mathematical relationship would be with runners? Meaning, there may be sport specific variations in the metrics.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Tuesday 10x3min (Or 7-8x on easy weeks), Thursday 5x6min(4x on easy weeks), Saturday 3x10min(or 2x 3km on easier weeks). Easy days are Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but each 2 weeks I skip the run on Monday to completely reset and feel fresh for next Threshold interval. On Wednesday and Friday I usually do strides at the end of the run 6 short ones 15-30sec. Sunday as a long run is 75-90min, running just a little faster than easy runs.
I did about 200 lactate tests earlier this year, wasted first 50, just to get a feeling on how the lactate behaves. Most of the test were done on with the intervals I still do. But last 2 months I did not do any lactate testing. I don't think it is necessary at all to implement this method. Just be honest with your self and especially when starting, be safe with the pace to not get over the threshold. Like Marius Bakken wrote, if you go over the threshold by 10%(Probably LT2), you get 4-5x more fatigue than staying 10% under it. That's the whole point of this method.
I think the paces I hold in intervals can be summed up as the 3min intervals at a bit faster than half marathon pace(around 5 sec per km), 6min intervals at half marathon pace and 10min intervals at pace a bit slower than half marathon pace(5-10sec).
But you have to be honest with those paces, and not take the PR that was set on optimal conditions 2 years ago. If you don't feel fresh and struggle to hit all workouts, you are going 2 fast.
If someone is doing about 60-80km of training, I am pretty sure they can pretty much jump right in and try this. Maybe start a bit safer by cutting a few intervals on first few weeks.
I was injured around hip area for 1 year, so my stride was compromised a bit over the past year. I think my running technique was pretty bad and I was not utilizing muscles in top parts of the leg at all. I think I fixed that by adding in Zwift rides, about 3-5 hours total every week. I think a bit of cross training has huge benefit and can increase load which would injure you if it was done with pure running.
It's pretty clear my CTL is through the roof since I started following method of training.
This is really fantastic! I enjoy seeing these details and your description of not needing a lactate meter, as long as you have developed a feeling for the different efforts and don't let ego take over, as well as establishing a realistic standard for your current fitness is well said! Congrats and hope for continued improvement!
This post was edited 35 seconds after it was posted.
I wanted to second comment a part of the thread that made me truly lol.
Forget all this talk of Jakob versus the Brits. Lets see what someone else already suggested, a LR special where they pit Kristoffer versus the British random internet cycling dude, sirpoc! Hobby jogger head to head , who cares about Jakob versus Wightman or Kerr! This is all the matters to this thread!
I have a feeling it would be a very close race!
In all seriousness . This thread is in .y bookmarks, I love the recent revival and talk it's taking a really good direction. Credit to Hard2find on all the awesome work he's doing with tools.
A lot of people in this thread are definitely overselling the particular method here in terms of what I'd call it's objective value amongst all frameworks of endurance training, but that doesn't matter. It's not objective value that matters here but rather the practical value for an individual and their specific context.
The people getting excited about this method are recreational athletes with:
Limited time and/or durability
Limited fundamental aerobic ability
Limited understanding of training methods or simply don't want to expend a lot of mental bandwidth on complicated training schemes
This methods makes very effective use of available training time, addressing the core limiting factor of performance for most recreational athletes (fundamental aerobic ability/steady state running/whatever you want to call it).
It minimizes/eliminates the higher injury risk training types that aren't hugely relevant to most recreational athletes -things like high mechanical load of really fast running, high metabolic loads of really hard intervals, overexposure of fatigue from monster long runs.
It's really simple and easy to follow, ensuring that the correct things get consistently done. A program from Daniels running formula (or similar books) tends to be prescriptive in a way that takes away common sense in the daily execution of training in my observations of athletes -so the practical reality of the training is often much worse than the hypothetical value of whats in the book. The KI/sirpoc/Norwegian Hobbyjogger method/whatever you want to call is prescriptive in a way that forces common sense in daily training -thats the real value of it.
I’ll disagree mostly with you. Personally, I’ve done every type of training over the past 30 years. I ran in the 2012 trials and I think this is the most fit I’ve been since that season. I’ve never before done a type of training that leaves me without minor aches and pains. I’m able to compound week after week, which is the real secret sauce in my opinion. Not so much the magic blend of speed/hills/tempo that you see in other programs. Find a performance program that doesn’t break athletes down. I’ve tried them all. This one is great.
I would be interested to hear if you are following the method exactly of if you’re doing anything differently. Pretty awesome that, if you’re doing 3 x easy 60 min runs, 3 x 6 miles of broken threshold and 1 x 90 min long run and you’re as fit as you were a decade ago when you qualified for the trials. Also shows how far you can take this training method.
I would be interested to hear if you are following the method exactly of if you’re doing anything differently. Pretty awesome that, if you’re doing 3 x easy 60 min runs, 3 x 6 miles of broken threshold and 1 x 90 min long run and you’re as fit as you were a decade ago when you qualified for the trials. Also shows how far you can take this training method.
I actually run only 6 days. 2x60 min easy, 3 x ~10k volume reps/30min (if on treadmill), 1x 70-90 min long easy.
The only adjustments I’ve made is using HR instead of lactate testing, because I don’t feel like messing with all that. I used the Friel LTHR method to calculate the HR limit to stay under. I’ve crossed over into masters running now since 2012, so I guess age graded is more fair assessment from a dozen years ago shape. I do take much better care of my body though now: eat better, no drinking and lifting consistently. And the original quote I responded to is correct, outside of pro runners, we all have time constraints that make ideal training difficult.
I think the pluses are, I’m not overcooked in workouts ever and I’ve realized I was probably running way too quick on recovery days in essence not actually recovering. We’ll see what the racing season holds but I’ve been knocking out reps that I couldn’t touch in over a decade, all within that sub threshold HR range. More importantly no injury issues at all.
To be honest I don’t think my Dancan system could ever be as good as what runners here told of their progress with Norwegian method.My Dancan system is like pure magic,but only if the runner is very talented. Truth is there is no science behind it, just smartly taking parts from Daniel’s and Canova but no real rhyme or reason.Dancan mostly a system for me to gain traction as a coach. But it is pure magic and if you have talent or have not really seriously trained it will of course bring magic results!
I was funnily just replying to Hard2find about something very similar. I understand your point, but from the cycling data dump I've been looking into and sharing with people as per my previous long post, the guys who seemed to reach actually the same peak power quicker, on a slightly lower CTL (via sweetspot) seemed to be mostly fast twitchers. In the sense, if you look at their power curves, their peak 5s power was well north of 1200w . Whereas my peak 5s power ever is like 730w or something. Someone smarter than me might be able to explain why this is. It might not mean anything. It might be an anomaly. It might not apply to running. We just don't have enough running data of good quality right now to know.
Appreciate your feedback, but you are not a fast twitcher. I tried 3 Q/week, which is the fundament of your method, and it does not work, because not enough recovery time. Simple as that.
Also with a sub-Th (sub-CS whatever you call it) intensity, you do not reach the faster type IIx fibers (and partly IIa fibers), which means you do not train them at all ! Might be not so relevant for marathon, half-marathon and a 10k race. But for a 5k and below race it might be relevant. 5k race distance is maybe just the lowest race distance you get away with it, with this method.
The best post in this hilarious thread )This kind of repeated thresholds at LT1 - LT2 can only function at distances like half/ marathon. To reach your possible limits at shorter distances there is a must to add 5 k pace and faster..
I would be interested to hear if you are following the method exactly of if you’re doing anything differently. Pretty awesome that, if you’re doing 3 x easy 60 min runs, 3 x 6 miles of broken threshold and 1 x 90 min long run and you’re as fit as you were a decade ago when you qualified for the trials. Also shows how far you can take this training method.
I actually run only 6 days. 2x60 min easy, 3 x ~10k volume reps/30min (if on treadmill), 1x 70-90 min long easy.
The only adjustments I’ve made is using HR instead of lactate testing, because I don’t feel like messing with all that. I used the Friel LTHR method to calculate the HR limit to stay under. I’ve crossed over into masters running now since 2012, so I guess age graded is more fair assessment from a dozen years ago shape. I do take much better care of my body though now: eat better, no drinking and lifting consistently. And the original quote I responded to is correct, outside of pro runners, we all have time constraints that make ideal training difficult.
I think the pluses are, I’m not overcooked in workouts ever and I’ve realized I was probably running way too quick on recovery days in essence not actually recovering. We’ll see what the racing season holds but I’ve been knocking out reps that I couldn’t touch in over a decade, all within that sub threshold HR range. More importantly no injury issues at all.
I’ve been consistently lifting 2x/wk for a couple years now, so I don’t really get sore anymore making it just a thing I fit in my schedule whenever. But if you’re newer to it, I would place it after a threshold session to maximize the recovery afterwards. I was a 1500/mile runner in college, so I don’t focus as much on strides/speed anymore. It usually wakes up in about 1-2 sessions for me. I think the whole x-factor/ hill repeats for the 3rd workout address that speed component if you’re planning to race 5k and under. I guess the theory might be, if you’re dramatically increasing your aerobic engine then you’ll be way farther down the road in a race, compared to if you are focusing on speed which carries more injury risk.
Why not do this with lactate meters? Much cheaper and could still detect aerobic (and anaerobic!) fitness changes in a sensitive way with the right protocol. Thinking about Olbrecht's testing every 6 weeks or so for steering athletes, he had a way of estimating vo2max from these tests but it's hard to find info on that exact calculation.
Olbrecht is one of my favorite sources! Particularly for the extensive testing and data he has published. I still have his book, even though it’s for swimming. It’s a great presentation on the interplay of the energy systems and how an improvement in one domain, can result in a regression in the other and how he feels one should approach and balance that.
Acknowledging I’m putting the cart ahead of the horse, if people have lactate meters and wanted to include that data, they certainly could! I don’t know how many of us have a meter though? I wouldn’t want to exclude anyone interested based on that prerequisite. Also, I don't know why I'm talking like I'm in charge of this haha. It would certainly require a concerted group effort.
I think the main motivator behind this group idea would be to see how consistent CTL is in establishing a personal relationship between the level achieved and performance, as well as does it matter how you reach that CTL level (i.e. your intensity distribution) and at what point does a positive linear relationship, assuming it exists, potentially uncouple. Either way, this has the makings of a fine science fair project, pulled off by the most unlikely group of randos ever haha
P.S. Regarding the lactate and VO2Max, I’ve not seen a specific equation from Olbrecht on a large generalized scale. Was that maybe in the paper he published on the 900 swimmers he tested? Regardless, yes, since both are a function of speed, having the two equations (preferably on a large sample scale) allows you to express VO2 as a function of lactate (or visa versa). Most of what I’ve seen from him is on swimmers though, so I’m not sure how transferable that specific mathematical relationship would be with runners? Meaning, there may be sport specific variations in the metrics.
I have a meter and would love to participate in any way to help you all. I had to take 4 weeks off for work travels/busy life schedule so my CTL is down to a lowly 31. I am taking an easy week this week and then starting sub t next week so a good case for hopeful progress!
