Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I find it confusing that on this method I would be running 10x1k around 6:00 but on Tinman I would be running around 6:15.

One key point of this method is that workouts should be done in a controlled way i.e. not too fast. So running a little slower is no problem, too fast is.

Ok I had a look at the daniels calculator and when I put a 1:21 half in it gives me a threshold pace of 6:09 which is actually similar to the tinman pace. So is 6:10-6:20 where I should aim for? I keep seeing people mention "sub" threshold.

Learn what feels right to you. Theo Quax on Coffee Club revealed he runs his thresholds waaaay slower than guys of comparable speed at NAU. Perhaps that’s altitude, but who knows. The point is he runs a pace that is repeatable and productive for him. If you are gassed by the last few reps, you’ve gone too fast. If you are actively holding back the entire workout it’s probably too easy. Unless you can measure your lactate do not be a slave to some arbitrary numbers that are close anyway.

He's too busy doing secret speed reps for any lactate testing. Ha!

On a serious note though, he hasn't tested in a long long time, but he's still adhering to the initial pace-recommendations, i.e. he's still confident of the lactate range he would target and hit with his current paces.

Indeed the original relationship did not account for HR, and it shouldn't. You can be way under/over shooting with HR as I've seen, and by considerable margins.

I have noticed the same as jiggy, very poor correlation between HR and lactate threshold.

For me, most of my workouts are early AM, but I notice if I change to later in the day my HR ends up much higher for the same RPE.

Similarly how much fatigue im carrying pulls my HR down. If I am really spent after maybe going a bit too hard earlier in the week, or a bigger workout, I will notice trouble getting up to the same HR.

I tried to force it for a bit, but it became obvious the lactate threshold is more inline with your feeling than your heart rate, which generally corellates much better with PACE then HR.

So now I just work paces, occasionally check in with how I'm feeling, and basically ignore HR within the context of the workout itself. It is fun to compare it across workouts later, though.

wow. I realized when I read it that this is exactly what this method does, maximizes time in this zone and allows for maximum aerobic stimulus while not destroying the muscles or making the workout anaerobic. he knew about this before we did, maybe minus the short rest!

Can't praise you enough for sharing your data Jiggy. I think that completely backs up the original guide sirpoc put up. This is incredibly helpful for those who are weighing up the option of going pace or HR when a meter is not possible.

Sirpoc originally said, lactate testing is best which is quite the obvious answer, but pace is a better indication than HR. I was skeptical of this, but I have come absolutely full circle to 100% agree with rgis.

The advantage of pace being that you can run the same route each week. If it's flat, even better. Even better still, run on a track. I suspect pace, as sirpoc posted a long time back, will not always work , but it'll get you where you want to be most of the time, or at least closer than going by HR will.

His unbelievable progression, with you confirming now he hasn't used lactate testing for a while, is testament to that pace is almost certainly the clear winner if it's a straight choice between pace or HR. Of course lactate testing is best, but it is certainly not practical for everyone. Especially if you run outside and not on a track.

I don't think this thread has all the answers, or that any of the main contributers would say they do, but it likely provides the average/above talented runner the absolute best opportunity to reach their potential , or as close to it as you can get, with the least risk.

I've been training like this since October now and have made a big jump from mid 18s in the last 5 seasons to a low 17 in the start of the summer 5k races. I'm 44 so I couldn't be happier as I just assumed the chance to ever break 18 was gone a few years ago.

I've been trying to get a couple of my local clubs teammates to adopt this training, but their old skool mentality just can't bring them to. Which is a shame, we could do with the extra points and we might even win this year's team series! However, the thought of no 5k pace work has them baulking at the postposition. Yet my 1+ minute PB they can't seem to correlate I wouldn't have probably got, had I not adopted this method. I think we runners we are so engrained and can't help ourselves and we must do interval or speed based work.

I hope this thread goes on and on. It's undoubtedly the most useful thread I've ever come across on letsrun and I've been here a while, as well as being the least toxic. Happy running everyone!

From 85 samples you have 18+7=25 samples which you are uncertain. This is very poor. You should try to improve that first. 1 out of 50 uncertain, can be a goal.

Lactate also depends on time of day, hydration status and glycolytic fueling. Also lactate level depends on duration and not only intensity.

It was several time discussed here on this thread that HR is not a good indicator during high intensity reps ...

Try reading his post again.

This confirms what I always suspected, despite your claims you have never actually lactate tested!!!! In another thread or maybe this, you claimed you have before. If you ever had tried to test yourself during steps of a workout, what jiggy find is perfectly reasonable. You have little time, some meters especially are not convenient, things go wrong. This is totally normal. This is not scientific lab conditions. You swallow too many papers lexel but have no real world experience. Your trolling has been exposed now. I just can't work out end goal to you.

It's simple math lexel, I have 25 uncertain samples out of 110.

Also, none of the calculations include the 7 red samples, so it is really just 18 uncertain samples, and I did many subset regressions, some with and some without those 18 samples.

I do agree that the sample size could be bigger, but I feel that is gives a good approximation about the trend at the moment.

Indeed, most of my bad samples are from when I started testing. My sampling procedure has gotten better, but I won't claim that I've mastered it yet. My hands are shaky and I sweat heavily, making things tricky.

Especially with the Lactate Plus strips, which are tough to handle. If I ever need to buy a meter, I'd probably get the Lactate Pro 2 for their individual test strip packaging.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you have done and the examples being provided

your workout 2 shows that you have a higher HR corresponding to a higher Lactate reading compared to workout 1... so it works ?

I think it is pretty established that a lactate curve compared to intensity is exponential shaped, whereas a HR curve has a more linear shape. so yes a 1 BPM variation can lead to a very high lactate reading difference, especially around the threshold ? Isn't it the whole concept of threshold??

so yeah I mean if you want your training to be what you call "lactate based" HR will of course be a different indicator but why on earth would you want your training to be lactate based at this level of performance ? I thought this was a thread for time-crunched hobby joggers. if you want to hit sub-threshold you just have to be careful around not hitting too close to your threshold heart rate

if you just use pace, it is guaranteed on a windy or hot day if you have preexisiting fatigue you will overshoot the threshold but tbh that is fine too so I wouldn't be 100% set on hitting a prescribed pace, you can be flexible around it.

of course the best is keep doing what works for you so adding lactate reading can probably improve your precision around the threshold. I just don't think this is where the performance improvement lies for people's level of performance right now.

I'll assume this was a reply to my post earlier.

Pretty straightforward, determine how much lactate and a certain average heart rate are correlated.

Yes, but this analysis was not accounting for intensity, just lactate vs average heart rate. The exponential curve you talk about is a different topic.

Also, no, that small change in heart rate should not result in that big of a change in lactate. 1.6 mmol/L differential within few BPM is not normal, especially when it is clearly a sub threshold effort.

I have an another example for you:

Workout A = 5 x 1.6 k and workout B = 6 x 1.6 k) on the same route. Workout A took place on the 14th of June with in 37.2 C & 48% RH (feels-like 44.4 deg C).

Workout B took place on the 4th of October in 32.2 C & 67% RH (feels-like 39.4 deg C).

While the weather was not so much better in the second workout, I still think it provides some value.

In workout A, I tested for lactate after all reps except the third, which is exactly the opposite in the workout B, where I only tested lactate after the third.

The second rep that workout A was @ 4:30/km average with HR of 171 and Max of 177, lactate = 2.2 mmol/L

Fourth rep that day was @ 4:27/km with HR of 183 and Max of 188, lactate = 3.1 mmol/L

Whereas in workout B the third rep was @ 3:57/km average with HR of 170 and Max 176, lactate = 3.6 mmol/L

Just in case anyone has trouble following this wall of text, here's table format to summarize the difference:

Workout # Avg HR Pace Lactate

A 171 4:30/km 2.2

B 170 3:57/km 3.1

So you can see, despite running at a higher HR in workout A, lactate was lower due to the slower paces.

What does all of this suggest?

LTHR is a good approximation, but you could under/over shoot when running by it, especially so in challenging conditions. You could approach and be at LTHR, but a lactate test would reveal that you're still not at threshold.

Conversely, you could run too fast in good conditions at LTHR, and end up with a higher lactate level than desired.

Well, even time-crunched runners have a 60 second window for a lactate test ;)

To each their own, I would never argue that any of this is necessary for improving performance, but understanding what works is definitely beneficial for efficient training.

how were the rest of the workouts in terms of HR and pace (and lactate for the first workout since you only had third rep for the second workout ?), were you able to complete the workout at the same paces ?

I agree with you comparing HR values and lactate values for workout months apart has probably very weak correlation. But couldn't we have said even before doing the study ?

to me what has value is comparing HR and lactate for the same workout (against intensity), and then redoing the study months later to compare the curves.

as for the benefits in terms of performance compared to just using perceived exertion, HR, pace or a combination of any of these, pretty slim to none for sub sub elite performance. but fun for data analysis though.

I think you're getting lost in my posts, maybe it's the formatting.

I stated the lactate for both workouts A and B, and compared a set HR (170vs171) between the two workouts.

As for your question about completing the second workout, yes, I completed the last three reps at 3:56, 3:56 and 3:54/km pace, respectively. I just didn't test lactate.

How is that different to what I supplied in this example?

This is the same workout, on the same route, months apart.