Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Has anyone been able to successfully use this style of training for the marathon? I’ve seen some dialogue about doing 2 sub T workouts during the week and then playing around with the long run (I.e. extending it and/or adding in some MP mileage). But I haven’t seen many report back with big success stories. Seems like really good training for 5k up to HM but I haven’t seen much concrete success with the marathon. I’m using this style of training now but unsure of what to do once I get closer to my marathon where I need to be more specific. Has any one had any actual success with the method for a marathon?

You must be out of your mind to use this training for a marathon. It's 109 pages of garbage as it is. Please, please don't ruin your marathon but listening to these clowns in this thread. Go and follow a plan that has a track record of success.

Losers in this thread can't even break 17 mins for 5k and think they've reinvented the wheel. People say this is the best thread in LRC history. It's easily the worst. Usually bad threads at least only last a few pages and die. This jsur goes on and on.

What is your reasoning as to why it does not work?

Didn’t you race a half just over a week ago? It seems a little soon to return to workouts, even for sub-threshold.

Does 45 minutes continuous at marathon pace / a bit faster than marathon place fit in this method?

I think the central thesis of this method is that CTL is highly predictive of performances from 5k- half marathon. So judging the merits of a workout comes down to how much tss it creates, in how much time, and requiring how much recovery. marathon pace running can be part of this method. This method is not really about threshold, but rather how to efficiently and sustainably rack up tss over long periods of time. It just so happens that threshold workouts are a good tool to do this. My suggestion would be to do MP running in long intervals to keep it controlled, rather than a straight tempo.

I ran two times 2:22:09 ( exactly same time on the second(!) in Stockholm marathon on a difficult course) with a similar program but 10-12 k sustained thresholds instead of doing them in intervals. And I ran another weekly session of maxVO2 intervals at 5 k race pace. My long run used to be at 4 min/ km ( 6:30 mile pace) and 15- 20 miles mostly. In my Dancan system nowadays the thresholds are in intervals 400m- 3000m at a pace close to LT2 pace. 🇸🇪🧙🏼‍♂️🇸🇪

Coach J.S , Swedish pro middle/longdistance running coach .

And I ran 6 sessions per week and no doubles and about 50- 60 mpw .🇸🇪🧙🏼‍♂️🇸🇪

No, the core part of this method is the sub-threshold volume. The aim is accruing high training stress in a reasonable training time per week but it's not fair to say this whole thread is about getting to that stress by any means necessary.

I think there's reasonable room to disagree on the TSS = race performance hypothesis even if it's directionally correct. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has experienced equal or slower performances after adapting to higher TSS because my distribution of training speeds changed (read: less workouts). Running at different speeds does have specificity. The sub-threshold work in this plan is specific enough to get good performances from 5k and up.

I have my second femoral stress fracture of the year so I am confined to cross training for 6 more weeks. Despite that, I’ve followed the pattern of this thread using the bike and elliptical for both easy “runs” and the 3 sub t sessions, plus a long ride of 2 hours. Time will tell what kind of condition this will keep me in but I’ll update if anyone is interested.

Given my fragility, when I am back to running I plan to use this approach again, this time with much less mileage and supplement with cross training “doubles” mostly on the elliptical and see where that takes me. Call it the sub t/parker valby combo no one knew they needed. Once again, if there is any interest I am happy to provide my results!

I don’t disagree with you! It’s likely that running is different than cycling. Spiroc shared an experience earlier where he was injuredfor an extended period of time could one do Z2 rides, but when he went to TT he got the same power he had expected for that CTL. The problem was it took him 12 hrs a week to get that load where as he could get it in 7 hrs with sweet spot.

If he were running instead of cycling, it’s very plausible that his performance wouldn’t have been as good with only the long Z2? Anyone else experience this? I’m new to coaching myself using TSS and would like to hear stories about how this has and hasn’t correlated with performance.

It was a bit much to say that this method isn’t about threshold when that’s what we talk about 98% of the time lol. On hobby joggers 5-9 hours a week schedule you’ll have to use threshold to max out CTL. If spiroc had consistently more or less time, his training would be different.

I don't have a huge amount of data for running, all I know for me (so far) is I can plot CTL / 5k performance reasonably neatly. So far, more is more. I suspect, there's a cut off with this. In terms of you max out your aerobic capacity and you can probably get by with less CTL, for the same performance and add in hills, speed work. I'm not there yet, I don't think.

My guess, as would be with cyclists on time crunched (mainly being top amateur/ sub elite time trialists in the UK) that you probably won't reach the point where this is a huge factor. I'm talking 9 hours a week or less. 8 hours is the point in which I've got in my head I might have reached diminished aerobic returns and have to try something else to add in. But time will tell.

A guy way smarter than me on the old TT forums, did his own study of a number of people's training and how the acquired CTL matches with performance. The general jist was, the difference in FTP at a given CTL for each individual, was probably +-10% spread, if you consider what is the absolute worst training schedule you could do (my z2 for weeks and weeks and hours and hours on end) versus the best bang for buck, being sweet spot. Basic example , CTL of 60. A sensible, generic training plan might generate a FTP of 300. The worst training you could do, just aimlessly riding, but generating the same CTL, might get you can FTP of 270 (note it would take you way longer in time to also reach the same CTL) . A really well thought out, sweetspot block of 6 months might scrape out 330w ( in much less time riding). All for the same CTL of 60. That's the extreme end. For me, I was a much narrower range , where X CTL basically equalled Y power from a baseline of about 160-70w untrained and a CTL of 0.

The guy I talked to a lot about this was a swimming coach, he found it also applied to swimmers he'd known and triathlon specialists. To me, something along these lines makes perfect sense for running, albeit with some small running specific factors etc, mainly the ability to absorb pretty big punishment on the body. But in a nutshell, it's roughly what I've stuck to, followed the plan, the numbers and I'm still seeing the improvements I'm happy with and would expect to see.

Incidentally , again, this would need bigger studies, there are two people who messaged me direct on Strava (I think one has posted in this thread) who have adapted this to do marathon pace work , so right at the bottom of the sub threshold range and they have racked up huge CTL numbers in 6 + months and without even really thinking about it. One set a 5k PB and one set a 10k PB. Sadly, neither had accurate historical data from years past, but the main takeaway was from talking to them, that almost certainly in terms of overall load, they were both just doing much more than they ever had, but just in a controlled manner/ racking up the training load. Much like I was shocked when I suddenly hit a power pb after a big crash and just riding the turbo aimlessly to keep myself busy.

I stand by that nearly a year on, it's probably likely to make most people improve, but as we have seen with some cases in the Strava group, it's very easy to get it wrong and come unstuck like other training modes, if you go too hard. Ultimately, most of us here are hampered by our aerobic capacity. Training like this is pushing it up from below, even at what seems like pretty easy running levels.

Thanks for all your posting over the last year and taking the time on Strava to help. I'm sure I'm not alone in being fascinated by this approach to training! I am one of the guys you were speaking of! got fully confused and obsessed in what I would call quite aggressive marathon plans!! By race day I was usually absolutely spent. My longest run this time a couple of weeks out was 30k easy. It's the slowest pace and shortest distance I've done as my big last run and I've ran 7 Ms now. Even with the long run I made sure my sub threshold didn't take a bit of backseat. I felt super strong even past 30k to go on race day. I assumed I would hit the wall at some point, it basically never came.

To add, my build didn't feel anything special until around 12 weeks in and I knew this time would be different. I have never felt fresh in a marathon plan at 3 months before. All I changed as you know was the long run was longer on a Sunday @usually 110-120 mijs and the Thursday session was longer at 5x9 mins , at M pace . Other two sub threshold were a mixture of the ones you have been doing. Standard 10*1k up to 3*3k.

I had no intention of going for a 5k. But happened as happy accident. My guess now with my new found understanding, in the past for 5k I was totally obsessed with speed!!! Speed , speed , speed and more speed workouts. When actually, I was just embarrassingly under developed in an aerobic sense. M was a PB hugely and a 45 second 5k PB as well. Two for the price of one!!

I see others have been asking about the M. I wouldn't change much. What I did worked well think and it easily replicated.

I, so far, have not. I have been running high volume for a few years now, this was the highest 'CTL' I have seen ever. Though it is the first time I have tracked it, I have backloaded the historical data.
I have a 5kPB of 16:45, I ran a shade over 17 5k 3 weeks out from the marathon on the same course, admittedly with slightly more worn 'super-shoes'
I ran a 1/2 marathon in a shade under 1:18, on the same course I have run a 1:16 low in tougher conditions a few years back
Marathon came in at 2:44, I have a pb on 2:40 and change.
However conceptually I am believer and I am going to actually reduce overall volume as I may well be running too much as I am well over 8-9 hours .
I am also getting old, so I may have tipped over the improvement point and am starting to naturally decline...

I hope you recover fast and keep us posted!

Saw a related article from RW UK. Unlike the American RW, it's more technical and delves into definitions of tempo/threshold/sub-threshold:

runnersworld.com

What is lactate threshold and how can you determine yours?

Running coach Tom Craggs gives the lowdown on this often misunderstood term – and reveals how you can utilise threshold training to unlock faster speeds

Link:www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/a4186...

Terminology in running can be confusing. If you're wondering about the differences between threshold and tempo running, I'm afraid I can't give a straight answer. For some runner and coaches, tempo running refers to longer efforts at a slightly lower intensity, which you might be able to hold for two to three hours in a race (closer to lactate threshold).

For others, it's a run at a pace slightly stronger than lactate turnpoint, closer to 30 to 40-minute race pace, while some use tempo running and threshold running interchangeably.
Sometimes, it's better to just say what you mean: for example, run for a pace you could hold for 40 to 60 minutes in a race, run at this heart rate, etc. Or can you make it even simpler – easy, steady, strong, hard, for example.

There are a few good workouts that are somewhat similar to those posted here:

What volume?
If you’re just starting out or racing over shorter distances (1500m to 5K), then 15 to 25 minutes at this effort is enough. For half-marathon or marathon training, consider building to 30 to 50 minutes of effort as you get closer to race day.
1/ STRAIGHT THRESHOLD
Warm up well and include 15 to 25 mins of running at threshold effort before cooling down.
Spice it up: When you’re in top condition, add a 30 to 60-sec surge up to 5 to 10K pace every five minutes to improve your ability to buffer lactate.
2/ PROGRESSION RUNS
Start easy and build gradually to include a block of threshold running towards the latter stages of a continuous run. For example, 15 mins easy, 15 steady and 15 at threshold effort.
Spice it up: Pick a flat or rolling route and run out for 22 mins, building to a steady effort. Run the same route back, aiming to finish in 40 mins.
3/ SPLIT THRESHOLD
Splitting threshold sessions into long efforts with short, easy or steady recoveries can allow you to extend the amount of time you spend at threshold effort, or run slightly quicker while keeping your intensity under control. For example, 6 x 5 mins with 60-sec easy recoveries, or 3 x 10-15 mins with 2-min easy-to-steady recoveries.
Spice it up: Split sessions allow you to vary your paces. Try 12 mins, 10 mins, 8 mins and 4 mins, with 90-sec recoveries. Start at a pace you could hold for 60 to 70 mins in a race and work down to 30 to 45-min race pace.

Age is definitely a factor for some. I just hit the tipping point a couple of years ago. An injury and birthday or two later and suddenly it's all over. Once it comes, you hit a brick wall. This method has flattened off my decline rather than sped me back up much. I'm good with that. It's frustrating, as I'm slightly faster than last year training with Daniels 4th edition plan, but my peak years are gone. My big regret is probably not having run a peak years season like this, to see what I can do.

Sirpoc, not sure if we discussed that already, however your training methology, mentioned herein, improves either VO2max and/or oxygen cost of running (CR in ml/kg/m). Two mayor variables to improve LTv, velocity at lactate threshold (remark: also valid for CV).

I would bet my money on CR.

That means TSS, CTL and other training load values will not reveal this and it remains undetected in your whole data analysis !