Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

You didn't coach Elisha Kipchirchir. Don't disrespect his coach.

You once threatened to kick a poster in the head. You made insulting, sexual comments to a woman poster (me).

You are sick. You bring nothing useful to this thread.

Go away, you fraud.

I think everyone has learned something this thread. I have even gone out an bought a new generation Stryd, just to see if it's any better. I think this one has a wind sensor, the last one definitely didn't. Much like a cycling power meter, I don't actually expect it to generate a realistic number, just as long as it's accurate. That was my issue before. It simply couldn't have been based on my testing. Whereas whilst a cycling power meter doesn't actually know your power, it's pretty consistent. This would definitely be an interesting metric if it works better than before.

I'm glad you are having a play around with TSS and CTL. With your scientific background it would be interesting to see if you can index it to performance, as I know many others in cycling have, but for running. I've definitely seen patterns there and it really helped me realise training like this in singles with 3 sub Threshold days is actually a pretty damn high training load compared to how a more classic running program might be structured, for the same hours/miles. But I will reiterate that using metrics like this are only useful if you are sure the data you are collecting, is accurate. Which is why I race as often as I can, so I can update zones etc. If I say went 8-10 weeks with no racing, you can be assured I was probably getting hugely over inflated TSS scores for the back end especially for that period, if I then PB in my parkrun. There is then not much I can learn from the PMC. I probably sound like a broken record, but I can't over emphasise this enough. It's where I think 90% of people at least don't use these sort of metrics properly.

I'm not doing my 10 miler until October, but I don't intend on really changing anything of my training. A month out I might double up on 2x5k weekly with one other session or throw in 4x10 mins to the mix instead of one of the shorter sessions. But very little change otherwise.

Sorry to tell you this isn't correct what you here told. Fast twitch dominant runners are the most easy to coach. It's just a need to slowly build them up for longer and longer reps in intervals and steady easy runs. They adapt over time to do the enough training needed to reach their highest potential. The good thing you can 'transform' fast-twitch runner's muscle fibers to work as slow- twitch, but not the other way around.J.S. 🧙‍♂️🇸🇪

Is running the intervals at 160 - 165 bpm too low, when my max HR is 200? That's 82% of max. Is there something as "too" sub-threshold?

Yes, you should reach 176-180 on the longer reps with a MHR at 200 if running your lactate threshold intervals optimal effective for the very best result.

Likely too easy. You need to know you LTHR really for this to work. It's probably around 180. But then it might not be. There's no point in guessing. Do the LTHR test a few of the guys in this thread have posted about. I've been following this thread from the start it's a great resource. Friel test and 98% of it seemed to be the general agreement of a safe ballpark.

+1

Then when you run threshold intervals do you aim to have this HR as the highest you reach in each run? After a 60s recovery your HR might be at 70-75% of max when you begin the next run. If you are running for 5 minutes you start running at the speed you can hold for 5 minutes that will produce 98% of the Friel test HR at the end of the run, is that the best way to do it?

I did a 10k all-out 3 weeks ago (solo), and if I measure my 20-minute average HR like Friel suggest it's at 183 bpm.

I guess I should aim for around 172 - 176?

My LTHR is the point I'm trying NOT to go over, no matter what. Some factors to consider here. My wrist sensor reads a little higher, but consistently higher at least, but if you want to see what's happening during the rep, the chest strap is better. Secondly, yes, your LTHR is the highest point you want your HR to be. You should be touching that on the last rep AT MOST. As an example, if you do 6x1600 and you hit nearly your LTHR on rep 2, you've gone too hard. It'll be way over by rep 6. Thirdly, for me, I don't check at all during, I trust the paces I've set that I've shared. With a lot of testing, I've found for those distances and durations I don't need to check heart rate. Naturally , even across a variety of conditions , it will keep me in that sub threshold zone in terms of HR as well as lactate tested in the past. This keeps the running very smooth as I can just focus on keeping a nice even pace in the zones I've set.

One the first rep, my HR takes a while to creep up. It's probably not in the zone we are talking about until 3-4 minutes, going back to use the 6x1600 example. My HR will drop maybe 40-45 beats in the 60 seconds at the end of each rep, but will very quickly rise straight back into the target zone within a very short space of time, when I get going again.

I'm not quite sure you mean for the last bit, but my experience of the Friel test is its as accurate as you can get in a field test. Do 30 minutes as a time trial, pick a distance you are likely to hit in 30 mins based off your times - for example for me I would pick maybe 8.5k and pace it like a race. Take the last 20 minutes of that run and use it's average HR, find 98% of it and then use that as your LTHR. It's definitely more accurate than taking or guessing it from races. Mine would be way too high from my recent 10k - you just can't replicate racing HR in training for a number of reasons. Say you are doing 36 mins of work in 6x1600, you should start to see the back end of the later reps creeping up towards that Friel field test LTHR. The whole point of us boxing this up into smaller reps, is the fact we can do a bigger chunk of time and running faster , at a lower lactate, than if we ran it all straight.

Sure. I would like to see you coach Noah Lyles to run a 2:05 marathon. 🧙‍♂️🦧

What I'm wondering is, is there a very distinctive difference between sub-threshold and whichever zone comes before that (tempo?)? in terms of metabolic adaptations and training benefits. It's weird for me to conceptualize how a meager 5 bpm increase or going from 4:30 to 4:25 min/km suddenly radically changes how your body adapts to that stress.

Am I viewing this perhaps too black&white, and it's way more fluid than this, where the zones more or less gradually merge (except past LT2 when the lactic acid really kicks in).

You aren't wrong to a point, I get what you mean. I've tested running a little easier. The lactate is quite a bit lower, say if I run in Tinman's tempo zone during these intervals, the lactate is well under 2.0 mmol and it's really not that much slower. There is some training benefit from this of course, but the whole point here is we are pushing to create as much lactate as we can, to get the maximum training load. It is the running version of cycling sweetspot, how I see it, in terms of getting your best bang for you buck. Over time it maximises the training load versus realistic recovery + repeatability. It's not a magic pill, but slowly over time you almost "grind" yourself to getting faster.

So basically it comes down to lactate level, and how that lactate effects your body. That is easier to understand.

I think I'm also going a bit too slow then, because during my 30 or 60s breaks I'm not breathing too hard, and after the last rep I feel fresh and like I can do the whole interval session all over again.

Is there a percieved effort for sub-threshold in terms of breath and how your legs feel? Are you supposed to feel "tired" but in control? I find it really difficult to actually feel the lactate when I run, especially compared to biking, where my legs become two stiff burning logs.

Daniels used to come and spend two days guest lecturing at a running camp I attended in the early 2000s, up at the Olympic Training Center in Lake Placid. Aside from being a great storyteller and incredibly warm and approachable, I appreciated the numerous qualifiers he would impart when talking about his book. He was always careful to emphasize that his tables are starting points that do not account for things like differences in economy and other individual traits of his athletes. I certainly can’t speak on his behalf, but I think the nuance and use of physiological markers to individualize training even within session would be right up his alley.

Another poster a few pages back linked an article on Chris Froome using sessions with lactate over 4.0, and wondered about sessions where the Ingebrigstens go over 4.0 as well. I seem to recall from Daniels’ lectures (granted, pushing 20 years ago!) an impression that there is value in teaching your body not only to clear lactate faster by doing volume below the LT, but also teaching your body to run with as little interruption to economy as possible by doing some regular running above threshold (though not too much, so as to avoid interrupting the rest of the training week). Hence, the relatively intense 20 minute tempo as well as what Daniels called cruise intervals (what we’re all describing as 5-6 minutes at 2.5-3.5 mmol lactate).

I think that a system that works that 2.5-3.5 or 4.0 range exclusively may be going too far off the deep end. There is value in integrating a bit of volume above 4.0, as most of us will presumably exceed that value while racing. What the Norwegians bring to the table is the idea that the volume of running possible in the 2.5-4.0 range is extraordinarily high if done correctly, and the necessity of running anything that produces above 4.0 is minimal (though, I think, not non-existent).

Should read: “but also teach your body to run with as little interruption to economy as possible WHEN YOU DO START TO ACCUMULATE LACTATE.

But, again, this should be a very brief exposure. Daniels caps those more intense tempos with no breaks at 20 minutes, maybe 25 for elites. As others have noted, even a small volume above 4.0 can really be felt days later. So there may be benefit in going over 4.0, but to do so effectively it behooves you to reallllly control and minimize that exposure and trust that a little goes a long way.

HF can be higher within a race because of the increased adrenalin level.

You don't need to think too complicated. Use 91-92%HRmax as an upper limiter, using the avg HR of the last min of the last rep. If you are higher reduce intensity the next time until it works. Ideally the last rep is just below that upper limit.

I'm just trying to think how to explain by feel. It's difficult I think as it's relative. Let's use 10x1k as an example. As I do this weekly. The first one barely feels like an effort at all. Sometimes the second one, the same. The middle rep, I'm thinking, this isn't so bad - I can finish this no problem. The last 1-2 you think, OK that was a workout.

Compare that to a race, say a 5k, the first 1k feels OK, but by the middle you question can I even finish? And by the end I'm wondering if I can even reach the line that I can see without my legs falling off.

I don't know if that helps in the slightest, but that's almost how I feel or see it or however you want to put it. It you have a recent time to convert, have a look at the paces I put up and go on the slow end of them and see how it feels. I still think it's an excellent starting point. For example, try 10x1k at 15k pace , don't worry about looking at any of the data during. Just run it and have a look back at it all later.

Yeah that is plenty helpful thank you. I think that kinda falls into my "tired, but in control" range where you're not panting frantically, or your legs turning to jello, but you're also feeling that you've done a fair bit of work.
I really wish I could get some lactate strips because I have the Lactate pro 2 device, but all the strips are sold out everywhere, and the next stock isn't happening until late September.

Just as an update on power. I ran with the Stryd yesterday and it was all over the place. There's no way it was remotely accurate. The reps ranged anything from 390w to 330w and there was very little wind, pan flat loops and the pace was almost totally even for 6x1600. If anything, the first lap was the slowest and it had the highest power.

However, today I did an easy run. Virtually a still day again today, 3mph pure west wind. So did a full 10k big loop instead of smaller interval ones. So I didn't look at the power, at all, for the first 2k. First km I just plod at about 5:15/km until lap ticks over. Then, second km, I ran to stay around 4:58/km dead on. When it lapped, I'd set it up to show the last lap power split. It was 250w. After this, I totally ignored pace and just ran to hit each 1k lap at dead on 250w as close as I could. The result? An incredibly even paced pretty easy run, as virtually all the laps were actually around 4:58/km. There was one slightly faster with the tiny tailwind and one a tiny bit slower almost 5:00 with the headwind. I was quite surprised by this.

I'll update this thread if I find out anything else. Unfortunately, being consistent for the easy runs versus the intervals is the wrong way round for the metric to be of much use. But, it is potentially another good metric to add to this system - if it starts to make any sense. It could give the user 3 realistic metrics to run to, for this Norwegian style hobby jogger system.