Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I’m curious sirpoc, what proportion of your gains do you attribute to the extra specific and harder stimulus from the parkruns? I.e. if someone were to undertake this regime, would regular harder efforts be considered an essential component, though of course keeping the sub thresholds very controlled?

I think as long as he can handle the intensity, he will improve, and the parkruns will assist him in that regard. Ultimately, the goal is to become as fit as possible. If he were to require several days of rest after the parkruns, then it would naturally be counterproductive, and the weekly workload would decrease, consequently affecting the Chronic Training Load (CTL) as well.

Not sure. That's a good question. I'm genuinely not sure I know the answer to that. As has been observed lately by others and myself, KI lately has been doing a bit more work himself on the Saturday session. Something he used to sprinkle in but it has become a lot more regular. From my own perspective, the only thing I can say is that I have gone 6 weeks before without going to a park run - so that's 18 sessions all sub threshold with nothing above - and I still pb'd that week in the 5k. So if I had to guess, not much. But overall, it's probably something. I just wouldn't want to send someone down the garden path and say it's something it's not. Like you must do this or that on top of the sub threshold work. I think as I'm UK based, ParkRun is the perfect option - you get some work in once every few weeks and in general you are probably more motivated than you are alone. Plus it's free and for most people in towns and cities, there's one you can run out to and from and it costs nothing.

I would stick to the general principle that the vast majority of the work that doesn't quantify as easy, remains sub threshold. I don't want to dig around too much into the weeds of throwing other things into the mix, when I still think just sticking to this will get you very close to the maximum gain, for a reduced number of hours - with relatively limited risk factor.

Oh and well done Fusio, keep it going. Nice to see someone else having success and who has crossed over from cycling. I feel your pain, the weight loss is hard. I know I could speed up by just losing another 3-4kg. But I just can't shift it.

Has anyone gone through the trouble of compiling this thread into a single pdf/word file? If not, then I can do so and share it. Figured I'd ask before potentially wasting my time, though.

Haven't read the entire thread but last year I was, at times, doing 3 intervals sessions per week (2 threshold and 1 v02, totalling maybe 50-60 minutes) and it didn't make any difference to my fitness compared to doing just 1 session (of 18-24 minutes). I was at 17:40ish 5k and remained stuck there.

It seems like there are several people who are trying to train this way after reading through the thread. It’d be interesting to see either this thread or a new thread be used as a weekly update of sorts, where we could see how people are implementing the training ideas and track how it’s going for everyone. Anyone interested in sharing their progress?

No. Seems like a good idea. I did think about laying it all out as a guide somehow, at some point. But figured it would be way too long for anyone to really care about 😂

I'd read that. Maybe you could contact spoc ? It would be great to see something laid out he seems helpful I'm sure if there is someone who wants to structure this he would help. Ive enjoyed his posts from page 1 onwards it's an incredibly refreshing insight.

If you have done 2 true threshold sessions and 1vo2 max session u are probably crushed. Also if you think this is what this thread is about u haven't a clue what u are posting. I highly recommend u start on mid page 1 and set some time aside.

Ok, this thread seems to have a bit of life back in it. So let's talk about the easy run and power.

So I've said before, I like pace. I live in a flat area and I'm looking at around 65% of MAS for these runs. This is for the 3x normal runs and the long run of the week. This will normally amount to around an average of 70% Max HR, probably slightly under.

I totally concede, pace is not the best metric for some people. Living in the hills etc. So I bought a Stryd, as you can see a few pages back. Previously, I didn't have much luck. But I've persisted. I'm having trouble (or was) with the sub threshold stuff, but I feel I have some really good data to feedback for those interested on the easy runs.

So I did 4x easy runs blind, I just did my usual pacing and noted down the results. Then on my 5th easy run today, I tried to run ONLY to power , I didn't look at anything else but aimed for average power of the 4 previous runs. The result? The pace of the run was a bit more up and down. However, the power curve was almost flat and the result a run bang on 65% of MAS on average for the 55 minute run and 68% of max HR. Incidentally, the HR was a lot flatter. Much flatter in fact, due more even power distribution. All 5 runs it turns out were within a few "watts" of each other (let's use watts like that, as it's not really watts). This was at 78% of my FTP.

This seems to make total sense. In the stryd zones, this is the upper end of zone 1. Much like it would be for pace and HR. So all matches up very nicely. Now I'm not saying that is the case for EVERYONE. But I know there are some guys out there interested in using power . And if you have a pretty decent idea of your FTP, I would suggest 78% is a really good starting point. This resulted in the top end of the MAS suggestion, for the easy run. So let's say 78% is the cap and work down from there.

... and are you now king of the local hobbyjoggers? This thread is a circlejerk.

nerds

Thank you this is awesome. Brings together the 3 metrics we can use. I've heard people say much higher % of ftp and even Stryd suggested workouts for your normal runs quite a bit higher than this which I always thought is a little too hard for non workout days.

Shame to see some people LRC chat style trying to come ruin probably the best thread for your average runner ive ever seen here.

The guy was a bit of a jerk to you I admit. But , to be honest, im not sure you've read the thread. It's basically confirming what you tried it's likely not to work.

How to you measure your MAS?

I really like the variety of approaches the thread is touching on in regard to quantifying effort/stimulus. Whether lactate, heart rate, pace, or power. It’s interesting to see how the various metrics align with training and race performance too.

With regard to power, something that might be of interest to the group. The power model that Stryd uses, from what I can tell, is based on the sum of three power components. The primary values that contribute to the power level, specifically if power for air resistance and elevation are not a factor, are weight (kg), speed (m/s), and ECOR. ECOR stands for energy cost of running. Based on the data Stryd provides, they use a standard ECOR value of 1.04. So the simplified power equation looks like:

Power = Speed*Weight*ECOR

However, if you look at their data, it shows the better a runner you are, the lower your ECOR value. They list an elite runner as having an ECOR of 0.93, an average runner as 1.01, and an untrained runner as 1.06.

If you change your ECOR value from 1.04 to 1.01 in the power formula, that leads to a 2.88% REDUCTION in power, assuming speed and weight hold constant. So for those of us looking to target power for workouts and races, who are “better” hobbyists, keep that in mind.

Sirpoc has a good approach to go on feel and compare it to other metrics he uses. If you’re really into data, you can “fine tune” your ECOR value by observing it over the course of your sessions and calculating it yourself from the data.

ECOR = Power / (Speed*Weight)

If you want to use that data to get a more accurate race time prediction (assuming similar conditions as your workouts of course), based on a targeted power level:

Time = (ECOR*Distance*Weight) / Power

where Distance is in meters and Time in seconds

Hope that’s insightful for the nerds on the thread.

P.S. sirpoc, I like your idea of using the thread to crowd source data for more accurate training metrics over a span of devices/inputs. Lets make it happen LOL

MAS in simple terms is your maximal speed you can hold for about 6 minutes, then converted back to pace. Ben Rosario talks about it quite a bit and it's a common term they throw around at NAZ elite, especially to control the really easy days. I think its explained in this thread somewhere and I'm sure I saw Rosario name mentioned. It's one of the things I like about this thread , it is bringing together a lot of different things into a melting pot that seems to work for folks with 5-8 hours a week based on some of the feedback talked about over the last few weeks. I have been coaching a while and it certainly has me thinking that is likely the best way for people who fall somewhere in that range to train.

MAS is basically vVO2max. This would be the speed you could maintain for between 5-10 minutes depending on the source. Most recent research usually says 5-7 minutes.

Lurker checking in. Loved this thread and have been slowly transforming my training to this for the past couple of weeks. I'm way more of a hobbyjogger than most, recently PR'd with a 19:46 parkrun. I haven't had access to a lactate meter so I've erred on the side of caution and used the VDOT equivalent HM-FM paces for the workouts so far (5x5, 5x6, 8x4 minutes), HR has been creeping up to 90-92% of max by the last minute of the last rep so I'm reasonably happy with that even though the paces seem very slow for now (around 4:30/km). Will do a Friel test soon. One thing to note is that 65% of MAS and 70% of max HR for me are two completely different values - the former is a bit faster than I had been doing my easy runs prior to finding this thread and would push the HR closer to 80% of max. I tried the latter approach and was honestly shockingly slow, around 7:00/km or 11:00/mile, closer to 50% of MAS than to 65%. I'm definitely aerobically undertrained as my PR's get progressively worse as the distance increases (42:02 10k, 1:39 HM, 4:05 FM, though more recently I raced a 70:43 10mi and a 2:41:40 20mi which are still bad compared to the 5k/mile but definitely an improvement), not sure if that has something to do with it or if the body just needs to adapt to the new training load. Will try this out for a few weeks with no races (will do one 7k time trial just to get the Friel results and check my fitness levels) and race again in exactly a month's time to see the results. Thanks to spoc, shirtboy, Hard2Find and others who have contributed to outlining this approach.