Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Hard2Find wrote:

lexel wrote:

It is this paper i mentioned (see also Fig. 2)

Link:www.researchgate.net/publication/14347...

I agree that there are individual differences (as always), but i can also see a trend here. Billat confirmed Monod and Scherers model.

As mentioned by others, in most papers, tlim (time to exhaustion at vVO2max) is between 5-7minutes. In cycling btw. they often use 5 or 6 minutes (sidenote). So if i combine that with Monods/Scherer/Billat about the inverse relationship of vVO2max to performance, i conclude:

5min all-out: pro level

6min: club or very good runner (like sirpoc)

7min: hobby jogger category

So Sirpoc you did it very well imo. Also the 65%MAS, as capt for your easy days, fits very well for me and is Tinmans easy intensity. Everything is in line.

Lexel, I think we could come up with many different approaches to calculate workout paces based on a race, time trial, or lab data. That’s been my main emphasis is that you can use a lot of different approaches to arrive at the same range of paces. I’m, perhaps, a little more liberal with my terminology which I’d largely contribute to having a variety of sources I’ve used and learned from (physiologist, coaches, and athletes). All of whom essentially suggest the same things we are discussing even though they may be referred to differently by name or arrived at differently by method.

I know you’re keen on standardizing a way for us runners to refer to paces and share different research that makes use of those concepts. However, I find when I read the research it is not particularly convincing nor does it seemingly propose a better way to train, that actually works. In fact, many physiologists, Billat herself, seem keen on promoting intervals at or very close to vVO2Max. I think this thread would agree (along with the 90’s) that doesn’t seem to produce sustainable results.

Regarding Billat’s paper…. and I’ll admit this is not necessarily specific to the thread, if you look at the actual test statistics cited to demonstrate the inverse relationship between running at vVO2Max and time to exhaustion, they are not particularly strong. The r value is -0.36, that is a weak correlation and per that value, only 12.96% of the variation you see in the time to exhaustion is explained by ones vVO2Max alone. Other studies I’ve seen seem to have this same pattern. Just looking at the plotted data, you can see a lot of variance across different velocities. That’s kind of expected, to a degree, when you see Monod and Scherrer’s hyperbolic model, which you mentioned, where if you have a large difference between your vVO2Max and LT, you’ll have a much shorter time to exhaustion.

In general, I don’t see how these technicalities in the research inform our training in a novel way? If anything, they seem to suggest we are doing it wrong. A lot of studies show running at or near vVO2Max not only improves speed but also improves the LT. Owen Anderson, PhD, basically wrote a book based on that one idea haha

jecht wrote:

sirpoc84 wrote:

The fastest end of the scale of Tinman tempo is marathon pace. Stick with it and let it settle down. Your 4:30 really isn't much slower than I do my longer intervals at. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. You are in the ball park. Honestly don't push right up to the limit whilst you are getting used to how it all feels. The 2k repeats are just under 8 mins for me and I'm often a bit slower than HM pace and and lactate is still reasonably high if I have tested. The good thing if you feel you are aerobically undertrained, you are doing probably the best workouts to fix it if you can squeeze 3 in a week.

As someone just starting out with trying to wrap my head around this, is Tinman's calculator even good enough to establish baseline speeds, from which you can derive your thresholds and associated paces for the workouts and sessions you've covered? (As opposed to using JD's VDOT tables, etc.).

just my opinions wrote:

cob wrote:

Huh? Have I got the wrong book here or does FIRST bear little to no resemblance to any of the training methods in this thread?

The key feature of the detailed training plans for 5k, 10k, half-marathon, and marathon is the 3PLUS2 program, which consists of:
• 3 quality runs, including track repeats, the tempo run, and the long run, which are designed to improve endurance, lactate-threshold running pace, and leg speed
• 2 aerobic cross-training workouts, such as swimming, rowing, or pedaling a stationary bike, which are designed to improve endurance while helping to avoid burnout

You are very correct. I've read book. It's nothing like this thread. This thread is 3 quality + long + 2 or 3 easy. If you use correct , u will have much higher train load this way than 3PLUS2 . Very simple u just be fitter. I think this thread split between people who have done Tri/ cycle or those who interested in metrics vs. those who are running background and only know old school ways. They think things like 10 seconds per mile makes no difference. Whereas if u go to hard on workout days it absolutely does if you want able to complete 3x true quality week + long run. Imagine you do 10x1 km here talk about @ 10k pace instead of 15k pace mention. Or the 5x2 km @ closer to 12k pace rather than closer to Hm pace or just above . It laughable to think this would make no difference and we only talk about 10 seconds/km here. U think anyone could do that 3 times a week for a year like this thread? No lactate would be high on every session he would be totally busted and broken. I don't know what is hard to understand about this? It's just a balancing act to make sure u always just sit under the limit but can always just keep going. I ask genuine question as to how or why people are confused about this? Same with cycling, random guy rides sweetspot he can do that most days. Really good training best for buck, everyone knows this. But he go 15w over on multiple days and suddenly he going to feel a bit more tired each day until it catches up and he busted because now he is suddenly threshold and rate of fatigue exponentially grow.

it's very simple this method this thread. You are train more probably than u can in any other way. U will never put icing on the cake on 7 hour week so u may as well train the most to get close to it as u can.

I can understand you well wrote:

What also leaves me a bit perplexed is the arbitrariness of the arguments. Sometimes training is designed with a measuring device, then it is omitted, sometimes you run by feel, but then suddenly it plays a very big role that you run, for example, 8:00 and not 7:50. The title of the thread refers to low mileage, but some run 60 or 70 miles. Also, the question of whether the successes of some here can't be explained simply by having trained with more consistency over a period of time doesn't matter. A core group of people here vote each other up and anyone down who doesn't write what they want to hear. How about actually lining up 10 people with a clearly defined program over 10 weeks for a specific competitive distance, training really low mileage and only threshold workouts? You then compare those to another group of 10 people doing another well-organized program? I suggest the FIRST program by Dr. Bill Pierce and Dr. Scott Murr, if anyone else knows that. I think that would be a start.

f wrote:

Again put some numbers on it. I am going someone that runs a 6:00 5k will be doing 15k work at ~6:20 and 2 hour work at about 6:40. Tell me how different your paces are when doing running tests and measuring whatever metric you want. Again if you want to go to a lab and learn your threshold is at 86.1% vo2max and you have a lactate of 4.1mmol, great. Or just use your 60 min race time and be close enough.

And you are missing the point. Pros monitor precisely so they don't over train. For Low mileage runners (i.e. all those people running <40 mpw) this isn't an issue. They aren't running 10*1ks or doing 2 hours runs. They don't come close to the training

And unrelated the vvo2 type running is to some extent what we are avoiding. Yes it tests really well in 8 week studies. But it tends not to be sustainable for most people. But it is great in that 6-8 weeks before a 5-10k race.

just my opinions again wrote:

f wrote:

Again put some numbers on it. I am going someone that runs a 6:00 5k will be doing 15k work at ~6:20 and 2 hour work at about 6:40. Tell me how different your paces are when doing running tests and measuring whatever metric you want. Again if you want to go to a lab and learn your threshold is at 86.1% vo2max and you have a lactate of 4.1mmol, great. Or just use your 60 min race time and be close enough.

And you are missing the point. Pros monitor precisely so they don't over train. For Low mileage runners (i.e. all those people running <40 mpw) this isn't an issue. They aren't running 10*1ks or doing 2 hours runs. They don't come close to the training

And unrelated the vvo2 type running is to some extent what we are avoiding. Yes it tests really well in 8 week studies. But it tends not to be sustainable for most people. But it is great in that 6-8 weeks before a 5-10k race.

Clear you not actually read thread. Examples here shown and shared with data about how even small difference in running and playing around threshold create disproportion fatigue. If you do not understand that. That's ok. But just say you do not understand rather than trying to debate something you clearly not understand. Even as hobby jogger if we can easily understand how and where to run in this sub threshold zone. Why wouldnt we? This thread is not hard to understand and give a good guide. What the point of just running 60 min pace and that good enough when we can get slightly overall load for week by making sure we hit better targets? This just sounds like dumb old school runner argument. Same time after time on LRC. I don't understand why just because hobby jogger u wang to train not optimal. Mayb like I suggest Tri guys and cyclists a bit more understanding and runners behind the times?

sirpoc84 wrote:

jecht wrote:

i.e. to clarify my last post, I thought it worked for me (TME calculator) but have also read that it's not as accurate as other calculators. (To avoid confusion and I can't edit the prior post).

That'll work. So if I say do the 10x1k around 15k pace, that's a rough guide to get you somewhere under lactate threshold based on my own experience. Or maybe 8x1k depending on your mileage etc. But Tinman's site is useful IMO because it has a lot of data points and these are only guestimates anyway. Whatever any calculator says, I don't actually know what my real life 15k pace is to compare it to. As I've said (probably to bore people to death), this is a rough guide as to what works for me and I know has for a few other people. I know more about why it works for me, as I've lactate tested quite a bit in the past and every now and again to spot check. But I think it's an excellent ballpark if you want to have a really , really simple starting point for this.

just my opinions wrote:

cob wrote:

Huh? Have I got the wrong book here or does FIRST bear little to no resemblance to any of the training methods in this thread?

The key feature of the detailed training plans for 5k, 10k, half-marathon, and marathon is the 3PLUS2 program, which consists of:
• 3 quality runs, including track repeats, the tempo run, and the long run, which are designed to improve endurance, lactate-threshold running pace, and leg speed
• 2 aerobic cross-training workouts, such as swimming, rowing, or pedaling a stationary bike, which are designed to improve endurance while helping to avoid burnout

You are very correct. I've read book. It's nothing like this thread. This thread is 3 quality + long + 2 or 3 easy. If you use correct , u will have much higher train load this way than 3PLUS2 . Very simple u just be fitter. I think this thread split between people who have done Tri/ cycle or those who interested in metrics vs. those who are running background and only know old school ways. They think things like 10 seconds per mile makes no difference. Whereas if u go to hard on workout days it absolutely does if you want able to complete 3x true quality week + long run. Imagine you do 10x1 km here talk about @ 10k pace instead of 15k pace mention. Or the 5x2 km @ closer to 12k pace rather than closer to Hm pace or just above . It laughable to think this would make no difference and we only talk about 10 seconds/km here. U think anyone could do that 3 times a week for a year like this thread? No lactate would be high on every session he would be totally busted and broken. I don't know what is hard to understand about this? It's just a balancing act to make sure u always just sit under the limit but can always just keep going. I ask genuine question as to how or why people are confused about this? Same with cycling, random guy rides sweetspot he can do that most days. Really good training best for buck, everyone knows this. But he go 15w over on multiple days and suddenly he going to feel a bit more tired each day until it catches up and he busted because now he is suddenly threshold and rate of fatigue exponentially grow.

it's very simple this method this thread. You are train more probably than u can in any other way. U will never put icing on the cake on 7 hour week so u may as well train the most to get close to it as u can.

f wrote:

just my opinions wrote:

You are very correct. I've read book. It's nothing like this thread. This thread is 3 quality + long + 2 or 3 easy. If you use correct , u will have much higher train load this way than 3PLUS2 . Very simple u just be fitter. I think this thread split between people who have done Tri/ cycle or those who interested in metrics vs. those who are running background and only know old school ways. They think things like 10 seconds per mile makes no difference. Whereas if u go to hard on workout days it absolutely does if you want able to complete 3x true quality week + long run. Imagine you do 10x1 km here talk about @ 10k pace instead of 15k pace mention. Or the 5x2 km @ closer to 12k pace rather than closer to Hm pace or just above . It laughable to think this would make no difference and we only talk about 10 seconds/km here. U think anyone could do that 3 times a week for a year like this thread? No lactate would be high on every session he would be totally busted and broken. I don't know what is hard to understand about this? It's just a balancing act to make sure u always just sit under the limit but can always just keep going. I ask genuine question as to how or why people are confused about this? Same with cycling, random guy rides sweetspot he can do that most days. Really good training best for buck, everyone knows this. But he go 15w over on multiple days and suddenly he going to feel a bit more tired each day until it catches up and he busted because now he is suddenly threshold and rate of fatigue exponentially grow.

it's very simple this method this thread. You are train more probably than u can in any other way. U will never put icing on the cake on 7 hour week so u may as well train the most to get close to it as u can.

And you are missing the point. Pros monitor precisely so they don't over train. For Low mileage runners (i.e. all those people running <40 mpw) this isn't an issue. They aren't running 10*1ks or doing 2 hours runs. They don't come close to the training

Hard2Find wrote:

I can understand you well wrote:

What also leaves me a bit perplexed is the arbitrariness of the arguments. Sometimes training is designed with a measuring device, then it is omitted, sometimes you run by feel, but then suddenly it plays a very big role that you run, for example, 8:00 and not 7:50. The title of the thread refers to low mileage, but some run 60 or 70 miles. Also, the question of whether the successes of some here can't be explained simply by having trained with more consistency over a period of time doesn't matter. A core group of people here vote each other up and anyone down who doesn't write what they want to hear. How about actually lining up 10 people with a clearly defined program over 10 weeks for a specific competitive distance, training really low mileage and only threshold workouts? You then compare those to another group of 10 people doing another well-organized program? I suggest the FIRST program by Dr. Bill Pierce and Dr. Scott Murr, if anyone else knows that. I think that would be a start.

I certainly have no idea what this thread is about at this point (haha), but I’ve enjoyed the exchange. I think sirpoc’s approach is probably what most people associate as the emphasis of this thread? There have been a few of us to suggest that if the Norwegian approach is just broadly considered more emphasis on a range of threshold paces for workouts, as opposed to just LT or the “traditional” approach of one LT and one VO2Max session per week, that has proved more sustainable and beneficial performance wise. Obviously, this is nothing novel, but I don’t think anyone has made that claim?

I agree that unless carried out in a very controlled manner, it’s hard to know if our improvements come from specific changes in training versus the accumulation of training benefits from consistency, accrual over past seasons, maturation, etc. However, and I can only speak for myself, when I have shifted to a more traditional approach (one LT session and one VO2Max session per week), I see a drop off in performance and feel burned out. I personally would prefer the traditional approach, both for the aesthetic appeal of how it looks on the calendar and the variety in workouts. One long run, one tempo run, one interval session. That has a nice feel to it. However, it just hasn’t proven as beneficial for me as one long run and two tempo sessions at slower than LT, with the occasional VO2Max session, in general.

Regarding your suggestion on studying responses to training, there has been no shortage of such studies in the research literature. Peter Snell, Olympic gold medalist, who is a physiologist performed a study where I believe the group of runners he used ran easy for 6 weeks and then split into two groups, one which ran two interval sessions per week consisting of 200m-400m for a total of about 4800m and another which ran two tempo runs per week of 30 minutes each. The other runs were all easy. They did this for 10 weeks. I can’t recall what the specific paces were, nor can I find the exact study to check it, but an 800m and 10km test were performed at the end of the easy running phase and then again at the end of the workout phase. At both the 800m and 10km, the interval trained group improved more on average. This was a surprise as tempo runs should have been more beneficial for the 10km.

I remember reading this study and testing it on myself, although slightly modified. I did 6 weeks of just easy volume, 6*60 minutes and 1*90 minutes, then 6 weeks of two 30 minute tempos, then 6 weeks of two 15 minute intervals. During this experiment I maintained a 90 minute long run and 60 minutes easy on the other days. I did my time trials on the track and used a 1600m and 10,000m. I had the opposite result as Snell’s experiment, I ran both the 1600m and 10,000m slower after the intervals than I did after the tempos. Training and performance is quite the perplexing experiment haha

f wrote:

Hard2Find wrote:

I certainly have no idea what this thread is about at this point (haha), but I’ve enjoyed the exchange. I think sirpoc’s approach is probably what most people associate as the emphasis of this thread? There have been a few of us to suggest that if the Norwegian approach is just broadly considered more emphasis on a range of threshold paces for workouts, as opposed to just LT or the “traditional” approach of one LT and one VO2Max session per week, that has proved more sustainable and beneficial performance wise. Obviously, this is nothing novel, but I don’t think anyone has made that claim?

I agree that unless carried out in a very controlled manner, it’s hard to know if our improvements come from specific changes in training versus the accumulation of training benefits from consistency, accrual over past seasons, maturation, etc. However, and I can only speak for myself, when I have shifted to a more traditional approach (one LT session and one VO2Max session per week), I see a drop off in performance and feel burned out. I personally would prefer the traditional approach, both for the aesthetic appeal of how it looks on the calendar and the variety in workouts. One long run, one tempo run, one interval session. That has a nice feel to it. However, it just hasn’t proven as beneficial for me as one long run and two tempo sessions at slower than LT, with the occasional VO2Max session, in general.

Regarding your suggestion on studying responses to training, there has been no shortage of such studies in the research literature. Peter Snell, Olympic gold medalist, who is a physiologist performed a study where I believe the group of runners he used ran easy for 6 weeks and then split into two groups, one which ran two interval sessions per week consisting of 200m-400m for a total of about 4800m and another which ran two tempo runs per week of 30 minutes each. The other runs were all easy. They did this for 10 weeks. I can’t recall what the specific paces were, nor can I find the exact study to check it, but an 800m and 10km test were performed at the end of the easy running phase and then again at the end of the workout phase. At both the 800m and 10km, the interval trained group improved more on average. This was a surprise as tempo runs should have been more beneficial for the 10km.

I remember reading this study and testing it on myself, although slightly modified. I did 6 weeks of just easy volume, 6*60 minutes and 1*90 minutes, then 6 weeks of two 30 minute tempos, then 6 weeks of two 15 minute intervals. During this experiment I maintained a 90 minute long run and 60 minutes easy on the other days. I did my time trials on the track and used a 1600m and 10,000m. I had the opposite result as Snell’s experiment, I ran both the 1600m and 10,000m slower after the intervals than I did after the tempos. Training and performance is quite the perplexing experiment haha

So basically you upped the intensity and didn't back off on the volume. Sounds like over training... Note though how your test isn't like Snells. If you would have done intervals instead of tempos, it is likely you would have been faster. But it is hard to do sample sizes of 1 tests.

Pretty much every study comes to the same conclusion as the snell study where intensity is better which is where the 90s less is more stuff came from. But they are all short term. You get a huge benefit from running at intensities that recruit all your fibers and get you used to running fast. But you can't build on it the same way as doing the slower but still intense aerobic work. The adaptations of more capillaries, aerobic enzymes and the rest take much longer than fiber recruitment and the like.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Really interesting thread. I was in the original thread linked to in here and I love this style of training whether aiming at the mile-5K as well as the HM/Full (there I incorporate a long run into this as an addition, and do longer intervals like the non-pro Ingebridsten brother). I've always disliked VO2 stuff, and found it led to a boom/bust feeling and I'd be fried in a couple of months. When doing intervals from 400 to 1200 with short rest (minute max), I don't wear down over the season and feel like I can race at a pretty high level for a long period of time. I got a late start this season (unrelated to training setbacks), but we'll see how the 5th Avenue Mile goes. If all goes well, I'll have put together a decent chunk of these workouts (2-3x per week), even if I'm a few weeks short of what I'd have in an ideal world.