Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Hi!
Been following this thread everyday for a couple of weeks now and it’s been super nice to learn a lot of new stuff.
Will slowly implement more and more threshold work to hit 20-25% percent of my weekly time running at threshold intensity.

Just a little question about updating zones for you Sirpoc84. I’m using intervals.icu to monitor my training. Great free resource btw. :) I’m using pace to calculate my fitness/CTL. A the moment my threshold pace is set at 4:11/km and I’m using the Friels 7 zone system. As I understand it’s crucial that you update your zones for it to work correctly when monitoring training load over time.
Let’s say I run a 19:00 5km next week what calculator would you then use to get my new threshold speed estimate that I then can update my intervals ICU zones with?
Hope it makes sense and thank you once again for all the valuable information.

you’re cute.

thanks for your contribution

Thanks for these -- they are very interesting as were the previous shares!

Seems like "On Coaching" podcast has been following along in this thread as well from their last podcast

What did they say?

I don't disagree with you, in general. I myself use a two workouts and one "true" long run per week approach. However, I couldn't help myself but run another simulation to compare the two weekly structures haha

docs.google.com

Comparison of Training

Below is the weekly structure and progression I used to generate the comparison. Keep in mind that while the workouts and intensity factors listed are specific, it’s the TSS value that matters in using this method of analysis...

Link:docs.google.com/document/d/1Top4oHQqB4...

All, this thread has been a great introduction into a Hobby Jogger version of the Norwegian method. I made a companion thread for people to post and discus their own journey with this training. Feel free to jump in:

Whatever calculator you used to get your threshold pace before, stick with that. You must have used a calculator to get to 4:11? If you used different threshold pace estimates, they might be a couple seconds per km out. But in general, just use the same one you used before, by entering your new pb into the same calculator. That way, it'll keep your numbers consistent proportionally to your new fitness. Daniels is fine. Tinman is fine. Just use which ever threshold calculation you started with to get to your 4:11 /km .At the end of the day it's a jumping off point for the calculations, just keep how you get to that threshold jumping off point the same each time.

As far as I know, it doesn't matter what one of the zone systems you use, it's all based on an internal % of threshold within ICU. In terms of I mean, if you use runcoach zones, Friels, 80/20, makes no difference to your actual TSS score. But will change how it displays "time in zone" over the week. Again, just pick/keep which one you prefer. Once you have set up how to calculate your threshold and which zones to use, stick with it. Or your data won't make sense. The data is only useful for you anyway. You can't compare it to mine, or the next person. As you might run 17:15 off 40 TSS and it takes me 63. All you need to know is when yours is increasing, decreasing or stagnating in relation to yourself previously.

Completely agree Lexel . My long run isn't long really. Which is why I put it in quotation marks. Maybe that part it's lost in translation. I'm certainly not calling it long. Its long simply in the sense it's my longest run in the week but it's very much easy. Totally agree this is an easy run in fact I aim for exactly the same pace and will result in a low HR as I do on all my other easy runs. It's totally included in the 75% of running which is, IMO, incredibly easy and not a quality workout.

I am curious if you think it's running of why I'll get injured? This is my third summer running now and the best I have felt. The worst I felt and picked up some injuries was early last summer which made me change. The vo2 work was crushing me. I felt so bad on the days after it I almost quit. I just couldn't get myself going, hit a brick wall and my performance was just not moving in the right direction. I guess any runner is worried about injury. I did this same system on the bike for more years than I care to remember, over training was never an issue and of course injury chance is basically zero (except impact injuries from crashes I had in races). But my goodness, sometimes I even did 4 times a week 3x20-25 mins sub threshold/sweetspot on the bike. Never felt tired in the slightest.

You just recover too fast , for it to grind you down IMO. If I was running right around threshold or above, I'd agree. I'd be crushed. But my lactate and HR is in a zone I know I can handle as long as I don't push it - and be ready to go again after an easy run the next day. But not pushing it is the absolute hardest part and the reason most people don't stick to this. I have almost religiously stuck to this for over a year now. I missed maybe 4 days in all that time, when I had Covid. Otherwise I would have had zero days off. Kristoffer even longer I think just doing the same thing, with only ever so slowly changing little bits here or there.

I've been following this thread a lot. I'm curious what was said? I don't know why they don't get someone like yourself or sirpoc on. Or preferably both. Why not actually speak to guys who understand this and have done it for a long period of time rather than just lifting it from a forum.

I've been running 35 years. If you have managed to stick to something for a year+ , it almost certainly is sustainable and won't crack in terms of overtraining, and you are probably a very disciplined trainer to be so absolutely consistent over such a long period of time. Speedwork in my experience is where injuries start , although not exclusively. But if you feel fresh, no knocks or niggles and you've been going a year, this is about as sustainable a system as I've seen. It's certainly got my interest and I have enjoyed reading this thread start to finish as well as being able to go back and look through the oldest Ingebrigtsten brothers training on strava which has been fascinating.

Hard2find I also very much liked your recent shares. Much appreciated. Thank you very much. Really enjoy the digging down and first hand scientific analysis you put in. All in all a real enjoyable LRC thread, a rarity that those who can remember 15+ years ago might remember at least back then, was less rare.

So runner 2 on the 7 day schedule that sirpoc suggests, has higher CTL right? His approach is basically based on making his CTL, as high as possible? So this goes back to what I think he post about a few days back. You would suggest like him the only way to improve is to then make the long run longer and perhaps add on some some sub T work in proportion to the easy?

I can't speak for Hard2find and his graph is a bit blurry for me. But I will share.my thoughts on it as you name dropped me. Let's take again my rough example.

These are roughly rounded TSS numbers I've seen for me in the last few days.

Me on 7 days

Workout 76 TSS. Let's say roughly all going to be the same and just call it 75. 225 TSS via workouts for 3 times a week.

3 easy runs all at 50 TSS for 150 TSS and a "long run" for 75 TSS (let's just call if that for 1 TSS score a min to keep it really simple, even though I actually went 80 mins this week) . 450 TSS for the week. This is pretty much this week ( I did a park run, but let's just pretend that was a workout, and for arguments sake, the race + running there and back, weirdly just happens to equal about 75 tss anyway)

Me on 6 days but one quite a bit longer run.

2 workouts. Let's say I go a bit harder, I probably could on two. 80 tss per session. 160 tss.

The same easy runs, 150 TSS. nothing changes here. Then instead of 75 TSS for the long run, let's say I really push it. I could manage 105 minutes I think. So let's give myself 105 TSS. You have to remember though, this would need to be kept reasonable in terms of time, as to score the 1 TSS (roughly a minute) I would need to be going the same pace I did for 75 mins . But I managed it in theory, so I get 105 TSS. But I think that's generous, because I feel in reality I would have to dial that pace in a slight bit. But being the most generous I can, I only score 415 TSS for the week. All my experience (mostly from cycling but I'm starting to have a year's worth of running data showing the same patterns), is that I'll almost certainly be faster with 7 days and just scoring as much TSS as I can and gaining a higher CTL. Plus as I've said before it just fits in neater to the week.

I would be perfectly happy with doing a slower, longer run on day 7 for more TSS as well as running the other days 3 on and 3 off, for slightly more TSS, if I could. A bit like Kristoffer is doing now. But, quite frankly, it's hard to fit in to a time crunched life.

Yes, correct. Runner 2 is the runner using sirpoc’s general outline and does maintain a higher CTL over the course of the training period. As sirpoc has pointed out (and perhaps I should've emphasized this in the documents), your TSS and CTL can be compared if running relatively the same amount of hours per week. The comparison would be at what average intensity factor. However, if the comparison is between two different runners (as opposed to the same runner comparing the two different training approaches), one runner may be able to run a 15:40 5k with a peak CTL of 56 where as the other runner may run 17:30 with the same CTL.

So, to clarify, I’m presenting these simulations as the same runner who is debating which approach to take as opposed to, “Method 2 yields a higher CTL so that means Noel will run faster than Liam, since he uses method 2.”

As far as increasing the stimulus on the workout days, you either run more volume at the same intensity factor or run the same volume at a higher intensity factor. The choice is really up to the runner, what they are training for, what is motivating for them, etc. I like two longer threshold workouts and a long run where you incorporate some fartlek or threshold. I race mainly half marathons and marathons though, so find a solid long run more foundational. It still amounts to 3 threshold efforts and 3-4 easy days for the week. As Marco Pierre White would say, “It’s your choice, really.”

By the way, I’m a fan of regular strides too. I’ve heard Keith Brantley refer to them as pushups for your legs haha

Cheers, thanks for your thorough answer :)

I was talking about overtraining/overuse not necessarily injury. You seem to be very disciplined and also not injury prone, which is good. Every person is different.

We don't have only muscles we have also the brain. A monotonous training over month, without breaks or periodization, might lead to that. This is well known in science and practice.

I feel responsible to write that down especially for less experienced or younger athletes.

Hah, oddly enough I'm the same height but a bit heavier (70-71 kg).

I do however, slow down much more than your 10s/km, but then again we have to operate with much higher temperatures than 27C. Summer is a bi###. I do however experience a noticeable performance improvement when the weather turns around, more so than those who do not slow down as much in the summer. It is a tradeoff, sort of.

Hey mate. Let me see if I can find a journal article Coggan shared with a few of us a while back, whilst arguing the case for the use of the PMC and if CTL even means anything. I remember it well, because interestingly I was in cycling mode and had no interest in running yet it was a study of an Olympic 1500 metre runner (I think).

Fwiw, I agree with Coggan that is a great tool and incredibly useful, but only in a case study of 1 and where you are carefully handling and managing the data to make sure it's as accurate as can be. Which the article I can remember was. It also goes into why they used pace TSS, over TRIMP. Like I've said before and you've pointed out, whilst it sounds obvious a lot of people simply dismiss it as rubbish because they are like "well Noel is faster than me but his CTL is 35 and mine is 60" so Liam gets mad, almost supersonic and dismisses everything you can learn in the PMC as totally worthless. (I wasn't sure if you deliberately made the Brit pop reference but I went with it ha ha).

As I've said before. I find Coggan an odd man, sometimes rude, argumentative for no reason and bare in mind the man is meant to be a scientist, trolls the Time Trialing forums regularly. But, as a few others who have had run ins with him - annoyingly I do think he is right and the PMC as an overview is one of the most valuable and powerful tools for an athlete at any level.

Hard2find:

Not sure why but it won't let me share the journal article links here. But have shared the link to page 3 of the hilarious catfight between Coggan and the guy who ran (or did) golden cheetah. I think I even chime in with a troll somewhere from memory ha . If you find Coggan posts, in the midst of all that mess and cat fighting, there's a couple of good links you might be interested in. In goes way more in depth than simply saying the better the CTL the fitter you are, but it is looking at a world class athlete over a hobby jogger. In the sense that, overtraining might be an issue. IMO the experience of being a hobbyist in both sports I've talked about and having trained mostly like this for a long, long time - Overtraining risk is almost zero and because in the grand scheme of things, you aren't training much at all. Simply put a higher CTL is likely better. But the good news for most of us being hobby joggers, is that means as long as we collect the data well, interpreting it is also easy. Once you get past hobby jogger territory, it gets more complicated and beyond my understanding. But I know Bradley Wiggins and his team were huge fans of the PMC data.

I think it's the second bottom link in coggans first post on page 3 about a 1500 metre runner (see my memory does work ha)

Shirtboy might also find it interesting. Hard2find, I'm also happy to share stuff over email with you, I have been with shirtboy. You might even be interested in all my old cycling data, if I can get it off my old laptop from golden Cheetah. Jiggy as well if he's interested, or even a telegram group with a few of us rather than email. Might help keep this thread simple going forward. As despite this seemingly having a lot of people on tilt this thread, the majority do really seem to be interested and asking questions and I know myself I'm always happy to help with the basics.

I’m pissing myself haha! You definitely got the reference! As an aside, I saw Noel Gallagher in concert a few months ago, good times.

Anyway, when you mentioned olympic 1500m runner, I feel like I’ve read that potentially? Would that be possible? Some neurons fired up when you said, olympic 1500m runner. I’ll search my drive for it if you don’t locate it. I’m still in my 30’s but think I’m reaching that point where I’m forgetting more than I remember haha

One of my very few pet peeves amongst (some) colleagues is when they use their PhD to assert superiority, as if someone who doesn’t have one can’t have knowledge (whether based on experience or learned) that either contradicts theirs or illuminates a concept they haven’t considered or don’t know about. I think with running (and endurance sport in general) it does seem that practitioners (coaches and athletes) are met equally in that regard since it’s hard to argue with results.

I can see why using pace based TSS is preferable to HR TSS or TRIMP (the latter two are basically the same, correct?), specifically when running intervals. One, there is the initial lag in HR to an increase in pace. Two, if HR max is reached at approximately vVO2Max, you can obviously run workouts faster than that (especially for a 1500m runner), so then, how to quantify that and work it cohesively into the model. Additionally, the variance that comes with HR in regard to hydration, time of day, glycogen depletion, etc.

I’ve wanted to work on a model that both quantifies the training load, like TSS, but also accounts for both diminishing return and the training benefit you’ll receive from it (meaning how it will impact the overall “aerobic vs anaerobic” push-pull component). Like you said in regard to updating your pace data for calculating TSS, as long as the athlete is maintaining that, I think there is enough biometric data being collected that those types of systems are possible now. The general principles can come from physiology and then be updated with learned experience and real world data. Standard machine learning, really.

Btw, as a result of your posts, I did listen to a few interviews with Andrew Coggan, Stephen Seiler, Inigo San Milan, Olav Aleksander Bu. Good stuff!