Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I imagine sirpoc will help you sort it out, but for reference to use as a quick back of the envelope calculation, IF of 0.70 would give 50 TSS per hour, IF of 1.0 would be 100 TSS per hour. So if you did 10 hours per week at your LT pace (FTP), that would give 1,000 TSS for the week. Where as if you did all your running at 0.70 IF (which is probably a good mark for the slow end of the easy pace range) that would be weekly TSS of 500. CTL will be around your average daily TSS.

I saw those Training Peaks charts when I was reading through documentation these last few weeks. I have to say, their suggestions seem incredibly high, on the high end. To me, even if you are an elite, you’re probably running 12 hours per week +/- 2 hours at the peak of your training. For half marathoners and marathoners, Training Peaks suggests up to 18 hours per week! Haha

As a general physiological observation, at around 2 hours per day (for runners), you’re basically peaking in regard to adaptation and benefit. I gave Training Peaks the benefit of the doubt and thought maybe they were including cross training in that (or some other low impact cardio), but to provide that as the guideline, seemed unrealistic at the high end.

I'm sure jiggy will update, but his data is out . It's overestimating TSS, I have no idea why - but I haven't use trainingpeaks in ages. Personally, Golden Cheetah for cycling or intervals icu are way better.

Some of Jiggys runs are like 200 TSS for 80 mins lol it's just something gone wrong in the data somewhere, duplication of runs maybe, I don't know, also not having zones updated , but jiggy is a tricky case because of where he runs and the conditions .But it's obviously wrong. I've actually got 102 TSS once in my life for an hour (NP buster) where it's possible to actually score it AND have your zones correct, but it's rare and a flaw in the NP calculation IMO.

FWIW Hard2find, the coggan posts I quoted I roughly agree with. Maybe take 10-15 CTL points off for a runner. But in cycling he's not far off. 75-80 ctl isn't even hard and I was very fit.

Indeed my numbers seem way off, I'm glad I picked it up quickly. A quick glance at the intervals.icu numbers had me at a reasonable Fitness (CTL) of 47 for last week (compared to a CTL of 172 via TrainingPeaks). The intervals.icu number itself might be off too due to zones/threshold not correctly set yet, but it is good to have a rough idea.

Now as to why the TrainingPeaks numbers are so off, I have yet to find out. For the sub threshold efforts on treadmill I can think of one reason on why it may overestimate the TTS: I leave the watch running during the rest to time my recovery, but in doing so, the NPE Runn Sensor is still picking up Distance/Pace from the moving belt and has me running (even faster since the belt is unloaded). I do end up subtracting this extra distance from the overall run summary, but I doubt it affects the calculations.

However, as I discussed with Sirpoc, even my outdoor runs without such hassles have over values for TTS on TrainingPeaks, despite having accurate LTHR and Max HR values over there.

Hope this thread doesn't get derailed by Jiggys personal data problems ...

I've been searching for a training breakthrough for a while. Any advice is appreciated.

Last year I ran 18:01, 36:40 and a 1:21:11 half. By the end of the year my 10k pb was almost the same pace as my 5k pb.

I was doing intervals, but the problem was/is I simply couldn't run them any faster, so I plateaued. A workout of 6x800 or 4xmile at 5:55-6:05 was only good enough for an 18 5k. In total I would at most do around 50 minutes of workouts per week and eventually got worn out and injured. I was then out for over 6 months.

Right now I'm back at around 18:30 on 30 miles a week. That's about how much I can do at the moment. For the past couple of weeks I've been doing around 60 minutes total at 6:40, then a parkrun on top. Is this the correct sort of pace and volume?

Seriously dude. Really need for that? Jiggy has shared some fantastic real life lactate data. Where is your contribution? Also, his troubles show you WHY you need to be nit picky and geeky and why it was made clear you need to understand what you are doing, to make use of your sub threshold data and training loads by pace or HR, to make it easier by ditching the daily lactate testing. I've learned a lot from this thread. A hell of a lot more than I expected.

As I understand the thread, you should be breaking your weekly workouts into about 25% of time in zone over the week. It would help to know minutes you are doing a week, rather than miles. But the 1k repeats , less than 10x1 for you , would be around 6:20-25 pace. The 2 k repeats around 6:35 and the 3k repeats around 6:40. All with a minute rest. Say you are doing 4 hours a week, then spread out of an hour total , probably for you over 2 workouts.

How I have interpreted this thread also though is that this really comes into its own around 5-8 hours a week. This seems to be the range I think this works best. I think sirpoc even said if he had more time, he might do things a little different . We have sirpoc really in depth posts and there's been plenty others who have going good following the broad approach, other than just him and the hobby jogger brother of Jakob.

If you have 10+ hours a week doubles is the way to go in my opinion. Less than 5 than you are, I think shirtboy gave a very good suggestion, maybe even consider a lot of marathon paced work almost exclusively. That would be an interesting test I feel for someone running so little to actually try.

It looks like you were running the intervals too fast, trying to run them even faster, if you want to the 3 x per week sub threshold that this thread is about. Dial in sub threshold effort then you should be able to do more volume of those sessions and more weekly volume than 30 miles without getting sore, fatigued and or injured. 60 minutes plus a fast parkrun would be above threshold, you don't want to be doing that every week if you want to follow the system that this thread is about.

You know, it amazing so many pages some people still don't get. If you don't want to use lactate meter, which is best, I think sirpoc give literally the best advice. Summary of what he said.

Run all workouts sub threshold, up to 3 workout a week. With no meter aim for paces. You must base pace from current fitness. If you live in hilly area, or like to do HR, do Joe friel hr test to find out your LTHR. You will then be aiming for Friel sub LTHR zone when running. 5k a sensible distance to do race if you haven't race in while so you have baseline for work with pace. Aerobic event and doesn't take too much out of user.

1k repeats around 15k pace. If you slower than 4 min per km, just run them as time instead, 15k pace for say 3-4 mins.

1600 repeats around 10 mile pace.

2-3k pace HM to 30k pace. Again, you can these on time if repeats are too long because right now you are slow. 8-12 min range from 2k up to 3k

Easy runs all below average HR of 70 % max. Long run same. Just bit longer. This seems to be up to user . Sipoc seems about 30% longer than normal easy run. I think thread agree that If you do half or definitely marathon, might be worth user going longer.

Use something like trainingpeaks, to collect your data. Use PMC to see how your fitness/CTL increases, or decrease. Start to think about add on extra to your week if you see it flatten off. When you add distance on, try add time on to easy first, then add into intervals. 75% of easy to 25% running sub threshold a week seems doable. None this make sense unless you know current fitness. Very important. Jiggy a smart guy in this thread but even he find out yesterday in this very thread PMC mean nothing if your data is trash.

Both sirpoc and Jakobs hobby jogger older brother are around this mark . For that we talk maybe 6-9 hour range. Again I think agreement seems to be on singles and sub threshold, this is probably the range where this make sense.

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. He just like KI has been going this long time. I added spoc on Strava, very boring - just like KI. How it should be if you do this correctly.

Wow awesome summary, I have read this thread but I've saved this post. Exactly what I was looking for 🙏

Excellent post, I wish it could be pinned on every page of this thread. Hats off to you.

It really isn't a glamorous way to train, but it sure is effective.

- - - - - -

Steering away from "jiggys peronal data problems.." (Good one, gave me a nice laugh), I want to revisit the idea of comparing efforts between extreme weather conditions.

Every brutal summer, I'd have easy 10K runs where my HR would creep into 170 bpm (83.7% of Max HR) at the end despite running slower than usual (even at 6:00/km pace). Where as when the weather is good, I'd need to run around 4:00/km pace to be at the same heart rate.

Another example would be today's long run during which my HR kissed 181 which is supposedly my LTHR, despite the pace being anything but fast.

Would you people expect/predict the internal physiological response by the body to be the same? Which one affects lactate levels more while running, HR or mechanical speed/force production?

Good thread.

I put my 50c. Does not matter that you all know me for my bad experience with guess who... I will not put his name here. But anyway, I want to tell from my small jogger experience with double threshold methods and lactate pro2, it is almost impossible to spot on sessions without a device. I told many times on letsrun: once you got a device and used it many times, then you will know where are your magic numbers. Device has shown me, that some LT sessions like 20×400@5K can be less lactate on thrashed legs (and you must push harder) than 20x400@5k on super fresh legs (where you must slow down despite your ego), this is very hard to accept and understand just by your feeling without device.

I kindy recommend to buy this device, it defenitely will help to understand better all your overal training and reaction of your body.

Bump

Just stay out of here Canefis. You have proven to be a doper and one of the best examples here how not to train.

Jiffy, what is your hydration like? I’ve heard Inigo San Milan talk about how HR can decouple from lactate and effort when you become dehydrated. I thought that electrolytes were BS for the longest time but after suffering summer after summer, I gave in and think it has made a difference. Easily could be placebo but it’s worth looking into. I have experienced the same thing in the summer, an easy run will feel easy to a point, then it will get brutal because I’m cooked. My HR will spike but my breathing doesn’t follow.

I'd be interested to hear what your approach is to hydration. I am staring down the barrel of a southern hemisphere summer and already workouts are noticeably harder with higher HR.

Does this make sense? Why does the exact same interval workout at the same pace (20x400@5k) when done on tired legs produce less lactate than when done on fresh legs??

Of course you would expect to feel like you are pushing harder to hit 5k pace on tired legs. But if you are still hitting the same pace, why is less lactate being produced when the legs are tired?

Were you measuring lactate correctly? Do you have an explanation? This seems to be the opposite of what intuitively makes sense. How much of a difference are you talking about?

I would like Canefis to come back and answer my question. Everything I’ve seen so far on taking lactate measurements makes intuitive sense; i.e., if the session feelsharder to hit pace (e.g., due to weather, a hillier course, etc.) then it results in higher levels of lactate being produced. So if the session feels harder due to tired legs, why would that result in lower lactate levels?

Assuming that thrashed legs imply fatigued and in a low glycogen state… There’s been multiple research studies done (cue lexel with link to paper haha) that compare metabolic response in a normal glycogen state to a low glycogen state. During exercise, the normal glycogen state lead to a release of lactate from the muscle. In contrast, the low glycogen state resulted in a small uptake of lactate. The conclusion is basically that the rate of glycolysis is higher in a normal glycogen state compared to a low glycogen state.

Body composition, heat, hydration (not only before but on the run), sweat rate, time of day, etc. will all play a part in heart rate. Heart rate, when compared to 60F/16C, is thought to be about 10-15 bpm higher at a temperate of 86F/30C. Additionally, it will increase as your sweat rate increase, so if you lose ~1% bodyweight in an hour run, your heart rate could be 5-10 bpm higher from that. It’s hard to get exact measurements but when you have all those factors occurring together, it is certainly not uncommon to hit a high heart rate at the end of an otherwise easy 60-90 minute run in the heat. You could weigh yourself before and after a one hour run and get an approximation of how much you lose in fluid per hour. Also, in general, assuming all else constant, higher heart rate and lactate is a function of speed (i.e. more force being applied), not the inverse.