Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

How long of a long run would you suggest in the 3q +LR approach? Something more like 75 minutes or something more like the traditional 90-120 mins LR?

What would you have done differently?

What’s the Strava group? And can someone point me to the telegram info for Sirpoc so I can stalk him on Strava?

I think my biggest mistake was not doing any longer continuous tempo efforts at slightly slower paces. Everything was track intervals, and my longest reps were only two miles. I did do some harder long runs, which has served me well in past marathon builds, but it wasn't enough.

I would still do a good amount of threshold work applying some of these same principles, but maybe I didn't need to be running double thresholds just because it's the hot thing now.

I'd always suggest 25-30% of weekly volume for the long run, whatever may that be in duration or distance, with an upper limit of 120 minutes in most cases.

One or two outlier longer runs would not hurt, if the runner has the capacity and is used to longer distances.

Sorry about your HM, not the best encouragement for my attempt soon.

I'm curious to know what you would consider as "high mileage for the longer stuff", as you have already touched 70 mpw, which to me sounds like pretty serious mileage already.

For clarity for those who don't read the whole thread, in this thread - the "Ingebrigtsen approach" discussed isn't specific to "base phase", nor is it related to Jakob and short track distances as someone mentioned. It's specifically copying the training of the 'hobby jogger' Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen (coached by Henrik) who uses this on a continuing rolling basis doing only singles and not huge volume (although his volume has steadily increased). Nor is it specifically for shorter races, he continues to use this approach for HMs. His progress in a relatively short time has been impressive, although I'm sure he has some genetic advantages!

Yes, you are so correct. I think maybe people are getting confused, or thread is long maybe understand the wrong thing. KI approach is the hobby jogger singles approach this is based on, our user sirpoc84 who outlines here is in the Strava group. Also made huge progression and is maybe doing his reps same pace now as KI was 6+ months ago. Also remarkable progress.

Hi, someone linked to

Started to use it. It is cool analysing all the data produced by a simple garmin. This will help to level up the performance level of the self trained running nerds. If not, it is interesting and fun nevertheless. Kudos to the developer(s). Will voluntarily pay my share.

BR

We have here a polarized training form, i am not sure if this term was used so far.

I think the polarised nature has been brought up before, but it's hard to remember in 1000 posts 😅😂

Polarised has always been how I have thought of it, but then Seiler enthusiasts (and the man himself) always get upset as this is polarised, but not in the literal sense he prescribed or championed, in the sense it's not totally at the end of both scales- as in, there is no really hard in the system I've been using (aside from racing now and again).

However, I believe this works better for the reasons that I have gone into. Firstly, Seilers version of polarised training is actually more like 85/15 when you see the actual studies, even more like 90/10 for the absolute elites, whereas what I am doing is about 75/25. In simple terms, in isolation the Seiler style "hard is hard" sessions that account for the 10-15%, are definitely harder. But, you can't do as many of them in a week. So if you stick to his rules for the 75% (under VT1), but replace the 25% with manageable runs that are reasonably hard, but easy to recover from, you can generate more TSS weekly. It just happens sub threshold, ticks all those boxes, once you work up to it, 3 sessions a week are pretty easy, I've done this now for almost 16 months, every single week in that time. In the spirit of the thread and pure simple terms, the 25% (+-2) in this system is simple worth more (training load) than the 15% in Seilers classic polarised approach. FWIW, Seiler himself has backed down a bit on this lately, as he lives in Norway and clearly Jakob is changing things. Previously, he was basing most of what he was applying from Norwegian cross country skiing, or that was at least his starting point.

As I've said before, this is nothing new, Time Trialists in the UK have been training like this for a while, it just seems that for me at least, it translates well into running.

Seiler came into discussion, because at the beginning he sold it in a way that he invented it. He did not invented it he studied the training distribution of successful athletes. And that does not mean this is the optimal training distribution. This is important to understand. What works for one, does not need to work for others.

Seiler made his analysis too simplistic in my opinion. He has only 3 zones. 3 Zones are not enough. Seiler counts everything below 2mmol as Zone 1, however it is a difference if you train at lactate baseline (around 1mmol for most) or close below 2mmol. That is not the same effort, recovery time is different. He missed an important information here.

And on the high end he does not use CV as a marker, he uses typically 4mmol as a marker between his zone 2 and 3, This is also not optimal, as the Norwegian model lands close below CV as outlined by me in very detail.

So is see your approach not all in the Seiler way, because Seiler simplified it too much.

In the K.Ingeb. system, which you copied and presented here, easy means very easy, staying at the lactate baseline, and quality is close below CV, and there is no other training in-between. That is the polarization i am thinking off.

Absolutely agree, Seiler flip-flaps between what he means, much like Coggan, it's very hard to actual pin down what their current position is. I bring in Coggan, because despite the fact he has become almost a parody of himself and an internet troll on the time trialing forums at times, we can apply a lot of his metrics here.

But if you speak to Seiler, he will tell you it cannot be polarised this way, from a pure definition point, in the sense that the word itself means opposite ends of the spectrum, whereas a lot of this training sits more in the middle of a scale. I actually think you could just call this sweetspot training, as it's clear it's much like the cycling power zone that is specifically designed to create as much CTL, without crushing you. That's basically what is happening here, just without the use of a power meter - and obviously the impact of running means we can handle less (for instance I could easily rack up 100 CTL on the bike, but 65 now from running probably feels as hard, if not more than generating 100 cycling). I've spoken to Hard2find quite a bit about this and there is definitely an opportunity for someone, somewhere to make something better to apply to running. Using TSS I still think works for running, but probably only if you apply it to this model of training. It still totally underrepresents the really hard sessions. But then again, NP on the bike can be manipulated and broken, so maybe nothing is perfect, but I digress.

I wouldn't say it's fair to say I copied KI, I noticed he was doing something similar in terms of running that myself and others had been doing for over a decade in cycling. But he certainly inspired me to just go back to basics and have the confidence you can of course train like this, with relative success, not just on the bike but running. FWIW, I've not seen enough people doing this long term in running to comment, but absolutely nobody I encountered on the UK Time Trial scene didn't increase their FTP if they stuck to this as their training method for a decent period of time. The Strava group is interesting, which is why I haven't posted here much, as you can see who is training this way and their successes.

I also agree with you that 3 zones Seiler presented isn't enough, again they have changed over time. I think he's more in line with a 5 zone model now. Obviously as you say, saying anything below 2.0 mmol is ridiculous to say that's "easy" and zone 1. If I ran the top end of that , each day, I would be totally and absolutely crushed and there is no way I would be able to run the 2.5-3.5 mmol sessions 3x a week I target. In fact, I suspect I would get injured or something if I ran 4 days at the top end of Seilers zone 1 and then tried the 3x sub threshold days.

Could not agree more here.

On the other hand it is really hard to respect a well known sports scientist, i.e. Seiler, if he does not know that a close below 2mmol unit is not the same effort, as a lactate baseline effort and counts is as one zone. That is really ridiculous bad and unacceptable.

(TSS is also a bad indicator, because it can be easily falsified: 1h@100%FTP=100TSS is not the same effort as 2h@70%FTP=98TSS. The first unit is a very uncomfortable and painful all-out ride, while the other is a relatively easy ride for a trained athlete.)

Update:

Road 10km in super shoes today in 33:19. I'm extremely happy.

I've missed the past 3 workouts due to illness, so missed out on some planned sharpening work, but I don't think it would have been of any benefit in retrospect.

I will keep doing this type of work while (hopefully) gradually building volume from 40km/week to (again, hopefully) 80 by the spring.

I ran my pbs at around 150km/week back in the day. I don't think my body could handle anything close to that any longer.

Oh wow - congratulations, smashed your target by nearly a minute - no wonder you're happy! As an older (but slightly less old) runner it's good to hear this is working so well for you!

Do you have his strava account ? Should be very interesting ! Any idea of the easy pace vs race pace ?

Looks like Luis del Aguila's training with one or two weekly sessions of 20-40' @HM pace/HR.