Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Just seen Strava group, sirpoc runs 16:13 to destroy his PB. I do wonder what more needs to be done for people to take notice . When will the progress stop. He run nothing even near this pace in training. It remarkable.

Been following this thread. This is pretty crazy. The progress is maybe the most astounding I've followed on a letsrun thread. Does anyone as old as me here remember some of the classic threads where people chase ridiculous times or train like morons? Late runner Phil comes to mind. Whereas this just seems so sensible and actually when you strip it back , pretty boring but safe, yet to go from a stagnated Daniels type style runner to absolutely wrecking PBs on a regular basis. I'm genuinely curious as to where this ends. What I find even more remarkable - this has been glossed over in the thread - I've read it through. Is nobody seems to burn out or suffer any real dramatic injuries.

Something is off here. Middle aged guys don't go from 19 to 16 flat off garbage training like this. Sorry but until there's proof these races even happened and maybe if they did, I can assure you he is doing track work , hills or vo2 max workouts

Based on Strava, I think a good amount of this 40ish second PR is due to a better course, super shoes, and perfect weather.

Hey! This is super helpful. I'd planned to stick to the 3-min and 6-min intervals, even though they won't put me anywhere near 1k or 2k distances. I figure as my race times improve, the distances I travel in the allotted time of each interval will naturally increase. But for the 400m intervals, I definitely like the idea of considering the 90-second interval as an alternative to the 60-or-so seconds most faster guys probably cover in 400m.

Interesting to know that sirpoc has stopped doin the 400m intervals. I will definitely take this into consideration, as injury prevention is my number one aim. So maybe I should be looking at the 3-minute 6-minute, and 8-to-12-minute intervals if that is working best for folks. As a former sprinter and college football player, I've definitely been a bit more fast-twitch my entire life (50.2 400m, 21.9 200m, 10.7 100m PR's). I've seen it recommended by folks like Malmo that those with more sprinting prowess stick to shorter reps, but not sure if I should be applying that concept to this workout. That's what interests me in the shorter reps, especially as I'm only currently looking at 5k and 10k races. But it seems that staying away from shorter reps isn't hurting anyone following these Norwegian-style plans, and the race times are phenomenal!

Excellent summary!

One additional question I had is in regards to when you all start th workout phase. Do you go straight from the warmup period into your first workout rep, or do you rest for a minute or so, stretch, etc. before starting that first rep. I see that no strides are typical done between warmup jog and workout reps, but wasn't sure if there is any sort of pause between the warmup and start of the workout. Thanks in a advance!

No proof? lol

And garbage training? im sure your system is great

I think this becomes a matter of personal preference. I still do some mobility/drills after my warm up.

There is nothing to see here. If a former sub-elite cyclist focuses on running and does 70 miles, he will logically improve his best times at some point. There must be millions of cases in history worldwide of people who have run a 5k in 16:xx with proven training (mileage, mostly easy, once tempo, once intervals) and maybe even less endurance talent than a sub elite cyclist.

If we are going to troll, let's get facts correct. Firstly, it's 55-60 absolute max a week.

Secondly, I highly doubt there's millions of people worldwide even running 16 almost flat. In fact, you and I both know there is not.

Thirdly, it doesn't really matter how talented the guy is or not. He trained already more the Daniels route, saw the flaws and limitations in it , got tired and stagnated for a decent period of time and literally stopped improving, based on your logically will improve at some point, so tried something different, which is a mixture of training from another sport and this new coined Norwegian style method. 18:5x to 16:13 from just east and 3x sub threshold runs a week. Well if you don't think that is noteworthy or interesting, no matter who achieved it, then this isn't the thread for you.

The thread has brought clear ideas to life in a well laid out manner that can stripped down to a level that is as simple or complex as you want to make it. Other hobby joggers can replicate it which they are, with success. There are other great posters in this thread, Jiggymeister for one, who is always happy to help. So I'm sorry you aren't getting the attention you want. I hope this helps and feeds your need and craving to feel listened to.

Then JS wouldnt be able to get his digs in!

That sounds a bit whiny to my ears. First of all, I read in the quoted post that it's about runners worldwide in history, for example the last 50 years. And of course there are millions of runners in the world in the last 50 or 60 years who have run 16:59 and faster.

60 instead of 70? Oh boy, come on.

But that's not important. What's important is that you don't understand that your understanding of the "Norwegian approach" is flawed.

A hobby runner who has little time and wants to avoid injuries would start with a training program and see, for example, whether four or five days are better for him at the beginning instead of six or whether he is too fast in training. If you fail here, you will naturally stagnate. I get the impression that you are doggedly sticking to one idea. A real runner wants and needs to be fast. That has proven its worth. But go ahead.

“would start”

read the F ing thread clown.

we aren’t discussing how to start running so you can just reserve your inner dialogue now

The silly flaw in your thinking is that runners haven’t already been stagnating for the better of 3 decades until now.

The stupidity of those decades was the rhetoric around training that insisted on a more polarized intensity model that valued intensity over frequency. That’s very much been called into question at the elite level and very much been called into question at even the hobbyjogger level.

The fundamental problem with easy/hard vs threshold model is for low mileage folks you will never get the benefits from true easy work because you cannot get to or maintain the volumes necessary. This is approach that seeks to remedy that problem

This is a fantastic thread that is exceptionally educational. Thank you to all those that have contributed.

One nuance I am curious about (and my apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere), is the inclusion of "progressive" or "progression" runs as a staple session on a double threshold day. Specifically, 6-8 miles starting at MP + 30 seconds and working down each mile to be finishing around MP. Of course, specific mileage and pacing is largely dependent on where the specific athlete is in their fitness, cycle, etc..

Does anyone take this approach when structuring their sessions? I understand it is different from the traditional approach of threshold intervals that have been preached and am curious if it is coupled with a traditional threshold workout on either the front end or back end if it would yield same/better/worse results.

I typically do two sub thresholds during the week and then a progressive run at the weekend.

i think it works well, the principle is there to get at much sub threshold work as possible and I find running on “tired” legs of a progressive runs help when racing

I will try it myself. I came back to running this year doing an 18:36 parkrun off 30 miles a week. Similar time to where sirpoc was. I plan to do 6x1 mile at threshold every week. Lets see what happens.

KI ran a double threshold today, 1x12km in the morning and 5x4 minutes in the afternoon.