Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Sorry if this is a dumb question but what exactly is MAS?

maximum Aerobic Speed. basically the max you could run in 6 minutes I think from memory. Ben Rosario uses it quite a lot and I believe in his new book run like a pro , he defines that as the easy running threshold. It's artificial, but I would say it's an excellent guide to making sure you don't go over LT1 at 65% of MAS. I've heard it thrown around a bit lately. I can't imagine anyone except a few extreme examples would go wrong following this or 70% max HR for easy runs. Just do what someone else said, calculate it best you can from Tinman's tables after putting in your most recent 5k. For hobby jogging which is what this thread is , it's good enough 🙂

This is interesting, sirpoc. I've observed this in a lot of runners who don't run particularly substantive mileage and are more intensity based, when they add regular volume for 6-12 weeks and eliminate intervals, they set PR's in the 5km - half marathon distance that are a substantive improvement. I have normally thought of this as the classic case of being underdeveloped aerobically (think the examples from the HADD thread).

In fact, going back to my remark regarding the rTSS scores. While it would be silly to suggest 54 minutes at LT is equivalent to 96 minutes at 67% of LT (as a 90 rTSS score suggests), you can flip it and say rather than killing yourself and doing 54 minutes at LT, you can run 96 minutes at a 1.33 multiple of LT and yield the same rTSS. Which in a sense is what you did when riding those 2.5 hours in Zone 2!

As lexel pointed out, I think the debate has long been and continues to be what percent of LT can you do and still yield optimal/productive results for race performance.

I personally find that somewhere between what is half marathon pace and marathon pace for me seems to be the "sweet spot" but I also try and do 45-60 minutes of that in a session (once I've built up to that of course). Usually I will start with 30 minutes per session, twice per week and build from there.

I wasn't sure what MAS was either so I looked it up. It is bascially vVO2max that most of us would be familiar with.

When I graduated college, about 10 years ago now, I contemplated what it would take to build a system that provided statistical/analytical feedback for runners on their training… all on a user friendly and socially engaging platform of course LOL.
As an anecdote, when Jack Daniels constructed his VDOT tables (a scientist named Jimmy Gilbert performed the mathematical modeling to generate the values) he had to work within certain constraints. One of which was “fitting” all runners on the same running economy curve in order to come up with the race time predictions at different distances. Part of the drawback is that you will have runners with above average and below average economy who over and under perform their predicted times (of course training and race conditions and other factors influence performance).
The point being, training metrics which aim to quantify training stress or other values to standardize and predict come with a margin of error and are also dependent upon good data. I do think we are at a point where, with all the data our watches collect, we can build better models. It’s just a matter of procuring and filtering that data into new models.
Still, that’s a lot of work and reliance on statistical methods which we know will not necessarily yield the level of nuanced output that we, as individuals with experience training, can often discern without such methodology.

Having said that, if anyone wants to start a new thread bouncing ideas around, I'll be there LOL

Probably a dumb question given the intricacies of the info but can someone clarify what you mean by sub threshold? For instance my watch estimated threshold HR is 164, with my threshold zone being 157-167 bpm. Would that mean it’s more optimal to shoot for closer to 157 heart rate while doing the reps or even slower? Thanks in advance for the help!

Going to be another long post. But I'm quite enjoying that there are actually other runners out there who maybe think outside the box and want to apply this sort of thing to hobby joggers like us lol

First of all, it's remembering that TSS/ training load was originally done for power, as that is what Coggan was obsessed with. I didn't realise he still posts, but he is still to this day regularly posting on the "time Trialling forum", I linked him literally trolling the forum a few pages back . Like I said, he's a strange man. But I do still think there probably isn't anything better, I agree with the poster last night . I'm on UK time so I was fast asleep by then.

This bit is specifically as a bit of an aside for those who maybe don't like TSS, CTL and the metrics. But if you go to those forums and search, there's a user "Tarmac Expert" who is probably the single greatest Time Trialist pound for pound, maybe ever. In the sense the times he did, on the absolute lack of talent he had, are unbelievable. Even into his 40s. His real name is Steve Irwin (everyone lol) but he's almost certainly a genius. He got (don't know if he's still riding) the absolute maximum out of what he had. To a point I've never seen before. Some technical, but from a physiological aspect, he was indexing his training against his CTL and then could index that to his fitness. It was very clear it was applicable (to him) I did the same and so on. Here's the thing , he HATED/HATES Coggan . So if anyone was going to hate on CTL, it was this guy. A standalone ride/run with a TSS score means absolutely nothing. But if you have years of data over time and you are sure that data is collected correcting (updating zones all the time) you will start to see patterns in the data you can use. Is it perfect? No. But again I don't think there is anything better. If Hard2find wants to try something better for running , I'd be interested!

One side note, I just re evaluated all my runs (took a while, but had breakfast whilst it was doing it) from around the last 18 months. Changed TSS calculation from pace, to HR. This changed a lot of the individual runs in isolation, but overall the CTL Curve remained the same and showed a steady increase and it's around the same number as now. Obviously, that number means nothing to anyone but me. But whilst a few runs have changed their TSS value, it works both ways, some were TSS heavy in some areas via one method or the other, others the opposite. The point being it's not perfect, but over a long time it all evened out in the end. I can still plot along that graph, points where my fitness increased and marry that up to by PBs in the last year, with both calculations.

Going back full circle, the question Lexel posed about which is better, 95% of FTP for 30 mins and 90% for 45 mins, I would say it's almost certainly the 45 min run/ride, the sport isn't important. There is still enough happening at 90% that is pushing up your lactate from below that there is at 95%. I also agree with what (I think it was the same guy added) is the better example is probably 90% or 100%. The 100% run as an absolute stand alone , single event, is obviously harder and for that one session you are getting probably a slightly better stimulus. But good luck doing that, every other day. You might be able to for a even a few weeks. But over a long time. Absolutely no chance. Whereas the whole point of this thread, is nobody doing this is running at 100% FTP/LTHR or however you want to put it, every other day. But quite a few people now as well as myself , that running at under that threshold but close to it, is doable 3 times a week and over a vast period of time, with almost no break or breakdown in the body or performance, in face the opposite, performance seems to be increasing. In pure simplistic terms, it's the systematic increase of load on the body in small drips from a tap, rather than turning on the tap full blast and trying to fill the cup in a short space of time, like a lot of other training plans. If I had 8 weeks to get fit, there's probably much better ways to do it. If I wanted a real long term goal in fitness that is measurable most weeks, this is definitely the most sensible way, IMO .

If you know for sure (within a beat or 2) that your threshold is 164, then you have a starting point. It won't be perfect, but you can certainly so the 1k and up intervals probably by heart rate. I've never looked at heart rate during, as I do it on paced but this was married up to my lactate testing I did, which as a result I know will almost always keep my HR under threshold.

But you could aim for between 153-163 (absolute max) for longer reps, say 5x2k. If you start out the reps and try and keep the pace the same and after the first one you are nearer 153-155 by the end, you probably will keep the whole lot under. I've not really tried to do this, but you could experiment. Just looking at my runs, my LTHR is 175, I'm usually in the mid to high 160s by the end of the first couple, and the low 170s by the end of the 5th. Definitely don't start out too hard, what you don't want to do is go too far over your LTHR. It defeats the purpose. I posted way back on another page, but I purposely once went over by upping the pace in the last rep, spent almost 6 mins which doesn't seem like a lot, but I was trashed the next day compared to what I usually am. I couldn't have done that 3 times that week. So it's a fine balancing act, very controlled, very measured, as others have said, very boring.

Side note: you just wouldn't be able to control anything under 1km by heart rate. I've never tried but I don't see how you could really. Someone might be able to correct me on that. Even at 1k it might be tricky.

This thread is pure LOL no surprise to see Lexel here. Ive seen him chime in with nonsense before. Asking if it's better to do 95% or 90% of Threshold? Bro has asked this before. Pure jokes. If u cant train at 95% of threshold if not more and survive training go find another sport.

Look there is no way that the way spoc dude spelled out, he's getting faster rather than doing something more sensible. U think running 3x sub t and 4 easy runs a week as slow as that is getting him faster than 3-4 moderate runs, long run, tempo and vo2 session? Absolutely no way. He probably doesn't even know what zomes he's training in LoL

A tiny side note, MAS is the lowest speed that you can reach vVO2 max. I'm guessing guys like Rosario use it , is if you use you slowest speed of the vo2 max range you will keep the easy runs definitely easy. I would guess it works better for a general guide. If you used the upper end of vo2 max paces on Tinmans site for example and take a % of that , I think maybe u would get paces a little on the faster side of easy I. So it makes sense. After reading this thread I think spoc and the others made it clear this is a guide for those wants to try this without a lactate meter. I hope all the top contributors aren't out off by guys like above trying to disrupt.

This is exactly my experience and, like you said sirpoc, the point of this thread! Running tempo sessions 2-3 times per week is sustainable and, in my experience, given a proper length build-up, leads to more consistent and faster race results from 5K through the marathon. It goes without saying that everyone has a slightly different make up and training distribution to optimize their potential. We all have a maximum genetic potential which we can ascend to (even if that means we are 10, 20, 50 percent slower than the world record for the distance we race). Experimenting with and learning about the potential ways in which to allocate our training time for optimal results come race day is what we are trying to achieve here, I believe.

Actually did this as an experiment last year with great results. Ive done the Friel 20 minute test for LTHR and have a Garmin. Friel was 172, Garmin was 170, so close. I used 170.

I used 170 as the max HR ceiling for threshold workouts and it went perfect pairing with lactate. Takes a while to dial a pace in that you can do the entire session and not exceed the ceiling, but when you do you pretty much do not even need the lactate readings anymore and you can completely know by HR.

This of course means your workout cannot start hot. That HR will drift slightly during the session. So if your LTHR is 164, your first few reps should max out at 155-157. youll see the drift later on but it should be ending last rep max hr at 164.

“probably doesn’t even know what zones he training in”

Do yourself a favor and just ship your online coach another payment for next month, you’re obviously nice and brainwashed.

If you had read the thread things are well laid out here to understand the philosophy.

But im sure youre killing it out there on the streets in your local road racing scene!

I went on to Training Peaks and did as you said, I looked into the metrics they use and how they apply it. I was previously unaware of it before reading this thread (although I am familiar with Joe Friel's training, as a side note). I think any one who makes the effort to quantify training and present it in an actionable and understandable way for athletes in their pursuit of performance improvement is undeserving of harsh criticism in regard to the derivation of the metrics they use, as ANY modeling is going to come with compromises and incompleteness, to a degree, so I don't want to at all give the impression I thought or think these metrics useless.

The ATL and CTL are both weighted moving average models, which basically is just saying it gives more emphasis to your more recent runs than runs in the past but that runs in the past do contribute to your overall fitness, but at a diminishing fraction the further in the past they were performed. Both the ATL and CTL are derived from the TSS score though.

This, to me, is where the nuance and personal interest comes in. Specifically how you can achieve the same score with a totally different training intensity distribution. Conventional theory would suggest you need to do race specific workouts to run your best times but based on this model you could, in theory, reach similar metrics without such workouts and just emphasizing volume. It sounds like what you said you did with the 2.5 hour rides in Zone 2 spiroc, before riding a 10 mile TT PR.

Personally, what I wanted to do, and to some degree but with less enthusiasm than a decade earlier (LOL), still want to do, is design a system that works to bring a runner to their, what I would call "adaptive threshold" given time constraints for training but also measuring adaptive response to specific workouts. As I've stated before though, I think that if you're a thoughtful and observant individual and are disciplined in your training, you can largely discern this without the, perhaps, overly complicated quantitative analysis.

Yeah, since you have clearly lost the plot here, just a second to reframe:

This is a thread for those of us that live in reality, with big boy things in our lives that add stress that we are trying to manage in a sustainable way and get the most out of our time and training. We are discussing endurance sports from our experiences and what has worked and how we are managing in an ecosystem with families, jobs, etc and not just being a S less lay-about waiting for our next sessions on our couch in our parents basement.

Im sure it's not as exciting as your fairy tale life as a professional runner, but as you can read, we have other S going on as well.

Good luck with your training, chief

Download golden Cheetah for your laptop or PC, or look into intervals icu for mobile ( theres no app but it works great in brave mobile browser) .you'll find it interesting. Intervals icu uses "fitness" as CTL is trademarked, but it calculates it the same. You can record TSS in order of priority, power, pace, HR, or any metric of the 3 or order them in any priority you want. There was a great thread I've been looking for where "tarmac expert" the guy I mentioned before, on the time Trialling forum, indexed his CTL to knowing what his power output would be, no matter really how he got there. It was even closer than mine. When I realised this after a few years of cycling, I was just doing less and less training to get my CTL number as high as I could. It worked. The interesting thing about when I was injured and had a broken collarbone as well as shoulder blade, was I wasn't even trying to do anything. I was just bored for 6 weeks and watched a couple of movies a day in front of the TV and rode the bike everyday in the hope I wouldn't be horrible when I could finally go outside again. Bradley Wiggins whilst a quote controversial character, was also a big fan of looking at TSS per session and CTL.

Lexel mentioned TRIMPS, which you can also use on golden cheetah, but ultimately again what we are all talking about is roughly the same, is we are measuring or trying to explain why this works. Ultimately, whatever metrics you use, the takeaway seems to be doing 3 sub threshold sessions a week is probably creating a greater load than anything else you can do and maintain, over a long period of time. For me, it's around 115-120 minutes a week at just under threshold. Without feeling trashed. You are in this for the long term, not a 6-8 week block.

Below paper is interesting in a way that it shows that 'the rate of neuromuscular fatigue development does not increase as a simple linear function ... , but is substantially accelerated above the CT (critical torque)'. I think this is an important information to maximize training load per week, whatever training stress matrix we use. This paper supports the Norwege model, to do most of the training time below CV (critical velocity).

Ha ha I did train like you suggested, for like a year or so. I was slower. What do you want me to do, train worse just so it makes me running cool? Shirtboy put it perfectly , we are mostly time limited and want the best bang for our buck training and also not to get injured. I already said, this will not get me to 100% of my potential. This is a very basic version, this isn't what Marius Bakken laid out or what Jacob is doing. It'll get me close enough that I'll keep improving for a while yet, I feel.

I actually had this conversation in real life, maybe 2 months ago. My local park run, some dude was smashing me for like a year. I literally couldn't understand what I was doing wrong. Then this year I beat his time by like 45 seconds and he spoke to me after that , asked me what I had changed. I said run slower on easy days and just run lots of sub threshold. He didn't believe me in the slightest. Said it's not possible that would speed me up, that it would almost certainly have slowed me down. His times are pretty much the same as a year agk. On the same training (we were training very similar before, I have him on Strava) he clearly was more talented than me. But once I found out how to actually train "more" than him, without increasing the hours, it's my fitness overall probably beating him, rather than any engrained talent.