Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

Not sure I follow. Is LT1 supposed to be 2.0 & LT2 supposed to be 4.0? I think I already have a pretty narrow gap between those two thresholds, or at least it’s narrow enough to achieve my modest goals. But I don’t think either is likely to be my limiting factor for the marathon, but rather muscle fatigue after 2.5 hours of sustained hard effort.

What I’m hoping to find is a methodology that lets me keep the bones of the Norwegian method with just enough adjustments to succeed at the longer distance by preparing myself for the muscle fatigue that comes with that distance. Is one two hour run every other week sufficient? Is a long slow effort sufficient? My instinct is to stick with a Pfitzinger intensity long run with some frequency, but the question is how frequently do I need to do that to achieve the modest goal of a 2:49?

LT1 is "GENERALLY" supposed to be 2.0 and LT2 is "GENERALLY" supposed to be 4.0. This is not absolute though, so it's important to find out through a lab or your own lactate meter.

Broken-up thresholds, particularly the shorter variety, are still great base training for 800 runners. But the 800 is half anaerobic, and it’s more anaerobic the faster you get (because as a percentage of the total race, the anaerobic portion is a higher percentage of the total race). The Norwegian method is 98% aerobic. Closer to 100% for folks like Sirpoc. Thresholds weekly though March are still great for 800 runners, but the mix of work has to reflect the demands of the race. And that’s not exclusively aerobic training if you’re an 800 runner. You need serious speed and intensity, without neglecting the aerobic system. Race early and often if you’re an 800 runner! There’s no substitute for that kinda burn other than diving in and doing it.

I’m not sure I understand what LT1 is supposed to represent. LT2 reflects the point of OBLA, where lactate accumulation shifts from incremental to exponential. That’s a physiological phenomenon. What physiological phenomenon is LT1 supposed to represent?

LT1 is when lactate accumulation rises above the base level. There's someone in the strava group who did lactate testing in a lab and posted the results. Looking at that could help.

Why do people have so difficult to understand that 2 double threshold days and 1 session of hill reps is Ingebrigtsens base training - not something they do for race preparation.

I watched Bakken preparing for the 2001 WC and several months before that he did a session of 7x1000 with 3 minute rest with an average of around 2,35.

Yes, as others have already said, LT1 is the rise of your blood lactate above baseline value. How this is quantified though is probably debatable. But yes, using your generalization and the one that is common in referencing the two, LT1 would be identified as 2.0 mmol and LT2 identified as 4.0 mmol.

If you’re testing yourself, which I believe you said you do, you could perform your own lactate step test and approximate both LT1 and LT2. Some would say that LT1 is an actual metabolic threshold, whereas LT2 is arbitrary. Lexel would probably make this point, since there is an actual “bioenergetic shift” occurring at LT1. LT2 generally leaves room to speed up a bit more (to CS) before a “steady state” is no longer achievable, no matter how small a step increase nor short a duration used, in a test. At least, typically according to lab data from physiologists who test these demarcations.

In regard to this question specifically, I suppose it depends on what you see as the bones of the Norwegian method… is it threshold running at the exclusion of anything faster than LT2 or is it the double threshold interval format or something else? I don’t mean the at all in a sarcastic way, btw.

There are certainly no absolutes of what you MUST do for your training. You could certainly just stick to easy/moderate paced long runs, every other week and be fine. You could also implement long runs with tempo pace mixed in. You could do 1-2 long tempos in the 12-15 mile range in addition to your normal easy long runs. The choice is really yours and what you want to put into it. If sub 2:50 is the goal, depending on how fast you are at the shorter distances (I’d use a 10km as the basis), will influence how close to your “marathon potential” you have to be in order to achieve it. Meaning, if you can run sub 36 10km, you don’t need to be as nearly “marathon fit” as if you run 36:40 for 10km, to break 2:50.

I’d be curious to hear what it is you want to do for marathon training versus what it is you feel you have to do to conform to the Norwegian method? That seems to be the way you’re framing your choice, as I interpret it. I could be mistaken though. Some of the guys will tell you I constantly misread text… especially at 6 am haha

One of the main reasons that the system outlined in this thread works is that it is easy to recover from. The reps are relatively short partially for that reason. Longer tempo runs are easy to overcook. A 2+ hour run, especially when you haven’t done it recently and especially at altitude, is a big stimulus. It will probably take longer to recover from than a shorter sub-T session. Add in a long tempo of 10+ miles to that 2+ hour run and I think this system becomes really hard to sustain. You may have to switch to only two workouts a week instead of three.

This might be the right answer. I enjoy the Norwegian system because of its simplicity and sustainability, and because it works. But when I have done long hard runs in the past, they work me in a way that 6 x mile or 12 x 800 on short rest do not. It even impacts my work, they drain me so much.

A few people whom I've looked up to historically, like Shorter and Matt Carpenter, were able to do two quality sessions and a long run per work (Shorter's workouts we notoriously hard). But perhaps at my age and with my injury history, a modicum of caution is prudent.

My instinct is follow the Frank Shorter advice of "two quality sessions and a long run," plus as much easy mileage as you can fit in. The two quality sessions would be SubTs. Since SubTs are less intense than Vo2 max or comparable sessions, that would seem like a logical starting point and doable. But maybe given my injury history and age, one SubT and a long run is perhaps more prudent. Maybe I could do 3 SubTs every two weeks.

I have never done this study (nor do I know of one that exists), but I would hypothesize the following:

If we were to run 1000 tests on 25 athletes who were experienced with lactate testing, and we tried to get the athletes to hit exactly 2.0 mmol on every run, I suspect we'd have very evenly distributed observations where the number of observations above, below, and at the number were fairly even, and the median and mean observed values would be right around 2.0. It would be very rare to have any observation below 1.0 or above 3.0 mmol once the athletes figured out their levels.

If we were to run 1000 tests on 25 athletes who were experienced with lactate testing, and we tried to get the athletes to hit exactly 4.0 mmol on every run, I suspect we'd have very different observations. The number of observations above, below, and at the number might still be fairly even, and the median value might still be around 4.0 mmol, but the mean observation would likely be much higher, because when you go over 4.0 mmol, you often go way, way over. There would be many observations above 5, and some likely above 7 and 8, sometimes even above 10, because when the onset of rapid blood lactate accumulate occurs, it comes on fast. And if you're riding THAT line, it's very easy to go over. That's why the Norwegian method stresses staying 5% under that line.

All that's to say that I'm obviously not familiar with all the literature here, but something very different is occurring in terms of lactate accumulation around 4.0 mmol than at 2.0 mmol. And it feels weird to me to lump them together.

Oh boy… while hesitantly, I’ll make the case that LRC’s resident critical speed champion, lexel, would likely make to distinguish between LT2 and CS haha

Lets see… I think firstly, I’d say that LT2 identifies the highest speed at which blood lactate stabilizes during a 30 minute test effort, considered the maximal lactate steady state. Critical Speed is considered the maximal metabolic steady state. So while blood lactate can rise higher than MLSS, your oxygen consumption will stabilize along with some other bio-markers like phosphocreatine (facilitates muscle contraction) and inorganic phosphate (identifies muscle fatigue). This stabilization won't happen at a speed faster than CS. This suggests that you can run at a faster speed than MLSS before you reach a “true” metabolic steady state. The difference in pace can be relatively marginal and I don’t think the training paces that are then implemented yield any noticeable difference in performance, but that’s the general distinction though.

BTW, I’m certainly not suggesting to lump LT1 and LT2 together as essentially the same. They are indeed distinct… even if no one can agree on how to officially define them haha

If you have the speed, so to speak, going into the build up to reach your goal time, I'd agree it's better to ease into it. Pfitzinger's general template of 1 workout, 1 medium-long run, and 1 long run, that you referenced before would probably work well. I've never once in the closing miles of a marathon thought to myself, "I should have done more speed work." haha. Best of luck to you!

@henrik:

What is your opinion:

Was the decision to put hobby jogger brother's training in all details on Strava taken by the Inge brothers together or decided by KI alone?

Was the intention to share the hobby jogger brother's training in all details on Strava to support/grow/improve the overall running sport or just for fun?

BR

For anyone interested , sirpoc just ran 33:25 in a 10k, one of the biggest road 10ks in the south of England. Not sure on the position, but I would guess top 20. I only have seen the time on strava. So good to see him still progressing, this I would have down as a better performance than his recent HM or 5k.

Has anyone noticed that KI has been doing a double workout on sat? While I don't plan on implementing this x-element+threshold into my training, this recent addition has piqued my interest as KI always does single runs/workouts.

I'm curious about this as well. I think months ago , I guess somewhere in this thread, sirpoc mentioned he thought there was a point for himself, where you reach a limit, in terms of what you can fit in with singles on this system and will stagnate. I guess that prediction is true and KI has hit that and this is his only way to increase load? It makes sense. As if you buy into load is load, more CTL and TSS is better , which is what this thread is based on in simple terms, then there has to be a limiting factor or block wall you hit at some point. If you are already running 7 days 1 hour +, really doubling is the only way to increase, past a certain point?

That makes more sense. However, I do have one more thought. Why does KI do the double session after his x-element? His body is more tired than usual from the hills, which could lead to increased injury and recovery times.