Modifying the Norwegian approach to lower mileage

I coach an athlete who, last month, qualified for the national championships for the first time, after years of your "HARD miles in, vo2 max workouts" with her previous coach, which saw her getting injuries all the time.
I am 100% sure she is thankful for this thread, because I was able to learn enough to adapt her training and get the results. I think a 1:50 improvement over 10km is pretty decent.
If you don't like it, why don't you create your own "Loozers' approach to training"? thread? I will be thankful if you can help me improve as a coach.

I confess that I am not familiar with Pfitzinger's program. As for Bakken's, I signed up because I have long been a big fan of his writing on training, and so was curious about his marathon program. And I'm sure he can use the money.

Broadly speaking, his approach is akin to that of the Italians like Bordin, and Steve Spence, where you do quicker stuff early, then work toward marathon pace.

It is definitely worth a look, and I think that his approach might be better for people moving up from racing 5-10k. He has variations of the plan for various target times.

I've been following this approach for about half a year. Seems weirdly unexciting and has none of the feeling of rapid progress that comes with more intense methods, but I haven't had more than a week off over that period (once for a minor injury that coincided with work travel, once for a cold). And despite not feeling especially fast, I recently achieved my first PB in about six years (nearly a minute off my 10k time) so something is clearly working. Still not particularly fast (35:0x) and I'm still not running especially long distances (40mpw) but for an injury-prone runner with a full-time job it's a nice balance.

Looking forward to seeing how the improved aerobic fitness translates to the shorter stuff on the track this summer.

I have reading and re-reading this whole thread and modifying my first foolish approaches to this.

I have been running sub-threshold runs, on the third day and fifth day of a five-day cycle. On day 3 I do 5x6 minutes with 2 minutes rest. And on day 5 I do 10x3 minutes with 1 minute rest. Both with easy warmup and cooldown and on the other days I do easy running in mountains and some gym work.

I pick one pace and hold it for both days in the cycle, starting with my Tinman calculated "Easy Tempo" pace and working my way up to just below "Threshold" pace every new cycle after 5 days, so 10 seconds faster every 5 days but never exceeding threshold. And then I run a 1mile, 5K or 10k at the end of that "block", about 30 days and start all over with new paces if I have improved, starting from a new Tinman calculated "Easy Tempo" pace again.

I really like the admonition to not worry if you don't feel good before a workout as much but just do it anyway. I'm noticing that on the sub-threshold days my legs feel considerably fresher post workout and I get a much more pronounced endorphin effect than I used to from just constant zone one and zone 2 running.

I probably shouldn't run by pace, yet it is easy to do on a treadmill. If I run outside on day 3 or 5 I just do the intervals by feel (even the duration), trying to remember feels from the treadmill. I don't like looking at my phone and don't own a sports watch. Essentially this takes the whole thing and bases it off simply the Tinman calculator.

It might be foolish still but I think I am getting closer to something that works for me and is a good mix of simple and intuitive with constant reality checks.

Getting in a shed load of easy running (below 70% max) is an important part of this method.

Maybe a question for mainly Sirpoc, as he has a cycling background.

What is the view on adding in an easy cycle session, or even a longish ride.

I see no real harm in this. Lots of Tri guys still run very, very fast and a lot report that once your running adaptations have set in (muscles etc) you can get away with a lot of bike work, less running and reduce the risk of injury. Whilst Jiggy pointed me here to answer this and gave me the heads up, I would actually say he is best placed to answer this . As he'd been injured and done a lot of cycling. He is planning I believe to run very soon again, so we will see how it pans out. You definitely need a running background though, as I did a duathlon years ago on zero running and whilst I managed double sub 20s back to back, I couldn't walk for like 3 days after. So there's definitely a balance. Shirtboy as well does a lot on the bike, so he may well be best placed to answer and has had some excellent results.

This method works for sirpoc because he was already a top level cyclist. There is a guy in my local area who is the same - logs 100 miles on the bike then jogs about 10 mpw at 10-11 min miles for a 16 minute 5k.

Sirpoc hasn't cycled in over half a decade though? His running success is totally down to this method of training like a cyclist, but running. So he's replicating what he did as a former sub elite cyclist, just the running sessions replacing the biking. Or have I totally misunderstood this? From seeing his Strava, he was very slow as a runner to begin with and built up to a 1:14 HM and 33:xx 10k .

Indeed, tomorrow is when I'll try running again after 4 weeks without running.

For the past 4 weeks I have averaged 9h 46m of cycling per week on an indoor smart trainer. Been doing mostly sweetspot sessions (which resembles this method but in cycling terms).

What I'd recommend is establishing your FTP if you have a power meter/smart trainer and riding easy at 70% of said FTP.

Training by HR on the bike can be tricky, as any given HR inferred from running would translate to a much harder stress on the bike.

So don't try to mimic your running zones on the bike, it would just trash you, especially for quality sessions (I thought my +9 mmol/L readings were wrong after I tried to bike using my running sub threshold HR on the bike being untrained for the specificity of cycling).

Fortunately I managed to preserve some fitness, and got my CTL back and even a point ahead of where I was pre-injury, but how that translates to running remains to be seen.

My recent sub-threshold sessions reach load (TSS?) of 65 based on HR and 70 based on pace (from intervals.icu), is this difference of 5 points something concerning? I mean, does it indicate the threshold pace I use isn't up-to-date? Moreover, someone said earlier TSS in the range of 75-85 is desirable, but mine is lower, so should I worry about it or is it individual? I'd be grateful for any help with understanding this and thank you for awesome amount of food for thought laid out in this thread.

Not at all, it will always be different as each method is calculated differently. My differential is much higher than that actually. Sirpoc's was probably in line with yours, maybe slightly less?

Okay, thanks for the answer. One example given by Sirpoc was 10x1k with 75 by pace and 76 by HR.

But why do I get 65 even though I reach my LTHR at the very end of 5x6' with 1' standing rest while others get 75-85? At least that's what I concluded from page 71 of this thread.

Personally I find TSS based on pace to be far superior to TSS based on heart rate. The main reason is let's say you always run at pace X for the same amount of time. Overtime your heart rate at pace X will go down as you get fitter. If you calculate TSS based on heart rate, this means your TSS at running pace X will go down over time, which in turn means your CTL / "fitness" score will also go down over time. But this would be an absurd result since you are clearly getting fitter as your heart rate decreases for pace X.

Some will say the incremental stimulus from running at pace X decreases as you get fitter and if you always run at pace X, after a long enough time, you aren't building fitness. But this is already baked into how CTL is calculated. If you base TSS off of pace, then every time you run at pace X you get the same exact TSS, and over time your CTL will plateau and remain flat.

Many ways lead to Rome. There are of course even better ways than this 'Modifing Norwegian method spectacle'.

That wonderful! Care to share your knowledge on a separate thread?

Agreed, assuming one has the time and resources for a more time intensive method. I think one thing we and all of let's run can agree on - the Dancan't "method" proposed by the well-known fraudster JS certainly has to be the absolute worst way to run, probably even worse than not running at all.

What is this more time intensive method?

10x1k by pace is usually always around 75 for the full hour (warm up, workout 35 mins, rest, cool down). By HR, it could be 70 (I've seen lower), or 80 (i saw higher when i was ill running workouts). If you stick to the paces, it'll be more consistent and in my experience a fairer reflection of your overall increase (hopefully) in CTL and training. Pace, as long as you are running the same routes most sessions or the same paces on say a treadmill, are the best way I've managed to replicate power over the bigger picture.

However, if you want to use HR, that's not a problem. But do not mix and match how you calculate TSS. It only holds value, if you use the same way each time you run. On top of that, TSS is only meaningful to you, it's absolutely worthless to compare it from person to person. This comes back to why I think a lot of people have dismissed it as a metric over the years (even cyclists). I can't believe I'm quoting Coggan, but I've seen him say before, garbage in, garbage out. The only way this is useful if 1. You have picked a metric to stick to, 2. If you are you using pace, you stick to however you want to calculate your "threshold" pace in intervals. (Or just let their software change it for you) Or 2., you definitely know your LTHR to a good degree if you are going to use HR TSS or Trimp.

The Dancan method by the wellknown Swede JS is one of the very best.Some years ago I was told by my Irish friend Vincent he was coached by the mystical mastermind coach and improved his 5000m master best from 16.30 to 15:30 something in just two months coached by the Swedish magician online coach.Then Vincent ran a 72 half and personal best.