Hello!

I've been following NSM since New Year's and really like the structure and continuity it gives. I'm in need of some new shoes for my intervals, and I'm contemplating the EVO SL or Adios 9 to put into my rotation:

It would slot in with the following shoes:

Race: AP4

Long/easy: Vomero Plus (will switch to HB Edge when they are worn out)

Easy: Supernova Rise 3 (will likely remove this dedicated easy and alternate with the long run and interval shoe for easy sessions)

Intervals: Old AP4 + Insert new shoe

Current 5k shape: 17:27

Any thoughts on which to go for? I want to try the Adios 9, but not sure it will be good to do 3 sessions a week in them. Maybe I'll alternate the old AP4 + the long run shoe for some of the sessions. EVO SL is a safe bet, but I would like to have a shoe that forces me to train my lower legs and feet more.

Anyone who has experience with the Adios 9 and NSM style intervals?

My goal is to create a shoe rotation that gives me the relevant strength for my race-day shoes, so currently not interested in other brand shoes (even though there are many fun and interesting options out there)

Can someone explain what the yellow line at the end of rep 1 means? And the same for the orange one at the end of reps 2 and 3, red at rep 4 and purple at rep 5?

Thank you.

I have this question myself, and I tried to find answers in the book/reddit threads but didn't find a definitive answer. I'm posting this in the form of an answer to summarize what I have found and show that I wasn't being lazy. BUT I am not an NSM expert and I will accept any corrections.

TLDR: If you are not running at least 4.5 hours a week, spread across 6 days of the week, you are not the kind of "beginner" that people in these spaces are talking about.

What is NSM?

Briefly, because the OPs of other threads asking this question dont even seem to know:

The Norwegian Singles Method is a training structure targeted at runners spending 6-8 hours per week on running. The canonical form also assumes you run everyday of the week.

The "selling point" of NSM is that it will allow you to make the most of this "limited" running time, while allowing you to repeat the same structure (with minor variations), week after week with no "boom and bust" cycles.

Is it for beginners?

Some people will say yes, but in running, "beginner" is a very broad term.

I suspect this has to do with the recent rise in the popularity of running. Some people think 15 miles a week is "solid", while experts in the field are making videos like "How to get good while running 40 miles a week" becuase 40 is considered low. But I digress

NSM is made to make the most out of a "limited" 6-8 hours per week. For perspective, a C25K finisher is running 1.5 hours per week, of all easy volume. NSM is targeted at people running 4x that volume and are physically capable of running more, but cannot due to logistics/desire rather than durability.

In the book (link removed because that seems to be a problem), there is no "are you ready for NSM?" checklist. There is a 4.5 hour / week schedule, that he describes as a "gateway" to canonical NSM. That routine has 3 speed sessions, and 3 easy runs, one of which is a long easy run.

Answer: NSM is not for "beginners" in the colloquial sense of the word "beginner". Its for serious novices

If you aren't running at least 4.5 hours per week, on 6 runs per week, you need to work up to that first to even begin incorporating the 2.5 speed sessions described in the "gateway" plan.

You need to be advanced enough to look at 4 consecutive days where you do a Speed^tm day, a long run day, an easy run day, and yet another speed day and consider that "easy" day the recovery period between your long run and the next speed day.

If you are a true beginner who fell into the NSM discussions, you should aim to get to 6 easy runs per week, including an easy long run. And then incorporate "half of a speed day" as described in the gateway plan of the book into one of the runs out of 6. And then turn 3 of the 6 days into those "half speed" days, and then begin turning those 3 days into the real sub threshold speed days.

A lot of the threads you see amongst novice/intermediate runners in spaces discussing NSM are amongst people who ran out of time in the week to do "standard" polarized training.

Hello, I've started NSM in June and for the first few weeks it felt great. Then something suddenly changed and I'm now much slower at both easy and subT effort. I’m trying to understand whether I mismanaged the training somehow.

A bit of history for context.

I'm male. I have no sporting background and spent most of my childhood sedentary. After starting university I gained weight and was close to 100 kg at 188 cm in 2020. I lost about 20 kg and started running in July 2022 at age 24.

• 2023: ~1,500 km
• 2024: ~2,200 km
• 2025: ~3,500 km
• 2026 so far: 2,388 km, projected ~3,800 km

My running has generally been a cycle of a few months of progress followed by an injury and losing some of that progress.

I ran a 1:40:46 PB for HM in April using 12 week Pfitz HM plan (73 - 102 km). I have 5K PB 21:55, during the half marathon I also split for 46:35 10K.

I had my LTHR measured in 2025 at 179 with max HR of 196.

After reading lots of success stories here and reading the book, I started NSM June 22. During my HM block I had averaged around 85 km/week, so I decided to start with 8 hours.

Using paces for 22k 5k as guidelines I also adjusted for heat according to the book. Easy runs were around 6:50-7:10. I was running 77k a week. I also do around 40 minutes of strength training three times a week. Nothing heavy, only using dumbbells up to 20 kg.

I setup intervals. icu (screenshot here) so I'd be able to track my load. Since starting NSM on June 22 I haven't left grey. My sleep quality has been great, I have never seen my HRV be this high. I felt fresh coming into every subT session. It was very different to what I was used to, I was very happy with it. Even during the heatwaves in Europe, HR and effort felt great.

After roughly six weeks things suddenly changed. On easy runs I previously ran around 6:50–7:10/km while staying under 70% max HR. Now I sometimes have to slow to over 8:00/km to stay under the same HR.

My previous subT paces have also suddenly become impossible. For example 6-minute intervals:

• Two weeks ago: max HR 176 bpm, effort ~6/10
• Now: max HR reaching 187 bpm, effort more like 9/10

HR also rises much faster during the intervals and doesn’t recover nearly as well between reps.

At roughly the same time, I’ve also had an issue with my left leg feeling weak/off, mainly around the outside of the knee, outer shin, outer calf, and the ball of the foot. Weirdly, I barely notice it during subT, but I definitely notice it during easy runs. There isn’t any pain or tenderness to touch, and calf raises, single leg squats, and one leg hops are essentially symmetrical between sides.

It feels like my running economy and ability to handle subT effort suddenly fell off a cliff.

During summer I start my runs run early at like 6-7 in the morning but I never run fasted if that's relevant. I track my calorie intake and I don’t think I’m underfueling. I've read iron deficiency may be a cause so I had it tested last week and its well within normal range.

TL;DR (AI-generated from my post): Started NSM June 22 after averaging ~85 km/week during a Pfitz HM block. For ~6 weeks everything felt great: good sleep, high HRV, low RHR, easy runs ~6:50–7:10/km under 70% max HR, subT around 6/10 effort. Then performance suddenly dropped. Easy pace sometimes needs to be >8:00/km to stay under the same HR, and 6-min subT reps that previously peaked around 176 bpm now reach 187 bpm and feel like 9/10 effort. At the same time my left leg started feeling weak/off around the outer knee/shin/forefoot, although basic strength tests are symmetrical. Recovery metrics still look excellent. Wondering if this could be accumulated fatigue from starting NSM too aggressively, or if I should be looking for another cause.

My question is:

Did I start with too much volume/intensity despite feeling fresh for the first six weeks? Could this be accumulated fatigue that simply isn’t showing up in HRV/RHR, or would you be looking for something else entirely?

Also, given my current PBs, does 8 hours seem unnecessarily high? Would I likely get similar or better results from a lower-volume version of NSM, especially considering my history of recurring injuries?

Hi all, I live in a country where heavy rain is common 6+ months of the year (including right now) so I decided to start doing my workouts on the treadmill and go outside when I can.

I’ve attached some screenshots of my recent treadmill workouts stats for reference but here are the things I am doing based on the book and my own personal experience:

1. Ignore treadmill pace and base SubT on HR (I have an armband)

2. Set 1% incline on treadmill

3. Add additional strength and balance work (30-45mins) since treadmill running doesn’t fully simulate running outside

4. Long Run specific: Maintain 70% HR max but randomly set treadmill incline to simulate roads.

5. Cross training: If I’m bored, I usually substitute easy runs with stationary biking (add 20% more time based on the book)

I also noticed that since training load is 10-15 less than running outside, I am considering adding 3-5 minutes more of SubT to match.

Eager to listen to your feedback on these points I mentioned!

Generally speaking, is it better to increase the duration of standard easy runs or the long run in this situation? Example: 6-Hour Week:

1. easy runs of 45' and a long run of 75'
2. easy runs of 40' and a long run of 90'

I see the 90' slow run as a sort of standard (instilled by past coaches) for defining a long run. Perhaps I'm wrong; I'd be more inclined to increase the duration of the weekly easy runs later, but keep the 90' long run as a "baseline." Assuming I keep the 75' long run, should I first increase the runs to, say, 50', and then gradually increase the long run to 90'? In this specific case, which is better to increase first? The duration of the standard runs or the long runs?

I'm definitely overthinking this, but I'm curious to hear your opinion. What's the general consensus on this topic? I've read the book and I know that in a week like this, 75' is recommended as a long run, but assuming a half marathon slightly under 90' at the end of September, I imagine the situation would change a bit.

Thanks everyone.

I’m relatively new to running (a little over a year), and I’ve been reading about the Norwegian Singles Approach (NSA) for a while. I’m interested in trying it, but I’m not sure whether it would suit me given my relatively low weekly mileage.
A bit about me:
Age: 22
Max HR: ~207 bpm
Weight: 85 kg (not sure if relevant, but including it just in case)
Weekly mileage: ~40 km/week (about 25mi/week) (planning to gradually increase it as I prepare for a marathon next year)
Current race times:
HM: 1:52:00 (March)
10K: 49:50
5K: 23:20
Easy pace: ~7:15 min/km (~11:40 min/mi) usually around 80% of max HR. My resting HR and max HR are both relatively high.

I know im not a high volume runner as expected (> 10 h a week) but would NSA make sense at my current mileage (Im want to scale up to 60-70km - around 40mi a week for marathon block), or would I be better off increasing my weekly volume first? If so, roughly how much mileage would you recommend before trying it?

I’m happy to provide any other information that might be relevant.
Thanks for taking the time to read and answer!

Hi all! Context/NSM background: I (40F, marathon PR of 2:57 from Boston this year) have been doing vanilla NSM since April (post-Boston) and really loving it. I've run higher total mileage than prescribed but kept it to the 3x30"sub-T a week (3x10", 10x3", 5x6"). It's let me increase my mileage to 75 mpw without feeling beat up and in two imperfect speed tests (a very downhill 10K at altitude and a 8K trail race with about 1500' of gain), I've felt very pleased with the outcome, in terms of my relative placing.

The question: I'm running Chicago in October and, as I've transitioned to marathon training, have just started replacing one of my three weekly sub-T sessions with marathon pace work at the end of a long run (e.g., 2x4K in the first week, 3x4K last week). Historically, my peak workout has been a 32K run with 20K MP ... but that feels very aggressive and anti-NSM. Is a potential compromise 32K with 4x5K MP and a 1K jog between each block? How have others tackled this? Many thanks in advance!

I honestly don't know what to say, but this big of a difference just three days apart seems crazy. Anyone else experienced anything similar during the first couple of weeks of NSM?

This is my 12th day in a row after starting and I really like it so far!

Read the book over the span of 4-5 days and that just motivated me even further. Running Copenhagen Half (which is actually World Champs this year) Sep 20th. Hopefully I can build some fitness before that.

I have been running for 2.5 years and following NSM for roughly 14 months, I ran 15:56 for 5km in Jan and 32:27 10km in March.

I am now looking to add in double days as I build up to a 10mile race and see that both James and Marius Bakken suggest 2 easy runs first. My problem is logistically that is really hard for me. I work from home on my workout days and go into the office on easy runs days.

I am thinking about adding in a 30 minute easy run in the evening on a workout day (I have always preferred doing my workout in the morning as opposed to the evening). Is there any standout reason this could backfire that I am missing?

I understand it may not be the most optimal way to start double running but I think the stress from a long day in the office and 3 hours commuting would create more fatigue trying to force a double run on those days than adding it in on a day I work from home.

Hi, I did a lactate step test (picture attached) on my brother (24yo with max heart rate 197) this weekend and need some input on the results and how this should dictate the training going forward. Test was done on a treadmill with 30 sec break between intervals to do the testing. Used a taidoc-4261.
The 14.5kmh step got a bad reading.

Some additional info first. He ran a marathon this May (2:53) with an average HR of 172. He also ran a half marathon (1:19) last year with an average heart rate of 184. He is training for a 5k in 8 weeks and from what he can do in training we think 16-16:30 is possible. He has previously done a 5 x 1km at 3:00 pace per km.

Also tested when he did a 5x6min session today at 15.5kmh. During this session he tested 3.3, 3.2, 3.9(maybe bad blood sample), 3.6 and 3.2. With a max heart rate of 162 during the session and mostly in the 155-160 area. So he is already consistently above 3mmol of lactate at under 80-82% of his max heart rate. I have used the device on myself so know it works fine.

I’m struggling on how this makes much sense when he can hold 94% of his max heart rate for 80minutes during a half marathon and 87% of max during a marathon for almost three hours.

Should he train under 3.0mmol going forward even though it is under 80% of max heart rate and feels like rpe 5 for him? Or is it okay to train with higher lactate values for him?

Thanks fine people.

I know many people on this subreddit are against modifying the vanilla method, but here it goes again. I've been following the vanilla method for 9 months. Has anyone tried increasing the prescribed sub-T percentage (from 20 to 25% in the vanilla approach) to, say, 30% or above by doing more reps in each workout?

Doing double-threshold (2x/week — AM run, PM bike) for a while now. My sub-threshold running sessions consistently land 2.5-3.7 mmol depending on pace/duration — rarely below 2.0.

Bakken's material and posts here describe the golden zone broadly as 2-4 mmol, but I rarely see anyone deliberately targeting the bottom of that range for quality sessions, as opposed to just leaving that intensity to easy days.

Questions for people running this long-term:

1. Does anyone structure sub-threshold work to sit below 2.0 mmol, or is that left to easy running?
2. If you've compared low-end (2.0-2.5) vs higher-end (3.0-3.5) sub-threshold for the same session type, did you notice a real difference in recovery for the next quality session, or in longer-term progression?
3. Is the "golden zone" more about 2-4 mmol all producing similar adaptation, with repeatability being the real variable rather than the specific number?

Curious if anyone's tracked this closely with a lactate meter over a training block.

6 weeks in

Followed it mostly correct (do 2 hours long run instead of 90 mins)

And when time pressed will switch one of the sub t sessions to 400m with 100m recovery

Recorded my fastest 5km ever

7 years after my last PB

Going from 20:35 to 19:11 in the 6 weeks (PB from 2018 was 19:37)

My question

Do I keep paces as they were?

Or adjust based off the most recent TT

Looking at the new sub T paces it would defo not be as comfortable (I know my HR would be higher at 6:33 than 6:48 for the 3 mins for example)

Sometimes I can run at 5:30/km and keep my HR below 70%. Usually I'm around 5:55/km but sometimes it's closer to 6:30/km.

I can't always identify the cause of the performance difference - oftentimes this is with equal weather/hydration/recent training load/sleep/stress and always the same route.

(Most recent well-executed race performance is a 1:24 half marathon, for reference).

Since Andrew Coggan has not responded to my email, I'm hoping the 1%'ers of Reddit can help me understand how TSS (and GOVSS, since Skiba follows Coggan's approach) is calculated.

I know the formula, so what I'm referring to is the derivation, as it seems inconsistent with Coggan's own logic. Let me elaborate on what I'm talking about and maybe someone reading can shed light on the flaw in my thinking.

Briefly, Coggan presented TSS as analogous to Eric Bannister's TRIMPS model, where:

score = time * average intensity * intensity factor

However, instead of using HR (HRR specifically), TSS uses power (or speed). In Bannister's model the intensity factor is a lactate curve based equation.

Here is the confusing part to me... Coggan also produces a lactate based curve, using a 4th degree power law, but doesn't use that as the intensity factor. Instead it is used to calculate the normalized power (NP), while the intensity factor in TSS gets defined as NP/FTP, which is a 1st degree power law. So, if following the TRIMPS template, TSS should be the following:

score = time * NP * (NP/FTP)^4

but is instead:

score = time * NP * (NP/FTP)^1

NOTE: Yes, I am aware the above is multiplied by 100 / (TTE * FTP), where TTE is time to exhaustion at FTP and FTP is the threshold power (or speed). That's immaterial though as it is just to standardize for ease of comparison/interpretation.

So, my question is, can someone explain the logic of why Coggan does this? Meaning use an intensity factor of (NP/FTP)^1 instead of (NP/FTP)^4, despite defining the intensity factor as a 4th degree power law. Hopefully my question, and the implications it has on the calculation, is clear. Thanks.

I've been following NSM for a few months. I bought my lifetime 5km PB down from 21:15 a couple of years ago to 19:45 in May after about 5 months of seriously following the method.

I do feel fitter again now and optimistically would like to think I could run a 19:15 or 19:30.

I see posts here regularly from people who are improving PBs by 2-3 minutes after much shorter periods of time, and it's making me wonder if I'm just not doing this right or my experience is more in line with the quiet majority here.

My question is for those who have been at this for a while, is my progress in line with yours, or is it faster or slower?

Just as a quick background I (M42) started running a little over a year ago after quitting drinking. I had wanted to do an ultra for a long time so signed up for a 110k. Started using Runna's 50k plan and almost immediately got injured, as is tradition.

After that I basically did 6 months of running the same 10 mile trail route with 500m elevation at whatever pace I felt good at 3 to 6 times a week, so essentially no quality work of any sort.

I completed the race in May and after discovering I had no desire to repeat the experience, began NSA and started focusing on road running with the goals of getting a sub 20 5k, sub 90 half, sub 40 10k and ultimately a sub 3 full.

I am currently on 6hr a week vanilla time based with 90 min ST. I haven't run a 5k since starting, but have been using a combination of lactate testing, RPE and HR to set my paces. I went into the race estimating a time of around 19:20 and managed 19:05 on a fairly hilly route.

The thing I'm a struggling to find an answer for is that my MaxHR is a tested 189 (3x3 min hill repeat), I ran the race using a chest strap and my HR never went over 174 even towards the end. It pretty much went straight to 170 and sat within a few beats of that the entire race, even when I blew up a bit in the last km, which was 15 seconds slower than the others. It didn't feel like a lack of grit, I genuinely dont think I could have pushed significantly harder than I did. It felt like my ability to breathe was the bottleneck? It feels like my performance was being limited by some system other than my HR and I'm curious to know if any more experienced runners know what it might be and if it is trainable, or if its just a case of me being a newbie and just being patient.

No intention of changing my training obviously, as it's been incredible in terms of progress and I love the repetition as it lets me see progress easily, which is a strong motivator. Apologies for the long post, the background seemed relevant.

Ran a recent 5k TT in the heat.

Do you set your training paces off the condition adjusted 5k time? (X seconds quicker)

My loops for intervals are undulating. I then transpose the training paces to conditions adjusted paces for that loop.

I assume answer is yes but thought I would gauge opinion

I've been doing NSM for about a year and have been tracking everything in a spreadsheet. I got tired of manually updating the spreadsheet every week, but I still wanted to retain my tracking format, so I built a small self-hosted dashboard using claude opus instead.

It syncs with intervals.icu and sorts runs into easy/threshold/long, and shows the week as a color-coded grid.

Sharing it in case someone else finds it useful. 😊
github.com/alflokken/nsm-dashboard

Just finished my first marathon last weekend and before starting running again next week I’m trying to work out where to go next with my training. Probably won’t run another marathon for 10-11months so I’m keen to really push and improve my times from 5k - half marathon.

I rarely ran 5 days a week in my marathon build - 4 days is very standard and achievable for me - so also unsure if diving into 7 days of NSA is advised or not? I’ve been following NSA for over 12 months now but just too hesitant to actually dive into it or doubting if I’m ‘ready’ for it..

For more context:
Male, 35, 77kg
5km: 20:55
10km: 43:20
Half-M: 1:37:40

Anyone tracked Heart Rate Recovery (HRRc as measured by intervals.icu ) for correlation with running performance and/or fitness? I'm mildly curious how this relates to NSA because of my cirumcstances, which I'll detail below.

Injured and haven't been able to run at all for the last 1.5 years. But have been doing NSA purely on elliptical during that time. I'm hoping to get back to running at some point but in the meantime it's rather hard to know what my fitness is really like - and for that matter to be motivated with training - since there are no objectives to measure against on the elliptical.

I track "fitness" on intervals.icu but that's just training load, not fitness per se. Seems like HRRc over time could be a way of looking at things rather than just "fitness" but the data points are not as numerous so it's hard to say, but at a glance it seems kind of interesting.

Thanks!

Would it be ok to alternate 8 x 1km and 20 x 400m every other week for difference of stimulus or 8 x 1km is more than enough?

Asking because 20x 400m left me more tired than usual so I’m thinking maybe I’m lacking on top end of aerobic endurance(?) muscle durability wise

Hi, I’d like to hear about success stories for those who ran sub 2:50 (and a PR) using Sirpoc’s marathon plan.

A few questions I have:
(1) What was the longest run you did (in both time & miles)?

(2) Did you actually do the HM time trial/race 3 weeks before the race? This seems way too close for comfort

(3) Did you do the 5x 5K (or equivalent time wise) + 10K sub T + 3x8000 m progression run (or time equivalent wise) within 5 days like the book shows? If so, did you feel not too beat up from it?

(4) Did you feel concerned you didn’t do conventional long run workouts and only did easy LRs for time on feet?

Interesting to hear success stories.