double threshold is the most overrated thing in running

Talk about deflecting.

one of the best runners in the world is on a treadmill all the time. Anyone at high altitude camps regularly use treadmills. NAU regularly uses treadmills. Pretty much everyone doing double threshold uses a treadmill. we need not go on, you just need to start paying a little attention to the sport in the past decade not just whatever decade you are choosing to glorify.

one of the best and most improved runners and many other of the best and most improved runners use this methodology.

So weve established that.

Now your silly assertions that it ‘isnt new’ and ‘has been practiced’ for decades still has all their work ahead of them.

You are just simply not following the plot in endurance sports and thats fine, but simply acknowledge that and stop with the obviously silly assertions.

Your observations are about as sloppy as your ludicrous claims.

It's cute that you used to follow athletics during the Nixon administration, but you might want to stick with the childrens literature since your command of training methods, performances and what the 'top' of the sport is doing in training is pretty embarrassing

Something tells me your constant trolling and voracity of messages on these boards signals that no one in your personal life will listen to this S for more than a few seconds

look at all these terrible athletes:

britishherald.com

Cheruiyot pushed by fellow Kenyan runner to run towards Olympics

Editorial Bureau

Kenyan runner Timothy Cheruiyot knows one man can stand between him and gold: his best friend | British Herald- Where Britain Meets the World

Link:www.britishherald.com/2019/11/29/cheru...

hey, this clown once did 100 squat thrusts in gym class so 3 of the top 5 1500-5k guys in the world are obviously nobodies

Deflecting with your stupid jibes doesn't explain how runners are so much faster now with training methods that are changed only in detail. The principles have been known for decades. You have nothing that explains why performances should so improve other than claiming that I don't understand training. So what are athletes doing that so makes a difference that they weren't doing 10-20-30 or 40 years ago, when many were using the same methods?

Treadmills have been around for decades. So has endurance training and double-threshold training. But you can't explain how these are producing continually faster performances. What is the factor in that relative constant that produces that kind of change? I'll let you in on a something you seem to be unaware of - it is doping.

Kipyegon is currently destroying world records and yet it has been pointed out she doesn't do double-threshold training - or the treadmill. So those two methods are clearly not a factor in faster times let alone world records. These threads are nothing more than an exercise in wilful blindness.

Clown, stop deflecting from the fact that you continually make ridiculous statements you cant back up then when you are pushed to prove your statements or presented with obvious evidence of the idiocy of your statements you go ‘doping’

treadmills have been around, yes, and youre claim was ‘no one is using them’.

doping might be happening yes. no one is oblivious to the possibility that it may occur. if you have proof bring it forth. obviously you can make anecdotes and circumstantial arguments all you want, but that doesnt explain the absolute ignorance of the stuff that comes out of your mouth, does it?

You do know that ‘doping’ is also not exactly a new phenomenon, ppl have been doping or talking about doping for 50 plus years.

So you might want to think about your own framework but hold doping as your constant and ask ‘if everyone is doping and has been doping for as long as we can remember in modern track, what explains the elevated performance level holding doping as a constant in middle/long distance track races?’

Dtop arguing with the narcissist. Can't you see that's what he wants?

Apparently he ran a 1:02 half, which is sub elite.

Oh, double threshold training, the holy grail of running circles these days. "Two sessions a day to turn you into an oxygen-processing cyborg," they say. Because clearly, one good workout isn't enough—we need to do it twice, with the unspoken goal of being just tired enough to question our life choices by dinner.

Let me get this straight: we're supposed to spend the first workout hovering at the threshold like it's some magical fitness portal, then recover just enough to shuffle back out there for round two. Why stop at two? Why not three? Four? Let’s just live in the lactate zone! Forget the threshold—let’s do double "throw up in a bush" sessions. That'll really teach our bodies who’s boss.

The Science? Sure. The Sanity? Questionable.

The science says it’s about "maximizing adaptation" by "accumulating time at threshold." You know what else maximizes adaptation? Not being so cooked from your morning run that the second session feels like you’re running on borrowed legs and bad decisions. Oh, but if you don't do both, you're told you're leaving "free fitness" on the table. Yeah, sure—right next to the free injury and free burnout that double threshold serves up like appetizers at a bad buffet.

The Reality of Double Threshold:
Morning Threshold:
You’re fresh(ish). The pace feels decent. You’re nailing splits. Confidence is high. You're thinking, "Wow, this isn’t so bad! I’m basically Jakob Ingebrigtsen."
Afternoon Threshold:
You lace up your shoes, feeling like you aged 20 years since breakfast. The splits you crushed earlier? Now they feel like you’re dragging a refrigerator behind you. Forget sub-threshold; you’re sub-alive. But hey, at least your Strava followers think you’re dedicated (or deranged).

The "Benefits":
Sure, double threshold might work if you’re a full-time pro who naps between sessions, gets weekly massages, and has a personal chef preparing your post-run avocado toast. For the rest of us mere mortals? It’s a one-way ticket to mediocre workouts and glorified overtraining.
"But it builds lactate clearance!" Yeah, and it also builds a burning hatred for that second session.
"It’s about teaching your body to recover faster!" Sure, if by recover you mean limping through your workday wondering if you’ll ever feel normal again.

The Alternatives?
Oh, you mean like normal, sane training? You know, where you crush one great session, recover properly, and come back stronger? Maybe even throw in a long run instead of this two-a-day circus. But no, let’s run ourselves into the ground twice a day because Jakob does it. Meanwhile, Jakob has been running since the womb and probably has mitochondria that could power a small country.

In Summary:
Double threshold is like pineapple on pizza—some people swear by it, but the rest of us are just quietly horrified. Unless you’re an elite with nothing better to do than lactate all day, maybe reconsider. One threshold session is hard, effective, and doesn’t leave you questioning your entire existence by the second workout. And honestly, isn't life too short for double pain served lukewarm twice a day?

Really? 1:01:43 in 1982?

What a good threshold workout for a 17:30 runner?

20' at about 5:50 to 6:00 per mile (~3.5 miles) is a good start