Must read: Marius Bakken (13.06 5k) very thoroughly on how the Ingebrigtsens have copied his training

henrik wrote:

Norway speaking wrote:

True, but in the interview he says he only talked to Bakken once or twice to learn from Bakken's mistakes, but it seems the core of his system was developed by Bakken.

He may have talked to Marius only once or twice, but have access to what Marius said or written in English and Norwegian.

Back then Marius and Tom McArdle were my favorite guys/blogs to follow.

From 'In the long run' interview with Gjert: (translated)

" I remember the first person I called was Marius Bakken. And if Marius Bakken picks up the phone when you call him he can talk for hours on end. You don't even have to ask him questions as long as he's got started. He spent most of the time explaining everything he had done wrong, which was a lot, and that was very valuable information to us. I spoke with him a couple of times mostly about things that went wrong, and he was primarily interested in training part of running, and not so much into competition side of it."

Maybe it was only a few phone calls, but they might have been very long.

cramberrys wrote:

EV3 on my phone wrote:

Norwegian Stephen Seiler‘s work basically says this emphasis on threshold is a waste of time.

Clearly there are a bunch of lurking variables at play here to determine the optimal system for each individual.

Any more info of Seiler and why this would be a waste of time?

Additional question: why does altitude mix exceptionally well with treshold training to the point where Bakken specifically pushes that point?

Seiler:

More on double threshold:

From watching NAU videos, you often hear Mike Smith talk about Sub-T pace...which I am assuming is close to marathon. Might be something specific about using this pace at altitude that really helps make a difference. (Speaking out of my element here as I haven't studied NAU that much in depth)

Anecdotally there are two local runners who I follow who follow this system, probably unintentionally. One female runs 70% of her runs at marathon pace. The other male doesn't like workouts and does cut down runs exclusively. Both have improved in the last few years.

One season about five years ago we focused a ton on tempos over hills which amounted to 1/2 marathon pace or a little slower for a lot of workouts on the NAIA team I was an assistant at. Raced absolutely terrible all year--except two guys who improved massively.

Ho Hum wrote:

dfbfgh wrote:

Is there a way to accurately and effectively do this without a lactate meter? Maybe using power or, as mentioned above, heart rate?

You can get reasonably close by relying on perceived effort, though dialling it in can be hard.

As he mentions in the post, Kenyan runners are able to feel threshold better than others for some reason.

The reason for this is that they are living and training at altitude all the time. In my experience it is much easier to feel if you are above threshold and the lactate readings later confirm it.

75 still alive wrote:

Master of LolIy wrote:

I always followed Bakkens blog and admired him for the incredible work he has done.

He had a forum a long time before that.

Cabral was there and made many good posts about Lopez and Mamede.

It was disappointing when that forum disappeared.

It looks like he paraphrased some of those postings and put them in his own words on his blog.

If you dig, ye shall find:

Does anybody know how Marius Bakken measured his Lactate threshold?

Which graded test protocol he used?

This information is key, to understand his lactate levels better.

I hate to be that guy but let's stop the fantization that Norwegian model is the end all be all of distance training. They have a handful of good athletes, only two of which have a medal at WC/Olympics.

Double threshold is cool and all, but is rarely applicable, and people think that this is what they do year round. It's not.

You need to look at the overwhelming evidence.

Vinny wrote:

I hate to be that guy but let's stop the fantization that Norwegian model is the end all be all of distance training. They have a handful of good athletes, only two of which have a medal at WC/Olympics.

Double threshold is cool and all, but is rarely applicable, and people think that this is what they do year round. It's not.

You need to look at the overwhelming evidence.

I don't think we need to look at their workouts per se. But it just reaffirms the need for middle and long distance runners to focus on the high end aerobic running in the threshold zones. I just see the Norwegians as really refining it in a narrow focus. Kenyas and other runners hit these zones in different ways. Progression runs and tempos etc.. . They just seem to have really dialed it in.

I think another thing they hit on is, a lot of runners focus WAY too much on race pace and HARD efforts far too often. A little goes a long way.

Except that in the peak phase they do hit race pace hard and often. They don't just run double threshold twice a week with some hills and pop a 3:28.

It has been known that high end aerobic running is important for distance athletes since training was modernized decades ago. This is like someone saying they reinvented the wheel.

Slowtwitch.com beat you to it.

cramberrys wrote:

Norwegian Stephen Seiler‘s work basically says this emphasis on threshold is a waste of time.

Clearly there are a bunch of lurking variables at play here to determine the optimal system for each individual.

Any more info of Seiler and why this would be a waste of time?

Additional question: why does altitude mix exceptionally well with treshold training to the point where Bakken specifically pushes that point?[/quote]

Seiller does say that threshold effort is too much effort for too little gain. However, the context of his comment is important. I think he was referring to recreational runners who do all of their runs in this zone

You clearly didn't read the article. At the top level everyone is doing most things right. But what is the most foolproof system to getting them there? That is what is interesting about this system. It's based around the simple principle: The best training is the training you can do a lot of(roughly translated from Norwegian).

Take it or leave it.

Superspikesposter wrote:

Thanks for sharing. Interesting that Gjert Ingebrigtsen would lie about the amount of correspondence he had with Marius, especially since it seemed that Gjert learned 80+% of his method from the correspondence with Marius.

gjert seems to have developed quite an ego over the years from reality tv shows to books, etc. egomaniacs dont tend to give out more credit than they need to. acknowledge an occurrence, but downplay it significantly and he isnt necessarily a liar.

anyway, great read and nice to get a little more insight into the norway philosophies (as the stuff they are doing in traithlon is as or even more impressive than running).

as much as i love endurance sport tech and advancements i dont think i will ever buy a lactometer tho so its kind of impossible to try and adapt this training without it. im sure if you had a recent/reliable threshold pace + HR it should be good for most days and within a reasonable margin of optimization. i guess that is more than enough for an amateur looking to get the most out of their training.

FWIW most of seiler's research is based on cyclists and skiers. the only athlete he trains is his daughter (a runner). for her the Norwegian way of training didnt work (she has a blog post detailing her training in great detail somewhere online) and seiler has her doing a polarized approach (which he preaches) of varying intervals at 88-92% max HR strictly.

I do think training should be highly specific and I found it very interesting how lactate testing in Kenyans produced significantly lower levels than what would be found in other athletes. If a Norwegian trained like a Kenyan for example they would possible get burnt out or injured and not be able to reap the benefits of the training. after all the goal of any program is consistency. this approach allows them to get a significant amount of time at threshold or at a level where they are increasing their lactate threshold while running at a pace just below. Another huge benefit could be time dependent. on days when the athlete is feeling great perhaps they are running faster than expected and clearing lactate better. Conversely, on days they arent clearing lactate well the levels will hold them back and possibly prevent injury later.

Nephew runs for NAU. He is sort of a running nerd himself so we talk about their training a lot.

Mike Smith is very aware of the training he puts them through. He comes off in person as more of a "zen and the art of coaching" type of guy who focuses heavily on the mental aspect--which he does....but he knows his stuff and studies it well.

Some stuff he did in January on a Tuesday (sea level by the way, not altitude):

AM: 10x1k in 3:00-3:07 with short jog

PM: 10x800m in 2:17-2:19 with short jog

Friday workout prior to the long run was some short fartlek work. He even did double threshold the same week he raced at their opener this past weekend.

They basically never do anything over 1600m at what you would typically define as "threshold" pace. Sometimes they do 2 mile reps, but its rare. Anything that is continuous is sub-T, or essentially theoretically marathon pace. My nephew didn't do the double threshold work until last Spring. Recently the emphasis in the program has been pushing big, sustainable volume.

I have no clue if Mike Smith browses letsrun or reads up on this style of training. I just found it odd that as I started to see Jakob Ing and Kristian Blummenfelt's training get discussed here more often, a shift began in my nephew's training at NAU too. Maybe Coach Smith checks out the forums often? He definitely likes to try new things in training.

Yes, the NAU squad has implemented the double threshold days with great success. Smith started by experimenting with his post collegiate athletes such as Rachel. She had a fantastic 2019 and that was when she started doing this work.

What Smith does with his athletes is different than the Norwegians though. The paces they run are much closer to threshold when they do the double days and they don't do them as often. Once a week and not every week. The Sub-T running has been a staple in his program for years. Granted the sub-T is often 8 miles at Buffalo park but the paces are hardly impressive. 60-70s or more off what their sea level 5,000m pace is. I have noticed that they also do "subsub-T" runs that are about ten seconds slower. These are often ten miles.

Perhaps not relevant to the general thread, but Marius’ training knowledge was extremely advanced even as a high schooler. Lots of that knowledge, including lactate measurement, came from the Norwegian national development program. Amazingly talented but also never saw anyone work harder. He was likely overtrained (and raced) at York before figuring it out later in his career.

Vinny wrote:

I hate to be that guy but let's stop the fantization that Norwegian model is the end all be all of distance training. They have a handful of good athletes, only two of which have a medal at WC/Olympics.

Double threshold is cool and all, but is rarely applicable, and people think that this is what they do year round. It's not.

You need to look at the overwhelming evidence.

Bakken also did a lot of plyometric stuff at certain points in his training cycle.

boing wrote:

Vinny wrote:

I hate to be that guy but let's stop the fantization that Norwegian model is the end all be all of distance training. They have a handful of good athletes, only two of which have a medal at WC/Olympics.

Double threshold is cool and all, but is rarely applicable, and people think that this is what they do year round. It's not.

You need to look at the overwhelming evidence.

Bakken also did a lot of plyometric stuff at certain points in his training cycle.

Do you know if he did that because Peter Coe advised him to?

Vinny wrote:

I hate to be that guy but let's stop the fantization that Norwegian model is the end all be all of distance training. They have a handful of good athletes, only two of which have a medal at WC/Olympics.

Double threshold is cool and all, but is rarely applicable, and people think that this is what they do year round. It's not.

You need to look at the overwhelming evidence.

Norway has a population of 5 million. Running is picking up, but is far from the main popular sport in Norway. The base to develop world class runners have been and is low, but generally endurance sports is popular in Norway and XC skiing in various forms or other sports produce a lot of well trained that of course use running in their training. So maybe that increases the base. Anyhow, the situation now is special in that we have the Ingebrigtsen brothers and a few more decently fast, and then a growing base of young runners that could reach fast levels. In addition the Triathlon obviously adds to the new normal. One cannot dismiss the model, it would be foolish given the consistent results it has given to three brothers. OK they are siblings and genetically alike, but still not identical. That 3 succeeds in a row shows credits that model. If it fits all and everyone? Probably not, but with some individual tweaks I guess it should at least fit most slow twitch runners.