double threshold is the most overrated thing in running

This is the most confusing sentence I have ever read. The question was crystal clear.

Not the biggest fan of them.. however, for championship style racing when you will race 3-5 races in 9 days I think it's actually a pretty good way to prep for that... Being a marathoner who only gets on the track a couple times a year I don't need that ability to run a ton of races in a short amount of time. Nor do most runners post college

Ok, I'll show my solution (but change it up a little before handing in):

- If you divide 5000 (5K) by 5, you get 1000 (1K).

- This means a 5K is comprised of five 1K units.

- When measuring/setting a pace for this distance, it makes sense to do it this way: 5K (road) time per 1K, or 5000 (track) time per lap (alternatively time per 1K).

Pros: Easy maths.

Cons: None.

Or you could do like OP and split the 5K into 3.1 units (of 1609m) and set a target pace for each unit of 1609m.

As far as answering OPs initial question, it's obviously individual and he'll have to do some testing (unless you have a conversion table of 5K to threshold pace).

One thing that gets lost on people trying to copy the Ingebrigtsens is that just because they are doing double thresholds doesn’t mean the pace isn’t at a high intensity. For example, their second session on Thursdays is typically 20x400m at 3.5 mmol with very short rest, typically between 5k and 10k pace for Jakob, or 63-64 seconds, sometimes faster. Their second session on Tuesdays is 1ks around their half marathon pace, and their first session on both days is 2k reps around their marathon pace.

The whole point is that “threshold” is not a single intensity but rather a range of intensities that is dependent on the length of the repetition. They’re sometimes running 5k pace but it’s called “threshold” because it’s only 400m. Thus they’re able to get the mechanical benefit of running at 5k/10k/HM/M race specific speeds without accumulating too much stress by keeping the length of the interval appropriate relative to the speed being run. Too many people hear double threshold and take their preconceived notions about what “threshold” means and try to implement this type of training without really understanding it. It’s hard to really articulate just how easy those morning sessions should feel.

I think any type of one-off workout could be considered completely overrated.

I am sure everyone on this thread is either training for or talking about races at least a mile or longer. If that's the case then they are almost completely aerobic. Everyone searching for the perfect workout just needs to go out and run more.

educate yourself.

change your own mind.

But, but... there must be a secret?

Fairly sure he was a pro runner a while back.

should he even answer that?

Yes I must admit I literally use Daniel's table for estimating threshold pace, then layer in effort perception up or down. Unless I prick fingers, that seems best. I was unaware people used the 1k formula you suggest? usually- Tables, 5k pace +30sec, 10k + x, or 15k pace or 1/2 marathon pace all depending on who you ask. layer in HR monitor and level of perceived exertion. Gotta get you close.

What a great and easy study for a human phys lab to do!! work out everyone's threshold pace using traditional measures/tables, then check blood lactate levels and see how close the methods are.

Don't worry about double thresholds. Just do your long runs, tempos, hills, fartleks, and intervals. Just run and you'll get faster. I know 14:XX guys who don't even bother with that yet.

Ideally, threshold training in general doesn't have a set pace, but a certain level of effort and lactic acid production. Professionals achieve this by testing their blood constantly between reps.

That's dumb. I began running double thresholds when I was only in ~15:30 xc shape and I improved to the low 14s on a track not even a year later.

I haven’t heard anyone suggest that doing Double Thresholds will allow you to cut back on mileage without consequences. So, it’s just another type of session that might make a marginal difference.

I agree. It’s definitely a new training method that works, but I don’t believe it’s the gold standard it’s being touted as. There have been/will always be superior athletes that having training that works for them, that doesn’t mean it will produce the same results for everyone.

Over the years new training methods/fads have taken over the public eye and still exist today but not at the level of attention they previously had. Examples include low mileage training, high mileage and racing often as workouts. Find what works best for you as a runner and roll with it

I wouldn't go so far as to say that either sentence written by "Joe Biden's Threshold Pace" ("You run . . . " and "It's so arbitrary . . . ") is especially confusing (though they certainly are unnecessarily confusing for intelligent readers). They were both simply written by an idiot. People who are conversant in both the metric system and the imperial system, as well as the respective popularity of the systems in various parts of the world, have no difficulty understanding why the earlier poster chose to refer to both systems in his question. The later "solution" (an odd label for his explanation of his remarks) provided by "Joe Biden's Threshold System" simply provides more evidence of his limited knowledge of basic communications skills. (He obviously understands what meters and miles are; he just seems to lack the understanding of why someone would explain a question in a way that is more easily comprehensible to a wider range of the target audience.)

Exactly. (I do believe, however, that the OP, in using that generally awful term "overrated," is referring to the many recent suggestions that "double threshold" training is some sudden breakthrough that is having a very significant effect on faster race times. I haven't seen any evidence of that, especially when measured against the much greater gains from things like changes in shoe technology, the use of human pacers and pacing lights, and the many changes in training initiated or popularized by great innovators like Arthur Lydiard.)

That is simply not true. Look up what Zatopek was doing in the 1940's. The famous Hammond team would run 60-70 minutes in the morning,at a rapid continuous pace with a 440 pick up every mile and longish repeats in the afternoon. The difference is the Norsemen using the lactate meters to monitor their efforts- which Waldemar Cierpinski also did. Since I've been following the sport every international coach said they used the most scientific methods, I learned it was an euphemism for better pharmaceutical s

This is 100% correct. The math is so much easier this way.