No, not the same adaptations continuous vs interval …primarily glycolytic enzymes and motor unit recruitment … but the workouts do blend and summate as the volume of work increases
The double threshold terminology is a bit simplistic and truth is you can find athletes training similarly back as far as 60s or 50s but the overarching point is the same: fast runners don’t especially like to jog and quality work w medium effort has won out in the evolution of training.
The double threshold terminology is a bit simplistic and truth is you can find athletes training similarly back as far as 60s or 50s
Who?
Depends on how much you want to squint. Old school lydiard base was a bunch of steady running and 2 10mile at 3/4(maps to around marathon pace) which about the same time as we are talking. Or guys like zatopek doin 40x400 with short rests around 10k pace.
Bakken built his system on the shoulders of others. That doesn’t take anything away from it. it is super effective and has been the most influential training change in the last 30 years. Even the people who aren’t doing double doubles seem to have moved to things like 10-15x1ks instead of 20 mins tempo runs.
If muscular recovery was not a factor, would continuous vs interval sessions yield the same adaptations (assuming pace and volume are identical). Seems there is no point in continuous efforts such as tempo runs.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
Actually, I disagree, you seem to be forgetting one thing. The intervals makes it much easier to hit the correct intensity, and much easier to adjust if you miss, so it’s advised (for track runners) to use intervals from the start. It’s the same as singles vs doubles. 1 easy run of 10km gives better results than a double of 2x5km, but, overtime it’s easier to add mileage and it’s a easier to manage the intensity of the load.
Depends on how much you want to squint. Old school lydiard base was a bunch of steady running and 2 10mile at 3/4(maps to around marathon pace) which about the same time as we are talking. Or guys like zatopek doin 40x400 with short rests around 10k pace.
Bakken built his system on the shoulders of others. That doesn’t take anything away from it. it is super effective and has been the most influential training change in the last 30 years. Even the people who aren’t doing double doubles seem to have moved to things like 10-15x1ks instead of 20 mins tempo runs.
What you are saying is that you haven't read the blog post this thread is about?
Actually, I disagree, you seem to be forgetting one thing. The intervals makes it much easier to hit the correct intensity, and much easier to adjust if you miss, so it’s advised (for track runners) to use intervals from the start. It’s the same as singles vs doubles. 1 easy run of 10km gives better results than a double of 2x5km, but, overtime it’s easier to add mileage and it’s a easier to manage the intensity of the load.
Also, its easier to have a higher speed at the same intensity, which for hobby joggers means that we actually can run instead of hobbling around, which I recon gives a good nevrological/biomechanical advantage.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
Actually, I disagree, you seem to be forgetting one thing. The intervals makes it much easier to hit the correct intensity, and much easier to adjust if you miss, so it’s advised (for track runners) to use intervals from the start. It’s the same as singles vs doubles. 1 easy run of 10km gives better results than a double of 2x5km, but, overtime it’s easier to add mileage and it’s a easier to manage the intensity of the load.
I think I disagree with Bakken too, for this and other reasons pointed out in this thread, which is why it surprised me to read that. Probably just something he didn't flesh out fully because it wasn't the main point of that post.
You may also include 2–3 x 2000-meter threshold runs as part of the warm-up, just to maintain volume. Based on lactate tests, I clearly saw the positive effect of putting the system in that state even before a race or hard effort and did this before all major races.
Effectively doing a session right before a race? I mean, I get doing some strides and activations but, surely this is too much?