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

slaaa wrote:

Alfie wrote:

Could this be of benefit to the recreational runner? Not double threshold sessions, but two threshold sessions each week, dropping the faster work? Only introduce the faster stuff later.

For most rec runners it is more time running being the biggest driver..

We don't really know this, though, because there aren't a bunch of rec runners who are doing double thresholds (and at the proper effort level) who we can look to to compare...

shirtboy2021 wrote:

Peekay -- whats the link to his strava?

Go to Strava.com

Type the following in the search bar: "Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen"

YellowClipBoard wrote:

Why cut a session short if HR cannot be elevated? Indication of fatigue? Will not get the same benefit from a threshold session at lower HR as one would at a higher HR?

Inability to raise your hr to normal levels in a workout is an indication of being overly tired. It is way more common in triathlon and skiing where you can put in a lot more volume. An athlete improves when they recover from a training stimulus. If that stimulus is too much to recover from you eventually become over trained or injured.

Since he was doing so much threshold, this was likely used to monitor crossing the line in to too much work.

So there is no race pace or faster in this training philosophy ?

Jed Clampett wrote:

Conclusions:

Lydiard Training is best.

The majority of runners overtrain on their own and also with coaches!

What's this thread got to do with lydiard training?

reader, wrote:

YellowClipBoard wrote:

Why cut a session short if HR cannot be elevated? Indication of fatigue? Will not get the same benefit from a threshold session at lower HR as one would at a higher HR?

Inability to raise your hr to normal levels in a workout is an indication of being overly tired. It is way more common in triathlon and skiing where you can put in a lot more volume. An athlete improves when they recover from a training stimulus. If that stimulus is too much to recover from you eventually become over trained or injured.

Since he was doing so much threshold, this was likely used to monitor crossing the line in to too much work.

With increasing endurance, the heart rate can go down for the same pace.

Using heart rate or lactate testing is not really the cutting edge science that some people think it is.

let's think harder wrote:

slaaa wrote:

For most rec runners it is more time running being the biggest driver..

We don't really know this, though, because there aren't a bunch of rec runners who are doing double thresholds (and at the proper effort level) who we can look to to compare...

ut is tough to do double thresholds when you are running 4 hours/week. Wheb you are doing 4 or 5 runs/week double threshilds made zero sense.

Charlesvdw wrote:

So there is no race pace or faster in this training philosophy ?

The weekly short hill sprints are faster than race pace.

i read it as simply if his HR was low during the warm up then he was well rested and recovered. this generally led to sessions where he was able to accumulate relatively lower amounts of lactate at a higher pace; thus, a higher HR was observed (its also easier to hit max HR when you are rested). conversely, when your HR is elevated during your warm up or easy run that can be a warning sign. if you then start running the intervals and the lactate is elevated at lower heart rates or its difficult to hit the paces then its a red day. call it. most days will be yellow and somewhere in between. on green days go for it and maybe do a few extra reps.

so training on a red day would lead to unnecessary amounts of added stress (and you may already be in a hole to begin with). accumulating more lactate and slower paces is inefficient. the point of this training is to maximize efficiency by essentially running as slow as possible to get the same benefit allowing more reps or double workouts. all lending its hand to consistency, which is obviously the most important thing for any runner.

Might get hate for this but the overarching concepts remind me of Steve Scott's training, how he mainly did solid mileage, tempos weekly (although they weren't called that), and hills for most of the year before doing more race specific intervals during the race season (while still doing tempos).

I'm training for a February marathon and have been following these principles. I don't have access to a lactate meter, but I think that by hovering around the heart rate I've averaged in my last two marathons (154bpm, 86% of max) and always erring on the side of lower than higher, I'm good. It's allowed me to be super consistent and run quite high volume of quality as part of relatively high mileage weeks by my standards - age 41, pr of 2:42, average volume leading into that was 110km/week, this time round it's more like 125km.

I actually find the double thresholds easier to fit in than one big session. eg Tuesday am - 16km road inc 4x2km off 2mins jog. Tuesday pm - 12km treadmill inc 7x3.5min off 90sec jog. No way do I have a 2hr+ block in my day to do that all in one go, and 15+km of effort in one session would wipe me out till Saturday, whereas this way I'm fresh by Thursday afternoon.

RE Seiler - I recently heard the coach of the Norway XC ski team on a podcast. They don't use lactate and prefer to stick with feel. His argument is that where would you take a reading? From the top of a hill to the bottom, you might clear a ton of lactate. Same for bike racing. Running/Triathlon/Swimming are quite similar in that they require steady effort for the most part, whereas cycling or XC skiing tend to have greater variation in power output just to deal with hills. So I wonder if Bakken's lower intensity steady state efforts and more pyramidal training break down works well in running, whereas a more polarized approach works better in cycling or XC skiing, which seems to be Seiler's primary sporting interest.

InNameOnly wrote:

RE Seiler - I recently heard the coach of the Norway XC ski team on a podcast. They don't use lactate and prefer to stick with feel. His argument is that where would you take a reading? From the top of a hill to the bottom, you might clear a ton of lactate. Same for bike racing. Running/Triathlon/Swimming are quite similar in that they require steady effort for the most part, whereas cycling or XC skiing tend to have greater variation in power output just to deal with hills. So I wonder if Bakken's lower intensity steady state efforts and more pyramidal training break down works well in running, whereas a more polarized approach works better in cycling or XC skiing, which seems to be Seiler's primary sporting interest.

I remember a paper which compared polarized vs pyramidal training distribution. The result was about the same and it was supposed that if the training distribution in the easy zone is high, i guess it was 75%, than it makes no difference.

For me, a pyramidal training distribution makes much more sense as you have to built up muscle performance and you have to handle the impact and load on the body, which is there in running and different to cycling. As faster you run as higher the impact on the body.

The insury risk by using a polarized model is much higher. So i reject that method.

shirtboy2021 wrote:

Peekay -- whats the link to his strava?

If you actually met and asked Henrik if he knew who Cole Hocker was - I guess he said he never heard about him because he asumed you were a fanboy of Hocker, that would start a discussion about how aaaawesome Cole is. Instead of just walk away, he said he never heard of him so that you had nothing more to ask. Clever move from Henrik, hahaha.

micheal wassfu wrote:

Might get hate for this but the overarching concepts remind me of Steve Scott's training, how he mainly did solid mileage, tempos weekly (although they weren't called that), and hills for most of the year before doing more race specific intervals during the race season (while still doing tempos).

I got the impression reading this that Bakken didn't like tempos for non-marathoners, though, which would be kind of a key difference to the typical American approach.

Interesting how these threads allways derails into people/Americans trying to make this system be an other system that is closer to their comfort zone(?) rather than discussing this at face value. No this isnt the same as the system with higher intencity, lower frequency and with more steady state running.

I doubt that many will actually try an adoption of this, as most seem to bastardize it with their own biases of what makes a good system. This can make it worse than either two systems.

LarsL9 wrote:

most seem to bastardize it with their own biases of what makes a good system. This can make it worse than either two systems.

I agree, I think this is one of the important takeaways. This seems like a system that needs to be either adopted completely or not at all--very easy easy days, high volume of intervals that are at a relatively low effort for speedwork, and a small dose of top end speed. I wouldn't like to think what happens if you adopt this only in part and end up with, say, high volume intervals and "easy" days that aren't really that easy, or, on the other end of the spectrum, plenty of super easy running and only a low volume of relatively easy intervals.

I think that is a good point. And I think it applies to any system.

I think many of the “proven systems” can work. But I don’t think we always truly know what individual ingredient is the “key”. We often try to make hybrid systems which leads to screwing up a combination that we know works.

Do the Norway training. Do Daniels. Do Hansons. Do the Australian/Bideau system.

Don’t do a Hodgepodge of individual workouts.