As has been mentioned multiple times at this point, in the double threshold system used by Marius Bakken and later Gjert Ingebrigtsen, threshold pace represents a range of paces depending on the length of the repetition and recovery interval. One hour race pace might be one of several “threshold” paces used, perhaps for 3-4 minute repetitions. 1 minute repetitions are faster, and 6 minute repetitions are slower. All of these are “threshold” paces under the Norwegian double threshold system.
The idea that one hour race pace is the only “threshold pace” has proliferated as a result of people completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting Jack Daniels’ work.
To piggyback off this…
”Threshold” pace means so many things to so many people. Instead of calling it double threshold it should really be called the Norwegian Model.
I warmed up with a guy at a race a couple months ago who was telling me how he had started doing double threshold training. His idea of double threshold though is a 5Mi tempo run in the morning at 10k pace and a 5Mi tempo run in the afternoon at 10K pace. Which, fine. He ended up winning our age group (30-40) in 16:2x.
The Norwegian Model is multiple evolutionary steps beyond that. By regularly taking blood samples during a workout athletes have a better chance of staying at their Aerobic Threshold and they are able to push the boundary of that Threshold further and further back.
The technology may already exist for athletes to have continuous monitoring during workouts. They will be able to plug a device onto their ear or wherever and get live, updated MMOL readings in real time, similar to heart rate. When that happens someone will begin pushing back out to longer continuous steady state runs again and everyone will freak out about that model and claim it’s a new thing when in actuality it’s just the next progression of the Norwegian Model.
Calling BS on this. Nobody runs a 5 mile tempo at their 6 mile race pace twice in one day. Even doing it once is pretty garbage training unless you use it as a tuneup a week or two before your goal race.
The funny thing about the whole premise is ppl look at something they’ve never done or never done effectively and conclude ‘this is overrated’ rather than look at the modality and go ‘oh, the traditional Long Run is overrated for 5k-10k guys’
Double threshold models are showing you that the traditional 15-20 mile long run in a 5k-10k focused program is probably superfluous vis a vis the adaptions you actually need to run 3-6 miles as fast as you can
I think the other thing is every study before showed a easy/hard, 80/20 split always outperformed training plans with more volume in the moderate intensity or the "gray zone" if you're into heart rate training. There currently haven't been any studies that are proving more threshold is better, just results from athletes using it.
The funny thing about the whole premise is ppl look at something they’ve never done or never done effectively and conclude ‘this is overrated’ rather than look at the modality and go ‘oh, the traditional Long Run is overrated for 5k-10k guys’
Double threshold models are showing you that the traditional 15-20 mile long run in a 5k-10k focused program is probably superfluous vis a vis the adaptions you actually need to run 3-6 miles as fast as you can
I think the other thing is every study before showed a easy/hard, 80/20 split always outperformed training plans with more volume in the moderate intensity or the "gray zone" if you're into heart rate training. There currently haven't been any studies that are proving more threshold is better, just results from athletes using it.
i think you need to re familiarize yourself with the studies. first off, what they’ve deemed ‘threshold’ in these studies is not what we’re discussing. secondly, 80:20 is descriptive, not prescriptive and arbitrary depending how you’re defining your zones. thirdly, pyramidal distribution, which is probably how you categorize DT training in the base period, then more polarized closer to racing, has been shown to be just as effective in the studies.
Again, semantics for the most part about where you are defining the zones in your intensity distributions. 2.0/4.0 mmol for lt1/lt2 is not going to be the norm for well trained, aerobically well developed athletes in a 3 zone model.
”Threshold” pace means so many things to so many people. Instead of calling it double threshold it should really be called the Norwegian Model.
I warmed up with a guy at a race a couple months ago who was telling me how he had started doing double threshold training. His idea of double threshold though is a 5Mi tempo run in the morning at 10k pace and a 5Mi tempo run in the afternoon at 10K pace. Which, fine. He ended up winning our age group (30-40) in 16:2x.
The Norwegian Model is multiple evolutionary steps beyond that. By regularly taking blood samples during a workout athletes have a better chance of staying at their Aerobic Threshold and they are able to push the boundary of that Threshold further and further back.
The technology may already exist for athletes to have continuous monitoring during workouts. They will be able to plug a device onto their ear or wherever and get live, updated MMOL readings in real time, similar to heart rate. When that happens someone will begin pushing back out to longer continuous steady state runs again and everyone will freak out about that model and claim it’s a new thing when in actuality it’s just the next progression of the Norwegian Model.
Calling BS on this. Nobody runs a 5 mile tempo at their 6 mile race pace twice in one day. Even doing it once is pretty garbage training unless you use it as a tuneup a week or two before your goal race.
you’re attacking an anecdote from what somebody allegedly said at a road race.
all we can gather from that story that is truthful is ‘there was a road race’ the rest is probably not worth speculating on
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 may be wrong but don't some basic workouts have something similar, such as 1m on, 1m off x 10 (faster speed/slower speed, almost like floats)? Based on what you wrote here re: Jakob?
Is it possible to adapt this training to sub-3:30 marathoners? But using JD tables (VDOT) or Tinman CV paces, for instance, and doing the same double thresholds, but individualized for hobbyists? So someone in the 2:40-3:30 range.
The idea sounds enticing, double-threshold workouts to get you fast but still not overcook you.
Again, semantics for the most part about where you are defining the zones in your intensity distributions. 2.0/4.0 mmol for lt1/lt2 is not going to be the norm for well trained, aerobically well developed athletes in a 3 zone model.
Side question: Is there preference, one way or another, in a 3 zone or 5 zone model for using Heart Rate Reserve versus Heart Rate Max?
Is it possible to adapt this training to sub-3:30 marathoners? But using JD tables (VDOT) or Tinman CV paces, for instance, and doing the same double thresholds, but individualized for hobbyists? So someone in the 2:40-3:30 range.
The idea sounds enticing, double-threshold workouts to get you fast but still not overcook you.
I think you can do that, without the hassle and expense of lactate testing, by simply using a heart rate monitor to stay below a max target, say 88-90% HRmax. You can dial that back further to be even more conservative. That would be for prolonged, sustained efforts.
For shorter interval work (which are probably not as necessary for marathoners) it will take a bit more hands-on experience to determine what can be tolerated in terms of how much time the HR briefly exceeds the max target, versus recovery.
Is it possible to adapt this training to sub-3:30 marathoners? But using JD tables (VDOT) or Tinman CV paces, for instance, and doing the same double thresholds, but individualized for hobbyists? So someone in the 2:40-3:30 range.
The idea sounds enticing, double-threshold workouts to get you fast but still not overcook you.
It's possible (the experiment of one). But for a hobbyist marathoner as opposed to a hobbyist 5k 10k runner there would be more bang for your buck with consistent higher mileage.
Is it possible to adapt this training to sub-3:30 marathoners? But using JD tables (VDOT) or Tinman CV paces, for instance, and doing the same double thresholds, but individualized for hobbyists? So someone in the 2:40-3:30 range.
The idea sounds enticing, double-threshold workouts to get you fast but still not overcook you.
I think you can do that, without the hassle and expense of lactate testing, by simply using a heart rate monitor to stay below a max target, say 88-90% HRmax. You can dial that back further to be even more conservative. That would be for prolonged, sustained efforts.
For shorter interval work (which are probably not as necessary for marathoners) it will take a bit more hands-on experience to determine what can be tolerated in terms of how much time the HR briefly exceeds the max target, versus recovery.
As an example regarding the latter, if you remember, Gerschler had Pirie stop an interval session when the HR did not recover back to some set value (120bpm in Pirie’s case, probably around 62% HRmax) within some set time (e.g., 90 secs).
Not really, at higher lactate the Pro shows higher. Its not the same as with treshold.
So is that not what I just said?
Lactate Pro 2 readings > Lactate Plus readings
Yes and no. The confusion is to blame on my comment, excuse the lack of focus during research for master studies.
You're right in everything you, apart from the fact that 10 vs 12 is not correct. Above 10 it varies way more and one cannot actually draw anything useful from those readings. The important part of your comment is in any way correct, Lactate Pro 2 is way better.
OAC does not do double thresholds. Ritz was just interviewed by Citius mag and said so himself.
Kipchoge’s coach also coaches Faith Kipyegon, the world record holder and 15 and 5. She trains similarly to Kipchoge. No double thresholds. Faith is objectively a better runner than Jakob at this point in time given Faith‘A world records and gold medals. Again, not double thresholds. One big session. Neither Faith nor Kipchoge seem to have any issues with longevity using one big threshold session.
Using two of the greatest athletes ever, who would probably be spectacular under either system, as the basis for your argument is probably not the best way to argue against the idea that double thresholds should be implemented broadly (i.e., for those who would not be spectacular under either system).
Correct, therefore one should not draw all conclusions solely based on Jakob either. But you could look at Norway and Sweden and see the general increased level of elites and sub-elites and assume double t has been a vital part.
I agree with you. Jakob’s success has very little to do with double threshold specifically, and much more to do with consistent high volume training over many years with an emphasis on controlling the intensity of quality sessions.
High volume? What’s high volume for a 1500 runner?
Above 100 miles. And remember old timer, 100miles now are withouth a doubt easier than before the supershoes, so its not comparable to previous times.
Is it possible to adapt this training to sub-3:30 marathoners? But using JD tables (VDOT) or Tinman CV paces, for instance, and doing the same double thresholds, but individualized for hobbyists? So someone in the 2:40-3:30 range.
The idea sounds enticing, double-threshold workouts to get you fast but still not overcook you.
I think you can do that, without the hassle and expense of lactate testing, by simply using a heart rate monitor to stay below a max target, say 88-90% HRmax. You can dial that back further to be even more conservative. That would be for prolonged, sustained efforts.
For shorter interval work (which are probably not as necessary for marathoners) it will take a bit more hands-on experience to determine what can be tolerated in terms of how much time the HR briefly exceeds the max target, versus recovery.
If you did 4-6 workouts in a week targeting 90% Max HR, your season and progression would be quite short. Maybe 6 weeks before you are cooked
Also, doesnt Fisher have a stress fracture? One break through year, next year on the shelf.
McGorty just coming back from injury.
Not sure how Ahmed is doing this year.
Jager, Solinsky, a long list of ppl that reached very high heights and could not sustain the fitness because of injuries.
People keep saying double threshold is better for longevity and preventing injuries. But it’s not quite true.
Henrik - got injured and had to have surgery
Filip - has struggled with injuries the last few years
Kalle Berglund (Swedish runner who has a breakthrough in 2019 from using the same system as Jakob) - injured last few years
NAU has had a lot of injuries. What happened to George Kusche? Nico was injured this year. Bosley didn’t event make the start line at NCAAs due to injury.
Geordie Beamish was often injured at NAU and then switched to OAC and single thresholds. He’s been healthy the last few years.
Also, doesnt Fisher have a stress fracture? One break through year, next year on the shelf.
McGorty just coming back from injury.
Not sure how Ahmed is doing this year.
Jager, Solinsky, a long list of ppl that reached very high heights and could not sustain the fitness because of injuries.
People keep saying double threshold is better for longevity and preventing injuries. But it’s not quite true.
Henrik - got injured and had to have surgery
Filip - has struggled with injuries the last few years
Kalle Berglund (Swedish runner who has a breakthrough in 2019 from using the same system as Jakob) - injured last few years
NAU has had a lot of injuries. What happened to George Kusche? Nico was injured this year. Bosley didn’t event make the start line at NCAAs due to injury.
Geordie Beamish was often injured at NAU and then switched to OAC and single thresholds. He’s been healthy the last few years.
Berglund's main problem the last few years has been mental health problems.
Yes and no. The confusion is to blame on my comment, excuse the lack of focus during research for master studies.
You're right in everything you, apart from the fact that 10 vs 12 is not correct. Above 10 it varies way more and one cannot actually draw anything useful from those readings. The important part of your comment is in any way correct, Lactate Pro 2 is way better.
My point was that if you have a Lactate Plus monitor your reading will be lower for the same blood sample vs a Lactate Pro 2.
So if you are arbitrarily targeting the 2.0-3.5 #'s for Threshold, know that many folks are basing that off of a Lactate Pro 2, so a Lactate Plus you would be more likely to be 1.5-2.7.
Obviously the best way to know is to do an individual ramp protocol with your individual meter. There is so much variation and nuance in all of this it takes some time to dial things in even with the same hardware
I think you can do that, without the hassle and expense of lactate testing, by simply using a heart rate monitor to stay below a max target, say 88-90% HRmax. You can dial that back further to be even more conservative. That would be for prolonged, sustained efforts.
For shorter interval work (which are probably not as necessary for marathoners) it will take a bit more hands-on experience to determine what can be tolerated in terms of how much time the HR briefly exceeds the max target, versus recovery.
If you did 4-6 workouts in a week targeting 90% Max HR, your season and progression would be quite short. Maybe 6 weeks before you are cooked
I don’t know about me, since I’m currently not highly trained. But Pirie and countless other trained athletes could do intervals practically year-round without breaking down.
If you did 4-6 workouts in a week targeting 90% Max HR, your season and progression would be quite short. Maybe 6 weeks before you are cooked
I don’t know about me, since I’m currently not highly trained. But Pirie and countless other trained athletes could do intervals practically year-round without breaking down.
BTW, so far in any demonstration I’ve seen on YouTube of either hobby-jogger amateurs or pros using lactate testing, not one of them has correlated it with their Heart rate measurements (using a strap, of course), which I think is a shame.