Norwegian Training Approach - Threshold Focused

Ok, strength is not correct word, many people screwed in the own way. I would say "endurance" approach. You overload your aerobic system with easy miles and volume, which is aerobic, right, and than you run/play a huge volume near those "magic range" 2.0-3.0 or 2.5-3.5, depends where is your laboratory threshold, on fatigued legs, so you teach the body to run economically without accumulating a lactate and as soon as you progress the lactate level goes down and pace goes down. Kenyans is doing the same, but only single thresholds, but they run also a huge volume of its and they have super economical running. This is how I understand this system and trying myself. Last week, by the way I for experiment decided to completely overload my aerobic system, how? Simple, just put infinity volume with 4 thresholds, hills, medium long run and long run all in one week! Picked up 125 miles per week (never in my life I ran such a volume), and what do you think happened today on the first doubles?- I destroyed all paces by 5seconds faster and got lactate the same, just "magic"... I strongly believe that you need to find your own volume for this kind system to be working well, and of course this volume might be extreme for slow twich runners and might be not big for fast twitch runners, still is a big depates on it. Personnaly for myself: 80miles- I started to sucking at this training, 100-110 - excellent, now I tried 3 weeks: 110, 115 and overload 125 - superior! But for the safe side, as I am injury proned runner with zero background, I will roll back volume to 100-110miles range, better safely improving instead of super improvement, but with a high risk of injury...

This is my own vision, maybe I am totally wrong... will report after 6 weeks... 👐🤷

My understanding is that this type of training is best suited to ST types. Canefis, are you very ST?

I do not think so. As I hate long runs, also could able to do 20x400 @800-1500 with standing rest 60-70s or similar crazy things also early peaking within 2 months, also quite well responding to very easy runs <<68% of HR, also quite well responding to CV workouts and especially well responding to the super fast strides (which I do them twice per week at very high paces) even if legs completely dead, strides refresh me like anything else, but at the same time I have poor raw speed: 60s@400 and 14-15s @100m. I do not know exactly ST or FT, maybe somewhere average? 🤷

Today I got second threshold 10x3min a super "magic"🤫: lactate went down for 0.4 mmol and pace went down for 4s compare with the last week, keep grinding a new method 👐

My experience with some kind of double threshold system (I am duathlete) is mixed. I like the simplicity but even after doing it for multiple months, I still feel like not improving by much. Biggest concern is that the lack of VO2 max/anaerobic sessions (10x400 m running at 3000 pace or 5x5 min cycling at 110% of threshold power) is not creating too much stimulus.
I would label myself as an injury prone/fragile/slender but pure ST type.

So my question: Will the threshold heavy system trigger VO2 max development if done correctly (by creating enough stimulus through high end aerobic work) or is it a program for athletes who already possess a high VO2 max and want to increase economy?

Why do you need high vo2max if your economy is still, lets say s@ck and you are not a teenager anymore?

Are you sure that you are ST (usually they need less vo2max stimulus compare to FT), have you ran sufficient recommended volume 160-180km/w under this system? Did you incorporate "x-element" and peaking workouts too? Did you use lactate meter properly?

Typical schedule:

Mo: easy bike OR run
Tu: 10x1000 run (@ 3:35-3:45 depending on lacatate) 1' rest AND 4x10' @92% FTP bike
We: easy run AND bike
Th: similar to Tu
Fr: easy run AND bike
Sa: Long bike (2-4h)
Su: Long run (90')

This mostly leads to around 80-90 km of running and 6-10 h of cycling. About the maximum I can do with a full time job.

PRs (run, done on about 70 km per week of running training with a polarized approach):
1500 4:34
5 km 16:10
10 km 32:55
15 km: 50:51

So clearly ST... bike FTP is around 4,5 W/kg with a clearly uprising power profile (the longer the effort the relatively better)

So, 9-11 hours of equivalent running or 110-140km weekly volume, because from experience cycling hours = abour 1/2 running hours (due to orthostatic effect as you are sitting on the bike and distance between working muscles and heart is shorter while you are running). Do you know that for ST it might be not enough volume? Me personnally not consider yourself as a ST, noticed that even at volume 140km I started to s@ck, it can be that ST guys even need 220km of volume, like Marius mentioned...

Ok, for duathlon maybe no need big volume of cycling, but when I was amateur cyclist normal volume for me was quite big, about 18-20h for sure and still not enough for good performance...

Exactly. CV is good, but it's a far better stimulus for me to run 12 or even more miles in a day, split between 2 sessions, all faster than 5:20 pace, then to run just 3-4 at like ~4:45-4:50 pace. Instead of just doing 6x1k or 8x800, I can do a 5x2k in the morning around 6:40 for each (5:20 per 1600), and then I can do 10x1k at around 3:10

I would say that 10 x 400m isn't much of a "Vo2max stimulus." I don't know much about cycling or what "110 of threshold power" at a 5-min interval actually does (for your running), but in terms of muscle movement patterns (And running Economy) there can certainly be a trade off between actually running efficiently at Velocity at Vo2max and how you are stressing your muscle fibers.

Is also depends on how you are measuring your progress and improvement? A track runner in season can obviously do that by lowering their 5km track PR objectively as the season progresses. Others (apparently on this thread) are just monitoring lactate values and charting progress with faster paces for workouts at relatively lower mmol values?

To answer your question at the end I'd say it depends on what target event/distance you are training for and what your relative volume (weekly miles run etc) is? For most though I'd say it's more about the latter: Improving specific running economy and not really looking to boost raw Vo2max (this doesn't mean Velocity at vo2max and Velocity at Anaerobic Capacity can't improve though!). Running Economy is the name of the game usually anyway.

Finally the latest poster "exactly" appears to be in probably at least sub 2:25 marathon shape...if you are doing those kinds of double workouts around 5:20 to 5:10/ mile pace on that kind of volume.

I just don't understand all of this.

Literally thousands, maybe 100s of thousands of elites, sub elites and club runners who are active and don't train like this, but a handful, and I mean a handful of elites at 1500m train a specific way that on closer inspection isn't that different ( twice a day, high volume, 3 workout days a week) and you've got good club runners in their 40s buying lactate meters.

All because they do 30mins at marathon effort in the morning of 2 workout days instead of a shake out. They've never trained any different.

Is it possible they would be better dropping the double threshold, keeping the rest of it and getting injured less? Or adding a proper long run?

20*200s, 10*3mins at 10k pace and 5*6 mins at half marathon pace is standard fare.

From my view, it looks like Bakken's point was that many runners do too many workouts too hard. Better to do more running at quick pace but with less stress. Doubles are good. Nothing new there. Bakken adopted blood lactate testing to monitor and try to make sure he kept his 'threshold' workouts fairly moderate. And a consistent schedule to help avoid overtraining. Bakken chose his schedule because he prefered it to other schedules he tried, but it should not be written in stone. And the lactate testing is not really necessary. The real test should be 'do you feel fresh' for afternoon run, and two days later when you do another workout.

I'm not a marathon runner, just a 3k-10k focused collegiate athlete. I think I could run 2:25 if I did (very) high mileage and 20+ mile long runs, but now I'm aiming for a sub 30 this season which is a little lofty, but still

Bump this post.

Question: has anyone seen a design for a sub-elite approach to this training? Say a base-building week for a 130km per week load. Are the double thresholds shorter? Or better to cut down the easy runs? Would love to see some opinions.

There is a heavy emphasis on EPO and frontline peptides from a young age.

Your best guess would be to look at what big bro Ingebrigtsen does:

strava.com

Strava Runner Profile | Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen

Kristoffer Ingebrigtsen is a runner from Sandnes. Join Strava to track your activities, analyze your performance, and follow friends. Strava members can plan routes, participate in motivating challenges, and join clubs. Get s...

Link:www.strava.com/athletes/49271631

Lame.

Lactate Pro 3 prototype? Real? What is improved?

Do you guys think that the Norwegian method fits well also for marathon training?

Do you think that also top tier kenyan and ethiopian marathoners use it?

Just serious answers please, do not start talking about doping etc etc