Norwegian Training Approach - Threshold Focused

There have supposedly been many studies stating polarized easy/hard training is superior is better than moderate training which it seems like this sub threshhold training would be categorized as. Is it just the organization of the moderate training that makes a difference? Or is it the 200m and strides that makes the difference?

So you coached a convicted doper while he was serving his suspension?
It's disappointing to see that you support doping in our beautiful sport.

1) Yes, 6 sessions per week is enough to reach the runners max capacity. Spread over let`s say 10 years that`s alot of running.....one VO2 interval at 5 k race pace and one LT interval plus 4 steady easy runs makes the trick! Only true easy runs sometimes when after or before a tough race or after a tough workout.

2) Yes, when the runner preparing for 800/ 1500/ mile/ 3000m there is a need of faster race paces .

3) The steady easy runs at 5:40-5:50 pace are still at recovery pace and easy executed by a runner capable of sub 12:30 min at 5000m. They maximize the ATP production and enzymes needed for the energy process.

If we look at some of history`s great runners on relatively low mileage e.g Bernard Lagat, Jim Spivey, Michael Mysioki , Vincent Rousseau etc , we found out it`s actually impossible to explain their success if not for perfect paces and enough mileage......

The original inventor of polarized training, Seiler talks about it here (skip to the 7 minute mark

I would say that doing 20k of intervals around HM pace would be a high stress day even if it's split up into 2 sessions, you would still need an easy day or 2 to recover.

I`m covinced he was a victim of conspiracy. So many things in his case pointed to that.If I believed he was a doper I had of course never coached him . We even planned to try change his citizenship to be able to race in WC or OG again when Athletics Kenya had said a convicted doper couldn`t represent Kenya again international......

You coached a convicted doper while he was serving his suspension. That is really disgusting. You supported doping through your actions. People like you should be banned from the sport.

You obviously didn`t read my explanation post? I hate doping and would never support that. I`m 100% convinced Asbel is innocent ....now I won`t comment that more in this thread about Ingebrigtsen`s training approach.

The polarized people get around this by reclassifying all this threshold work as high intensity work. Wouldn't want reality interfering with the theory.

They are sort of right in that doing work between easy pace and MP isn't the best for people with unlimited time to train. The part they are missing out is that high quality threshold work ( the stuff in that Hm/MP range) is valuable.

The big take away in training over the past 20 years is less Vo2max stuff(6*1000@5k pace) during base phases and more volume of the slower stuff(5*1 mile @ 10k or these 60mins of threshold level) training works better for a lot of runners.

Been lurking/reading/learning....thanks to many excellent posters here.

Fascinating thread. I'm always happy at how open the Ingebrigtsen's are. A wealth of material is made available for us to consider. (Compare that with Rupp, etc.)

(I'm also laughing. I've been away from this place for quite a while. But years later, we have the same people saying the same things - THIS IS THE WAY IT WAS IN THE SIXTIES, etc etc. Training evolves!!)

I was struck by something Jakob said in the post-5000m interview. I may be paraphrasing here, but it went along the lines of "5000m is the main focus". I was surprised. I thought 1500m was the main focus until he said this. But I believe that he was referring to the majority of the training that gets done. It's very "5000m based." And then I thought back to something that Peter Coe said: "5000m pace is golden." I remember some Coe discussions where they said something along the lines of 5000m work being the main basis for everything else, ie move up/down from that work.

I see some similarities in the philosophies of Ingebrigtsen's and Coe's.

Your stretching. Coe was about doing 6x800@5k pace to maximize aerobic development. That is basically the opposite of JI where you are aiming to maximize aerobic development by running more like MP but going with high volume.

That being said the 5k is a pretty solid base for most distance runners. Off that peak aerobic capacity, you can build the anaerobic stuff to run the 1500m. Or focus on some long tempos to run a HM. If you want to be a marathoner, just sub in a few long runs in the base. And up the mileage a bit.

If you squint hard enough most training plans have elements in common. Compare JI and lydiard. Both are doing like 160+km/week. Is doing 120mins of threshold running much different than 120 mins of 3/4/max aerobic pace running? Or are they just slightly different ways to attack maxing out aerobic capacity? But the difference in things like long run and doing 1500m level pace are pretty noticeable...

At this point, Seiler is flip-flopping so much that everything is polarized training...

Yes, I don't understand anymore. I thought Seiler was all about doing mainly very easy workouts at say zone 2 heart rates max with just one or two high intensity workouts at say VO2 max effort each week. Anything in the middle at say marathon pace or threshold stuff was supposed to be a bit of a waste of time as it was in that "dead zone" of training.

Basically what the Ingebrigtsens are doing with a lot threshold/sub threshold stuff seems to be completely the opposite of what I thought Seiler was preaching....

Putting 3-4mmol work in Zone 3 (using 3 zone model) is ridiculous... but that's what Seiler is doing. He lost credibility with that and has been called out by some in scientific community.

Well image you have a 15:30 guy

Easy is like 630 plus

Hard is like 5:10 and faster

Threshold is like 520-620

JI would be doing a lot of 520-540 work.

At one level, yeah this threshold work that polarization says is bad. But doing all that 530 pace work in a lot of ways is closer to doing 510 work than say some 615 runs. As distance guys we would never call those 615 runs threshold runs. My impression is it is that type of junk work that is the real issue. Not quite hard enough to get benefits and not quite easy enough to get volume. You could make an argument for including this stuff as hard work. The nuance though is it is hard work that you can do a ton of...

There aren't really magic lines in training. Training 1% below the cutoff and 1% above are going to give you roughly the same results even if you give things different names. Doing 4x1 mile at 10k (CV) or 6x1 mile (threshold) are not going to result in huge differences. For elite dudes though small differences do matter....

Sorry. I'm late to this thread. I've skimmed a fair portion and I feel like one main point is missed

The way I explain it to my athletes is like this

1. We want to get the most bang for our buck

2. Training that is done right around LT (or OBLA or AT Or 4.0mmol) is golden for a couple of reasons. It is intense enough to stimulate the maximum rate of adaptation for the adaptations we are looking for (increased capillarization, increased mitochondrial density, increased aerobic enzymes, maintain good biomechanics....) all in one session, but relaxed enough where you can do a HIGH VOLUME of this work

3. Certainly, training above this pace brings other adaptations (increased lactate production and tolerance, biomechanics and comfort at faster paces), but these faster paces greatly decrease the TIME you can spend doing relatively high quality work. CV is a nice compromise for people who want to go a bit faster than the pace which causes OBLA, but still want to be able to do a relatively high volume of work. I believe that this is why the Tinman model has had success, especially with younger athletes who have more limited time to train due to school schedules

4. Marius codified a system (which already existed) that allows athletes to put in a volume of high intensity work (20k for example) that is normally reserved for much easier paces and the system he codified allows this type of session to happen multiple times per week. Could the Jakob do a 20k run at the threshold pace he does his 1k reps at? Sure. But it would likely be days before he could do anything of any quality again.

I read a study that was published back in 1981 that hit the nail on the head. It was a meta analysis of 38 studies that tracked the training of elite athletes vs. performance and a number of the physiological variables that were responsible for that performance. The authors' conclusion was that athletes who spent the most TIME at paces that stimulated a large A-V O2 difference (the difference between the oxygen saturation of blood entering the muscles vs. the saturation of the blood leaving the muscles) were the athletes who were getting the best results. I had a hard copy of that study for years, but lost it in one of my moves.

I just read an article about the Swedish record holder at 10 k road 28:04, Jonas Glans ( former Leandersson) . Already eight years back at age 23 he ran a 3:39 1500m but has been injured many times in his career. He also emphasize this with lactate threshold intervals but due to often injured can't do double thresholds.Despite that running just singel thresholds he won easy a 5000m in Sweden some days ago in a new PB 13:20,8 and last k at 2:32.He will probably soon break the Swedish record 13:17 hold by the Olympic steeple gold medalist Anders Gärderud now for 47 years .....

This with just running singel thresholds and still in the world class top we see in e.g Eliud Kipchoge and Geoffrey Kamworor and many, many more world top runners. So, it's absolutely no need for double thresholds, but it's very important to run lactate thresholds. 🧙‍♂️🧙‍♂️🧙‍♂️🇸🇪

This is an excellent thread!

Like some others, I am puzzled at how Seiler (who has been studying this stuff as his full time job for decades) has apparently got things wrong with Polarised model.

The Threshold approach makes very good sense.

The polarized model, as understood by many of the people I talk to, sounds a lot like what we were doing in the '90s. That didn't turn out too well.