It’s not the double threshold that’s the big thing. It’s the increased emphasis on threshold as a percentage of weekly work. Lower injury risk, more consistency, better results. It’s not that the work is split up into two sessions a day. It’s the strict control of intensity.
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.
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.
That is the entire idea of double threshold. The whole idea is maximum volume and max quality at a high volume. The entire idea of double threshold is to be able to do consistent high volume training over many years and it is quality enough to make big gains as it builds, that is the idea of double threshold specifically
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.
That is the entire idea of double threshold. The whole idea is maximum volume and max quality at a high volume. The entire idea of double threshold is to be able to do consistent high volume training over many years and it is quality enough to make big gains as it builds, that is the idea of double threshold specifically
You’re missing the point. There is nothing magical about double threshold. Yes doing double threshold sessions as a core component of training achieves the objectives I mentioned, but those (high volume, intensity control, etc) can also be achieved without doing double threshold sessions.
It’s not the double threshold that’s the big thing. It’s the increased emphasis on threshold as a percentage of weekly work. Lower injury risk, more consistency, better results. It’s not that the work is split up into two sessions a day. It’s the strict control of intensity.
Double threshold is made much easier by doping - as everything is.
That is the entire idea of double threshold. The whole idea is maximum volume and max quality at a high volume. The entire idea of double threshold is to be able to do consistent high volume training over many years and it is quality enough to make big gains as it builds, that is the idea of double threshold specifically
You’re missing the point. There is nothing magical about double threshold. Yes doing double threshold sessions as a core component of training achieves the objectives I mentioned, but those (high volume, intensity control, etc) can also be achieved without doing double threshold sessions.
You should read the Bakken paper, and find out why threshold was selected as the intensity for these workouts. Sure, it isn't "magical", but it is a significant factor in developing distance running performance.
Running at other intensities, regardless of how much control one exerted, would not produce the same results.
He also goes into great detail as to why the doubling format was chosen (after lots of experimentation), as it was the best way to achieve higher volumes at this intensity, consistently.
Define "overrated" in this context? Do you mean it doesn't work or it is talked about too much. Nobody defines their terms on this website...
If you meant "is it talked about too much," you are right. We are all acting like it is a new invention. Once you understand the methodology behind it, you should try it out and if it works for your great, if not, fine. There doesn't have to be constant "chatter" about it at this point.
If you meant "does it or doesn't work," then I think you have to accept that it will depend on a) how it is implemented and b) how the individual athletes respond to it. It seems to work for Jacob, now doesn't it? It might or might not work for you.
Here are other things that I am sure were considered "overrated" at some point:
You’re missing the point. There is nothing magical about double threshold. Yes doing double threshold sessions as a core component of training achieves the objectives I mentioned, but those (high volume, intensity control, etc) can also be achieved without doing double threshold sessions.
You should read the Bakken paper, and find out why threshold was selected as the intensity for these workouts. Sure, it isn't "magical", but it is a significant factor in developing distance running performance.
Running at other intensities, regardless of how much control one exerted, would not produce the same results.
He also goes into great detail as to why the doubling format was chosen (after lots of experimentation), as it was the best way to achieve higher volumes at this intensity, consistently.
You're missing their point. It's not a debate about the specific threshold intensity, but the emphasis on making sure the effort is controlled and not "I feel good so I must not be faster than threshold". Practicing that can be acheived in a single threshold session.
There's an injury risk with longer single threshold sessions, but also with not recovering well enough for proper double threshold training. There's a benefit from being able to get in more threshold miles in a single day, but also a benefit from being able to acheive a lot of threshold miles in a single session with the little extra recovery time in comparison. There's pro's and con's both ways.
It's overhyped because it wasn't as popular before, but now that select runners are having success with it people have convinced themselves that there's this new magical style of traning that will make them better or they're going to crush their PR's because they're getting in 3 more threshold miles a week. It's like quality vs quantity goes out the door.
Double threshold sounds great in concept, but has no research backing. Bakken gave you guys a blog of his experience, not a research paper with a large group of subjects and a comparison with single threshold subjects. Remember that.
I mean overrated in the sense that so many people think "holy sh!t, double threshold is the reason why everyone is so good these days". And that everyone should do it. And in doing so are disregarding all the other factors why runners are improving so quickly these days
I mean overrated in the sense that so many people think "holy sh!t, double threshold is the reason why everyone is so good these days". And that everyone should do it. And in doing so are disregarding all the other factors why runners are improving so quickly these days
I would put doping ahead of double threshold as the reason for that.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.