Gjert got the entire model from Bakken shared with him for free. Then later after his kids were successful, Gjert claimed he came up with the Norwegian method and wrote a training book that costs $50 where he doesn’t share any specifics of the method. That’s most likely why Bakken is open sourcing all of this knowledge
To be fair, Bakken has had an open blog for much longer than that. However it seems like he have felt the need to (yet again) show where Gjert has got his inspiration from, and share more information. Last time around Gjert claimed he had a brief phone call with Bakken, but Bakken said it was numerous.
If muscular recovery was not a factor, would continuous vs interval sessions yield the same adaptations (assuming pace and volume are identical). Seems there is no point in continuous efforts such as tempo runs.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
Something that stood out to me re-reading the original article and reading this update to it today is just how seasonal the Norwegian Model is. For those of use non-elite mortals out here who don't need to peak in the summer/early fall, I'm curious how temperature affects adaptation to anaerobic threshold work and whether there's a more optimal "seasonal" periodization to follow (whether related to temperature or not), assuming you can set your peaks to be whenever during the year that you want them to be.
I like how in his article he shows the progression to achieve that 6 x 800m workout that Jakob did last outdoor season. Of course, Jakob's paces are much different than what he mentioned, but it still reveals that the rest between reps was around 3 minutes.
*From his website
1) 6 x 500m @ 75 sec. with 3 min. recoveries between runs.
2) 4 x 600m @ 90 sec.
3) 6 x 600m @ 90 sec.
4) 4 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
5) 6 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
6) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 06 sec.
7) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 02 sec.
8) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 10 sec.
9) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 05 sec.
10) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 00 sec.
Anyone else wonder how on earth that last session is doable? 6x800 at basically mile pace(wasn’t he like 4:05 around then) seems like a stretch. Even the 4x800 in 2.02 would be hard. obviously all this stuff changes with fitness. Make those 800 closer to 3k pace and it is a workout we all have done.
I like how in his article he shows the progression to achieve that 6 x 800m workout that Jakob did last outdoor season. Of course, Jakob's paces are much different than what he mentioned, but it still reveals that the rest between reps was around 3 minutes.
*From his website
1) 6 x 500m @ 75 sec. with 3 min. recoveries between runs.
2) 4 x 600m @ 90 sec.
3) 6 x 600m @ 90 sec.
4) 4 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
5) 6 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
6) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 06 sec.
7) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 02 sec.
8) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 10 sec.
9) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 05 sec.
10) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 00 sec.
Anyone else wonder how on earth that last session is doable? 6x800 at basically mile pace(wasn’t he like 4:05 around then) seems like a stretch. Even the 4x800 in 2.02 would be hard. obviously all this stuff changes with fitness. Make those 800 closer to 3k pace and it is a workout we all have done.
When you are at 13flat level you recover a lot in 3 min
Would of liked to see a more detailed plan for competitive phase to peaking like the normal structured weeks we have already seen a lot. The transition to race specific work and working out the double threshold.
If muscular recovery was not a factor, would continuous vs interval sessions yield the same adaptations (assuming pace and volume are identical). Seems there is no point in continuous efforts such as tempo runs.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
This is really interesting and I'm struggling to weigh up the pros and cons with this one. The one big benefit I can see with threshold intervals is that you can run them at much more race specific paces (E.G. 10x1k at 15k pace (1 min rest)) whereas for a continuous effort you'd have to drop the pace substantially to keep the lactate and RPE in control, ie. I'd find the prospect of 10k at 15k pace basically a race simulation effort rather than something to be done 2 to 3 times a week.
Anyone else wonder how on earth that last session is doable? 6x800 at basically mile pace(wasn’t he like 4:05 around then) seems like a stretch. Even the 4x800 in 2.02 would be hard. obviously all this stuff changes with fitness. Make those 800 closer to 3k pace and it is a workout we all have done.
When you are at 13flat level you recover a lot in 3 min
we aren’t talking about some 3:36/13:00 runner. We are talking about some 18 year old who is running a 3:52.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
I thought this was by far the most interesting and actionable section of what Bakken wrote. Unfortunately, does anyone really have a hard line in the sand for when the benefits of breaking up the threshold training is more favorable than doing continuous runs? I used to run in the mid 15s for 5k, then took a few years away, and am now back to training but only ~40-45 mpw. I've been doing 3 threshold sessions a week, broken into chunks of 6-9 minutes, 2-5 minutes, and 1-2 minutes. Would I fall into that under-adapted category, despite my history, since I'm not really in shape? I'm progressing; maybe that's the ultimate answer. As long as you're progressing, you're doing it "right." But I'm sure many folks here take their training more seriously and would want to know whether they should be doing threshold as intervals or continuous running.
If muscular recovery was not a factor, would continuous vs interval sessions yield the same adaptations (assuming pace and volume are identical). Seems there is no point in continuous efforts such as tempo runs.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
I actually came to the opposite conclusion as you.
Is the musculoskeletal system a more likely bottleneck for beginners or for elites? I think it's more of a bottleneck for beginners. Especially when you consider how many non-elites are running at a higher body weight, the musculoskeletal system can be very fragile for beginners. If elites weren't so aggressive in their training, pushing their training load to the max, it'd hardly be a bottleneck for them at all. Whereas beginners aren't even trying to be especially aggressive with their training load, but rather just trying to do normal training, and still often end up with overly fatigued muscles and failing bones.
Non-elites are so far from their potential that it doesn't take a maximized stimulus to see improvements. It's more important to avoid overtraining.
Given that the casual runner has time to train, I think the wisest thing is to stick to interval workouts and increase volume. The greater volume will be more helpful, especially in the long term, than harder workouts. But increasing volume takes more time out of your week so once the time limit (and therefore the volume limit) has been reached, only then is it smart to increase the intensity of the workouts. But even then I might argue for sticking to intervals and reducing warmup/cooldown to make time for more intervals. Warmups can be quite short - 5mins jog and some strides. Maybe the first rep is used as a warmup and it's allowed to be slower. And cooldowns are not nearly as essential as people make them out to be.
Every training schedule is unique in itself. So Gjert is the inventor of THAT specific training schedule.
However, everyone is influenced in some way or another by other people n training ideas.
No one start from scratch and build their schedule.
So he should have said i was influenced by a ton of people, from Lydiard to Åstrand to Daniels. Too many to name. To build my training philosophy. But my specific schedule n training is unique.
I guess he is under a lot of pressure.
No. Gjert wasnt just inspired by Bakken. His base phase(the unique part of the Norwegian model) is basically 100% copied from Bakken. He also made a $50 book about it so Bakken is making everything free to view and use by everyone.
I like how in his article he shows the progression to achieve that 6 x 800m workout that Jakob did last outdoor season. Of course, Jakob's paces are much different than what he mentioned, but it still reveals that the rest between reps was around 3 minutes.
*From his website
1) 6 x 500m @ 75 sec. with 3 min. recoveries between runs.
2) 4 x 600m @ 90 sec.
3) 6 x 600m @ 90 sec.
4) 4 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
5) 6 x 700m @ 1 min. 50 sec.
6) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 06 sec.
7) 4 x 800m @ 2 min 02 sec.
8) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 10 sec.
9) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 05 sec.
10) 6 x 800m @ 2 min 00 sec.
Anyone else wonder how on earth that last session is doable? 6x800 at basically mile pace(wasn’t he like 4:05 around then) seems like a stretch. Even the 4x800 in 2.02 would be hard. obviously all this stuff changes with fitness. Make those 800 closer to 3k pace and it is a workout we all have done.
When you are as fit as Bakken was(pre super shoes as well) you can definitely handle that kind of intensity and recover.
"An interesting point here is that isolated studies show the opposite : the “effect” of continuous effort vs. intervals in isolation seems greater. However, this is missing an important point : the limiting factor in terms of load comes (mostly) down to the muscular system in running. So you need to weigh the session effect vs. the actual load and try to fill as much as possible of the “correct” training while balancing the muscular system."
I read this as saying that continuous sessions yield greater adaptation than equivalent interval sessions. To me, that suggests you should actually be doing continuous sessions until you're at a volume/intensity of training where muscular load is your limiting factor. Beginner runners, lower mileage runners, and anyone who takes multiple days between harder workout efforts would therefore seem to benefit more from continuous over interval threshold sessions since their muscular systems are likely well recovered before they are attempting the next workout.
In fact, taking this a bit further, you should only incorporate more intervals (including doubling) once you are at a level where you need to optimize around muscular system recovery rather than around building up to more threshold volume.
I read that the same way, but think the implications are a bit different. While a single continuos session in isolation would be a greater training stimulus, the issues arise in total volume (at pace) that can be done in a single session without overloading the muscular system, and in the repeatability of that volume of pacework over the course of, say, a week. I think this means for almost everybody, it’s better to break this work up into intervals. You can do more volume and do it more frequently while sacrificing just a bit of signal from the individual workout.
Anyone else wonder how on earth that last session is doable? 6x800 at basically mile pace(wasn’t he like 4:05 around then) seems like a stretch. Even the 4x800 in 2.02 would be hard. obviously all this stuff changes with fitness. Make those 800 closer to 3k pace and it is a workout we all have done.
When you are as fit as Bakken was(pre super shoes as well) you can definitely handle that kind of intensity and recover.
Was he really that fit as an 18/19 year old? If he was running this as a 13:10 guy, then everyone goes yeah that is hard but doable. He was being told to do it as like a 3:52 1500m guy….
When you are as fit as Bakken was(pre super shoes as well) you can definitely handle that kind of intensity and recover.
Was he really that fit as an 18/19 year old? If he was running this as a 13:10 guy, then everyone goes yeah that is hard but doable. He was being told to do it as like a 3:52 1500m guy….
Oh yeah I realize I misunderstood when he did that. I have no clue why he would do those kind of sessions at the time. I don't remember a lot about who coached him when but was he under Coe at the time?
Marius Bakken (born March 27, 1978, in Sandefjord) is a Norwegian runner who specializes in the 5000 metres, having run distances from 800 to 10,000 metres in his early career. He represents IL Runar. He finished ninth at the...
Was he really that fit as an 18/19 year old? If he was running this as a 13:10 guy, then everyone goes yeah that is hard but doable. He was being told to do it as like a 3:52 1500m guy….
Oh yeah I realize I misunderstood when he did that. I have no clue why he would do those kind of sessions at the time. I don't remember a lot about who coached him when but was he under Coe at the time?
The session is from Coe, but if he was officially his coach I don’t know. It is easy to see what that session is trying to do but to actually execute feels like something is left off. I am willing to bet if posted that workout and asked people to predict my mile time, I would get sub 3:55 times. Now maybe that was sort of the goal for that season. It would be nice to know what the context for using this and those speed endurance sessions were.
I think most people buy into the basic ideas of the base and we are arguing about details which is tough to distinguish. Is a 10 mile run at 3:10/km better than doing 15x1k at 3:00 with 60s rest or doing 4x6min at 3:15 in the morning and 25x400 at 2:50 in the evening for building aerobic endurance during the base phase? Who knows.
