I thought some people here might be interested in a training experiment I’ve been running over the last few months—blending Norwegian double threshold with Canova-style specific endurance.
I’m a V40 runner from the UK. Last September I qualified at Redcar for the Home Nations Masters Half Marathon Championships for the second time, which meant another opportunity to race in an England vest. I wanted to make it count.
I came to focused running relatively late. After starting a family there was a natural break from competitive sport. Before that I was mainly into cycling time trials and hill climbs and somehow
managed to finish 4th in my only Ironman (Lakesman 2016—looking back, I was completely clueless). I’ve been running consistently and more seriously for about five years.
Prior PBs before this block were:
5K – 16:10 (August 2025)
10K – 33:37 (October 2024)
HM – 1:13:53 (March 2025)
Marathon – 2:35:45 (October 2025)
Last weekend I ran 1:12:32 at Swansea Half
Marathon (5th V40), an 81-second PB and, honestly, the most complete race I’ve
ever run.
Not just because it was my biggest PB, but because of how it felt. I never felt on the limit until the closing miles, stayed composed throughout, moved efficiently through packs in a windy race, and finished with absolutely nothing left.
The interesting part is how I got there.
Why I Chose This Approach
I knew from experience I had to avoid anything that left me drained. I’ve got a demanding job, two energetic kids, and a very supportive wife who quite reasonably expects me not to be a permanently exhausted, emotionally drained runner. Too much traditional “speed work” reliably
pushes me in that direction.
What attracted me to the Norwegian system wasn’t the double threshold itself, but the idea that if intensity is controlled properly, you can significantly increase the amount of quality work
you do each week while still recovering well enough to repeat it.
What attracted me to Canova wasn’t marathon sessions specifically, but his relentless focus on gradually extending the amount of specific work an athlete can absorb.
When I looked at both systems, I realised they’re trying to achieve the same thing: increase the amount of quality work you can absorb and recover from, consistently.
I wanted:
Norwegian-style intensity control
High threshold volume
Canova-style durability and specificity
High consistency
Low injury risk
Continuous progression
The goal wasn’t to train harder.
It was to increase the amount of quality work I could absorb.
The Core Principles
1. Intensity Control
I own a lactate meter and used it regularly, especially early in the block. Over time I relied more on feel, using lactate as a check rather than a constant guide. Heart rate was useful but more
variable day-to-day.
Typical anchors were:
LT1 ≈ 2 mmol/L
LT2 ≈ 3–4 mmol/L
I wasn’t chasing pace or lactate numbers. I was using them to keep myself honest.
Many sessions finished feeling like I could have done another rep or two.
That wasn’t a mistake.
That was the point.
2. Progressive Extension
This became a defining feature of the block.
I wasn’t trying to run faster all the time. I was trying to gradually extend the amount of quality I could perform while staying in control.
LT1 AM progression moved through:
3 × 2 miles
4 × 2 miles
3 × 3 miles
7 miles continuous
LT2 PM sessions progressed from:
6 × 1K
Gradually through to
5 × 1600m
The paces came down gradually, but I didn’t force it. I just kept showing up, accumulating work and letting fitness emerge.
3. Green Light / Red Light Decision Making
One thing I don’t see discussed enough—though Bakken mentions it—is adapting sessions based on the signals you’re getting on the day.
Green light:
Lactate lower than expected
Legs feel good
HR behaving normally
Session feels smooth
Result: cash in.
For example, I planned 6 × 1K LT2 and ended up running 8 × 1K because everything was clicking. Not chasing numbers—just taking what physiology was offering.
Red light:
Elevated lactate
Poor sensations
Excessive fatigue
Struggling to control effort
Result: adjust the session. Reduce volume or density. Protect consistency.
The objective wasn’t maximising today.
It was maximising the block.
Weekly Structure
Most weeks looked broadly like this:
Monday – Easy
Tuesday – Quality (often progression work or mid-tempo + hills)
Wednesday – Easy
Thursday AM – LT1
Thursday PM – LT2
Friday – Easy
Saturday – Easy / parkrun / race
Sunday – Long run with progression or specific work
Mileage sat around 70–80 miles per week, peaking at 81, but relatively flat.
Double Threshold in Practice
These sessions weren’t standalone—they were part of a wider system to allow a huge accumulation of volume.
Typical LT1 work:
3 × 2 miles
3 × 3 miles
7 miles continuous
Typical LT2 work:
6–8 × 1K
6 × 1200m
5 × 1600m
One of the final LT2 sessions was:
5 × 1 mile
5:29, 5:31, 5:31, 5:32, 5:30
on a warm evening after a morning run.
A few weeks earlier that session would have felt intimidating. By the end, it was just another controlled threshold workout.
The Canova Influence: Specific Endurance
This is probably where my approach diverged most from a “pure” Norwegian model.
Sundays weren’t just easy long runs. They often included progression work or race-specific rhythm.
A key session was:
3 × 3 miles progressive
Set 1 (LT1):
6:04, 5:53, 5:53 (lactate ~1.9)
Set 2 (tempo):
5:45, 5:42, 5:41
Set 3 (LT2):
5:32, 5:28, 5:31
That session gave me huge confidence—not because of the pace, but because of how controlled it felt.
The race itself felt remarkably similar.
Another Canova-inspired staple, often used on Tuesdays, was:
Tempo + Hills e.g.
2 miles progressive tempo
10 × 1 min hills (3–5K effort)
2 miles progressive tempo
The hills added strength and recruitment without the fatigue cost of heavy VO₂ work.
Strength, Plyometrics and Speed
A criticism levelled at threshold-heavy training is it can make you very fit but a bit flat.
I wanted to avoid that.
Throughout the block I included:
Heavy lifting
Plyometrics
Strides and hill sprints
Short races
The aim wasn’t top-end speed. It was:
Robustness
Recruitment
Running economy
Elasticity
Durability
As a masters runner, I think this is often overlooked.
What Surprised Me Most
The biggest surprise was how little I needed to force things.
Very few sessions felt heroic. The paces came down gradually for the same effort and lactate without me ever chasing them. I just trusted the process.
A good example was the final week. I’d planned a 6-mile half marathon effort “tester” session.
A few years ago I’d have felt the need to prove fitness.
Instead, I skipped it. The evidence was already there. That was probably one of the smartest
decisions of the block.
Race Day
Swansea wasn’t a perfect day for running fast—there was a significant headwind through much of the middle section.
Instead of forcing pace, I focused on effort and pack running. I moved efficiently between groups and stayed patient.
Result: 1:12:32 – 81s PB
5th V40 in the Home Nations Master’s Championship
One thing stood out afterwards:
I didn’t run a single 5:12 mile in training.
Not one.
Yet after 12 miles of racing, I closed with a 5:12 final mile.
That, to me, captures the value of durability and specific endurance perfectly.
I wasn’t training to hit isolated fast splits.
I was training to still be strong enough to produce them when it mattered.
The Biggest Lesson
Everyone talks about aerobic development. What I noticed was durability.
At Swansea I felt like I could just keep applying pressure—even into the wind, even late in the race.
There was no panic.
Towards the end, I wasn’t surviving—I was racing, pushing, thinking about how fast I could get to the finish, and honestly, loving it.
I suspect that came from the combination of:
Double threshold
Progressive extension
Specific endurance long runs
Strength work
Consistent mileage
Intelligent intensity control
…rather than any single “magic” session.
The Result
Swansea Half Marathon:
1:12:32
Highest equivalent VDOT performance:
65.4
Next goal is sub-16 for 5K later this summer.
The threshold foundation isn’t going anywhere.
I’ll just layer more 5K-specific work on top.
The engine stays.
I’d be really interested to hear from anyone who’s tried blending Norwegian and Canova approaches rather than following either in isolation—especially other masters runners. It’s been a game-changer for me and I fully intend to carry on using it.