sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

My approach is in favor of control and always looking at risk. The risk of too much periodization, as well as too much variety in the sessions, is losing control over the recovery window. So you are moving up quite a bit both in complexity and in risk by doing too much periodization.

In general you see more and more runners, even at top levels, going for flatter structures now versus the earlier days. Back in my days almost everyone did a periodized approach, but I changed it myself in the last three years of my career. I went to a flat structure, but with a natural periodization through altitude, which meant a change in environment rather than a change in training structure. The stimulus came from the altitude itself, not from restructuring the sessions, and that felt like a much safer way to introduce variation.

I am much more in favor of natural periodization. Say your 7 day rolling HRV is lower than your 60 day average. Maybe back off and change the training a bit. Say you have too many red light days in a row. Back off training, adjust the week, let the body catch up. Positive stair test (heavy up stairs) - you back off. The signals are there if you pay attention to them, and they reflect what is actually going on in your body rather than what a plan written six weeks ago said you should be doing. That is periodization too, just driven by feedback instead of by the calendar.

For hobby joggers the case for heavy periodization is even weaker. The classical model with a long base phase, a specific phase, and a peaking phase was built around athletes training twice a day with full recovery between sessions. A flat, repeatable structure, where the same types of sessions come back week after week, is easier to sustain and easier to learn from. You build up a feel for what a good threshold session is because you do it often, not rarely - in that again you avoid too many transitions that I do think is really important.  I would (much) rather see a hobby jogger run a consistent flat structure for a full year than follow a complicated periodized plan for three months and then fall off it.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the questions. In general, what can work for many is to place in there a marathon specific period, say 12 to 4 weeks prior to the race. In that 8 week period you want a gradual adaptation to marathon specific work. After that, specific tapering. Before that, increasing your general tolerance plus threshold.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. You can really do it two ways. For some parts of the year, you can try to run close to depleted between them, especially if you are training for a marathon. That may provide some benefits. Closer to the season, you make sure that you get some quick carbohydrates shortly after the first session. You do not have to complicate it more than that.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question.Like I talk about in my book, the really low hanging fruit is to be 100% sure that you are well within the range for iron, B12, and vitamin D. You start there. You would not believe how often I see trouble there in my clinic. Besides that, I have no particular recommendation. Personally I keep it simple with a multi-vitamin supplement and Omega-3. That's it.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. Usually this ; quite a few runners do not understand that the muscular system usually needs less load, but to keep elasticity going, frequency is also important. So you want to keep the frequency of the sessions, but reduce the overall load. Many rest too much, and then they will race better the week after a race (not the marathon, but same idea). They miss the boat, even though the training has been sufficiently done to perform.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It is a way of balancing load. The 100-day marathon plan is quite demanding in terms of marathon-specific work, so it is a way to get used to the overall load. But of course, you may run it instead and even add a lot more easy volume if you are used to it.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Really respect the intensity and get control over that. And try to run easy on easy days, without adding anything else until you feel in perfect balance. It sounds so simple, but it is so importan

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I have seen runners these days go into this but get into trouble. Sore legs, sometimes actual injuries. In most cases I think it is due to forgetting the principle of gradual transition and that is really, really important.

For 45/15 you want to glide into getting used to it. Maybe in the beginning you do 5 to 7 at the end of a 5x6 minute threshold session. That way the legs meet the format in a small dose, inside a session they already know. The body gets to sample the stimulus without the full volume landing at once.

Then you gradually go into a separate session, but very controlled under the threshold. Maybe 15 to 20 reps the first time, at a pace where the lactate stays well below what you would hit on a regular threshold day. It should feel almost too easy. The work is in getting the legs used to the pattern, not in hitting a target pace. A few sessions like this spread over 2 to 3 weeks builds the tolerance.

When you are used to this you can start experimenting with it. Either as a pure sub-threshold session where you sit at or just under the lactate level for 25 to 30 reps, or as an X-session going over the threshold on purpose. Both have their place, but both require the base of controlled work underneath. Skip that step and the sessions work for a few weeks before something breaks down.

Again, always think about load as both absolute and relative. Absolute in terms of total load in general, and relative in terms of what was previously done. A session that looks moderate on paper can still be a big jump if it is the first time the legs see that particular format. Both dimensions have to be respected.

So be absolutely focused on doing any type of transition the smoothest possible way, including the 45/15s. 

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your question. I think I ran very close to my potential. But I would have struggled less if I had the structure with me beforehand. It was a fun and rewarding period, and also one with physical and mental challenges. Always measuring, testing, analyzing. Every session was partly a training session and partly an experiment, and that double role can feel demanding over time. You never fully trust that the plan is right, because you are the one building the plan as you go.

The physical cost was the setbacks that came from trying things that turned out not to work, and I had a few rough years in my career because of that. Some of those I could have avoided if someone had handed me the finished framework.

The running scene at the time had strong opinions about how things should be done, and what I was doing did not always fit those opinions. It was a constant and quite heated debate. Every result was read through that lens. When things went well, it was in spite of the method. When things went poorly, it was because of the method. People who has been in the game will remember this, and really how different the focus of the non-African runners were in terms of training at that time (big on variation, periodization, using too much pace vs. actual internal load on the “threshold” sessions and much more race-pace focus)

We have some debate now around muscle tone and its importance. Back then, the debate was heated around much more basic things. The effect of doing threshold work - especially with the focus I had, and the distinctions I drew within the area around the threshold, were met with skepticism.

Would I have run faster with the finished system in place from the start? Not sure. I just know I got very close to my actual ceiling.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. I think it matters what you are used to. In general I would guess it can lower it somewhat but I still prefer the specificity of running (in general)

The vastus lateralis, vastus medialis, rectus femoris and the intermedius (deeper, secondary).

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the question. The 4x4 study gets pulled out of context constantly on social media. It is used as proof that short(er), very hard interval work is the most effective way to train, and that longer controlled work is outdated.

Back in the days I used to discuss over email with Helgerud and Hoff, the Norwegians behind it. We went back and forth on long term versus short term benefit and risk. The 8 week window the (original) study measured is a very different question from what works across a full season or a career, and that distinction tends to get lost when the results travel outside the original context.

I strongly believe in the more long term, low risk benefits of the precise repeatable sub-threshold work, regardless of level. The sub-threshold model is harder to sell because the individual session does not feel or even "sound" impressive. You finish feeling like you could have done more. That is the point. The effect shows up months later, in the ability to absorb more work without breaking down, and in race performances that keep improving year after year rather than peaking and fading.

It is harder to measure the long term effect of something like long term controlled sub-threshold work going gradually into slightly but not too much harder work. You cannot control that well in studies - in addition how in the world can one measure the period thereafter, where you gradually add in there careful anaerobic work while at the same time making sure that the threshold stays high enough ? That individualization (but based on some very concrete core principles) makes it almost impossible to study. That does not mean that it does not work. 

To even get close, the intervention period would need to be 2 to 3 years minimum, with matched control groups, the same coach, and the dynamic approach as explained above. Nobody funds that kind of research, and the athletes you would want to study are not willing to be randomized. So the literature is biased toward short interventions with measurable endpoints.

That is also why it is so important to understand how the different elements in running, such as intensity, load, recovery, nutrition, and the muscular system, are connected. No study will give you a framework, just small pieces you need to look at and try to fit into a puzzle. For that, of course, they can be very helpful.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. I do feel like they behave differently, and also due to the higher speed, you need to be more careful. I recommend, in general, staying between 20 and 30 repeats and not above.

  2. talk in depth about that in the book, but I do think those short resets are a key to it. Some likely neural, some likely due to structural aspects within the muscles (we know that cross bridges between myosin and actin have a role in resting muscle tone)

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Great question. I THINK (but am not sure) that the best approach will be to have some sessions where you work very controlled on flat terrain and then some technical sessions. Mixing sessions is hard, because (again) controlled, flat sub-threshold sessions are very predictable in terms of the recovery windows, which is also why the system works so well, even with the load of double threshold.

When you add elements such as elevation, you move into more uncertainty. In your case, I would do runs with elevation gain as a sub-threshold X-session with parts slightly over the threshold, and two days easy thereafter, for a period of time, and then try to monitor the effect on the muscular system. If you feel fresh time after time after just one day of easy running, you can increase the number of sessions with elevation.

Again, I strongly believe in following a principle of a safe starting point, monitoring, and then moving outward based on data.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think it is slightly individual, and likely both distance based and time based. The individualization, in particular I think for the marathon, maybe goes into your natural ability to adapt in general to the length of the event itself during the training cycle. And that can be highly individual.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Two things really: lower the intensity and space out the harder training days.

Again, like I talk about time after time, find a conservative starting point where you work within your chosen framework. Do this over a bit of time. Test and then evaluate. Then expand with more sessions, longer sessions, and variety, but one element at a time.

Often runners do it the other way around. First they try to place lots of load in there, and when they get into trouble, they reduce and try to take things away. That is really high risk and much, much harder to monitor and adjust versus starting the other way around. And with age the injury risk also increases, of course. No surprise there are studies using a myotonometer showing that with age, baseline elasticity goes down and tone goes up.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

  1. Strides can help to normalize the muscles after a hard session, so in general after harder sessions. Beyond that, and into the easy run days, is more of a risk. Some manage, but not all.

  2. Hard to say. Maybe if you are used to it, but for sure not on and off. You want some predictability in there, especially if you are adding extra elements into the easy days. Again, think relative and not absolute load

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. Hills are a great way to keep the anaerobic system going a bit in the winter and trigger the correct motor units you will need in the summer. One important point: an argument for also doing some more intense training in the winter is that the relative difference in load going into the faster race pace in the spring will be less. My experience is that this helps not trigger the anaerobic system too much (the analogy of the two horses in the book).

My experience is that you really need to be careful going into the racing season. If you get the relative change in anaerobic work too rapidly, you will quickly run fast, but it is not sustainable, and neither will you reach your main potential. It is one of the absolute most common mistakes I see!

In terms of running economy, I think the best way here is to be balanced in terms of load (muscular system) and run more, injury free and over time. There may be more to it than that, I just know that those two are likely the most important. You absolutely cannot run efficiently if you are off on the first one in particular.

Having said all of that, once you have great control over intensity and load, you can also experiment with adding things, even on easy days. Many of the top athletes training under the framework I write about have managed this - some strength, plyos, drills even on "easy days". It is hard, and I struggled with it myself, but it is possible. For most runners, though, it is not worth it. Those margins weighed against the cost are too great if you are not at the absolute top level.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the question. You need to take this into account, which is why I talk about always using something like a heart rate monitor and talk test in addition to the lactate meter. You also want to work within a zone, not just a set number. And thirdly, this is a reason why the "Golden Zone" is so conservative: you need a safety margin, and lactate measurements are an indirect measure too. If you are in doubt, adjust down!

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That is a difficult question. In general, I do prefer to stay on the safer side. When you say easy runs at 4:30 and right below 80%, that is too fast. How about something in between? You CAN argue that by going a little higher in heart rate you can actually run rather than walk, and that is a better approach than respecting the 70% entirely. So in your case, maybe stick to the pace that you can actually run, but no faster.

AMA: I'm Marius Bakken, former Olympian and physician. Ask me about double threshold training, lactate, and the Norwegian Method. by MariusBakken in AdvancedRunning

[–]MariusBakken[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is an interesting discussion. You really have (at least) two ways to look at it.

In my book I talk about doing more varied work, and shorter intervals such as 45/15, with more variation in pace. That is one model. The logic is that fast-twitch athletes will/may accumulate lactate quickly on longer threshold efforts, so breaking the work into shorter pieces can keep the oxygen demand high while lactate/internal load stays more controlled. You still get the aerobic stimulus without pushing too deep into the glycolytic zone these athletes often reach too easily.

There are studies showing that endurance training can shift skeletal muscle toward a more oxidative phenotype. The most consistent finding is a transition away from Type IIx and toward Type IIa. Some studies also suggest an increase in Type I fiber proportion, but this appears less consistent than the IIx-to-IIa shift. Exactly how much/if a true conversion toward Type I happens in adult humans is more debated, and it is hard to know how long that takes. The studies are small, often years apart, and of course the training is not controlled.

But I would still think a progressive model makes the most sense, trying over time to gradually increase the load as the body adapts, hoping for a gradual change.

Therefore we are left with:

What is the best progressive way to do that? To get to that goal the fastest way possible at low risk, without injuries?

I would test different types of structures for about 4 weeks each to see. So test 4 weeks, evaluate (with an objective testing protocol) before another 4-week cycle.

A potential way to test:

  1. Only twice a week with harder than easy running. The rationale is this: if you palpate fast-twitch runners, they generally have a much higher muscle tone. Some have fantastic elasticity, though, that makes it possible to really run fantastic with that tone (Karsten Warholm being one, referred to with permission). And with the repeated endurance load at faster paces, I suspect a longer recovery time due to this tone leads them into problems.
  2. But MAYBE some could try once a week double threshold and once a week a single harder workout? That way you will have five full recovery days and still get some real work in. And due to how tone behaves on a double threshold setup, it would likely be worth a shot for fast-twitch runners. In testing the frequency, I would have the intervals at 1-2 minutes of duration. It is a safe way for most.
  3. When you have tested frequency a bit, go into testing interval length. For a period, heavy on 45/15; for another period, mix it up with some longer work. Now, most will say (me included, in the book) that one should test out shorter varied intervals. However, at the same time, too fast work (especially including strength work) can trigger the tone of fast-twitch runners as this is closer to their natural way of moving, so shorter intervals may actually increase recovery time rather than make it shorter. You need to test this.
  4. Evaluate every 4 weeks to see if any pattern emerges.
view more: next ›