In the vein of double threshold (which I think is the superior approach) is simply putting in a huge volume of quality running ranging from MP to CV pace. Most Western runners weren't doing this sort of thing until pretty recently. This is what Bowerman does with great results.
How does BTC training differ from what, say, is found in malmo's training logs?
I was thinking about this, soon after Jakob starts being a real threat to the dynasty that is east African running. The general training of him came through and the major difference is doing two LT sessions a day on their hard days. Doing this ables them to put in more quality work on their quality days and makes them go actually easy on their easy days(some of y'all might be like but he regularly goes 4 min km pace on his easy days, but for a 3:28 1500 runner that is easy). As opposed to how a lot of western runners used to train ie medium effort quality and low to moderate mileage. Now that Jakob shown the success from such sessions and the mileage he puts in, it's only natural some other elite level western runners followed suit and copied them bringing on similar success. Sure super shoes, and lights make up some of the reason for the improvement of western runners. But is it more due to the changes in training? I believe yes it is.
I think it's easy to oversimplify it to just "double threshold = success" because it's an aspect of training that many are unfamiliar with, and it can seem attractive that the key to running fast is one easy fix in your training schedule. I remember tons of people had similair opinions about CV pace and tinman a few years ago ...
For one, Jakob isn't the first athlete to do double thresholds, I believe that Maris Bakken (13:06) did it first, and there were surely others before him. I'd attribute his success to: Jakob 1. is extremely talented 2. grew up in an optimal high performance training environment w/ 2 olympic athlete brothers and 3. has a an amazing coach. So Gjert's training philosophy (not just double threshold days! the whole thing ...) is just one aspect of his success.
Next, I don't really know where you got the idea that a lot of western runners used to train medium effort quality and low/moderate mileage. What time period are you thinking of? The two main paradigms for mid-d/distance training are high mileage (90 mpw+), slightly less intense workouts (2 workouts + LR), which most americans seem to do or lower mileage (40 mpw) and very high intensity (makhloufi, cheruyiot etc...). No pro would really be doing lower intensity and low/mod mileage nowadays.
Who has copied Jakob and achieved similair success? The next best western runner is Josh Kerr, and I don't think that his training is close to Jakob's. Same for other top western 1500m runners: Kerr, McSweyn, Katir, Hocker, Mechaal, Hoare etc.. I know Berglund seems to have copied him, but I wouldn't put him as the main reason behind the resurgence of western 1500 runners ...
In the vein of double threshold (which I think is the superior approach) is simply putting in a huge volume of quality running ranging from MP to CV pace. Most Western runners weren't doing this sort of thing until pretty recently. This is what Bowerman does with great results.
We were stuck in this Jack Daniels "20 minute tempo run" BS. Twenty minute of LT running every week is way too little.
I was thinking about this, soon after Jakob starts being a real threat to the dynasty that is east African running. The general training of him came through and the major difference is doing two LT sessions a day on their hard days. Doing this ables them to put in more quality work on their quality days and makes them go actually easy on their easy days(some of y'all might be like but he regularly goes 4 min km pace on his easy days, but for a 3:28 1500 runner that is easy). As opposed to how a lot of western runners used to train ie medium effort quality and low to moderate mileage. Now that Jakob shown the success from such sessions and the mileage he puts in, it's only natural some other elite level western runners followed suit and copied them bringing on similar success. Sure super shoes, and lights make up some of the reason for the improvement of western runners. But is it more due to the changes in training? I believe yes it is.
I think it's easy to oversimplify it to just "double threshold = success" because it's an aspect of training that many are unfamiliar with, and it can seem attractive that the key to running fast is one easy fix in your training schedule. I remember tons of people had similair opinions about CV pace and tinman a few years ago ...
For one, Jakob isn't the first athlete to do double thresholds, I believe that Maris Bakken (13:06) did it first, and there were surely others before him. I'd attribute his success to: Jakob 1. is extremely talented 2. grew up in an optimal high performance training environment w/ 2 olympic athlete brothers and 3. has a an amazing coach. So Gjert's training philosophy (not just double threshold days! the whole thing ...) is just one aspect of his success.
Next, I don't really know where you got the idea that a lot of western runners used to train medium effort quality and low/moderate mileage. What time period are you thinking of? The two main paradigms for mid-d/distance training are high mileage (90 mpw+), slightly less intense workouts (2 workouts + LR), which most americans seem to do or lower mileage (40 mpw) and very high intensity (makhloufi, cheruyiot etc...). No pro would really be doing lower intensity and low/mod mileage nowadays.
Who has copied Jakob and achieved similair success? The next best western runner is Josh Kerr, and I don't think that his training is close to Jakob's. Same for other top western 1500m runners: Kerr, McSweyn, Katir, Hocker, Mechaal, Hoare etc.. I know Berglund seems to have copied him, but I wouldn't put him as the main reason behind the resurgence of western 1500 runners ...
I have spoken to a lot of Swedish top coaches the last few years and asked them why they think Swedish running is so much better than it was a few years ago (last year you had to run 2,14 to medal in the Swedish marathon championship, while there used to be years where not a single man broke 2,20), and they think they main reasons are higher mileage and more threshold training instead of very hard intervals.
Gags does that split just reversed. I'm torn on if I like that combination of speed and tempo in different sessions.
Putting speed first makes sense to keep the quality and possibly learn to tempo with fatiguing muscle fibers similar to how Lydiard describes 2-hour long runs building "speed" because it fatigues so many other fibers that we need to call on the ones rarely used just to make it through. I haven't seen data backing this up, but I'm certainly not as successful as the Kiwi.
Tempo then speed has similar effects for learning to run fast while tired, but I'd be a little concerned with the CNS fatigue making the second session (I think they usually do 6x200m fast) more stressful without getting the speeds that we want. That group was solid especially in their early days so they might have found a good balance with those particular athletes.
If there are more than one forms of motor stress per training unit you should follow the order: 1) Technic 2) Speed 3) Strength4) Endurance
There is another simpler possible reason: the doping playing field has been levelled because virtually anyone can dope now and get away with it. It doesn't depend as much as it did on what country you are in - although it can still help.
I just want to interject that NAU is not the end all be all of American distance running. They’ve had two recent grads that have a good pro career so far (Grijalva, Beamish). Besides those two you’d have to go waaayyy back to Lomong to find another good pro.
I don’t want to be that guy, and obviously Mike Smith Is an amazing coach, but that program is to get the most out of those runners in college. Alex Lomong was running 120 mpw the summer before his breakout XC natty performance. Their volume is incredibly high and burns a lot of runners out by the time they’re done
I just want to interject that NAU is not the end all be all of American distance running. They’ve had two recent grads that have a good pro career so far (Grijalva, Beamish). Besides those two you’d have to go waaayyy back to Lomong to find another good pro.
I don’t want to be that guy, and obviously Mike Smith Is an amazing coach, but that program is to get the most out of those runners in college. Alex Lomong was running 120 mpw the summer before his breakout XC natty performance. Their volume is incredibly high and burns a lot of runners out by the time they’re done
What program is doing better? I think the odds are so stacked against anyone becoming a good pro that 2 sounds pretty good.
Another thought is "is the Western system really broken"? NCAA results seem to prove no country is on par... American depth over 800, 1500, 5000, 10000m is close to unrivaled. Marathon is another story.
Gags does that split just reversed. I'm torn on if I like that combination of speed and tempo in different sessions.
Putting speed first makes sense to keep the quality and possibly learn to tempo with fatiguing muscle fibers similar to how Lydiard describes 2-hour long runs building "speed" because it fatigues so many other fibers that we need to call on the ones rarely used just to make it through. I haven't seen data backing this up, but I'm certainly not as successful as the Kiwi.
Tempo then speed has similar effects for learning to run fast while tired, but I'd be a little concerned with the CNS fatigue making the second session (I think they usually do 6x200m fast) more stressful without getting the speeds that we want. That group was solid especially in their early days so they might have found a good balance with those particular athletes.
If there are more than one forms of motor stress per training unit you should follow the order: 1) Technic 2) Speed 3) Strength4) Endurance
The sequence he gave is kind of the gold standard on how to program so you aren't having one area of training negatively impact the next.
Technique (things that require precision and accuracy of movement) go early in a session because you need to be fresh for them to make sure you don't lose your ability to make those exact movements you want. In the weight room this would be something like the Olympic lifts because they are can be dangerous if you're tired to the point that they get done poorly. Plyos would be another example. Jumpers would also be doing their actual jump simulations here like they would in competition.
Speed is next since it's still heavily involved in technique and any additional fatigue makes it so that you can't achieve top speed anymore which can defeat the purpose if that's the goal.
Strength is next, but here is where I would deviate for runners. Strength isn't the most important thing for us so personally, I would never want to lift before a run if I could avoid it. If we get one thing done right I would rather it be "endurance" than a weight room session.
Then endurance is last. It's usually the easiest to do under fatigue from the previous areas, but again, this is the strength & conditioning coach model, not what we necessarily want for distance runners.
If there are more than one forms of motor stress per training unit you should follow the order: 1) Technic 2) Speed 3) Strength4) Endurance
Can you elaborate on this, please? Thanks.
Adding to Vs answer:
We should not forget that the brain controls the movement. If the brain gets tired, learning any technical skill is more difficult. Similar with speed training.
Weight training before speed hinders explosive motions.
So doing first a tempo run and after that speed training is just not optimal, to say the least. I would never do that.
If the brain makes "a mistake" because it gets tired or the muscle gets exhausted the risk of an injury is much higher. Reducing the injury risk as low as possible is key.
The sequence he gave is kind of the gold standard on how to program so you aren't having one area of training negatively impact the next.
Technique (things that require precision and accuracy of movement) go early in a session because you need to be fresh for them to make sure you don't lose your ability to make those exact movements you want. In the weight room this would be something like the Olympic lifts because they are can be dangerous if you're tired to the point that they get done poorly. Plyos would be another example. Jumpers would also be doing their actual jump simulations here like they would in competition.
Speed is next since it's still heavily involved in technique and any additional fatigue makes it so that you can't achieve top speed anymore which can defeat the purpose if that's the goal.
Strength is next, but here is where I would deviate for runners. Strength isn't the most important thing for us so personally, I would never want to lift before a run if I could avoid it. If we get one thing done right I would rather it be "endurance" than a weight room session.
Then endurance is last. It's usually the easiest to do under fatigue from the previous areas, but again, this is the strength & conditioning coach model, not what we necessarily want for distance runners.
Thanks, V. I just reviewed the "5x60m w/full recovery" thread (one of my all-time favorite LetsRun threads and which I am linking below) in which you wrote that you would schedule a raw speed development day "the day before a workout (usually a longer workout like a tempo, VO2max, Long Run, etc.) because the energy systems are sufficiently different and the only next day effects are usually soreness." So that advice from over five years ago in the "5x60m w/full recovery" thread is consistent with what you wrote farther above in this thread about the kind of the gold standard sequence: technique before speed before strength before endurance.
So my coach has told me to do this workout over the weekend, said it will help me improve my 1500m. Is that true? I'm having a hard time believing something so short will help me, will it improve my speed or something? Sorry...
I'm glad you enjoyed the thread, it's one of the better ones I've gotten the opportunity to share on. I've changed a fair bit as a coach since then. We still put a premium on speed development, but it can be challenging to have a day solely dedicated to it for anyone above 800m. I try not to ever chase mileage, but those days are very low volume when done as a purist that it really stresses the other days and how much you try to cram in if you're looking to run north of 50 miles a week and still keep an off or close to off day as well.
Usually now we settle for "good enough" when during speed development and don't mind having a slow, medium run as the warm-up and just program in enough rest before we start and between reps. Sprint or strength coaches would still probably look down on it being after aerobic running, but we've had more success the last few years than I did 5+ years ago.
Wanted to say thanks to you and everyone else who contributed on this topic. Usually these threads devolve heavily. It's nice that this one stayed fairly focused.
If it is only double-threshold sessions that have enabled white runners to catch up with the Africans you might wonder why it has taken coaches the better part of 35-years to come up with this apparently simple solution.
I was thinking about this, soon after Jakob starts being a real threat to the dynasty that is east African running. The general training of him came through and the major difference is doing two LT sessions a day on their hard days. Doing this ables them to put in more quality work on their quality days and makes them go actually easy on their easy days(some of y'all might be like but he regularly goes 4 min km pace on his easy days, but for a 3:28 1500 runner that is easy). As opposed to how a lot of western runners used to train ie medium effort quality and low to moderate mileage. Now that Jakob shown the success from such sessions and the mileage he puts in, it's only natural some other elite level western runners followed suit and copied them bringing on similar success. Sure super shoes, and lights make up some of the reason for the improvement of western runners. But is it more due to the changes in training? I believe yes it is.
Most people will not have any success due to Jakob and his family because they try to distill one small takeaway from their training like you do. I agree with your conclusions yo your post but not boiling it down to solely be because of double treshold. We will soon se a sweat elite video om an american athlete doing "double treshold" while still botching the whole Ingebrigtsen philosophy.