I've been on this forum since almost the start. When you first showed up I legit thought you were a troll. After many of the threads over the years I think you are actually, just a mixture of insane and deluded. Do you literally hear what you are saying?
Without dodging the issue. Please read the thread. Then question 1. How could SPOC84 maximise his training, or more to the point, how would you make him faster? Please bare in mind he's outlined his previous training. And his training now. 2. How would you coach Kristoffer? Again, please bare in mind he is currently being coached by Henrik. So how would you make him faster? All his training is on Strava. So there are no secrets. 3. How would you coach Jacob? Do you think he is sub his potential, I am guessing?
Well, firstly let`s make it very clear in two things, 1) I`m far from being insane nor deluded.)) 2) Let`s make it clear to everyone that the so called " The Norwegian method" is nothing new! The people like me who knows the running history can just tell it`s a variant of methods very successful before, one example the so called " The Italian wonder" back in the -70s with runners like Alberto Cova, Salvatore Antibo and so on. Does this come to you as a big surprise I guess? Already back then they did " double thresholds". As some commentators in this thread already told this way of training threshold functions best with high mileage because the threshold pace is not individual optimal to trigger the lactate threshold development on low mileage.
So, now to your questions. How would I coach SPOC 84, Kristoffer and the mighty Jakob Ingebrigtsen? Well, it doesn`t matter their different levels. What`s important to them all is this practical fundamental expression, " Listen to your heart". The individual heart is always telling you the shape of the day . Then you have to know at what effort you have to work to give the very best outcome of your workouts and easy runs.
When going the low mileage way the lactate threshold training have to be most effective and more direct and close to "maximum individual threshold pace" in just one single session on a day compared to the "double thresholds" on lower concentration of lactate.
I of course believe I could get Jakob running even faster at all distances with my method, but that hypothesis of course we will never get to know if it`s correct or not .))
First, a correction, Tinman stated 3.0 mmol for the 1.10*(5K_Race_Pace) conversion, not 3.5 mmol as I wrote. In fact, here is the link to that thread. Jack Daniels (jtupper) posts on it too. They were talking about this 19 years ago! Tinman references Jan Olbrecht on the thread. His book, The Science of Winning, is an excellent source for those interested in how bioenergetics and lactate interplay, as well as the athletes individual physiology. Btw, I believe he was the originator of the 30 min TT that cycling coaches later picked up and called Functional Threshold. He didn’t think it anymore useful than other tests though because it didn’t provide any insight into what the mechanism driving the results was. Sorry lexel LOL
With that out of the way, I agree with the sentiment that we all agree on the generalities of this training approach. I don’t think there is one definitive way you have to train. To me, the superior way is the way that gets you fit and keeps you progressing and inspired!
@Unbelief. There is such a range of terminology and quantification when it comes to LT1 and LT2 that I would never say, “It has to be this value.” I only gave the values to share what Tinman wrote (even though I did so incorrectly). I’m not that dogmatic nor insistent LOL.
I’ve seen LT1 (the initial rise in lactate above baseline), given as 2.0-2.5 mmol in the research. I’ve even seen some refer to it as a 1.0 mmol rise above baseline. This is part of my point on why runners without a lactate meter (even those with one who are disinclined to order more strips) can use paces at different time durations and be confident they are in the correct range. Personally, as sirpoc has also shared, I go by effort. I know the feeling I want to have at different stages of the workout and try to tune in to that sensory data. I find it’s also helpful to have that ability to utilize in races to properly allocate your energy.
There is however a positive linear relationship between oxygen up take and intensity. That relationship, averaged for all runners is what allows for the race and training pace formulas we see from Daniels and others like Tinman and Mcmillan. Those make use of the fact that the percentage of ones VO2 Max being used for any given duration is the same. If you set a distance, say 10K, and one runner covers it in 30 minutes and the other in 40 minutes, those runners will be at approximately 93% and 91% of their VO2Max, respectively. However, set time as the standard and both athletes will be working at the same relative effort in relation to their max but one will cover more distance in that time.
All that bloviating to say, equating workouts and workload is likely more accurate and easily achieved by using pace in relation to max effort for a duration, not lactate. That’s largely why, forced to by no one but myself, I’d advocate 30 minute, 60 minute, 90 minute, and 150 minute race paces. One it allows for variety, which it’s said is the spice of life. Two, it spans the spectrum of intensities which show really good bang for your buck, while also fitting into the “Tempo Training” approach we are discussing. Plus, it’s sustainable over the long term.
In the context of the three workouts per week and very much in line with what sirpoc is doing already would be the following
1. 90 sec repeats @ 30 min RP = 1.03*5K_Pace 2. 3 min repeats @ 60 min RP = 1.07*5K_Pace 3. 6 min repeats @ 90 min RP = 1.10*5K_Pace
A fourth option for when the kids are at the grandparents and the wife is on a Real Housewives bender.
4. 12 min repeats @ 150 min RP = 1.13*5KPace
You could use 1 min recoveries for all of those and just scale the volume to suit your fitness and savagery.
Im not telling you ‘it has to be’ any value.
Im telling you what the Norwegian tri guys target and claim.
I think youre getting a little confused:
LT1 is also not 1.0 above baseline. LT1 is essentially baseline.
LT2 has been defined as many things, one of those being a 1.0-1.5 mmol above baseline
Doing Max efforts at all these intensity just to find out a percentage that is constantly going to move.
First, a correction, Tinman stated 3.0 mmol for the 1.10*(5K_Race_Pace) conversion, not 3.5 mmol as I wrote. In fact, here is the link to that thread. Jack Daniels (jtupper) posts on it too. They were talking about this 19 years ago! Tinman references Jan Olbrecht on the thread. His book, The Science of Winning, is an excellent source for those interested in how bioenergetics and lactate interplay, as well as the athletes individual physiology. Btw, I believe he was the originator of the 30 min TT that cycling coaches later picked up and called Functional Threshold. He didn’t think it anymore useful than other tests though because it didn’t provide any insight into what the mechanism driving the results was. Sorry lexel LOL
With that out of the way, I agree with the sentiment that we all agree on the generalities of this training approach. I don’t think there is one definitive way you have to train. To me, the superior way is the way that gets you fit and keeps you progressing and inspired!
@Unbelief. There is such a range of terminology and quantification when it comes to LT1 and LT2 that I would never say, “It has to be this value.” I only gave the values to share what Tinman wrote (even though I did so incorrectly). I’m not that dogmatic nor insistent LOL.
I’ve seen LT1 (the initial rise in lactate above baseline), given as 2.0-2.5 mmol in the research. I’ve even seen some refer to it as a 1.0 mmol rise above baseline. This is part of my point on why runners without a lactate meter (even those with one who are disinclined to order more strips) can use paces at different time durations and be confident they are in the correct range. Personally, as sirpoc has also shared, I go by effort. I know the feeling I want to have at different stages of the workout and try to tune in to that sensory data. I find it’s also helpful to have that ability to utilize in races to properly allocate your energy.
There is however a positive linear relationship between oxygen up take and intensity. That relationship, averaged for all runners is what allows for the race and training pace formulas we see from Daniels and others like Tinman and Mcmillan. Those make use of the fact that the percentage of ones VO2 Max being used for any given duration is the same. If you set a distance, say 10K, and one runner covers it in 30 minutes and the other in 40 minutes, those runners will be at approximately 93% and 91% of their VO2Max, respectively. However, set time as the standard and both athletes will be working at the same relative effort in relation to their max but one will cover more distance in that time.
All that bloviating to say, equating workouts and workload is likely more accurate and easily achieved by using pace in relation to max effort for a duration, not lactate. That’s largely why, forced to by no one but myself, I’d advocate 30 minute, 60 minute, 90 minute, and 150 minute race paces. One it allows for variety, which it’s said is the spice of life. Two, it spans the spectrum of intensities which show really good bang for your buck, while also fitting into the “Tempo Training” approach we are discussing. Plus, it’s sustainable over the long term.
In the context of the three workouts per week and very much in line with what sirpoc is doing already would be the following
1. 90 sec repeats @ 30 min RP = 1.03*5K_Pace 2. 3 min repeats @ 60 min RP = 1.07*5K_Pace 3. 6 min repeats @ 90 min RP = 1.10*5K_Pace
A fourth option for when the kids are at the grandparents and the wife is on a Real Housewives bender.
4. 12 min repeats @ 150 min RP = 1.13*5KPace
You could use 1 min recoveries for all of those and just scale the volume to suit your fitness and savagery.
Im not telling you ‘it has to be’ any value.
Im telling you what the Norwegian tri guys target and claim.
I think youre getting a little confused:
LT1 is also not 1.0 above baseline. LT1 is essentially baseline.
LT2 has been defined as many things, one of those being a 1.0-1.5 mmol above baseline
Doing Max efforts at all these intensity just to find out a percentage that is constantly going to move.
Lactate is surely easier than that
I think Sirpoc and others have already laid out a much easier system: use a HT strap and some association to your LTHR
Thanks for the reply mate and for your info throughout the thread. I will check out those recommendations for data tracking.
Questions/discussion for the wider group:
It seems to me that to maximise the potential of this training, one needs to have a very accurate estimation of lactate threshold. Has anyone gotten lab testing done for this? I think you would burn through a lot of lactate pro strips trying to accurately derive the lactate curve yourself - I guess the lactate meter is best used for spot checking to keep your workouts at the correct pace (but the actual target is largely determined by the lab test). Perhaps an occasional LT lab test is worth it for a hobby jogger using this training system?
Secondly, how do you know how far below LT is optimal to train at? Can one train at any pace between LT1 and LT2 and derive a training stimulus for 5k-marathon (adjusting volume accordingly)? For example, could you simply run intervals at marathon pace 5-6 days a week and never go above that pace outside races (seen some discussion on this already)? I would guess that is taking it too far? Interested to hear anyone's thoughts. I am not being sceptical, just trying to understand!
I’ve wanted to reply to you and was hoping to spark a similar discussion as your second question posed with my 60, 90, 150 minute “thresholds” suggestion, which in no way are original. At this point in time as it relates to training, I think we are playing a game of refinement and not inventing. Plenty of coaches use these ranges, just in different forms of implementation. Some use straight tempos, some long intervals, some short intervals. Modifying the run to recovery ratio allows for a lot of possibilities.
I think a lot depends too on the type of “system” you follow. For instance Jack Daniels is very, what I would call physiological parameter based. That is to say he looks at it as you want to improve your aerobic conditioning, lactate threshold, aerobic power, and running economy (he calls this speed too). To do that he thinks that running at the intensity to stress that physiological function is the best way to improve it. Hence, his Easy, Threshold, Interval, and Repetition paces.
A lot of coaches have that same belief but will assign a range of paces to stress those functions. This is more the idea that, like muscle fibers, paces lie on a continuum and by manipulating the intensity, duration, and recovery, you can get the same stimulus as adhering strictly to one pace for each of the four physiological variables. Daniels himself has stated he believes marathon pace provides not physiological benefit that isn’t gained from running at the upper limit of his Easy pace, but he does make mention of doing continuous tempo runs longer than his standard 20 min at T pace. He even provides a chart in his second edition on how to adjust pace relative to duration. At 60 minutes, the pace (for most runners) converges to marathon pace.
Jan Olbrecht, Renato Canova, Marius Bakken, and others, in slightly different ways, talk about how doing too much at or beyond LT will actually “pull the threshold down”. That is , you may be able to produce high levels of lactate as a result, but you will actually lower the speed at which your threshold occurs. You can think of this as your lactate curve shifting left or up and out to the left. Hence why they and many others like to use paces slower than what Daniels defines as T pace. However, depending on your event of focus, that may be a desirable trade off.
Regarding lab testing, I’m near a large research university and they have a physiology department where you can go for VO2Max testing and/or lactate threshold testing. They even offer a discount for repeat visits.
If you are just interested in your lactate curve though, I think you can achieve that on your own. Using a track (try as best you can to keep the pain even) or treadmill. The standard I see is to run 5 3 minute segments at an increasing intensity. I personally don’t think that’s enough of a step count to get a really well defined curve (assuming such a thing exists LOL). I generally go for 10 5 minute steps. It helps to have a good idea of where your threshold may be and aim for a 4-5% increase in pace. Also I try and get 2 readings that are definitively beyond the LT2.
You were asked 3 specific questions. Like normal you gave 3, incoherent random answers full of absolute nonsense and absolute drivel. Feel free to go back. Read the thread. Then answer the questions posed to you. If not, leave the conversation to the adults and do yourself a favour and drop embarrassing yourself by even posting in this thread. Spam other threads. But you are so far out of your depth in this thread a life jacket won't save you.
Im telling you what the Norwegian tri guys target and claim.
I think youre getting a little confused:
LT1 is also not 1.0 above baseline. LT1 is essentially baseline.
LT2 has been defined as many things, one of those being a 1.0-1.5 mmol above baseline
Doing Max efforts at all these intensity just to find out a percentage that is constantly going to move.
Lactate is surely easier than that
By baseline, I mean the lactate value when you’re resting or running easy. Typically associated as 1.0 mmol, a 1.5 increase above that would be the 2.5 mmol. That value is roughly what I was referring to as LT1 and LT2 being the 4.0 mmol value. I wouldn’t go by the mmol value though and was simply using LT1 and LT2 to give a range for the 60 and 150 minute paces. I’ve tried to be clear when using the different terminology but maybe I should have clarified that more directly.
Also, I was not at all suggesting you should go run time trials at those durations. That would be masochistic LOL. I think I was pretty clear you can estimate them using Jack Daniels formula he has published. Which perhaps I should share so that everyone knows what I’m using to get the values.
From that you can predict the pace you can hold for the 60, 90, and 150 minute durations by using your pace at VO2Max. You could use the 8 hour figure you proposed unbelief and for that you would get a pace that is 3% slower than the 150 minute pace I suggested. I don’t think there’s an absolute correct approach, just a suggestion for those who want to use pace instead of HR or lactate readings.
Im telling you what the Norwegian tri guys target and claim.
I think youre getting a little confused:
LT1 is also not 1.0 above baseline. LT1 is essentially baseline.
LT2 has been defined as many things, one of those being a 1.0-1.5 mmol above baseline
Doing Max efforts at all these intensity just to find out a percentage that is constantly going to move.
Lactate is surely easier than that
By baseline, I mean the lactate value when you’re resting or running easy. Typically associated as 1.0 mmol, a 1.5 increase above that would be the 2.5 mmol. That value is roughly what I was referring to as LT1 and LT2 being the 4.0 mmol value. I wouldn’t go by the mmol value though and was simply using LT1 and LT2 to give a range for the 60 and 150 minute paces. I’ve tried to be clear when using the different terminology but maybe I should have clarified that more directly.
Also, I was not at all suggesting you should go run time trials at those durations. That would be masochistic LOL. I think I was pretty clear you can estimate them using Jack Daniels formula he has published. Which perhaps I should share so that everyone knows what I’m using to get the values.
From that you can predict the pace you can hold for the 60, 90, and 150 minute durations by using your pace at VO2Max. You could use the 8 hour figure you proposed unbelief and for that you would get a pace that is 3% slower than the 150 minute pace I suggested. I don’t think there’s an absolute correct approach, just a suggestion for those who want to use pace instead of HR or lactate readings.
I think you are massively complicating this to shoehorn it into 60-90-150, which are totally arbitrary and aren’t relevant to anything that people actually do.
Youre resting likely isnt 1.0 mmol and just look at a curve. The curve starts at a point, (assuming a normal fit runner aerobically) then dips, then goes up again. The spot it starts to go up, that’s your LT1.
We are trying to get away from these tables and schedules in this discussion i thought, not create a system/schedule that’s even more complicated.
We are trying to get away from these tables and schedules in this discussion i thought, not create a system/schedule that’s even more complicated.
Yep, we are still talking about a rep duration from 1 to 6minutes, with a rest of 60sec (for the 3-6minutes reps). So called short intervals. The rest is short btw to not turn on the Anaerobic system. Sub-CV is still the best description of the intensities used imo. Hard2Find you are thinking to complicated.
3Q sessions/week with 30min volume each (e.g. 6x5min) are 90 min/week. That is a lot. To have a 80/20 easy/quality distribution 7.5h/week of total endurance training is required. So the total volume of the quality sessions are basically defined by the weekly training hours someone can/wants to spend per week (if someone want to follow this system spoc mentioned).
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
As I hope I have indicated, I am a complete beginner on this and am only reflecting what I have learned reading this thread and some side research in the meantime. So I write this with the utmost respect, to all but JS, and forgive me if I am repeating what everyone already knows. My collected thoughts are thus:
To bring it back to the 'Norwegian system', which for argument's sake let's say is that outlined by Bakken on his website. Bakken argues:
In theory, it sounds natural to train at a speed that you need to perform at when racing. However – the mechanical “speed” you are running will always at one point or the other be majorly be limited by the aerobic abilities, where the ability to run at a maximum speed at the anaerobic threshold is the main one. So specific training from a more physiological standpoint, where you optimize the internal cell processes the absolute most effective way is not at race speed, which can just be done limited. Rather it is a combination of larger amounts of lactate threshold work with a fair level of total running, which was in my case about 180 km weekly running.
So, the Bakken system involves two key characteristics: lots of LT training and lots of volume. The common refrain on this forum has been that the former goes hand-in-hand with the latter - hobby joggers, don't even bother.
What makes this thread so interesting is that, as pointed out by spoc initially, we observe significant progress from K Ingebrigtsen running pure sub-threshold with a modest amount of volume. Spoc and others have also observed this in themselves, with further (very interesting) corroborating evidence from cycling experiences. This suggests that the pure lactate development approach relies less on volume than implied by Bakken and the conventional wisdom, though I think we can forgive Bakken who had the elite athlete in mind. It seems the more important factor to reaching one's potential is spending as much time as possible in the 'lactate state', maximising capabilities at LT. Perhaps the hobby jogger with a job and kids has hope, after all?
So, in our fixed and limited time available, we do as much volume as we can. It's not 180km a week, but that's ok, we're not trying to win medals. The remaining, and more influential, variable is time spent in the 'lactate state'. How do we know we are in the desired lactate state? In my view the only direct way is measuring the amount of lactate in the blood, with reference to lactate concentration at the anaerobic threshold (which varies between individuals). Heart rate, pace and power at LT may be observed but are ultimately anchored to the lactate measurement.
What sticks out (to me) about this 'Norwegian system for hobby joggers', other than the apparent revelation that volume is not essential, is that it involves systematic observations of individual parameters. Tinman, Jack Daniels, Pfitzinger, all the tables and calculators are based on averages. Instead of assessing performance by 'did I hit the prescribed pace that would put the average 18:00 5K runner in the lactate state', its 'did I reach MY lactate state, and is this providing adequate stimulus over time?'
Is this an accurate summary? (I spent way too much time writing this)
I think you are massively complicating this to shoehorn it into 60-90-150, which are totally arbitrary and aren’t relevant to anything that people actually do.
Youre resting likely isnt 1.0 mmol and just look at a curve. The curve starts at a point, (assuming a normal fit runner aerobically) then dips, then goes up again. The spot it starts to go up, that’s your LT1.
We are trying to get away from these tables and schedules in this discussion i thought, not create a system/schedule that’s even more complicated.
Are you the Daniels spreadsheet guy by chance?
I’ll admit, I went crazy calculating. As I said in a previous post, I wouldn’t be that precise and analytical in my workouts. I just thought it interesting and fun to share with the thread, particularly for those, if any, who enjoy that component.
The reason I brought up the 60-90-150 is, as I stated, several coaches use those paces, approximately. Specifically, I was taking what Tinman provided on a thread once, checking them against what Daniels would predict and discovered they worked out to 60-90-150 minute race efforts. So wanted to share and spark some input/pushback from others. It seems I have and that's good. I wanted to see if people felt there was significance to them any more than 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0 mmol might hold. I agree that they are arbitrary times but times that Tinman stated are approximately associated with the 4.0, 3.0, and 2.5 mmol level. I’m not going to refute someone of his experience and knowledge.
I’ll concede that LT1 and LT2, as I used it to relate the low and high end of Tinman’s paces, may not align with what those terms represent in other literature but in relation to what he presented, I thought they were accurate representations and stated the context in which I meant them to be thought of.
I’ve read a lot of data that has been reported on runners, including in some cases their lactate curve, by Jack Daniels, Joe Vigil, Brad Hudson, Terence Mahon, Bob Larsen, David Martin, and others. To me, if these physiologists and coaches are defining Aerobic Threshold and Lactate Threshold, which would be the terms I’d use (though perhaps Lactate Threshold and Lactate Turn Point are the current vernacular) and showing data that aligns with roughly a 60 minute and 150 minute effort, I believe them.
Again, perhaps it was a semantical issue to use LT1 and LT2 instead of AT and LT, but I have seen LT1 called the aerobic threshold (and defined as approximately 2.5 to 3.0 hour race pace) and LT2 called the lactate threshold (and defined as 60 minute race pace). I don't see that as being confused or uniformed, just perhaps a reflection of environment and sources.
Also, no, I am not the spreadsheet guy. That was a legit and resourceful use of Daniels conversion formulas though. Credit to him!
We are trying to get away from these tables and schedules in this discussion i thought, not create a system/schedule that’s even more complicated.
Yep, we are still talking about a rep duration from 1 to 6minutes, with a rest of 60sec (for the 3-6minutes reps). So called short intervals. The rest is short btw to not turn on the Anaerobic system. Sub-CV is still the best description of the intensities used imo. Hard2Find you are thinking to complicated.
3Q sessions/week with 30min volume each (e.g. 6x5min) are 90 min/week. That is a lot. To have a 80/20 easy/quality distribution 7.5h/week of total endurance training is required. So the total volume of the quality sessions are basically defined by the weekly training hours someone can/wants to spend per week (if someone want to follow this system spoc mentioned).
I wanted to standardize the paces so that someone could just take their 5K pace and get an approximation as well as roughly keep the format that sirpoc is using.
I think you could also do two workouts per week and a long run. The two workouts can total 30 minutes of work (i.e. 10*3 min, 6*5 min, 3*10 min) and if the long run is done progressively, it’s a very similar stimulus overall.
I’m sure most are aware of the study that showed that while running at an easy pace, once the duration reached, I believe around 105 minutes, Type 2a muscle fibers(think intermediate fibers, between slow twitch and fast twitch) were recruited. The same fibers that would be activated/recruited when running in a tempo pace range. So even though the intensity was not at the same level, the duration “forced” the recruitment as Type 1 fibers fatigued. So, from a fiber perspective it has a similar stimulus, even more so if you push the pace down a little toward the end.
As I hope I have indicated, I am a complete beginner on this and am only reflecting what I have learned reading this thread and some side research in the meantime. So I write this with the utmost respect, to all but JS, and forgive me if I am repeating what everyone already knows. My collected thoughts are thus:
To bring it back to the 'Norwegian system', which for argument's sake let's say is that outlined by Bakken on his website. Bakken argues:
In theory, it sounds natural to train at a speed that you need to perform at when racing. However – the mechanical “speed” you are running will always at one point or the other be majorly be limited by the aerobic abilities, where the ability to run at a maximum speed at the anaerobic threshold is the main one. So specific training from a more physiological standpoint, where you optimize the internal cell processes the absolute most effective way is not at race speed, which can just be done limited. Rather it is a combination of larger amounts of lactate threshold work with a fair level of total running, which was in my case about 180 km weekly running.
So, the Bakken system involves two key characteristics: lots of LT training and lots of volume. The common refrain on this forum has been that the former goes hand-in-hand with the latter - hobby joggers, don't even bother.
What makes this thread so interesting is that, as pointed out by spoc initially, we observe significant progress from K Ingebrigtsen running pure sub-threshold with a modest amount of volume. Spoc and others have also observed this in themselves, with further (very interesting) corroborating evidence from cycling experiences. This suggests that the pure lactate development approach relies less on volume than implied by Bakken and the conventional wisdom, though I think we can forgive Bakken who had the elite athlete in mind. It seems the more important factor to reaching one's potential is spending as much time as possible in the 'lactate state', maximising capabilities at LT. Perhaps the hobby jogger with a job and kids has hope, after all?
So, in our fixed and limited time available, we do as much volume as we can. It's not 180km a week, but that's ok, we're not trying to win medals. The remaining, and more influential, variable is time spent in the 'lactate state'. How do we know we are in the desired lactate state? In my view the only direct way is measuring the amount of lactate in the blood, with reference to lactate concentration at the anaerobic threshold (which varies between individuals). Heart rate, pace and power at LT may be observed but are ultimately anchored to the lactate measurement.
What sticks out (to me) about this 'Norwegian system for hobby joggers', other than the apparent revelation that volume is not essential, is that it involves systematic observations of individual parameters. Tinman, Jack Daniels, Pfitzinger, all the tables and calculators are based on averages. Instead of assessing performance by 'did I hit the prescribed pace that would put the average 18:00 5K runner in the lactate state', its 'did I reach MY lactate state, and is this providing adequate stimulus over time?'
Is this an accurate summary? (I spent way too much time writing this)
Hi data nerd/cob, great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it, you have I think totally understood the point of the thread. I've said before, I am not a scientist in the slightest , but I do understand I think how to make the most of my training, without getting injured. Cycling was a lot of trial and error, over a long period of time and running has been copying some of that and having the great resource that is KI and his Strava, to double check and even copy whether I'm in the right ball park. It's clearly worked wonders for him on 7-8 hours a week and I'm very happy with my results. Like you say, Bakken and obviously others , usually are at worse describing what optimal training is for sub elites, but it's usually actual elites. So it's about tweaking and moving things, to fit for slower runners or those time crunched.
There's obviously debate on the fine tuning of this, going back and forth. But I still stick by what I posted in page 1. The paces I would target if I was doing this with no lactate testing whatsoever. Or , a bit trickier, if you are going to try and run to HR (I find this more difficult) , doing the Job Friel test and basically just targeting his sub threshold zone with the caution being on you don't go over your LTHR. This can be done, but definitely much trickier in the moment, especially the 1k intervals I do regularly. But Either of this options makes it incredible hobby jogger friendly in the initial spirit of this thread, as bar maybe a suggestion I gave someone who was determined to go by HR to go and buy a £15 a HR chest strap, nobody needs to buy anything fancy - and still probably get very close to where they need to be.
Yep, we are still talking about a rep duration from 1 to 6minutes, with a rest of 60sec (for the 3-6minutes reps). So called short intervals. The rest is short btw to not turn on the Anaerobic system. Sub-CV is still the best description of the intensities used imo. Hard2Find you are thinking to complicated.
3Q sessions/week with 30min volume each (e.g. 6x5min) are 90 min/week. That is a lot. To have a 80/20 easy/quality distribution 7.5h/week of total endurance training is required. So the total volume of the quality sessions are basically defined by the weekly training hours someone can/wants to spend per week (if someone want to follow this system spoc mentioned).
Lexel . Do you realise that spoc and KI are doing 3x a week but definitely quite a bit more than 30 mins each volume? You have a weird habit with having an idea in your head and sticking with it. When it comes to total work or keeping bringing up CV. Spoc I think is doing around 6.5-7 hours a week and 35-40 mins work a session X3 a week. And KI about 8 hours a week and he is doing more like 42+ mins work per 3x sessions a week. This is significantly more than 30 mins. Guess what? Their legs didn't fall off after all this time doing this, they could maintain it and they both got fitter. KI is an elite hobby jogger and spoc probably times are better than 98% of letsrun hobby joggers. He even said, he probably fits in more to 75/25 or even 70/30 and showed and explained why you can probably push this on lower limits. Anyway, a small point but I think it's really worth mentioning.
Thank you for this thread! This is what I've been looking for . Something Bakken inspired, but really for a guy like me who can maybe do 6-8 hours a week. I've read some of this through twice. My main take out from this is I'm probably NOT maximising my training load with a lot of moderate, long run, a vo2 session and a Daniels 20-25 min tempo. I've been stuck in this cycle for a while. So everything spoc said really rings true. I totally get what he means when he said he couldn't get past a certain point. I started reading in real time on the first page so I have already done a week training like this. Obviously I have not noticed any difference in performance, but I think someone else mentioned, I feel a purpose. The sessions feel tough, but there doesn't feel like there's the same fatigue next day like a Daniels straight tempo or a vo2 session. It's also great to run easier, on the easy day. It doesn't feel too slow and you can understand WHY you are doing it, with knowing 24 hours later you'll be going again. Spoc , just wanted to say thank you for making everything you say pretty clear, you discredit yourself with saying you aren't scientific. Your understanding of what is happening I think it's way beyond most old skool coaches. You don't pretend to know everything and it's nice to see other posters with a more scientific background come and fill in any blanks or make reason of WHY this appears to be working for yourself, Jacobs brother and others.
Yep, we are still talking about a rep duration from 1 to 6minutes, with a rest of 60sec (for the 3-6minutes reps). So called short intervals. The rest is short btw to not turn on the Anaerobic system. Sub-CV is still the best description of the intensities used imo. Hard2Find you are thinking to complicated.
3Q sessions/week with 30min volume each (e.g. 6x5min) are 90 min/week. That is a lot. To have a 80/20 easy/quality distribution 7.5h/week of total endurance training is required. So the total volume of the quality sessions are basically defined by the weekly training hours someone can/wants to spend per week (if someone want to follow this system spoc mentioned).
I wanted to standardize the paces so that someone could just take their 5K pace and get an approximation as well as roughly keep the format that sirpoc is using.
I think you could also do two workouts per week and a long run. The two workouts can total 30 minutes of work (i.e. 10*3 min, 6*5 min, 3*10 min) and if the long run is done progressively, it’s a very similar stimulus overall.
I’m sure most are aware of the study that showed that while running at an easy pace, once the duration reached, I believe around 105 minutes, Type 2a muscle fibers(think intermediate fibers, between slow twitch and fast twitch) were recruited. The same fibers that would be activated/recruited when running in a tempo pace range. So even though the intensity was not at the same level, the duration “forced” the recruitment as Type 1 fibers fatigued. So, from a fiber perspective it has a similar stimulus, even more so if you push the pace down a little toward the end.
Totally agree with this post.
2 good thresholds and a long progression is a pretty great week all year round, especially if you are only interested in ‘periodizing’ the individual threshold sessions for support/adaptation (i.e. 20x 400s when you want to run fast 5k/10k, 3x10:00-20:00 when you want more strength and you aren’t concerned about 5k/10k).
Thank you for this thread! This is what I've been looking for . Something Bakken inspired, but really for a guy like me who can maybe do 6-8 hours a week. I've read some of this through twice. My main take out from this is I'm probably NOT maximising my training load with a lot of moderate, long run, a vo2 session and a Daniels 20-25 min tempo. I've been stuck in this cycle for a while. So everything spoc said really rings true. I totally get what he means when he said he couldn't get past a certain point. I started reading in real time on the first page so I have already done a week training like this. Obviously I have not noticed any difference in performance, but I think someone else mentioned, I feel a purpose. The sessions feel tough, but there doesn't feel like there's the same fatigue next day like a Daniels straight tempo or a vo2 session. It's also great to run easier, on the easy day. It doesn't feel too slow and you can understand WHY you are doing it, with knowing 24 hours later you'll be going again. Spoc , just wanted to say thank you for making everything you say pretty clear, you discredit yourself with saying you aren't scientific. Your understanding of what is happening I think it's way beyond most old skool coaches. You don't pretend to know everything and it's nice to see other posters with a more scientific background come and fill in any blanks or make reason of WHY this appears to be working for yourself, Jacobs brother and others.
Load is just fatigue if you cant recover and i feel that is much of the Daniels approach.
Youre probably older now so things hit different. 6-8 hours of training a week is enough for most but one douche meal, bad night of sleep, yard work can wreck your plans for a great workout.
A lot of ppl say they’re scientifically minded then smash themselves anyways. The beauty here is the appropriate pressure/incentive not to push every day coupled with the freedom and lack of pressure to not see any of the days you do ‘push’ to be altogether too significant.
It’s appropriate training for ppl that dont get paid to train and recover. It’s serious but not to its own detriment
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
As I hope I have indicated, I am a complete beginner on this and am only reflecting what I have learned reading this thread and some side research in the meantime. So I write this with the utmost respect, to all but JS, and forgive me if I am repeating what everyone already knows. My collected thoughts are thus:
To bring it back to the 'Norwegian system', which for argument's sake let's say is that outlined by Bakken on his website. Bakken argues:
In theory, it sounds natural to train at a speed that you need to perform at when racing. However – the mechanical “speed” you are running will always at one point or the other be majorly be limited by the aerobic abilities, where the ability to run at a maximum speed at the anaerobic threshold is the main one. So specific training from a more physiological standpoint, where you optimize the internal cell processes the absolute most effective way is not at race speed, which can just be done limited. Rather it is a combination of larger amounts of lactate threshold work with a fair level of total running, which was in my case about 180 km weekly running.
So, the Bakken system involves two key characteristics: lots of LT training and lots of volume. The common refrain on this forum has been that the former goes hand-in-hand with the latter - hobby joggers, don't even bother.
What makes this thread so interesting is that, as pointed out by spoc initially, we observe significant progress from K Ingebrigtsen running pure sub-threshold with a modest amount of volume. Spoc and others have also observed this in themselves, with further (very interesting) corroborating evidence from cycling experiences. This suggests that the pure lactate development approach relies less on volume than implied by Bakken and the conventional wisdom, though I think we can forgive Bakken who had the elite athlete in mind. It seems the more important factor to reaching one's potential is spending as much time as possible in the 'lactate state', maximising capabilities at LT. Perhaps the hobby jogger with a job and kids has hope, after all?
So, in our fixed and limited time available, we do as much volume as we can. It's not 180km a week, but that's ok, we're not trying to win medals. The remaining, and more influential, variable is time spent in the 'lactate state'. How do we know we are in the desired lactate state? In my view the only direct way is measuring the amount of lactate in the blood, with reference to lactate concentration at the anaerobic threshold (which varies between individuals). Heart rate, pace and power at LT may be observed but are ultimately anchored to the lactate measurement.
What sticks out (to me) about this 'Norwegian system for hobby joggers', other than the apparent revelation that volume is not essential, is that it involves systematic observations of individual parameters. Tinman, Jack Daniels, Pfitzinger, all the tables and calculators are based on averages. Instead of assessing performance by 'did I hit the prescribed pace that would put the average 18:00 5K runner in the lactate state', its 'did I reach MY lactate state, and is this providing adequate stimulus over time?'
Is this an accurate summary? (I spent way too much time writing this)
Very discerning and thoughtful! You sure you are just a beginner who is catching up on this? LOL
There is a thread from 19 years ago, No Interval Work Success, that closely resembles what we are discussing. There’s a lot of good information there, both shared experiences and links to resources. Steve Magness’ The Science of Running, discusses individual variability and gives practical examples of how one can modify training to meet those variations. It’s one of the few mainstream training books on running that I’ve seen do that. I think we all agree, it comes back to training individually, both for your physiology, the event you’re targeting, and life constraints.
My take away, when looking at the three different approaches discussed (lactate readings, heart rate percent, and pace as a percent of race pace at another distance) is that they all aim to achieve the same thing and attempt to standardize/communicate it through their respective metrics. Each has validity, but also nuance that as long as the person applying it is aware of allows for a physiological information exchange that is ultimately used to track and assess training and progress. Lactate readings, HR max percent, or the pace as a fraction of vVO2Max are all just metrics through which we have discovered we can measure the stress we imposed by running at a certain intensity for a certain duration.
There's obviously debate on the fine tuning of this, going back and forth. But I still stick by what I posted in page 1. The paces I would target if I was doing this with no lactate testing whatsoever. Or , a bit trickier, if you are going to try and run to HR (I find this more difficult) , doing the Job Friel test and basically just targeting his sub threshold zone with the caution being on you don't go over your LTHR. This can be done, but definitely much trickier in the moment, especially the 1k intervals I do regularly. But Either of this options makes it incredible hobby jogger friendly in the initial spirit of this thread, as bar maybe a suggestion I gave someone who was determined to go by HR to go and buy a £15 a HR chest strap, nobody needs to buy anything fancy - and still probably get very close to where they need to be.
On reflection, I may have come across as overly zealous on the necessity of lactate measurement lol. To be clear, I am not going out and buying a lactate pro (maybe one day), but am still giving the training a go.
I still think the Norwegian system, strictly speaking, is based on the concept of the lactate threshold (LT2/anaerobic) and that blood lactate is the most meaningful measure of training stimulus (both of which are far from ironclad assumptions, from my interpretation of the literature). But of course, as you say (and Hard2find) we can get very close by using other measures. Again, to repeat your previous posts, perhaps with less precision it pays to be a little more conservative, approach the correct pace from below, and listen to the body.