Interesting read
Near the end he suggests trying triple-threshold-days. Crazy.
I Think that if I started doing that I would burn out physically and mentally pretty fast.
The threshold he is referring to isn’t your typical instagram threshold 
.
urgh, sorry man. i tried, but ain’t nobody got time to read that!
only on slowtwitch does “norwegian model” mean what it means here. i love you guys 
this is a good article, thanks for posting. the idea of stacking harder workouts (which sounds like they are carefully constrained to not be THAT hard) so that you can work hard on fewer days is interesting.
only on slowtwitch does “norwegian model” mean what it means here. i love you guys
Yes.
But I did the image search just to confirm.
The threshold he is referring to isn’t your typical instagram threshold
Thanks, this made my day! Hilarious.
only on slowtwitch does “norwegian model” mean what it means here. i love you guys
Pure clickbait!!
Mike Smith is getting a little bit of attention with doing this set up with his pro and NAU runners as well. It makes sense and the old becomes new.
Interesting read
I’ll say.
Anything coming out of, done in, or practiced in Norway in the world of Endurance Sports is ALWAYS worth the time to read through, digest and ingest. There are ALWAYS big takeaways!
In some respects there’s not a whole lot of new here at a high-level.
That modulation of workload just below, right at and just above the Lactate Threshold has always been key. I seem to recall reading something a while back, and the article touches on this, is that the Kenyan’s in middle and long distance running, have been absolute Masters at this for a long time!
What was old is new again.
So how does the author of the article define anaerobic threshold? There are dozens of different definitions with huge differences in resulting lactate concentrations? I find it odd that he writes an entire article about how useful lactate training is but he fails to define the most important parameter. 2-3 mmol can mean something very different to different athletes.
There is a sort of defintion in another article but it is not really clear if he means LT1 or LT2.
Anyone know how Blu/Iden define their LT2? Their protocol is well known but I haven’t heard yet how the derive LT2 from this.
So how does the author of the article define anaerobic threshold? There are dozens of different definitions with huge differences in resulting lactate concentrations? I find it odd that he writes an entire article about how useful lactate training is but he fails to define the most important parameter. 2-3 mmol can mean something very different to different athletes.
There is a sort of defintion in another article but it is not really clear if he means LT1 or LT2.
Anyone know how Blu/Iden define their LT2? Their protocol is well known but I haven’t heard yet how the derive LT2 from this.
this is one of my biggest frustrations with this whole issue. since the 90s when i got my first heart rate monitor as a teenager, i’ve read more articles, training guides, or protocols that play fast and loose with these terms. Aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, ventilatory threshold, %max HR, %of threshold, % of FTP, %of VO2 max. there are all sorts of different scales for “zones,” for HR, power, lactate, or perceived exertion, and so on. hell, i’ve heard both arild and olav explicitly say, “our training is quite polarized” and “our training is not polarized.”
there’s so much variation here that i think everyone needs to have a sort of ‘pedantic paragraph’ at the beginning where they say, “here’s exactly what we mean with our measures of workout effort.”
He’s talking about LT2 as he says conventional literature talks about LT2 being 4mmol but in the real world it is most of the time somewhere between 2 and 3mmol for very well trained athletes. Also training slightly below the actual threshold allows to spend more time in the zone and better for recovery. At least that’s my take of what they’re saying.
Also, the longer the interval they lower in the range (more toward 2mmol) you go, and the shorter intervals (400m for running for example) you do them closer to 3mmol (but based on your individual profile through testing and frequent lactate measuring).
But yes agree with you that it can all be very confusing.
He’s talking about LT2 as he says conventional literature talks about LT2 being 4mmol but in the real world it is most of the time somewhere between 2 and 3mmol for very well trained athletes. Also training slightly below the actual threshold allows to spend more time in the zone and better for recovery. At least that’s my take of what they’re saying.
yes, but what does he use for the actual threshold?
So how does the author of the article define anaerobic threshold? There are dozens of different definitions with huge differences in resulting lactate concentrations? I find it odd that he writes an entire article about how useful lactate training is but he fails to define the most important parameter. 2-3 mmol can mean something very different to different athletes.
There is a sort of defintion in another article but it is not really clear if he means LT1 or LT2.
Anyone know how Blu/Iden define their LT2? Their protocol is well known but I haven’t heard yet how the derive LT2 from this.
I THINK blu etc say LT2 is 4mml
But it is confusing so maybe I misunderstood
So how does the author of the article define anaerobic threshold? There are dozens of different definitions with huge differences in resulting lactate concentrations? I find it odd that he writes an entire article about how useful lactate training is but he fails to define the most important parameter. 2-3 mmol can mean something very different to different athletes.
There is a sort of defintion in another article but it is not really clear if he means LT1 or LT2.
Anyone know how Blu/Iden define their LT2? Their protocol is well known but I haven’t heard yet how the derive LT2 from this.
this is one of my biggest frustrations with this whole issue. since the 90s when i got my first heart rate monitor as a teenager, i’ve read more articles, training guides, or protocols that play fast and loose with these terms. Aerobic threshold, anaerobic threshold, lactate threshold, ventilatory threshold, %max HR, %of threshold, % of FTP, %of VO2 max. there are all sorts of different scales for “zones,” for HR, power, lactate, or perceived exertion, and so on. hell, i’ve heard both arild and olav explicitly say, “our training is quite polarized” and “our training is not polarized.”
there’s so much variation here that i think everyone needs to have a sort of ‘pedantic paragraph’ at the beginning where they say, “here’s exactly what we mean with our measures of workout effort.”
Agreed
Add to that the inaccuracies of some heart rate monitors, power meters etc. And now the trend seems to be going by CP and not FTP
Disagreements what each term actually means
Disagreements on the most basic things such as how to accurately establish the number which all their training is based off of such as CP or FTP
How to actually find an athletes true max heart rate
If max heart rate in each of the 3 disciplines matters or not
3 zones 5 zones 7 zones
Of course not even talking about the best way to train these different levels/zones. Or if an athlete even should train them based upon level of experience, race distance etc
And some saying in the end well each person is different so yiu need to see what each athlete needs and what we said the Forst 90% of the program really doesn’t mean anything
Which of course is code for just buy our next book or hire us to be your coach so we can tell you the REAL way you should train
Its a shit show
So how does the author of the article define anaerobic threshold? There are dozens of different definitions with huge differences in resulting lactate concentrations? I find it odd that he writes an entire article about how useful lactate training is but he fails to define the most important parameter. 2-3 mmol can mean something very different to different athletes.
There is a sort of defintion in another article but it is not really clear if he means LT1 or LT2.
I guess this uncertainty goes some way to explain why this article has been fertile ground for confirmation bias.
I guess this uncertainty goes some way to explain why this article has been fertile ground for confirmation bias.
Are we all biased towards confusion?
I see a general notion that Norwegians are worth listening to (and worth looking at if you enter the wrong search terms), but no real conclusions beyond that because the article is nontrival to unravel.