Joe Friel and the training bible set a standard for a long time (in my opinion).
Now that Norwegians athletes are killing it, I’m wondering what are the best resources to learn from their training practices?
How to Skate a 10K: https://www.howtoskate.se/
.
It’s right here on the Slowtwitch forum:
.
Joe Friel and the training bible set a standard for a long time (in my opinion).
Now that Norwegians athletes are killing it, I’m wondering what are the best resources to learn from their training practices?
This blog post contains a good source for their training principles I think: http://www.mariusbakken.com/the-norwegian-model.html
NVdP är inte norsk, utan svensk.
Halvard wouldn’t be very happy if a Swede was the exemplar of a Norwegian!
(Pink)
And a Swedish skater to boot! But the training philosophy is all there and NvdP is very detailed in describing how he builds his massive engine. For sure not 100% applicable to tri, but a damn good read.
Joe Friel and the training bible set a standard for a long time (in my opinion).
Now that Norwegians athletes are killing it, I’m wondering what are the best resources to learn from their training practices?
It is a very easy 3 step process:
- Lactate test
- Lactate test some more
- Win
- Joe Friel’s book is a basic introduction for age groupers. I don’t think pro athlete coaches take too many cues from it.
- The Norwegian method is nothing “different”. They’re not more scientific than anybody else. Even Sutton I’m sure studies scientific journals (or has someone study them), though he pretends to be this old school intuitive coach.
They have been some of the fittest endurance athletes in the world for eons. It comes from cross country skiing mentality, which they used for hunting, travel, pretty much everything until cars came along.
Go VERY easy on the flats and downhills… because you can glide like you are on skis (because they were).
Go pretty hard on the uphills… because duh you have to. Or else you’ll slide backwards. And their uphills are really steep.
This gives the human body the correct “dosing” of easy to hard to easy. Go very hard to induce improvement, then plenty of VERY easy to recover from the hard so you can go hard again… and improve some more.
Next time you are out on a bike or run, imagine you are on skis and can glide, and the next hill is going to be brutal. Train like that. Let go of needing to put down medium/hard on the flats and downhills. Save it for the next hill and let that hill give you a good dose of hard. Recover super easy until the next one. Repeat. You’ll get way stronger, faster.
Monotonous, repetitive, but darn effective. The 5/2 approach also very intriguing.
Example week during the Aerobic season:
Mon 7h biking at 260WTue 6h biking 250WWed 2h x-country skiing + 4h biking at 250W Thu 7h biking at 265W Fr 6h biking at 240W Sat Resting Sun RestingExample week during the Threshold season:
Mon 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 4x30min 401W with 5min rest, 2,5h 220W) Tue 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 5x20min 405W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Wed 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 6x15min 408W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Thu 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 4x20min 405W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Fr 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 9x10min 406W with 3min rest, 2,5h 220W) Sat Resting Sun Resting**Example week during the Specific season: **
Mon 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210WTue 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210WWed 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210W Thu 10k session + 3h biking at 210W Fr 10k session + 3h biking at 210W Sat Resting Sun Resting
I’d say there is no central Norwegian model. While there are many similarities and overlapping ideas the ingebrigtsen training (infamous for the double threshold days), the X country ski training, and the triathlon training have their differences. (Perhaps not surprising as different demands for each sport). Which is where some of the confusion comes in when people discuss Norwegian training. NVdP again is a different training philosophy which has some overlap with Norwegian triathletes, but also different in many respects.
They have been some of the fittest endurance athletes in the world for eons.
Have they? I mean they dominated cross country skiing. But it’s about as niche sport as you can get. Outside the Nordic countries anyone with the potential to be an elite X country skier is channeled into other sports. Also it’s generally accepted Norway spend the most money on their team which means best equipment and importantly best technicians and waxing which makes a huge difference.
The Norwegian method is nothing “different”. They’re not more scientific than anybody else.
Agree with the first bit. Most elite endurance athletes are following similar principles (huge volume, massive focus on building an aerobic base through low intensity exercise, and a small percentage of training with “intensity”). In that respect the Norwegians are not doing anything unique. However, where I’d disagree is that I think the Norwegians have used the science (in particular lactate meters) to quantify intensity in a way most others are not. For example the East African elite distance runners are using much more “feel” than measurement for interval training intensity (although you could argue with just as successful results).
In that respect the Norwegians are not doing anything unique. However, where I’d disagree is that I think the Norwegians have used the science (in particular lactate meters) to quantify intensity in a way most others are not. For example the** East African elite distance runners** are using much more “feel” than measurement for interval training intensity (although you could argue with just as successful results).
The “science” may be a bit of red herring. It could just be that the East Africans and Norwegian winter athletes (and now a few triathletes) have a very strong self-reinforcing cohorts and communities that support and develop athletes up through the ladder of competition.
Like the old SoCal cohort of American triathletes from the 80’s, 90’s. Sutton’s athletes could be an example. Belgian male cyclists. Dutch female cyclists.
But it seems that a lot of pros are stuck on the Heroic Individual model. An ahlete and science. Sometimes with a coach.
In that respect the Norwegians are not doing anything unique. However, where I’d disagree is that I think the Norwegians have used the science (in particular lactate meters) to quantify intensity in a way most others are not. For example the** East African elite distance runners** are using much more “feel” than measurement for interval training intensity (although you could argue with just as successful results).
The “science” may be a bit of red herring. It could just be that the East Africans and Norwegian winter athletes (and now a few triathletes) have a very strong self-reinforcing cohorts and communities that support and develop athletes up through the ladder of competition.
Like the old SoCal cohort of American triathletes from the 80’s, 90’s. Sutton’s athletes could be an example. Belgian male cyclists. Dutch female cyclists.
But it seems that a lot of pros are stuck on the Heroic Individual model. An ahlete and science. Sometimes with a coach.
I’d say for East African runners and Norwegian cross country skiers a certain amount of success is down to positive role models and popularity of the sports in the respective regions. Clearly if huge numbers of people are practicing a sport, the odds of you finding genetic outliers that have the potential to win gold medals is much higher. In that regard all the science in the world doesn’t help if you don’t have the talent to develop.
The Norway triathlon story has been a bit different in that respect, as they basically created a program from zero. Before KB I don’t believe a Norwegian male had qualified for Olympics, and I think hes the first to race in pro bracket at ironman world championships. That alone is impressive, but the fact they’ve also developed iden and Casper too. We will see if they can maintain it long term, but i think signs point to the fact they are doing something right.
Like I say I don’t think they are doing anything a lot of other elite endurance athletes aren’t (big volume, mostly low intensity). I do think frequent lactate measurements really help them pinpoint their intensity at a precision most others aren’t. How much more effective is that than using power/HR/rpe in terms of adaptation and performance? I don’t think we really have any evidence of that.
5x20 @ threshold with 4 min rest 😲
Monotonous, repetitive, but darn effective. The 5/2 approach also very intriguing.
Example week during the Aerobic season:
Mon 7h biking at 260WTue 6h biking 250WWed 2h x-country skiing + 4h biking at 250W Thu 7h biking at 265W Fr 6h biking at 240W Sat Resting Sun RestingExample week during the Threshold season:
Mon 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 4x30min 401W with 5min rest, 2,5h 220W) Tue 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 5x20min 405W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Wed 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 6x15min 408W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Thu 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 4x20min 405W with 4min rest, 3h 220W) Fr 5h biking (5min 200W, 6min 260W, 9x10min 406W with 3min rest, 2,5h 220W) Sat Resting Sun Resting**Example week during the Specific season: **
Mon 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210WTue 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210WWed 10k session + 2,5h biking at 210W Thu 10k session + 3h biking at 210W Fr 10k session + 3h biking at 210W Sat Resting Sun Resting
Norway will have to produce a few more stellar, high end athletes, men and women to be mentioned with their cross country skiing compatriots and the East African runners. They have two superb athletes and have done a great job of hyping their methods but they will need decades to develop more triathletes.
How much more effective is that than using power/HR/rpe in terms of adaptation and performance? I don’t think we really have any evidence of that.
We don’t have much evidence. I’ve read the Norwegian stuff and sat through a bunch of Peter Attia/ San-Millan podcasts that get downright evangelical/culty on specific lactate levels.
My instinct is I’d have a tough time thinking that human physiology has some super-reponse right at (say) 2 mmol/L, and, there’s some cliff shortly above that at which you get into real trouble. Or some cliff right below that where you don’t get much training benefit.
E.g., for a cyclist, if you just go to, say, 70% FTP, you’re probably close enough? That’d be my guess until there’s “science” that says otherwise.
Positive reinforcement of z2 or lt2 or whatever you want to call it is pretty big. I train alone except on my long bike ride. Sometimes I’ll skip that group ride because there’s so much pressure push hard.
If everyone around me is doing z2, I can easily do it too. If they’re doing low z5 to see if anyone can get this next 1.5mile segment, then it’s really hard.
Some resources from the coaches, when interviewed for podcasts:
https://thattriathlonshow.libsyn.com/podcast/arild-tveiten-coach-of-kristian-blummenfelt-gustav-iden-and-casper-stornes-on-triathlon-training-the-norwegian-way-ep223
https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts264/
https://www.pogophysio.com.au/blog/olav-aleksander-bu/
One prior ST discussion:
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/Blu’s_training_according_to_Bu_P7650007/?page=unread#unread
.
How much more effective is that than using power/HR/rpe in terms of adaptation and performance? I don’t think we really have any evidence of that.
We don’t have much evidence. I’ve read the Norwegian stuff and sat through a bunch of Peter Attia/ San-Millan podcasts that get downright evangelical/culty on specific lactate levels.
My instinct is I’d have a tough time thinking that human physiology has some super-reponse right at (say) 2 mmol/L, and, there’s some cliff shortly above that at which you get into real trouble. Or some cliff right below that where you don’t get much training benefit.
E.g., for a cyclist, if you just go to, say, 70% FTP, you’re probably close enough? That’d be my guess until there’s “science” that says otherwise.
Yeah there’s nothing magic about 2mmol/L. I’m pretty sure Arild says that 2mmol/l is too high for top athletes, and they focus on maintaining below 1mmol/l. A better approach for age groupers would probably be to plot the graph and identify first rise on an individual basis rather than just assume 2mmol/L. Fwiw when I tested my lactate LT1 fell right around 75% of FTP, which I suspect is fine for the vast majority of people to use as a more simple measure.
I’d agree that if your lactate is slightly above or below target it probably makes little difference, it’s certainly not a cliff edge in terms of physical adaptations. I think the issue might be more about recovery. 5% too intense for average age grouper is not particularly significant. But when you are doing their big volume 5% too intense for 18+ sessions a week adds up quick.
In fact I think that’s really one of the key things about the Norwegian triathlon model that differs from the cross country skiers. The triathlon intensity is really controlled. Much more long intervals right around threshold. I’m sure Arild talks about this in a podcast about how these intervals provide best bang for buck in terms of max adaptations with minimum recovery. As opposed to the cross country skiers that reportedly follow a more traditional polarisation with the intense training way above threshold. Of course some of this is probably explained by the different requirements of the sports too.
Yes, no one, really no one recommends training at fixed La concentrations. Especially not Inigo San Millan or the Norwegians. Thresholds/zones are determined by individual La kinetics. Using these allows them to maximise training load in a sustainable way. And this is not unique to the Norwegians.
Apart from this, Lionel Sanders summarised the NOR model quite nicely: a lot of upper aerobic, a lot of threshold, a lot of La measurements. That’s pretty much it.