The Norwegian method: lactate-guided threshold and double threshold
On this page
Three different things under one name
- Lactate-guided threshold sessions. The pace is not fixed in advance: you aim for a lactate concentration and adjust speed. Casado and colleagues (2023) call them lactate-guided threshold interval training.1
- Double threshold. Two threshold sessions in the same day, usually morning and evening, with easy running on the days around it.23
- High volume of easy running. Threshold does not replace easy work: it is added on top of a large amount of slow kilometres.1
What the sources describe
The sources below do not describe the same plan. Here they stay separate, with no averaging.
| Source | Type of source | What it reports |
|---|---|---|
| Casado, Foster, Bakken, Tjelta, 20231 | Description of the model and discussion of mechanisms, from observations of world-class runners | Three or four lactate-guided threshold sessions and one VO₂max-intensity session per week, plus easy running up to 150-180 km. Lactate target usually between 2 and 4.5 mmol/L, measured every one to three repetitions. Sessions of 8 to 12 km of work, with recoveries between 20 seconds and 1.5 minutes. Repetitions of 2000-3000 m near half-marathon pace, or 400-1000 m between 5000 m and 10,000 m paces. Sometimes two threshold sessions on the same day. |
| Kelemen, Benczenleitner, Tóth, 2023/20242 | Systematic review of 7 articles, 13 elite Norwegian runners | 120-180 km per week on average, 75-80% at low intensity (62-82% of max HR). Two to four threshold sessions, often two on the same day, during the base period. One or two harder sessions per week (above 97% of max HR). Before the racing season: fewer threshold sessions and more race pace. |
| Marius Bakken, 20223 | Personal experience of a former runner (13:06 for 5000 m); the author himself writes it is not a scientific article | Personal threshold around 3.0 mmol/L, work mostly between 2.3 and 3.0, not at the "standard" 4.0. Two days a week with threshold morning and evening, plus one session with a different stimulus. Examples: 6-minute repetitions in the morning and 1-minute (30 seconds rest) or 45-second (15 seconds rest) repetitions in the evening. After a double-threshold day, always an easy session. |
Why it might work (hypotheses, not proof)
Casado and colleagues suggest that working in a lactate zone lower than VO₂max intensity causes less fatigue, and so allows more specific work across the week. They also point to studies of paces near the lactate threshold in trained runners.1 These are plausible explanations, presented by the authors as hypotheses.
Bakken adds his own reading: the limit on load would be mostly muscular, and grouping threshold work into double days leaves more recovery days. This is an empirical opinion from someone who practised it, not a research result.3
What the 2024 experimental comparison adds
Talsnes and colleagues compared two training days in counterbalanced order in 14 trained male endurance athletes, mean VO₂max 69.2 mL/kg/min. One day involved 6 × 10 minutes; the other two 3 × 10-minute sessions separated by 6.5 hours. Both had 60 interval minutes at the same external speed: 90% of speed at 4 mmol/L from an individual test. This was not a generic 90% FTP, HRmax or race pace.5
| Item | Single | Double |
|---|---|---|
| Intervals | 6 × 10 min | 3 × 10 min + 3 × 10 min |
| Between-repeat recovery | 2 min | 2 min; 6.5 hours between sessions |
| Interval gradient | 10.5% treadmill | 10.5% treadmill |
| Preparation and finish | 20 min warm-up + 15 min cool-down; another easy block later | 20 min warm-up + 15 min cool-down for each session |
The extra easy block on the single day matched easy-work volume across days. Gradient, laboratory conditions and controlled speed were part of the design: removing them does not turn the table into a flat-running protocol. These numbers describe the experiment, not a prescription.5
Heart rate, lactate and perceived effort rose during the second half of the single session. Perceived cost and some recovery indicators were lower on the double day. Internal load calculated as sRPE × duration was 929 versus 743 units, single versus double: these are not kilometres or TSS. The study concerns acute responses and the next morning, not adaptations after months, injury prevention or a faster race.5
The NIH project described in 2026
The Norwegian School of Sport Sciences describes Siren Seiler-Viken’s project in 25 well-trained recreational runners averaging about 60 weekly kilometres; entry required VO₂max above 60 in men and above 50 in women. Two counterbalanced 14-day periods compared single and double threshold, separated by a return to usual training. This is a university communication, not a scientific paper with complete results; the page announces publication during 2026.6
The double period included two days of 4 × 6 minutes morning and afternoon and two days of 12 × 90 seconds morning and afternoon. The single period included two days of 6 × 6 minutes and two of 20 × 90 seconds. The source reports 27% greater interval volume during the double period, with little difference in several recovery indicators but slightly lower perceived readiness and recovery. This is not the externally volume-matched 2024 comparison.6
A counting example, not a recommended workout
4 × 6 minutes in the morning and 4 × 6 in the afternoon give 48 work minutes, versus 36 for one 6 × 6 session: one third more on that day. The reported 27% concerns the observed overall volume; it cannot be derived from this one row. The page does not provide all between-repeat recoveries, so none are supplied by assumption. The researchers warn that responses over further weeks remain uncertain.6
What we do not know
- What the historical sources concluded. In 2023, Casado and colleagues wrote that the efficacy of the model has not been tested in controlled studies, and that their assumptions should be taken with caution.1 The Kelemen review describes volumes and distribution; it does not show an advantage over other models.2
- Limited transferability. Casado and colleagues say the model has been described in 1500 m and 5000 m runners, and that its application to other events, such as the marathon, remains uncertain.1
- Lactate is individual. Bakken reports thresholds between 2.0 and 3.0 mmol/L in different athletes and a personal value of about 3.0 for himself. One number does not fit everyone.3 Zone limits should be found with tests on the individual athlete (Casado and colleagues).1
- Success and method are two things. The results of the runners cited do not prove the method is the cause: the sources do not separate the contribution of talent, volume, altitude and organisation.
For an amateur
The following 2024 expert views are separate from the 2026 NIH project described above. They are reported in a Runner's World feature, not the result of a study.4
- Christopher Harnish, an exercise physiologist, doubts that double-threshold days are necessary or wise for most non-professional runners: elite runners have built the capacity to sustain large volumes and can recover like professionals; most of us cannot.
- Carl Foster, co-author of the 2023 paper, says very hard work can still be useful but not more than once a week if you also do threshold days, and that threshold should be retested three or four times a year.
- As a cautious first step, Harnish suggests one threshold session in the morning, for example 3 × 8 minutes with 4 minutes rest, and a 30-minute walk instead of the second session. This is an expert suggestion, not a tested protocol.
Before changing your plan: intensity must be described with one consistent method (lactate, heart rate or feel), your easy running volume must already hold up, and total load must stay compatible with recovery. Lactate needs equipment and testing; without it, "threshold pace" is an estimate. This page is not a recommendation to change your plan.
Where it sits next to pyramidal and polarised
Lactate-guided threshold sits in the middle zone of the three-zone model. So the Norwegian method is neither "polarised" nor "pyramidal" by definition: it depends on how time in zones is counted. For definitions and counting limits see How much intensity do you need.
For the Norwegian model beyond running - triathlon, cross-country skiing and swimming - see the Norwegian method beyond running: what is documented.
Sources
- Casado, Foster, Bakken, Tjelta. Lactate-guided threshold interval training within a high-volume low-intensity approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023. Full text (PMC)
- Kelemen, Benczenleitner, Tóth. The Norwegian double-threshold method in distance running: systematic literature review. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 2023 (2024 issue). DOI. Abstract read.
- Marius Bakken. The Norwegian model of lactate threshold training. mariusbakken.com, 2022. Page. The author describes it as not scientific.
- A.C. Shilton. Is the Norwegian Double Threshold Training Method for You? Runner's World, 14 March 2024. Article. Popular source with expert opinions.
- Talsnes RK et al. Comparison of acute physiological responses between one long and two short sessions of moderate-intensity training in endurance athletes. Frontiers in Physiology, 2024. Full text.
- Norwegian School of Sport Sciences. Slik gjekk det da 25 mosjonistar testa dobbel terskel. 29 April 2026, updated 11 May 2026. University communication.
Sources rechecked on 29 October 2026. The acute 2024 comparison is separate from the 2026 university communication.