7  Norwegian Singles vs. Other Training Methodologies

Norwegian Singles concentrates quality work into three controlled sub-threshold sessions, separated by easy running. The comparisons below describe broad differences in structure; individual plans and coaching approaches vary. They do not establish that one method is best for every runner.

7.1 vs. Daniels’ Running Formula

Norwegian Singles concentrates on consistent sub-threshold work (3x weekly) with minimal intensity variation, while Daniels prescribes multiple intensity zones (Easy, Marathon, Threshold, Interval, Repetition) with scheduled workouts that often exceed LT2. Daniels uses distinct training phases with changing workout types, whereas Norwegian Singles maintains the same workout structure year-round with gradual progression.

7.2 vs. Lydiard Method

Norwegian Singles employs a consistent year-round approach with sub-threshold as the primary quality intensity, while Lydiard uses sequential training phases (aerobic base → hills → speed → race-specific). Norwegian Singles scales an easy long run to the rest of the week, whereas Lydiard emphasizes very long aerobic runs during base phase followed by increasing anaerobic work in later phases.

7.3 vs. Pfitzinger Method

Norwegian Singles distributes quality evenly through the week (E-Q-E-Q-E-Q-LR) focusing primarily on sub-threshold work, while Pfitzinger incorporates medium-long midweek runs and uses more varied intensities (including VO2max and specific race-pace work). Pfitzinger’s marathon plans build toward a target race through distinct phases; the standard Singles week can continue across a season of 5k-HM racing.

7.4 vs. Palladino Power Project

Palladino’s power-based plans include work above threshold and use critical-power estimates to set training intensities. Norwegian Singles concentrates ordinary workouts below LT2 and can be followed using pace, HR and perceived effort. Power can support either approach, but CP is not interchangeable with LT2 or a lactate measurement. Testing and recalibration should follow the chosen device and protocol; see monitoring limitations.

7.5 vs. 80/20 Running (Polarized Training)

Both approaches devote most training time to easy running. Norwegian Singles places roughly 20-25% of time in controlled sub-threshold work, often decreasing that share as volume rises. A strictly polarized distribution concentrates its harder work above the second threshold, with relatively little between thresholds. The popular “80/20” label also covers plans with a mixture of moderate and high intensities, so it should not be treated as a single exact prescription. The useful comparison is where the harder minutes occur and how much recovery they require.

7.6 vs. Double Threshold

The Norwegian model described by Marius Bakken distributes substantial controlled threshold work across paired morning and afternoon sessions. Elite schedules commonly include two such days, much more easy volume, and sometimes additional faster work. Their requirements differ considerably from a recreational schedule.

Singles spreads three standalone workouts across the week. Moving to double threshold is more than splitting or duplicating those workouts: intensity, session volume and recovery need reconsideration. Adding easy doubles is one possible intermediate step for runners who have already absorbed a sustained increase in weekly volume.

7.7 Key Differentiating Factors of Norwegian Singles

The defining combination is frequent controlled quality, genuinely easy days and a stable week that progresses gradually. Strides, strength work and event-specific sessions can be included for a clear purpose, with their recovery cost accounted for. The method offers a practical framework for long-term development; its value depends on whether the individual can sustain it and improve.