Norwegian Singles vs. Other Training Methodologies

This section presents a concise comparison between the “Norwegian Singles” approach (focused on 3x weekly sub-threshold sessions for recreational runners) and other established training methodologies. It’s important to distinguish this from the traditional high-volume, double-threshold-day Norwegian method used by elite athletes like the Ingebrigtsens. The “singles” approach aims to adapt the core principle of controlled threshold work for lower-volume runners, often as an alternative to traditional amateur plans that frequently incorporate higher intensities (like VO2max work) which can lead to injury or burnout.

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.

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 maintains moderate long runs (75-90 mins for 5k-HM) at easy pace, whereas Lydiard emphasizes very long aerobic runs during base phase followed by increasing anaerobic work in later phases.

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 plans are explicitly designed with marathon-specific elements and feature more complex mesocycle periodization rather than Norwegian Singles’ consistent weekly pattern.

vs. 80/20 Running (Polarized Training)

Norwegian Singles dedicates ~20-25% of training time to sub-threshold work (just below LT2), while polarized models like 80/20 typically distribute the 20% “hard” training across a wider range of moderate-to-high intensities, often emphasizing work well above LT2 (Zone 5). The key difference is that Norwegian Singles concentrates quality in a narrow, controlled intensity band (high Zone 3/low Zone 4) to maximize sustainable load, whereas polarized training emphasizes a distinct separation between very easy (Zone 1-2) and very hard (Zone 4-5) work, often minimizing time spent near LT2. The “singles” approach seeks to avoid the potential pitfalls (injury, burnout, plateau) sometimes associated with the high-intensity component of traditional amateur plans.

vs. Double Threshold

The popular Norwegian model of double threshold training, as originally conceived by Marius Bakken and popularized by the Ingebrigtsen brothers, is the basis from which Norwegian singles is derived. Two days each week are “double threshold” days with an AM and PM sub-threshold session. Jakob Ingebrigtsen is also known to incorporate a hard hill session every Saturday AM, with “easy threshold” in the evening, for a total of 6 sessions each week. Of course, the double threshold approach allows one to incorporate more sub-threshold training each week, but it is much more demanding on the body and requires more experience. However, the basic building blocks of the two approaches are very similar, emphasizing weekly consistency and threshold volume.

Key Differentiating Factors of Norwegian Singles

What makes Norwegian Singles distinctive is its high frequency of quality sessions (3x weekly) at carefully controlled sub-threshold intensity, enabling consistency over long periods with minimal burnout risk. It emphasizes precise intensity control to maximize repeatability and sustainable progression, with less supplementary work (strides, hills, strength) than other systems. This approach is particularly suited for time-limited runners, slower recoverers, and those seeking long-term sustainable development.