Norwegian Method vs Polarized: What’s Better? - The Athlete's Compass | Lyssna här

The Norwegian method has become one of endurance sport’s hottest training topics, thanks largely to elite performances, double-threshold sessions, and lactate-guided intensity control. But is it really an alternative to traditional 80/20 training? Paul Warloski and Dr. Paul Laursen unpack what the so-called Norwegian method actually involves and explain why it may have far more in common with polarized training than athletes realize. The conversation explores lactate testing, sub-threshold training, double-threshold days, recovery, race specificity, training for masters athletes, and why everyday runners, cyclists, and triathletes probably shouldn’t throw out their current training plans in pursuit of the latest trend.

Key takeaways

The Norwegian method isn’t necessarily one single training system. Dr. Marius Bakken’s approach is one particular version built around intensity control, lactate monitoring, muscle status, and repeatable training.
80/20 and Norwegian-style training overlap significantly. The majority of training remains low-intensity aerobic work.
The most important lesson may not be “do more threshold”, but rather “control your threshold work better.”
Bakken’s approach generally keeps sub-threshold work controlled enough that the athlete can accumulate substantial quality without creating excessive fatigue.
Lactate is used as a marker of physiological stress, helping athletes avoid pushing sessions beyond the intended intensity.
Double-threshold days allow highly trained athletes to concentrate demanding work on hard days, followed by genuinely easy recovery days.
A typical structure discussed in the episode could feature three higher-stress days during the week, separated by low-intensity recovery days.
The Norwegian approach can sometimes look more pyramidal than strictly polarized, with additional work in the moderate/sub-threshold range.
Specificity still matters. An 800m runner, marathoner, criterium cyclist, gravel racer, and triathlete should not perform identical intensity sessions.
For athletes training roughly 6–10 hours per week, copying elite double-threshold programs literally is usually unnecessary.
Triathletes could potentially apply the principle by putting a harder bike and harder run on the same day, rather than performing two run threshold sessions.
Athletes do not necessarily need a lactate meter. Training just under critical pace, critical power, FTP, or a similar second-threshold marker can approximate the same principle.
Masters athletes can use the same concepts, but recovery capacity becomes increasingly important with age.
Subjective signals—including muscle stiffness, fatigue, mental freshness, and the feeling of having “pop”—can help determine readiness.
The ultimate recommendation: don’t overhaul your training simply because the Norwegian method is fashionable. Keep the aerobic foundation and borrow the principles that make sense for your training history, event, and recovery capacity.

Rss Apple Podcaster