The Norwegian Method of Training in Cycling
The ‘Norwegian Method’ of training is a hot topic at the moment, particularly among runners and triathletes. However, there’s relatively little information about how this method could be used in cycling. So we thought we’d take an in-depth look at this exact topic!
In this article, we’ll cover the following areas:
What is the Norwegian Method?
How did it come about?
An example training week
Evidence & theory to support the Norwegian Method
Nuances of the Norwegian Method
Example workouts
Is the Norwegian Method suitable for everyone?
Conclusion
What is the Norwegian Method?
The Norwegian Method is a training approach that relies heavily on lactate testing in order to prescribe and control training intensity.
To understand this method, you need to be familiar with the two lactate thresholds - LT1 and LT2, as illustrated below.
The first threshold (LT1) is the intensity at which we start to see an increase in lactate levels above resting levels*. It correlates with an intensity where the body begins to rely increasingly on carbohydrate and less on fat oxidation to produce energy. It tends to sit around the top end of ‘Zone 2’ in a traditional 6 or 7 zone training model, as described here.
The second threshold (LT2) - sometimes referred to as the ‘maximal lactate steady state’ or ‘MLSS’ - is the highest intensity at which lactate levels remain stable while power is held steady. Above this threshold, lactate levels will rise even when power output is kept constant, and fatigue hits much more rapidly (i.e. within a matter of tens of minutes or less) than it does below this threshold, where efforts can be sustained typically for an hour or more. LT2 is very similar, although not exactly the same, as FTP and critical power. You can read more about LT1 and LT2 and how they can be tested in our lactate testing guide for cyclists.
The key characteristics of the Norwegian Methods are as follows:
Lactate testing is performed in most training sessions in order to control intensity.
The majority of training time is spent below LT1 (often below 1mmol/L)
Interval training is performed three days per week (among elite athletes), where for the majority of these sessions, the intensity and/or length of intervals is moderated so that lactate levels remain between LT1 and LT2. Once per week, a higher-intensity session (i.e. reaching lactate levels above LT2) is used.
A common characteristic among highly-elite level athletes is to implement one or two double interval days per week. So intervals will be performed once in the morning, and then again later in the day.
For brevity, in the remainder of this article we’ll refer to the different training intensities as ‘low’ (lactate below LT1), moderate (lactate between LT1 and LT2) and high (lactate above LT2). It’s worth noting that the ‘moderate’ zone is sometimes referred to by others as the ‘threshold’ or ‘anaerobic threshold’ zone.
How did the Norwegian Method come about?
Up until now, the Norwegian Method has predominantly been used among middle and long-distance runners and triathletes, with many attributing this training approach with the success of Norwegian athletes including Olympic triathlon champion Kristian Blummenfelt, Olympic 1,500-meter champion Jakob Ingebrigtsen and his other highly successful siblings, and Ironman world champion Gustav Iden.
The development of the Norwegian Method has been credited to Marius Bakken, who was a successful 5000m runner in the early 2000s, and has recently written a detailed summary of his training approaches and their evolution (Bakken, 2022).
It’s reported that Bakken passed his training methods to Gjert Ingebrigtsen, Jakob Ingebrigtsen’s father and former coach, and that these principles were later taken up by coaches at the Norwegian Triathlon Federation. However, this story has been criticised, and Ingebrigtsen has claimed the influence from Bakken was minimal in relation to the training of the Ingebrigtsen brothers.
In reality, it wouldn’t be surprising if multiple coaches had arrived at various versions of the Norwegian training approach independently, since it’s really just an iteration on tried and tested training methods that have been around for decades. We’ll discuss this more when we look at the evidence to support this training approach.
Example training week using the Norwegian Method
Following from the above, it shouldn’t be a surprise that comprehensively-documented training according to the Norwegian Method has mainly been among runners and triathletes, and there’s very little literature relating to the use of this specific training method among cyclists.
For elite-level runners, an example training week might comprise e.g. 160-180km per week of running (which would equate to roughly 12-15 hours per week), with a structure of:
Monday: Long low-lactate endurance session
Tuesday: Morning session including 5x 6-mins at a moderate lactate, with 1-min recovery. Evening session including 10x 2-3-mins at moderate lactate, with 1-min recovery.
Wednesday: Long low-lactate endurance session
Thursday: Morning session including 5x 6-mins at a moderate lactate, with 1-min recovery. Evening session including 25x 1-min at moderate lactate, 30-sec recovery.
Friday: Medium-length low-lactate endurance session
Saturday: 20x 30-40-sec at high lactate levels, with 70-sec recovery.
Sunday: Long low-lactate endurance session
(Adapted from the training week information shown in Casado et al., 2023 and Bakken, 2022)
Evidence & theory to support the Norwegian Method
As mentioned above, the Norwegian Method has been heralded as the key to success among several high-profile Norwegian runners and triathletes.
Of course, the success of a relatively small number of individual athletes isn’t enough evidence in and of itself to sing the praises of the Norwegian Method. All we can conclude is that this method wasn’t notably detrimental to these athletes’ performances. However, it’s entirely possible that alternative training approaches could have achieved similar or even better results. So let’s look at what evidence exists…
From a theoretical standpoint, the Norwegian Method is thought to be particularly effective, because it allows for an optimal balance between the proportion of muscle fibres that are activated, and the stress imposed on the body (Casado et al., 2023). Higher-intensity training that elevates lactate levels above LT2 can recruit higher proportions of muscle fibres, but the stress imposed on the body may also be higher. It’s thought that, by keeping lactate levels below LT2, relatively high volumes of training can be tolerated while muscle recruitment is also relatively high. This brings about a range of aerobic adaptations that can help to lift power at LT2 resulting in improved performance across a range of disciplines.
The Norwegian Method also allows for a high-volume of low-intensity training, since the majority of training is still below LT1, and the use of lactate testing keeps these sessions very disciplined and well-controlled. Training volume is a major factor impacting aerobic fitness, and in particular factors such as capillary density and some aspects of lactate transport seem to be stimulated more by volume rather than intensity (Casado et al., 2023). So it’s helpful that the Norwegian Method allows high volumes to be maintained safely and consistently through plenty of low-intensity training.
The use of regular lactate testing within the Norwegian Method also gives due attention to the internal training load experienced by an athlete (i.e. the internal stress placed on the body), as opposed to the external load (e.g. power output or work done). We know that, particularly towards the end of a training session, internal and external load do not always correlate. For example, as glycogen levels are depleted, body temperature rises, and dehydration sets in, the internal stress caused by riding at e.g. 200W is notably higher than it is towards the beginning of a ride, and this will be reflected to some extent via lactate levels. Thus, using lactate as the main regulator for training intensity potentially allows for a higher overall training load to be tolerated without stepping over the limit into becoming overtrained.
The strategy of doubling-up the moderate-lactate training days, rather than spreading them across the week, means there’s as much time as possible to recover between these harder training days, which probably also helps with training consistency, and avoiding injury and overtraining.
When looking at the overall intensity distribution, the Norwegian Method is very similar to so-called ‘Pyramidal’ training, where the majority of training time is spent at low intensities (below LT1), a moderate amount of time is spent training at moderate intensities (between LT1 and LT2), and smaller amounts of time are spent training at high intensities (above LT2). We have a lot of evidence to support this general pyramidal approach among cyclists, and the general principle of employing a Pyramidal intensity distribution has been shown to be very effective (Stöggl et al., 2015).
The Norwegian Method is, in essence, more specific and prescriptive embodiment of the Pyramidal training approach, where lactate testing is used regularly to control training intensity, and twice-daily interval sessions are used on a regular basis. It could be argued that perhaps more training time is spent in the moderate intensity zone and less in the low-intensity zone with the Norwegian Method when compared to a true Pyramidal intensity distribution (where roughly 75-80% of sessions are low intensity). However, when we look at actual time in zone, I would say that both approaches are very similar.
Although there is some good theory and anecdotal evidence to support the Norwegian Method, there are also some potential criticisms and concerns.
Indeed, the benefits of moderate-intensity training are not without controversy. When stepping above LT1, lactate levels and stress hormones are elevated and glycogen utilisation is relatively high, which still makes these training sessions really quite stressful and hard to recover from, especially when implemented twice per day. It has been suggested that the benefits of training a little above LT1 do not always outweigh the drawbacks in terms of stress on the body. Indeed, Seiler et al., (2007) showed that the fatigue response of the autonomic nervous system to spending 30-mins between LT1 and LT2, is markedly similar to the response seen after a set of classic ‘VO2max’ intervals (6x 3-min efforts, at 96% VO2max). In contrast, spending 2-hours riding below LT1 elicited a very different fatigue response, suggesting that LT1 may be a crucial tipping point, beyond which there is considerably more fatigue accrued.
Moreover, spending a lot of time training between LT1 and LT2 can mean you’re never quite fresh enough perform important high-intensity sessions above LT2. This can cause all training sessions to look quite similar, and over time might lead to fitness stagnation. Training above LT2 seems to be very important for achieving some specific fitness adaptations that can’t be fully realised at lower intensities. These include the development of the lactate transporter MCT4, which is responsible for transporting lactate out of fast-twitch muscle fibres (McGinley & Bishop, 2016), an improvements in the efficiency of mitochondria (Bishop et al., 2014). Training almost exclusively between LT1 and LT2 has been shown in multiple studies to lead to worse outcomes than training at a mixture of intensities including time below LT1 and above LT2 (Stöggl & Sperlich, 2014; Muñoz et al., 2014), and in our experience some time training above LT2 is beneficial at all times of the year.
It should also be said that the top athletes who have seen success with the Norwegian Method do also employ other training strategies that can’t be ruled out as the main cause of their success. These include altitude and heat acclimation training, monitoring of core body temperature and muscle oxygen saturation (through use of NIRS sensors), as well as use of standardised warm-up protocols that allow quick assessment of fatigue levels. These monitoring techniques in particular help provide important context to the lactate readings, and allow coaches to adapt the training based on the recovery status of the athlete. These monitoring methods undoubtedly contribute to the success of the training by helping athletes tread the line between ‘functional overreaching’ (i.e. a training stress that provides a large adaptive stimulus, but can be recovered from within the course of normal training), and overtraining (i.e. a training stress that results in prolonged reduced performance, risk of illness and injury).
Finally, it’s worth noting that the Norwegian Method has not been robustly tested in lower-level athletes, nor among cyclists. We see no particular issues with translating the Norwegian principles from running and triathlon over to cycling (indeed, due to the low-impact nature of cycling, there is probably less risk involved when performing the high volumes of moderate-intensity training on the bike than running). However, we’d be very wary of using the Norwegian approach with the average well-trained but recreational-level cyclist, who juggles training around commitments like work, family etc. Professional athletes have a lot of time to recover, and also support (e.g. from nutritionists, massage therapists etc.) to help them adapt to training loads more effectively. This is just not the case with the average non-professional athlete, and in our view the Norwegian approach would need modifying to account for this.
Nuances of the Norwegian Method
In order to correctly apply the Norwegian Method, there are some nuances that need to be appreciated:
Lactate values are individual and prior testing is needed
Firstly, when reading about the Norwegian Method, you may see some specific lactate targets suggested for different types of session (e.g. targeting 2.5mol/L lactate within longer intervals, or 3.5mmol/L lactate in shorter intervals).
However, it’s important to note that these specific values might not be suited to you as an individual. This is because the lactate values at LT1 and LT2 differ from person to person. We have seen some athletes whose LT2 sits at 3mmol/L, and others whose sits at 8mmol/L. Thus, a target of 3.5mmol/L would be very different for these different athletes (with one being above LT2 and one being well below LT2).
It’s therefore important to establish some baseline lactate data and test regularly (e.g. every 6-8 weeks) to make sure you’re using the right zones.
We’d recommend doing both a ramp-based lactate profile to determine LT1, and a MLSS protocol to establish LT2. You can do this in a lab, but testing can also be performed at home, following the guidance in this article.
Training to lactate is not the same as training to power
Most cyclists will be very familiar with training to power, and the associated power-based training zones.
However, in the Norwegian Method, it’s lactate that is your primary intensity metric, and this doesn’t always tally with power.
In particular, in interval sessions that involve shorter efforts with sufficient recovery, lactate values can remain below LT2 levels, while power is above the wattage associated with MLSS. Indeed, it’s a common feature of Norwegian Method training to include shorter intervals like this (e.g. 2-3 minute efforts, with 1-minute recovery targeting a lactate level just slightly below LT2). In this scenario, power may be into Zone 5, while lactate levels remain below LT1.
Target higher and lower lactate levels within the moderate range
Another common feature of the Norwegian Method is to incorporate a mixture of sessions at both the higher and lower levels of the moderate lactate range.
For example, if LT1 is at 2mmol/L and LT2 is at 4mmol/L, then some sessions may target 2.5mml/L (i.e. just slightly above LT1) and some may target 3.5mmol/L (i.e. just slightly below LT2).
When training twice per day, the lower lactate level is often targeted in the morning, and the higher level is often targeted in the evening (presumably because the lower level is less stressful and easier to recover from).
Training is periodised
Importantly, in most cases successful athletes seem to have employed a periodised training approach, where, as competition approaches, some of the moderate lactate sessions are removed in favour of high-lactate sessions, often at race-specific intensities. In other words, the training transitions to follow more of a polarised intensity distribution in the 1-2 months leading into important competitions.
Threshold isn’t strictly at threshold
As we mentioned briefly above, the moderate lactate zone is sometimes referred to as the ‘threshold’ or ‘anaerobic threshold’ zone. However, it’s important to note that many of the training sessions aren’t actually at the anaerobic threshold (i.e. LT2), but can be quite considerably below this threshold (i.e. just slightly above LT1).
Example workouts according to the Norwegian Method
Some example ‘moderate lactate’ workouts that have been used by Bakken (2022), and/or with Norwegian runners and triathletes are described below (adapted for the context of cycling)…
5x 6-mins targeting slightly above LT1 (e.g. 2.5mmol/L) with 1-min recovery
10x 2.5-3-mins targeting slightly below LT2 (e.g. 3.5 mmol/L) with 1-min recovery
25x 1-min targeting slightly below LT2 (e.g. 3.5 mmol/L) with 30-sec recovery
30x 45-seconds targeting slightly below LT2 (e.g. 3.5 mmol/L) with 15-sec recovery
Bakkus also describes ‘progressive sessions’ where the goal is gradually to increase lactate from just above LT1 to just below LT2 interval-by-interval, and sessions that seek to hold lactate right at LT2. These could use both longer and shorter efforts as described above.
Is the Norwegian Method suitable for everyone?
First and foremost to properly implement this strategy requires regular lactate testing, which isn’t feasible for most athletes. Lactate can also be finicky (i.e. very sensitive to things like prior nutrition and hydration status), and for this reason, the Norwegian Triathlon federation only interpret lactate data in conjunction with other testing methods such as muscle oxygen saturation. Again, these types of measures aren’t generally available to the average athlete!
Moreover, in practice most normal cyclists include significant time above LT1 in most of their training sessions. This can be due to sub-optimal discipline/power control, or the constraints of the environment (e.g. hills). Adding double days of targeted moderate-lactate sessions on top of endurance rides that already include considerable time above LT1 is likely to be a fast-track for overtraining.
Therefore, in our view, the Norwegian Method can only work with (i) fit athletes with good intensity discipline who can stay below LT1 quite easily even while climbing, or (ii) in less well-trained athletes who use a combination of flat rides and indoor training to keep power well controlled in their low intensity sessions.
It’s worth also reiterating that the Norwegian Method has only had documented success in professional athletes who have a high capacity to recover, and who have support from a team of coaches to monitor them daily and determine whether a planned session is appropriate, given their levels of fatigue. The high volume of moderate-lactate training will be very stressful on the body. For athletes without such a high capacity to recover, and without the support of experienced coaches and monitoring techniques, then the Norwegian method could be risky.
That said, one group of non-professional athletes who could potentially benefit from periods of time training according to the Norwegian approach is time-crunched cyclists who have reached a fitness plateau based on their current available training time. A block of Norwegian training could help break this fitness plateau due to the relatively high training load. However, a concerted effort would need to be made in order to keep intensity truly low for sessions below the LT1, in order to avoid overdoing things.
Despite the provisos above, if you do think that the Norwegian Method could be worth a try, then we wouldn’t recommend using this for more than 8-12 weeks at most, making sure that there are ample, focussed periods of recovery within this training block to help reduce the risk of overtraining and mental burn-out. We suggest this block of training would work best between the base training phase (typically through the Autumn and Winter) and the specific/race preparation phase (which typically spans the few months leading into an A-priority race or event). The base phase should be more relaxed, with less intensity overall, and the specific preparation phase would usually include less moderate-lactate training, in favour of race-specific sessions and intervals above LT2.
Conclusion
To conclude, the Norwegian Method builds upon training practices that have been used for decades, and is not really a new approach per se, but rather a novel grouping of tried-and-tested methods.
There is anecdotal and theoretical evidence that this training approach works with professional athletes, who have a good capacity to recover and a team to help monitor fatigue levels to reduce the risk of overtraining.
A key component of the Norwegian Method is very diligent intensity control, using lactate testing. This is something that’s not always feasible for regular non-professional cyclists, whether due to lack of testing equipment, or difficulties with intensity control. Therefore the Norwegian Method might not be appropriate among these athletes, and other training approaches, such as polarised or pyramidal training using power as a primary measure of intensity might work better in many cases.
Ultimately, the best training approach to take will depend a lot upon the individual, where that person’s strengths and limiters lie, and the types of training are most likely to foster consistency for that individual. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to training, and there are many athletes who have taken very different training approaches and achieved great success.
*Strictly-speaking are several ways that LT1 can be defined, and no consensus on which is the best approach. For more on lactate testing and the different approaches to determining the location of LT1, see here.
References
Bakken, M. (2022). The Norwegian Model. Retrieved from http://www.mariusbakken.com/the-norwegian-model.html
Bishop, D. J., Granata, C., & Eynon, N. (2014). Can we optimise the exercise training prescription to maximise improvements in mitochondria function and content?. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects, 1840(4), 1266-1275.
Casado, A., Foster, C., Bakken, M., & Tjelta, L. I. (2023). Does Lactate-Guided Threshold Interval Training within a High-Volume Low-Intensity Approach Represent the “Next Step” in the Evolution of Distance Running Training?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 3782.
Eriksson, M. (2020). Arild Tveiten - coach of Kristian Blummenfelt, Gustav Iden and Casper Stornes on triathlon training the Norwegian way | EP#223. Scientific Triathlon. https://scientifictriathlon.com/tts223/
McGinley, C., & Bishop, D. J. (2016). Influence of training intensity on adaptations in acid/base transport proteins, muscle buffer capacity, and repeated-sprint ability in active men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 121(6), 1290-1305.
Muñoz, I., Seiler, S., Bautista, J., España, J., Larumbe, E., & Esteve-Lanao, J. (2014). Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners?. International journal of sports physiology and performance, 9(2), 265-272.
Roll R. (2022). Gustav Iden & Kristian Blummenfelt: Lessons From The Norwegian Train Reign [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/-g0V76jlxFA?si=9cfvckbLIE02qzFj
Roll R. (2023). Human Performance SECRETS Behind Norwegian World Champions: Olav Aleksander Bu [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/bdrgVF4gi1E?si=1bHtaoMVre5I_oIq
Stöggl, T., & Sperlich, B. (2014). Polarized training has greater impact on key endurance variables than threshold, high intensity, or high volume training. Frontiers in physiology, 5, 33.
Stöggl, T. L., & Sperlich, B. (2015). The training intensity distribution among well-trained and elite endurance athletes. Frontiers in physiology, 6, 295.
