Norwegian Method vs Polarized: What’s Better?

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.

• 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.

• Try Athletica | Adaptive Endurance Training Plans Powered by Sports Science
• Dr. Paul Laursen
• Paul Warloski - Simple Endurance Coaching