Running Training Models: Pyramid, Polarized & Norwegian

The longer you run, the more you start thinking about your own training structure — designing your own schedule becomes part of the joy.

I personally structure my own training around the threshold model used by Jakob Ingebrigtsen, focusing on the approach that has defined his legendary performances.

For endurance athletes looking to improve performance, there are three main training models to consider.

Of the three, the threshold model has several interpretations. Here, we focus on the Norwegian method — the approach widely adopted among Norwegian endurance athletes.

This article compares all three models and helps you figure out which training intensity distribution best fits your goals as a recreational runner.

What Is Training Intensity Distribution?

Training intensity can be divided into five zones.

Note: Repetition training and sprint-based workouts fall into zone 5 or above — the highest intensity category.

The Three Running Training Models

Here’s a breakdown of the three most recognized running training models.

Pyramidal Training Model

The pyramidal training intensity distribution (TID) allocates the most training volume to zone 1, with decreasing volume through zones 2 to 5.

Here’s how the intensity breaks down across zones:

Note: The percentages shown are illustrative only. They represent the general pyramidal shape, not a prescribed optimal ratio.

Here’s a typical week using the pyramidal model:

Polarized Training Model

The polarized training model eliminates moderate-intensity work, concentrating training volume at the extremes: low intensity and high intensity.

Here’s how the intensity breaks down across zones:

Most recreational runners appear to follow a polarized training model without realizing it.

As a marathon approaches, runners tend to add more marathon-pace work — which shifts the balance toward zone 3.

Here’s a typical week using the polarized model:

While Jack Daniels’ Running Formula describes tempo runs primarily as lactate threshold training, the actual effort of a true tempo run exceeds the lactate threshold — reaching closer to OBLA intensity.

At true threshold pace, blood lactate surpasses 4.0 mmol/L — classifying it as high-intensity work. A schedule with one tempo run and one interval session per week, with easy jogging otherwise, fits the polarized model.

Note: Runners who treat threshold pace as marathon pace are working at moderate intensity — which would shift their model toward the pyramidal distribution.

Threshold Training Model: The Norwegian Method

The third model is the threshold training model, made famous by Norwegian middle-distance runner Jakob Ingebrigtsen.

Its origins trace back to the training philosophy of fellow Norwegian distance runner Marius Bakken.

Bakken’s model centers on double threshold training — two threshold sessions per day, twice a week. It also includes one high-intensity X-factor session per week.

Here’s how the intensity breaks down across zones:

In Bakken’s model, the lactate threshold zone — spanning from the upper end of zone 2 through zone 3 — accounts for approximately 25% of total training volume.

Ingebrigtsen reportedly incorporates plyometrics and other neuromuscular work beyond this framework, though the specifics have not been publicly disclosed.

Which Training Model Is Best?

There’s no single answer. Successful runners exist across all three models, and no study has declared one definitively superior.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that polarized training produced greater improvements in VO2 max compared to threshold-focused training (Stoggl & Sperlich, 2014)※3.

A meta-analysis, however, found that polarized training’s advantage may be limited to short-term interventions and highly trained athletes already under significant load (Silva Oliveira et al., 2024)※4.

What systematic reviews consistently show is a common structure across all models: low-intensity training accounts for over 70% of total volume, regardless of model type (Campos et al., 2022)※5. This shared foundation may be why successful runners emerge from every approach.

One thing worth noting: most recreational runners are likely already training in a polarized pattern — whether they know it or not.

Here’s that typical recreational runner’s schedule again:

This schedule spaces structured workouts two days apart, allowing adequate recovery between quality sessions.

Weekdays can be unpredictable when balancing work and life. The flexibility to swap quality days and easy days within the week makes this model practical for recreational runners.

How Your Training Model Changes With Race Phase

The right training model isn’t fixed — it shifts based on your target race and how far away it is.

During the off-season and early base phases, lactate threshold zone training tends to increase. This includes moderate-to-threshold efforts and foundational sprint work such as hill sprints.

As the race approaches, training shifts toward race-specific intensities. For a 5,000 m target, this means interval training at 90–100% VO2 max and threshold pace runs.

When the goal is a full marathon, race-phase training revolves around marathon pace — which falls in the moderate intensity zone.

In short, your training intensity distribution naturally adapts to your race goal and the time you have left to prepare.

Clearing Up Misconceptions About the Norwegian Method

After looking at all three models, one thing stands out: they share a common foundation.

Every model combines a large volume of low-intensity training with a controlled portion of high-intensity work.

Systematic reviews of elite runner training consistently show that approximately 80% of sessions are performed below a blood lactate level of 2 mmol/L — firmly in the low-intensity zone (Seiler, 2010)※6.

This structure — high volume, low intensity plus a small dose of high intensity — is universal across the pyramidal, polarized, and Norwegian method. The key difference between models lies in how they handle the middle zone.

Ingebrigtsen’s success has put double threshold training in the spotlight, but one misconception is that the Norwegian method is purely threshold work. In reality, a weekly X-factor session — a genuine high-intensity effort — is considered a core element of the approach.

Double threshold training involves two threshold sessions in a single day. According to Casado & Bakken (2023)※1, in lactate-guided threshold interval training (LGTIT), both sessions target a blood lactate range of 2–4.5 mmol/L, with real-time measurement used to adjust pace throughout.

A crossover trial by Talsnes (2024)※2 showed that splitting one long threshold session into two shorter ones reduces heart rate, blood lactate, and perceived effort in the second half — and improves next-day recovery.

The idea of “two threshold sessions per day” often gets reduced to a catchy concept, but the true principle is more nuanced: accumulating threshold stimulus while managing pace through real-time blood lactate monitoring.

Finding the Right Training Model for You

Polarized training is the most common model among recreational runners, but whether it suits you personally is something only experience can reveal.

Some runners — whether due to health conditions or lifestyle constraints — may not be able to sustain much high-intensity work.

The best training model is the one you can sustain long-term. Experiment, observe how your body responds, and build from there.

References

※1 Casado A, Foster C, Bakken M, Tjelta LI (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?” Int J Environ Res Public Health

※2 Kjøsen Talsnes R et al. (2024) “Comparison of acute physiological responses between one long and two short sessions of moderate-intensity training in endurance athletes” Front Physiol

※3 Stoggl T, Sperlich B (2014) “Polarized Training Has Greater Impact on Key Endurance Variables Than Threshold, High Intensity, or High Volume Training” Frontiers in Physiology

※4 Silva Oliveira P, Boppre G, Fonseca H (2024) “Comparison of Polarized Versus Other Types of Endurance Training Intensity Distribution on Athletes’ Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis” Sports Med

※5 Campos Y, Casado A, Vieira JG et al. (2022) “Training-intensity Distribution on Middle- and Long-distance Runners: A Systematic Review” Int J Sports Med

※6 Seiler S (2010) “What is best practice for training intensity and duration distribution in endurance athletes?” Int J Sports Physiol Perform