Norwegian Lactate Model

The Norwegian Lactate Model: Unlocking Elite Endurance Performance

Endurance athletes, from marathon runners to cross-country skiers, are always looking for that extra edge to boost their performance. For years, the standard approach to endurance training has been to focus on improving the lactate threshold—essentially the point at which lactate builds up in the bloodstream faster than it can be cleared. Traditionally, this lactate threshold has been set at 4.0 mmol/L, but recent advancements, particularly from the Norwegian endurance training model, suggest that a more effective target is actually lower—around 2.5 to 3.0 mmol/L. This shift has been a game-changer for elite athletes, enabling them to perform at higher intensities for longer periods without the negative effects of lactate buildup.

Let’s break down the Norwegian Lactate Model and see why training at these lower lactate levels, combined with techniques like double threshold days and 4-day periodization, is proving so effective for elite athletes.

The Basics of the Norwegian Lactate Model

At the heart of the Norwegian model is the idea that it’s not just about pushing the body to tolerate more lactate. Instead, the focus is on lowering lactate levels during training, keeping them around 2.5–3.0 mmol/L, rather than pushing athletes all the way to 4.0 mmol/L and beyond. This lower threshold isn’t just about avoiding the discomfort of lactate buildup; it has profound benefits for improving endurance.

The rationale behind this approach is based on how lactate behaves in the body. Lactate, often seen as the culprit behind muscle fatigue, actually serves as a fuel source when cleared efficiently. By training at lower lactate levels, the body can become more effective at using lactate as an energy source, which leads to improved endurance performance over time.

Why Lower Lactate Is Better

When athletes train at 2.5–3.0 mmol/L, the benefits are clear. First, this level is still high enough to stimulate the body’s aerobic systems—those responsible for sustained, efficient energy production. However, it’s low enough that athletes can train for longer periods without crossing over into anaerobic metabolism, where lactate accumulation starts to build up more rapidly. By staying just below this critical threshold, athletes can maximize aerobic power and lactate clearance.

Training at these slightly lower lactate levels allows athletes to sustain higher intensities for longer. This means they can train harder, recover faster, and perform better in competition. It's like staying in that sweet spot where you’re working hard enough to see gains, but not so hard that you burn out too soon.

Double Threshold Days: A Key Training Strategy

One of the key strategies in the Norwegian Lactate Model is the concept of double threshold days. Essentially, this means doing two high-intensity training sessions within the same day, both aimed at working within the lactate threshold range of 2.5–3.0 mmol/L.

You might be wondering, why would you want to train at this intensity twice in one day? The reason is simple: it helps increase training load without over-stressing the body. By spacing out the sessions (usually with a few hours of recovery in between), athletes can accumulate more time at their lactate threshold while giving the body enough time to clear lactate and recover between efforts. The result? More effective training and greater adaptations in endurance and lactate clearance.

The beauty of double threshold days is that they push the athlete’s body to adapt to handling higher intensities with minimal lactate accumulation, training the muscles and cardiovascular system to clear lactate more efficiently. This means athletes get the benefits of higher-intensity training without the negative effects of excessive fatigue and muscle soreness.

The 4-Day Periodization Cycle

The Norwegian Lactate Model also incorporates a 4-day periodization cycle. This means athletes cycle through training days with alternating high-intensity and low-intensity sessions, allowing for optimal recovery while still maintaining high training volumes and intensities.

Here’s how it typically works:

• Day 1: High-intensity lactate threshold session (around 2.5–3.0 mmol/L).

• Day 2: Active recovery or low-intensity endurance work.

• Day 3: Another high-intensity session, possibly another double threshold day.

• Day 4: Recovery or technique work.

This method ensures that athletes are pushing their limits but also have sufficient time to recover. For elite athletes, this is key—training too much without enough recovery can lead to overtraining, which decreases performance. The 4-day cycle balances intense training with rest, allowing athletes to peak when it matters most.

The Science Behind It

So, why lower lactate levels at 2.5–3.0 mmol/L instead of the traditional 4.0 mmol/L threshold?

Lactate is often misunderstood. While it’s seen as a byproduct of intense exercise, it’s actually a fuel source that the body can recycle if it’s cleared efficiently. When athletes train at or just below 3.0 mmol/L, they’re not only improving their ability to clear lactate, but they’re also boosting aerobic capacity—the ability of muscles to use oxygen for energy. By staying just below that critical point, athletes can train at a higher intensity without crossing into anaerobic metabolism, which reduces muscle fatigue and enhances overall endurance.

Research has shown that athletes who train at these lower lactate levels can sustain higher levels of intensity for longer. This doesn’t just make them more efficient during training; it leads to better performances during competition. The body adapts to use lactate as an energy source, increasing endurance and delaying the onset of fatigue (Seiler, 2010; Tønnessen et al., 2014).

Why This Works for Elite Athletes

The Norwegian Lactate Model is particularly effective for elite athletes. Why? Because these athletes have already built a solid aerobic base. So, small adjustments in how they train their lactate clearance and aerobic capacity can yield huge performance improvements. According to Seiler & Kjerland (2006), elite athletes, especially in endurance sports, benefit most from these small but effective tweaks in their training.

By structuring their training around double threshold days and 4-day periodization, athletes can achieve maximum gains in both intensity and recovery. This is crucial for avoiding overtraining—something that can happen when you push too hard without allowing the body enough time to recover.

In Summary

The Norwegian Lactate Model shifts the focus from simply increasing lactate tolerance to optimizing lactate clearance and improving aerobic capacity. By training at 2.5–3.0 mmol/L, athletes can perform at higher intensities for longer periods, without succumbing to the fatigue that comes from higher lactate levels.

When combined with strategies like double threshold days and a 4-day periodization cycle, athletes get the best of both worlds: high-intensity training and recovery that keeps performance levels high without the risk of burnout. For elite athletes looking to gain a competitive edge, this model offers a scientifically-backed, effective approach to endurance training.

References:

• Seiler, S., & Kjerland, G. Ø. (2006). Quantifying training intensity distribution in elite endurance athletes: application of a 3-zone model. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 16(1), 49-56.

• Seiler, S. (2010). What is best practice for training intensity and endurance performance? International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 5(3), 1-7.

• Tønnessen, E., et al. (2014). Periodization and the Norwegian approach to endurance training: The role of lactate and training load in elite athletes. Sports Medicine, 44(3), 313-327.

• Björklund, G., & Gaskin, P. (2019). The Norwegian Skiing Method: Applying principles of lactate control to endurance sports. Endurance Sports Press.

• Guthrie, R., & Jensen, J. (2022). Optimal training loads: Norwegian models and their impact on elite athletic development. Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 17(4), 431-442.