Thanks for watching. If you'd like to go on a deeper dive, here are a couple resources. I cover a lot of the research in this free article I wrote years ago on VO2max and performance: www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html And...if you'd like to support my work, I've got a new book coming out soon called WIN THE INSIDE GAME. Check it out: www.stevemagness.com/win-the-inside-game/ Thanks for watching. I put out new videos on the science of performance every week! Consider subscribing.
I did 8 weeks of 4 x4 VO2 max efforts, all done on the treadmill, with an incline of 5%, i knocked 15 seconds of my 5 km PB, went from 17:07 to 16:52, so some improvement but not massive, I'm a 50 year old bloke and have been running 5 years. I think the idea is it takes a minute or two to get to VO2 max and you have a few minutes before you fatigue so I guess 4 minutes is about right
Thanks for this level set. This eliminates a lot of pointless worry for me. Over focusing on 4x4 stymied me for a while. Now I use Garmin virtual coach that varies the intervals, include long runs, and change the parameters every week or two. And I'm seeing steady progress in speed.
Thanks for giving us a framework to evaluate the claims of the influencers. Most people don't want to think about how it works, just do the workouts, but we need to be careful who we listen to or we fail to optimize our training and do not meet our goals.
Excellent overview of different training variables for running shoes in the middle there. Great job breaking down modern training dogma and showing that in fact, there are countless excellent ways to train! We see the same thing all the time in the strength \ hypertrophy space
Agree with everything except references to x-mile pace. A 5k pace for someone finising in 15min is a totally different intensity level than for a 25min finisher. Better refer to 4min, 8min, 16min, 30min, 60min speeds. That gives a more comparable relative intensity, not distance.
THanks. I agree that there's no perfect descriptor. I'll add in caveats. But I don't like saying "16 min speed" because in the real world that has no context. I think the best approach is using race paces but adding caveats for if you are slower, that could be 3k pace, etc. I should say, I mention this in the video a couple times. But since I work with high level athletes, it's my norm to just use paces. I'll try to remember to adjust more.
Loving these videos, Steve. The great UK coach Harry Wilson (Steve Ovett, Tony Simmons) used to emphasise that "it's results that count". Results in races not in physiological test in the lab. And he always said that training needed to cover all the bases. Winter of 1979-80 Ovett ran twenty weeks in succession of over 100 miles a week. In the summer months he did a lot of sprint work on the track and the hills. (And he did reps of 4 minutes in winter - but with very short recoveries) I have always beleievd that if you repeat a workout often enough you can get very good at that workout - but this doesn't always translate into racing performances. In the '70s, 6x800 with 400 jog was a popular session. I knew runners who could crush this workout but didn't race very fast over 1500, 3K or 5K.
Here’s a great idea for everyone mix in various sprints during the week - Norwegian 4 x 4, Wingate 30 second sprints 3-4 minute recovery, Tabatas 20 seconds then 10 seconds rest, Conventional 1 minute sprint 1 minute rest. Climb some stairs
My vo2max at 51 years old is 78.2. I will do another test in three weeks and I expect to get over 80. I do speed work three times a week and my longest run is 10k. It’s very easy to increase vo2max. You need to do 400,800,1500, 5k tempos 3k tempo 2k tempo 1k tempo 10k tempo Mix these up week after week and you will increase
"If it were easy everyone would be doing the same thing" something that really stuck with me, got back into running after 2 years after stopping bc of discouraging performances, learning new concepts, training ideologies and theories, faster than ever.
Another great video. It's all about the end goal. I had to Google who Bryan Johnson was I had never heard of him not sure how a 45 year old becomes a anti aging guru either .
Great video. Agree, the 4x4 is a great workout in a large variety of workouts. Also, a decrease in body weight will increase VO2max, so I'm sure the studies looked at that.
So much better than a lot of the training content out there. Huzzah. One thing that I’ve heard about 4x4 is it’s meant to be done not to complete fatigue. But that there is enough left in the tank to come back later that day or the next day and do quality work. In a future video I’d be curious to hear any thoughts you have on the idea of doing workouts(maybe even back to back) to accumulate stress that aren’t to complete fatigue versus the value of workouts that are done to fatigue. I suspect it’s a little similar to this video in that “it depends” on your goal and overall training.
Do this once every 10 days. Warm up, then 30 seconds at mile pace(or faster) 40 seconds rest. Repeat 8 times. 5 minute jog. Repeat 8 x 30/40. Cooldown. Garmin says 3.3 anaerobic, 3.3 aerobic. Reducing RI to 35 next time. Then 30 seconds. Getting my 64 year old legs moving finally!
Can you do a segment on the 80/20 principle and how the 20% hard portion should be distributed based on the event you are training for? For example would a marathon athlete distribute the 20% something along the lines of 15% at mp and 5% at 5-10k pace whereas the reverse might be true for 10k runner?
I was joining a military unit that had a bleep test as part of the selection course. I downloaded a copy, burned it to a CD and practiced it up and down my driveway once a week - made huge improvements just by doing one all out effort. Would easily get an extra 3 or 4 shuttles week on week.
Would u consider doing more times per week? Or do it once, walk for 10 minutes then do the shuttle run again? I like the idea of doing shuttle run as a workout as improvements measurable.
None of the Norwegian top runners (or even intermediate-level) use this protocol, because of all the reasons you mention. But for beginners who just want an effective workout for general health without diving into rabbit holes, it’s a quite decent recipe. Nothing magical about the numbers, but fits in nicely with the rest of the literature that has found 2-5 minute efforts at close to max effort with relatively long revovery in between reps, produces the best observed increases in VO2-max among test subjects. And why wouldn’t «most people» want to use VO2-max as target, as it is a precise indicator of health and longevity. I think that was also the original authors’ idea - to get easy access workouts to the masses. And somehow down the line some people have started taking it for gospel, which of course everyone that considers themselves more or less serious runners know is just BS.
Totally agree. At basically any level of running training inspired by the Norwegian treshold model one usually use longer intervals , and less intensity, example 5x6 min or 8-10x1000m etc.
Right on! Forget about magical formulae! I do think however that there may actually be simple way of training but that those who are seeking magical formulae just keep making everything more complicated than necessary.
5 x 4min works very well so 5 x 1k to 5x 1200 ideally with with equal rest breaks for true vo2max. Also hitting 96% true max heartrate = very hard running. Takes atleast 90sec to hit vo2max in a 4min interval. 2 to 3k race pace is true vo2max for most runners. Also only jogging on the days in-between in zone1 to allow the adaptations properly. The best method to raise vo2max in a low volume runner like a 22min 5k racer who runs 40miles a wk is to actually train 60-80miles a wk mostly easy for atleast 2years in zone 1 & 2 capping heartrate at 80% of true max. Then the 3rd year adding in true vo2max work. Anaerobic curve will lift as Aerobic curve lifts. A 22min 5ker may then run 18s and be much healthier and also marathon fit as opposed to just good at 6x800s but still run 20min after 2 or 3years. Cheers
Good video Steve. Per-Olof Åstrand, in his first book on exercise physiology (circe. 1970) said [and I'm paraphrasing] the most "fool-proof" way to raise VO2 Max was 3-5 repeats of 90-95% effort for 3-5 minutes with 3-5 minutes recovery. This 4 by 4 protocol has been around for a long time.
The goal of the VO2 max studies was not performance in races but (as it said) specifically VO2 max. I am 71 years old and not entering races. My goal is health. This is like criticizing King Lear as a play because it is not very funny. Funny was not Shakespeare's goal. Quite a few of the Norwegian studies were concerned with cardiac rehabilitation. None of these subjects were entering races. An important goal of VO2 max is avoiding death from a heart attack. Magness is making the argument that the 4x4 interval workout is not the best VO2 training because it is not the best 5K, 10K, or marathon training workout. But that is not the point. The point of these research studies was not racing performance. What we have here is another TH-cam expert.
So a few things. If you care about longevity, you should care about performance, not VO2max. Why? Because in the research, it is PERFORMANCE that predicts it. In nearly all of the studies you see, it's the SPEED of the treadmill at the end of the vo2max test that correlates with longevity/health, NOT the number itself. I explain it all in this video: th-cam.com/video/insEmxHXQSw/w-d-xo.html Secondly, if you care about increasing VO2max...it's not the best workout out there. Research shows (and practice tells us) that a varied approach is best. There is no magical workout. But....even if we wanted one magical workout, the best one to increase Vo2max wouldn't be 4x4 minutes. It would likely be something that was a bit shorter, with shorter rest, to accumulate more time at VO2max. See Billat's work, for example.
@@SteveMagness I have followed this discussion with great interest. I really beg you to provide evidence for this claim. References please? Like, a study, which shows us, that the running speed was the predictor of health, not vo2max, like you claim. Does this data really exist? Because as a gym rat getting older now, I am solely looking into the health benefits etc. If I can max out my "genetic limit vo2Max", that is definitely the most I will ever care about my running/cardio related goals. I find it hard to envision how a better running performance on top of that can be healthier. To me, that'd be probably sacrificing a lot of muscle mass and strength. And old people need those.
@@tuukkalaitinen813 You can find relevant studies cited here: thegrowtheq.com/longevity-and-vo2max-does-it-matter/ Vo2max plateaus relatively quickly compared to performance. The research largely correlated performance, not VO2max. Which is a GOOD thing. Because performance keeps improving for a much longer time, than Vo2max. And...it makes sense. Because performance takes into account all of the components of aerobic fitness, which are also important for health (mitochondria content, capilirization, fuel economy, etc.) I also cover it here: www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=47e5dceea252
@@SteveMagness Thank you very much indeed! Very nice! I shall study this stuff very, very carefully. Hmm. I think and hope that Rhonda (and Attia?) shall try to learn as well ? I mean, Attia talks about grip strength as a great proxy for strength. But that is just a proxy - I have not read his book, but I sure as hell hope he recommends strength training in general, not grip trainining - and maybe in some ways this 4x4 "hysteria" could be compared to that. Still it seems that high intensity exercise has many health benefits beyond low intensity, but I guess you are not disputing that.
Thx Steve. I love everything here. Debunking, explaining, offering nuance, the lot 👏 Question though. You say it's highly individual and you give a ton of examples, but could you perhaps clarify how you determine where someone is at and consecutively what they need?
One thing I don’t understand is how an elite runner can rep 4x4 minutes at 3k pace. My 2 mile is around 9:15 and just truly can’t imagine conpleating that workout with only 3 min nuts rest. Furthermore whenever I try working at 90-95% max heart rate I find my legs get tired way two quickly to hold on for that long. Am I just mentally week our is there something I’m missing?
I would love to see some researcher done on people with certain muscle fiber types and how they respond to different volumes and different intensities, because my hypothesis is that our genetics decide a lot of what training we will get the most out of which we know already that muscle fiber type will play a role on which events we work well in but how does that apply to how we can skew training to our genetic strengths.
You want the adaptations to your heart that occurs when training at 90-95 HRmax (when your left chamber gets filled), cause it is the most efficient way. You will need each effort to last more than 1-2 minutes so you reach optimum stroke volume. This regime will (clinically proven time after time) increase your oxygen uptake capacity in the most efficient way. There is a direct correlation between winning races and having the highest VO2max. Unless above is clinically proven wrong (wont happen) this was just a long video.
the thing with training Vo2 max, is how do we know our Vo2 has increased? it could be that our anaerobic work capacity has increased instead. performance may improve but is it a central adaptation or not?
I think would totally like your book. I assume in your book you are only referring to miles and min/mile paces (living the metric system its always terrible for me)?
QUESTION- (assuming the goal is specifically to improve V02max) would running the actual VO2max test protocol be a good way to improve V02max ? that is, continue elevating the treadmill incline every minute until heart rate max's out.
I'm curious of your opinions of what other elite coaches recommend, for example on the letsrun forum there's a well knows reply (more than 1 actually) by Renato Canova, it's the second page on the "Does it matter how fast you do your long runs?" thread from 2006, would put a link but YT sometimes doesn't like it. There he talks about the importance of doing long and fast runs to improve, if you really care about performance, compared to a an easy long run, as some recommended, using a 15 min 5k runner as an example. Thanks for the videos and your Science of Running book, looking forward to finishing it!
What are your thought on focusing on heart rate instead of pace? I.e, varying your pace to stay in the right heart zone for as large a portion as possible of whatever interval time you have decided on.
is periodization actually beneficial? in strength training they found it has no effect on strength of muscle gain. why would it be any different to running? as long as you're doing a variety of running types in one week, shouldn't repeating the week be completely fine?
Yes. In running, periodization matters. We have to play with a lot more variables and system interactions than you often have to do in strength training. So for example, we may intentionally let speed suffer slightly in order to boost lactate threshold, when emphasizing it more. But then maintain LT, while boosting speed later on.
Also if doing this protocol consistently, and correctly, would this be ideal for fat loss with someone looking to go from 15 percent down to 11 percent body fat?
Fat loss is mostly diet, not exercise. You can run for an hour and gain it all back by eating a hamburger or a couple of donuts. Look up Renaissance Periodization. The guy is a professor in sports science and a competing bodybuilder. He knows his stuff. One of the things he teaches is nutrition (as in, teaches professionally) He has great no-nonsense videos and playlists on sustainable weight loss (that won't make you miserable). And it can be adapted to pretty much any food preferences.
80% of training should be zone , only 20% near the anaerobic threshold. You need a wide base of zone 2 (building capilaries and mitochondrial efficiency) to build a high VO2Max peak (increasing number of mitochondria).
You aren't even right in your grammar. Its LOSE. A teacher taught me how to always remember the difference between lose and loose. The double oo in loose looks like boobs. Anytime you think about which to use, remember that loose women like to show their OO's. Youll never make the mistake again.
good feedback & critique, but your video testing my patience/attention span before your practical feedback begins around minute 15-16 into the 25 minute video
You totally misunderstood.. «4x4» has absolutely nothing to do with «the Norwegian Method». «4x4» comes from Norwegian scientists. «The Norwegian Method» comes from the personal research of Marius Bakken, and has influenced the training og Jakob Ingebrigtsen. It is based around huge amounts of LT2 work, staying well below Lactate 4/LT2. If you run 7:17 in 3000m you do something very right. The Norwegian Method is the best way to improve performance for long distance runners.. 4x4 is simply crap for elite runners, and should not be mixed in here.. In Norway, Marius Bakken has been arguing against 4 x4 for years..
6 months out of my marathon. During a 2 month base building phase with lots of easy running, would a double threshold day be ok? Edit: in the Norwegian method, lighter intensity in the morning compared to evening
@@RonnyC98 well it depends on your total mileage. If by tempo you mean at lactate threshold, 15km is almost certainly too long. Jack Daniels recommends about 5% of weekly mileage at Tempo pace max. Usually 20 min tempo run does the trick for us recreational runners. If you want to extend the amount, you could do sessions like 4x 6min or 3x 8min working up to 3x10min at threshold pace. True threshold can only be held by well trained runners for 60 minutes so unless you’re a rocket, 15km is too long. Even if you’re fast, this is probably too much stimulus in one session and will be detrimental to your second quality session or long run session of the week.
Read your book in full and I much better understand where you're coming from. What comes to mind on this video is your explanation that just because VO2 max can be measured, there's a hyper-fixation on it and it maybe hasn't found it correct level of importance yet. I'm less concerned about my VO2 max now and more concerned with race performance.
You are very much looking from a very narrow perspective of a runner, someone who loves the sport and its their hobby. As a powerbuilder, I specfically want to avoid the non vo2 max endurance adaptations because they will all worsen my performance in the sports that I like, I just want a higher vo2 max to avoid heart disease. I don't need more type1 fibers in my legs. I don't need to be a faster long distance runner. No1 who isn't a runner is going to spend 5 or 10 hours a week doing very low intensity runs. Controlling for time spent is great.
I think the Norwegian method should be judged in its context. The Norwegian tradition. In 1976 I was attending the youth talent group in Solør Orienteringskrets. The tradition back then was one day with intervals, one day strenght, two days long easy run, two or three days competing. We young runners didnt need as much long and easy as the adults because we vere biking and playing football several hours every day. When we go further, to Olav Alexander Bu and Kristian Blumenfeldt, its about variable training, at different speed and lenght different days. The Ingebriktsen brothers were doing double treshold intervals, but only on their intervaldays. Double threshold may be 4x4 both in the morning and the evening, but not as hard as the classic 4x4 from back in the seventies. 4x4 has never been meant to be an everydaytask. Its originally meant to be once a week, training different the other weekdays. I think the Swedes have a good idea. Their best 50 km skiier, Frida Karlsson did 3 x 45 minute intervals at 50 km competitionspeed.
@@SteveMagness you are absolutely right about criticizing the research you found. This research has a bad design and is not supported by real training traditions. It is a typical scientist error. Scientist tend to isolate what they will test, and with isolating we lose the context, and then the whole study gets unrealistic. It does not give much answer and is only valid for training for such a short period in these very strange ways. Strange because the atlethes doesnt do it this way. What I learnt at the university is to work knowledgebased, and most of the knowledge is to be found in the real world, less in narrow scientific studies. Knowledge about intervals and the Norwegian method is to be found among atlethes and trainers, and at toppidrettsenteret, idrettshøyskolen, olympiatoppen. And among huge numbers of atlethes and trainers all over the world, including you. Steve Magness, you obviously is full of good knowledge. I like your video and will listen more too you. High end knowledge we find where the strongest atlethes is, and this is buildt by training, competing and testing for years and maybe decades. Problem is that it not all this knowledge can be used untransformed for me and Joe Average. We need something less ambitious not pushing us too hard. I strongly belive that mediocrity is underestimated and that achiveving ok capasity thats far beyond the atlethes is very good and healthy. I train roughly 365 hours this year and will never compete at anything. Who did the best Vo2 max training? Look at them scoring more than 90 ml/kg bodyweight. What did they do? I have a hunch that somebody at Norsk Toppidrettsgymnas know something, because they have sent several young Vo2 monsters to the elite-sport. For example Jørgen Nordhagen.
This isn't true. A 30 minute run at an easy pace gives substantial benefits. And you can get the vast majority of the benefits with 45min on most days a week.
If you look at the research, it's aerobic performance that is best correlated with health and longevity, not just VO2max. So the best predictor isn't your VO2max number, it's how fast did you get at the end of the test. It's a subtle but important distinction. Which is why most people who care about health, should just try and get faster over a mile or 5k. That'll be better than chasing VO2max numbers.
@@SteveMagnessCan you link to some research showing aerobic performance is a better metric for health and longevity than vo2max? First time I hear about this.
@@SteveMagness Yes that's the problem I have about health / performance - the specialisation: which one? Everything between marathon and sprint? Just choose one? Or two to alternate between so I don't get adapted to one? Or does any adaptation / improvement in performance mean improvement in VO2max?
Reading your article linked in the show notes. Have you come across Ben Bocchicchio? He's a resistance trainer who organises things routines around muscle recruitment. He wants to talk to other trainers about whether resistance training is the best way to improve VO2max, which sounds like it could be an interesting conversation. For those of us interested in health - there are correlations of VO2max with health; or there similar correlations with performance?
I feel like you're using clickbait to draw people in and then nitpicking minutia to come across as different and/or the only guy in the world who is right. If 4x4 is not the best, fine, then what IS? When you make such a claim it implies something else IS better. So, what is it? Some kind of obscure, nebulous answer is insufficient because the rejection is specific. "Almost as good" (as the 4x4) is not as good.
The idea is that it's not some magical workout, you could reach a similar stimulus in more ways than one, so there is no point in focusing on some magical workout. There's also the thing that maybe you shouldn't even focus on vo2max as it's not that good of a metric for running/race performance, which he talks about in another video.
I'm taking things said by actual big time health influencers and explaining what they get wrong. If they didn't say it, I wouldn't have to explain it. And the whole point is... there is NO best workout. It's impossible to define or even figure out. The "best" workout is actually a wide variety of them, shifting stimulus in a logical manner, that balances training. I discussed this in my last youtube video. And I wrote an entire book on it: The Science of Running. I'd suggest checking out those if you are interested in learning more.
All these studies as far as I know are with young people, I would like to know the impact on older age (60+) and the risk to the heart, for example, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter due to high intensity workouts while endeavouring to raise VO2Max.
@stevemagness We older runners would love to see how training could be adapted - e.g. as max HR falls and VO2 Max falls, is there anything that needs changed? The part about rest and recovery is covered many places, but not actual workout modifications.
Thanks for watching. If you'd like to go on a deeper dive, here are a couple resources.
I cover a lot of the research in this free article I wrote years ago on VO2max and performance: www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html
And...if you'd like to support my work, I've got a new book coming out soon called WIN THE INSIDE GAME. Check it out: www.stevemagness.com/win-the-inside-game/
Thanks for watching. I put out new videos on the science of performance every week! Consider subscribing.
I did 8 weeks of 4 x4 VO2 max efforts, all done on the treadmill, with an incline of 5%, i knocked 15 seconds of my 5 km PB, went from 17:07 to 16:52, so some improvement but not massive, I'm a 50 year old bloke and have been running 5 years. I think the idea is it takes a minute or two to get to VO2 max and you have a few minutes before you fatigue so I guess 4 minutes is about right
Super PB though! Getting in the 16s at 50 is very competitive.
5% treadmill incline is tough, wow
What was your recovery between the efforts?
@@Gillibrand65 3 minutes, so full recovery really.
@@LightspeedAstronaut Well done! How many 4 x 4 workouts did you do each week?
Thanks for this level set. This eliminates a lot of pointless worry for me. Over focusing on 4x4 stymied me for a while. Now I use Garmin virtual coach that varies the intervals, include long runs, and change the parameters every week or two. And I'm seeing steady progress in speed.
Glad to help!
Thanks for giving us a framework to evaluate the claims of the influencers. Most people don't want to think about how it works, just do the workouts, but we need to be careful who we listen to or we fail to optimize our training and do not meet our goals.
Glad it was helpful!
Excellent overview of different training variables for running shoes in the middle there. Great job breaking down modern training dogma and showing that in fact, there are countless excellent ways to train! We see the same thing all the time in the strength \ hypertrophy space
Agree with everything except references to x-mile pace. A 5k pace for someone finising in 15min is a totally different intensity level than for a 25min finisher. Better refer to 4min, 8min, 16min, 30min, 60min speeds. That gives a more comparable relative intensity, not distance.
THanks. I agree that there's no perfect descriptor. I'll add in caveats. But I don't like saying "16 min speed" because in the real world that has no context. I think the best approach is using race paces but adding caveats for if you are slower, that could be 3k pace, etc.
I should say, I mention this in the video a couple times. But since I work with high level athletes, it's my norm to just use paces. I'll try to remember to adjust more.
great point there gerry!
Yes, the “artist” is a good description! Thank you for yet another informative video!
Loving these videos, Steve. The great UK coach Harry Wilson (Steve Ovett, Tony Simmons) used to emphasise that "it's results that count". Results in races not in physiological test in the lab. And he always said that training needed to cover all the bases. Winter of 1979-80 Ovett ran twenty weeks in succession of over 100 miles a week. In the summer months he did a lot of sprint work on the track and the hills. (And he did reps of 4 minutes in winter - but with very short recoveries)
I have always beleievd that if you repeat a workout often enough you can get very good at that workout - but this doesn't always translate into racing performances. In the '70s, 6x800 with 400 jog was a popular session. I knew runners who could crush this workout but didn't race very fast over 1500, 3K or 5K.
Great insight. Harry Wilson was great. I loved his book.
Here’s a great idea for everyone mix in various sprints during the week -
Norwegian 4 x 4,
Wingate 30 second sprints 3-4 minute recovery,
Tabatas 20 seconds then 10 seconds rest,
Conventional 1 minute sprint 1 minute rest.
Climb some stairs
Or more fun: 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 800, 400, 200, 100. That’s my favorite.
My vo2max at 51 years old is 78.2.
I will do another test in three weeks and I expect to get over 80.
I do speed work three times a week and my longest run is 10k.
It’s very easy to increase vo2max.
You need to do 400,800,1500,
5k tempos 3k tempo 2k tempo 1k tempo
10k tempo
Mix these up week after week and you will increase
"If it were easy everyone would be doing the same thing" something that really stuck with me, got back into running after 2 years after stopping bc of discouraging performances, learning new concepts, training ideologies and theories, faster than ever.
Another great video. It's all about the end goal. I had to Google who Bryan Johnson was I had never heard of him not sure how a 45 year old becomes a anti aging guru either .
Great video. Agree, the 4x4 is a great workout in a large variety of workouts.
Also, a decrease in body weight will increase VO2max, so I'm sure the studies looked at that.
So much better than a lot of the training content out there. Huzzah.
One thing that I’ve heard about 4x4 is it’s meant to be done not to complete fatigue. But that there is enough left in the tank to come back later that day or the next day and do quality work. In a future video I’d be curious to hear any thoughts you have on the idea of doing workouts(maybe even back to back) to accumulate stress that aren’t to complete fatigue versus the value of workouts that are done to fatigue. I suspect it’s a little similar to this video in that “it depends” on your goal and overall training.
Do this once every 10 days.
Warm up, then 30 seconds at mile pace(or faster) 40 seconds rest. Repeat 8 times. 5 minute jog. Repeat 8 x 30/40. Cooldown.
Garmin says 3.3 anaerobic, 3.3 aerobic. Reducing RI to 35 next time. Then 30 seconds.
Getting my 64 year old legs moving finally!
Can you do a segment on the 80/20 principle and how the 20% hard portion should be distributed based on the event you are training for? For example would a marathon athlete distribute the 20% something along the lines of 15% at mp and 5% at 5-10k pace whereas the reverse might be true for 10k runner?
I was joining a military unit that had a bleep test as part of the selection course.
I downloaded a copy, burned it to a CD and practiced it up and down my driveway once a week - made huge improvements just by doing one all out effort. Would easily get an extra 3 or 4 shuttles week on week.
Would u consider doing more times per week? Or do it once, walk for 10 minutes then do the shuttle run again? I like the idea of doing shuttle run as a workout as improvements measurable.
Great work Steve! Love this
Thanks so much!
None of the Norwegian top runners (or even intermediate-level) use this protocol, because of all the reasons you mention. But for beginners who just want an effective workout for general health without diving into rabbit holes, it’s a quite decent recipe. Nothing magical about the numbers, but fits in nicely with the rest of the literature that has found 2-5 minute efforts at close to max effort with relatively long revovery in between reps, produces the best observed increases in VO2-max among test subjects. And why wouldn’t «most people» want to use VO2-max as target, as it is a precise indicator of health and longevity. I think that was also the original authors’ idea - to get easy access workouts to the masses. And somehow down the line some people have started taking it for gospel, which of course everyone that considers themselves more or less serious runners know is just BS.
Totally agree. At basically any level of running training inspired by the Norwegian treshold model one usually use longer intervals , and less intensity, example 5x6 min or 8-10x1000m etc.
Right on! Forget about magical formulae! I do think however that there may actually be simple way of training but that those who are seeking magical formulae just keep making everything more complicated than necessary.
I love the passion. You got my subscription 🎉
Awesome! Thank you!
5 x 4min works very well so 5 x 1k to 5x 1200 ideally with with equal rest breaks for true vo2max. Also hitting 96% true max heartrate = very hard running. Takes atleast 90sec to hit vo2max in a 4min interval. 2 to 3k race pace is true vo2max for most runners. Also only jogging on the days in-between in zone1 to allow the adaptations properly.
The best method to raise vo2max in a low volume runner like a 22min 5k racer who runs 40miles a wk is to actually train 60-80miles a wk mostly easy for atleast 2years in zone 1 & 2 capping heartrate at 80% of true max. Then the 3rd year adding in true vo2max work. Anaerobic curve will lift as Aerobic curve lifts.
A 22min 5ker may then run 18s and be much healthier and also marathon fit as opposed to just good at 6x800s but still run 20min after 2 or 3years. Cheers
Good video Steve. Per-Olof Åstrand, in his first book on exercise physiology (circe. 1970) said [and I'm paraphrasing] the most "fool-proof" way to raise VO2 Max was 3-5 repeats of 90-95% effort for 3-5 minutes with 3-5 minutes recovery. This 4 by 4 protocol has been around for a long time.
It's because it came out of athletes doing 4 x 1mile at 5k-3k pace. It goes back much further than that.
@@SteveMagness I understand your point. All I'm saying is that "the science" for the protocol was established more than 50 years ago.
The goal of the VO2 max studies was not performance in races but (as it said) specifically VO2 max. I am 71 years old and not entering races. My goal is health. This is like criticizing King Lear as a play because it is not very funny. Funny was not Shakespeare's goal. Quite a few of the Norwegian studies were concerned with cardiac rehabilitation. None of these subjects were entering races. An important goal of VO2 max is avoiding death from a heart attack. Magness is making the argument that the 4x4 interval workout is not the best VO2 training because it is not the best 5K, 10K, or marathon training workout. But that is not the point. The point of these research studies was not racing performance. What we have here is another TH-cam expert.
So a few things.
If you care about longevity, you should care about performance, not VO2max. Why? Because in the research, it is PERFORMANCE that predicts it. In nearly all of the studies you see, it's the SPEED of the treadmill at the end of the vo2max test that correlates with longevity/health, NOT the number itself.
I explain it all in this video: th-cam.com/video/insEmxHXQSw/w-d-xo.html
Secondly, if you care about increasing VO2max...it's not the best workout out there. Research shows (and practice tells us) that a varied approach is best. There is no magical workout. But....even if we wanted one magical workout, the best one to increase Vo2max wouldn't be 4x4 minutes. It would likely be something that was a bit shorter, with shorter rest, to accumulate more time at VO2max. See Billat's work, for example.
@@SteveMagness I have followed this discussion with great interest. I really beg you to provide evidence for this claim. References please? Like, a study, which shows us, that the running speed was the predictor of health, not vo2max, like you claim. Does this data really exist? Because as a gym rat getting older now, I am solely looking into the health benefits etc. If I can max out my "genetic limit vo2Max", that is definitely the most I will ever care about my running/cardio related goals. I find it hard to envision how a better running performance on top of that can be healthier. To me, that'd be probably sacrificing a lot of muscle mass and strength. And old people need those.
@@tuukkalaitinen813 You can find relevant studies cited here: thegrowtheq.com/longevity-and-vo2max-does-it-matter/
Vo2max plateaus relatively quickly compared to performance. The research largely correlated performance, not VO2max. Which is a GOOD thing. Because performance keeps improving for a much longer time, than Vo2max. And...it makes sense. Because performance takes into account all of the components of aerobic fitness, which are also important for health (mitochondria content, capilirization, fuel economy, etc.)
I also cover it here:
www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=47e5dceea252
@@SteveMagness Thank you very much indeed! Very nice! I shall study this stuff very, very carefully. Hmm. I think and hope that Rhonda (and Attia?) shall try to learn as well ? I mean, Attia talks about grip strength as a great proxy for strength. But that is just a proxy - I have not read his book, but I sure as hell hope he recommends strength training in general, not grip trainining - and maybe in some ways this 4x4 "hysteria" could be compared to that. Still it seems that high intensity exercise has many health benefits beyond low intensity, but I guess you are not disputing that.
Thx Steve. I love everything here. Debunking, explaining, offering nuance, the lot 👏
Question though. You say it's highly individual and you give a ton of examples, but could you perhaps clarify how you determine where someone is at and consecutively what they need?
One thing I don’t understand is how an elite runner can rep 4x4 minutes at 3k pace. My 2 mile is around 9:15 and just truly can’t imagine conpleating that workout with only 3 min nuts rest. Furthermore whenever I try working at 90-95% max heart rate I find my legs get tired way two quickly to hold on for that long. Am I just mentally week our is there something I’m missing?
Good stuff coach!
Thanks!
I would love to see some researcher done on people with certain muscle fiber types and how they respond to different volumes and different intensities, because my hypothesis is that our genetics decide a lot of what training we will get the most out of which we know already that muscle fiber type will play a role on which events we work well in but how does that apply to how we can skew training to our genetic strengths.
Yes. I wrote about this in my book. Will cover in detail at some point.
You want the adaptations to your heart that occurs when training at 90-95 HRmax (when your left chamber gets filled), cause it is the most efficient way. You will need each effort to last more than 1-2 minutes so you reach optimum stroke volume. This regime will (clinically proven time after time) increase your oxygen uptake capacity in the most efficient way. There is a direct correlation between winning races and having the highest VO2max.
Unless above is clinically proven wrong (wont happen) this was just a long video.
I've found 6x anything on the track works well. Vent threshold needs to be long, 6x 1 mile. Even 10x 1 mile for a marathon.
the thing with training Vo2 max, is how do we know our Vo2 has increased? it could be that our anaerobic work capacity has increased instead. performance may improve but is it a central adaptation or not?
Being an artist, well said.
I think would totally like your book.
I assume in your book you are only referring to miles and min/mile paces (living the metric system its always terrible for me)?
QUESTION- (assuming the goal is specifically to improve V02max) would running the actual VO2max test protocol be a good way to improve V02max ? that is, continue elevating the treadmill incline every minute until heart rate max's out.
Can someone explain exactly what is this 4x4 work out consists of???
I'm curious of your opinions of what other elite coaches recommend, for example on the letsrun forum there's a well knows reply (more than 1 actually) by Renato Canova, it's the second page on the "Does it matter how fast you do your long runs?" thread from 2006, would put a link but YT sometimes doesn't like it. There he talks about the importance of doing long and fast runs to improve, if you really care about performance, compared to a an easy long run, as some recommended, using a 15 min 5k runner as an example.
Thanks for the videos and your Science of Running book, looking forward to finishing it!
Great question. I'll put it in the Que to cover long runs.
What are your thought on focusing on heart rate instead of pace?
I.e, varying your pace to stay in the right heart zone for as large a portion as possible of whatever interval time you have decided on.
is periodization actually beneficial? in strength training they found it has no effect on strength of muscle gain. why would it be any different to running? as long as you're doing a variety of running types in one week, shouldn't repeating the week be completely fine?
Yes. In running, periodization matters. We have to play with a lot more variables and system interactions than you often have to do in strength training.
So for example, we may intentionally let speed suffer slightly in order to boost lactate threshold, when emphasizing it more. But then maintain LT, while boosting speed later on.
You can cyberstalk very professional endurance athlete who post to strava and look and their training schedule. They are all periodized.
Hi Steve whats your thoughts on Double Threshold workouts?
Also if doing this protocol consistently, and correctly, would this be ideal for fat loss with someone looking to go from 15 percent down to 11 percent body fat?
Fat loss is mostly diet, not exercise. You can run for an hour and gain it all back by eating a hamburger or a couple of donuts.
Look up Renaissance Periodization. The guy is a professor in sports science and a competing bodybuilder. He knows his stuff. One of the things he teaches is nutrition (as in, teaches professionally)
He has great no-nonsense videos and playlists on sustainable weight loss (that won't make you miserable). And it can be adapted to pretty much any food preferences.
The best interval is 1x whatever race distance you are going, because that is the most sport specific.
80% of training should be zone , only 20% near the anaerobic threshold. You need a wide base of zone 2 (building capilaries and mitochondrial efficiency) to build a high VO2Max peak (increasing number of mitochondria).
Best way to increase VO2 max is... To loose weight.. You know I'm right 🎉🎉🎉
You aren't even right in your grammar. Its LOSE. A teacher taught me how to always remember the difference between lose and loose. The double oo in loose looks like boobs. Anytime you think about which to use, remember that loose women like to show their OO's. Youll never make the mistake again.
You might be right, but you're wrong about how to spell lose....
vo2max doesnt increase with losing weight. But you can go faster.
edit: i might be wrong.
When your weight is loose it juggles like a bowl of jelly.
@@-Stop-it And how does this increase vo2max?
good feedback & critique, but your video testing my patience/attention span before your practical feedback begins around minute 15-16 into the 25 minute video
You totally misunderstood.. «4x4» has absolutely nothing to do with «the Norwegian Method». «4x4» comes from Norwegian scientists. «The Norwegian Method» comes from the personal research of Marius Bakken, and has influenced the training og Jakob Ingebrigtsen. It is based around huge amounts of LT2 work, staying well below Lactate 4/LT2. If you run 7:17 in 3000m you do something very right. The Norwegian Method is the best way to improve performance for long distance runners.. 4x4 is simply crap for elite runners, and should not be mixed in here.. In Norway, Marius Bakken has been arguing against 4 x4 for years..
6 months out of my marathon. During a 2 month base building phase with lots of easy running, would a double threshold day be ok? Edit: in the Norwegian method, lighter intensity in the morning compared to evening
Double threshold is for high mileage individuals. For a novice, injury risk is the concern.
Well what would be the difference in injury risk vs a 15 km tempo run? I feel equally as tired at the end.
@@RonnyC98 well it depends on your total mileage. If by tempo you mean at lactate threshold, 15km is almost certainly too long. Jack Daniels recommends about 5% of weekly mileage at Tempo pace max. Usually 20 min tempo run does the trick for us recreational runners. If you want to extend the amount, you could do sessions like 4x 6min or 3x 8min working up to 3x10min at threshold pace.
True threshold can only be held by well trained runners for 60 minutes so unless you’re a rocket, 15km is too long. Even if you’re fast, this is probably too much stimulus in one session and will be detrimental to your second quality session or long run session of the week.
Read your book in full and I much better understand where you're coming from. What comes to mind on this video is your explanation that just because VO2 max can be measured, there's a hyper-fixation on it and it maybe hasn't found it correct level of importance yet. I'm less concerned about my VO2 max now and more concerned with race performance.
Didn't reaserch show you accumulate most time at vo2max (>90%hr max) with this protocol and that's reason why is most efficient?
You actually spend more time at VO2max with short intervals with short rest. See Billat's work in the early 2000s.
4x4 makes you good at 4x4.
SAID principle. Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. This is true for all training.
What about my favourite....4x8 min !!??
I guess my goal won’t be to improve my vo2 it’s been the same for ever!
You are very much looking from a very narrow perspective of a runner, someone who loves the sport and its their hobby.
As a powerbuilder, I specfically want to avoid the non vo2 max endurance adaptations because they will all worsen my performance in the sports that I like, I just want a higher vo2 max to avoid heart disease. I don't need more type1 fibers in my legs. I don't need to be a faster long distance runner.
No1 who isn't a runner is going to spend 5 or 10 hours a week doing very low intensity runs. Controlling for time spent is great.
I think the Norwegian method should be judged in its context. The Norwegian tradition. In 1976 I was attending the youth talent group in Solør Orienteringskrets. The tradition back then was one day with intervals, one day strenght, two days long easy run, two or three days competing. We young runners didnt need as much long and easy as the adults because we vere biking and playing football several hours every day. When we go further, to Olav Alexander Bu and Kristian Blumenfeldt, its about variable training, at different speed and lenght different days. The Ingebriktsen brothers were doing double treshold intervals, but only on their intervaldays. Double threshold may be 4x4 both in the morning and the evening, but not as hard as the classic 4x4 from back in the seventies. 4x4 has never been meant to be an everydaytask. Its originally meant to be once a week, training different the other weekdays.
I think the Swedes have a good idea. Their best 50 km skiier, Frida Karlsson did 3 x 45 minute intervals at 50 km competitionspeed.
I agree. That's part of why I made this video and will make another on the actual Norwegian method.
@@SteveMagness you are absolutely right about criticizing the research you found. This research has a bad design and is not supported by real training traditions. It is a typical scientist error. Scientist tend to isolate what they will test, and with isolating we lose the context, and then the whole study gets unrealistic. It does not give much answer and is only valid for training for such a short period in these very strange ways. Strange because the atlethes doesnt do it this way. What I learnt at the university is to work knowledgebased, and most of the knowledge is to be found in the real world, less in narrow scientific studies. Knowledge about intervals and the Norwegian method is to be found among atlethes and trainers, and at toppidrettsenteret, idrettshøyskolen, olympiatoppen. And among huge numbers of atlethes and trainers all over the world, including you. Steve Magness, you obviously is full of good knowledge. I like your video and will listen more too you.
High end knowledge we find where the strongest atlethes is, and this is buildt by training, competing and testing for years and maybe decades. Problem is that it not all this knowledge can be used untransformed for me and Joe Average. We need something less ambitious not pushing us too hard. I strongly belive that mediocrity is underestimated and that achiveving ok capasity thats far beyond the atlethes is very good and healthy. I train roughly 365 hours this year and will never compete at anything.
Who did the best Vo2 max training? Look at them scoring more than 90 ml/kg bodyweight. What did they do? I have a hunch that somebody at Norsk Toppidrettsgymnas know something, because they have sent several young Vo2 monsters to the elite-sport. For example Jørgen Nordhagen.
It worked fine for Marit Bjorgen.
After Kona 2024 it seems clear, that the "Norwegian Method" can't be something special :D
🙏🏽🙏🏽
More training harder in my opinion. Zone 2 has to be done for 3 hours. Or more. For most training though you havr to go very hard.
This isn't true. A 30 minute run at an easy pace gives substantial benefits. And you can get the vast majority of the benefits with 45min on most days a week.
Dude, physiology does matter.
No pun intended ,but you're "LONG WINDED " get to the POINT !!!
Are we just slapping 'Norwegian' in front of tried and true training methods in the hope that it suddenly sounds sexy again?
Yes. That's what, sadly, is occurring in the influencer world.
4x4 ≠ the norwegian method.
Yes. That's correct and pointed out. The more popularized Norwegian method is the threshold model developed by Marius Bakken.
Those of interested in improving health are interested in vo2max.
If you look at the research, it's aerobic performance that is best correlated with health and longevity, not just VO2max. So the best predictor isn't your VO2max number, it's how fast did you get at the end of the test.
It's a subtle but important distinction. Which is why most people who care about health, should just try and get faster over a mile or 5k. That'll be better than chasing VO2max numbers.
@@SteveMagnessCan you link to some research showing aerobic performance is a better metric for health and longevity than vo2max? First time I hear about this.
I link to the relevant research here: thegrowtheq.com/longevity-and-vo2max-does-it-matter/
@@SteveMagness Yes that's the problem I have about health / performance - the specialisation: which one? Everything between marathon and sprint? Just choose one? Or two to alternate between so I don't get adapted to one? Or does any adaptation / improvement in performance mean improvement in VO2max?
Reading your article linked in the show notes. Have you come across Ben Bocchicchio? He's a resistance trainer who organises things routines around muscle recruitment. He wants to talk to other trainers about whether resistance training is the best way to improve VO2max, which sounds like it could be an interesting conversation. For those of us interested in health - there are correlations of VO2max with health; or there similar correlations with performance?
This sounds a lot like tabata. A prolonged tabata workout.
Dafuq is the Norwegian method?
I feel like you're using clickbait to draw people in and then nitpicking minutia to come across as different and/or the only guy in the world who is right.
If 4x4 is not the best, fine, then what IS? When you make such a claim it implies something else IS better. So, what is it? Some kind of obscure, nebulous answer is insufficient because the rejection is specific.
"Almost as good" (as the 4x4) is not as good.
The idea is that it's not some magical workout, you could reach a similar stimulus in more ways than one, so there is no point in focusing on some magical workout.
There's also the thing that maybe you shouldn't even focus on vo2max as it's not that good of a metric for running/race performance, which he talks about in another video.
I'm taking things said by actual big time health influencers and explaining what they get wrong. If they didn't say it, I wouldn't have to explain it.
And the whole point is... there is NO best workout. It's impossible to define or even figure out. The "best" workout is actually a wide variety of them, shifting stimulus in a logical manner, that balances training. I discussed this in my last youtube video. And I wrote an entire book on it: The Science of Running. I'd suggest checking out those if you are interested in learning more.
@@xtrwq Thank you! Spot on.
All these studies as far as I know are with young people, I would like to know the impact on older age (60+) and the risk to the heart, for example, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter due to high intensity workouts while endeavouring to raise VO2Max.
@stevemagness We older runners would love to see how training could be adapted - e.g. as max HR falls and VO2 Max falls, is there anything that needs changed?
The part about rest and recovery is covered many places, but not actual workout modifications.
Would like Science of Running on kindle. NZ has no paperback copy