I don’t know, yes, there is this session schedule in the back of the book. But look at the summary of the threshold chapter:
Now what is this different take? That you run more controlled at lower intensity in lovely sunshine? But it’s still a steady effort for a long time.
Confusing. I have the impression that the book may have lost some information in its translation from French. It appears a little.
Yep, you’re right. I see the contradiction now. The closest sample session to steady/constant is an easy pace with 1 min “sprints” (which I would not call strides, too long). But then you have what you posted. Definitely confusing.
Her co-author is a native English speaker. Let’s blame him. LOL.
If you go to “The Ten Golden Rules of The Billattraining. com Method”, a steady tempo run is not prescribed. 
To be fair, the sample sessions are just that: samples. You have to formally sign up for the training program to get access to other sessions, one of which may very well be a standard tempo run.
As someone that often has to parse sentences, the different take could be “don’t do them, however for completeness if you insist on doing threshold runs then do them on the flats in good weather at a steady pace without negative splitting it” 
I’ll pick up a copy of the book when I have time to read it, without more context its hard to say.
Yes a bit of cognitive dissonance - I look forward to reading the book!
For anyone curious that doesn’t want to purchase the book, the co-author Johnathan Edwards posted the page below, with more of the “sample sessions”.
https://docedwardsfitness.com/running-for-cyclists-part-2/
Also, despite my playful little jab upthread, I took the liberty of directly emailing him for clarification. Maybe he will respond.
Honestly, it sounds like she’s talking about the cycling equivalent of sweet spot - like keep it at 85-95% and don’t over cook yourself going above threshold.
It must a lot harder to convey this information to runners without power meters.
So, you’ve measured your rate of muscle glycogen utilization, have you? Lactate levels? RER?
As I said, Billat doesn’t seem to understand how muscle metabolism works. Short on-off intervals are like continuous exercise at the same average intensity.
you can’t argue about my data so I guess its time to move the goal posts…
No. I guess you can claim another debate win on the Internet. Feel better now?
What data are those? I said that Billat was wrong in claiming that intermittent exercise reduces the rate of glycogen use and lactate accumulation compared to continuous exercise at the same intensity. That’s why I bolded the words of yours to which I was responding. If you have data to show I’m wrong, by all means post it. Otherwise, you’re talking apples when I’m talking oranges.
So hypothetically
I’m sceptic. I would assume lactate building and clearing stimulus to be greater with on-off.
30 seconds is a bit long, to where intermittent exercise might be somewhat more dependent on glycogenolysis. (Note I said “like”, not “exactly like”.) 15 seconds on-off has been studied, though, and there is very little difference.
Note that nobody really knows what stimulates increases in lactate clearance, or really even precisely how to measure it. You therefore can’t assume that even if 30 second on-off intervals results in greater lactate production - contrary to Billat’s claims - that this produces beneficial adaptations.
I would think that running fast engages a lot more of the fast twitch fibers compared to steady state running. So while the overall metabolic load might be the same I would presume that the fast twitch fibers produce much more lactate (less mitochondria). And even if that wouldn’t be enough, you are also training your running economy at faster speeds.
I had exactly the same thought when reading it.
Greater recruitment of fast twitch fibers does seem to be the one difference between intermittent exercise performed using very short on-off periods and continuous exercise.
Due to the intermittent nature and “metabolic inertia”, though, you don’t use more (or less, as Billat claims) glycogen or accumulate more (or less, as Billat claims) lactate - you just use different muscle fibers while doing so.
Nobody really knows what this means in terms of the muscular adaptations to training, but it makes no difference to the increase in VO2max (to again circle back to Billat’s claims).
I agree with you that running may be different than cycling in the present context. Running economy, for example, could be improved due to the repeated “spurts”.
ETA: When considering such questions, it is useful to recognize that muscle fibers are ALWAYS working intermittently. Even during an isometric contraction, for example, they are turning on and off dozens of times per second, while pedaling at 60 rpm, they are resting entirely every half-second, etc.
To speculate some more, the fast twitch fibers will have smaller mitochondrial content hence will have to offload the lactate to the slow twitch muscle fibers and thus training the lactate transport. On the other hand while at steady state the slow twitch muscle fibers will process the lactate themselves.
While both training types might be quasi-steady state and lactate in the blood will stay tolerable there will be difference in the use of lactate transporters. Moreover, you will get to stress the fast twitch fibers aerobically prompting them to increase the mitochondrial content.
Or, by “spreading the work around” (to quote Coyle) to more motor units, none of them are stressed as much as they would be during continuous exercise, resulting in less overall muscular adaptation, even if the cardiovascular stress is the same, leading to an equivalent increase in VO2max.
Again if you think about it, our muscles are designed by evolution to work intermittently. You have to “push them outside their comfort zone” to cause them to adapt. It seems that the best way to do that is to not give them a reprieve every 15-30 seconds.
According to the following, it seems that way.
From the book:
Thus, the threshold pace is a little faster than a pace you could maintain for two or more hours, but much slower than a pace you could maintain for thirty minutes
…later,
Generally, the anaerobic threshold is 85 - 90 % of the MAS, which is approximately 80-90% of your maximum heart rate.
Confusingly, “The threshold pace” in the above passage is not referring to a pace/speed right at MLSS. Another language quirk, perhaps, but it seems that in Billat’s world there are many thresholds, not just MLSS or LT1/LT2,etc. But…maybe? By “threshold” perhaps she means any intensity at which you can achieve a lactate steady state, the highest of which would be MLSS. That’s fine if that’s what she’s saying. But I cannot tell.
Later, “the physiological zone of the anaerobic threshold…usually occurs at approximately 90-92% of maximal heart rate”. Same term, but this time seems like they are talking about what we might think of as FTP/MLSS, etc.
They go on to criticize the “…imprecisions found on the internet blogs”. Sure, join the club. But this book is absolutely terribly written, not the least of which is the imprecise language. Ironic I guess that I’m saying this on the internet.
I’m about to give up. They need an editor.
What is the mechanism as to why 30/30s, 40/20s (basically the classic Billat interval) work?
What is the evidence that they do work?
According to this study, they aren’t any better than continuous efforts at a high intensity.
