Polarized training
91 watchers
29 Jan
8:14pm, 29 Jan 2024
5,015 posts
|
J2R
Perhaps tangentially related to polarised training this, but in the same area, so I hope people don't mind my asking... One of the primary benefits of PT, as far as I can determine, is that it helps prevent the chronic build-up of cortisol which leads to overtraining syndrome and other issues. This can occur as a result of spending a lot of time time at too high a training intensity, for example doing lots of threshold pace running. With polarised training, there is a big focus on recovery. What I am wondering is that kind of timescales this applies to. Let's say my easy pace running gives me a heart rate when warmed up of 120bpm. I can do an hour a day, even pace running, at 120bpm without getting to the situation where cortisol is starting to build up. But is it different if I run an easy interval session alternating 1m fast, 1km jog, for an hour where overall my average heart rate, for the session as a whole, is the same 120bpm? Some of that time my HR is going up to 150bpm at the end of a 1km interval at maybe HM pace, before dropping down to 110bpm during the 1km jog recovery. Do the long recoveries (maybe 6:00 as opposed to 4:00 for the reps) mean I avoid the cortisol build-up. My thinking is that they probably do, but I'd love to hear from the knowledgeable people on here. |
29 Jan
8:59pm, 29 Jan 2024
16,342 posts
|
jda
I know you asked for experts but I hope you don't mind an ignorant guess I would be surprised if cortisol levels responded (dropped) on the time scale of a few minutes. If that was the case it would never build up for long for anyone! I think you should be thinking more on the time scale of hours to a day, any workout with high stress will have a significant effect and doing one such every day would potentially have much more impact than just once or twice a week. AIUI it's the sustained long-term elevation of cortisol that's the problem, which pretty much implies that it doesn't drop rapidly. |
29 Jan
10:25pm, 29 Jan 2024
2,710 posts
|
Canute
Following an acute transient stress, cortisol typically falls to near baseline levels within a period 30 - 60 minutes after cessation of the stress. Therefore during an interval session with fast 1 Km efforts and 6 minute recoveries, I would expect the cortisol level to build-up across the full session. Although I have not been following your recent training, from what I know of your fitness levels, J2R, I suspect that a 'fast' Km in 4 min will not produce a large build up of cortisol, so the total session will not lead to a very high build up of cortisol. Nonetheless, I think you are likely to lose the benefit of Polarised training of you do frequent sessions of this type |
30 Jan
8:57am, 30 Jan 2024
5,016 posts
|
J2R
Thanks. Interesting observations. I've been following a training system called the Easy Interval Method for the last 3 years, which I took up out of curiosity rather than out of any need to change what I was already doing, and I've always wondered how it ties in with polarised training. On the face of it it would appear to be in complete conflict with it, but there are commonalities, such as the focus on recovery and avoiding too much time in the top training zones. To be clear, the 1km reps are not supposed to be flat out at all. I tend to do them at a pace somewhere between half marathon and marathon pace. Similarly 400m reps (with 400m recoveries) are usually somewhere between 10K and HM pace. I suppose the intention (whether realised in practice or not) is that the pace is fast enough to provide stimulation for the running economy without being too stressful on the system. |
30 Jan
3:27pm, 30 Jan 2024
43,522 posts
|
SPR
I use easy intervals in my training but don't follow the method (so I'd generally run easy the day after, although I've used it as an easier session before a session day). I use it as an easy way to get some pace around threshold into some longer runs as my minimum run with a 6x1000, 800 rec session is 9 miles. I've done 2 13.4 milers with 10 x1000, 800 rec and 6 x 2000, 1000 rec recently. I did use it pretty fully from Feb 2022 to Mar 2022 when I started using it as varying pace was the only way I could run for some reason due to an injury/ niggle. I saw good HR improvement from where I started and highest VO2 Max ever on my watch and felt pretty fit but I didn't race well, and got injured by overdoing it immediately after the road relays (still my highest mileage week ever đ¤Śđżââď¸) so didn't get a chance to see if I just needed to get sharp for racing. |
30 Jan
7:43pm, 30 Jan 2024
5,017 posts
|
J2R
Interested to hear of your experiences with it, SPR. I recalled you had dabbled in it. I'm still not sure why I changed, really, as I was running really well in 2019 from polarised training, then got interested in EIM after a Dutch friend introduced me to it. I started off doing a kind of mix-and-match but then adopted it more fully. I haven't had any new PBs since switching to it, but then again I'm 63 now, so that's not unexpected! I think I would probably have given it up and switched back to straightforward polarised training had I not had a couple of results in 2022 which suggested I hadn't actually slowed down as a result of the move. Having had a heart attack early last year, though, that is more a determinant of my performance now than any niceties of training method, so I think I'm probably just going to keep doing what I do - EIM but with polarised thinking! The training is enjoyable and has not so far led to injury or any sense of overtraining. Having said that, I have been looking back at my running 'diary' (i.e., the record of my runs in SportTracks, the service I use) for 2019 and can't help noticing that in the period from February to July that year I did my strongest ever running, with quite a few PBs and near PBs, and times on parkruns that I haven't approached before or since - a real 'purple patch'. I am kind of tempted to simply try to replicate the training I did then and see what happens. How far back would I go, though? If I was getting great results in February, this is presumably as a result of great training going back... how long? October? (I'd also like to try to understand why the period from July on was not as successful. It wasn't injury or anything, I just wasn't getting quite such good results although they were perfectly decent). |
30 Apr
11:36am, 30 Apr 2024
21,361 posts
|
Chrisull
So I'm finding some interesting people on Twitter to follow, who seem to be re-asserting the some of the principles of Maffetone (but without Maffetone's dogmatic insistence on his 180 formula) and attempting to tether it firmly to scientific groundings. I'm thinking of Alan Couzens @Alan_Couzens and Gordo Byrn @feelthebyrn1. Gordo Byrn on cycling fitness in particular asserts you need a 1000 hour base at the green zone (1-2) (where you basically see no discernible improvement), twitter.com and only then do you consider doing much outside it. Alan Couzens asserts in running building mitochondrial fitness is your route forwards. Here: twitter.com And endorses a novel piece of graffiti, a twist on one this thread's key take home stats: 20% home, 80% roam. So how is this different to 80%/20%, well they're both saying, you have to have the base at 100% easy built up before any kind of adding on to the top.. So this seems to be another spin on Maffetone, without the hokiness (eg don't eat restaurant food, and also your own specific lactate levels and HR zones and not some sort of 180 minus age for all). There's an insistence on far more walking and just "moving" more, and a realisation that training is as much getting out of your chair at regular intervals and moving around. There's some interesting slight contradictions on "the three day athlete" I saw, where it suggested that doing that little it's hard to overdo it, so as long as you're mixing up your training intensity over the 3 days it's good. But any thoughts here? Maffetone for base vs 80/20, what do people think? |
30 Apr
12:09pm, 30 Apr 2024
2,790 posts
|
Canute
Overall, I consider that many different training regimes can be beneficial, in at least some individuals. Nonetheless there are training regimes that create risk of harm (injury or overtraining); furthermore different regimes differ in the amount of benefit that they produce. The reason I started this thread a decade ago was the growing evidence supporting the claim that a polarised approach was beneficial in many instances, especially in individuals who had achieved a performance plateau. The training regime that had first caught my attention (in the 1960âs long before ready access to extensive information via the internet) was Lydiardâs regime of 100 miles/week, including a long base-building period, mainly at Âź effort. Nonetheless, Lydiard did recommend including strides in the easy sessions. I implemented my own version of Lydiardâs regime, with âgood enoughâ results (Marathon times around 2 hrs 30 min). However, at that stage I had been running casually for about 15 years. I had started running to and from school at age 5, simply because running seemed the best way to get to school in time to play with my mates before lessons. My own experience inclines me to believe that it is best to do a lot of casual running before starting serious training, but not everyone wants to wait 15 years before starting serious training. I agree that Maffetone training is a safe way to start and would recommend at least some very easy running before embarking on any programme that entails either large volume or high intensity. Furthermore, it is probable that you can achieve substantial aerobic fitness without including any high intensity training. It is probably safer to build up volume before intensity. However, if you want to achieve your best performance as a distance runner, at some point you need to increase intensity. I am inclined to favour a polarised approach once you have reached the stage where you want to increased intensity, but accept that others might find that other approaches suit them. |
30 Apr
12:12pm, 30 Apr 2024
5,154 posts
|
J2R
Chris, I've been following Couzens and a few others on Twitter for a while now, and have been finding it very interesting. I think one of the most important things is that he is very much emphasizing metabolic health through movement as the primary goal, and building fitness for performance on top of that. Without the first, the quest for the second is futile. The emphasis was very pertinent for me after a heart attack last year - I started thinking primarily in terms of enhancing longevity rather than out-and-out performance, although my performances are still decent for someone my age (18:32 5K, etc). I try to do as much general movement throughout the week as I can, with brisk walks and easy cycle rides feeding into the mix on to of structure running training sessions. |
Related Threads
- 80/20 Jun 2019
- Heart rate Nov 2024
- Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire. Jul 2023
- Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate Jan 2021
- No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease Jan 2021
- Resetting Max Heart Rate Dec 2020
- Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal Oct 2020
- Heart rate zones Jul 2020
- Running Heart rate Jun 2020
- Heart Rate monitors Jun 2020