Polarized training

91 watchers
Mar 2014
9:24pm, 25 Mar 2014
1,001 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
Canute, one thing that P&D emphasise (as a good thing) is low monotony.

Just mention that because you could interpret 80% easy as high monotony?

But you could run at an 'easy' pace over different distances which would eliminate the high monotony charge?
SPR
Mar 2014
10:03pm, 25 Mar 2014
19,129 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I think one thing to remember is these intervals are still supposed to be about aerobic benefit.

Anaerobic repetitions would be different.
Mar 2014
10:28pm, 25 Mar 2014
920 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
FR
The 80% easy is not necessarily high monotony. It certainly includes a wide range of distances, mostly at a 'comfortable aerobic pace' but can also include parts of a session that also include segments of higher intensity training.

For me, the 80% easy also includes off-road exploration. During the off-road runs, sometimes I decide to walk up steep hills, and other times to push hard, but if I choose to push hard, that goes into my week’s quota of either tempo or higher intensity stuff depending on depth of respiration. However I do not bother to count it too precisely.
Mar 2014
10:38pm, 25 Mar 2014
1,002 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
Cool, thanks, Canute :)
SPR
Mar 2014
12:53pm, 27 Mar 2014
19,136 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Decent article on aerobic and anaerobic intervals. It's from a cycling perspective but the principles are good. velonews.competitor.com
Mar 2014
4:52pm, 27 Mar 2014
29,318 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
Interesting article in one of the current cycling rag-mags (it must be Cyclist because that's the only one I get) about how sessions of short hard efforts and recoveries are of benefit even to those of us whose only real strength is endurance.
Mar 2014
5:49pm, 27 Mar 2014
70,304 posts
  •  
  • 0
santababy
That's what I did at gym today. 45 mins with crazy bursts of efforts in time to my music lol
Mar 2014
10:45pm, 30 Mar 2014
928 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week 4 of polarised training
Total duration 330 min
Easy run: 228 min run 36 Km 6:18 min/Km,756 beats/Km, 78% HR max
Easy elliptical: 57 min warm up and recoveries
Tempo: 30 min, aHR 137 (89%)
High intensity: 15 min (5x3min, 2 min recovery) peak HR 144 (94%)
Easy/tempo/intense: 86%/9.0%/5%
In the past week I had some demanding deadlines at work that required late nights and less sleep, so training was curtailed. It is a little disappointing that beats/Km averaged across all easy runs, has not changed appreciably across the 4 weeks. This usually provides a fairly good indication of improved aerobic capacity. On the other hand, the effectof increased stress of training (and of work in the past week) might be obscuring the anticipated decrease in beats/Km at this stage. It is still too early to draw any definite conclusion.
Mar 2014
3:17pm, 31 Mar 2014
930 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Last year I had developed a fitness test based on measuring Heart rate at three different intensity levels: low aerobic, mid-aerobic and upper aerobic. I had developed a version of this test for exercise on the elltipticla and also for use when running. (I described both in detail on my word-press blog last summer) The elliptical version is more precise because power output can be measured more accurately and furthermore the elliptical is not subject to wind or conditions underfoot.

I have carried out the elliptical version weekly during the past three weeks. Today I analysed the data. The average of HR at the low, mid and upper aerobic levels in the past three weeks 121, 118.7, 116.7. Thus, according to this test my aerobic fitness has improved by 4% over three weeks, which I fact corresponds to a subjective feeling of improved fitness. Thus, despite the lack of appreciable change in beats/Km when running, it appears that my aerobic fitness might be improving at a satisfying rate.
Apr 2014
10:57pm, 2 Apr 2014
931 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
There have been some interesting issues regarding polarized training (compared with Furman) raised today on both Fleecy’s blog and my (Fetch) blog . Two of the issues have been the statistical validity of the finding by Stoggl and Sterlich that polarised training is superior to HIT, threshold training and high volume (low intensity training, and the question of whether the findings of this study can be applied to middle aged athletes.

With regard to statistical validity the first point to make is that no single study of polarised training provides definitive evidence that polarised training is preferable to other types of program. The overall conclusion must be based on the consistency of effects across different types of study, together with plausibility based on what we understand of the mechanisms and on the extensive anecdotal evidence for elite runners such Moses Mosop. I recently reviewed the overall evidence on my Wordpress blog.

In any case, the study by Stoggl and Sterlich s not fatally flawed. The major question is whether the number of athletes was adequate. The ideal statistical procedure for such a study is to determine the required sample size based on an estimate the number of participants required to yield a statistically significant effect, taking account of a plausible prior estimate of the anticipated size of the difference between training protocols. If a large difference is expected, a small sample size is adequate, but if a small differences expected a large sample is required.

The challenge is to make a reasonable prior estimate of the likely effect based on a prior study. In this instance, a plausible estimate of the expected improvement in time to exhaustion can be made on the basis of the Esteve-Laneo study which demonstrated significant faster race performance in the polarised group. I have not done the calculation exactly, but an approximate estimate indicates that Stoggl and Sterlich needed to recruit about 10 subjects per group. In fact they recruited 12 athletes per group.

There is a further issue of needing to correct for multiple comparisons when several different outcome measurements are made. This is tricky to do when the outcome measures are likely to be related, and can lead to failure to identify ‘real’ differences between groups . Therefore very few investigators carry out this correction. Stoggl and Sterlich did not do this, but even if they had If Stoggl and Sterlich had done it there result for the improvement during polarised training would still have been significant. On balance overall, the sample size in the Stoggl and Sterlic study was small but probably adequate. Nonetheless, one should always be cautious in interpreting small studies.

That was a bit long winded – I now need to look up results of some studies in middle aged athletes to address the question of applicability to older runners

About This Thread

Maintained by Canute
Polarised training is a form of training that places emphasis on the two extremes of intensity. There is a large amount of low intensity training (comfortably below lactate threshold) and an appreciable minority of high intensity training (above LT).

Polarised training does also include some training near lactate threshold, but the amount of threshold training is modest, in contrast to the relatively high proportion of threshold running that is popular among some recreational runners.

Polarised training is not new. It has been used for many years by many elites and some recreational runners. However, it has attracted great interest in recent years for two reasons.

First, detailed reviews of the training of many elite endurance athletes confirms that they employ a polarised approach (typically 80% low intensity, 10% threshold and 10% high intensity. )

Secondly, several scientific studies have demonstrated that for well trained athletes who have reached a plateau of performance, polarised training produces greater gains in fitness and performance, than other forms of training such as threshold training on the one hand, or high volume, low intensity training on the other.

Much of the this evidence was reviewed by Stephen Seiler in a lecture delivered in Paris in 2013 .
vimeo.com

In case you cannot access that lecture by Seiler in 2013, here is a link to his more recent TED talk.

ted.com
This has less technical detail than his 2013 talk, but is nonetheless a very good introduction to the topic. It should be noted that from the historical perspective, Seiler shows a US bias.

Here is another useful video by Stephen Seiler in which he discusses the question of the optimum intensity and duration of low intensity sessions. Although the answer ‘depends on circumstances’ he proposes that a low intensity session should be long enough to reach the point where there are detectable indications of rising stress (either the beginning of upwards drift of HR or increased in perceived effort). If longer than this, there is increasing risk of damaging effects. A session shorter than this might not be enough to produce enough stress to achieve a useful training effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GXc474Hu5U


The coach who probably deserves the greatest credit for emphasis on the value of low intensity training was Arthur Lydiard, who coached some of the great New Zealanders in the 1960's and Scandinavians in the 1970’s. One of his catch-phrases was 'train, don't strain'. However Lydiard never made it really clear what he meant by ‘quarter effort’. I have discussed Lydiard’s ideas on several occasions on my Wordpress blog. For example: canute1.wordpress.com

Related Threads

  • 8020
  • heart
  • training









Back To Top

Tag A User

To tag a user, start typing their name here:
X

Free training & racing tools for runners, cyclists, swimmers & walkers.

Fetcheveryone lets you analyse your training, find races, plot routes, chat in our forum, get advice, play games - and more! Nothing is behind a paywall, and it'll stay that way thanks to our awesome community!
Get Started
Click here to join 113,707 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here