Polarized training
91 watchers
Mar 2014
9:24pm, 25 Mar 2014
1,001 posts
|
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? |
Mar 2014
10:03pm, 25 Mar 2014
19,129 posts
|
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
|
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
|
FenlandRunner
Cool, thanks, Canute
|
Mar 2014
12:53pm, 27 Mar 2014
19,136 posts
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
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 |
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