Polarized training

91 watchers
J2R
Oct 2015
8:08pm, 7 Oct 2015
170 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I think you're doing the guys who did these studies a disservice. Don't forget that one of them was done by Seiler, the same guy who brought polarized training to the fore (by doing the very kind of retrospective analysis you mention, explaining 'why what we know works works'), and the other was done by colleagues of his. I think they know what they're doing.

As regards how I intend to progress, I don't know. One of the mainstays of my high intensity training over the last couple of years has been vVO2max reps of c.40 seconds with equal time, half speed recoveries, a slightly modified (for ease of measurement) version of the Billat 30:30 training. I'm not likely to drop that. I may play around with halving the recovery, if necessary reducing the speed of the reps a notch or so. I'll likely give the 4 x 8 minute sessions a few tries as well, as something different.

You mentioned the advantages of a good coach. But I bet you 90% of the coaches out there haven't heard of polarized training and are still basing a large part of their training around AT paced runs. You may do so yourself, I don't know, but I've largely switched over to a polarized training programme (hence my posting in this thread).
Oct 2015
8:34pm, 7 Oct 2015
2,088 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
For the 30:30 how many do you do?

To progress this you could

Increase the total number of reps
Break into sets to increase overall work
Change the terrain

I didn't check but guess the 4 x 8min is done at tempo/lt pace??

Maybe progress by

Increasing length of rep - do 10min, 10min, 10min, to 15, 10, 5, to 15, 15
Start and finish with set of 200m x 3 hard added
Increase speed of recoveries

Much more interesting variation than just changing recovery or going faster.

Loads of good effects to be gained from work faster than 3k pace too.

Mix it up, make it fun, vary things, progress. Plan and think about it but be prepared to change based on body response. Monitor your performance.
J2R
Oct 2015
10:20pm, 7 Oct 2015
171 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
As regards the 30:30s (or in my case 40:40s), I tend to typically do 16-18, although I did 25 earlier today, which is unusual. The 4 x 8min reps are done at 90% HRmax. The idea with reducing recovery in the short intervals is to try to ensure that you spend as much time above 90% VO2max as you can.
Oct 2015
10:38pm, 7 Oct 2015
2,089 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I find hr an unhelpful measure of effort at anything over marathon pace.

Be careful shortening recoveries. They are already short and this will go from an aerobic workout to very anaerobic unless you also reduce pace.
J2R
Oct 2015
9:07am, 8 Oct 2015
172 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Yes, as I mentioned in my original post, I'd be dropping off the pace a little if using the shorter recoveries. For my 40:40 sessions, I'm running the intervals at vVO2max speed (around 5:10 pace), and with half length recoveries I'd be aiming for 95% of that (5:27 pace).
Oct 2015
9:40am, 8 Oct 2015
8,015 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
J2R - I looked at the first study you showed and it was interesting comparing 4*4 with 4*8 and 4*16 and that they hadn't tried 4*10 or 4*12. I'd suggest by picking those three numbers, they were actually testing three different and quite specific things (whereas say 4*8 vs 4*12 would effectively test the same same thing.) I say this because with 4*4 it's possible (although unlikely) to do that entirely an anaerobic/lactic workout, because your lactic system will last 3-5 minutes before going aerobic. In reality you will be recruiting some of your aerobic energy system anyway. And I also note that where the "exhaustion level" referenced in the test occurred, was mininum 13 minutes, so a 4*16 would take you over that exhaustion level.

I also know from an "elite" athlete I know (has represented Britain at Ironman championships, so not pro), that the 3*10 or 4*10 minutes at 90% is a popular workout too. So 4*8 is less a sweetspot, rather it's designed to focus on your aerobic system while not taking you over the exhaustion level (as defined in the study). It's notable I did the 3*10 with the athlete and that it was a much easier session than my 2 mile reps, and that the athlete involved was much better than me for the last couple of mins of each rep. I assume you would tweak to your particular own baselines stats.

The second study was focusing on 30 sec intervals which would put it firmly in anaerobic/lactic territory. (The anerobic/alactic system lasts max 10 secs) The Sports Science book I have by Owen Anderson is a massive proponent of short hard intervals as opposed to longer slower ones, and cites many studies as evidence. The theory he propagates is that if you can improve your form and efficiency as a faster pace, then your form and efficiency improves over all paces concurrently, and so if you can run 100m faster than 2 weeks ago, you can also run a marathon (endurance permitting*) faster too.

I'd argue that the studies aren't in competition with each other, you are comparing apples and pears a little bit - they are for improving different energy systems, BUT if you wanted to draw a conclusion that the second is more effective than the first (ie doing anaerobic/lactic sessions more than aerobic ones ), you would have some reason in doing so. The Sports Science book argues very definitely against old style tempo runs, and suggests any tempo runs should be conducted at 10k pace, again referencing studies, and not lasting as long as traditional tempo runs.

I also note slightly separately that BBC Horizon investigated the 3*30 second bursts a day as all the exercise you need to improve VO2 max levels, so there seems to be a 30 second as some sort of sweet spot allowing you to achieve intensity, without going aerobic, but I haven't really looked at why 30 seconds in particular is the number of seconds.

Ultimately I'd agree with the others though, variety is key, my experience is at odds to the Sports Science book, that the longer workouts work better for me, I've done loads of short sharp ones and only when I started doing mile rep pluses did I really see some benefits.
J2R
Oct 2015
11:10am, 8 Oct 2015
173 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Thanks, Chrisull, interesting observations. You did spot, didn't you, that the pace of the intervals in the first study were different for the different lengths? The 4 minute intervals were at 94% HRmax, the 8 minute ones 90% HRmax and the 16 minute ones 88% HRmax. The idea, I think, is to give a similar overall workload. I don't think exhaustion level really applies at 13 minutes if we're talking 88% HRmax (I'm far from elite level and I ran an 80 minute HM last month at an average 92% HRmax).

Interesting why the 30 seconds keeps coming up. I have to say the reason I do 40:40 instead is nothing to do with any particular theories I have, but merely because of the dimensions of the local park! It's nigh-on impossible to measure pace accurately with a GPS watch for short distances, so what I've done is identified a side of the rectangle of the grid of the local park which measures just over 200m according to gmap-pedometer.com (which is reputedly extremely accurate), and worked out how long I should take to run that at vVO2max pace. If I could just run a third faster now, I'd be happy to do 30:30!
Oct 2015
11:38am, 8 Oct 2015
8,016 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
I wouldn't have mentioned the exhaustion level, but it was flagged in the runners world article, so there must be some reason for recording it. I would go back to NN's comment about "I find hr an unhelpful measure of effort at anything over marathon pace." and I must admit it doesn't help me much either, I did a 20 miler this year, most of it at 80% 144, it was interminable, and not much easier, then when I upped to 158 just below 90% it felt so much better! I can drift between 85% and 90% and it seems to be no indication of how hard I've been working. On a good day I can maintain 90% much longer than I can 85% on a bad day.
J2R
Oct 2015
12:19pm, 8 Oct 2015
174 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
NN, you mentioned "a variety of sessions with increasing specificity to your chosen event". If my chosen event is the half marathon, what would you suggest as specific sessions for that? (Kind of desperate to go sub-80 before Father Time's scythe chops me off at the knees).
Oct 2015
1:04pm, 8 Oct 2015
2,090 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Excellent examples here.

drive.google.com

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 113,793 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here