Polarized training

1 lurker | 91 watchers
J2R
Nov 2015
2:41pm, 11 Nov 2015
197 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
NN, interesting question about fibre type. I seem to be able to hold a surprisingly high percentage of my HRmax for a long time (e.g. 93% for 59 mins, 92% for 1:20 in races this summer), so maybe it's relevant to me. You're asking about the efficacy of tempo runs in the polarized training thread, though - and in polarized training I don't believe they are regarded as the best way to push up your lactate threshold.

Baffled by what FenlandRunner is getting at there.
Nov 2015
3:17pm, 11 Nov 2015
2,130 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I thought this would be the place most likely to get sensible feedback.

Rightly or wrongly I've always considered myself more of an ft type. Although my times correlate fairly well as distance increases I've never been able to hold a high percentage. At xc this weekend average 93% max corresponds to a 35min race effort.
Nov 2015
4:08pm, 11 Nov 2015
8,120 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
I think Fenland got the wrong thread... well I hope he did!
Nov 2015
5:32pm, 14 Nov 2015
1,705 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
With regard to effects of training on HR at Lactate Threshold, it is important to bear in many that many factors affect HR. HR as a proportion of HRmax is only an approximate indicator of VO2 as a proportion of VO2max. In particular, if training increases stroke volume, VO2 at a particular HR increases. I usually find it far harder to get HR near to HRmax when I am fitter. I attribute this to increased stroke volume.

NN, if your training has increased your pace at a given HR, that is almost certainly a good outcome of training, though it might be due to any one of several adaptations, including increase in stroke volume; increase efficiency of extraction of oxygen from blood into fibres (due to increased capillaries or increased aerobic enzymes). If you have increased the length of time you can sustain a particular HR, this might indicate decreased production of lactate, due to the above mechanisms, or due to increased ability to transport and re-utilise lactate.

The important conclusion is that multiple different physiological adaptations can improve distance running performance and you need to maximise all of these to maximise performance.

Virtually any form of systematic training can produce most of the adaptations mentioned to at least some extent, though for any individual at particular time in their running career, a particular adaptation and a particular type of training might produce the best value for time spent. For a person who has better development of FT than ST fibres, one might expect that the most rapid improvement would come from training at higher intensities to capitalise on current strength, though perhaps to achieve best performance in the long term, focus on developing capillaries together with the ability to re-use lactate as fuel for ST might be necessary.

Overall, variety in training is likely to be the most effective way to maximse multiple physiological adaptations. Polarised training aims to achieve this variety with least stress on the body.
Nov 2015
7:40pm, 14 Nov 2015
2,139 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Thanks canute.

I wonder if anybody has ever investigated the relationship between fibre type and ability to raise lt heart rate?

St types can be characterised by a preference for long hard efforts, whereas the lactate generated by ft types tends them to prefer interval type sessions. I wonder if the body intrinsically knows what type of training it best responds to? Or whether we are better forcing ourselves to do what we find most uncomfortable!
Nov 2015
6:41pm, 16 Nov 2015
1,707 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
NN, I do not know of any direct evidence that skeletal muscle fibre type is closely related to ability to raise HR, but I doubt there is a close relationship. I suspect the main factor determining how easy it feels to elevate HR is cardiac stroke volume. When stroke volume is large, a larger increase in work rate is required to produce a given elevation of HR.

With regard to the interesting question of whether or not the body ‘knows’ what type of training it responds to best, my own experience is that I make the greatest improvements during periods when I feel that my body is relishing the training – but am not sure what is the chicken and what is the egg.

Nonetheless, in general, I think it is sensible to avoid making training an unpleasant chore. But do not get locked into doing just one type of session. That is not likely to be the best way to optimise all of the different physiological systems that matter. Try to adjust the intense sessions so that they feel exhilarating rather than utterly exhausting. During low intensity sessions, try to avoid mindless slogging. Training the mind to deal constructively with long duration runs is a useful skill. I personally find that focus on how I am running and how my body is reacting is always interesting, but each person needs to finds the best way to get into a constructive frame of mind.
Mar 2016
7:40pm, 9 Mar 2016
1,736 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
The recent positive drug tests Meldonium among distance runners, tennis players and others raises the question of whether in fact Meldonium enhaces performance. The main recognised physiological effect of Meldonium is inhibition of synthesis of carnitine which transports fatty acids into mitochondria. This results in decreased of beta oxidation of fats.

On the Elite Athletics thread Nelly posted a link to an article by tow authors from the Latvian Lab that developed the drug ( twitter.com ) In a very misleading manner, this article described beta oxidation of fats as a ‘highly oxygen consuming process’ The article implies there are no adverse effects. While it is true that metabolism of fat does produce less energy (60.5 Kcal per molecule of oxygen consumed) than metabolism of glucose (69.5 Kcal per molecule of oxygen consumed), it is also . However, metabolism of fat preserves glycogen stores.

During moderately intense activity lasting for several hours (eg marathon distance or longer, during which only partial replenishment of glycogen is practical) ability to conserve glygogen is potentially as important for performance as the ability to minimise use of oxygen. For marathoners (and perhaps tennis players) a mixture of fat and glycogen as the source of fuel is probably best.

One of the reasons I favour polarised training is that it is a good way to achieve both a good stock of mitochondria and together with optimal development of fat metabolism while also developing capacity to handle lactate and promoting the crucial ability to re-uptake calcium into muscle fibres. I recently discussed several of these mechanisms in a post about optimum training for minimising metabolic damage to muscles in on my Wordpress Blog. canute1.wordpress.com

Since I wrote that blog post, it has emerged that about 2% of athletes subjected to drug testing use meldonium. Have a lot of athletes bought into a hope based on spurious science, or is the science actually a bit more complicated, and if so, what are the implications for polarised training?
Mar 2016
8:46pm, 9 Mar 2016
33,554 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
Beware of the FUZZ :-O

Brilliant blog post, Canute! I very much enjoyed reading that. And the video.

Nice mix of validation and food for thought.

What do you think about the role of specific BCAA supplementation? I looked into this a while ago with reference to reducing muscle breakdown when training fasted, and concluded that it's unnecessary if you eat enough calories and enough protein overall, which I do. But I wasn't looking at it from the point of view of getting older, or of resistance training, both of which I'm currently doing.
Mar 2016
8:53pm, 9 Mar 2016
17,890 posts
  •  
  • 0
GlennR
Canute, as I pointed out on another thread yesterday, Meldonium is available at every corner shop with a pharmacy section in Russia. Dirt cheap too. If athletes believed it would help they would take it. I generally assume that those dodgy untested eastern bloc pharmaceuticals do naff all and am surprised the authorities believe it might be performance enhancing.
J2R
Apr 2016
12:02pm, 29 Apr 2016
265 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Time for a quick update on how polarized training is working for me...

Last year I did the best running I'd ever done, with PBs in almost every distance I ran, and at least from April or so onwards was following a polarized training approach. I wasn't sure about what part this had played in my overall fitness, though, as my early results, before focussing on a specific polarized approach, were already very good. Having said that, the reason why I got interested in PT was because it chimed with what I'd already been finding, so I didn't make any radical changes after following it more 'formally'.

Anyway, all went swimmingly until the early autumn when I succumbed to something akin to overtraining, almost certainly as a result of racing hard while not having recovered from a virus. For months I couldn't get going properly again, suffering from one minor viral infection after another. All this time, though, even though I didn't do high intensity work, I kept doing some low intensity aerobic work, be it brisk walks, cycling or even leisurely runs, just to maintain some kind of fitness.

By February I was OK to start proper training again, albeit very cautiously, and got going with a more polarized training programme than last year, running most of my easy runs 30-45 seconds slower than last year (which had already been slower than previous years). As the weeks went by I added in more high intensity stuff (never more than twice a week, though). I ran a couple of half marathons in March and one earlier this month, all rather conservatively, just to see how things were going. Then on Wednesday evening this week, I ran my first serious race since October, where I really went for it - a local 5 miler. I was delighted to get a time only 12 seconds down on my PB from the same race last year, and could probably have shaved those 12 seconds off had I known how close I was going to be.

So, I'm pleased to say I've managed to get back into the zone, and that polarized training has obviously worked for me in getting there. It's been a great benefit that the easy runs don't put so much stress on the body as to impede recovery. In fact I have a suspicion that they may even help. I've been tracking heart rate variability for the last few months, over which it has been in general climbing. HRV was low this morning, though, probably still as a result of the hard race Wednesday evening (it was low yesterday too), but I went for a very easy paced run (60% of my working heart rate), and half an hour after I came back I measured it again and it had gone up a fair amount. At this point I think I can give a big thumbs-up to a polarized training approach!

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 113,792 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here