Polarized training

91 watchers
Jun 2016
8:43am, 10 Jun 2016
3,686 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ceratonia
This article reports some interesting science relating to polarized training:

runnersworld.com
Jun 2016
9:28am, 10 Jun 2016
9,002 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Good article although stops rather abruptly after raising some interesting contradictions.
Jun 2016
10:15am, 10 Jun 2016
19,824 posts
  •  
  • 0
GlennR
Interesting one, but I too would like to see more.
Jun 2016
6:49pm, 10 Jun 2016
1,747 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
There are a huge number of different ways you can design these types of studies of training. The results you get depend on many details, including not only the training schedule but also prior training history.

Therefor it is not surprising that investigators design there studies to emphasize the features that they wish to test. MacInnis is form Martin Gibala’s lab at McMaster University. They have a strong commitment to HIIT, and have developed effective testing protocols that demonstrate the effect of HIIT. Although one needs to be aware of their motivation, they nonetheless do well designed studies. Almost certainly, HIIT is a very time-efficient way of increasing both the density of mitochondria and the work capacity of mitochondria. However, merely demonstrating that a similar volume of training (at what appears to be upper aerobic intensity does not prove that there is no value in doing a high volume of low intensity training over a long period. Much of the value of low intensity training is that you do a large amount of such training without excess stress. It is not time efficient, but almost certainly allows an even greater development of mitochondria over a long period of time. Hence, for maximum benefit, do a modest amount of intense training and a large amount of low intensity training. However, this is definitely more time consuming that a HIIT program.

With regard to Bishop’s studies and his review of overall evidence, he is almost certainly right that high volume does increase number of mitochondria, though the specific high volume study quoted by Alex H does not sound like an optimal long-term training program to me.

The take home message especially form Gibala’s lab, is that HIIT is definitely a very effective way of increasing aerobic capacity – but it is also stressful and you can only do a relatively limited amount of it. If you have enough time for training, a polarised program is likely to give you the maximal benefit
Jun 2016
6:59pm, 10 Jun 2016
9,000 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
Did I see an article that suggested injury rates had risen dramatically due to the adoption of HIIT?

Or is it an indication that 'people' are looking for a quick fix and not in it for the long haul?
Jun 2016
7:10pm, 10 Jun 2016
7,436 posts
  •  
  • 0
Rosehip
The emphasis in the media of HIIT as being time efficient suggests that it is done for the sole benefit of staying healthy/getting fitter. I think what a lot of the articles miss is the enjoyment factor. If you like what you are doing you tend to stick with it. I don't care how good for me HIIT on a bike is - if I hate doing it I'm not going to and it won' get me fit.

Nice gentle running in the countryside floats my boat - it might not be efficient, but I like it so I'm going to do it.
J2R
Jun 2016
9:19pm, 10 Jun 2016
296 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Funny that this thread should burst back into life today because I was planning to add my own little observation about polarized training after a run today, and it fits in with what Rosehip says, but with a twist. I've been following a pretty rigorously polarized training program for months now, only straying when I effectively do too many 'tempo' runs in a short period by virtue of running lots of races, a problem at this time of year. But my training is all pretty well nice easy runs and short hard workouts, with no threshold work (apart from the races, as I mentioned - if I wasn't doing those I'd do the occasional tempo run).

Anyway, here's what I was thinking today as I was running along at a very easy pace (below 60% of my working heart rate), through beautiful countryside in early summer. It's very much more enjoyable, this polarized training lark - and therein lies, perhaps, a psychological problem? When I do races, the sheer sustained discomfort of running long distances at high speed is less familar to me than it was when most of my training was itself rather more gruelling. So whatever the physical benefits of polarized training, I feel there may have been a psychological 'softening'. I'm not sure yet if it manifests itself in reduced performance but it's something to think about and maybe learn a way of dealing with. It's just something I hadn't considered before.
Jun 2016
10:25pm, 10 Jun 2016
1,748 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
J2R

I think you make a good point about the psychological benefits of race-pace training. Although HIIT can be tough, it is usually less mentally demanding to push yourself very hard for a few minutes than to sustain an intense race pace for 20-40 minutes. When I am preparing for a race I do some progressive runs in which I am for race pace or even a bit faster for an appreciable period after I am already a bit tired. I regard this as primarily a way of teaching my brain that I can sustain race pace for substantial length of time. I think that even in a polarised approach, there should be space for a modest amount of race-specific preparation. However this is demanding and should be done sparingly
Jun 2016
10:34pm, 10 Jun 2016
1,132 posts
  •  
  • 0
stuart little
J2R, it is a "thing" for many people. For me, is usually have a couple of races scheduled before a target race to get me back used to going that deep
J2R
Jun 2016
4:45pm, 11 Jun 2016
297 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Yes, target race pace stuff is clearly going to be the answer. I'm doing enough real races at the moment, and race-like things such as Parkruns, for me to forget about the misery of race pace for long, but when the race season slackens off, I'll have to remember to keep throwing the odd session in!

As regards FR's question about HIIT and increased injury, I get the impression that it's more likely to occur as a result of lots of time around threshold pace - that certainly seems to be the problem among club runners I know.

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 113,786 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here