Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free. But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient. Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead. Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Polarized training

1 lurker | 91 watchers
zp
Oct 2016
7:07pm, 22 Oct 2016
49 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
zp
I wonder if he wrote that after seeing me make a massive effort coming down at a snail's pace over the bouldery nonsense off Scafell Pike :)

It's a good point though, V'rap, thanks. I guess I've spent too much time reading 'A coaching thread' and worrying that RPE is often a poor substitute for HR. Perhaps time to make like an ostrich and stick head in the sand. Or just go and run.
zp
Oct 2016
7:08pm, 22 Oct 2016
50 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
zp
I can probably find some happy medium between HR and RPE, I guess: try and refine my RPE using HR on sensible routes. That seems a sensible starting point.
Oct 2016
7:19pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,411 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Ninky Nonk
Lol at rpe being a poor substitute for hr.
Oct 2016
7:24pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,732 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Velociraptor
The point made on the coaching thread was a valid one - there are lots of pitfalls in assessing RPE, and it's all too tempting, for example, to call a run an easy run because it was slow when a HRM would have shown that it wasn't easy at all, it was as hard as you were capable of running on that occasion.
zp
Oct 2016
7:25pm, 22 Oct 2016
51 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
zp
Sorry, maybe I didn't phrase that correctly, NN! I meant that I'd gotten the impression that inexperienced runners can often think a run is easy (ie low RPE) while their HR data says otherwise .. but maybe I've misunderstood.

I ditched HR in favour of RPE a few years ago, but am now questioning whether HR is worthwhile - ie have I been underestimating how hard a run is?
zp
Oct 2016
7:27pm, 22 Oct 2016
52 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
zp
That's what I was getting at I think, V'rap :)

NN - checked your profile! From the times you run, I guess you have a fairly solid handle on RPE vs HR. I'm - well - a bit slower :P
Oct 2016
7:28pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,733 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Velociraptor
I also ditched HR in favour of RPM, and never looked back.
SPR
Oct 2016
7:32pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,899 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
Vrap - I can see how it would underestimate work done on descents but it surely still works on uphill?

ZP - The coaching thread is right especially for those that don't have experience of RPE in relation to HR. How this relates to fells and trails though, I don't know. Is all your training on fells and trails? I like you just dusted of my HR strap on Wednesday and used it to ensure I ran easy. It's not that I didn't know how to run easy, it's just that when I felt fresh I'd run faster, so I had some 9mm runs, but then they'd be other high 7mm low 8mm runs which potentially weren't easy by HR. (EDIT or what Vrap said).

Basically without the HR your variations in conditioning might be overlooked so what was easy 6 months ago might not be easy now.

Chris is the one with the hill problem not me. I run undulating routes but don't have an issue really. Below 70% at all time might mean slowing on hills a little more than I would normally but 75% would be easy. My training is all on road apart from bits I'd do on track.
SPR
Oct 2016
7:32pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,900 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
...if we had a track that is!
Oct 2016
7:34pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,734 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Velociraptor
SPR, yes, there's no reason why HRM wouldn't be an excellent way of measuring effort going uphill or judging recoveries on hill reps.

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
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • 8020
  • heart
  • training

Report This Content

You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.



Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.










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 114,514 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here