Polarized training

91 watchers
Apr 2014
11:29pm, 2 Apr 2014
932 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
I hope this is not getting too wordy, but I think the issues are important. I hope other will post their ideas as well.

With regard to question of the applicability of the findings of the Stoggl and Sterlich study (of athletes aged in their thirties to middle aged athletes) there is little doubt that there will be individual differences in what works best. The virtual impossibility of doing studies in a sample truly representative of the entire running community makes it necessary to draw the most plausible conclusions we can from the overall body of evidence, including evidence regarding the mechanism of the benefits and/or damage of a particular type of training.

A substantial body of evidence indicates that the harm of too much high intensity training is due to a catabolic state, associated with high level of stress hormones. As recovery from a catabolic state is generally slower in older runners, it is very unlikely that a higher volume of high intensity running would beneficial in older runner when the studies we have discussed indicate it is not beneficial in younger runners.

So the issue is: should middle aged runner so do any high intensity training? There are several studies showing health benefits from high intensity training in older men. See for example, Olesen and colleagues showed improved metabolic measures including increased aerobic enzymes after HIT in older men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24514907. Kiviniemi and colleagues showed improved parasympathetic nervous function following 6 sessions of 4-6x30 s of all-out cycling efforts with 4-min recovery in middle aged men. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Thus both of these studies showed significant health benefits following HIT in middle aged or elderly men. I therefore think it is sensible for middle aged or elderly men to do polarised training with a modest amount if HIT, but I the proportion of high intensity training should be increased quite gradually, and effects monitored closely.

I would value the opinions of others.
Apr 2014
8:51am, 3 Apr 2014
29,373 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
I have no opinions to offer on the subject at the moment (been too busy flicking through other research to get stuck in on Pub Med) but am very much enjoying having my education facilitated by your posts. Thanks, Canute :)
Apr 2014
10:29am, 3 Apr 2014
1,657 posts
  •  
  • 0
Drell
Canute, do you think there are likely to be significant differences for older women (from older men)?

I'm very much enjoying this discussion, I like the idea of actually looking at relevant evidence :-)
Apr 2014
1:20pm, 3 Apr 2014
933 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Drell,
There are several studies of HIT that have focused on women ; some are studies on younger women and some on middle aged, extending to the post menopausal age range. In general HIT is reported to be safe and effective in women across the age range. For example Klonizakis and colleagues from Sheffield compared HIT with low intensity training in post-menopausal women, The HIT consisted of six sessions of ten 1-minute intervals of cycling exercise at 100% of peak power output separated by 1 minute of active recovery. The low intensity training was six sessions of involved 40 minutes of continuous cycling at 65% of peak power output The HIT produced greater improvement in aerobic fitness (peak oxygen uptake capcity) than the low intensity training, despite much shorter time spent on HIT.
Apr 2014
1:31pm, 3 Apr 2014
934 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
It should be noted that in the Klonizakis study, the low intensity training did produce some improvements. Therefore, it seems likely that the polarised approach will also be effective in women across the age range. It is possible that women might actually tolerate a larger proportion of high intensity training than men. I do not know of any direct evidence for this. In general women cope better with some stresses than men, but we are now getting into a controversial area.
Apr 2014
1:34pm, 3 Apr 2014
935 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Here is the pubmed link to the Klonizakis study: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Apr 2014
1:38pm, 3 Apr 2014
2,194 posts
  •  
  • 0
Anna Bomb
This is all very interesting Canute, keep it coming
SPR
Apr 2014
10:36pm, 3 Apr 2014
19,155 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I think I said this to Canute via fmail rather than on the thread. They need to fix easy running in the studies as you could say that progress was down to the balance of easy running vs other faster paced running.

In regard to the HIT study, that falls into the comparison of easy vs HIT thing that a lot of studies fall into. Where they fail is longevity. We know faster paces give a greater bang for buck in the short term, but it is not sustainable as a long term plan.
Apr 2014
12:40am, 4 Apr 2014
936 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
SPR
I was not suggesting that it is desirable to do what was done in the HIT studies as regular training. I was merely presenting the evidence indicating that that HIT appears safe and effective in the middle aged and older men and women. However, as you imply, doing multiple weekly sessions of HIT regularly for many weeks creates a risk of accumulating stress. In the Stoggl study, HIT achieved greater gains than high volume training or threshold training, but it was less beneficial than polarised training, probably because of a catabolic state due to accumulated stress associated with too much HIT.

The aim of the polarised training is to do a small amount of HIT together with a larger amount of easy training each week. Thus we might obtain the benefits of HIT over a long period of time, without the risk of damage due to accumulated stress from too much HIT.

I agree with you that it would be interesting to see the results of studies in which the easy running is fixed (probably at 80%) while various different schedules for the higher intensity sessions are compared.
Apr 2014
7:25pm, 6 Apr 2014
946 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week 5 of polarized training:
Easy run: 244 min, 39Km, 6:15 /Km, aHR 117 (76% max) 732 b/Km
Easy elliptical: 45 min
Tempo: 20 min, aHR 89% max
High intensity: 20 min (5x3 min + 1x5 min) peak HR 94% max
Total duration: 329 min
Proportions easy/threshold/high: 88/6.0/6.0

Another hectic week at work and a mild exacerbation of arthritis limited the total training volume.

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 113,718 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here