Polarized training

3 lurkers | 91 watchers
Oct 2016
7:36pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,735 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
(But it would be of little use to me because my limiting factor on steep hills isn't my engine, it's leg strength.)
SPR
Oct 2016
7:39pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,901 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Hill sprints Vrap.
zp
Oct 2016
7:47pm, 22 Oct 2016
53 posts
  •  
  • 0
zp
SPR - thanks. I was referring back to your comment about letting yourself up to 80% on the hills, which I thought was very much the "grey area" where Thou Shalt Not Run :P Chris on the coaching thread is pretty much exactly my situation though, if he lived in North Yorkshire rather than Cornwall. I can (and do) walk hills, but when I should or shouldn't I've never been too sure of, and now I'm not training for a race that requires so much walking, I'd rather run more of it.

I did my first short set of hill reps the other day - probably too long to be considered sprints, about 50s up each time - but they did average over 85% MHR :) Perversely enjoyable.
zp
Oct 2016
7:49pm, 22 Oct 2016
54 posts
  •  
  • 0
zp
Oh, and I'd say my training is around 70/30 trail/road (or hilly/flat). It does make it hard to find an off the shelf training plan for anything.
SPR
Oct 2016
7:57pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,902 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
ZP - that was Chris in regards to drift up to 80%. My opinion on drift is as long as your heart rate comes down quickly after then it shouldn't be an issue so if you go up to 80% on a hill then you'd want to be back down within a few seconds when back on the flat. According to the zones I posted up a couple of pages ago 75-85% is still zone 2 so not the grey area but not a lot of training is done in that zone in the study I posted.
Oct 2016
7:59pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,412 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I'm disappointed spr. You post out of the magness book and still peddle his pet peeve - zone training. 😉
zp
Oct 2016
8:00pm, 22 Oct 2016
55 posts
  •  
  • 0
zp
SPR, great - much appreciated :) Lots to go on now, just need to get out and put it into practice.
Oct 2016
8:02pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,413 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
joyfulathlete.com
Oct 2016
8:05pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,736 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
Choosing different parents and being 20 years younger, SPR ;)
SPR
Oct 2016
8:14pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,903 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
NN lol. Can't deny that staying in zone 1 is good for ensuring easy runs are easy though which is what this is about. I'm sure I've read the blog before, but shall read again.

I wouldn't do zones for workouts.

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