Polarized training

91 watchers
SPR
Oct 2016
8:14pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,904 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Lol Vrap.
SPR
Oct 2016
8:19pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,905 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Link in NN's article is broken, direct link here: scienceofrunning.com
Oct 2016
8:32pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,414 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I agree recovery runs should be run as easy as they need to be. I probably run 6-10 miles a week at 15min/mile pace and another 15 at 8min/mile or so. Given marathon pace is 5.40........

I would question the value of recovery runs for people running 3 days a week. (That is not aimed at anyone by the way) Nothing wrong with 3 days of good, strong aerobic running with rest days between. Unless you really need a slow day. But you should soon find an easy repeatable run pace within a few weeks of training.
SPR
Oct 2016
8:55pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,907 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I suppose it depends whether the plan is 3 days long term. But the other thing that the Magness FT vs ST chart says is that there can be issues with doing aerobic runs too fast for FT runners which ST runners are unlikely to encounter.
Oct 2016
9:17pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,415 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
True but the ft/st thing is a spectrum and I've never quite been able to figure out where I sit on that line, nevermind anyone else.

It all leads us back to finding out what works for you and best repeatable pace rather than the picking some arbitrary values from joggers globe for hr, pace or whatever.

Saying all that the 'zones' can be a guide - just don't be a slave. It is not that critical.
zp
Oct 2016
9:23pm, 22 Oct 2016
56 posts
  •  
  • 0
zp
[joggers globe :D]

I think I get the gist now, but out of curiousity, what is FT and ST?
zp
Oct 2016
9:24pm, 22 Oct 2016
57 posts
  •  
  • 0
zp
Oh .. fast twitch and slow twitch?
Oct 2016
9:30pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,416 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
👍
SPR
Oct 2016
9:35pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,908 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
NN. It's event specific so you should be able to do it from race times.

So for 800m I'd be ST, for 10000m I'm FT. Certainly from a training perspective it makes sense.
SPR
Oct 2016
9:37pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,909 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
NN - in isolation that's perfectly fine but in the world where loads of runners do their general training at race pace...

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