Polarized training

91 watchers
Oct 2016
9:39pm, 22 Oct 2016
34,737 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
I'm close to the slow twitch end of the spectrum and the list of slow twitch runner characteristics that SPR posted a couple of pages back describes me very well.
Oct 2016
9:42pm, 22 Oct 2016
2,417 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
For my benefit then, where would you place me for 3k, 5k, 10k, and half?
SPR
Oct 2016
10:06pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,910 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
NN - 3km is your shortest distance on record so can't say there.

Based on McMillan by putting in 5km and 10km times.

5km - Slightly Slow twitch. 3000m 10 secs slower than expected, 10000m 6 secs slower which might as well be bang on. TBH it's close so on the day factors come into it.

10km - Slow twitch. Half almost min faster than expected 5km pretty much bang on, this is the clearest one but still close
Half - marathon is old so can't say.

Obviously this may all be based on the training you've done and targets etc. Does seem to indicate you're fairly well balanced. Will be interesting to see your next marathon. Do you have one coming up?
SPR
Oct 2016
10:08pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,911 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
But also the other features on the lost can be used but agree it's harder when you're not on the poles of the spectrum.
Oct 2016
11:24pm, 22 Oct 2016
10,086 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Crikey. So much to take in. Thanks SPR. Still digesting.

Looks like I am an ST runner for 10k and above, was that what you were guessing SPR? (or the opposite lol)? There's several reasons for me thinking this 1) very consistent performances (until this year - look at my 10k season bests every year prior to this one), but even then they are consistent now, just consistently 2 minutes off the pace in races) 2) I peak in marathon training often around 7 weeks, I can get back into shape very quickly, 3) I am noticeably better in intervals than other club runners between the reps. When I first started running with the club, 10 years ago, a lot of these things weren't true, the opposite was true. Although 9) from the faster one seems to be true.

Anyway I went for a walk with the HRM on as promised. Walked up the hill I run up on most my runs, at a normal pace - heart rate went to 126 which goes into zone 2. I can run up that hill at 143 max. I note fitdigits site says "Your Heart Rate Zones are too low: * If you have to almost stop to keep in Zone 1"
SPR
Oct 2016
11:40pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,912 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Chris - My guess was for marathon you're FT. You said you struggle with LR initially but then they get easier which could possibly be you coping with using your anaerobic system better. Haven't looked at the rest of your times but you said they were in line. Have you put them into McMillan's predictor?
SPR
Oct 2016
11:51pm, 22 Oct 2016
22,913 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
It's best to look at this in a what needs work now or how do I work on my weakness than a fixed I'm a ST/ FT runner way. The point of it is to guide your training.

NN - Is right though, it is just a guide not a rule, but it gives you something to work/ experiment with.
Oct 2016
7:26am, 23 Oct 2016
2,418 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
twitter.com
Oct 2016
8:28am, 23 Oct 2016
10,286 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland_Plodder
Going back to RPE. The biggest downfall is the P part, perception. If you're in a positive mood a run may feel 'easy' when the HR stats tell a different story. And conversely you may feel a bit shit and say the run was a struggle but the HR is significantly lower than the 'easy' RPE run.

FWIW I think I'm nearer the FT than ST.
Oct 2016
8:48am, 23 Oct 2016
2,419 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Why is perception a downfall? Why is heart rate 'the truth'?

You could turn that round and say you did an easy run and the hr stats were wrong.

You can measure things precisely and still be completely inaccurate.

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 113,911 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here