or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Polarized training

91 watchers
Oct 2016
9:05am, 23 Oct 2016
10,287 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland_Plodder
Perhaps I'm trying to suggest that RPE is prone to how the person feels. Providing the HR is working correctly it is an absolute.
Oct 2016
9:13am, 23 Oct 2016
2,420 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
100% heart rate is not an absolute.

I can be standing on the start line before I've even run a step and my hr can be 150+.

If I'm dehydrated my hr can vary.

If I'm ill my hr can vary.

If it's hot my hr can vary. If it's cold my hr can vary.

If I've drunk coffee my hr can vary. If I've eaten my hr can vary.

If it's the morning my hr will be different to lunch and again in the evening.
SPR
Oct 2016
9:15am, 23 Oct 2016
22,914 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
NN - Can you expand. The discussion ATM is essentially around Magness's model of individualisation.
SPR
Oct 2016
9:16am, 23 Oct 2016
22,915 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
That's regarding your link.
SPR
Oct 2016
9:19am, 23 Oct 2016
22,916 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
All fair points, I'm not bashing RPE, I've just used HR to remind myself that I wanted to stay easy while increasing the length of my runs.
Oct 2016
9:20am, 23 Oct 2016
10,288 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland_Plodder
But is that more variable or has a larger margin of error than I feel great and overdo it?
SPR
Oct 2016
9:23am, 23 Oct 2016
22,917 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I would trust HR over RPE if there was a significant mismatch and if it is causing performance issues a change is probably necessary.
Oct 2016
9:27am, 23 Oct 2016
2,421 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Spr said '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.'

It reminded me that st/ft types can respond differently to the same training stimulus. We could potentially train smarter by doing more training of the type we individually respond best to, and less of the training that we don't.

But as I've said before I find it hard to place myself and others on the spectrum.

I think the only real way is to experiment slightly with your training and see what happens.
Oct 2016
9:29am, 23 Oct 2016
10,087 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Also these days I have no kick , another ST indicator. I did use to be FT, but the majority of them say ST. And yes I did put my numbers in the Macmillan, it said I should be a fair bit faster over 1k, 1 mile and 3000m than I actually was at my best. My 10k and half mara pbs are my best overall. Anyway race beckons
SPR
Oct 2016
9:32am, 23 Oct 2016
22,918 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Yes NN, that's exactly the point. Two runners training for the same event don't have to train exactly the same.

Agree using the knowledge to experiment is the way forward.

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 113,949 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here