Polarized training

91 watchers
Oct 2016
3:26pm, 23 Oct 2016
10,292 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland_Plodder
SPR, and I love the short interval sprinting stuff. Which makes perfect sense as my target race is 100 miles :-o
SPR
Oct 2016
3:29pm, 23 Oct 2016
22,926 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Can't expect to keep something if you don't train it. Sprinting btw is 100m or less and I'd start with less. Anything more is speed endurance. You start on hills because it is easier on the body.
Oct 2016
3:31pm, 23 Oct 2016
10,090 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
I used to like the short stuff, but now prefer intervals of 600m and upwards (which I first started I hated).
SPR
Oct 2016
3:35pm, 23 Oct 2016
22,927 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Just to be clear, pure speed is worked on with full recovery. Sprint with walk back recovery taking two mins plus. It's not done like intervals with incomplete recovery.
Oct 2016
4:19pm, 23 Oct 2016
10,091 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Yep the alactic (anaerobic) system, takes the longest of all to recover in intervals. The question is, will it be worth my while. I know the thinking behind it partly, it should improve running economy, form, which translates across all three energy systems, the downside is the soreness (not injury) it causes.
SPR
Oct 2016
4:45pm, 23 Oct 2016
22,928 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Soreness will be due to not being used to it, start shorter, slower, and fewer reps. Increase pace as condition improves.
Oct 2016
6:08pm, 23 Oct 2016
10,092 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Todays 7mile race (forgot the HRM too) went bad today (well was all along), beginning to think that aerobic fitness isn't the main issue in my slow down, but stride length, which is being restricted by hamstrings/lower back soreness, which also might lead to a reluctance to tackle faster reps.

My stride length decreased by 4cm since my last race 3 weeks ago (this was from the gun, in fact I felt going up the first 100m I was struggling to stay with people I normally can). This stems back to soreness and a feeling of not being able to fully stride out for a lot of the year. At one point I felt I was going my normal default 6.55/7.00 pace and saw I was going 7.16 which was a shock. Aerobically afterwards I didn't feel the race was challenging (7 miles at 7.09 pace, compared to 12 miles training at 7.24 pace confirms it almost certainly wasn't). I overcame soreness and tightness for a short while earlier this year with some very steep, but not super hard hill running - and being on holiday and not being sat at a computer all day, this is definitely impacting on me. Back to some hill work, and finding some flexibility/strength work to attempt to remedy again.
Oct 2016
7:31pm, 23 Oct 2016
2,422 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Hopefully you managed to enjoy the race today chrisull even if the pace wasn't what you were hoping.

Clearly you know what has worked for you in the past. As much as I am not a huge advocate of hr training strangely I am quite a maffetone convert. He has some interesting ideas on causes of inflammation - anaerobic exercise and diet mostly.

Some might see it as mumbo jumbo and obviously I don't know your current diet - but worth considering.
SPR
Oct 2016
7:43pm, 23 Oct 2016
22,929 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Sorry to hear the race didn't go well. Hope you manage to work through your issues.
Oct 2016
11:21pm, 23 Oct 2016
10,093 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Ultimately I suppose I'm lucky, in that this isn't stopping me from running, I'm not running through pain, although there is definitely the feeling of of soreness. People who have seen me run recently say I'm not looking comfortable.

I am exploring diet, but I'm a veggie of 25 years and I do eat pretty healthily anyway - i'm fairly au fait with the omega 3/omega 6 ideas, but also I'm not a believer in supplements. The inflammation theories are interesting (although as I've said he's said some plain out nonsense on his site like "avoid restaurant food" which means I can't take a lot of what he says too seriously), and another avenue would be stop running, and see what happens but I'd need some alternative because I develop back issues within days of this because of my day job. Is it some chronic inflammation issue? Is it just aging? I suspect we don't age in nice linear progressions but in leaps and spurts.

Anyway cheers for all the advice - it is frustrating mostly. I will work it out!

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 113,910 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here