Polarized training
91 watchers
Dec 2016
2:29pm, 8 Dec 2016
23,149 posts
|
SPR
Did Crossfit having you doing 100% efforts all the time (that's the reputation it has), if it did it isn't optimal training the randomised format of training isn't the best either.
|
Dec 2016
2:58pm, 8 Dec 2016
13,966 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Not entirely....it has three strands, weight lifting, proper barbell stuff, which is pretty good for core,correct form. Gymnastic work, again good for core, and then combinations of weights, running so yes, you would move towards flat out work...the idea was to test your boundarie. I replaced tempo runs with this in effect. You are right about the randomness of it, to me it didn't build towards something just a constant barage of stuff... |
Dec 2016
8:06pm, 8 Dec 2016
257 posts
|
Dillthedog57
Canute - can I ask what effect running PB parkruns every week has, versus running them at a threshold pace? I get the fact that running flat out will increase the chance of injury, but will it have any other negative effect on performance and progression? Is running at threshold going to have a more beneficial impact than running at PB pace?
|
Dec 2016
8:19pm, 8 Dec 2016
2,503 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I can think of a few issues with following the training patterns of elite runners. 1. Even though the runners are elite their training patterns may be sub optimal. (I'll admit it's a bit fly by night that one) 2. Elite runners common genetic traits may predispose them to be greater responders to certain training stimuli than the general population. 3. I think this is the main one - what's missing is the huge training background and lifestyle of elite athletes before they were elite. What I'd be REALLY interested in what training elite athletes were doing before they were elite. 4. Copying the averaged training pace proportions of elite athletes arbitrarily does not represent a training plan for an individual. Regarding specific training - canova believes specific training to be the most important. All other training exists to support specific training. What must be built first is a very high general level of fitness to enable the athlete to under take the maximum amount of specific training. |
Dec 2016
9:15pm, 8 Dec 2016
1,778 posts
|
Canute
NN, The experimental studies of polarized training did not use elites, but in general found that polarized was more effective than threshold training. The evidence from elites is only part of the story. However in all of the relevant studies, the athletes had a fairly good base. I think that whatever training program you follow, you need to develop an adequate base for that program. The base training for a typical polarised program might include gradually increasing amounts of high intensity work and gradually increasing duration of long run. In his writings, Canova placed the main emphasis on specific sessions. However as far as one can glean from those of his athletes who have published training logs, they did a lot of low intensity training. DTD, that is an interesting question. Ed Whitlock’s strategy of combining multiple long slow runs per week with regular races over 5 or 10 Km clearly worked very well for him, though one cannot draw strong general conclusions from the training of an exceptional athlete. I would anticipate that 5K at race pace has the potential to achieve a better ratio of training effect to stress on the body than a tempo run, though I consider a hard race once per week might be excessive. In my younger days, during the track season I raced 5000 m once every two weeks and usually experienced improvement over the season. In my youth, at the beginning of track season I usually had a good base, developed by Lydiard style winter training. Note that I also did some short track races (4x100m relay, 400 hurdles for the sake of club points) and a small amount of interval training during the track season. As you imply, weekly parkrun at race pace would be a risky strategy unless your body was well prepared for racing. In light of the evidence suggesting that elites typically follow an 80:10:10 ratio of low, mid and high intensity, maybe alternating parkrun at race pace with parkrun at a more easy tempo pace might be worth considering. For example a monthly total of 250 Km including 200km of low intensity, with 2 parkruns at race pace and two parkruns at easy tempo pace would still leave space for several additional high intensity sessions and tempo sessions within an 80:10:10 program. Incidentally I interpret the ratio as a ratio of times, not distance, but whichever way you calculate it, you can fit 2 intense parkruns per month in a schedule of 250Km per month. However, I would not do this throughout the whole year, as I think it is best to have a substantial break without intense racing at some time in the year. |
Dec 2016
9:33pm, 8 Dec 2016
258 posts
|
Dillthedog57
Canute - thank you, that's very enlightening. I had always assumed that running at a threshold pace had some special significance, and that exceeding that pace would negate the beneficial aspects of the run, but could never find any evidence of this. I think jack Daniels gave a talk where he explained the exponential risk of injury with increased effort, against the diminishing return in terms of fitness gained, gave a sort of sweet spot at about threshold pace. That was the simplest explanation I had seen of why we use threshold versus race pace, and made sense to my less scientific mind.
|
Dec 2016
9:45pm, 8 Dec 2016
1,779 posts
|
Canute
DTD, I accept that there is a long tradition of considering that threshold is the sweet spot, and Jack Daniels articulates that most clearly. However not only is there the evidence from direct comparisons of different training strategies, and the evidence from the training of elites, I think the evidence regarding the balance of anabolic versus catabolic hormone stimulation provided by high intensity v theshold favours the greater benefit/harm ratio of high intensity . I am not aware of any good articles that directly discuss the hormonal effects of polarized training. I will write an article on my Wordpress blog summarizing that evidence as soon as I have time – hopefully before Christmas |
Dec 2016
10:29pm, 8 Dec 2016
259 posts
|
Dillthedog57
I will look forward to it. I am emerging from a period of pure base training and including an increasing intensity parkrun into my training. During December I am running a threshold pace, having upped from a tempo/marathon pace, and in the new year will start to incorporate PB runs. In percentage terms, I am doing a total of about 40 miles per week, so a parkrun is about 7.5% in distance terms. Very low even by the 80.10.10 ratio, but balanced also against my own propensity to pick up niggly injuries when I increases the amount of high intensity work. I am relying instead on being able to run consistently and build miles at the expense of quicker gains through speed work.
|
Dec 2016
12:23pm, 19 Dec 2016
32,926 posts
|
Hills of Death (HOD)
Just a general question what MHR % do you think is adviseable for Tempo pace ?
|
Dec 2016
12:49pm, 19 Dec 2016
269 posts
|
Dillthedog57
HOD, I always get a bit confused about tempo runs because there are loads of runs that have been labelled as tempo, from MP runs to threshold runs, and from 20 mins to an hour. I guess it depends what you are training for and what you want to get out of the session? As a guide, Jack Daniels says 82-86% of MHR. m.youtube.com
|
Related Threads
- 80/20 Jun 2019
- Heart rate Dec 2024
- Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire. Jul 2023
- Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate Jan 2021
- No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease Jan 2021
- Resetting Max Heart Rate Dec 2020
- Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal Oct 2020
- Heart rate zones Jul 2020
- Running Heart rate Jun 2020
- Heart Rate monitors Jun 2020