Polarized training

91 watchers
SPR
Dec 2016
3:03pm, 24 Dec 2016
23,259 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
This mentions recovery: google.co.uk
Dec 2016
3:24pm, 24 Dec 2016
2,528 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Thanks.
Dec 2016
7:24pm, 24 Dec 2016
10,452 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
This is good I like the sound of 8.
Dec 2016
8:05pm, 24 Dec 2016
32,954 posts
  •  
  • 0
Hills of Death (HOD)
Oh yeah that's true lol
Dec 2016
10:20pm, 28 Dec 2016
1,784 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
SPR, I have been away, but have now replied to your query on my word-press blog.

Macinnis and Gibala reported a synthesis of findings for several studies, using similar but not identical protocols, mainly on bicycle ergometer. Typically:

MICT: 30 min at 50-65 % PPO (PPO is power at VO2Max) or approximately 80% VO2 max

HIIT: 4 x [4 min at 70% PPO, 2 min at 10% PPO]

SIT (low volume): 5x30 sec at absolute max power (typically 175% PPO on first sprint; decreasing to 150% PPO on 5th sprint, with 4-5 min recovery at 10% PPO. Some stuides employed a greater number of sprints

All protocols performed 3 times per week, typically for 6-8 weeks

With regard to physiological benefits, it is not clear to me that HIIT and SIT differ greatly in efficacy though both are more efficient than MICT relative to work-load. HIIT produces greater gains in VO2 max than MICT when total workload is held constant. The comparison with SIT is made difficult by differences in total work load between low volume SIT and the other two protocols
SPR
Dec 2016
9:21am, 29 Dec 2016
23,275 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
While the suggestion that sprint reps are good for aerobic development is welcome as I do them, I can't imagine someone racing well off just sprint reps.
Dec 2016
11:54am, 29 Dec 2016
1,785 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
The interesting observation is that sprinting helps develop aerobic (mitochondrial) enzymes. It does not damage aerobic development, contrary to the previously common belief arising from Lydiard's ideas about periodization, that once you begin intense sessions, there is no further development of aerobic capacity.

However I certainly would not advocate a program of sprint sessions only for a distance runner. The low intensity pole of polarised training is also required.
SPR
Dec 2016
11:57am, 29 Dec 2016
23,276 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
The key with the sprints though is that they are short with full recovery. Might be different if they weren't.
Dec 2016
1:02pm, 29 Dec 2016
10,976 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
You totally disagree with Maffetone then? Unless I read it wrong he is strongly against any thing like that.
SPR
Dec 2016
1:09pm, 29 Dec 2016
23,282 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I think Canute's point is the science disagrees with Maffetone.

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 113,796 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here