Polarized training
91 watchers
Dec 2016
10:02pm, 29 Dec 2016
2,533 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately I think it is unrealistic to expect science to ever provide precise guidance for an individuals training. Although I'd remind myself that just because knowledge isn't published in a peer reviewed paper doesn't mean it isn't science. The great coaches will have perhaps have seen hundreds or even thousands of athletes in the course of a career and built a huge amount of experimental evidence. Of course I don't suggest there is nothing more to learn. Most science involves the control of many variables, and variation of only a few. Otherwise the trees get lost for woods! If we accept that it is impossible to maximise all physiological parameters simultaneously then, at the pinnacle of performance, training becomes a balancing act. Nobody can ever be the fastest sprinter and have the best endurance at the same time. I'd also like to think there's more to performance than just physiological parameters - confidence, guts, determination. In terms of a career for what it's worth and no scientific basis I'd suggest three principles for starters. 1. Minimum effective dose. Do only just enough training to provoke adaptation and minimise risk of injury. 2. Consistency. 3. Progression. Any additions? |
Dec 2016
11:16pm, 29 Dec 2016
23,290 posts
|
SPR
Certainly agree with 2 and 3. 1 is interesting, as I think you ideally you do as much as possible while minimising the injury risk.
|
Dec 2016
11:22pm, 29 Dec 2016
1,787 posts
|
Canute
NN, as you imply, the essence of science is not peer reviewed publication; the essence is making hypotheses and testing them against evidence. Both a good scientist and good coach do this. In my opinion, one of the most interesting applications of science to training in recent years is the training program developed by Ed Whitlock. He makes no claim that it will work for anyone else. Indeed in his mischievous manner, might claim it is not science, but a lot of ideas have gone into developing his training program, and he has identified what works for him. In particular he has designed a program with the goals of minimising risk of injury. Unfortunately, as he has reached his mid-eighties, he is now finding it harder to avoid injury. With regard to your principles I tend to agree but have some misgiving about the way you express principle 1. My concern is with the phrase: minimum effective dose. If you merely want to achieve a given time target or to complete a particular distance, if you succeed, the dose was effective, but if you want to achieve the best performance within your capability it is not so easy to identify the minimum effective dose. I would place more emphasis on aiming for the maximum amount (time permitting) and type of training that avoids: illness. injury or failure to progress. Scientific evidence based on published papers and personal experience can help identify this. I have now added a post to my word-press blog that addresses the question of whether polarized training helps reduce risk of injury Some of the ideas are still hypotheses, but all are ideas that principle can be subjected to test. canute1.wordpress.com |
Dec 2016
11:31pm, 29 Dec 2016
2,534 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Just need enough training/fatigue to cause supercompensation and new fitness level. More training/fatigue does not equal more supercompensation or more fitness.
|
Dec 2016
11:32pm, 29 Dec 2016
2,535 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I'll have a read in the morning canute. Look forward to it.
|
Dec 2016
10:33am, 30 Dec 2016
23,291 posts
|
SPR
NN - Post 2534 suggests you can only improve at one rate which is doesn't sound right to me. I would think there's a peak where you train just right and the lower improvement (eventually getting to zero or even decline) where you train too little or too much
|
Dec 2016
10:47am, 30 Dec 2016
23,292 posts
|
SPR
Interesting blog Canute. I was going to say yesterday in regard to Dill's post about injury that I'm not sure running fast causes injury and and that I would think sprinting would have a strengthening effect that would help with injury prevention (think of it like strength training). I think intervals can have a similar effect with careful planning. I think tempo/ threshold is probably more likely to lead to injury due to combining pace with endurance, races being even worse for this. As you say in your blog this is where fatigue sets in. |
Dec 2016
11:58am, 30 Dec 2016
10,989 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Canute, has anybody done in depth study of cortisol and running? From personal experience I'm leaning towards the view that training even a small percentage too fast increases cortisol levels to such levels it totally negates the training effort and may even reduce performance? |
Dec 2016
4:29pm, 30 Dec 2016
2,536 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I do tend to think a person has a rate at which they can build true aerobic fitness. Muscles, heart and lungs only grow so fast I suppose. I'm excluding other easy performance gains like weight loss. I actually think we're saying the same thing spr. I think the person who trains by progressively overloading will improve as fast if not faster than the person who trains by just doing as much training as they can cope with. Fenland - nothing wrong with a bit of fast running and a bit of cortisol đ funnily enough I did wonder about cortisol as a guide for training load myself. I think canute provided a response on his blog. |
Dec 2016
5:35pm, 30 Dec 2016
294 posts
|
Dillthedog57
SPR - I believe I am more prone to injuries during intervals than steady state faster running. I seem to be ok with a parkrun run at PB pace, but if I broke it down into say 4 x 5 mins at 5k pace with a rest between, I would be more likely to get crocked. I think it is the changes of pace that seem to do for me. Of course, this is from my scientific study of me, so may be complete tosh, but "touch wood" I seem currently to have settled on a way of training and racing that suits me. I do suspect that I am not physically strong enough for intervals, even with a bit of strength work sprinkled in. Or maybe just too old...
|
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