Polarized training

91 watchers
Feb 2017
8:44pm, 8 Feb 2017
10,611 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Thanks all - yep that explains it. I can notice when vt1 occurs.

I've been doing 2 tempo/LT thresholds a week and rest easy (normally 4 runs). 10k time down 1.30 in a month. 30 seconds faster on my same runs for same HR. Without the tempo/LT threshold runs, this doesn't happen for me.
Feb 2017
8:54pm, 8 Feb 2017
2,584 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I'll try an analogy I've just made up in my head.

It's a bright day. We all know it's a bad idea to stare directly at the sun on a bright day. It hurts our eyes. We don't worry about whether it's OK to stare at 10degrees or 11.5 degrees or 12 degrees away from the sun. We just know that there is a lot of sky to stare at that isn't at the sun. So we look there instead. When we think we might be getting close to looking at the sun we stop and look away from the sun before it hurts our eyes.
Feb 2017
7:59am, 9 Feb 2017
176 posts
  •  
  • 0
Brunski
I like your analogy Ninky Nonk.

I guess the curious will also sneak a peak at the sun itself, but they'll get a bit of damage.. but as long as they don't stay there too long it won't have much of an adverse effect.
J2R
Feb 2017
10:21am, 9 Feb 2017
332 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Interesting analogy. I think the problem, though, is that it's not quite so clear cut - it's quite possible to do one's easy runs at a pace a little above VT1 without necessarily noticing it. Given the physiolgical significance of this marker (research by Seiler suggested that below VT1, stresses on the whole system involving build-up of cortisol were substantially reduced), I think a degree of precision is quite important.

Fenland Runner, interested to hear your observations about improvements just from slow running. I've been doing a higher than usual mileage myself in the last couple of months, mainly slow (typically around 65% of my working heart rate). A couple of weeks ago I did a decent 10 mile race (1:00:50), faster than I was expecting to, considering I'd done virtually no long runs in the 2-3 months before it, only a fair amount of easy mileage. I've also been doing a decent amount of brisk (12:30-13:30 pace) walking on days when I've decided against running, for whatever reason. I'm never sure what benefits this really brings apart from the psychological ones (I work from home so it means getting out of the house), but I assume that pushing my heart rate above 100 for an hour or so has to do something.
Feb 2017
10:42am, 9 Feb 2017
10,615 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Quick q - so is the cortisol produced by going over VT1, any different to the type/amount of cortisol produced by having a crap day at the office?

If not, then what is the point of avoiding cortisol when running? Chances are you have a crap day at the office, come home, run it out, and the endorphins produced make you feel less stressed and so there will be less cortisol produced?
J2R
Feb 2017
11:26am, 9 Feb 2017
333 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I'm no expert in this field, but my understanding is that it's sustained production of cortisol, day after day, which is the problem, not one-offs. It adversely affects the autonomic nervous system, and leads to overtraining syndrome. Here are a couple of relevant reads:

fftri.com

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
J2R
Feb 2017
11:27am, 9 Feb 2017
334 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Sorry, wrong link there:

omicsgroup.org
Feb 2017
11:29am, 9 Feb 2017
10,617 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Interesting to see them using HRV and not HR to determine recovery in these studies. I've argued for a while HR not a good marker of how fit/unfit/stressed/overtrained you are. HRV is much better - and this seems to back me up, but the HR monitor are not hearing it.
Feb 2017
12:37pm, 9 Feb 2017
2,586 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Personally think hrv is as bad if not worse than hr.

So much variation in hrv I've found it impossible to baseline. You can attribute variation in the variation to anything.

Best measure of tiredness is how tired you feel.
J2R
Feb 2017
1:44pm, 9 Feb 2017
335 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I actually experimented with tracking HRV last year and found it useful and interesting. The only reason I stopped tracking it is that I can't get my current Android phone to communicate successfully with my Garmin heart rate monitor, even though my previous one was fine.

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 113,802 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here