The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free.
But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient.
Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead.
Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?
NN - I did find I get a lot of "rubbish" HRV readings... (ie totally incorrect/impossible), but when they do work, they make more sense than HR and RHR which can jump 20 beats in a day for no apparent reason (and this is backed up by medical studies which is why they don't recommend using it according to Running Science - Owen Anderson). HR is a blunt tool. It's like saying my car is ok because it can drive at 90mph whereas my neighbours can only drive 60. And I'm like yeah listen to the bloody engine, look at the oil leaking on the forecourt...
Yes, best measure of tiredness is how you feel definitely.
So I'm guessing Ed's last world record was run while having cancer as well, making it even more remarkable.
Quiet in here without Canute.
So reporting back on my efforts with 5 weeks of Billat 30-30s and, one sub LT threshold run a week, and the rest easy to easyish. I have seen some remarkable change. I'm now recording lowest ever average HR on 9.30 pace hilly 5 miler, averaging 72% of HR max. On the sub LT threshold again using HR as a measure, of 160-161, have gone from 6.52/7.09/7.03 to 6.42/6.48/6.48 and that was 2 weeks ago, and I think/know it's better than that now.
My one race performance (a hilly 10 miler) saw me beat 2 colleagues I've not beaten for 9 months to a year (they were both a little shocked), and people who beat me in the early season 10 miler by 4-5 minutes I was level with them for much of the race before dropping off in last 2 miles, and me beating people by 2-3 minutes who had beaten me by 1-2 minutes in the early season race. Park run this weekend I beat my course pb by 22 seconds set 3 weeks ago.
This is also on less weekly mileage than I normally do.
Question is 1) are the changes sustainable and 2) how much better can I get. Doing 6th set today, after last seasons experiments with all low HR stuff and higher mileage and having my worst year in 8, it is obvious to me which is more effective.
Not sure that a few weeks of the Billat 30-30 have made much difference to me, although it feels good to do some hard running. Suspect the fact that I seem to have gained 2 or 3kg over the winter probably cancels out any other gains.
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
You can report any content you believe to be unsafe.
Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.
Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.
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!
80/20
Jun 2019