Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



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?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Polarized training

91 watchers
J2R
Mar 2018
10:42am, 21 Mar 2018
1,073 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
@NN, on the basis of my HM 2 weeks ago (1:20 and 3 sodding seconds), the McMillan calculator gives me a marathon pace of 6:26, so the pace you're talking about would be 6:41. I really doubt that I could do that within zone 1. But you know what? I'm going to give it a try! I'm going to run a mile or so to warm up and then I'm going to run a mile or so at 6:41 pace and see what HR I'm hitting. Should be interesting. Intuitively I do feel that some running at the top end of zone 1 is worthwhile although I've not seen any studies that support this.
Mar 2018
11:24am, 21 Mar 2018
883 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Brunski
IIRC a lot of Lidyard training is high aerobic, so sub threshold (Hadd also has these runs once/twice weekly in his training). Guess it depends where your zone 1 ends...?
J2R
Mar 2018
1:09pm, 21 Mar 2018
1,074 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
OK, I did the test and the results are interesting. I got the pacing slightly wrong and ran at an average pace of 6:35. My HR for this was 143bpm. That's above what I would consider my VT1, although I was able to do 4 out, 4 in breathing and could have had a conversation with someone running alongside, albeit not especially comfortably. So maybe my VT1 is more like 140-141 than the 137 I had it as before. I suspect 6:45 pace would bring me down a couple of beats.

This is quite encouraging. I think it means I could probably do the MP + 15s runs NN is suggesting without going much above the top of my zone 1. Maybe cardiac drift would be an issue, though? I wonder whether the best policy would be to keep an eye on the HR and not worry about the pace, so try to keep my HR around 141-142.
Mar 2018
1:34pm, 21 Mar 2018
18,043 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Wriggling Snake
In any run cardiac drift happens so dropping pace would be correct.
Mar 2018
1:40pm, 21 Mar 2018
14,479 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Fenners
WS, no cardiac drift during my 12-miler today ;-)
Mar 2018
1:56pm, 21 Mar 2018
12,436 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Chrisull
My HR usually goes down slightly after the first 7-8 miles of an even paced long run as well, although it does rise after 15-16.
J2R
Mar 2018
2:04pm, 21 Mar 2018
1,075 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
Actually, from looking at my Cambridge HM early this month, I can see that there's no real cardiac drift there for me. My HR climbed for the first couple of miles (only a little for the second mile), and then stuck at around 165-166bpm until my finishing sprint. It'll be interesting to see what happens at longer distances (haven't raced longer than HM since 2012).
Mar 2018
5:51pm, 21 Mar 2018
2,726 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Ninky Nonk
exeter.ac.uk

Interesting read if you've not seen this before.
J2R
Mar 2018
6:19pm, 21 Mar 2018
1,077 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
I think Paula is definitely a bit of an outlier. A very interesting take on her training from our own Canute is worth reading: canute1.wordpress.com
Mar 2018
8:59pm, 21 Mar 2018
886 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Brunski
Thanks for the link NN, interesting read that. It reminded me of a really long thread on let's run I read a while ago about the different training methods for predominantly fast twitch and slow twitch runners. I think it compared Marmede and Lopez a couple of Portuguese runners from the 80s and the differing ways they trained.

The thing I took from that is that the fast twitch runner would benefit more from the polarised type of training (probably to get those adaptations of type II muscles), whereas the slow twitchers would benefit more from lots of tempo running, more races, etc (like Paula I suspect).

I've not read the 2nd link from Canute yet, might save that for tomorrow.

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
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • 8020
  • heart
  • training

Report This Content

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!
Get Started
Click here to join 114,289 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here