Polarized training

91 watchers
Mar 2018
9:10pm, 21 Mar 2018
2,727 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Yeah the canova post was pinched off letsrun.
Mar 2018
12:59pm, 22 Mar 2018
2,608 posts
  •  
  • 0
jdarun
Seems a bit cakeist to me. All these elites doing polarised training means that polarised training is best, and when some world-class athletes run hard instead, just imagine how much better they might have been on polarised training!
Mar 2018
7:02pm, 22 Mar 2018
1,843 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Jdarun,
It is possible they might had had less trouble with injury if they had done so.
Mar 2018
7:04pm, 22 Mar 2018
14,487 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenners
Ron Hill would have been better, in my view, if he'd adopted such an approach (and ran less!).
Mar 2018
7:15pm, 22 Mar 2018
2,611 posts
  •  
  • 0
jdarun
I know, thing is I also have sympathy with the viewpoint but I can't help thinking it's somewhat unscientific!
Mar 2018
8:25pm, 22 Mar 2018
14,488 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenners
Perhaps I've misunderstood but isn't super-compensation scientific?

Supercompensation: After adequate recovery from a workload your body was previously not suited to withstand has been introduced, the predictive and responsive nature of the body builds itself in anticipation for the next expected challenge. You’ve basically tricked your body into becoming suitable to withstand the next effort based on the previously experienced challenge in phase one."
Mar 2018
9:11pm, 22 Mar 2018
988 posts
  •  
  • 0
flyingfinn
Fenners, maybe given the times they're running today's UK Elites might be better off training like Ron Hill rather than vice versa! In 47 years only ten Brits have run quicker than him at the marathon, only two this century and only one since 2005.
SPR
Mar 2018
9:15pm, 22 Mar 2018
25,730 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Yeah, it's a pretty tall order to say someone who ran that fast should have changed their whole training philosophy.
Mar 2018
9:32pm, 22 Mar 2018
14,489 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenners
But he could have been better. In fact some of his best marathon performances when he got injured and had enforced rest.
Mar 2018
9:34pm, 22 Mar 2018
14,490 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenners
Like I say, it's my view/opinion. Hopefully no less valid than anybody else's?

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 113,794 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here