Polarized training
1 lurker |
91 watchers
Oct 2021
4:06pm, 27 Oct 2021
1,909 posts
|
Brunski
SPR, yeah I guess it depends on how intense your intense is (and what distance you’re training for). I’m probably basing my thoughts on longer road events and it may well work well for a decent 400/800/1500m runner who doesn’t do a lot of mileage but really does hit their speed session.
|
Oct 2021
4:16pm, 27 Oct 2021
75,029 posts
|
Gobi
Brunski I ran 17.33 on Saturday, good luck finding anything but easy in my log |
Oct 2021
4:20pm, 27 Oct 2021
35,545 posts
|
SPR
I'm not really convinced by your intense needing to be all that intense either. The 20-30 mainly easy is going to improve you aerobically, and 4-6 miles of threshold is a week is a pretty decent basic plan for someone that's not accustomed to that level of training. If you're saying it's not enough mileage for a marathon then yes agreed but running faster won't help that. |
Oct 2021
4:33pm, 27 Oct 2021
2,462 posts
|
Canute
Bowman, thanks for posting the link to Seiler’s more recent TED talk on your new thread about training too hard, today. I repeat it here, and have added it to the side bar of this thread. ted.com This has less technical detail than Seiler’s talk on Polarized Training in Paris in 2013, but is nonetheless a very good introduction to the topic. It should be noted that from the historical perspective, Seiler shows a US bias. 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’. Over the past 15 years, I have discussed Lydiard’s ideas on several occasions on my Wordpress blog. For example: canute1.wordpress.com |
Oct 2021
5:08pm, 27 Oct 2021
15,893 posts
|
larkim
Is there something that fills in this gap for me? If 80:20 (lazily put - I'm not seeking to ask if that's the right ratio, just using it as a simple example of what might be a ratio) works, and 100% = 10 hours a week (therefore 2 hours high intensity 8 hours low intensity), what is the difference between someone who does 50:20 instead, so that's 5 hours easy, 2 hours hard. I've got more and more comfortable with easy running, so I'm not for a minute dismissing the easy / hard principles as I've seen the benefits myself. Just trying to see if there's a quantification of how much bang for the buck those 3 extra hours would give when compared to complete inactivity (or normal life). I'm not suggesting an extreme approach of imagining that a non-elite could sustain all of the high intensity volume that an elite could do, and simply rest for the remainder, but more thinking about how to manage an amateur's hours in the week if they desired good outcomes but had threats to their training windows (e.g. a real world scenario might be a period of longer than usual working hours, or a caring responsibility that means you can't leave the home to run as often etc etc - and yes, I know there are ways around all of that!) Would it actually be better if you lost 3 hours in the week of training opportunity for a prolonged period to flick to 5:2 or would 80:20 ratio applied to 7 hours be objectively better in terms of outcomes (5.6:1.4) - perhaps as a thought experiment rather than a real suggestion. Bearing in mind we're talking about an athlete who can robustly sustain the 10 hours without fear of over-doing it, so overall fatigue doesn't come into play. |
Oct 2021
5:18pm, 27 Oct 2021
1,910 posts
|
Brunski
Maybe I'm getting it wrong then, won't be the first time. I guess it also depends how you apportion your training. I think a certain amount of volume is required to get the real aerobic gains from low intensity training, certainly in my case. I went from running around 19 minutes for 5k to running 16:44 off predominantly easy mileage. I'm not sure if I'd have made those same gains keeping mileage at around 30 miles per week and just slowing the easy stuff. I'd probably have improved as 24 slower miles is maybe an extra 45 mins or so of running a week to 24 steady miles.... but I think the volume increase as much as easing off on the easy intensity was the main thing for me. Gobi you have a massive endurance base built up over the years so guessing the easy miles and cycling help that tick over. All good discussion 😊👍 |
Oct 2021
5:25pm, 27 Oct 2021
35,546 posts
|
SPR
Brunski - I did say over the page that, what matters is the relative training load for the individual. if you were adapted to running 24 miles a week and that no longer progressive overload, then you have to change something. Larkim 3 hours a week at 10mm is 936 a year. How much difference do you think that would make is that increase was sustainable? |
Oct 2021
5:30pm, 27 Oct 2021
360 posts
|
Bowman
@canute, no thank you, I love this stuff. I found home in your thread here @larkim, interesting thoughts about the distribution of hard vs easy! Btw I, for the first time, tried to count steps whilst breathing today. Not as easy as it sounds will do it some more when my little son isn’t running next to me and talking about anacondas |
Oct 2021
5:56pm, 27 Oct 2021
11,027 posts
|
jda
My understanding is that the low intensity stuff is genuinely more beneficial than higher intensity in terms of building aerobic capacity. That is, if you are doing 5 hard 45 min runs a week, you'll improve by slowing down 4 of them and making no other changes. So it's not just about allowing more volume, it's about provoking the right response. I could be wrong and would welcome correction if so. But I think this is how it was explained to me 30 years ago....I may have misremembered or the science may have moved on... |
Oct 2021
6:48pm, 27 Oct 2021
3,892 posts
|
J2R
I think Brunski has a point there. As I see it, the primary focus of polarized training is on making sure you're properly recovered to get the benefit out of your training sessions, and that you're not spending too much time in the 'dead' zone, where you're stressing the body too much for long periods. But if your training volume is low, you're probably some way short of this being an issue anyway. You can't hammer out 50 mile weeks if a high percentage of it is at a fast pace, but you may well be able to hammer out 20 mile weeks at that same percentage because the overall volume of hard work will still be low. jda, that's a very interesting point you make there, if it's true. I think certainly one common misconception is that more is better - if 2 hard sessions a week boost your fitness, then if you can get away with 3 hard sessions you'll get even more of a boost. But the reality is that if you do too much hard work, your VO2max actually drops - in effect, you lose fitness. |
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