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

1 lurker | 91 watchers
Oct 2021
11:29am, 30 Oct 2021
7,187 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
FenlandRunner
Not being facetious. But do you really need to run 40 miles a week to be 'good' for your natural talent over 5km? Interested in the login/science? Conversely I reckon you need substianally more than 50 miles a week to get close to your marathon ceiling?

Just my thoughts. More than happy to be shot down in flames.
Oct 2021
11:29am, 30 Oct 2021
7,188 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
FenlandRunner
login.... logic!!!
SPR
Oct 2021
11:47am, 30 Oct 2021
35,563 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
Less that 40 miles vs substantially more that 50 miles. Doesn't seem very logic to me TBH.

Have you ever looked at what elite runners run? Have you ever wondered why?
Oct 2021
11:49am, 30 Oct 2021
2,473 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Canute
FR, as I noted in my comment, people differ. For most people, 40 mpw easy, apart from one 5K race, is likely to work farily well. That programme has the advantage of not requiring much thought. However, if you want to think about your running. you can probably do better with a more complex programme.

We agree about greater mpw for achieving your marathon ceiling
Oct 2021
11:50am, 30 Oct 2021
2,474 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Canute
With regard to the issues of cadence and airborne time discussed a few page ago, it is important to consider the three main energy costs of running: getting airborne, overcoming braking, and re-positioning the legs. Under some circumstances wind resistance is also appreciable.

There is trade-off between the three main energy costs. The cost of overcoming braking increases with increase ground contact time, but the cost of getting airborne increase with airborne time.

Note also that at a given speed, the horizontal distance travelling when airborne is determined by the amount of vertical push. At a given speed you cannot increase the horizontal distance you cover while airborne in each cycle with increasing vertical push.
In general, when running the faster, it is more efficient to spend an appreciable portion of the gait cycle airborne. It is also usually more efficient to use a higher cadence, as increasing speed by increasing stride length only, would demand much greater airborne time and/or ground contact.
Oct 2021
11:53am, 30 Oct 2021
2,475 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Canute
Opps.'you cannot increase the horizontal distance you cover while airborne in each gait cycle without increasing vertical push.'
Oct 2021
12:00pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,193 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
FenlandRunner
What do they run, SPR? Please enlighten me?
Oct 2021
12:00pm, 30 Oct 2021
2,476 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Canute
FR. without regard to your question about the science behind 40 mpw, mostly easy but including one 5 K race: easy running increases capillary density and mitochondrial content to muscle fibres. These two physiological changes contribute to increasing VO2 max. VO2 max is one of the major requirements for a good 5K. The weekly race is likely to optimise vVO2 max (speed at Vo2 max)
Oct 2021
12:01pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,194 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
FenlandRunner
Thanks, Canute. You seem to have understood the thrust of what I was attempting to clarify. Appreciated.
SPR
Oct 2021
12:04pm, 30 Oct 2021
35,564 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
SPR
You've been around the forums too long to think elite 5k runners are running less than 40 miles a week FR. If there are any running less than that, they would be the exception rather than the rule.

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 114,093 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here