Polarized training

91 watchers
Oct 2021
12:08pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,196 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
You've missed my point by a mile, SPR. But thanks for the lecture. ;-)
Oct 2021
2:32pm, 30 Oct 2021
8,106 posts
  •  
  • 0
TeeBee
I have taken a polarized approach to my running for years but I'm a very mediocre runner who seems to be getting worse and worse. My body would simply breakdown at 40 miles per week. Even when I trained at my peak (relatively) I couldn't sustain more than 25 or so. Seems I'm doomed :-(
Oct 2021
2:41pm, 30 Oct 2021
2,478 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Teebee, 25 mpw is fine and will lead to improvement if done in an appropriate manner. However, you are very unlikely to become an elite marathoner (or even an elite 5 K runner) with that training load.

With regard to the question of how a runner might optimise a polarised training programme to match their own training needs, I think that relative performance at 5k, HM and marathon can be informative. You can estimate this using the tables of ‘estimated VO2max’ (i.e. VDOT described by Jack Daniels) against race performance. If you have higher VDOT at shorter distances, you should focus on greater amount of easy running to build up capillaries, mitochondria, and fat metabolism (i.e. metabolic efficiency). If you have higher VDOT at longer distances, you might benefit from more high intensity training to improve mechanical efficiency. However, this is a guide, not a fixed rule, as other factors including muscle resilience play a part, especially in marathon performance.
SPR
Oct 2021
3:06pm, 30 Oct 2021
35,565 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Teebee - you can only do what you can cope with. What we're discussing is ideal training and there are very few elite runners that will be running 40 miles even at 1500m as it's an endurance sport and so mileage help.

However for individual runners it's about overload for them. If 25 miles is overload for you, you will improve on it and hopefully with consistency your overload point moves.

Elite part of elite talent is the ability to recover and absorb training but as with speed everyone can improve their ability with training.

40 miles isn't a magic number either, Gobi's post was about building training and that lots of fast running isn't necessary as you build up. It wasn't saying just go 40, it was saying speed work isn't necessary at lower mileages and the focus should be on building up your training rather than running it faster.
Oct 2021
3:17pm, 30 Oct 2021
8,107 posts
  •  
  • 0
TeeBee
Thanks folks!
Oct 2021
5:25pm, 30 Oct 2021
75,063 posts
  •  
  • 0
Gobi
OK.

40 was a random start point

If you do 10 then 20 is better 30 is better than 20 etc. It was to prove a point that consistency yields results.

Normal mileage for normal people

Worlds best 5km runners are doing huge mileage .

Amateurs are always looking for the magic session when the reality is consistent consistency wins the day.
Oct 2021
5:38pm, 30 Oct 2021
1,224 posts
  •  
  • 0
Big_G
(Yeah, sorry Gobi. I can't remember exactly what your Runner's World post said now. You may well have started at 20 or 30 miles..... I thought it was just illustrating the point really).
J2R
Oct 2021
7:05pm, 30 Oct 2021
3,897 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Yes, you can run decent times on 25mpw if you choose your training judiciously. The point about mileage (up to a point) is that it's a bit of a no-brainer in training terms. If you're running 25mpw and you just run 10 more easy miles per week, you will be faster. If you run another 10 more easy miles per week, so you're now running 45mpw, you will be faster again. That's all you need to do, no fancy training programme.
Oct 2021
7:21pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,205 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
Can you elaborate J2R?

My reason for saying that is, if you keep the 'quality' session the same and only 'easy' miles will that really make you better?

My understanding is that the body is great at adapting and only gets 'better' via the overload then over compensation cycle.
Oct 2021
7:21pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,206 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
And great comment Gobi, that helps put into context.

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 113,828 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here