Polarized training

91 watchers
SPR
Oct 2021
7:26pm, 30 Oct 2021
35,573 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
If you run 10 extra miles a week that is overload...
Oct 2021
7:31pm, 30 Oct 2021
7,210 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
Depends on your athletic background and 'base'. What are you comparing it with?
J2R
Oct 2021
8:37pm, 30 Oct 2021
3,898 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
FR, yes, that's exactly what I mean. If you keep the effort session(s) the same and just add easy miles, you will get faster. I have consistently observed this in others and have been monitoring it closely in myself.

I'm actually someone who gets by pretty well on low mileage - 14 years ago I was running no more than 20-25mpw (average was in fact 21mpw), and I ran a 3:11 marathon (which is not especially fast but probably fast for the mileage), and 18.21 for 5K. But I have since got rather faster, primarily as a result of upping my mileage. I say that with confidence because when I look back on my running diary, the times when I get the best performances are always when I'm doing high mileage (for me, that is, it would count as pitifully low for elites, typically no more than 45-55mpw). Nothing else changes - I do the same effort sessions, but I just do more easy miles, and my times come down.

I'm not saying this is the only thing, of course it isn't, and doing certain kinds of speedwork will undoubtedly be more beneficial than others. My gut feeling, though, is that if you're just running 20-25mpw and you want to get faster, by far the easiest and most reliable way of doing so will just be to run more, rather than focus on tweaks to your speedwork. Incidentally, I wouldn't say this to someone who was already running 40-45mpw - I wouldn't say that they will automagically get faster if they were running 60-65mpw, because I think once you're running 40-45mpw, then the nature of the speedwork you do on top of this becomes more important.
Oct 2021
9:18pm, 30 Oct 2021
75,064 posts
  •  
  • 0
Gobi
Fr - if you do 25 miles then do 35 it is overload . Huge % uplift. The background of the individual is irrelevant as the current point is 25 to 35.miles.

The need for speedwork as a magic pill is adult mystery bullshit , adaptation from Z2 (ability to stay aerobic longer) is crucial and simply put you will improve without speedwork. Tried and tested on a number of people.
Oct 2021
10:15pm, 30 Oct 2021
2,479 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
People differ. Nonetheless, as mentioned above, there is no doubt it was increasing the large amount of easy running that made Ed Whitlock the greatest ever elderly distance runner. He ran 3 hours at a very easy pace most days of the week, and raced 5K or 10K fairly frequently.

The only other elderly runner to equal Ed’s marathon performance at age 70 was Gene Dykes. Gene’s major step forward came from a programme that included 4 easy sessions, 1 intense session (intervals or tempo run) each week, together with fairly frequent races, many of them long ultras, including 200 milers. In summary, his programme had both a large amount of running at a low aerobic pace, and 1 intense session per week.

The point of mentioning these two elderly runners is that both made massive gains in performance in their late 60’s/ early 70’s following substantial increases in volume, much of it low aerobic running, though in Gene's case, the intense sessions appeared to have played a part.
Oct 2021
11:00pm, 30 Oct 2021
75,068 posts
  •  
  • 0
Gobi
Canute - I believe largely you and I are aligned.

The reality is that if common sense is applied to any approach and it is followed consistently there will be gains.

The speed of gains will vary depending on how an individual adapts.

The magic is finding the approach that works best for you.
Oct 2021
6:58am, 31 Oct 2021
380 posts
  •  
  • 0
Bowman
Guys, when talking zones, For instance z2 in the post above. Are these mostly the same?
Like Garmin 5zones and so on.
Cus sometimes I think it’s somewhat different between platforms and methods and so on.
Any general rules about this?
J2R
Oct 2021
8:24am, 31 Oct 2021
3,899 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Gobi: "The need for speedwork as a magic pill is adult mystery bullshit"

That's a bit strong, isn't it? Are you dismissing the benefits of speedwork as part of a balanced running programme? It's not a 'magic pill' but it is an effective means of getting faster and fitter, if used judiciously - by which I mean a small amount as a 'spice' within a context of mainly easy miles. Which is, of course, what polarized training is all about. I very much doubt that there are many elite runners out there who don't do regular speedwork.
SPR
Oct 2021
8:46am, 31 Oct 2021
35,574 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
While speedwork is the topic: fastrunning.com
J2R
Oct 2021
9:21am, 31 Oct 2021
3,902 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Good article, that, which rings bells for me. I'm a big advocate of short, fast hill sprints, which Craggs mentions.

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 113,812 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here