Polarized training
91 watchers
May 2023
2:37pm, 17 May 2023
4,645 posts
|
J2R
Larkim, a point I should have added in relation to your P&D training plan observations. I think the standard idea would be that what you call the antecedent training was building a good aerobic base which allowed the subsequent interval training to be effective. Without the base any gains from interval training tend to plateau early and are easily lost.
|
May 2023
2:47pm, 17 May 2023
1,773 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
Serpentine website has a treasure trove of articles by Frank Horwill, some of which may be relevant here, eg: serpentine.org.uk Archive here (sure it's a bit dated, some of the info might have been superseded by newer findings but still...) serpentine.org.uk |
May 2023
4:07pm, 17 May 2023
21,123 posts
|
larkim
Larkim, a point I should have added in relation to your P&D training plan observations. I think the standard idea would be that what you call the antecedent training was building a good aerobic base which allowed the subsequent interval training to be effective. Without the base any gains from interval training tend to plateau early and are easily lost. As ever, it's difficult to put the finger on the "one thing" that makes the difference. I was thinking of the antecedent training being more of the "in plan" period, rather than the base building prior to the plan. I tend to start P&D plans (usually the 12 week versions) off the back of at least 2 months of pretty consistent general / steady running with the odd parkrun thrown in (or maybe League races etc). So by the time the intervals start in a 12 week plan, I've probably got about 14 weeks of consistency, including 6 weeks of generally higher stimulus / intensity running in the early part of the plan. Maybe if I just stopped there with the "plan" I'd notice a step up in fitness in the following 7-14 days, without doing the 5x1k type intervals etc. Or maybe it is the 5x1k intervals that unlocks "something" (it could be efficiency in running mechanics rather than any actual fitness) to spur me on. It's definitely true for me that there are some elements of basic speed which don't seem to disappear (not without a really prolonged break from running, or an injury period), providing I keep on with consistent steady mileage and steady paces, probably under 3k or so I can continue to hit a decent pace, it doesn't fall off as much as say 10k pace would do. |
May 2023
4:10pm, 17 May 2023
21,124 posts
|
larkim
Serpentine website has a treasure trove of articles by Frank Horwill, some of which may be relevant here, eg: serpentine.org.uk Archive here (sure it's a bit dated, some of the info might have been superseded by newer findings but still...) serpentine.org.uk Will spend many hours reading through that. One interesting gem leapt out at me:- By the way, avoid drinking soft-water. It may be good for washing-up but it's not good for your heart. Heart troubles have now been linked with areas of soft water. Never heard that before! |
May 2023
5:07pm, 17 May 2023
1,774 posts
|
fuzzyduck79
Me neither, but it seems like the result has been around for decades and I can't see any definite conclusions about causative effect/mechanism. Loads of papers on it, this one from 2013: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov |
May 2023
5:33pm, 17 May 2023
17,304 posts
|
Garfield
Softening water seems to involve removing the calcium and magnesium while adding sodium.
|
May 2023
8:59am, 18 May 2023
21,127 posts
|
larkim
Bit of a challenge though if you live in a soft water area!! There's another article on there about water loading - drinking 8oz of water every fifteen minutes from four hours before a race, stopping with an hour to go, and then topping up again with two more glasses 30-20 minutes before the race. That'd be 3.5l of water!! Maybe I should try it some time? |
May 2023
10:17am, 18 May 2023
2,956 posts
|
Steve NordRunner
It's bad enough queing for the toilets at an event, without being bogged down in water-loaded contestants waiting to unload prematurely.
|
May 2023
11:25am, 18 May 2023
2,677 posts
|
Canute
There must surely be a point at which slower running does reduce the stimulus, otherwise simply walking 50mpw would be enough to train runners. And ditto there must be a pace at which faster running either does not produce any benefit or fatigues the system so much that race outcomes are negatively affected. The question is whether within those cut off points the outcomes are pretty much the same, or whether there truly is a sweet spot which is better. (I know there is no precise answer to this, and individual variation will also come into play quite significantly. But sometimes it is worth thinking about a massively oversimplified scenario). As Larkim says, individual variation comes into play. The complexity of the processes engaged in producing the effects of training on the athletes body (outlined in my recent Fetch blog posts) means that differences in genes, general health and lifetime training history play a role. Nonetheless, there are some general principles: One reason that slow running alone is not adequate is that beneficial training effects requires cycles of stress and recovery. Repetition of the same stress over time leads to adaptation. For example, there is decrease in the production of cytokines (molecules that carry messages between muscles, heart, brain and other organs) resulting in a decrease in the intracellular signalling involved in the production of mitochondrial enzymes, and therefore a decrease in the improvement of aerobic capacity provided by the repetitive training. It is necessary to introduce an new stress, e.g. by more intense training. However, cytokines promote inflammation and intense training without gradual build-up of training load runs the risk of excessive inflammation that damages body tissue. There is a sweet spot – perhaps better described as a sweet slope that differs between individuals, so you need to monitor your response (as discussed in my blog posts). After stopping a training programme fitness is lost because the body engages in continual catabolism (break down of tissues) and anabolism (build up if tissues) in response to the fluctuating stresses and strains of everyday life. However various factors, including the peak level of aerobic fitness recently achieved, the strength of muscles, tendons and ligaments, the efficiency of the coordination of recruitment of muscle fibres, and the nature of ongoing stress and strains are likely to influence the ease of subsequent running. |
May 2023
12:16pm, 18 May 2023
71 posts
|
Charlesvdw
@larkim I guess everything a 8:00 pace would be most beneficial and certainly most enjoyable. Maybe 8:30 would be even better. @j2r the fitness one can gain by just running easy is amazing; provided there is some talent and the running is really easy. The Maffetone method. I have the opposite example as yours. A guy with a track background, making his own marathon schedule with quite some speed work and intervals (at least 30% of his training is what I would call "hard"). After his last marathon build-up he had some niggles and stuck to easy running for three months. He ran 33:27 for 10k with a 32:58 PB. |
Related Threads
- 80/20 Jun 2019
- Heart rate Nov 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