Polarized training

91 watchers
Sep 2014
9:22am, 16 Sep 2014
7,655 posts
  •  
  • 0
Boab
Tools. v'rap, tools, I need more information :)
Sep 2014
9:37am, 16 Sep 2014
30,883 posts
  •  
  • 0
Velociraptor
home.trainingpeaks.com

I think its use is more widespread among cyclists and triathletes than runners. I don't use it myself, I'm very much wedded to perceived effort and perception of fatigue (backed up, on the bike, by my power output for a given perceived effort, but my power meter is really just a toy rather than a training tool).

Potentially useful for folk trying to feel their way through the narrow gap between "enough" and "too much".
Sep 2014
11:37am, 16 Sep 2014
7,657 posts
  •  
  • 0
Boab
Or those of us trying to feel their way through the narrow gap between "too much" and "enough" ;)
Sep 2014
6:20pm, 17 Sep 2014
1,064 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Boab,
I think that several different physiological variables indicate stress (eg high heart rate, low heart rate variability and other variables are not easy to measure such as sustained high cortisol, uric acids levels, various cytokines which indicate chronic inflammation). It would be impractical to measure all of these and furthermore, the interpretation is likely to depend on individual personal variables. However, our brains are fairly good at producing a composite assessment. The outcome is expressed as level of enthusiasm for training, tiredness, quality of sleep and generalised aching. However, these subjective experiences can get distorted by other factors such as obsessional fixation on training targets. Therefore, I think that it is best to use a combination of observations.

if I experience loss of enthusiasm, sustained tiredness, sleep disturbance and/or widespread aches, I measure resting HR and HRV. If resting HR is high while is HRV low, in the presence of appreciable subjective symptoms, I have a rest day. If the subjective symptoms are present but HR and HRV are OK, I usually start the session at a gentle pace. I make it a short easy session if the subjective experiences do not improve. Obsessional determination to meet predetermined targets often results in deteriorating performance and/or injury.

Last year I followed a similar strategy, but I was prepared to accept mild persistent tiredness in order to achieve my targets. I think that was a mistake. This year I will cut-back training if persistent tiredness or aching develop. My current goal is to build up duration of runs very gradually (eg add 5 or 10 minutes to the duration of the four long(ish) runs each week) , but I will only make increases if there is no cumulative tiredness or other symptoms.
I regard heart beats/Km assessed during long runs (over consistent terrain) as a fairly good marker of increasing aerobic fitness. If my current program has not resulted in appreciably improved beat/Km after 3 months I will review the plan. For a person who has only recently started (or re-started) consistent training review after a month is probably sensible but because of my long training history, I will wait 3 months before reviewing the strategy
Sep 2014
6:49pm, 21 Sep 2014
1,067 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week 29 Polarised training
Easy running: 414 min, 6:26 /Km, (HR 75% max)
Elliptical easy: 70 min
High intensity: 21 min. 1x3;3x6 min, peak HR 91%
Total 505 min; 95.9% easy, 4.9 % high intensity

I achieved the week's major objective of 4 easy 120 minute runs, together with a high intensity session and an easy elliptical session. Although I ran at a very relaxed pace I was aware of a perceptible tiredness during the 4th run. My goal is only to progress at a rate that I can achieve without appreciable accumulating tiredness. In my first run next week I will aim to increase duration to 125 min, and if this feels comfortable, I will aim for 4x125 min, but if I experience accumulating tiredness I will not progress until I can cope with 4x120 comfortably
Sep 2014
7:40pm, 21 Sep 2014
1,069 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Oops, I was getting ahead of myself on my previous post.

I did 4 easy100min runs last week and will increase to 105 min for the first run next week. The issue of when I reach 4x120 will be determined by how well I adapt to 5 minute increment sin coming weeks. However if I have not achieved 4x120 by Christmas, I will be reviewing the overall strategy.
Sep 2014
8:59pm, 21 Sep 2014
7,679 posts
  •  
  • 0
Boab
4x2 hour runs per week is a lot of running Canute. How are you finding the recovery from these longer runs as at least two of them must be consecutive?

I manged to fit in some harder work this week, had some good marathon paced work on Tuesday then some 90%+ efforts on Friday. Found that hard session tough as I haven't ran this fast in training for a while so the body was screaming for me to stop. I managed 4 x 6 minutes with half time rest, but I think the rest was a little long as my HR was dropping down to under 110. I'll play with this over the coming weeks. I'll aim to get the 4x8 mins efforts in this week with 3 mins recovery.
Sep 2014
9:50pm, 21 Sep 2014
1,592 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ceratonia
4 x2hr runs @ 6:26/km is just short of 75km per week (46 miles), if my maths is correct. That doesn't seem unreasonable for someone hoping to run a pretty quick marathon.
Sep 2014
10:00am, 22 Sep 2014
1,070 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Ceratonia
Your calculation of distance is roughly correct. I do also do one additional easy session and one intense session a week and that will push the total to about 55 mpw. For a near 70 year old, 55 miles a week might be all that I can manage. If indeed I can manage those 55 mpw without accumulating tiredness, I will aim to increase the pace of the slow runs gradually, though doubt I will ever go above 60 mpw again.

Note also that my goal is to run a ‘good marathon’ by which I mean a marathon run at a pace near lactate threshold all the way. That will not necessarily be fast by a younger persons standards. My current goal is 3:45 at age 70 – I used to do sub 2:30 when I was a youngster

For a younger person aiming for elite standard, I think it would be reasonable to aim for 4:15 /Km during the 120 minute runs. That would give 112 mpw before adding the intense session and the easy session. As a youngster I found 4:15 /Km very easy.
Sep 2014
10:57am, 22 Sep 2014
6,528 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Here's a question for you Canute (and I suspect are very difficult one to answer) - you were evidently a very strong runner in your youth, now for age related deterioration, if a runner starts from a less high standard - say a 3.15 marathon, then by the time they are 70, if following the same polarised program are they going to deteriorate further than a 2.30 runner? And if they, is that likely to proportional? So will a 2.30 -> 3.45, change from 3.15 -> 4.30, or does the act of following such a program insulate a runner rather better in your opinion? Are there are any such stats/studies out there on this?

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 113,794 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here