Polarized training
1 lurker |
91 watchers
Mar 2014
1:42pm, 9 Mar 2014
14,485 posts
|
Red Squirrel
*I'll*
|
Mar 2014
1:46pm, 9 Mar 2014
869 posts
|
FenlandRunner
In the last 24 hours the fields around Ely have really started to dry out, if as, forecast, the high pressure is around for awhile we will transition from flood to drought!!!
|
Mar 2014
1:47pm, 9 Mar 2014
19,059 posts
|
SPR
Isn't this generally accepted for endurance running? At least for the bas phase anyway? Certainly most of what I read would agree with the principle.
|
Mar 2014
9:32pm, 9 Mar 2014
878 posts
|
Canute
Polarized training is not the same as base-building in the commonly accepted sense. It is intended for moving beyond a plateau of fitness (though in my case it is about slowing the descent from a plateau into old age). I am currently just emerging from a low ebb in fitness after some joint troubles. Conventional wisdom might suggest that I should focus on traditional-building for a few months. However, the evidence suggests that last year I spent too long in the base-building phase and as a result I failed to arrest the acceleration of age- related degeneration. Therefor this year I am transitioning into polarised training after only a few weeks of base-building. It will be interesting to see if I can arrest the recent rapid decline. My plans should be seen as a reflection of my own situation. However, I think that for many runners, too much emphasis on low intensity running during base-building is sub-optimal because it fails to build type 2 fibres and to optimize other metabolic adaptations, such as ability to pump potassium ions back into muscle cells. Even in base-building I think that there should be some faster running. As I understand Lydiard, even he proposed some higher intensity running during base building, though I do not think he advocated polarised training. The crucial issue with polarised training is the focus on the two poles: a large amount of easy running and a small amount of high intensity running. There is relatively little tempo running. I myself still have serious question about this because many elites do a lot of tempo running- which is not fully polarised. In my own younger days, I too did a lot of tempo running, and it definitely worked for me. However, as shown in a number of recent studies, including those I referenced above, for an established athlete polarized training appears to do better than either a high volume programs; a high intensity program; or a program with a substantial amount of lactate threshold running. It might be that polarised training combines the advantages of high intensity sessions without the damaging effect of too much stress, while also providing the advantages of fairly high volume of easy running (eg capillary development; ability to maximise fat metabolism). So that is what I plan to do this year. However, because high intensity running is potentially riskier, at this stage I am building up the high intensity component cautiously. |
Mar 2014
10:05pm, 9 Mar 2014
879 posts
|
Canute
I do not want to create the impression that polarized training is very precisely defined, because the different studies adopt somewhat different proportions of the different intensities. However I do think it is important to emphasise that the focus is on a large amount of easy training and a small amount of high intensity training. That leaves space for only a modest amount of tempo training and very little space for mid-aerobic training.
|
Mar 2014
10:06pm, 9 Mar 2014
14,501 posts
|
Red Squirrel
I'm glad you emphasised that Canute; it's made things clearer for me.
|
Mar 2014
7:58pm, 10 Mar 2014
19,062 posts
|
SPR
Canute - What are elite training percentages from what you know? A lot of what I have read would certainly agree with a high level of easy running, a book (The Science of Running) I recently bought says most elite training would be 70-80% easy running. It also states that Moses Mosop did 81% easy running in the buildup to the Kenyan XC champs. In fact I've found a blog Steve Magness (the author of the book) wrote about this. scienceofrunning.com and Mosop's percentages match what you have in your opening post. For the layman, the hard/easy training was or HR training with no man's land was about doing something similar I think. I think high intensity in general for the masses could be so much more well defined as it is more than just going out and running repetitions at puke level. What are you doing the high intensity section of your training? |
Mar 2014
10:55pm, 10 Mar 2014
1,682 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Funnily enough I've just bought science of running too. Great minds.... |
Mar 2014
12:39am, 11 Mar 2014
883 posts
|
Canute
SPR, I agree that several studies of elite athletes are consistent with the proportions 80:10:10. There are fairly good reviews of the evidence in the introductions to the papers by Esteve-Laneo and by Stoggl et al which I referred to above. However, these authors also refer to papers claiming that elites do a higher proportion of tempo training, so there is not a clear consensus. Nonetheless I am quite happy to accept that many elites employ proportions similar to 80:10:10. In fact my own decision to aim for a ratio near to this was based on the evidence from controlled trials together with an overall synthesis of the evidence from studies of what elites do. If we accept the proportions, the next question of what is easy and what is high intensity. Technically, easy corresponds to lactate level below 2 mM and stable, while hard corresponds to HR>90% of max accompanied by a rapid accumulation of lactate. However in practice measuring lactate is probably not worthwhile. As described above, I use respiratory depth and rate as a guide. Easy pace allows relaxed breathing at a rate of one breath every 6 steps and is compatible with fluent conversation. My definition of high intensity corresponds to a breathing rate of one breath every two steps. This is easy to identify but might be a little too strict. During last week’s training, the 15 minutes that I described as high intensity was 5x3min at a pace causing breathing rate to increase to one breath every two steps within the first 30 sec; HR was 93% but still rising at the end of 3 min. It was demanding but not ‘puke inducing’. I think this is about the right level for high intensity. During a substantial proportion of 30 minutes I described as tempo training, my breathing rate was one breath every 4 steps and HR was fairly stable, a little above 90%. Nonetheless, from the effort level , I suspect that lactate was beginning to accumulate at an appreciable rate. In future I will not push myself quite that hard in the tempo session. |
Mar 2014
10:59pm, 12 Mar 2014
19,065 posts
|
SPR
Canute - Why not just use pace? Short Sprints (flat or hill) with full recovery are high intensity but you won't get lactic buildup due to full recovery. Aerobic intervals, pace will be fast but recovery will limits build up, still an intense session though.
|
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