Mar 2014
11:21pm, 12 Mar 2014
3,516 posts
|
sallykate
I will go and look at the source references but just wondering how (whether) this relates to cross-training too: i.e., does moderate cross-training count towards the 80%? Does intensive cross-training count towards the 10%?
At the moment I commute by bike, which I'd count as similar to an easy run, and do some rowing sessions which I'd count as similar to running intervals.
Canute - how long can you maintain that intense level of breathing once every two steps? Is a 3 min interval the longest you'd do that, or would it extend to longer (e.g. mile repeats)?
|
Mar 2014
12:29am, 13 Mar 2014
887 posts
|
Canute
SPR, I accept that the things you suggest are feasible. I am largely basing my choices on adaptation of the training employed in the studies by Stoggl and by Esteve-Laneo, simply because those studies demonstrated benefit over other training programs.
Sallykate, Esteve-Laneo studied runners, but Stoggl studied various different types of endurance athlete, so I think that similar proportions apply to cross training, but cross training will generally allow a greater total amount of training.
There was also a study by Neil and colleagues of polarized training for cyclists, exhibiting similar benefits for polarized training over a program with a larger proportion of tempo training but no high intensity sessions.
|
Mar 2014
7:21am, 13 Mar 2014
888 posts
|
Canute
Sallykate, Logically the evidence only demonstrates that you should polarise within each type of training. However the fact that polarization appears to apply to various sports indicates that it applies to aspects of fitness common to the different sports. Thus, if you mix sports, the overall training load should be polarised, even if you do not polarise precisely within each sport. However, it is also important to recognise there are aspects of fitness specific to each sport – cycling alone will not get you fit enough to run a good marathon.
With regard to my high intensity sessions, I would find it difficult to maintain that level much beyond three minutes. However, some polarized programs do use 4 minute effort durations in the high intensity repetition sessions. There is some evidence that about 4 minutes is the optimum, but I doubt whether this needs to be precise. I believe that the main requirement is getting to a level where lactate is accumulating rapidly, but not holding this for so long that you suffer excessive stress. .
|
Mar 2014
11:43pm, 16 Mar 2014
896 posts
|
Canute
2nd week of polarised training:
In the first week, the arrival of spring had tempted me to increase training volume a bit too rapidly. I had increased total volume by 40% compared with weekly average during the preceding 4 weeks. Although I did not suffer any ill effects, I decided that this week it would be prudent to cut back total volume by 10% compared with last week. However I wanted to maintain the slow increase in the amount of high intensity, so I made the proportions markedly polarised, with 24 minutes at high intensity but virtually no tempo.
Total training: 386 min. Proportions: easy/tempo/high intensity: 93% : 1% : 6% 324 min easy running; av pace 6:20/Km, av HR 119; 753 beats/Km
6 min tempo running 2x4x3min high intensity (on elliptical) peak HR 96% max (demanding but I recovered OK) 32 min easy elliptical (warm up & recoveries)
So far, it appears that my body is coping well with polarised training, but the proportion of high intensity is still quite small and it is far too soon for any definite judgement
|
Mar 2014
8:14am, 18 Mar 2014
1,304 posts
|
Tarahumara
I think I seem to naturally do this type of training - the bulk of my mileage is "easy" paced running with the dog on trails and I try to add 2 "sessions", one interval and one of either hill work or a tempo run. I am very prone to injury so anything more intensive is going to start finding the flaws (of which I have many)
|
Mar 2014
12:09pm, 18 Mar 2014
443 posts
|
flyingfinn
I'd missed this thread until I saw your blog today Canute. Had a look a scan at the original paper and found it both interesting and affirming. Its fundamentally a pat on the back for how I was taught to train 20 or more years ago before the various fads and fashions tried to find short cuts (i.e. cut the miles and run harder for a greater % of the miles you do). It's still the basis of how I train today and based on current results I'll be sticking with it a while longer!
|
Mar 2014
12:20pm, 18 Mar 2014
6,094 posts
|
Chrisull
So here's me wondering if I'm on some sort of variant of polarised training by accident. I binned speedwork, couldn't find any time for tempo work for several weeks(replaced by a hill run), just LSRs which left me feeling knackered and then plodding the rest of my weekly miles. Result? 5-6 weeks training I break my hitherto untouchable half marathon pb. Then finally find time for a bit of tempo and it seems to improve further...
|
Mar 2014
1:07pm, 18 Mar 2014
1,276 posts
|
MudMeanderer
I'm becoming more convinced about easy training by the day. Despite nothing quick (a couple of races aside) for about 4 months, and just a moderate volume of easy work, I got within touching distance of my 5k pb at the weekend. I don't think I'd done faster than 5.15/km in training and hit 3.53/km at Parkrun.
I intend to add a mix of rep, interval and tempo sessions over the next few weeks, and if they also start yielding results I'll be taken in by the polarised idea.
|
Mar 2014
2:39pm, 18 Mar 2014
21,987 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I've come here from your blog. OK, I'm interested. But... (and I haven't read whole thread yet, but will) how does it translate into a weekly, monthly and 12-16 week plan? Has anyone written a book on it yet (or perhaps you will)?
80:10:10 - time or distance? (Obv very slow uses more time for less distance). If it is distance, then actually, that's a relatively *high* amount of high intensity. A P&D plan does 80% running at easy effort with a tempo or an intervals session per week. The difference might be longer tempos or the MP runs, which are medium intensity and longer duration.
Would: All easy runs with just 1 x very short reps (e.g. 100m) be taking it too far? :-)G
|
Mar 2014
3:11pm, 18 Mar 2014
21,988 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Wrt to flyingfinn comment abut "short cuts" - Runners World, Daily Mail and the like always have these. But the one book that has Runners World name on it (Run Less, Run Faster) does not. It's a common misapprehension. What it doesn't advocate is "train less". It's just run less. So actually, the total time training is probably as high, or higher, than a more "traditional" plan. It's just that the easy stuff is all cross training. The long run starts off at easy paces too. So it's just a shortish tempo and shortish intervals per week which are high intensity. It prob works out not far off 80:10:10 actually!
I think when you scratch below the surface, all plans are very similar. P&D probably has similar proportions. The only deviation is not in the different types of training plans advocated by experts, but the misinterpretation (accidentally by trainees or wilfully by unscrupulous coaches, bodies or media). I'm off to study my own stats, but I bet it's not far off. :-)G
|