Polarized training

91 watchers
Dec 2014
7:39pm, 14 Dec 2014
1,188 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week 41 polarised training

Easy running: 366 min, 6:21 /Km, aHR 75%
Elliptical easy: 139 min
Threshold: 0 min

High intensity: 71 min. 3x6 min, 1x3min; 50x1min. peak HR 91%
Total 576 min ; 88 % low intensity, 0 % threshold, 12% high intensity

For the past 17 weeks I have been testing the Whitlock strategy of multiple low-intensity longish runs each week together with a small amount of high intensity training. Whitlock had built up the duration of easy long runs over a period of 6 years, prior to 2005 by which time he was doing between 3 and 4 three hours runs each week, leading to his phenomenal 2:54:49 marathon at age 72.

I had set myself the target of building from 4 sixty-five minute runs in the first week up to 4 two hour runs per week by mid-December. The primary goal was to determine if I could cope with 4 two hour runs per week without accumulating tiredness or injury In fact I increased the length of the longish runs by 5 minutes per week over the first 8 weeks and for the past 9 weeks have done 3 or 4 two hour runs each week.

It is time to evaluate progress. Here are the main observations:
1) I coped well with the volume of training. In the first week of December I achieved the greatest volume of training in any one week period for the past 45 years
2) Although I have not suffered substantial accumulating tiredness or injury, during many of the two hour runs I have felt some tiredness towards the end of the run, indicating that the improvement in my endurance has been only modest.
3) 94% of my training over the 17 weeks has been at low intensity, 1% at threshold intensity and 4 % at high intensity.

4) My average pace during the easy runs has been 6:20 /Km (10:08 /mile; approx. 70 sec/mile slower than target marathon pace)
5) There has been little evidence of improvement in aerobic efficiency (as measured by beats/Km) over the 17 weeks

6) The most difficult aspect of the training has being able to find time for 4 two hours runs during each week. In the past 9 weeks I have done a totla of 30 two hour runs (3.3 per week).

Conclusions:

1) a markedly polarised program with multiple long runs each week is feasible and has increased my ability to tolerate a large training volume.
2) The improvement in endurance has been modest and the improvement in aerobic efficiency is small.

Although I am pleased that I am coping with a large training volume, it is possible that my current training load is actually a little greater than optimum. Using the formula for training load proposed by Alexander* my current training load is similar to that of Hadd’s famous protégé, Joe, about halfway trough his marathon program. Like myself, Joe was a former sub- 2:30 marathoner making a come-back, but he was still in his mid-thirties and aiming to 2:25. I am about twice Joe’s age and aiming for 4 hours, so I think it might be unwise to be training as hard as Joe.
*training impulse= 0.64 x duration X heart rate ratio x exp( 1.92 * heart rate ratio) where heart rate ratio = (heart rate- resting HR)/(HR max – HR rest).

In light of the difficulty of fitting this schedule into my working week, together with the rather modest gains in overall fitness, I will cut back to two long runs (in the range 2 – 2.5 hours each per week, and will substitute two comfortably progressive runs of 50 -60 minute duration, aiming to increase to MP for the final few Km,. This will add a small amount of sub-threshold intensity running into the program. I will continue with the current 5% of high intensity training.
Dec 2014
8:05pm, 14 Dec 2014
11,917 posts
  •  
  • 0
GlennR
Great report. Your conclusions make a lot of sense to me.
Dec 2014
8:07pm, 14 Dec 2014
3,568 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
I agree with Glenn. Is there any merit in going for a sharpening phase as you have built up an amazing volume of training in your legs?
Dec 2014
10:35pm, 14 Dec 2014
1,232 posts
  •  
  • 0
runnyeyes
That's a very clear report.

I wish you well with the changes...
SPR
Dec 2014
10:51pm, 14 Dec 2014
19,771 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Agree with others about the report.

Re sharpening, the high intensity should keep Canute sharp (and can be increased if necessary).
Dec 2014
6:08am, 15 Dec 2014
3,572 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
But SPR, Canute isn't reporting increase in aerobic efficiency. My point is around reducing volume and increasing intensity?
Dec 2014
8:23am, 15 Dec 2014
1,190 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
FR, I believe there are two aspects of sharpening for a marathon.

One is developing and maintaining the reserve power to be able to achieve the optimum balance between getting airborne and braking, in order to maximise efficiency throughout the race. Many marathoners lose the ability to get sufficiently airborne in the second half of the race and hence inevitably suffer excessive braking costs. Paula Radcliffe’s reserves of power almost certainly played a role in her great marathons – as described in my recent Wordpress blog post, canute1.wordpress.com ). I think Paula achieved this by high intensity running and hopping drills (perhaps aided by weight lifting). As SPR notes, the 5% high intensity in my program is largely there to develop the reserves of power . For an elderly person, this might not be enough, but in the near future my main focus must continue to be on endurance. I do some lifting but have stopped the plyometrics for the time being to avoid too much stress on my aging limbs.

The second aspect is developing the specific neuromuscular coordination required for marathon pace. I think this is best achieved by either tempo runs or progressive runs in which pace increases to marathon pace. I think the latter yield greater over-all benefit relative to the wear and tear on the body. As described above I will introduce two 50-60 minute progressive runs in the weekly program now; eventually I will make some of the long runs progressive, as MP in the later part of a long run is also useful for developing the mental strength required.

When the time comes for tapering, I will do a small amount of high intensity running and short progressive runs.
Dec 2014
8:32am, 15 Dec 2014
3,573 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
"I think this is best achieved by either tempo runs...."

During the drive into work I was coming to the same conclusion :) :) :)
Dec 2014
5:11pm, 15 Dec 2014
1,191 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
FR I think we agree, but I would add a note of caution about the role of tempo runs.

Tempo running ( ie sustained running near to LT threshold) is popular with recreational athletes, and definitely produces worthwhile benefit early in an athlete’s career. However for well-trained athletes, it is not clear that tempo running provides a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Around lactate threshold, stress hormone levels rise markedly. But for well-trained athletes, an even higher intensity is likely to be required to produce worthwhile improvement, so the benefit is likely to be small despite the high cost. Conversely, it appears that gradual improvement in running efficiency can be achieved by a large volume of fairly low intensity running without less risk of elevated stress hormones.

So tempo runs are a good first step at an early stage in an athlete’s career, but I think they might have only a limited role to play for runners with a long training history seeking year-on-year improvement (or in the case of some of us, slowing the rate of decline). However the situation still remains controversial. Furthermore, because tempo pace is near to race pace, I do consider that whatever their value for increased aerobic capacity, tempo runs have a small part to play in tuning up for events from 5K to marathon.
Dec 2014
11:43pm, 21 Dec 2014
1,193 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week 42 polarised training
Low intensity run 98 min, aHR 78% HRmax
Low intensity elliptical: 69 min

Threshold: 15 min, aHR 89% HRmax
High intensity: 15 min. peak HR, 95 % HR max
Total 197 min, low intensity 85%, threshold 7.5%, high intensity 7.5%

After the evaluation of progress last week I decided to cut-back to 2 easy two-hour runs per week, and introduce some progressive runs to see how comfortably I could maintain a pace near marathon pace. After a short recovery session on Monday, my reserve fitness score (assessed as described in outline in my Fetch blog post) was at an all-time high. On Tuesday morning, heart rate and heart-rate variability confirmed that I was in a relaxed state, so I set off for a 10K progressive run. After an easy start, I gradually increased the pace and by the end was feeling very fluent. It was a wonderful sensation to be running freely. Retrospective analysis revealed that my pace in the final stage was 5 min/Km and heart rate at 83% HRR. In my youth 5 min/Km would have scarcely been a jog, but on Tuesday it was exhilarating. It will be virtually impossible fro me to maintain HRR at 83% for a full marathon, so there is no reason to adjust my target marathon timer downwards, but the wonderful thing was that I felt more like a runner once again.

On Wednesday I I did a short high intensity interval session. I was little disconcerted to find in retrospect that HR was higher than usual. The reason became clear that night. I was kept awake by a rising fever and a horrible cough that sent lancing jabs of pain throughout my head. Four days later, the cough is starting to abate but I still have a high fever and widespread aches. I did not do the planned easy long runs.

Flu appear to be rampant at the moment and I suspect that residual tiredness for my training has at most contributed only slightly to my episode of flu. My experiment with Whitlock- style training has come to a premature end. However I consider it has been a success. Nonetheless, as I begin specific training for a spring marathon, after I have recoverd, I will focus on only two easy runs per week and two comfortably progressive runs.

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 113,803 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here