Polarized training
91 watchers
Mar 2014
7:37pm, 19 Mar 2014
900 posts
|
Canute
Chrisull, I agree that in the early stages of a running career almost any sensible program will produce improvement if provided it is consistent. Several of the studies of polarised training have explicitly focused on well-trained athletes. For example, in the Stoggl and Sperlich study all athletes were well trained, with 8-20 years of training history; currently training 10-20 hours per week and with an average VO2 max of 62.6 ml/min/Kg. Thus they had a good level of aerobic development and could reasonably be described as well trained. I think the evidence from Stoggl and Sperlich together with other studies indicates that a substantial volume of easy training remains beneficial even in well trained athletes, while at least some high intensity training is required to produce maximal performance. In other words, polarised training appears to be optimal for well-trained athletes. Perhaps in contrast to this, Renato Canova, who coaches several leading Kenyans, does not place much emphasis on the easy training. On the other hand, many of the descriptions of the training of elite Kenyans and Ethiopians do include quite a lot of easy running So I think your cyclist friend is partly correct insofar as he needs to do some intense training, but he would be probably be unwise to cut out the substantial volume of easy training. |
Mar 2014
7:56pm, 19 Mar 2014
19,097 posts
|
SPR
Canute - Renato Canova was Mosop's coach when the split I posted earlier was observed so he has easy training. I guess the other session are just more discussed, and/or definition of easy is different. For example progressive runs would usually be counted as easy.
|
Mar 2014
9:05pm, 19 Mar 2014
901 posts
|
Canute
SPR I certainly regard Mossop as a good example of an elite athlete who performs polarised training. However his easy training is probably not ‘too easy’ Canova himself says: ‘It is still important with the young athlete however, to do a fair amount of mileage at low intensity, as they do not as yet have a solid work base. …. With a highly developed athlete, running at a pace 25 - 30% below aerobic threshold (2mmol/I) means that absolutely no resistance is developed.’ As I understand it, by aerobic resistance, Canova means the capability to sustain a pace in the upper aerobic range for longer. More details of his recommended workouts are provided in this article vivamarathon.dk However, 25-30% is a long way below aerobic threshold so I think Canova is only disapproving of very easy running foo highly developed athletes. Lydiard also recommended ‘a good aerobic pace’ even for the easy sessions. |
Mar 2014
9:08pm, 19 Mar 2014
902 posts
|
Canute
'foo' should be 'for'
|
Mar 2014
7:23pm, 21 Mar 2014
903 posts
|
Canute
Comments by SPR, FF, FR, HG, Tara and others confirm that the many elites and recreational runners train in a manner that could be described as polarized. While this is a re-assuring, it raises the question of whether it is worth treating Polarised training (POL) as a type of training that merits explicit discussion. It might be worth comparing POL with three of the training plans widely used by Fetchies: Hadd, Furman and Pfitzinger & Douglas. Hadd and POL share a focus on a large amount of easy running combined with a few harder sessions each week. Hadd’s guiding principle is that the key requirement for the marathon is the ability to maintain the fastest possible pace at the level just below the point where lactate begins to accumulate. Hadd implied (though never explicitly stated) that running above LT damages aerobic fitness . Therefore Hadd’s key sessions are the sub LT sessions. These are ‘comfortably demanding’. In POL the harder session are generally more intense than the Hadd sub LT sessions. This is justified by the evidence that training above lactate threshold actually promotes development of aerobic capacity, while also promoting other adaptations (such as capacity to pump potassium ions back into muscle cells) that increase endurance. The weekly interval and tempo sessions of Furman correspond roughly to the high intensity and tempo component of POL. The Furman long run is fairly tough. Furman, in contrast to both Hadd and POL, does not include any easy running, though cross training is encouraged. There is good evidence that the Furman program can produce marathon or HM PB’s but I am sceptical that it is good for year-on-year development. It is stressful, and furthermore, does not include the volume of easy running required to develop type 1 fibres and connective tissues maximally. P& D marathon programs are explicitly designed to produce the physiological adaptations required for marathon running. They include a variety of different types of session ranging from speed sessions to recovery sessions, with the key session being the progressive long runs. The speed session and VO2max session correspond to the high intensity sessions in POL, while the LT runs and the faster segments of progressive long runs correspond to threshold training in POL. In general, P&D places more emphasis threshold training . Nonetheless, the specified paces allow a degree flexibility. Provided P&D’s general aerobic sessions are taken at a relaxed pace, P&D could be regarded as a variant of POL. P&D does not provide guidance for year-round training. Nonetheless, for specific marathon preparation. I think P&D programs are excellent, but I would be inclined to make them as polarised a possible and in particular, would take some of the long runs fairly easily. So POL has a lot of overlap with other popular training plans. However I started this thread as a place to discuss both easy sessions and intense sessions, and especially, as a place to discuss the balance between easy sessions and intense sessions. |
Mar 2014
7:55pm, 21 Mar 2014
19,099 posts
|
SPR
Canute - I was supposed to post this the other day but forgot. You can view the details to Mosop's training here 2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com There are also other athletes logs there but I haven't looked at them yet. |
Mar 2014
11:15pm, 21 Mar 2014
904 posts
|
Canute
SPR thanks. That was most informative. In Feb 2009, a very large proportion of Mosop's runs were described as easy. A few were even as slow as 5 min/Km ( 8 mm) – that would not be easy for me now, but a few years ago that would have been very easy. However perhaps even more interesting were his intense sessions: typically 10 x 1’ fast (rec. 2’ moderate) + 10 x 2’ fast (rec. 1’ easy) + 8 x 1’ fast (rec. 1’ easy) . Nowadays, I would not do as many repeats and I would allow 2 min easy recovery in that type of session, but I was interested to see that it is not too different from the type of high intensity session I do sometimes. I occasionally do 20x1min fairly fast (i.e. fast for me) with 2 min easy recovery. I believe that such sessions are good for developing the ability to metabolise lactate. |
Mar 2014
3:07pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,713 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Sounds like a gerschler style fartlek. Few issues with this type of training. Training at two paces means you miss out on all the training benefits of running at a range of speeds. (Think horwill). No room for periodisation in this training (How do I target a race). No indication of progression (how do I increase stimulus). |
Mar 2014
3:16pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,331 posts
|
Tarahumara
Ooohh good session! I will try that one next week
|
Mar 2014
5:45pm, 23 Mar 2014
905 posts
|
Canute
NN, It is true that with polarised training there is a relative paucity of tempo and mid-aerobic running, yet these types of training are popular with many runners. I regard it as an interesting question as to how beneficial these session are. I think each person needs to find what works best for them. Nonetheless I think the evidence suggests that on the whole, there are greater benefits from polarised training. There can still be quite a lot of variety in a polarised program. If you look at Mosop’s training you will see quite a range within an overall program that works out at roughly 80:10:10. With regard to periodization, I am a strong believer in periodization. However I believe that even during the base building phase at least a small amount of high intensity running is beneficial. I do not think there is any evidence that a small amount of running above LT damages the development of the aerobic base. Conversely, I also believe a substantial amount of easy running is beneficial at virtually all periods for distance runners (except perhaps during a taper). I also strongly believe in race specific preparation. When preparing for 5K, 5x 1K repeats at race pace are my key session When preparing for a marathon (which I have not done in recent years, but am considering doing this year) , I consider that progressive long runs with a segment at MP are the key sessions. I would count those MP segments with the tempo allocation. If I do decide to run a marathon later this year, I will aim for easy/ tempo/ intense proportions of around 80:15:5 over a 16 week period prior to the taper, but will adjust the proportions according to how well I am recovering from the sessions. |
Related Threads
- 80/20 Jun 2019
- Heart rate Dec 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