Polarized training

91 watchers
Mar 2014
6:12pm, 23 Mar 2014
906 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Week three of my polarised program:

Total duration 363 min
Easy run: 240 min run, av 6:18 min/Km; 77% HR max; 745 beats/Km; long run 16Km.

Easy elliptical: 60 min (warm-up and recoveries)
Tempo: 18 min (10 min run, 8 min elliptical)

Intense: 45 min (3x5x3min on elliptical; peak HR: 96% HRmax, with 2 min easy recovery)

Easy/tempo/intense: 82.5% / 5.0 % / 12.5%

I had intended to introduce a bit more to tempo running this week but my arthritic joints are still playing up, so I substituted a few extra intense repeats on the elliptical
Mar 2014
6:26pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,716 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
If you're training at a range of paces then it's not polarised, at least by the social science definition of the word.

I would suggest a progressive mp run does not fit into a polarised training plan either. It's not easy, and it's not fast, and it's not in the right proportion.
SPR
Mar 2014
6:33pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,110 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I guess research papers may work out different to what Mosop or other do as they try and find a specific key session etc. Mosop pretty much used all paces, just in different amounts.

NN - Yep, same principles as a Gerschler session as it is an aerobic power session.
SPR
Mar 2014
6:36pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,111 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
X-post, but my first paragraph fits with what NN is saying.
Mar 2014
6:49pm, 23 Mar 2014
907 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
NN, I accept that terminology in different sciences might differ. My usage is quite close to that of Seiler, who has been a strong advocate of polarised training for many years. As SPR has pointed out, many elites follow a similar approach. In recent times, Steve Magness has become an advocate for this type of training.

I think that the concept does merit specific discussion for two reasons:

First, many recreational runners do a lot of their training in the mid zones. I think this can work fairly well early in a runner’s career, but there is a danger of getting stranded on a plateau. I think it is worth exploring an alternative approach that emphasizes the poles.

Secondly, while approaches such as Hadd and Furman have a lot to recommend them, I consider both have significant limitations that are addressed by a more polarised approach. On the other hand, as described above, I think the P& D approach, which includes a wide range of session types, lends itself well to a polarised approach, but it is essentially a marathon or HM program, whereas I believe a polarised approach can be applied year round (except maybe for a month or so of recovery after a demanding race such as a target marathon) and leads to year on-year development.
SPR
Mar 2014
7:13pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,112 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
I think the name polarised come from what the researcher thinks is important. In other words there is a grey area

Magness, Canova etc wouldn't call it polarised as they think all the paces they use are important and they wouldn't say there is a grey area.
Mar 2014
7:16pm, 23 Mar 2014
908 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
NN, Here is a paper by Seiler that examines the distribution of training intensities in elite cross-country skiers. He has also written advocating a similar approach in other sports including distance running.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Mar 2014
7:17pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,717 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
I'd be surprised if magness was an advocate.

He has a pet peeve about zone training for starters, and promotes using different paces to target the same adaptation.

I will accept his multi faceted approach encourages using a proportion of all paces at different phases of training, but then so do lydiard and hadd phase 1 (200m sets as well as lt and easy runs).

Sorry if I'm just repeating what others are saying.
Mar 2014
7:24pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,718 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
Reading the title of that paper has already got my heckles up! Will have a read.

Off for a jog.
Mar 2014
7:45pm, 23 Mar 2014
909 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
SPR,
I guess it is a question of how much grey should be included in the program. I certainly do believe that tempo has an important role to play. My own recommendations are probably a little less polarised than Seiler’s. However I do not want to get too deeply into debating exactly how much tempo should be allowed in a polarised program. It depends on the phase of training and on relationship to specific target races.

I focus on the poles because I think that many runners (e.g. many devotees of Hadd) underemphasize the importance of intense running. There are many studies demonstrating that high intensity training provides not only ‘anaerobic’ development by also provides efficient aerobic development. For a runner who is stuck on plateau, a moderate amount of intense work is an effective way to move forwards. I believe that for year-on-year development, a substantial amount of easy running is also essential.

Steve Magness might not use the term polarised but as you yourself pointed out he advocates a mixture that is not far away from what I advocate.

Canova does place less emphasis on the easy running for well established elite runners. However even he does recommends easy runs not only for recovery but also stated in his Nairobi lecture: ‘’ Another time when the highly developed athlete runs at low intensity, usually far from the special periods, when the athlete trains the muscles and joints to work together for long periods of time (up to 3 hours), usually when he is alone so that he can ‘listen to his body’, and concentrate without waste of energy.’

But definitely for his elite runners, Canova recommends a lot of running near LT.

NN,
if the title of the Seiler paper raises your hackles, I think this might indicate that there is material for a good discussion here. But I do want to get into a debate that is itself too polarised. I certainly advocate using a wide range of session types. But I think that the proportions are worth debating.

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 113,700 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here