Polarized training

1 lurker | 91 watchers
SPR
Mar 2014
8:23pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,113 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Canute - Magness explains what I trying to say much better than I've said it. The third paragraph to the end is the bit to focus on.

"Very interesting presentation by Stephen Seiler and discussion. I don't have a lot to add, except that here's some data from way back in 2009 on the training distribution of Moses Mosop leading up the Kenyana XC champsionships. Mosop was 2x world XC champion, and was 2nd in that crazy fast 2:03 Boston Marathon.

But his distribution was roughly 80% zone 1, 10% zone 2, 10% zone 3. It's further divided into a few more zones here: scienceofrunning.com

As Seiler pointed out, that huge amount of zone 1 training is what we evolved to in distance running from about Lydiard's age until now. One thing I think we are missing though, is that there is likely periodization within the workouts themselves.

One thing that bothers me from the research is it assumes the Zone is what matters. I'd argue that the individual workout dynamics matter. Meaning 6x1000 with 60sec rest in 3:07 is different than 5x1200 with 60sec rest in 3:45. The workout and the progressions of the workout matter. the 1200 workout is an extinction of the 10000s and we worked on specific endurance for the 5k.

So to me, workouts matter. I'd love to see research start to explore that difficult task."

This is from this link: complementarytraining.blogspot.co.uk It discusses a Seiler presentation, so other posts there may interest you.

I think in general though, for all 70-80% easy is pretty much agreed.

In terms of Canova (btw Magness is quite heavily influenced by Canova). I will try and find some marathon training examples from Canova at some point. I know he has posted on Letsrun at times, so there's hopefully some info out there. It looks to me that the Long resistance run falls under basic aerobic (easy), while the rest falls under aerobic endurance (tempo/sub LT).
SPR
Mar 2014
8:37pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,115 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Canute - The video presentation being discussed is linked in that link as well.
Mar 2014
8:45pm, 23 Mar 2014
976 posts
  •  
  • 0
FenlandRunner
This is reminding me of the ER thread, getting embedded in semantics and detail doesn't help, it hinders.

KISS

Keep It Simple, Stupid :)
SPR
Mar 2014
8:49pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,116 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Four months of Mosop leading up to Boston 2011 here: letsrun.com
Two months Abel Kirui up to 2011 WC Marathon: letsrun.com

This guy put the schedules into a PDF calendar (link within page): runningwritings.com
Mar 2014
9:57pm, 23 Mar 2014
910 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
SPR
I will look at all that material and I anticipate I will find lots of interesting ideas. I think it is informative to try to understand the principles underlying the approach of different coaches. However, much as I value discussing the ideas of specific coaches, I do not want to get too locked into debating exactly who said what because we can probably find quotes that support any reasonable argument.

I could have called this thread ‘ mixed training’ but I decided on the term ‘polarised’ because I do think that we now know much more about the way the body adapts to training that was known in Lydiard’s day. This acquired knowledge points us towards a mixture including a lot of easy running and a somewhat smaller amount of intense training. I still regard Lydiard as one the greatest distances coaches ever, but we do not have to base our training principles only on speculation about what Lydiard meant by quarter effort and three quarter effort, nor on guessing the proportions of these type of sessions that his athletes s performed.

We now have a lot of new information about the value of high intensity training. To some extent the Furman team have built a program with a bias towards high intensity training, but I think the lack of easy running in the Furman program makes it unsuitable for year-on-year development.

But I do regard this as an anti-Furman or anti-Hadd thread. It is about discussing the balance of the different types of training. My own starting assumption is that a balanced program should include quite a lot of easy stuff and a small amount of hard stuff. Furthermore, both of these types of training should be in the program throughout most of the year, though the exact types and proportions will change according to current goals. This broad outline would embrace a large range of possibilities and I hope that individuals will contribute their ideas regarding the balance that they consider fits their current goals.

I will continue to post a weekly summary of what I am doing; a bit more about why I am doing it; and eventually, whether or not I think it has helped me achieve my goals. I have been a bit reticent about specific goals so far because I do not know when the arthritis will settle, but broadly speaking I hope to get fit enough for a reasonable 5K in late spring and if my joints allow, I will prepare for a marathon in the autumn).
Mar 2014
10:00pm, 23 Mar 2014
911 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
'But I do not regard this as an anti-Furman or anti-Hadd thread' Sorry for making polar opposite mistakes in grammar
Mar 2014
10:13pm, 23 Mar 2014
1,719 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
The double negative was the true mistake. ;-)
Mar 2014
10:47pm, 23 Mar 2014
912 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
SPR
Thanks for linking to the Running Writing blog. It is great. Nonetheless, a quick perusal appears to confirm my reasons for starting this Fetch thread.

He reviews the training of Mosop and Kirui and concludes: ‘Instead, the focus of training is in long fast runs, long intervals workouts, and short fartlek-style workouts.’ This agrees with my own understanding of what Canova says he recommends for elite distance runners. However when you look at the various detailed accounts of what Mosop did in 2009 and 2011, there appears to be a lot of easy running. I accept that Canova does recommend a substantial amount of running near LT and I am sure his athletes put quite of lot of this in the mix, but it appears that his own athletes do a quite a lot of easy stuff too. So I remain convinced in the value for a lot of easy running in addition to some intense running.

For those of us not aiming for a sub 2:05 marathon, I think the need for easy stuff might be even greater, but I also want to continue to emphasize that for the majority of runners, if you want to continue to improve you probably need some intense stuff as well. For me the interesting question is finding the right balance
SPR
Mar 2014
11:19pm, 23 Mar 2014
19,117 posts
  •  
  • 0
SPR
Canute - Indeed, hence why I thought I'd find the detail of the training. It seems most commentary focuses on the 'workouts', or the perceived differences from other training rather than the full picture (which seems to be the case for most training methods). Maybe there are some he trains with a different breakdown, but I am yet to see them.

"For me the interesting question is finding the right balance" Indeed, balanced training would have been a great name for the thread, but understand why you chose the name.
Mar 2014
9:40am, 25 Mar 2014
915 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
The major issue raised by the recent discussion is the relative merit of tempo (or near LT) compared with high intensity training.

The arguments in favour of tempo are:
1) that it is used successfully by many athletes. Successful marathon coaches such Canova recommend it, and P&D include a substantial amount of it.
2) Many distance races are run at a pace near LT
3) It promotes adaptation to moderate elevation of lactate

The argument is favour of higher intensity (eg intervals well above LT pace) are:
1) Intervals were used in several studies that compared types of training and in particular in contrasts of polar with threshold training (eg Stoggl et al)
2) Elite marathoners do include interval training as well as tempo in their training (eg Mosop)
3) Many studies demonstrate that it is a very efficient way to increase aerobic capacity (e.g. studies by Gibala et al) and other beneficial metabolic adaptations (e.g. facility to pump potassium ions into muscle). It is possible that an excess of lactate actually encourages ability to metabolise lactate even more effectively than a modest increase in lactate.

As I described on the first page of this thread I myself have found tempo beneficial in the past and I will probably aim for a ratio of easy/tempo/high intensity of around 80/15/5 or 75/15/10 once my joints have settled down and I can switch from the elliptical to running for the majority of the harder sessions. There is little doubt that if I prepare for a marathon in autumn, long runs with substantial MP segments will be key sessions.

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 113,707 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here