Polarized training

91 watchers
Jul 2015
10:53pm, 29 Jul 2015
2,000 posts
  •  
  • 0
Ninky Nonk
It seems the problem with hadd is people never get past phase 1. He did have his 200 fartlek sessions in there as a nod to the need to stay in touch with speed. Unless you are very much an st type I don't think it is easy to enjoy that much lt work.

Still canova seems to encourage something similar to haddn his ? Fundamental? Phase.
Jul 2015
11:33pm, 29 Jul 2015
1,611 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
NN
As discussed on this thread last year, Canova’s program can be described as polarised, though if anything he tends to play down the need for low intensity training. In his comments on the Let’s Run thread he stated that in general his athletes do not need to develop capillaries etc as they have already done so. He does acknowledge that a beginner needs to do a substantial volume of low intensity training, but he does not provide any detail about this.

In fact there is a lot to be learned from Lydiard, Hadd (and Canova), but in the case of both Lydiard and Hadd, they did not have access to the information we now have about the effects on high intensity training on aerobic development. For recreational athletes, their principles have much to recommend them, but slavish following of those principles is likely to result in sub-optimal training.
J2R
Jul 2015
10:39am, 30 Jul 2015
118 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I was hoping that by following the polarized training program over the last 3-4 months, I'd avoid the tail-off in performance which happened during last summer's race season. I'm beginning to feel it hasn't quite happened like that, unfortunately, as I've had a handful of races recently where I just haven't done what I expected to, although the tail-off (if that's what it is) is less than last year and has come later, which is at least something.

I did a 10K race last night, under perfect conditions, where my time was 21 seconds down on the first race in the series in early June. My heartrate data I think tells me something useful. In the first race in the series, I was running at 93% of my working heart rate, whereas last night's I was running at 91% with the same perceived effort - I didn't feel I could go any faster. Last Friday, too, I ran a 5 mile race at 89-90% WHR in a time 20 seconds slower than a time from a couple of months ago (albeit on fastercourse) at 93% WHR.

As I understand it, this probably suggests incipient overtraining, or at least a level of persistent tiredness. My plan is to rest for a week and see how things are then. Not sure whether a week is going to be enough, though.
Jul 2015
11:18am, 30 Jul 2015
7,738 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Interesting J2R. I have similar experiences on lower WHR in training leading to worse times and my better performances being able to access a higher WHR. In fact when I first started my unsuccessful bout of pure Heart Rate Training (ie everything at 80% or under of MHR - so 70% WHR roughly) I was told to do a MHR test, as my bleep test and Vo2 max test (which both yielded the same result) were not accurate enough indicators (my belief is they probably were accurate). However in the MHR test which was done weeks later, I could not get my MHR close to those figures and didn't feel like I could. Not surprising I suppose that a lab test provided more accurate results and proved better than an "out in the field" test conducted by myself, but unfortunately heart rate enthusiasts seem to "know" better than scientists at times.

The route out for me though was the opposite to the one you are pursuing, which was as I didn't believe I had overtrained, was to train harder , but in a more polarised fashion. Slow runs - slower, hard runs - harder. I think heart rate is a useful gauge but divorced from other markers, not a particularly reliable gauge. I note Canute often recommends breaths per stride as another good marker to be taken alongside heart rate. I also note "Running Science" says that resting heart rate can vary between 20 bpm for "no apparent reason" on any given day, and says therefore not too much attention should be paid to it.

I think the principle of overloading has to be observed, train hard, get a reaction, then follow with an adequate recovery period. Resting is useful, it's a case though of balancing the performance gain from becoming less tired vs the tail-off from fitness lost.
Jul 2015
11:25am, 30 Jul 2015
1,612 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
J2R, that is a shame. Various things are likely to be happening. First, the lower HR later in the season is at least party due to greater stroke volume so that you achieve similar rate of delivery of oxygen to muscles at a lower HR, but that does not explain decreased performance.

As you imply, it is likely to be fatigue. While I think that Lydiard’s approach to periodization made an unnecessarily sharp distinction between base-building and race-specific preparation, I nonetheless think the fundamental concept of periodization is well founded. As illustrated in the study by Balsalobre-Fernandez (mentioned yesterday), season’s best performances followed a week of lower training volume with a higher amount of zone 3 training (above LT). ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Before key races, or simply as the season proceeds, it is probably worth decreasing the proportion of zone 1 training appreciably and cautiously increasing the proportion of zone 3 training.

At this stage in your season, it might be worth cutting back volume greatly and doing a small amount of fairly fast running, but not too taxing.
J2R
Jul 2015
1:56pm, 30 Jul 2015
119 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
You'd think it would be easy enough to determine whether one needed to do more (or better, or harder) training, or to give up and have a rest instead! But apparently it is not.

Chrisull, my training as it is has been over the last 3 months or so is as polarized as I'd really want to go, I think. I feel I've got the pace of the slow runs about right - I'm pretty far away from that 'black hole' which Seiler warns against. I think the main change I might make is in being a bit more structured in how I do my high intensity stuff, rather than just putting it all under a general 'high intensity' umbrella.

For the moment, though, I'm inclined to see what difference a week of either complete rest or severely cut back training makes. Canute, I heed what you say about reduction in volume, and upping the zone 3 - I'll try that the following week.
Aug 2015
7:12pm, 9 Aug 2015
1,659 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Perhaps the crucial question in determining the value of polarised training for endurance athletes relative to training protocols with a higher proportion of tempo running is the question of whether interval training produces greater gains in distance running performance than an equivalent amount of tempo training.

As far as I know, there have only been two studies that have addressed this: one by Peter Snell (multiple gold medallist in Rome and Tokyo Olympics) and his colleagues at University of Texas; the other at by Franch and colleagues from Odense in Denmark. Both studies were published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,but are relatively inaccessible.

There is a more accessible description of the Snell study by Owen Anderson.on the Runners Web site at runnersweb.com

and a description of the Odense study by Jim Bledsoe on the Peak Performance site at http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0437.htm#

Both Anderson and Bledsoe are well informed experts but, in my view, both have a bias in favour of interval training, so their commentaries should be read with this possibility in mind.

In brief, in the Snell study the athletes did two interval or two tempo session per week in addition to other low intensity running for a period of 10 weeks. The interval session consisted of 800 and 400m repeats covering a total of about 3 miles at 90-100% VO2max. The tempo sessions consisted of 29 minutes at a pace near LT (70-80% of VO2max). The athletes undergoing interval training made significantly greater gains in both 800m performance (not surprising) but also in 10K performance compared with those doing the tempo training.

The Danish study compared tempo training (90 minutes /week) with long intervals (60 min/week) with short intervals (10 min/week.) delivered in three session/week together with 2 recovery sessions, for a period of 6 week. Tempo training and long intervals produced similar improvement in VO2max and running economy, and both were better than the short intervals. In addition the tempo session produced greater endurance (time to exhaustion) in a test near tempo pace.

Overall, these studies show that both interval training and tempo training produce benefits in VO2max, economy, ability to handle lactate and in performance from 800m to 10 Km, with interval training being more time efficient. The Snell study suggests greater improvement from interval training; the Danish study suggests similar improvement from tempo training and long intervals, but greater endurance improvement from tempo.

I do not think that these two studies provide an unequivocal answer about which is most beneficial though interval are almost certainly more time-efficient, and undoubtedly can produce substantial improvement i n 10K performance. However the evidence of greater endurance for the tempo training suggest to me that it is probably wise to include both intervals and tempo training in a polarised protocol.
Aug 2015
7:25pm, 9 Aug 2015
6,256 posts
  •  
  • 0
100forRNIB
If I was targeting a 10k I would run one lsr a week, one tempo and then 800 metre reps, with the intention of building up the 800 metre reps to equal 6 miles. :-o
J2R
Aug 2015
12:06pm, 10 Aug 2015
122 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I'm wondering at this point whether the deliberate omission of classic tempo runs from my training over the last 3-4 months might have been a mistake. When I got interested in polarized training about 3 months ago, it was partly because it seemed to explain a pattern I had noticed in my results. Last year I started off the season with some unexpectedly good times then declined later on, and this year as well I started off much better than I would have expected given my lack of serious tempo run training. Reading up on polarized training it struck me that that was more or less what I had been doing up to the start of the race season, hence my good times, and that tempo runs were thus not really necessary.

Moreover, I conjectured that the reason for the decline in my performances after a couple of months last year was precisely because I had added in the missing tempo runs, and had thus developed a legacy of tiredness and ended up doing too much in the middle zone. So this season I skipped them in the hope that polarized training would carry me through and I would not suffer that kind of performance decline. As mentioned earlier, it doesn't seem to have happened quite like that, unfortunately, although the decline has come a little later - but my performances do definitely seem to be dropping away from where they were a month or two ago, I can't get away from the fact. I'm now more inclined to blame it on the sheer amount of racing I've done, and think the same was probably true last year.

So maybe I should have been racing less and doing a few tempo runs here and there. In fairness, I had assumed that any benefit I might get from a tempo run I would also get from a race - but clearly races (if actually raced) take more out of you.
Aug 2015
12:54pm, 10 Aug 2015
1,666 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
J2R, I think that over-training, whether it is with tempo runs, high intensity intervals or long runs is the main issue for most runners who set themselves demanding goals.

Furthermore, it is misleading to assume that long easy runs do not add much to total fatigue. Oddly enough, I think that fairly short, high intensity effort, actually has the best ratio of benefit to cost, but anything taken to excess is harmful. It is probably best that at the end of any training session you feel you could have done a little more. In high intensity sessions, stop one rep before exhaustion if you want to maximise benefit from the next few days of training . For a similar reason it is necessary to limit the amount of maximal effort racing.

As for tempo runs, I think they have a role in a balanced program, but probably less than many recreational runners assume.

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 113,793 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here