Polarized training

2 lurkers | 91 watchers
Aug 2015
5:15pm, 20 Aug 2015
1,677 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
I was intrigued by the recent study from Finland ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (reviewed by Alex Hutchinson in his Sweat Science column, runnersworld.com ) that reported that resting Heart Rate Variability (HRV) provides an indication of whether you are likely to benefit for an increase in training volume or an increase in training intensity.

I am cautiously getting back into training following a bike accident a few weeks ago, and as described in my (Fetch) blog post today , I will be interested to see whether or not HRV provides potentially useful information to guide the build-up of my training.
Aug 2015
7:44pm, 20 Aug 2015
14,425 posts
  •  
  • 0
GlennR
Good luck with the comeback Canute. The HRV stuff ought to be interesting.
Sep 2015
7:47pm, 2 Sep 2015
1,681 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
For the past month I have only been able to do a limited amount of training because of an injury to my knee in a bike accident. I still cannot run, but I have started cycling and elliptical sessions. During these sessions I can place my foot to avoids twisting or sideways bending of my leg at the knee. During the first few low aerobic elliptical sessions it was clear that I had lost a substantial amount of fitness. HR was about 8% higher for a given power output, though effort was not appreciably greater, implying that the increase heart rate was due to decreased blood volume which leads to decrease in stroke volume. This total cardiac work is not greater despite the increased HR.

Under these circumstances, it is easy to get to HR max, so I decided I would check my HR max to see if it has continued to decrease with age. I did an elliptical interval session consisting of 3 min effort epochs at 186watts and 3 min recovery epochs at 35 watts. Usually after 4 such effort epochs, HR would reach around a HR plateau in the range 142-145 which on the basis of previously measured HRmax of 154, corresponds to 92-95% of max. However as I expected, yesterday, during the 4th epoch, HR increased to a plateau at 156 (marginally higher than previous HRmax, but consistent with the fact that HRmax is usually a bit higher when you are unfit). Effort level was only about 16/20. I then did 20 seconds at max effort . During the 20 seconds power output increase to 304watts (163% of the value required to reach HR156, but HR remained steady at 156. Thus, I am confident that 156 is a good estimate of current HRmax.

The pleasing thing is that through my early 60’s my HR max had decreased at the rate of 1 bpm per year, but for the past three years has not decreased at all – in fact the 156 recorded today is the highest value I have recorded for about 5 years – though I anticipate that it will fall a little as I get fitter. I am not sure why the decline has halted. According to some of the studies of aging, the rate of decrease in HRmax is the one sign of aging relevant to athletic performance that is not influenced by training. Whatever the reason for the arrest of the rate of loss, I am pleased.
J2R
Sep 2015
8:12pm, 2 Sep 2015
145 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
That's good news, Canute! I'm of an age where I'm starting to get a bit anxious about age-related decline in performance and am always happy to see any good news in this area!

On the subject of maximum heart rate, what do you see of its connection with athletic performance under hot conditions and how that might affect older runners? I seem to be affected more by the heat than my younger fellow runners (all four 5K runs I've done this summer have been adversely affected). I was conjecturing that it might be that I'm running pretty close to my maximum heart rate, as an older runner, with limited 'headroom', if you like, and that when I have to deal with getting rid of excess heat as well, this robs me of a few heartbeats a minute and means I have to push into 95% MHR territory to maintain pace, which is difficult to sustain. Younger runners have a little more 'headroom' to play with. Is this physiological nonsense?
Sep 2015
8:41pm, 2 Sep 2015
1,682 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
J2R
No, I do not think it is physiolgical non-sense. Performance depends on ability to deliver oxygen to tissues, and the ability to extract it and use it. A 5 K pace you are limited by ability to deliver enough oxygen to muscle. The maximum amount you can deliver even for short periods is max HR x stroke volume at max HR, but the heart cannot sustain that for 5K. Typically you can only maintain around 95% of that cardiac output the duration of a 5K. If it is hot, you need to send additional blood to the skin in order to avoid over-heating. As you say, you have little ‘head-room’ and performance is likely to fall. This also applies to some extent for younger athletes, but younger athletes with greater HR max, have greater max cardiac output, and the amount of blood that has to be sent to capillaries is a smaller fraction of available cardiac output.

It is noteworthy that efficiency also tends to decrease moderately with age, though not as fast as HR max. If efficiency decreases you will go slower at a given % of HR max, or alternatively are forced to push further into the small amount of 'head room', and there is less cardiac output to spare for cooling.

With regard to my own stabilization of HRmax in recent years, I wonder f it is the fact that I have done a lot more resistance training, including squats with quite high load, in the past three years. I have no direct evidence to support this, apart from the fact that it it the most substantial change in training in that period
J2R
Sep 2015
11:41am, 3 Sep 2015
146 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Thanks for the elucidation, Canute. Interesting about the resistance training. I know Pete Magill focuses a lot on strength work for masters runners, as that, for him, is the area where people drop off most as they get older: http://running.competitor.com/2014/11/photos/fast-40-master-strength-training_117737.
J2R
Sep 2015
10:11am, 7 Sep 2015
147 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I'm thinking that heat sensitivity is a significant issue for me, and probably explains rather more of my recent poorer performances than I had previously thought. I say this because with cooler temperatures in the last couple of weeks, performances seem to be bouncing back. I ran a big PB in a half marathon yesterday, knocking over a minute off my previous best. My heart rate yesterday averaged 89% WHR and I was 5 minutes faster than the one I ran in 25C heat 4 weeks ago, where it averaged 91%. Yesterday was a nice 12-14C.

So maybe my performances haven't actually tailed off much, I just needed cooler conditions and a bit of a rest (I did taper in the last week before the HM). Polarized training still seems to be doing the job. Next test is a 10K in cool conditions.
Sep 2015
11:03am, 7 Sep 2015
7,846 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Heat sensitivity is an issue for all, there's some graphs showing the amount of time you can expect to lose for each degree above 1OC, and they stack up pretty quickly. There's a rudimentary graph here: runneracademy.com

Canute - out of interest how do you measure your HR max?
J2R
Sep 2015
11:45am, 7 Sep 2015
148 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Sure, but people respond differently - it affects people to different degrees. As I was discussing with Canute above, I think it probably affects you more if you're older. Anyway, it gives me something to feel positive about when summer draws to an end!
Sep 2015
8:21pm, 8 Sep 2015
1,694 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
J2R, well done in the HM.

Chrisull, I usually measure HR max on the elliptical, where it is possible to quantify increases in work-rate precisely. I regard HR at the level where further increase in work rate produces no further increase in HR. I usually increase work load in increments until I reach the point where HR stops rising (typically at an effort level around 16-18/20, and then I push to maximum effort for as long as I can hold (usually around 20 seconds) to confirm that HR cannot rise any further.

When running, the highest HR I ever see is in the final sprint of a 5K. I usually sprint a max effort at the end of races, but in longer races such as HM I cannot get the HR as high, probably because my brain places a limit. Usually HR at the end of a 5K s very similar to the maximum value I obtain on the elliptical.

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 113,794 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here