Polarized training
1 lurker |
91 watchers
Mar 2018
7:45pm, 20 Mar 2018
882 posts
|
Brunski
J2R, that's pretty much what I said. You're pretty much preaching to tip he converted where polarised training is concerned. There's a lot of variants on it, but like others have said in this thread I think most people agree that you need to start working from really easy level, whether that is base mileage in a cycle or just dropping the effort of your long and easy runs on a day to day basis. It's when you are reaching the business end of a cycle where people pick and choose how to sharpen up and prepare for races, or once you have built that base you can race strongly year round in some cases (I can't). |
Mar 2018
8:57pm, 20 Mar 2018
2,722 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I think we're violently agreeing j2r.
|
Mar 2018
11:21pm, 20 Mar 2018
1,838 posts
|
Canute
Good luck with your 20 milers this weekend, Chrisull and J2R. NN, that is very interesting excerpt from Canova on page 143 of this thread. Canova identifies 8 different 'zones', providing more subtle distinctions that the 3 broad zones described by Seiler and others. The 8 zones certainly allow more subtle distinctions than are apparent in Seiler’s suggested 80:10:10 proportion of low, threshold and high intensity. In my experience many thoughtful athletes (or their coaches) do design their training session with a richer palette than Seiler’s three zones, but I nonetheless think that the key thing with Seiler’s simplified account is that it provides a useful guide to the overall distribution of training intensity. Within the three zones, you might well select various specific sessions for particular purposes according to the phase of the training cycle, or according to the specific needs of a particular athlete. As I see it the key feature of Seiler’s polarised approach is the avoiding large amount of threshold training. He present the argument that this has a less favourable ration of benefit to stress than either low or high intensity. However the definition of threshold is not precise. As I understand Canova, S5 might be described as ‘typical threshold’, while S4 might be described as ‘sub-threshold and S6 is ‘upper threshold’ but not quite ‘high intensity’. Canova indicates that S5 is only use about once every 10 days by African athletes. He does state that S4 is ‘normal training for the best African runners, often made in progressive way (starting from S3 with final part of training faster’. To me, that implies the need for caution in the use of S4. Seiler’s second point is that quite lot of low intensity is required. Canova’s S1 to S3 would fit comfortably within Seiler’s low intensity zone. It is clear that Canova considers that a fairly large proportion of training should be in the range S1 to S3. Canova says ‘for ALL Kenyans, the amount of regeneration mileage (i.e. S1) is between 50% and 60% of the total training mileage’. He also notes they all (including 1500m runners) do a long run at S2 effort each week. Thus Canova recommends that even elites do a lot of low intensity training. If we regard Canova’s S7 and S8 to be definitely high intensity, Seiler and Canova appear to have similarly recommendation for a relatively small amount of high intensity training. As I understand it, both would recommend some high intensity in all phases of the training cycle. This contrasts with Lydiard’s recommendation to avoid high intensity during base building. (Of course Lydiard’s athletes did some demanding hill work in base building, but Peter Snell remarked many years after his Olympic triumphs in Rome and Tokyo, that if there was one thing he would have changed it would have been some high intensity sessions at all phases of the training cycle.) Thus, if there is any noteworthy difference between Canova and Seiler it is in Canova’s recommendation for use of S4 by ‘the best runners’. Nonetheless, Canova implies that some caution is required in the use of S4. NN – a minor point of language: You paraphrased my text from the header of this thread as meaning that ‘elite athlete training is polarised and polarised training is elite athlete training.’ That is not what I intended. I used the phrase ‘many elites and some recreational runners’ when describing those who have traditionally used a polarised approach. There is good evidence that many of non-elites can benefit from polarised training. |
Mar 2018
8:58am, 21 Mar 2018
1,071 posts
|
J2R
Here's a link to one of the studies I was referring to, on the benefit of PT for recreational runners: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
|
Mar 2018
9:09am, 21 Mar 2018
2,723 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
Hey canute. I agree non elites benefit from polarised training. As I've hinted a couple of times I think the extra info that canova gives relative to the seiler paper are the long fast runs just below mp. Yes the elites appear to do a lot of regeneration running but they also do a fair bit of strong aerobic running at the upper end of seiler zone 1. If you are following a polarised approach i suggest you would be wise to make sure you also include these long (controlled as they are still zone 1) fast runs in your training. I.e. not just regeneration and zone 3 running. |
Mar 2018
9:58am, 21 Mar 2018
1,072 posts
|
J2R
NN, as I mentioned above, I'm not sure that running at 15 seconds per mile below marathon pace would actually be within zone 1 for many runners, except, perhaps, for the real elite distance runners. That's not to deny that doing these long runs wouldn't be beneficial, just that I don't see them fitting in zone 1. Going on heart rate, I would say that running at this pace would probably put me around 7-8 bpm above my first ventilatory threshold (the marker for the top of zone 1).
|
Mar 2018
10:20am, 21 Mar 2018
2,724 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
I have L1/v1 <2mmol/L at about 80%HRmax. MP typically at 85% HRmax. Knocking off another 15secs per mile should have you at about 80% as an upper limit for the pace of those runs and within zone 1. |
Mar 2018
10:23am, 21 Mar 2018
2,725 posts
|
Ninky Nonk
So for you based on your recent 10k and 10miler...i would estimate 6.35 pace as an upper limit to zone 1.
|
Mar 2018
10:31am, 21 Mar 2018
25,710 posts
|
SPR
A reminder of the zones. Z3 is two in the three zone model. That's from the presentation linked below. 85% max is upper Z1 in three zone model, NN's point is valid. |
Mar 2018
10:34am, 21 Mar 2018
1,840 posts
|
Canute
NN, Even Seiler does recommend 10% threshold, but as I outlined above, I think Canova does recommend a bit more 'near to threshold' training, than Seiler. The key issue is avoiding too much 'near to threshold'. On this matter both Seiler and Canova are in close agreement. I do not think precise estimation of % HR max is as important as estimating the fatigue you feel the next day. When preparing for HM and marathon in the past I personally did sessions that started in Canova's S3 and gradually increased to S4; and I monitored the effect on my body |
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