Hi ,
It looks like you're using an ad blocker.



The revenue generated from the adverts on the site is a critical part of our funding - and it's because of these ads that I can offer the site for free. But using the site for free AND blocking the ads doesn't feel like a great thing to do, which is why this box is so large and inconvenient. Some sites will completely block your access, but I'm not doing that - I'm appealing to your good nature instead. Did you know that you can allow ads for specific sites, whilst still blocking them on others?

Thanks,
Ian Williams aka Fetch
or for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Polarized training

91 watchers
J2R
Oct 2015
1:37pm, 12 Oct 2015
180 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
HOD, I found a noticeable improvement in my running when I went up to 40+ mile weeks, at least for a few weeks in a row. I can maintain things at 30 for a while, but I think a few weeks of 40-50 takes me up to another level. I've never been able to sustain 50+ weeks for weeks on end, though, never had the time - I often wonder what that would do for me.

Best of luck with the asthma. My problem now, having dealt with the asthma, is a kind of low-level respiratory tract infection, presumably viral, which I always seem to get at this time of year, normally following a cold, and which drags on for weeks on end, I can't seem to shake it off. It's a blasted nuisance - it's not especially problematic in itself, it's just that it seriously screws up my running. It put paid to my attempt at a sub-80 minute half marathon yesterday - very disappointing!
Oct 2015
1:53pm, 12 Oct 2015
31,349 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Hills of Death (HOD)
Did you find a massive difference between your pre asthma diagnosis pace and post. ? Ie once medicated

I know I need to do more runs I've just started to rebuild from IM where post I was running 10-20 now up to 30-35 I should be 40 plus by Xmas (and fatter probably ;-) )
J2R
Oct 2015
2:12pm, 12 Oct 2015
181 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
HOD, yes I did. Medication made a significant difference. I got a whole load of PBs in the months following - what more can I say? :) The best way I can describe the effect is that, untreated, it felt like I was only able to access 90% of my lungs, and once the Seretide had got to work (it takes a while), I had 100% again.
Oct 2015
2:22pm, 12 Oct 2015
31,350 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Hills of Death (HOD)
Thanks mate I guess a mixture of two will help :-)
J2R
Oct 2015
6:13pm, 12 Oct 2015
182 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
J2R
HOD, I note you did Peterborough yesterday. So did I - that was the HM I was talking about where I missed out on my sub-1:20 (got 1:21:28). Nigh on perfect conditions, I would say, and a great course - I'd just love to have been fully healthy for it!
Oct 2015
7:28pm, 12 Oct 2015
31,352 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Hills of Death (HOD)
I was shit lol I did run a few miles before I would love to be fit for it could do my PB if I get all things going in right direction
Oct 2015
10:04pm, 13 Oct 2015
2,097 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Ninky Nonk
I reckon Steve magness reads this thread...

scienceofrunning.com
Nov 2015
7:09am, 11 Nov 2015
2,129 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
Ninky Nonk
Does lactate threshold training increase the heart rate at which you reach the threshold or the speed you run at the threshold or the time you can spend at the threshold?

Despite plenty of recent tempo and progressive runs my lthr hardly seems to move, yet pace at lthr has seen improvement.

I wonder if the ability to hold a higher heart rate as a % of max might be an indicator of fibre type?
Nov 2015
8:15am, 11 Nov 2015
6,778 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
FenlandRunner
I find it like a poor map reader, no matter where they are on the map they try to justify what they see is exactly where they think they are.

And then you get those whose opinion is coloured by the need to earn a living...
Nov 2015
10:48am, 11 Nov 2015
15,444 posts
  • Quote
  • Pin
GlennR
Ninky Nonk, I would in practical terms suggest that it's the speed you get at threshold HR which increases, but in reality you're never going to know whether you're actually at threshold or not unless you get your blood tested all the time. Like most thing in the running world it's lore and trial and error rather than scientific fact.

FR, your first sentence reads as if you're trying to describe how to find a clitoris. In which case the second sentence is interesting.

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
  • Show full description...

Related Threads

  • 8020
  • heart
  • training

Report This Content

You can report any content you believe to be unsafe. Please let me know why you believe this content is unsafe by choosing a category below.



Thank you for your report. The content will be assessed as soon as possible.










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 114,494 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here