Polarized training

90 watchers
Apr 2017
3:33pm, 3 Apr 2017
10,772 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Here's the killer question - should walking time be counted as part of your training (ie walking for a mile at least kind of thing). If not, why not?

Last December - walking up a hill at average HR was 125.

Today running over a hilly 5 miler at 9.45 pace , my average HR was 129.

Therefore little difference... Big question as it makes a lot of difference to training miles. I walk 2 miles a day with the dog....
J2R
Apr 2017
5:56pm, 3 Apr 2017
346 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
I posted an answer to this over in the 'Heart rate' thread.
Apr 2017
10:16pm, 7 Apr 2017
33,312 posts
  •  
  • 0
Hills of Death (HOD)
Finally got my Matt F 80/20 book reading it with interest and nodding away
Jun 2017
4:59pm, 4 Jun 2017
11,153 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
Shame this thread is so quiet and canute has not long been seen in these parts....

Anyway still on the 30/30 Billats and still seeing marginal improvements (I *love* Strava's automatic graphing of all matched runs, it is a godsend), so this is the 9th set I've done this year. On the other hand my HR isn't as good on ultra slow runs as it has been, but I'd wager I am actually faster now than I was when my HR was at its all time low on these runs. Still keeping runs strictly polarised.

I observe that the effect of stress is instantly recognisable, the sudden illness and death of my cat made my HR jump and all my running became slower/less motivated and I felt a tiredness as though I was in a super high marathon training period.
Jun 2017
5:26pm, 4 Jun 2017
12,644 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Yes, your body and mind are effected by the whole spectrum of daily life. Your running can be going really well but if you get stress from other areas running performance will be down.
J2R
Jun 2017
6:03pm, 4 Jun 2017
542 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Chrisull, sorry to hear about your cat. I know how that would effect your system, having gone through that pain not so long ago. Yes, stress is the same in its effect on your system, whether from physical or psychological origins. This is one of the reasons I'm most interested in polarized training, because of the reduced stress on one's central nervous system by keeping most of the training below the fight-or-flight threshold.

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I hammered my immune system a couple of years ago by racing hard while not fully recovered from a virus, and I credit a polarized training approach not only with helping me recover my fitness after that, but also my health. 10 days ago I also equalled one of my best ever PB times (in the 5 miler), so it absolutely works as a training method. I first achieved the time 2 years ago, so achieving the same time now is effectively a mark of increased performance.
Jul 2017
7:13pm, 16 Jul 2017
1,799 posts
  •  
  • 0
Canute
Sorry, I have not been on Fetch for many months: as explained on my blog, I have a puzzling illness. The good news it that is does not appear to be immediately life-threatening, but it has left me very tired with little spare time for internet communication. Nonetheless, in recent months I have been exercising gently.

I have been now discharged from the hospital clinic and have no clear reason for not pushing myself a bit to recover fitness, provided I am cautious to avoid exhausting myself. I will re-introduce a small proportion of slightly higher intensity running. For the time being, that will merely be incorporating some stride-outs in my slow sessions to re-establish a somewhat larger range of motion at the hips, and introducing some hill running to rebuild leg power. The next 6 months will be cautious base-building.

With regard to Chrisull’s question of counting walking as training, I have certainly been relying on hill walking to avoid severe loss of fitness in recent times. In my younger days, when I was a sub- 2:30 marathoner, I did quite a lot of hill walking and mountaineering, simply because I enjoyed it. It was not intended as training, but I suspect it helped. The question of whether or not you count it as training is a bit arbitrary. However it would be misleading to give it equal weight to running at a similar HR. Because walking does not entail as much eccentric loading of the legs as slow running, it is far less useful for building leg muscle resilience. A distance runner cannot avoid a substantial volume of actual running in training.
Jul 2017
10:57am, 17 Jul 2017
11,515 posts
  •  
  • 0
Chrisull
I was coming to the conclusion that yes, the extra distance isn't helping me with running longer distances..., although it helps in other ways, but ultimately LSRs cannot be avoided.
J2R
Jul 2017
2:43pm, 17 Jul 2017
640 posts
  •  
  • 0
J2R
Welcome back, Canute, your input has been missed! Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

From time to time I report back here on my progress with polarized training. I am pleased to be able to say that I appear currently to be as fit and fast as I have ever been, after following a polarized training programme. I have recently equalled a strong PB from 2 years ago and missed out by a second on an even stronger PB from 3 years ago, so when I factor age-related decline in there, it is clear that my training has been working well.

My training is mainly at a pace below my 1st ventilatory threshold (which for me appears to be around 140bpm), usually some way below. I've also been doing (once or twice a week) 1km repeats at 10K pace with 1 or 2 minute standing or slow jogging recoveries; 8 minute intervals at 10K pace with 2 minute standing recoveries; or my regular 40/40 Billat sessions (40 seconds at vVO2max pace, 40 seconds slow jog).

The vast majority of my running, though, is at an easy pace. That has got faster as I've got fitter, so I'm doing a lot now at 7:30-7:45 pace whereas a few months ago I would more usually be doing 8:15-8:30 pace. It's probably not bringing me any greater benefit running at the faster speed per se, but it does allow me to do a little more mileage within a given time.
Jul 2017
4:34pm, 24 Jul 2017
13,143 posts
  •  
  • 0
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
I've totally changed my mind. I think polarized training is the way forward. Although with the caveat that the athlete should build-up to 80/20. During the foundation phase 90/10 or even 95/5 might be more advantageous.

And HoD, any chance of borrowing the book? ;-)

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
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 112,266 Fetchies!
Already a Fetchie? Sign in here