Very good lecture on polarized training and periodization

[gregsmith01748]

My take on it: https://quantifiedrowing.wordpress.com/ ... en-seiler/

[Edward4492]

As always Greg you continue to lay out the latest science and most rational info. I was over routin' around on your website and came across your rojabo references and also the comments about "hybrid" training being the least productive. Geez.....just about the time I think I have it all figured out! I've been doing rojabo from Mon to Thur and long and easy (15k @ 20r @ 75% HR cap, around a 2:08 pace) on Sat and Sun. One thing I did with the rojabo was program in a fixed SPI at 9 w/s. Seems to be working so far. Makes the longer stuff ( say a 25min row at 20r 180w) manageable and the shorter stuff possible. But as you know, they don't program any work outs I would call easy. I'm kind of in a quandry as to what direction to go. But I go largely by feel. And test results. I kinda think that if you're training at a high level and logging enough meters that you'll get with-in a few percent of what you're capable of.

But it's that last one or two percent that wins races!

[gregsmith01748]

One thing about Rojabo is that they definitely program in periodization. They are very much in the traditional model of basebuilding, then pushing to higher intensity prior to events. The problem that I had with Rojabo was that I was way skewed out of the 80/20 polarized training model, and I dug myself into a pretty deep overtrained state. Probably all due to being an overachiever in the tests.

My beef with the system is that if you can screw it up that badly by doing the tests "wrong", how can good can it be as a test? Basically, it like a teacher reading your paper and telling you to change your answers.

[Edward4492]

Last year I tried it and like you, I believe I hit the tests too hard. This year I got on it again and just plugged in 9 w/s at all rates. Seems to be working for me but it does beg the question......what good is the test if you need to disgard it and "make up" the numbers?

[jackarabit]

Taking myself as a majority of one, I notice that when I stopped training a hybrid or continuous plan (done this twice with Pete--mid-December '14 after 5 weeks and early Aug. '15 after 11 weeks), I did so in the first instance because I was trying to concurrently participate in C2 Challenge "meter madness." In the more recent instance, a week-long interruption and then testing out with a training group on the 2k combined with a lingering hand injury left me doing nothing much at all until the current Fall Team Challenge. Volume is now at 200k+ for the first two weeks of this challenge. Believe me that this regimen will suppress speed and intensity! Have managed two or three oddball AT(TR) interval workouts in that time. Say what you will, this happy accident of AADD mimics the volume ratio of the first weeks of traditional periodized training. I'm now thinking of Pete Plan as a mesocycle of a larger schema which I shall christen the Rabbit Plan. I luv it when no plan at all comes together!

[hjs]

My take on it: https://quantifiedrowing.wordpress.com/ ... en-seiler/

Nice stuff Greg.

A few remarks/questions. First, I don,t see any explantion what polarised tries to train. In fact in most plans you don,t see that. What I have understood is the following. Our body has two energy sourches, aerobic and anaerobic. During a race/test, both systems are used. The shorter, the more anaerobe, the longer the more aerobe. Rowing a 2k is roughly 75/80 aerobe and the rest anaerobe. But those are certainly not fixed numbers, training can alter them, and personal genetics will. A sprinter will always be a sprinter, a marathoner a marathoner. But most average joes like us are proberly on the middle.

Effect of training, a training never has only positives, training one system will always hinder an other. Some training even can be mostly negative, seen in the overall picture. You could call those the black hole sessions. Those often feel good, but infact serve no goal.

Our anaerobic system can rapidly be trained, but also plateau s very fast. After 4 weeks orso is close to max. Our aerobic system reacts much slower and can keep on improving very long, albleit slowly.
Using this the goal for an endurance athlete is to build a high as possible aerobic fitness, with enough anearobic on top. The longer the event the less.

The training, polarised training is for the most part trying to train the slow twitch fibers, there should be hardly any build up of lactate. The goal here is not to use lactate but build the foundation that can so so. The intensity will be very modest, breathing should stay very calm. Bloodlactate should stay very low. This training needs volume and is not very demanding.

The hard stuff, depending on what kind of race, we also need anaerobic work. The training goal here is not to clear and use lactate, but to build the capacity to produce it. The sessions should be tough. The volume needs to be low and the recovery needs to be long. The longer you race, the less important this training is. And vice versa.

Only in the build up to a race you do session which mimic the race distance and use hybrid sessions to prepare for racing.

Individual responses. Depending on the fast, versus slow and the hybrid muscle fibers who can be trained to act as both someone will react. A pure printer will hardly gain any aerobic fitness, he simply has not the right kind of fiber. Such a persone will need more intensity proberly to use and build his anaerobic system.
A pure marathoner will always be slow a dirt, nomatter what. There are simply no fast twitch fibers enough. So they cant be trained. This athlete should focus on building his aerobic engine as much as possible and more or less forget his speed. Training it is a waist if time. This athlete will go fast relative speaking at his slow work.

Most people are in the middle, but as rowing is aerobicly dominant, that part needs to be trained the most, with high volume and over a long period. But the anaerobic part should not be forgotten. Use it or lose it. So keep those fast fibers trained but with low volume and not manny sessions.
Do training is or long and slow, this for the most, or short and fast.

[jackarabit]

I have no trouble understanding the definition of polarized (LIT and HIT) training and of lactate threshold training (MIT). I understand the effective opposition of periodized vs. continuous training. Adding the terms traditional, hybrid, and reverse traditional makes me wonder if I understand anything. Meso-, micro-, and macro- further muddy the waters. Dragging in, as Seiler does, a coach's supposed concern with training optimization for individuals vs. the scientist's search for probabilistic or "best fit" training solutions suggests that noone in the sports physioloogy game has all the pieces to the puzzle.

[gregsmith01748]

I have no trouble understanding the definition of polarized (LIT and HIT) training and of lactate threshold training (MIT). I understand the effective opposition of periodized vs. continuous training. Adding the terms traditional, hybrid, and reverse traditional makes me wonder if I understand anything. Meso-, micro-, and macro- further muddy the waters. Dragging in, as Seiler does, a coach's supposed concern with training optimization for individuals vs. the scientist's search for probabilistic or "best fit" training solutions suggests that no one in the sports physioloogy game has all the pieces to the puzzle.

If by all the pieces of the puzzle, you mean a training plan that results in the greatest gains in performance by every athlete that follows it, you are certainly right. I think that for general fitness and the first 80% of ones "potential", any plan will do for any one. It just doesn't matter. There are three reasons that I can think of to delve into all the complications beyond a general purpose plan to a "bespoke" plan.

1. You are an elite athlete and want to beat other athletes that are optimizing their training.
2. You have plateaued in your training and you want to see if you can get better.
3. You are entertained by the complications and it gives you something read and understand for fun.

I'm a little bit reason #2 but mostly reason #3. I genuinely like learning more about sport science, and I like to be able to find answers to questions that I have from somewhat reputable research, versus the anecdotal experience. Generally, the anecdotes come from people that have much deeper sporting experience, and frankly are way better athletes than I. If I tried to do what they do, I would get worse or die.

[jackarabit]

Blimey, Greg! "Bespoke" is the Brit word that comes attached to suits and shotguns in old Angleland. No better place to find bespoke fitting and tailoring than in the customized ISS Interactives Plans. And the thinking behind them here:

http://www.redking.me.uk/sport/rowing/t ... ing_v2.pdf

Balkan Boy posted this link just yesterday on another thread. Somehow, there was a huge hole in my erging bibliography where this belongs. Really helpful on the day to day operation of erg training plans. I know from your FSRowing posts that the principal author has recently put forward some disturbing revisionist ideas about masters' OTW training. Despite the fact that there is always a new question for every old answer, I intend to dog ear the training plan discussions from this second (much superior) version of the C2 Indoor Training Guide.

[jackarabit]

256 pages is a bit of ink and a bit of work! I wanted a hard copy.