Heart rate limiting

[Spinal]

Careful getting too caught up in HR or super low intensity training, it can be mind numbingly boring and not everyone responds to it. If you enjoy it and it works then keep at it.

NB. The so called 'best' method for training changes frequently, anaerobic threshold, tempo and sweetspot intervals were dirty words and out of favour as they were considered grey zone and not polarised. The Norwegians and Kenyans seem to have blown that theory apart.

[Dangerscouse]

Careful getting too caught up in HR or super low intensity training, it can be mind numbingly boring and not everyone responds to it. If you enjoy it and it works then keep at it.

NB. The so called 'best' method for training changes frequently, anaerobic threshold, tempo and sweetspot intervals were dirty words and out of favour as they were considered grey zone and not polarised. The Norwegians and Kenyans seem to have blown that theory apart.

Yep +1 from me. Always experiment and see what happens, as there are hardly any universal rules that work for everyone

[Tsnor]

Careful getting too caught up in HR or super low intensity training, it can be mind numbingly boring and not everyone responds to it. If you enjoy it and it works then keep at it.

NB. The so called 'best' method for training changes frequently, anaerobic threshold, tempo and sweetspot intervals were dirty words and out of favour as they were considered grey zone and not polarised. The Norwegians and Kenyans seem to have blown that theory apart.

I don't know of any science or athlete training logs that supports endurance elite training plans WITHOUT loads of long/slow sub UT2 work, but would be very interested to see some refs.

It was "Norwegians and Kenyans" training logs that proved the value of long slow in the first place. AFAIK they still use mainly long/slow training including Kipchoge who uses ... the hard-easy approach that sees Kipchoge run fast three days a week and coast through the rest of his runs, sometimes at a comically slow pace. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/ru ... rinciples/

[Mike Caviston]

It was "Norwegians and Kenyans" training logs that proved the value of long slow in the first place. AFAIK they still use mainly long/slow training including Kipchoge who uses ... the hard-easy approach that sees Kipchoge run fast three days a week and coast through the rest of his runs, sometimes at a comically slow pace. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/ru ... rinciples/

There is a disconnect somewhere. The article also states: "When it comes to long runs, he [Kipchoge's coach] doesn’t ask for a specific pace but an effort that’s controlled yet challenging, the pace naturally increasing each week as fitness builds." "Challenging" and "comically slow" don't seem to go together. I think "easy" is just sloppy terminology and continue to maintain that elite training almost by definition is never easy. I like the phrase "controlled yet challenging"; I've always described my training as "challenging but manageable".

I also like the description of Kipchoge's strength training: "Twice a week, Kipchoge and his training partners perform a 60-minute session of strength and mobility exercises using yoga mats and resistance bands. The exercise program focuses on the posterior chain, particularly the glutes, hamstrings, and core muscles. It involves a series of glute abduction moves using resistance bands and the athletes’ body weight: bridges, planks, single-leg deadlifts, followed by proprioception and balance exercises and some gentle stretching to finish. He doesn’t lift weights, and the goal behind these exercises is chiefly injury prevention." Remember this thread? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=205697&start=15
I wonder why he isn't doing bench, squat, and dead lift.

[Spinal]

I don't know of any science or athlete training logs that supports endurance elite training plans WITHOUT loads of long/slow sub UT2 work, but would be very interested to see some refs.

It was "Norwegians and Kenyans" training logs that proved the value of long slow in the first place. AFAIK they still use mainly long/slow training including Kipchoge who uses ... the hard-easy approach that sees Kipchoge run fast three days a week and coast through the rest of his runs, sometimes at a comically slow pace. https://www.outsideonline.com/health/ru ... rinciples/

I don't think I said anything about the value of long and easy as it clearly plays a huge role.... however for balance Andy Jones has stated that Paula Radcliffe didn't run slowly in training but would take an extra day of rest if feeling fatigued. He went onto say that he didn't know whether this approach to training made her under or overachieve

The Surprisingly Simple Training of the World’s Fastest Marathoner I'm afraid this is just another lazy take by the author that would have us believe that the top athletes take it "easy" and just sprinkle in a few hard sessions to achieve success. Mike nailed it with "I think "easy" is just sloppy terminology and continue to maintain that elite training almost by definition is never easy." Its quite bizarre how some of the top Europeans with years of high mileage in their legs can't complete these so called easy runs when they do training camps in Kenya..... if they are running at 6:30 per mile then surely a 2hr15 marathoner would be able to run it too even at the altitude in Kenya.

The Norwegian middle distance runners do very little V02 intervals but are doing AM & PM high volume sub threshold intervals sessions twice per week, where does this sit in the Seiler and Couzan polarised distribution model? Maybe double down and publish the slower running pace of Kristen and Gustav leading up to an ironman but mysteriously omit the altitude, gradient and elevation gain on these runs

[GlennUk]

FWIW I have been following the Eddie Fletcher Marathon/100k plan for about two years, which focusses on the HR values first and foremost with spm and finally pace as the issues to control.

As the objective is for the athlete to end up erging their best marathon or 100k, the goals may be different to other shorter, efforts.

My experience is that following the marathon plan for example (Ive now completed it twice and the 100k plan once), has allowed me to continue to lower my HR for a given spm/pace over the same rep, or to put it another way, row the same rep at a higher pace for a given HR threshold value.

Most of the work is predicated on a HR threshold of 80% HRmax, with some at lower/higher at different sages in the plan.

The strategy during training is to stick to the HR and spm thresholds set in the training plan, adjusting the pace, essentially by adjusting how hard one pulls. I find trying to adjust more than one parameter at a time too much to handle on the fly. Once you are used ot it, it becomes a fine adjustment.

I cannot claim to be the fastest on this forum by a long, way, nor am i the youngest. Coming from a pretty low start point in May 2020 (i hadn't exercised apart from the odd dog walk in 10 years prior), I completed 2 marathons, a 60k and 116k by January this year.

I have just done my 'best effort' for the marathon, coming in with a disappointing 3hrs 11 mins, at an average of 88% my HR max value. Im not really sure what this says about me, but rather that the training plan has allowed me to do things which could only dream about in May 2020, and mostly without pain, although the marathon was tougher (mainly because i set off far to quickly, and didn't slow down until i had to about 30mins from completing the marathon, next time ill be more disciplined and hope to get much closer the 3hrs, who knows

[Tsnor]

I don't think I said anything about the value of long and easy as it clearly plays a huge role.

Excellent, we are in sync totally then. I learned late about the value of long/slow from his forum and was reacting to

Careful getting too caught up in HR or super low intensity training, it can be mind numbingly boring and not everyone responds to it.

It can be mind numbing, but as an approach it is very well supported and has worked very well for me.

==========

The Norwegian middle distance runners do very little V02 intervals but are doing AM & PM high volume sub threshold intervals sessions twice per week, where does this sit in the Seiler and Couzan polarised distribution model? Maybe double down and publish the slower running pace of Kristen and Gustav leading up to an ironman but mysteriously omit the altitude, gradient and elevation gain on these runs

If the "sub threshold" intervals are between the first and second lactate thresholds then this is a polarized training model. 2-3 days of intensity and lots of long/slow where you don't do work above UT2. (if you stick in a ref I might get more context and understand better).

Currently polarlized model is TWO zone, with zone 1 being long slow UT2, and zone 2 being anything above it. Seiler says data over the last 20 years changed his mind on the value of "grey" workouts since data shows that they work just as well as max intervals for the intense portion of the training plan. The bulk of "polarized" is still the long slow. And the bulk of the research still indicates (1) If you mix long/slow with enough " gradient and elevation gain " it acts as an intense workout. No middle ground. (2) If you do too many intense workouts then your overall training becomes less effective, your performance is worse than if you did less work and you risk non-functional overreach / overtraining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5_0qOJhDk

[Tsnor]

There is a disconnect somewhere. The article also states: "When it comes to long runs, he [Kipchoge's coach] doesn’t ask for a specific pace but an effort that’s controlled yet challenging, the pace naturally increasing each week as fitness builds." "Challenging" and "comically slow" don't seem to go together. I think "easy" is just sloppy terminology and continue to maintain that elite training almost by definition is never easy. I like the phrase "controlled yet challenging"; I've always described my training as "challenging but manageable".

Agree, I should have found another source. The Kipchoge quote may clarify (if they got that right) “I try not to run 100 percent,” he says. “I perform 80 percent on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday and then at 50 percent Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday.” I assumed that the 80% and 50% were RPE measures.

I train long/slow at target 70% max which gets rid of all HR drift on a 90 minute piece, 75% max had drift. That makes the work "not really challenging but very manageable". Any advice ? I train 8-10 hours/week.

I also like the description of Kipchoge's strength training: "Twice a week, Kipchoge and his training partners perform a 60-minute session of strength and mobility exercises using yoga mats and resistance bands. The exercise program focuses on the posterior chain, particularly the glutes, hamstrings, and core muscles. It involves a series of glute abduction moves using resistance bands and the athletes’ body weight: bridges, planks, single-leg deadlifts, followed by proprioception and balance exercises and some gentle stretching to finish. He doesn’t lift weights, and the goal behind these exercises is chiefly injury prevention." Remember this thread? viewtopic.php?f=3&t=205697&start=15
I wonder why he isn't doing bench, squat, and dead lift.

Point taken. He follows what you said. Will reread complete thread. Preponderance of data still seems to say weight training makes you faster, but i did *not* focus on which exercises to do for various sports. There does seem to be a difference. example: https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Full ... my.26.aspx " maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight. Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs." https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /sms.12104 "Running economy is improved by performing combined endurance training with either heavy or explosive strength training. However, heavy strength training is recommended for improving cycling economy. "

[Spinal]

Currently polarlized model is TWO zone, with zone 1 being long slow UT2, and zone 2 being anything above it. Seiler says data over the last 20 years changed his mind on the value of "grey" workouts since data shows that they work just as well as max intervals for the intense portion of the training plan. The bulk of "polarized" is still the long slow. And the bulk of the research still indicates (1) If you mix long/slow with enough " gradient and elevation gain " it acts as an intense workout. No middle ground. (2) If you do too many intense workouts then your overall training becomes less effective, your performance is worse than if you did less work and you risk non-functional overreach / overtraining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5_0qOJhDk

Kinda handy for him getting rid of the 3 zone model with the grey zone in the middle in which he claimed the elites rarely used . The word polarised suggests you either train slow or fast with very little in the middle. Despite his earlier claims tempo, sweet spot, progression and sub anaerobic threshold all play a huge role in elite performance training.

In this new 2 zone system where does he put a progression workout that starts out slow and ends up fast?

[btlifter]

Currently polarlized model is TWO zone, with zone 1 being long slow UT2, and zone 2 being anything above it. Seiler says data over the last 20 years changed his mind on the value of "grey" workouts since data shows that they work just as well as max intervals for the intense portion of the training plan. The bulk of "polarized" is still the long slow. And the bulk of the research still indicates (1) If you mix long/slow with enough " gradient and elevation gain " it acts as an intense workout. No middle ground. (2) If you do too many intense workouts then your overall training becomes less effective, your performance is worse than if you did less work and you risk non-functional overreach / overtraining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5_0qOJhDk

Kinda handy for him getting rid of the 3 zone model with the grey zone in the middle in which he claimed the elites rarely used . The word polarised suggests you either train slow or fast with very little in the middle. Despite his earlier claims tempo, sweet spot, progression and sub anaerobic threshold all play a huge role in elite performance training.

In this new 2 zone system where does he put a progression workout that starts out slow and ends up fast?

Very handy, indeed.

Almost seems like Seiler hypothesized his original theory based on the data he observed at the time. Then, as he reviewed more data, made adjustments. For shame!

As an aside (I don't recall where) I believe that Seiler has also relatively recently stated that 'polarized' may not be the most appropriate name.

As for your progression question - that would fit into the "high intensity" category.

[Spinal]

Currently polarlized model is TWO zone, with zone 1 being long slow UT2, and zone 2 being anything above it. Seiler says data over the last 20 years changed his mind on the value of "grey" workouts since data shows that they work just as well as max intervals for the intense portion of the training plan. The bulk of "polarized" is still the long slow. And the bulk of the research still indicates (1) If you mix long/slow with enough " gradient and elevation gain " it acts as an intense workout. No middle ground. (2) If you do too many intense workouts then your overall training becomes less effective, your performance is worse than if you did less work and you risk non-functional overreach / overtraining. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC5_0qOJhDk

Kinda handy for him getting rid of the 3 zone model with the grey zone in the middle in which he claimed the elites rarely used . The word polarised suggests you either train slow or fast with very little in the middle. Despite his earlier claims tempo, sweet spot, progression and sub anaerobic threshold all play a huge role in elite performance training.

In this new 2 zone system where does he put a progression workout that starts out slow and ends up fast?

Very handy, indeed.

Almost seems like Seiler hypothesized his original theory based on the data he observed at the time. Then, as he reviewed more data, made adjustments. For shame!

As an aside (I don't recall where) I believe that Seiler has also relatively recently stated that 'polarized' may not be the most appropriate name.

As for your progression question - that would fit into the "high intensity" category.

The data hasn't changed the only thing that has changed is which bucket or zone he has decided to put them in. We've known since Lydiard the huge benefits of low intensity aerobic training and that too much high intensity can lead to burn out.

Listening to Stephen and Trevor on the Fast talk labs podcast about polarised training has been quite the journey, the 'grey' zone which the top athletes didn't use suddenly reappeared but in the high intensity domain.
At this stage a change of name is certainly required.

[Mike Caviston]

Careful getting too caught up in HR or super low intensity training, it can be mind numbingly boring and not everyone responds to it.

It can be mind numbing, but as an approach it is very well supported and has worked very well for me.

You can't say it has "worked" for you when you are anonymous and nobody has any objective frame of reference for your progress. Or I can just retort that I never use HR or super low intensity training and it has worked very well for me.

If you do too many intense workouts then your overall training becomes less effective, your performance is worse than if you did less work and you risk non-functional overreach / overtraining.

I've always agreed with you, in fact always said long before you showed up here, that race pace or near race pace workouts (what I call Level 1 and Level 2 in the Wolverine Plan) should be limited to no more than twice per week. The rest of training should be *relatively* slow, but we disagree about how slow is "slow". I've always included 90' workouts in the range of 2K pace plus 12-15 sec/500m in my training and I've managed to not overtrain or peak before my primary competition. Not saying you don't have to tread carefully, but elite training needs to be on the edge.

I train long/slow at target 70% max which gets rid of all HR drift on a 90 minute piece, 75% max had drift. That makes the work "not really challenging but very manageable". Any advice ? I train 8-10 hours/week.

Sure, but if you're married to using HR as a measure of intensity I'm not sure there's a point. But consider using the results for a 90' piece that comfortably satisfied your HR parameter, and try to duplicate it focusing on pace. Then slowly slowly build from there. From my perspective, though I keep saying I don't like the term "easy", I don't care how easy the first workout is because it is just a starting point. I only ever look to improve my pace by .1-.2 sec/500m per week (and I may have to reset by a couple weeks if the pace becomes too challenging). I just plan to keep doing it for many many weeks. It ends up like boiling a frog - the point where "easy" becomes "challenging" might be hard to define but it eventually happens. Within the 90', the first 30' will always feel easy; the middle 30' not easy but not difficult; and the final 30' becomes the true challenge, where I need to remind myself what the long term goals are and why it is important to finish the piece even if it isn't comfortable any more.