Polarization and training - interesting video

mossym

it was recently suggested to me i should do a bit of reading on polarization. still a work in progress, but i did watch the following which i found very interesting.

it may have been posted before, but a search returned a bunch of posts from one user about products from a certain electronics company whose name is close to a word in the title.so i couldn't see if it had or not ( )

For those more up to speed on training methods than me there is likely nothing new here, but for newer folk this might be interesting

http://www.canal-insep.fr/fr/training-periodization-deep-root-cultural-heritage-and-innovative-paradigms-2013/ei_13_10_va_pr_stephen_seiler-mov

pgibbo

Any links to articles or books you're reading on the subject that yu would recommend?

sconhome

mossym wrote: »

it may have been posted before, but a search returned a bunch of posts from one user about products from a certain electronics company whose name is close to a word in the title.so i couldn't see if it had or not ( )

Haha bet its either me or Tunney slagging me off!

mossym

pgibbo wrote: »

Any links to articles or books you're reading on the subject that yu would recommend?

i'll be honest and say i've a lot of stuff queued up to read, so not yet. it's all waiting till i finish this

http://www.velopress.com/books/the-well-built-triathlete/

it's written by the guy who runs purplepatch, trains gina crawford, meredith kessler among others. it's actually quite good, lines up well with the way my training is set up now, and has suggested a few changes i intend to implement, specifically around nutrition and recovery. enjoying it because it's reflecting a lot of what TMWTP keeps telling me.

Once i get through that, i'm going to start digging a bit more into the polarization pieces.

a thought, should we have a sticky with useful links? shared learnings?

mossym

AKW wrote: »

Haha bet its either me or Tunney slagging me off!

it was one of those alright...:)

D33

Very interesting, not enough hours in the day to read / look at all this schtuff!

Kurt Godel

mossym wrote: »

For those more up to speed on training methods than me there is likely nothing new here, but for newer folk this might be interesting

http://www.canal-insep.fr/fr/training-periodization-deep-root-cultural-heritage-and-innovative-paradigms-2013/ei_13_10_va_pr_stephen_seiler-mov

Very good viewing, thanks for posting.

"Interval sessions are important but longer duration at 90% gives greater effect than shorter at 95% HR max". Thats the take home message from my viewing.

mossym

okay, i'm just going to post some of the stuff i had bookmarked to read. can't vouch for the contents, but from glance reading these were stuff i thought were worth reading

http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/polarized-training
http://triathlon.competitor.com/2013/07/training/checking-your-intensity_59521/3
http://triathlon.kiwi/Polarized%20Training%20by%20Frankie%20Tan.pdf
http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2013/12/hard-easy-training.html
http://www.inigomujika.com/en/2012/02/block-periodization-and-polarized-training-a-new-challenge-for-coaches-ii/1991
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=munoz+does+polarized+training+improve+performance

a lot of the pieces reference this as a datapoint

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23264537


again, i've read very little of them, so they might be rubbish

bryangiggsy

Am doing triathlon 6 years now and used to read all these articles while some are useful for picking up tidbits the majority are not.

It all boils down to imo:

If you want to get faster you need to train harder and longer. Swim ,bike,run ..repeat..swim bike run repeat.

tunney

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Am doing triathlon 6 years now and used to read all these articles while some are useful for picking up tidbits the majority are not.

It all boils down to imo:

If you want to get faster you need to train harder and longer. Swim ,bike,run ..repeat..swim bike run repeat.

Going to disagree with you there. Harder and longer is not the key.

I'd get into it but it would inevitably be brought back to "swim sessions with XYZ are the answer"

Fazz

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Am doing triathlon 6 years now and used to read all these articles while some are useful for picking up tidbits the majority are not.

It all boils down to imo:

If you want to get faster you need to train harder and longer. Swim ,bike,run ..repeat..swim bike run repeat.

Way too generic a comment and approach.


I'd summarise it as follows:

The best way to improve is a consistent training approach with sufficient hard work to stimulate progress, but not too much to affect consistency.

Re the polarisation posts, this is what I've learned works best for me and i use it.

Initially first couple years about building fitness and strength and sport specific skills.

Thereafter about the most consistent training load you can tolerate.


Try adding hard training when not ready for it and watch your motivation, consistency and fitness drop.

Probably the most important lesson I've learned this year.

Now back to polarised approach with some tweaks of what i know works for me.



We are all different though so it's as much about learning what works for you as anything.

The best coach will gently apply training load whislt maintaining consistency.
Results in building fitness and then adjusting specifics as the learning process develops.

mossym

bryangiggsy wrote: »

all these articles while some are useful for picking up tidbits the majority are not.

agree with you on the usefulness of the "10 sessions that make you faster" type articles.

the purpose of the reading isn't about them though, it's about an approach to training, a methodology you'd need to decide on before you ever even thought about the make-up of a specific session. more about understanding the reasoning behind a training plan then understanding the plan itself. or at leas thats the knowledge i'm trying to build up

peter kern

mossym wrote: »

agree with you on the usefulness of the "10 sessions that make you faster" type articles.

the purpose of the reading isn't about them though, it's about an approach to training, a methodology you'd need to decide on before you ever even thought about the make-up of a specific session. more about understanding the reasoning behind a training plan then understanding the plan itself. or at leas thats the knowledge i'm trying to build up

I would agree wit what you say but one of your articles comes up with a 2-4 % difference

what fazz is talking about has the potenital for more than 2-4 % ( v good post Fazz ) ie being in the rigth head space produces results
http://lsanderstri.com/2014/09/03/final-remarks/
outstanding blog .

bryangiggsy

Agree guys that comment is generic but am looking at the masses 75% of agers who could go faster just by training longer and harder. By that i mean u need to build the base first by doing easy sessions and decent hours then when the base is built introduce the harder ones. Swim bike run swim bike run covers consistency. Missing sessions you just pissin against the wind.

mossym

slightly off topic. if you're not using it already, have a look at pocket. plugin for chrome that allows you to save documents and webpages for reading anywhere, even without a web connection. very useful for saving all these links and having a large amount of interesting stuff to read when you need it, waiting rooms, planes, trains, cough inlaws cough....

mossym

peter kern wrote: »

I would agree wit what you say but one of your articles comes up with a 2-4 % difference

what fazz is talking about has the potenital for more than 2-4 % ( v good post Fazz ) ie being in the rigth head space produces results
http://lsanderstri.com/2014/09/03/final-remarks/
outstanding blog .

i think even putting % levels on it is questionable though right? might give you 4%, might give me 8% .


thanks for the blog link, another one to add to the reading list

peter kern

i think even putting % levels on it is questionable though right? might give you 4%, might give me 8% .

I quoted one of your links ;-) and yes of course those 2-4 % could be minus 4 to plus 8 and would take an average of the tested people.
but you mentioned methodology so you have to beleive in those numbers somewhat otherwise why do you read it ?

what i once read was darren smith saying i have a very different methodology than brett sutten when it comes to swimming ( let me shorten it a bit) but essentially he was saying now he is getting aobut the same results than sutton
daniela ryf was very succeful when with smith not very successfull in between and very successfull with sutton . they work very differently but get success. and so does matt Dixon with quite a different aproach again.
Apart from tunny who would no recognize sutton as a good coach despite winning more world titles than any other, most people would have very little problems to say that all those 3 coaches are in the top of the coaching pyramide.
1 is using powermeter 1 destests them 1 is agnostic to them ......
its the overall pic that makes them great rather than little details .

this is i think what bryan says correctly in his posts. details matter but its the addition of many many details that gets results.
tunny knows more than any guy on boards (a lotof it irrelevant in my mind ie garmin 910 vs 920 ;-) yet it has little impact how good he is those days as he dosnt train.

mossym

mossym wrote: »

okay, i'm just going to post some of the stuff i had bookmarked to read. can't vouch for the contents,


again, i've read very little of them, so they might be rubbish

peter kern wrote: »

I quoted one of your links ;-)

i did warn you.....

peter kern wrote: »

and yes of course those 2-4 % could be minus 4 to plus 8 and would take an average of the tested people.
but you mentioned methodology so you have to beleive in those numbers somewhat otherwise why do you read it ?

.i don;t think you need to believe in the quantification of how much something works to believe it works. do i believe that polarization causes improvements? Yes. The background of why is the reason i aim to read the articles. the numbers are a measure of how much it works. . i'd tend to avoid using the numbers to argue the merit because of the variability, small sample sizes, room for interpretation etc, but that's just me.

Fazz

peter kern wrote: »

ie being in the rigth head space produces results
http://lsanderstri.com/2014/09/03/final-remarks/
outstanding blog .

He's a fascinating case study isn't he?
99% of his bike training done on the Turbo/Computrainer.
And a lot of running on the treadmill.

I haven't seen his form but read in another race report - think Terenzo's on FOTB, that he was running like a quarter back, not pretty but steam rolling it!

He's got a lot of talent, and seems to apply a Polarised approach but with a lot of very hard quality in it.
If you were reading back in the winter he was posting his training and all very simple base stuff, and lately a lot of very hard stuff show's how it's worked for him.

I loved the answer to "what do you eat on your ironman training day" - he did massive volume at high intensity:

Sanders:

1.) Someone asked me this same question on twitter about what I eat on the “Ironman Day.” My big go to is chocolate milk. On that day I drank 4 litres, which right there is over 2500 calories. For breakfast I had two big bowls of cereal and a cup of coffee as well as a glass of water. During the ride I had about 4 granola bars and 5 gummy worms, as well as around 4 gatorades, a can of coke, and 2 bottles of water. For lunch I had two sausages and a big bowl of coleslaw, then a fruit smoothie. I had another bowl of cereal about 1.5 hours before the run, and another coffee. During the run I had another granola bar and probably 5 gummy worms, as well as a gatorade and a bottle of water. I had another bowl of cereal before swimming. After swimming I ate 3/4 of a large pizza with double cheese. I had two cans of coke with this. I then had two ice cream sandwiches for desert. Throughout the day I am constantly drinking water.

He will be lethal if he can improve his Swim by a couple more minutes.
Already lethal in a NON ITU stacked 70.3 field.

And Kona is his dream - likely qualify for next season if he decides to go long again soon (10:14 at IM Louisville in 2010 first yr of training).

He's a game changer, especially with his blog so open about things.

Now for Barry Shepley to sort out his swimming!

mossym

now that's a diet i can get on board with