Threshold running vs. 80/20-Polarized training

Where we differed was your claim that the 4x4min were being done at 5k pace, which is wrong.

This is the huge point that should be considered when evaluating training (whether ingrebetson's or whomever), the definition of 'polarized' versus threshold, and the studies in the literature. The effects of that intensity (on recovery, and potential injury, etc.) between 90% versus 95% HRmax or 98%HRmax is huge. The original 4x4min studies by the Norwegians was 85-95% HRmax, which is a significant window size, in itself (85% being much easier than 95%).

Like others said, you need to be careful when extrapolating from studies on different sports to running. The recovery time after similar-seeming workouts can be quite different due to the extra mechanical load of running. So maybe in theory it'd be ideal to do a ton of VO2 work, but most people can't handle that for long without breaking down or using PEDs.

The ultimate example of this is swimming, where you can do hard interval workouts for hours on end every day. I think it was Jim Ryun's coach who just adapted training straight from swimming, and lucked into getting an athlete who could handle it?

If we are talking about specifically middle distance runners (800-1500). LT plays a different role than other events.

It is inherent in an 800 that you are accumulating tons of lactate. The last lap will be brutal no matter how fast/slow you are if you are running the race correctly. Same with a 1500. That last 600 or so you can really taste the acidity in your mouth.

This doesn't really happen in longer distance events, the fatigue is more aerobically based. for 5k and 10k you are running closer to vO2 max and lactate builds up much more slowly, therefore you feel general fatigue and strain on your heart/lungs before your legs get extremely heavy.

So in MD events the purpose of lactate threshold is not exclusively to run at a faster pace without generating as much lactate (although this is still one reason for this training) but also to use lactate as a fuel source and to train tolerance toward large amounts of hydrogen ion.

you are probably "reading so much about threshold" because articles toward the running population in magazines and on websites are more directed to athletes running 5-10k park runs and/or marathons. It is also important to note that in this sport published scientific documents are often years behind the modern training methods......

Back to the training aspect of things. For most MD athletes things usually work in a series of phases. Phase 1 consists of threshold work and short sprints, some aerobic power work. Phase 2 throws in some pace reps, vo2 volume increases, threshold is lessened in importance. Phase 3 ups intensity and volume of phase 2.

Another thing to note is that LT can be improved not by running exactly at threshold itself. It can also be improved by paces just above and just below. marathon pace helps aerobic support at threshold, 10k pace improves running economy at threshold etc.

So when you're in phase 2 and 3 as a 1500 runner and have a strength session coming up, you can easily do mile repeats at 10k-5k pace and STILL be improving your threshold. As a 1500 runner this pace is more specific to your race as well.

Lactate threshold is important for middle distance races, but not as important as your turnover and specific pacing. Many ways to skin a cat though.

LT threshold training is hot because right now because the Ingrebresteins (i.e. a family of 800-5k runners) are doing 4 sessions (~ 2 hours of work) at around that pace (yes it isn't exactly at the LT pace.) and getting great results. When your program differs from others in significant ways people like to focus on it. Nobody cares that they also do more traditional workouts closer to races. Everyone does those.

It should be pointed out that all training pretty much improves vo2, LT, and efficiency. It is just a matter of how much.

hr measurement wrote:

Where we differed was your claim that the 4x4min were being done at 5k pace, which is wrong.

Or maybe I have just read a lot more on the subject than you. For example the first google hit:

Improved Running Economy Following Intensified Training Correlates with Reduced Ventilatory Demands, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, vol. 30(8), pp. 1250-1256, 1998

There are a half dozen papers in the past 30 years that have looked at 3-5 min efforts at ~3k-5k pace and the conclusion of all of them is the same. They are awesome at improving vo2max, threshold, and economy. Real world results though are that trying to do them 2x week for more than about 6 weeks just doesn't work for runners.

Again this is largely a terminology issue. What most runners think of as threshold training is on that border between what the polarized people call high intensity and threshold. If you characterize it as high intensity, you will get one graph (the polarized one), if your characterize it as threshold you get another (pyramid for more systems).

adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:

There are a half dozen papers in the past 30 years that have looked at 3-5 min efforts at ~3k-5k pace and the conclusion of all of them is the same. They are awesome at improving vo2max, threshold, and economy. Real world results though are that trying to do them 2x week for more than about 6 weeks just doesn't work for runners.

Again this is largely a terminology issue. What most runners think of as threshold training is on that border between what the polarized people call high intensity and threshold. If you characterize it as high intensity, you will get one graph (the polarized one), if your characterize it as threshold you get another (pyramid for more systems).

Agree with most of this, but why would this workout be done twice per week? Surely once per week would be adequate on an ongoing basis?

You specifically referred to the 4x4min in your original post, so I challenge you to find a study looking at 4x4min run at 5k pace.

We are in agreement that various terms and assumptions on intensity get bandied about, when there can actually be significant differences in study protocols. Old-school lactate threshold, the '4mmol' point, is around 91% HRmax in trained athletes (a training objective is to move that closer to HRmax), but we know even Lactate is increasing from 2mmol to 4mmol at slower paces, and with cardiac drift, it becomes a question as to what is actually 'lactate threshold' when doing tempos?

I think training by Heart Rate is better than training by pace, but of course, evaluate the latter in the process.

How come? wrote:

Agree with most of this, but why would this workout be done twice per week? Surely once per week would be adequate on an ongoing basis?

It depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Here is a fyi: one can run those 4x4mins at 85-90% HRmax two (or even multiple) times a week, since they are not as taxing as running reps at 5k pace.

hr measurement wrote:

It depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Here is a fyi: one can run those 4x4mins at 85-90% HRmax two (or even multiple) times a week, since they are not as taxing as running reps at 5k pace.

Agree. But if doing at the lower intensity of 85%-90%, it is only 16 mins of work. Why not just do the traditional tempo of 3 miles or 4 x 1 mile?

Alfie wrote:

hr measurement wrote:

It depends upon what one is trying to accomplish. Here is a fyi: one can run those 4x4mins at 85-90% HRmax two (or even multiple) times a week, since they are not as taxing as running reps at 5k pace.

Agree. But if doing at the lower intensity of 85%-90%, it is only 16 mins of work. Why not just do the traditional tempo of 3 miles or 4 x 1 mile?

Fair question, but 4x1 mile @ what heart rate (or pace)?

Per an earlier statement by adsfdasfasfsafada, "...there have been tons of studies (including ones on runners) where things like 4x4 min at 5k pace (or faster) give better training results than 30 mins of HM paced running," the Norwegian 8-week studies looked at 85-95% HRmax, and claimed great improvement in VO2max.

hr measurement wrote:

...the Norwegian 8-week studies looked at 85-95% HRmax, and claimed great improvement in VO2max.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XDsRNeVynk

Before someone replies the improvements they saw are for sedentary individuals, (if memory serves me) one of their later studies evaluated improvements of previously trained individuals, restricting the reps to 90-95% HRmax (rather than 85-95%).

How come? wrote:

Agree with most of this, but why would this workout be done twice per week? Surely once per week would be adequate on an ongoing basis?

In a research study you are trying to maximize the difference between training groups. So you end up with studies that compare

2x short intervals

2x long intervals

2x tempo runs

The obvious question is always in your 2 week block would you be better off doing

2x tempo

1x long intervals

1x short intervals.

instead?

[quote]hr measurement wrote:

You specifically referred to the 4x4min in your original post, so I challenge you to find a study looking at 4x4min run at 5k pace.

/quote]

You mean like the paper I listed in my reply?

Here is a though experiment: Write up a sample week of base training

a) a runner doing "threshold" training

b) a runner doing "polarized" training

and think about how they are different.

For example If I am doing something like

M -E with strides

T -> 4x8 mins at hm pxce

W -> E

T -> 4x1 mile at 10k pace

fri -E with strides

Sat E

Sun - 90 min run with 45m mins at MP

Are you going to call it a threshold program or a polarized program?

There are some guys who do more pure threshold program. The guy that runs like a 2:30 marathon and does all of his training runs at like 6:15 min pace (i.e. not really easy but not really hard ) would be an exampe. You also see them in HS where you are running 30 mpw so are fresh every day so busting out runs at like 5k+60s is doable instead of the more easy 5k+120s.

The study referenced earlier highlights some of the limitations in sports science research -- finding a sample of serious runners is extremely hard (anyone here volunteering to potentially do some garbage program for 6 weeks?). Their sample here was runners training 2 hours a week and seemingly not doing workouts. Link:

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/1998/08000/Improved_running_economy_following_intensified.11.aspx

The improvement doing 4x4 was essentially the same as the group doing what I'd call tempo runs; in other words, workouts work. But that doesn't mean you should drop your normal workouts and start doing 4x4.

Ho Hum wrote:

The study referenced earlier highlights some of the limitations in sports science research -- finding a sample of serious runners is extremely hard (anyone here volunteering to potentially do some garbage program for 6 weeks?). .

Yeah that and the length of the study is the fundamental problem with most studies.

But lets look at that study of "elite" runners which shows the highest correlation of performance with easy run volume. Lets look at the training of those elites

a) They ran from 2:04 (i.e. Elite by any definition) to 2:36 (i.e. a decent age grouper)

b) They were running an average of 60mpw for the year. Now yearly volume is lower than training weeks (peaking, weeks off,...) but we are talking about pretty low volumes of training. It isn't too shocking to learn that training like 10 hours/week (they doing 100mpw ) is better than like 6 (guy doing 50mpw).

c) performance wasn't linked a whole lot with volume of long intervals. But is that really shocking? Are elite athletes really doing that many more 1k repeats than your semielite guy? If you are running say 1k reps at 5k pace, your semielite guy might do 6 and the elite guy 8. Compare that to the difference between running 100mpw and say 50. And you don't really expect the elite guy to do them 2x as often either. Same thing with tempo runs.

d) the data collection is a bit sketchy given that a lot of it was self reported and extrapolited. Not much you can do about it but odds are people are counting stuff differently.

It is fun to read but there just isn't enough to draw a lot of conclusions from. I have a feeling if they narrowed down the groups (i.e. only look at say 2:04-2:12 marathoners), at lot of the correlations will go away as the range of miles shrink from like 50-120mpw to say 90-120mpw.

Telling someone looking to maximize their performance to aim to run 10-14 hours/week, do like 20% of it at faster aerobic pace and a bit really fast is decent advice but it is pretty generic. When you ask the question should that faster aerobic stuff be 60mins at MP, 30mins at HM, 4x5 mins at 10k pace, or 6x3 mins at 5k pace, or 30/30s til you drop at vvo2 pace? Do them 2x/week, 1x week, every other? You are of crossing over what science can tell us into the art of coaching.