In defense of Seiler, he has always said that the main takeaway of “polarized training” is that you need a large volume of easy work. Most days/sessions are low intensity and pushing the pace on those sessions is not helpful.
People focus on the hard 20% but that misses the real point, which is that you need high volume of easy mileage and you might do well with fewer high intensity workouts.
On the other hand, any time a scientist goes the route of “pop science” and starts focusing on podcast/YouTube and Twitter followers, you can generally be sure they will stray from actual science. (See covid etc). Nowadays most of Seilers recommendations tend to stem from his N = 1 experience coaching his daughter.
The more and more we dissects the training of Ingebrigtsen brothers, and even my Dancan system, we find out it`s not about periodisizing and "polarized" training to get the best results. It`s about "The never ending story" that I have 'preached" so many times about here.
Like some others, I am puzzled at how Seiler (who has been studying this stuff as his full time job for decades) has apparently got things wrong with Polarised model.
The Threshold approach makes very good sense.
The polarized model fits well to the training of non-impact endurance sports like xc skiing, cycling, rowing. It doesn't fit well to running because of the injury risk of the HIT sessions. The most successful distance running programs have always been based on threshold work.
Putting 3-4mmol work in Zone 3 (using 3 zone model) is ridiculous... but that's what Seiler is doing. He lost credibility with that and has been called out by some in scientific community.
Thats not true i am not aware he said that. Fake news.
Seiler used often also the Norwegian zone model, a very good zone model, which has more than 3 zones. 3 zones are not enough, Seiler was over simplifying. But the music plays now with the critical velocity model. Tinman is one of the very few who realised that.
Here in this forum some people recommend @MP, @HM pace without realising that this two intensity describtions are rubbish. For one athlete the marathon pace is the pace he/she can hold for 4h, for another it is the pace for 2h30. It must be very clear that this a completely different training intensity for an athlete.
The Bakken article says, "The higher the level an athlete achieves, the lower the 'lab threshold' also becomes". It sounds like most runners have a lab-tested LT close to 4.0 mmol/l, but that elites are more in the 2.5 to 3.0 range.
Is it possible to bring down your LT from 4.0 to 3.0 from training appropriately? If so, how?
Putting 3-4mmol work in Zone 3 (using 3 zone model) is ridiculous... but that's what Seiler is doing. He lost credibility with that and has been called out by some in scientific community.
Here in this forum some people recommend @MP, @HM pace without realising that this two intensity describtions are rubbish. For one athlete the marathon pace is the pace he/she can hold for 4h, for another it is the pace for 2h30. It must be very clear that this a completely different training intensity for an athlete.
Correct. however, easy pace for a 4 hr marathoner is still going to be a lot slower than MP. The 4 hr marathoner still needs to do some work at MP.
The Bakken article says, "The higher the level an athlete achieves, the lower the 'lab threshold' also becomes". It sounds like most runners have a lab-tested LT close to 4.0 mmol/l, but that elites are more in the 2.5 to 3.0 range.
Is it possible to bring down your LT from 4.0 to 3.0 from training appropriately? If so, how?
No, it's not possible.Your lactate threshold is about 4.00 mmol/ l even if you are an elite runner.The difference is more like the elite runner can hold a significant high speed even at 2.5 - 3.5 mmol/ l.And the main thing out of this that training the lactate threshold is most effective in the range of 2.5- 4.0 mmol/ l.What many forget when it comes to training and physiology is that the basics are the same even if you are a hobby jogger or a world top runner.Some tend to think that the world's best runners bodies must function in a different way, but they don't . 🧙♂️
Bakken writes, ' Contact a physiology lab where you can get an accurate lactate threshold test (illustration 1) The value you should focus on is the value you get when you start accumulating lactic acid. This will be the baseline for your training. If a lab is unavailable to you, the lactate threshold ranges from 3.0 mmol/l to 4.5 mmol/l on the Aekray meter. If you are a typical long-distance runner, you will be close to 3.0 (from 4.0 to 3.0) and as a middle-distance type usually closer to 4.5.'
Again, he also writes ' The higher the level an athlete achieves, the lower the 'lab threshold' also becomes.'
Bakken writes, ' Contact a physiology lab where you can get an accurate lactate threshold test (illustration 1) The value you should focus on is the value you get when you start accumulating lactic acid. This will be the baseline for your training. If a lab is unavailable to you, the lactate threshold ranges from 3.0 mmol/l to 4.5 mmol/l on the Aekray meter. If you are a typical long-distance runner, you will be close to 3.0 (from 4.0 to 3.0) and as a middle-distance type usually closer to 4.5.'
Again, he also writes ' The higher the level an athlete achieves, the lower the 'lab threshold' also becomes.'
JS thinks he could teach Bakken a thing or two about the lactate threshold.
Like some others, I am puzzled at how Seiler (who has been studying this stuff as his full time job for decades) has apparently got things wrong with Polarised model.
The Threshold approach makes very good sense.
The polarized model, as understood by many of the people I talk to, sounds a lot like what we were doing in the '90s. That didn't turn out too well.
Not really. 90s was about replacing mileage with intensity. Seiler is about doing mileage and then very intense work.
Not many people are going to argue about the need to get that 6-10 hours of "easy" work. the debates are all about how to struct the 1.0-3 hours of "hard" work . Do you want to do a little vo2 max work and up or do you back off to the threshold level and do a ton more?
This threshold system works well for a bunch of runners.
Here in this forum some people recommend @MP, @HM pace without realising that this two intensity describtions are rubbish. For one athlete the marathon pace is the pace he/she can hold for 4h, for another it is the pace for 2h30. It must be very clear that this a completely different training intensity for an athlete.
Correct. however, easy pace for a 4 hr marathoner is still going to be a lot slower than MP. The 4 hr marathoner still needs to do some work at MP.
I expect most 4 hour marathoners train at faster than MP. They aren't racing the marathon. They are surviving it. When you are running 30mpw you don't need to worry about any of t