hi Ivan! I think cadence can also be something we can work on, I myself went through a phase in which I tried to increase it a bit, regardless of pace / speed (it is indeed higher now than a few years ago, even though my reasons were more related to reducing injury risks after getting injured too many times). Regardless of terminology (polarized or not), I think that it is helpful for most runners to slow down so that we can run more, get better, and then also do better harder workouts. If we always run too hard with respect to our fitness, it becomes impossible to run more, which I think is part of what is required to get better. I am not familiar with the easy interval method, but I think all successful runners train very similarly: they train a lot, and they do some key hard sessions, which depend on the demands of their main event. Hard to improve without running a lot and running hard once in a while, I think.
It's meant to address exactly the issues you are talking about.
I totally agree that most running/training should be easy. But he question I've always had is "how easy is too easy"? You will no doubt improve your fitness level if you are moving. Whether that translates into fast running... I am not sure... Renato Canova says that "easy" should not be slower than 80% of your race pace. Slower than that it's not training -- it's regeneration.
And regeneration clearly has a crucial role in any training.
thanks Ivan, this is complex I think, as there is much individual variability. For example, my training is really slow even with respect to my racing, but that's partially because my muscular system is the limiter: I get really sore (or injured) really quickly. I do not train very slow because I believe it's always best, but it is the only way I can train. If I go out in zone 2 at 4'40"/km, I don't last 3 days of training, and I would not be able to do any workout. So I often train 5'30"/km or slower, even if I can race 42 km at 4'14". I do not think that this is the case for everyone of course, as I am an outlier in terms of cramping and other muscular issues, but I also think that when you run, you are always training (running very slow is still extremely different from walking, and we are not talking about cycling either, where you are basically just sitting there unless you put in some effort). Running is a hard sport, I do not think there is a run that is too easy to provide training benefits. Then of course the hard sessions are needed too. Performance comes from training more and training hard, I do not think we can skip on one of the two, and we need to find ways that for a specific individual allows to do both while staying healthy and gradually increasing the stimulus.
I think you nailed it with "individual variability". Everybody is different, respond differently to training. The overall premise of your post (we run too hard) is still correct.
Very interesting and inspiring, especially the example from HRV4training relating to training intensity distribution in different phases. I'm new to polarized training and would like to find out more about how to best to use it and pyramidal training in the different training phases. Do you have a paper on that or could you point me in the right direction?. I'm self-coached, so any help would be much appreciated :)
Hi Marco, many thanks for this sharing. After reading a lot, I consider this same approach VO2max to specialisation. What stays unknown to me is how to calibrate the low intensity rides ? Whichever the definition of the upper limit of low intensity (Maffetone, VT1, LT1, DFAa1 0,75 etc), do you think it's better to work at this limit or more easy at a lesser percentage (and probably at Fatmax) ? Maybe and probably, it depends mainly of the total volume and I assume that if we have a low volume, optimizing the low intensity is a good idea ? This year, I'll try to train low intensity at the upper limit during winter and then, with much favorable weather and more time to spend on HIIT then Specialization, I'll lower the intensity of these LIT sessions. But maybe I'm wrong and it's unuseful to train at the upper limit. What is your experience on all of these years ? Many thanks and best wishes for 2024 !
Thank you! I agree with your reasoning. As I often train quite high volume, much of my training is far below the first threshold (regardless of how we define it). With lower volume, I would go closer, also (or mainly) because I’d be less fatigued. I do think it can be beneficial to still cover a wide range of low intensities, but “the average” tends to shift with volume. All the best for the new year to you as well
I have a question on the "training easy" approach (which btw I've been embracing since I read your article "Training (mostly) slow to race (kind of) fast" a few years ago): do you believe that training easy is useful per se? Or only to be able to train longer and/or be more productive in the hard sessions?
Let's say that I'm able to run only 3x per week. Is training easy still the right approach?
thanks Alessandro. This is a valid question, and I think the answer is not something we fully understand. For example, when training less and training harder, I made no progress for many years. When slowing down, I did make progress, but also because I was able to train more. I do not think we can make much progress without training much, as the body adapts to that (little) stimulus and stops to improve, regardless of the intensity I would say. You can probably stay healthier by taking it easy 2 of those 3 days, but I think progress will be limited regardless of the approach used (always easy, always hard or a mix). Eventually the body will quickly (e.g. in a few months) adapt to that stimulus, and will require more volume to make progress. Or at least I think it should work that way :)
Do you think this would work for increasing stamina for a soccer player as well, or would the varied intensity needed for soccer be too different than the steadier distance running?
One of the problems with slow running is maintaining proper stride rate.
I have hard time maintaining stride rate when I run fast, but when I run slow,
the stride rate becomes atrocious.
I know you are proponent of polarized training (and so am (or was) I), but there's other ways.
What do you think of "Easy Interval Method" (essentially a variation on Igloi)?
hi Ivan! I think cadence can also be something we can work on, I myself went through a phase in which I tried to increase it a bit, regardless of pace / speed (it is indeed higher now than a few years ago, even though my reasons were more related to reducing injury risks after getting injured too many times). Regardless of terminology (polarized or not), I think that it is helpful for most runners to slow down so that we can run more, get better, and then also do better harder workouts. If we always run too hard with respect to our fitness, it becomes impossible to run more, which I think is part of what is required to get better. I am not familiar with the easy interval method, but I think all successful runners train very similarly: they train a lot, and they do some key hard sessions, which depend on the demands of their main event. Hard to improve without running a lot and running hard once in a while, I think.
Easy interval method:
https://easyintervalmethod.com/
It's meant to address exactly the issues you are talking about.
I totally agree that most running/training should be easy. But he question I've always had is "how easy is too easy"? You will no doubt improve your fitness level if you are moving. Whether that translates into fast running... I am not sure... Renato Canova says that "easy" should not be slower than 80% of your race pace. Slower than that it's not training -- it's regeneration.
And regeneration clearly has a crucial role in any training.
thanks Ivan, this is complex I think, as there is much individual variability. For example, my training is really slow even with respect to my racing, but that's partially because my muscular system is the limiter: I get really sore (or injured) really quickly. I do not train very slow because I believe it's always best, but it is the only way I can train. If I go out in zone 2 at 4'40"/km, I don't last 3 days of training, and I would not be able to do any workout. So I often train 5'30"/km or slower, even if I can race 42 km at 4'14". I do not think that this is the case for everyone of course, as I am an outlier in terms of cramping and other muscular issues, but I also think that when you run, you are always training (running very slow is still extremely different from walking, and we are not talking about cycling either, where you are basically just sitting there unless you put in some effort). Running is a hard sport, I do not think there is a run that is too easy to provide training benefits. Then of course the hard sessions are needed too. Performance comes from training more and training hard, I do not think we can skip on one of the two, and we need to find ways that for a specific individual allows to do both while staying healthy and gradually increasing the stimulus.
I think you nailed it with "individual variability". Everybody is different, respond differently to training. The overall premise of your post (we run too hard) is still correct.
Very interesting and inspiring, especially the example from HRV4training relating to training intensity distribution in different phases. I'm new to polarized training and would like to find out more about how to best to use it and pyramidal training in the different training phases. Do you have a paper on that or could you point me in the right direction?. I'm self-coached, so any help would be much appreciated :)
thank you Clive. Please check out this blog as it might be of help on some of those points: https://medium.com/@altini_marco/progress-isnt-linear-afc192b81d6e
Awesome and thank you Marco :)
Hi Marco, many thanks for this sharing. After reading a lot, I consider this same approach VO2max to specialisation. What stays unknown to me is how to calibrate the low intensity rides ? Whichever the definition of the upper limit of low intensity (Maffetone, VT1, LT1, DFAa1 0,75 etc), do you think it's better to work at this limit or more easy at a lesser percentage (and probably at Fatmax) ? Maybe and probably, it depends mainly of the total volume and I assume that if we have a low volume, optimizing the low intensity is a good idea ? This year, I'll try to train low intensity at the upper limit during winter and then, with much favorable weather and more time to spend on HIIT then Specialization, I'll lower the intensity of these LIT sessions. But maybe I'm wrong and it's unuseful to train at the upper limit. What is your experience on all of these years ? Many thanks and best wishes for 2024 !
Thank you! I agree with your reasoning. As I often train quite high volume, much of my training is far below the first threshold (regardless of how we define it). With lower volume, I would go closer, also (or mainly) because I’d be less fatigued. I do think it can be beneficial to still cover a wide range of low intensities, but “the average” tends to shift with volume. All the best for the new year to you as well
I have a question on the "training easy" approach (which btw I've been embracing since I read your article "Training (mostly) slow to race (kind of) fast" a few years ago): do you believe that training easy is useful per se? Or only to be able to train longer and/or be more productive in the hard sessions?
Let's say that I'm able to run only 3x per week. Is training easy still the right approach?
thanks Alessandro. This is a valid question, and I think the answer is not something we fully understand. For example, when training less and training harder, I made no progress for many years. When slowing down, I did make progress, but also because I was able to train more. I do not think we can make much progress without training much, as the body adapts to that (little) stimulus and stops to improve, regardless of the intensity I would say. You can probably stay healthier by taking it easy 2 of those 3 days, but I think progress will be limited regardless of the approach used (always easy, always hard or a mix). Eventually the body will quickly (e.g. in a few months) adapt to that stimulus, and will require more volume to make progress. Or at least I think it should work that way :)
Very useful article. Thank you
Do you think this would work for increasing stamina for a soccer player as well, or would the varied intensity needed for soccer be too different than the steadier distance running?