I think nobody so far said that polarized training was not a good idea.
Some people said that there is more ways from A to B, some people pointed out that Hr might not be the best way to conduct this study. Coaches and scientists need to ask questions.
But nobody said so far that what what is said here is not very valuable.
Btw Dr Skipa and Dr Smith who I quoted are coaches and phd sport scientists and they would advocate a bit of a mix.
Again, I am not saying this is the only way,
I do not think its a good idea to try to create boundaries between coaches ,scientists, and people that are knowledgeable ,its good to share experiences.and there is a lot of good brain food in this discussion.
Everybody will see thing from different angles as all 3 sides work in a different environment. Diversity is good.
Halvard wrote:
pk wrote:
Halvard
I think it would be better not to take this thread to personal
you made some very good contributions, but I think you are now arguing a bit too much like a scientolgy person that tries to convert everybody to your own thinking. I am not saying you dodnt have a case for it)
Darren Smith once made this comment on twitter that involved polarized training.
Make things interesting: evoke diff internal loads/speeds/torque/RFD incl tech & tactical-whammo!
In that discussion which included dr skib
And to be fair what tools you use for each system as bjorn pointed out is not really relevant. I totally agree that triathletes have a tendency to make thinks to complicated, but it is not a case that for any training philosophy certain tools are needed ,
Bjorn I think in the triathlete study the guys that trained less in the race zone seemed to perform better and seemed to perform better in the run. I am not quite sure how that works out in a study that has 9 participants ranging from 58 - 90 min Ironman swimmer, but that was the result if I am not wrong.
Nothing personal here, but I do think it is ok to state facts when someone is trying to play the experience card. Many on ST have a lot of experience from a broad specter of sports even though they do not put coach in their signature.
I find it interesting that I get PMs from people telling me that they do not want to ask questions because of comments from coaches. I think that is sad.
When it comes to training tools I am not saying that you should not use a PM. It was more in reference to the "train by power" approach vs training by effort. Of course you can use a PM. I guess to be totally sure you are hitting the zones, you should use a lactate meter since it is more accurate than HR, or even better a combination of all three :-)
I guess I should be better and more accurate in my statements.
