You seem to have missed my point. Yes, you will run low on glycogen after a couple hours of *high intensity* exercise, such that after that you must reduce the intensity. There is also a limit to the rate of glycogen resynthesis, even if you consume a high carbohydrate diet. Ergo, when faced with such constraints, you should design your training program accordingly.

ETA: CHO supplementation during exercise can enhance performance, but at the end of the day, there is a limit to which plasma-borne glucose can substitute for muscle glycogen.

We always have to remember two things:

1: There is a time and a place for each pace (or level of effort)

2: Everyone reacts different to a certain stimulus

I think polarized training works to a great extent, but there is more to training than the hard/easy philosophy.

For longer races, (e.g. marathon, 70.3, Ironman) this "middle zone", or racepace or threshold is usefull immediately before the race. (Law of specificity). For shorter races, those zones can be incorporated to the foundational period (if it is an experienced athlete that is already able to handle high volume).

The elite marathon times have progressed a lot over the last decade and so has the training. I know, Kenyans can run very slowly in training if necessary. But they also do tempos in the middle zone, they do long runs fast and they do fartleks with efforts above racepace with "recoveries" that are not slow but brisk.

Developing african runners (training for shorter distances) do runs where they start slow and progress and build in speed. They accumulate a lot of time just below threshold and they sometimes do such runs in the base phase day after day.

I give you an example. Last year over the winter I run around 40 miles a week with no "hard" workouts at all. I went out and run as fast as I wanted to and as it felt right. Sometimes when I was tired it was slow. But often it was quite brisk but always under control. I did runs like that, where I just let it flow, and I did some strides and nothing more, as it was my base phase.
After that, i run a 10k and I expected it to be a shock to my body. But it wasn't. I run 33.30 and that was a PB by half a minute.

After that I was ready for some really fast intervals on the track. Now my training got more polarized. I run hard in workouts and slow in all my other runs. My winter of brisk running was a good base from where I could develop further. Unfortunately I was not able to see the benefits as I missed the summer road racing season due to a mild concussion.

When I came back, I prepared for a half marathon. Now I did fast long runs and treshold intervals. I run a 1.13 over a hilly course.

This winter my goal is to get to higher mileage. So I will slow it down and take it easy. But there will again come a phase where I will do a lot of brisk running and then again a bit more of a polarized approach.

All I want to say is that there is not a general rule for too slow or too fast. It always depends on the context. It is important that you set stimuli that are demanding for your body. That can be more miles (so you need to slow down) or it can mean faster miles or it can mean very fast workouts (so you need to slow down during all the other runs). And it is important to prepare fot the specificity of your event. You don't need to start running long runs ar racepace in January for your Ironman in August. But come July, it makes sense to do that.

---

10k - 30:48 / half - 1:06:40

Howdy Professor,

Quick tangent Q, I thought Bellingham was flat(ish)? North side of town at least? South, yeah, hilly. I'm guessing you and DFRU live on the south side?

Goal pace I use Alvaro's full/half-IM run charts in tandem with our critical pace testing (5ks mostly) to get a rough approximation. So we have a CP number in our head and a rough OTB IM pace then, profile the athlete based on bike endurance, run durability, and run endurance to refine that figure then do periodic bouts at it.

I think of bricks as a mental and time useful construct. Only place running OTB is needed to be trained as a skill is ITU.

Thinking back to the three dudes in my head... 2 just were SST'rs all over the place (i inherited 1 from endurance nation), so getting them to not run at near full tilt all the time and actually not be aerobically and physically broken was 75% of the solution. The other fella was just a gradual progression of sensible training over a longer period of time. He was never doing anything wrong, he just needed more time to improve his talent.

The week mainly looks like "just run" 5-9x a week and one fast session. One of the "just runs" is a long run or broken long run. Some of the "just runs" have strides or hill bounds to finish. There's very little "sexy" in it.

Reach out any time and good luck with the BP plan!

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Great stuff there. Too much "sexy" generally injures people...haha.

Bellingham north and west is pretty flat. But to get to the mountain trails is a 15 minute drive and then it's just nice, wonderful trail running mecca. South is indeed hilly though!

Brent

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

Insofar as running is concerned, the peer-reviewed literature is virtually unanimously in favor of lots of miles performed at low intensities, and a small proportion performed at high intensities. And this strategy appears to hold for all endurance events, even down to 1600m. My anecdote is that this strategy is utter crap for me. I should mention that I make a living as a research scientist, so it's almost painful and blasphemous for me to disagree with the published consensus. I can elaborate on exactly how my performance declined if anyone is so interested. Now (similar to before the ~9 month slow training program) there's never an exercise session that I engage in that I'm not trying to achieve some sort of PR. Warmup and cool down is the only time I'll ever spend any time at or below ~80% heart rate reserve. For me, intensity has been vastly more productive than duration. For reference, the training plan I followed is copied below.
https://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/solving-the-5k-puzzle

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

Yep, you're pretty much right. Flat between here and the border (heading north and west) but lots of hills/mountains surrounding town. DFRU is wrong when he says 15 minute drive, but that's just because I'm lucky. :)

There are some good road hills, but most of the longer climbs are on gravel or dirt (hence my earlier statements about 10-12 minute miles running). Several great 30+ minute (biking) climbs on gravel fire roads or hard pack dirt (lots of excellent single track as well, but that's a different discussion). It's actually really great for climbing, hop on your hardtail or CX bike and head into the hills. The longest road climbs are in the 7-10 minute range, but it's also very popular to head towards Mt. Baker and do a true HC climb.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

both of you reference west as flat....

Um.....


;)

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

That area gets more hilly when it's windy.

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

Just to be clear:

You are a former pro racer and you do the majority of your running at a 11-15:00 min/mile pace?

How did you come about that? I presume that to win races that you were running off the bike at <7:00 min/mile pace (regardless of distance). Did you change your formula?

If you changed your formula, then why did you change?

Actually, it's not. Not only have the vast majority of studies of polarized training entailed sports other than running, even ones of other sports aren't entirely consistent. For example, when Seiler et al. recently revisited the issue of optimal interval intensity/duration, this time 'round longer intervals at a lower intensity came out on top:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812820

(This sort of variability, of course, is precisely what you would expect when doing small n training studies, which is why trying to define the "perfect" training plan using such an approach is a rather naive waste of time.)

I raced 2007 to 2009 then stopped because my endocrine system went in the shitter (bad training, bad nutritionist, and a bad accident). I've been coaching since 2005.

Personally I've sat on the couch for the last 8 years and done jack shit (sorta "had to" to fix my system). But I'd always tinker in the lab and with protocols before subjecting my peeps to them.

I've only recently started training with a purpose again.

My CP on the run is roughly 9:4x ish. My LT1 breakpoint occurs ~125 BPMs. At 120 BPMs while jogging on the treadmill this happens around 4.0mph. This is all likely to change shortly (hopefully!!!) but the point I'm trying to make is opening folks' minds as to what is appropriate pacing. FWIW LT1 on the bike is ~130 BPMs and for many of my rides my AP is 130-140w. CP on the bike is 290ish. I'm also at 5500 feet.

When a dude who runs a marathon in 2:03 jogs 8min miles on a regular basis, I take notice. When a dude with a 420w CP averages below 200w for most of his rides, I take notice.


As we learn more we adapt. What was relevant in 2005 is now discarded as the science has moved on and we've become more informed about how to approach training.

ETA: tri lifetime bests for CP for swim/bike/run 1:03y/375w/5:45

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

I'll have to go through the literature again, but my recollection (again, running only) was that the polarized approach, emphasizing low intensity efforts, produced consistently favorable results across the board of measurable variables. I scanned everything from early 2000s to 2016. It's certainly possible that I exaggerated the consensus out of shock; it's so completely counterintuitive that challenging a physiological system LESS could ever produce anything other than LESS positive acclimation. Tangentially, I also distinctly recall the absence of a satisfactory mechanistic explanation. And I still haven't come across one.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

good post

I guess for triathlon the more interesting question is should all diciplines trained the same way or should we do most of the slower stuff on the bike, as this is where we spend the most time on and it has less injury risks than running. etc.

Canova for instance seems to want to push more miles , run faster also for the easy running and focus more on recover better.
I like a lot what Seiller is doing but it also a bit to faddist in my mind.

It does seem that way and who is making it more so? Seiler or the faddist?

I watched this play out on one particular forum a few years ago and there were some really pushing polarized training and being overly obnoxious to anyone sticking to the pyramidal approach. But I think a bunch of us can see how to take all these approaches and put them into the tool box of our training methods and know when one or the other may be the better fit for our goals. For me personally I don't see the polarized tool getting much use out of my toolbox because I have limited training time. When I get done with training in the evening and upload to Strava and I see some of the pros and former pros posting rides on Strava and they have been out riding all day every day while the rest of us are working. If that was my typical day to be out on the bike than I might follow that approach.


IMO - the faddist are pushing polarized more aggressively than Seiler and many of them still cannot figure out how Seiler has clumped his three zones. It is interesting to see them get all militant about the approach and yet in a few pages of discussion begin to argue amongst themselves over how intense is zone 1.

I'm not sure Faddist is the right way to characterize it (only because fad to me suggests short lived and contemporary). Long and slow with fractional hard fast (when I say fractional I do about 10-20% mostly above threshold) has been in my training lexicon for 22 years and I was schooled by crusty old Swedish XC skiers plying the Norbotten Gnar who had been doing the same for who knows how long.

Awesome, eye opening post Marky. Thanks for this. Really good info....

No disagreement at all, what do you think is the right word ?

Cornflakes - taste them again for the first time :)

whewdoggie :-) that's a good bit of time above threshold. Is that an annual measure?

I compiled my data back in November (for the span of data between 2014 and 2017*) after watching the most recent Seiler video. I follow more of the pyramidal approach, but I am more of a recreational roadie that enjoys a TT type pace while out solo. I rarely have a personal reason to sprint or go to Pmax. I understand why competitive road cyclists would train more to be well-rounded and especially to have that top end in a crit or sprint.

* I have data from training back to 2008 logged in with WKO3, but only have from 2014 in WKO4. Note that these charts do not actually parse rolling average of power and take power in segments as recorded by the power meter so it may not mean much. I compiled the years because the Seiler seemed to be focused on lifetime hours trained for elite athletes and that is what I wanted to see with this particular chart.

Link image below

It is a lot and now that I see it highlighted not accurate from a total year / lifetime training picture. Its not year-round and I will build to that distribution leading into a race period.

For example, my November / December block has been nothing but slow / volume only. I'm starting to build intensity this month and looking at my 7 day log stats show the hard stuff comprises 3% of the time (based on HR intensity).

When I dream up my workouts, I look at with the eye of achieving that 10-20% target...for example, one that I'd like to do in about 4-6 weeks time is 3 hrs of work (running), first two hours easy with the last hour comprised of 8-10 interval paced efforts 3-4 minutes in duration down to full recovery topped off with a 4 minute all out (1500ish TT) ->180minutes, 30ish of which are intense.

Depending on how the race season is stacked, I may be spending a boat load of time at race pace anyhow so the effort profile tends to go more pyramidal as a consequence.

I'm not sure what the point of that 3 hour run is. Literally, no point. Whatever stimulus you're going for in the last hour you won't get as you'll be too tired. What do you think you'll get from this?

Here was another view from my November post that shows the 90 day period. Even being in rehab mode from a torn PCL in a June crash and having to camp out at lower intensities I still ventured into some higher level intensities at times. So even though my annual and multi-year data shows a very small amount of time in higher intensities I would not call myself a train slow or train low kind of guy. I find it interesting that a number of people think that those of us steady state types are taking it easy or cruising around on a country road and avoid anaerobic moments. :-)

When I look at it from a 90 day view and while I was injured (screenshot attached) I am not scared of hitting those higher intensities when I want and when I feel like it. I have one session I created called Minute Clinic, which is an hour of 1 minute on at FRC+ and one minute 100 watts. I do this for however long I can manage for the session. Don't count that session for anything other than just breaking up the monotony of day to day extensive aerobic training every once in a while. I love HIIT, but train mostly for endurance. It compiles at a very fractional amount in a year though.

Image link for larger view

I'll see in April what the point is (was?), but I'll let you know when I've done it. I may just be KoM hunting?

Hey thanks for the candid response.

This question is directed at the forum in general:

If staying healthy, running slow, and sprinkling in some > LT threshold work is what leads to better/faster performance (many of us are type A persons so going avoiding going too hard is a learned skill), then what about the athlete who has a job/occupation where walking at a fast pace is a 5-10 hr daily occurrence (like an ER nurse)? Wouldn't it follow that the athlete would experience better results than a person who is sedentary, but does the same (or comparable) training program?

How much does a person hurt his/her performance ability by sitting at a computer all day?