In fact, to throw a wrench into the POL training conversation:
We found that adding high intensity interval training above FTP/CP/MMSS to regular training performed exclusively below MMSS does not appear to additionally improve TT performance in endurance-trained athletes within a training block of 2-12 weeks. Endurance TT performance (between ~5 and ~60 minutes) improved the same either way.
However, that high intensity training did additionally improve V̇O₂max by ~2.5 mL/kg/min, which is certainly meaningful to an already trained athlete.
Looks like there is LOTS more for me to learn haha.
Maybe I am going to be dumb in asking this because it is looking for the unicorn.
Was there a look at distribution in the meta analyses of the durations used in intensity evaluations? I would think in the upper limits it would be lower duration. Vice Versa for duration was there a look at the intensity distribution used? I understand that meta is meant to remove these lurking variables. I would just be concerned if those studies used a very small distribution of the other “missing variable”.
Not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but a lot of the individual details of the studies are included in the meta, which is freely available here.
And in fact, a surprising number of programming variables were found to be inconsequential to the overall results, demonstrated by low or zero statistical heterogeneity (i²), eg:
I’ve long be a proponent of needing to do everything. I’ve never found SIT to improve TT performance except in “untrained” folks, and my vo2max approach only is part of the equation. Increasing the workload at threshold is an absolutely necessary part of the equation too.
And that’s how I get results like these (with the year before starting with me included for comparison):
I just started the MV Pol Base plan. I have used to do the MV SSB and Sustained Power Build earlier.
Comparing MV of both base plans, TSS is quite a bit lower in the polarized plans.
Due to less load, can I expect less “gains” from the polarized plans? Even though the hard workouts feels a lot harder than the hardest rides I would get in the SS plan, they are still quite manageable. Overall it feels like a lot less work compared with SS, which has me a bit worried about getting lower fitness gains.
My goal is to sustain power for 30-60 min climbs and smash my previous PRs from the pre-corona era. Also want to lose some weight (10ish kg by March, to match pre-corona weight). So the lower intensity endurance rides should be good for some fat burning. I am running the plan until mid-May. Pol base x 2, pol build, and finishing it off with the climbing road race specialization.
TSS is only a measure of overall work done, flawed but it’s workig. Less TSS does not necessarily mean less fitness (despite naming convention in many software). With polarized plans you have less intensity so less tss but the plans (in my opinion) are way more sustaniable and by being more fresh you can make hard session with more quality and do more work there - that should give more stimulus for adaptations.
It feel less work because you have time to recover with z2 work. You will find many people here who have incorporated less intensity and more z1-z2 volume riding and were smashing all PBs and PRs. Of course intensity is still very important part of the equation so it shouldn’t be neglected.
You are not losing weight just by burning fat and you are not learning to burn fat by burning fat. It’s just a source of fuel to your body. You are losing weight and burning all types of calories so just riding a bike is enough. Lower intensity session have their place as they help with overall volume and more pedaling time is good for calcium signaling (another thing for adaptations). So their purpoise is that you can do more overall work with less toll on the body.
If specifically targeting longer climbs, you might prefer the Gran Fondo speciality vs. Climbing Road Race, as the latter has more VO2max stuff aimed at preparing you for covering attacks, closing gaps etc. Alternatively, forget about the Speciality phase and just repeat Polarized Build if you want to continue following the TR “Polarized” MV plan structure of two high intensity workouts per week.
I am curious, though. What would be submaximal vo2 he mentioned? 90% of Vo2. I think it’s related to real vo2 measured, and not to vo2 as a zone range. Am I right? If so, is there a way to translate this into reality without proper testing? For instance, my FTP is 295, so my vo2 range would be 310-350. 355 being my best 5 min. What would be a 90% of my vo2 in this context?
Running some numbers, 90% of my best 5 min is 320w, power in which I can “comfortably” do a 5x5. When I tried to increase that power to 350 I failed miserably.
Without testing it can be done after the fact using % of vo2 max from Power Curve ( simple equation:
ewma((power*0.0108+metric(weight)*0.007),25)/(athleterange(date-89,date,vo2max(meanmax(power)))) )
But I do not know how to check it outside wko - probably it can be done in intervals.icu by someone smarter than me as I didn’t play with coding in intervals.icu.(will start as it’s an awesome platform).
But when it comes to power while doing vo2 max - just go submaximally If your 5 min power is 355 almost by definition you can’t use it as your vo2 max power for intervals as this is maximal effort. Given that you have no problem doing 5x5@320W as repeatable power, your 5 min MAX can be even higher.
The best verification for vo2 max is your feel on the bike - if you are gasping for air and breathing like a fish out of water it’s all good. Even if the power is decreasing during subsequent intervals but breathing is there - you are getting good stimulus for the adaptations.
I do not know if its a good deal…
If your 5 min power is 355 almost by definition you can’t use it as your vo2 max power for intervals as this is maximal effort. Given that you have no problem doing 5x5@320W as repeatable power, your 5 min MAX can be even higher.