Although not exactly the same, this model is VERY similar to Steve Neal’s way of doing “endurance and tempo”. ISM “high Zone 2”/LT1 would be the tempo part.
I’m still unsure about a lower intensity (base endurance) with ISM. Are all (most?) rides at LT1? Or does he use this “high Zone 2” and another lower one?
@sryke posted Pog rides (Pro/Elite Training thread). I see a single ride that is lower (coffee ride? “recovery” ride?).
Definitely agree that’s what’s old is new again.
However, at least people are no longer yammering away about polarized training as if it were the one and only true way.
Somebody should get Seiler and ISM on the same podcast!
Someone has asked about the testing protocol. ISM’s met flex paper:
Furthermore, I find this informative. More for background:
Thanks very much for sharing. I reckon I am getting confused here. So, judging by the ISM picture below, 0.92 +/- 0.27 (the upper range being 1.3 mmol) to 1.32 +/- 0.47 (the upper range being 1.8 mmol - pretty much the end of ISM Zone 2) provides the best FATox rates. ISM goes on to say that the best way to train is at the intensity in which you elicit the highest stimulus before you flick the switch per-say over to CHO’s as the main fuel source. This would be at the 1.8 mmol mark - not as high a FATox rate as the 1.3 mmol, but a better all round stimulus point AKA bringing yourself to the edge of LT1.
So, for my math’s sake, let’s use your numbers as a bit of a test. Please correct if I am wrong!
3.0w/kg = 0.9 mmol = 195.0w (74.5% FTP) / Coggan Endurance Z2 + Seiler Zone 1
#3.25w/kg = 1.35 mmol = 211.25w (81% FTP) / Coggan Tempo Z3 + Sieler Zone 2
3.5w/kg = 1.8 mmol = 227.5w (87.0% FTP) / Sweet Spot
4.0w.kg = 4.0 mmol = 261.5w (FTP/MLSS)
#Estimate
So with the calculations above, your optimal FATox target would be 195w and ISM would have you train between 211w (1.3mmol - 81% FTP which is Z3 Tempo) and 227w (1.8mmol - 87% FTP which is Sweet Spot AKA upper border of Z3 Tempo / interestingly @DarthShiviouswas also at this marker at around 87% FTP). Also, the athlete in the link you sent me also seems to hit 2mmol @ 89% FTP. Seems to be a correlation between ISM and Sweet Spot work here?
It does make a bit more sense now. As you improve and get more efficient your markers, LT1 and LT2, shift and it moves the 1.3 - 1.8 mmol effort range away from Endurance and into the Tempo zone. That comes with its own limitations - increased muscular load being the main caveat there.
Thank you for sharing. Helps the ol’ understanding when I can put some numbers to what he is trying to say! I think it is all heavily dependent upon your own numbers but it is a good guide none the less.
My thinking is, and perhaps this is too simple and I welcome critique here, but if you were to combine the worlds of Sieler and ISM (if you so wish 
) could you not alternate between 2 different blocks?!
BLOCK 1 / 4 weeks (3 on 1 rest): Polarized focus (Seiler) = VO2 workouts + Z2 Endurance rides at 0.9mmol lactate to work on FATox and MCT1 in slow twitch fibres to clear lactate - heck let’s even do some of these LSD rides fasted for fun hey. And also working on MCT4 efficiency and ability to shuttle lactate to MCT1 fibres.
BLOCK 2 / 4 weeks (3 on 1 rest): Some good ol’ fashioned Sweet Spot work to invigorate the senses and speak to the work of ISM. Target that 87-90% range which seems to be the going range for that 1.8mmol. Ofcourse, it would be better if you had a lactate analyser in which to double check this because it is an incredibly independent variable.
That would be fantastic!
About as interesting and entertaining as this week’s US presidential debate.
When you do a nice weekend ride, say 4–6 hours with a nice solid 1hr climb in there (70-100 miles, 7-10k elevation chg)…you automatically do a lot of work in this “magic and elusive” zone. Before I had a power meter and before reading anything regarding polarized training, I found this area at around 80% of max HR… power drifts up as you progress. H
P.S.
Sieler uses the 3 model system using LT1 and LT2 and top and bottom boundary for zone 2 (his grey zone).
So 1.8mmol for me is that boundary. Anything below that, such as the ISM 1.3-1.8 zone is zone 1.
So ISM fits with the Sieler mode. Don’t go into between LT1 and LT2 unless you are planning to and train mostly under LT1.
Seiler recommends never training in his zone 2.
ISM recommends training at that intensity up to 4 days per week.
I don’t think these are comparable/compatible.
Sieler does not say never to. He thinks there is more benefit in above LT2.
Where has ISM said train 4 days per week in Sieler zone 2?
Seiler does indeed say never, or essentially so. That’s how training becomes “polarized”.
ISM’s recommendation of up to 4 days per week, at least early in the season, can be found further up in this thread.
ETA: Here, sryke quoted ISM directly in about the 3rd or 4th post.
“An endurance athlete should never stop training in zone 2. The ideal training plan should include 3-4 days a week of zone 2 training in the first 2-3 months of pre-season training, followed by 2-3 days a week as the season gets closer and 2 days of maintenance once the season is in full blown.”
ISM is talking about his zone 2 which is below LT1 (1.3-1.8mmol) of lactate. This is zone 1 in the Sieler model which is upto 2mmol / LT1. Between LT1 and 2 is zone 2.
Sieler has said repeatedly that he thinks that training between LT1 and LT2 (his zone 2) is done too much by those who are time crunched but that it CAN have a place in a properly balanced programme.
If you’re lactate is 1.3-1.8 mmol/L, you’re above so-called LT1.
In fact, just upthread you posited that ISM’s training prescription would be in Coggan’s zone 3, which is clearly in Seiler’s no-go zone 2.
Thats what I see too, although I’m sitting in a meeting and most of my brain cells are dedicated to the meeting.
Did we figure it out yet? 
Weekend’s coming up, I need to know how hard to ride. 
For my understanding Sieler 3 zone is
Zone 1. Upto LT1 /VT1 /2mmol
Zone 2 between LT1 and LT2 / 2 to 4 mmol
Zone 3 above LT2
(See below)
ISM has different zones, as does Coggan.
Zone 2 for ISM is 1.3-1.8mmol according to him in the Peter attia poscast.
This is zone 3 for Coggans levels.
It’s the different classifications that are confusing. Please correct anything if I’m wrong.
FWIW my math brain thinks LT1 is too high, if you had more lactate samples then LT1 looks like it would be around 210 or 220W. Was getting confused with AeT… Here is the reference to support your pic: Alan Couzens: Interpreting Lactate Curves (Coaches Presentation)
You need someone that has a lot of experience working with lactate to comment, I have no real background in this area.
Is there a paper where ISM has clearly identified his zones? It just seems weird to run around saying “zone 2” everywhere and not mean what 90% of people think of as zone 2.
I have listened to him on many podcasts and I don’t think I ever came across where he explains his own zones.
Summary so far:
LT1. Nothing new. We’re doing it anyway. Fun! 
@AJS914 We’re getting all these numbers from his metabolic flexibility paper. We’re cross referencing the power of Pogacar’s rides from Pro/Elite Training thread.
There are two tables in that paper. One is “international pros”, the other table is “moderately active”. The 1.3mmol number comes from the table on the pros. The 1.8mmol number comes from the table on “moderately active”.
Not that I know of. He does discuss “Zone 2” verbally on Peter Attia’s podcast. However, the way he expressed it has led to some confusion. It’s not a range. His “high Zone 2” (to me) seems to be just LT1 (that being the “inflection point”, not the “LT1 is 2mmol” definition or the “LT1 is 1mmol above baseline”…those are common definitions of LT1). That’s been a big part of the discussion here.
If you look at those tables, he seems to be having ppl ride at an intensity right before the precipitous drop in FATox (row with 272 as power number). Whether or not you think that’s actually LT1 is perhaps academic. He seems to have Pog ride close to the intensity of that particular row of the table. It’s not technically maximal FATox because technically maximal FATox doesn’t occur at AeT/LT1, it’s just a bit slower. But it’s very close.
Like many coaches at his level, his world isn’t centered around Coggan zones. He has his own zones and curves. But I get your point. it’s flippin confusing sometimes.
I have read the topic BTW. I’ll look for the paper. It’s not just on Peter Attia that he mentions zone 2. It’s on every podcast. Is it that zone 2 is simply the closest approximation of fatmax for most riders?
