Latest Stephen Seiler lecture on training. Nov 2019

Starts at 3:26

Features new material.

https://lecturecapture.brookes.ac.uk/Mediasite/Play/8c0f98ec83c44ec6aa98ca199d2defb51d

11 Likes

The durability and repeatability comments are so hard to explain to people. So refreshing to listen to him talk about it and how to go about getting it. Nothing new to those who have been around but, it completely confounds those new to training. Should be mandatory listening.

1 Like

Any way to listen to this as a podcast? Or download to listen to it?

I am about to put in several hours of sitting still outside and is a perfect time for me to listen to something that needs quiet.

1 Like

So many good nuggets that would have saved ppl here on the forums a lot of confusion and doubt around this time last year.

Example: 1:10:15 into the video (discussion of zones)

Good talk.

1 Like

Listening right now and at 1:13:05 he states “but if they pop over into this second zone then you’ll start to see that cardiac drift” and “it will drift from the get go” which is absolutely not my experience. I recently did a “Seiler zone 2” tempo ride and after 16 minute warmup did a 2 hour tempo interval with virtually no cardiac draft (it was 0.05%). Average HR was 85% HRpeak-cycling and 91% LTHR.

Shakes head.

can you post a screenshot? power was erg?

I honestly lost interest before an hour was up. Seemed pretty much a repeat of prior info, but I have not spent the time to dig into this all lately.

Somewhat unrelated, but a question since you mention Cardiac Drift:

  • What does it mean if you get a negative value? (see data on 1st pic, graph on 2nd)
  • I see this in my two latest long workouts on the trainer and I don’t kn

1 Like

can you trim the start and end of the start and end of the ride and recalculate the decoupling? Or post the raw HR and power data over time?

1 Like
1 Like

I was just taking the quick info from Intervals.icu instead of doing the calculations. I have them in a Google Sheet and will try that really quick.

Thanks for the idea :smiley:

Edit to add:
Placed 1st Half and 2nd Half intervals into the ride.

And still get a negative value.
image

My impression is that I am negative since the HR actually drops in the 2nd half (as opposed to increasing). In this case, I was doing some lower cadence drills, that likely dropped my HR more than if they were at higher rpm.

Good news is it means you’re in good base shape!

The Opposite Can Also be True

With highly fit elite athletes, we often see negative power to heart rate ratios on long group rides during training.

When you have the chance to sit in or ride in a mostly steady group ride, then you can produce power without a great deal of cardiac effort. This will show up as a negative Pw:Hr. This will actually help your energy usage and overall endurance training by allowing you to ride longer than you would riding solo. The ride file above shows a ratio of negative 6.2 percent. Hypothetically, you will have the energy to do those sprints drill planned for the next day!

1 Like

Much appreciated. The irony here is that I have read that article and even have it linked on my HR Decoupling page… but apparently my memory of it faded entirely :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks for the refresher course! I know the low cadence work was part of this particular ride, but have seen negative on others without that work.

I am just trained to look at the positive values and the negative one threw me for a loop. I guess it’s all good.

Thanks again :smiley:

Then you weren’t in Zone 2 (Seiler physiological). Good for you.

Why do I say? If I used 85% Peak, I’m at 156bpm. If I used 91% LTHR, I’m at 147bpm. I absolutely drift at 156bpm (it’s TR sweetspot for me, which is to say Threshold…which is to say too high for day-to-day). 147bpm? I could hold that for almost 2 hrs with minimal drift…AND do nearly the same thing the next day. I just make sure tempo is actually tempo (for ME).

Use more than just fixed percentages that vary from person to person to figure it out.

NP! It might also mean you could probably do those intervals at slightly higher power and get more training benefit at no extra recovery cost

1 Like

I suspect you are right. I am in my 3rd week of a TR HIIT Maintenance plan, following a blood donation 4 weeks ago. So I fully expect my FTP is up from what I tested 3 weeks ago.

I even kicked up the Workout Intensity on the “long-easy” rides the last two weeks to 102%, because I figure my FTP is higher.

I am on the recovery week and will retest next Tuesday, so it will be interesting to see where I land, but all signs seem to point to an increase in FTP.

Umm, no. I think he misspoke. At some point I would have seen cardiac drift, it just didn’t happen at 2 hours. He illustrates that about 10 minutes later with well trained athlete doing 3 hours @ 250W with no cardiac drift (no mention of zone), while someone else saw draft after 3 hours.

You could also just ride to Z2 HR and keep increasing power to keep it there like Friel suggests(for most people that actually is a decrease in power to keep HR in Z2 haha)

1 Like

HA! That is a new way to look at that prospect. Almost becomes another fake/bad way to try and find the VT1, but I doubt it is actually worthwhile. I do like the idea of increasing a bit on the early half to try and dial in HR vs Power a bit.

Could be a bit of fun to kill some time the next time I hit that on the trainer in 2 weeks. Cool option :smiley:

@bbarrera Right, so I mean, one is always eventually going to see drift. I took “durability” to mean you just see it later, and that you can see that improvement with no change in threshold.

I believe that is what he means by “there really is no true steady state”, early in the video.

But my point still stands, he makes some great points in the video (that don’t just parrot his earlier presentations) and we still seem to be hung up on that laboratory based LT1-LT2 zone thing.

My only walk-away was his message on needing more research on training for durability / aerobic endurance / base / whatever you want to call it. The reality is we do have tools to measure increases in “durability” and they have been available and discussed for years. So while the researchers may be focused on vo2max, there are coaches (like Tim Cusick) that have been discussing practical approaches to measuring improvements to “durability.” I find Tim’s webinars and articles to offer a lot of bang for my listening/reading “buck” :smiley: