I look at the oxygenation sensor for the most part, but I’ve used the Olympiatoppen HR zones as a general guide.
I also aim on the low side – 80% of HR peak. If it starts to drift up to 135 bpm, I back it down.
General foundation building, most days are in the Olympiatoppen zone 2. Once I shift into two high intensity (zone 5) days a week, the low intensity workouts tend to be zone 1.
I have recently learned that SS intervals are very effective at converting type IIx fast twitch muscle fibers into type IIa, thereby improving their endurance properties, and reducing VLaMax - which in turn is one of the drivers of FTP, the other being VO2max.
For someone like me that skews towards a fast twitch muscle fiber composition, reducing VLaMax is a key lever to improving FTP.
So my training program has evolved from polarized to pyramid. There’s still a zone that I’m “avoiding” - basically Tempo, but it’s gotten narrower.
I guess if you define SS as Seiler zone 3, then I’m technically following a polarized plan.
To me, the most important thing is knowing what workouts are best for accomplishing the physical adaptations you are after. For me, it’s
The biggest difference vs TR plans is the higher volume of endurance I’ll be doing.
My A race is Leadville.
I guess I should have just asked what it was in relation to your HRmax. So if I read this right, your upper cap is 80% of HR max? looks like back calculating you’re targeting your endurance rides right around averaging at 70% of max. This is where my HR has been falling with my .7-.75 IF Z2 (power zone 2) rides. The weekday zone 2 ride is usually a .6 to .65 IF ride and averaging roughly <65% of HRmax.
SS is not Seiler zone 3, its not polarized training.
Sounds similar to TR SSB2-MV plan, with a long endurance ride. If you bump SS to threshold that would take you to TR’s Sustained Build plan.
The long endurance ride is in the weekly notes for all the plans I’ve looked at, and has been mentioned on the podcast several times as being a great idea.
I’ve used what you are doing to great effect prior to TR, and plan to do SSB-MV again in a few months as part of a rebuild (and adding a long weekend ride). While some argue the quality of the workout suffers, my personal experience is that I get stronger, faster, when doing long weekend rides. Some notes here: https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/204265814-Outdoor-Workout-Substitutions-Q-A and here: https://support.trainerroad.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005942626-Weekend-Workout-Modifications
I’ll be doing SSB2 LV, and sustained power LV. Augmenting with an outside endurance ride(s).
I did Geiger a few days ago (3x12 SS). According to this table, half of the workout was in Z3.
See table linked by @apond58. Half my Geiger workout was Z3 going by this table.
Whether SS is Z2 or Z3 is something I’m not worried about, so doesn’t really matter to me. But the varying definitions you hear about zones (this is true in any zone model) can cause unnecessary confusion.
I’m using the zones as defined by Dr Seiler Polarized Training Discussion (Fast Talk podcast & Flo Cycling podcast) - #84 by bbarrera
The intent as I’ve gathered from Seiler’s research and statements is to do 2 (maybe 3) very high quality sessions a week above your lactate threshold (ftp), and the rest in zone1.
There is definitely a role for sweet spot, in particular during base, as studies have shown it to be effective.
I guess regardless of your intent and what the theory postulates, you can only handle what you can handle and shortly after starting the VO2max WOs you find out what your capabilities are. I was able to hold on to 2 VO2max WOs per week for about 5 or 6 weeks then I couldn’t take it mentally or physically anymore and had to take one of the VO2Max WO’s down to SS. That was tolerable for me.
Very true. Especially for people who skew fast twitch, and need to convert type IIx into type IIa to reduce lactate production.
I think “pure” polarized may work better for athletes who skew slow twitch vs fast twitch…
This is one of the challenges in interpreting studies on what type of training works better for a given athlete - it depends on the athlete profile - detail not often included in these studies. Prof Ronnestad has said the same.
The other thing I notice is that the key polarized studies are with world class athletes, and I’m just an average Joe. Maybe I haven’t reviewed enough?
Regardless, the evidence is compelling for training with intensity and adding easy rides. Especially after 50, having recently almost lost my vo2max in November (WTF?!). I’m now convinced that indoor training should be focused on intensity. Use outside for long easy rides.
And will presumably account for the generally wide variation from average values in a lot of the studies. The so called outliers.
The way i see it, polarized athletes are mainly focused on moving up the vo2 max needle. Both high volume, low intensity and hard vo2 sessions work to improve that metric. Something people should always remember is that low intensity will still work for most of us average Joe’s at a reasonable volume up until it doesn’t. Then focus on whether you can add more volume or increase the intensity.
ya, vo2max and also lower aerobic threshold. I call it raising the floor and ceiling.
Sebastian Weber mentioned in the interview in the VLaMax thread that the lower intenstity higher volume work actually is improving VO2max. I’m curious if Aerobic threshold is really moving much or are ones just getting fitter?
My aerobic threshold has moved directly with my fitness gains (tracked since using a power meter), even when I wasn’t doing much low intensity work targeting AT. I am curious if it is a genetic setpoint or not since most of the time it is usually described as X % of max HR, but usually determined by lactate concentrations.
Does the aerobic threshold stay a set percentage of lactate threshold or HRMax (or whatever) as you get fitter, or does it stay the same in an absolute sense. Is that what you are asking?
During one of the podcasts Seiler said: “when you train right, the whole curve moves”. I interpreted that to mean your aerobic threshold (the lower one, BTW) would shift up as the curve shifts up.
Or are you asking: it’s a %, but that percentage can move relative to higher levels (VO2max, HRMax, LT, or whatever), and effectively get closer to those higher ones?
The same, as in same percentage of say VO2 max. In my limited experience, the whole curve is actually getting better. The physiological adaptations we get from low intensity work, should increase VO2 max, as they are all about improving aerobic efficiency just at a slower pace than doing traditional VO2 work.
What complicates things is power/pace at VO2 max doesn’t always go up after doing a lot of easy work IME (but power/pace at a specific HR has), but after a few hard weeks, your body adapts to the types of strains it is capable of and you notice a nice jump in abilities shortly after adding in more hard work.
One thing the polarized guys haven’t seemed to address is that after a few weeks to a certain stimulus, your body adapts and you need to change it. Are they constantly changing VO2 specific workout intensities/durations throughout the year?
Within 2 weeks I will do a block of 5 weeks of polarized training, after 4 solid months of SST and endurance. I hope I make the gains which are “promised” by the literature…
Then a VLAmax is planned…
You’ll make gains just by shifting focusing from longer intervals to shorter intervals, assuming your polarized training is focused on above threshold work. SST works on improving 8+ minute power, while everything above threshold works on improving power from sprints to 6-minutes (anaerobic and vo2max).
