I’m noticing this too.
When I notice it I sometimes think A) is this a signal of me being tired or unfit B) is this a good thing?
1 Like
Interesting. Here’s what I have.
6m Power: 355w which is 114% of my set FTP
HR @ 108% of FTP (or 90% of VO2max): 167 which is 85% of HRm
Not sure what all of this means, or how to interpret it. I’m taking a recovery week starting Monday and will be assessing on Saturday after 3 solid weeks of POL that has featured some decently (for me) long rides on the weekends.
I’m really excited to see what the results are. I just can’t decide which assessment protocol to use.
re: fast HR response – I believe it’s a good thing. The heart is a muscle, after all, just like if your quads were super tired, they wouldn’t be firing super fast. As shown by my recent exhausted state failed Z3, hard struggle to get HR up to speed.
Thanks again for the details. And, um, wow! Great thing about this forum is that there’s almost always someone around who’s already tried out something you’re just starting and generously shares their experience – whether chain waxing or improvised “POL” blocks in our TR context.
I took the liberty of snooping the two workouts you mentioned, which really answered my question about your hard starts – it’s a scaled up and longer lasting version of what I’m trying out (way older) but with same experience re HR ramp. And you’re clearly doing these in Resistance rather than Erg, so the pacing gets learned by feel rather than getting capped from above or flogged from below, as you mentioned. I like it, actually.
What I did was 5 weeks of basically MAF – no Z3 at all except for the odd very short sprint – but more hours than in past with a KM baseline test in 5th week. Just finished 3rd week of adding in Z3 stuff, but shorter intervals than yours or Seiler’s 6 min. All I know is that it feels good and hasn’t made me slower or weaker.
And one more me-too, just from this morning’s Z1 ride, on the HR responsiveness that @anthonylane has also commented on. This morning was the hilliest of favorite local routes, and though I felt really good I noticed HR quickly jumping up ~5-6 bpm above what I usually see on the easy rides, very quickly, and then falling very quickly if I backed off. My magical thinking explained it as my heart remembering the hard starts in the last workout and saying “Ok, here we go again. Whatever.” The truth is, I don’t know what to make of it either.
Since I feel better not worse than usual at way more TSS than usual (for me), and am not going any slower, my plan is to stick with this awhile. But I’m working my way toward the longer VO2 intervals. I’m really curious how the numbers scale for a really old guy working at much lower absolute numbers. So far they mostly seem to.
2 Likes
Changing my training to more polarized to get ready for races and basically my main “target” is to perform well in 5-15min climbs. Should i approach my training in a specific way?
I’m not sure polarised is the best option for that goal.
Why not? My best 5-10min numbers have come from doing a long aerobic buildup with one sweet spot day a week, and then 8 weeks of 5-10min zone 5 intervals.
1 Like
Good point. Being new to POL, I still have mental failings when it comes to 3 zone vs 5/6 zone structure and forget that POLZ3 can/does include Z4 work, very applicable to developing that “perform well in 5-15min climbs” power. I still have to remind myself during the Z1 days that I’m “allowed” to go higher than 70% FTP.
There is a fair bit of dogma in POL articles. The reality is that pol-z2 (tempo and sweet spot) workouts have value and avoiding would be a mistake. As I understand it (haven’t read the books), Matt Fitzgerald’s 80/20 approach ditches the dogma and focuses on 2 hard days (max 3) with the rest easy.
repost:
I can see where power may be irrelevant in classical POL – it’s either easy or hard – with other physiological markers available for guidance. I can also see why lots of people would prefer to do SS-centric training, it’s easier in many ways.
1 Like
You can get a lot of gains from increasing volume (easy) and doing 2 hard workouts a week. During a longer phase of developing aerobic capacity you can gain a lot (physically and mentally) by making the 2 hard days sweet spot. Mental fatigue and burnout from doing a lot of hard work is real.
I think the biggest thing to be mindful about is that POL uses physiological rather than power metrics for guidance. You need to stress your body in the correct way and that is best indicated by HR vs Power.
I think a lot gets lost in the translation here because cyclists tend to mark everything by power rather than HR these days.
1 Like
One thing the POL studies don’t seem to address with cycling is that if you race a lot, you’ll end up with significant time in the middle zone and at threshold.
I raced when I was a youngster (about 30-40 years ago now). Nobody I was riding with really knew how to train. What we did though was ride a lot and then race twice a week. And when there were no races we did group rides.
In the end, out of shear ignorance, we fell into a very polarized distribution in the off season and a pyramidal distribution during the race season.
The cat 1 I knew at the time did pretty much the same thing except he just rode a lot more. Big low intensity volume plus the racing and group rides.
Yup, even 20 years ago that’s what amateur training was, for me anyway.
I can’t view POL as a season-long program, it just can’t be if you are also racing. Both volume and intensity dictate that a shift has to occur, like you said, to a pyramidal distribution. Just my n=1 (and forecast), 2 months of POL would be a perfect base, 3 months max before stagnation/burnout.
I’m definitely with other coaches like Tim Cusick and Frank Overton - the best use of POL is for a build (and NOT base).
3 Likes
With some trepidation I tried Nunburnholme that @Captain_Doughnutman mentioned earlier (at my far lower FTP of 170) as my hard workout of this week, and managed to complete it (if pee break before 6th interval doesn’t nullify). Resistance rather than Erg for more control over physiological intensity (i.e. HR). I appreciate the return to Resistance more and more, not just because of some device hassles with Erg, but because of at least the illusion of more control — e.g. coming in a little above target rather than always slightly below no matter what I do.
Resistance also allowed me to start the intervals hard (for me) – to ramp up HR faster. Ha! I do get pretty conservative after the very first interval because the hard start really does affect the rest of the interval — the whole point. Trying to “feel” ideal pacing I find really tricky because of the games my mind plays when the going gets tough — “I’ll blow up for sure!” — so I do have to refer to the numbers as a reality check (crutch?) — “You’ve done this before, so quit dramatizing.” I found it pretty interesting trying to juggle gears and cadence to keep the interval as hard as possible without bailing. In the final interval I was actually able to use HR as my pacing metric. Vicarious geezer thrills for racing he never did and never will.
Still leaves me the question I started with. Namely, if I want the most bang for the least time in Seiler’s Z3, should I do TR intervals (even custom intervals) that give my heart a workout in the familiar sawtooth?
Or, should I slum in Zwiftland once a week and do a short crit, where the 10 min crazy ass start ramps up my HR immediately and then keeps it there as my work intensity falls (a lot) to a just sustainable level, but HR stays pretty high? Like this:
The latter gives me way more time in the really hard zone. But because of the race distraction — trying to keep up, the scenery, etc — it goes by very quickly and a few minutes after it’s over doesn’t feel any harder than the structured intervals, although it must have been. I don’t want to be damaging myself by the Zwift frenzy, but it seems in ways an easy solution to the “really hard” day. My goal isn’t to be the fastest I conceivably can, but to get slower as slowly and healthily as I can with some exhilarating moments thrown in. Let me know if this actually belongs in one of the geezer threads.
I’m working in 3x20 or 2x30 SS intervals into my long LSD rides every 10th day or so. I haven’t fully committed to only doing POL Z1/Z3 yet because I don’t like ignoring this system and I’m not entirely sure if Seiler’s 4x8 intervals help maintain the muscle endurance long sweet-spot efforts build.
Also, race any gravel event or do any group ride and you’ll encounter A TON of temp/SS.
I had an excellent “come back from surgery” block that involved no more than 2 SS days per week and the rest 60-90 min Z2. The SS workouts were a progression of 3x15, 2x25, 3x20, etc coupled with a progression of over-under work. That was my 20% high-intensity for that block. Worked well.
1 Like
I heard Tim talk about this and I would like to ask him how/why he thinks 2x high-intensity days per week is enough for a build cycle. Take a look at a TR Build Plan and they have 3-4 truly hard days. This is the opposite of what you’re saying. I’m not disagreeing, just pointing it out.
Personally, I don’t feel like 2 hard days per week is enough to build FTP. It just doesn’t feel like I’m doing enough work. However, this is because I’ve come from only ever following TR Sweet Spot plans for the last 3 years and am used to hammering at Sweet Spot or harder for 3-4 days per week and only haveing Pettit as my easy day.
I’m in a rest week and will be doing an FTP test on Friday. Very excited to see where numbers are at versus 3 weeks ago. I know I’m stronger.
couple interesting articles here: Velocious Cycling Blog and in the Five Build Plan Mistakes blog article you’ll note the first goal of build is raising functional reserve capacity (FRC) / anaerobic capacity.
1 Like