Polarized Training Deep Dive and TrainerRoad’s Training Plans – Ask a Cycling Coach 299

[jacemano]

I was under the impression it needed to be under LT1. Because my LT1 is definitely below 80% of vo2max

[Pasque]

@byoungxprt

or rocket shape

A rocket-shaped training plan??!! That gotta be fast as hell!! sign me up!

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

60-65% of VO2max is under 80% of VO2max?

[Cleanneon98]

@old_but_not_dead_yet

An IF of 0.6-0.65 would be about 50% of VO2max, which is almost certainly too low to provide a significant training stimulus for most trained cyclists

Just to understand the numbers behind Vo2 max, it would then seem like 100% Vo2 is around 120-130% FTP? Or is it not as straightforward as that? How would I formulate a SWAG of my Vo2 max short of a lab test

I just went back and noticed I replied to this but didn’t ask specifically. Also S.cientific W.ild A.ss G.uess

[bbarrera]

@old_but_not_dead_yet

ETA: AMPK is hardly the be-all and end-all as a marker of training adaptation, but even 2 h at 65% of VO2max won’t budge it in trained cyclists.

Thanks.

@old_but_not_dead_yet

Seiler is a bit wishy-washy re. the intensity of easy days, but has often suggested ~65% of VO2max. That would be an IF of about 0.80.

Ok please check my math using that guideline…

I’m at roughly 4 L/min for vo2max. Using typical numbers from WKO modeling and attempting to cross-reference against exercise physiology equations, my assumptions are:

• FTP is 86% of VO2Max (yes that is high but what the numbers tell me over 5 years of cycling)
• 22% efficiency

Therefore 65% vo2max would translate as follows:

• 779 total watts (Energy/Litre-O2 * VO2/min * %VO2@FTP / 60 = 20900 x 4*.65 x .86/60)
• 171 watts delivered to pedals (779 * .22)

which in my case is 171/259 or an IF of 0.66.

Said another way, if that mid-week 2-hour ride is going to have any chance of AMPK adaptations (humor me), then it had better be higher than 171W.

[BCrossen]

This actually raise a good question for me that I’m a bit vexed by now. Is there a minimum amount of volume necessary to benefit from a Polarized plan?

My inclination is that a LV plan would rare be effective as a Polarized plan because there wouldn’t be enough stimulation to drive adaptation. I would think the lower the volume, the more HIIT the plan has to get to make up for the loss of volume. This essentially means your days off the bike between workouts, which would be Z1 in a POL plan, are the Z1 equivalent instead.

Would love to know from some of the much more knowledgeable Polarized folks about this.

[mcneese.chad]

@BCrossen

Is there a minimum amount of volume necessary to benefit from a Polarized plan?

That happens to be a key aspect of the discussion in this related thread:

• Feedback Needed: Polarized Plan Questions for the Community

[BCrossen]

Awesome. I didn’t even see that thread. Thanks as always, @mcneese.chad!

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

I assumed 120% (i.e., 1/0.80).

[abrooks13]

So to be clear, you want a low volume (3.5 hours a week from the example you used) short power BUILD phase with 70-80% easy minutes, in which recovery intervals counts towards hard work?

Or that’s not what you want but you are taking issue with the pyramidal TID nomenclature when used by TR?

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

22% gross efficiency is definitely on the high side, so I’d ballpark it this way.

4 L/min x 60-65% x 20.9 kJ/L x 0.2 x 1/60 x 1000 = 167-181 watts

An FTP of 86% of VO2max is also above average, so let’s use the 80% I assumed instead.

4 L/min x 80% x 20.9 kJ/L x 0.2 x 1/60 x 1000 = 223 W

IF = 167/223 = 0.75
IF = 181/223 = 0.78

Or about 0.8, as I said.

[bbarrera]

Checking my math by using someone else’s physiology? I award you no points! And sometimes my (WKO modeled or actual max efforts) FTP as % VO2max is even higher. You can’t argue with my data

So for my physiology it is about 0.66, as I said.

[Cleanneon98]

So if .65 Vo2 is 80% FTP, then “endurance rides” are really bordering on the TR definition of Tempo?

[mcneese.chad]

That is what I gathered in my comparison, via TR info and Seiler’s early podcast info:

[bbarrera]

@Cleanneon98

So if .65 Vo2 is 80% FTP, then “endurance rides” are really bordering on the TR definition of Tempo?

Based on some assumptions about efficiency and FTP as %VO2max that may or may not be true for you.

[markbrouns]

What formula do you use.
WKO4 gives me a vo2max of 4,7 l/min corresponding to a power at vo2max around 395

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

Except that your FTP is apparently a higher fraction of your VO2max, which means that you would need to train at higher than Seiler’s 60-65% to induce further adaptation.

[bbarrera]

Well then its a good thing my coach has me pushing endurance rides at a higher % FTP than what I get using Seiler’s guideline!

[old_but_not_dead_yet]

To estimate VO2max? To come up with the IF of 0.8, I assumed that you get to 110-120% at the end of a typical ramp test, so knocked off that much then assumed an economy of 75 W/L/min.

The other assumption I made was that FTP equates to 80% of VO2max.

The starting point, of course, was Seiler’s 60-65% of VO2max target.

[KFB]

As I remember from Seiler’s podcasts, he recommended heart rate as the limiter for Z1 Low Intensity rides, not power. I thought the range of 60-70% MHR, with a max of 75% MHR.