Polarized Training Discussion (Fast Talk podcast & Flo Cycling podcast)

Your totally right. If you go deep and calculate you will find the mistakes and guesses. By just listening to it I thought it was ok.

Trevor and Seiler are very…Special. They just try to be perfect in every little thing. That’s sometimes hard to follow for us non pro athletes.

2 Likes

@mcneese.chad @Turtle_Express even with my post graduate work in the area of physiology (specifically lactate threshold and recovery) I find it confusing the way the terms are thrown around. This isn’t uncommon however. Terminology and lexicon has always been an issue in this area, even with the scientists involved. Your summary IMHO is well done and about as accurate as anyone can do given the circumstances.

As mentioned there is a lot of grey areas and overlap with too many people taking the zones literally to the point of dogma. If one looks closely, there is still a fairly large part of the middle zone work done in a polarized approach. If spread across the season it may seem small but often this is done in chunks or blocks which change the ratio at that point in time but appear small when looking at the broader strokes.

Any complete program excluding ANY zone, however they are defined, does so at their own peril. Everything works at one time or another, but everything stops working at one time or another as well.

3 Likes

More good stuff @Lawrence.

Thanks for the confirmation about my sheet. I appreciate the outside reviews.

And the inclusion of the Z2 stuff for 80/20 is quite relevant as I know they cover that in either FT #2 or 3. It is particular to some final prep for events and chosen with purpose. But as you point out, there is a reason to spend time in any and all of the zones. The trick is knowing when and how much :wink:


Great discussion overall. Thanks everyone :smiley:


Just imagine how much we will have to discuss when TR does their training podcast. I expect it to be far reaching and hopefully have some direct takeaways as well.

1 Like

This journal article would Suggest that even the best scientists out there can have issues with “validity”.

Confirmational bias is a real concern when looking at any of the work in this area and leads to an even greater need to look at the zones as ranges instead of one particular number and that it shouldn’t be dogma that if you fall out of the zone then the effectiveness of the workout for a given goal has been compromised. Even LT1, LT2 and VO2 max data can be out a few percentages which in dogmatic world could change the stimulus/response.

1 Like

@mcneese.chad yes definitely. That is where the art and the science cohabitate and why so many different coaches and so many different programs can be successful. The science is out there for the most part, it’s how it’s put together and strung into a program and continually changing it to adapt to the circumstances and environment that is important.

1 Like

@mcneese.chad Out of curiosity I just listened to Fast Talk ep 54 and it was entirely about guidance on setting the 3 zones. With the benefit of never having listened to anything else about the 3 zone training model, I thought Dr. Seiler laid it out pretty simply:

  • 6 min power for zone 3 top
  • 60 min power for zone 3 bottom / zone 2 top
  • roughly 80% of 60 min for zone 2 bottom / zone 1 top. That gets you in the ballpark, if its too high adjust down. Most of the rides will be 60% or 70% so there is a margin of error. Be conservative and don’t overestimate your ftp.

Re: HR zones… Seiler didn’t want to give out blank numbers for HR, because individual variations are so high. He doesn’t like giving a generic answer. For example lets look at 60 min power test, puts people at maybe an average of 88%. But drift of HR is tricky on 60 min power test. Hard to decide where in 60 min effort where to find MLSS. On indoor trainer, a low-intensity session should have flat heart rate. Coach said he ballparks LT1 at 83-85% of LT2. Seiler doesn’t like percentages of percentages, so he would go with HRmax and refer percentages to that. So then, based on that, LT1 is roughly 70% of HRmax and you shouldn’t go above 75%. And Seiler would put LT2 around 85-87% HRmax.

Seiler also stated or implied:

  • it was easy for him to draw the first two lines in the 3 zone model
  • most people over estimate their ftp
  • get off your a** and really do a 60 min power test
  • he struggled to give a general recommendation for zone 2 bottom, but if pushed to simplify he is ok saying 80% of 60 min. The coach said he uses 77% of 60 min because of how WKO+ software works, and that 2.5 hour power from long rides correlates well with LT1 measured in a lab.
  • adjust as necessary

That was my walk away, he simplified things and gave standard disclaimers that its not an exact science and you need to adjust as necessary.

At some point I’ll listen to episode 51, out of curiosity, to hear more about the polarized training model itself.

5 Likes

Cool.

1 Like

Correct, and you can see that I have those very values stated in my 3-Zone chart. Those are pretty clearly stated as you mention. However, those bits are relatively useless on their own without context and relation to other metrics we can use. The devil is in the details, as they say.

When you want to correlate that simple info above with % of VO2 Max, % of Max HR, and % of FTP (so you can actually USE the info) that is where it gets really messy. They bounce around a bunch and it takes a close listen and fast hand to put the values into the right “boxes”.


A decent summary. I have already pulled that relevant info into my chart and applied it where appropriate. If you find an error in the chart related to the info above, point it out and I will correct it.


Added:

  • I have covered the 60 min vs all other options for FTP several times.
    • Short story is that any and all testing can be flawed and give less than productive results.
    • Simply assuming a shorter test is worse and a longer test is better misses the point by a huge margin.
    • There are many practical and important reasons that a 60m test is not a great choice for many people.
1 Like

One of the key points I picked up from the last FAST TALK podcast was the recommendation to keep the accounting simple. So for example if you training 10 hours a week then 8 hours are the easy Z1 ones and the hard ones are 2 hours of structured intervals, e.g. a 3x8 VO2 session in a hour like Tinker. This is a lot easier to plan than my futile attempts at trying to match the 80/20 via calculating actual time spent at intensity. Dr. Seiler recommends just bucketing your sessions, easy or hard.

1 Like

True, and if you do try to count actual minutes, you need to look at it more like 90/10 or 95/5.

I cover this in the *notes tied to the “Session Time” part of the 3-Zone chart. I stuck with the 80/20 and Session Goal idea to keep it simple. You can also see it applied (mostly by hours, but a few in minutes for shorter sessions) in the weekly examples under the 3-Z chart.

Breaking down into discrete minutes works, but is far more messy and not what I wanted in my sheet.

Definitely curious to see what results come out of your trial @mcneese.chad, thanks for being the brave soul to trial this out.

1 Like

Hey Chad, no offense, I find the 3 zone model in your doc to be visually overwhelming. Way too much unnecessary info for someone like me (math major with engineering degree) to get a handle on the 3 zone model. If it was my notepad, time to copy the worksheet, create a simple one for 3 zone model, and simplify down to basics. Easy for me to say, not so easy to find the time :wink: (I took a crack at it while on a customer call, ran out of time so nothing to share yet)

It comes down to two data points: 6 min power and 60 min power. If you don’t have 60 min power, then use results from recent ftp test.

I don’t see anywhere to enter 6 min power, instead you estimate based on ftp. The 6-min power data is easy to pull from power curve in TR. All the other data entry, and LT1/LT2 stuff to the right of 3-zone chart belongs on an advanced/detailed page IMHO. I’m assuming the reader has power data, and only the rare rider has lab data on LT1/LT2.

Hope that helps, you may disagree with my need to simplify and then expand. Also wanted to say I notice and appreciate all your efforts on this forum - thanks!

1 Like

No offense taken. People are free to use or ignore my sheet as they see fit.


I started the sheet and made it purely for my own use originally. My choice to share it was aimed at saving people the time of having to dig as hard as I did into the related data and needing to make their own version.

I still haven’t seen a similar chart, for easy use available elsewhere. I’m happy to review other references in effort to improve mine, if they are out there.


The large amount of data displayed is partly due to the HUGE mix of data mentioned via Dr. Seiler in the casts. Yes, he mentioned the “6’s” numbers for reference at the very beginning. Those are simple on the surface, but seemingly insufficient for simple use.

I say that because they proceeded to relate those “6” terms to other metrics and proceeded to stop using those terms. What you see in my chart (VO2 Max, HR, Power) are those metrics that they chose to use for the remainder of the discussion.

I am fine with the more comprehensive data, because depending on a person’s particular tools at hand, one column or the other may be more important to them. I made the deliberate choice to include them all to give the most options.

People can copy the sheet, hide all unnecessary data (by hiding columns rather than deleting, because I had to make some interesting calculation based on the variety of data and connections they provided) and get a more simple version. All up to the user.


Dr. Seiler gives the following equivalents in discussion: (captured in the lower portion of my sheet, under the chart)

  • 6 Minutes Power
    • Estimate of 100% VO2 Max Power
  • 60 Minutes Power
    • True Race (Aerobic Capacity) around 90% HR Max???, 100% FTP?

As such, (and because they essentially abandoned the use of the terms in the cast) I made the specific decision to make my chart driving directly from the FTP and the stated percentages related on VO2 Max and HR values.

Those the bright yellow User Entry cells are the easiest way I could see to incorporate readily available data and generate the values related to the zones.

However, even if you stick with those 2 powers you mention, that only helps you define the top of 2/bottom of 3 as well as the top of 3.

You still need to define the upper end of Z1 via LT1/VT1 or equivalent, so you know the upper limit of all the Z1 training that must also be done.

So, based on the relationships you stated (much of them documented right on the chart, for quick reference) and the correlations they added, I filled in the full chart with everything you see. It includes all the various columns to try and meet all the possible needs, rather than being particularly selective for a single use (that may not work for everyone).

I am not opposed to simplification, but I feel that the “right” simple is likely to vary from person to person and what they want/need to see.


I make no claims that it is the only or best way to do this. In fact, I am sure that its not, and have requested feedback along the way.

So I appreciate your thoughts and will see if I can put them to use. It is a constant work in progress and I make revisions to it almost daily.

3 Likes

Thats right. Even to pros do very specific training for their purposes. No matter what approach they are following.

So many caveats with the polarized model. What is it actually?

grafik

MLSS == LT2 == VT2 ?

Dekerle et al (2003)

Furthermore, I would like to question the assumption that “hard” or “Zone 3” is Vo2max work. The upper threshold from lactate and other lab tests is often much lower than assumed by our 5 or 7 zone model. Furthermore, add those annecdotes from Seiler that elites do this 6x10 intervals. Or his own research that shows 5 or 6 times 8minutes with 2 min rest is superior to shorter intervals.

These are all threshold intervals. Perhaps at the upper end of the range. Actually, SST would still fall into zone 3 when we’re actually realistic about the uppper theshold.

Why is this important? Many people believe that have to go dark, dark, dark red in the polarized model. I believe only a few people are actually mentally capable of hurting themselves so much. Others will fail to hit the targets in order to have a benefit (e.g. accumulate enough total time per workout and training block in the high zone).

This is why Seiler recommends these longer intervals: “I recommended these to my daughter”

Apart from this, what I don’t understand with all the hype about polarized: in the first FastTalk podcast Seiler himself said that only elite track cyclists train polarized. Elite road cyclists do not. And this makes sense - according to him - because of race demands. When asked if road cyclists would benefit from switching to a more polarized model he said “not really”.


However, whatever floats your boat. Consistency and progression and some sort of specificity. These are the key ingredients. Most people will hit a mental upper limit which stalls progress. It simply hurts too much, may this be the result of 5x4min @ 120% or 2 hours@90-95%.

3 Likes

Ha, glad I was not the only one to re-listen to these episodes with pen and paper. Keep up the good work @mcneese.chad

2 Likes

Hi all

I’m a bit curious about how the polarized approach works for muscular endurance (force + endurance I guess). It seems a bit counterintuitive to work on short-ish intervals (up to 16’ if I’m right) and expect results as good as from the longer sweet spot ones.

That’s because the hard intervals are only part of the picture. You have to recognize the payback from the long and slow rides. Those force adaptations well beyond the “easy” pace they are down at, when done approximately long (3 or more hours).

My quick experience:

  • 4 hour trainer ride at 152w NP Saturday
  • 2 hour ride at 156w NP Sunday
  • Ramp test last night gave 254w FTP
  • That means those rides were easy in that they are about 60% of my FTP.
    • Toward the lower end of Z1 Low Int. for the POL model, so not anywhere near “hard”.

I had DOMS for 2 DAYS after that ride. The stress and resulting strain on my body were truly surprising when you consider my efforts weren’t labored. There was notable fatigue towards the end of the 4 hour session (via HR drift upward).

This is all anecdotal and way too early in my POL journey, but I can foresee how these easy rides may well add some real changes.

3 Likes

hey #theOtherChad :slight_smile:

One advantage -if I am getting this right- from the POL Z1 long rides is that you grow a larger (and thicker?) network[1] of mitochondria, which will -theoretically- improve % of power derived from aerobic process.

On the other hand you develop force (and then some) from the POL Z3 longer efforts, but when do you actually put them to use (in training) together? In my mind these factors (“aerobic power” and force) are related, but I’d expect some sort of compounding when training the two together (as in 1+1≠2, but “a” and “b” => “c”)

By the way, you are awesome :slight_smile:

— footnotes
[1] Density of mitochondria is not mentioned as an objective in the “expected physiological adaptations from training in zones 1-7” table, in the well known “training and racing with a power meter” book. There is a line for “increased mitochodrial enzymes”, but I don’t think it’s the same thing

1 Like

I haven’t worked too much on capturing info on the underlying physiological adaptations. I have focused on simple, high level concepts and trying to capture the data into the charts.

That said, I think you have the right idea based on my current understanding. As to when you blend the 2 split levels of work… that seems to be done as prep for the actual events.

Sounds like they do start to spend dedicated tim in the Z2 area, but it is usually very focused and place close to the A event. I think that came from FT ep 2 or 3 that I just rediscovered this week. Both are worth a listen and linked in my sheet above.

But it seems to me that they dive into that combined work somewhat like a Specialty phase in TR. They do the early prep work via 80/20, but add Z2 for specific final prep. It makes sense to get that more specific work set and done, but its fine to save it for late in the overall plan timing. That’s the best I know right now,

PS, thanks for the Props. :wink: