Periodisation is not directly part of the POL concept. But a very common strategies to that early in the season you start with a big volume oft LIT and plenty and not so hard HIT session. Then progressive increase in HIT toward the competition period with a reduction of LIT. Where the HIT becomes even harder and the LIT more easy.
A alternative approach in block training.
see also:
Or there is the āreverseā polarised approach as per Steve Nealās appearance on the Flo Cycling podcast discussed above, where he talked about starting out with a very polarised model, then introducing more and more tempo work as the event got closer. This might be most appropriate for a multi-stage race.
I also depends much on the race series and of course one can mix different approaches. The evidence canāt show clear advantage for periodisation (spezific order) over variation.
And of course many of use who live in regions with real winter wiht short days that make a lot lit at least uncomfortable. Either indoor, nor riding in the dark is much fun. So early in the year, or even in December I foucs on HIT, including HIT blocks and when days become longer I introduce more and more LIT.
Towards the TT season my HIIT becomes also more specific and my intervals become longer and closer to race tempo.
Seiler found no evidence that a this periodisation have any impact
his study suggests that organizing different interval sessions in a specific periodized
mesocycle order or in a mixed distribution during a 12-wk training period has little or no effect on training adaptation when
the overall training load is the same.
However, i make it anyway to become comfortable with race pace. And of course there is also no evidence that it have any disadvantage.
Overall, one is very free in organize the training, as long there is enough variation and all systems are touched. And most of us have also social constraints take into account
Well at the 3rd attempt I finally managed to complete the hour, I paced it pretty well tbh, I realise itās meant to be the max you can do for an hour but over such a time frame you gotta be realistic and employ a degree of pacing.
Dr Seiler has said that if heās at ~90% HRpeak at the 15 to 20 min point he knows he can sustain it to the end, I possibly undercooked as it took me longer to get to that point. Anyway, I had my FTP set to 240 and I achieved 246 so thereās my new, accurate figure.
Hi, you sound like you might be UK based, is that right? If so where are you? Iām kind of interested to know if I am actually around the 1mM mark at easy power, itās something Iāve heard Dr Seiler say, some people have to down train to get to this low level even at an easy pace cos theyāre so used to training in the dead zone.
Close. I live in New Jersey on other side of the pond.
Cheers,
Mark
Yeah exactly and as we all know most people over estimate their true abilities.
There is a lot of info in this thread and a lot of speculation. However, this comment by @Nate_Pearson definitely stands out as a potential hard data point backed by what likely amounts to an abundance of data.
Nate can you expand on this a little? You mention 2-3 watt/kg riders do less 2-hour rides than 4-5 watt/kg riders. So if a rider at 3 w/kg wanted to get to 4 w/kg, is there a set number of 2-hour sweet spot rides that you would add/prescribe based on the data? Your bullet point says āmoreā so Iām just curious if you can elaborate a little in terms of the quantity of those 2 hour SS rides.
Thank you!
I would posit itās less about the specificity of 2 hour SS rides and more about extending the TiZ and duration of sweet spot work.
The easy way for anyone to do this is to start moving to the +1, +2, or +3 versions of the regular sweetspot workouts like Geiger, Tallac, Eclipse, etc.
A simple rubric for most people:
So if you are only doing 1 hour sweet spot rides now, start working up the chain towards 90 minutes and starting moving those workouts closer together.
I donāt know the exact amount. My gut says āmore volume = better watt/kgā. We are on the hunt for that very answer though 
.
Fun follow up would be to determine differences between two riders with the same watt/kg at distances over (for example) 1.5hrs, but more like >3hrs. Watt/kg gets those two riders in the same general category, but itās not the whole story at longer distances. I know you donāt want more speculation, but it aināt FTP (obviously, as they are the same).
Just to add more muddyness to the conversation, but if youāre really following a polarized system, power prescriptions are more based on an individuals response and not on Cogganās levels. You have to separate yourself from the power levels when going polarized and get used to HR levels, as Seilerās descriptions of the work is almost always based on HR targets for the workout. I still get about 25% of time at ātempoā in my long rides, but HR usually never goes above 75% of max and keep a steady breathing pattern, indicating at or below LT1 since it correlates well with VT1 where respiration starts to really increase.
So Iām confused about the TTE component of these tests. You do a warmup, then 10 minutes at 95% of what you think the target would be, then 30 minutes at 100% and then spend ten minutes (or to exhaustion?) increasing power and then take the average of those 50 minutes as your ftp? Do I need WK04 for any of this?
You donāt need WKO, no. Just take the average of the full test, including the first ten minutes.
Thanks! Just not sure about the last part. Is that ten minutes or TTE or ten minutes but tied so you reach exhaustion with a gradual power increase in exactly ten minutes?
Donāt overthink it. 40 minutes in, youāll know if you can push a bit harder or longer.
Haha. Okay. Any suggestions for a warmup routine to precede it?
I usually do 10 minutes of easy spinning, a 5 minute ramp from 75% to 100% of FTP, 1 minute above threshold, and spin easy for 5 minutes.
I was reading through the recent paper Seiler tweeted out, and came across a confusing chart:
In that chart - the authors have 72% - 82% of max HR in āZone 1ā as well, which seems much higher than Seilerās general podcast advice, which has been stated in a few different ways but generally seems to end up closer to 70% of max HR. 82% for me seems well into the Tempo/SS range, is this generally the upper level folks are using? Thanks in advance for any thoughts, I canāt seem to square this with his other comments.
Donāt get too confused, but just realize that traditional zone 2, does not always line up with Seilerās zone 1. It depends on the individual, and try to stick with the original recommendations of keeping your endurance rides below 75% of max. For me it appears that even though I have a low HR response to endurance efforts, that I need to keep it in zone 1 HR to line up with the lactate mmol stated for intensity zone 2.
Do the talk test and see how well your 75% of max lines up with the HR where talking becomes more difficult. LT1 and the VT1 should line up pretty closely.