I’m really not a disciple of Seiler’s teachings but I know one thing for sure, easy is supposed to be easy. And easy on one day can be a different easy on another day. If one is really scared of riding too hard and not gaining all the precious molecular adaptions do a simple nose breathing check. Ride. Every half hour or so breathe only through the nose for 2 minutes. You can do that? You’re riding easy. Check your power and heart rate. Do this for many weeks and you will get a feeling for your personal power, HR, RPE, breathing-relationship at this lower threshold (if we want to call it a threshold). As said before, easy is not always the same. And sometimes even riding at just around the threshold can be hard (even though you can still nose breathe).
Also, now that I’ve got a lactate meter, I am also finding that just because I have a low HR response to some power levels, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m having a low lactate response. Almost as soon as I went from 160 watts to 180, lactate jumped from 1 to 2 mmol, but then stayed at ~2 mmol from 180-220. I was admittedly convinced by someone that I was still pretty low in my lactate response/curve, but I guess it deserves a bit of context. Ideally easy should be in the 1-2mmol range for optimum fat utlization. In a short event it probably doesn’t matter much, but in longer events, substrate utilization plays a large part in how repeatable hard efforts are and how critical fueling needs to be.
You know the rabbit hole this creates - you’ll want to know your lactate all the time 
Have you done the threshold tests and a solid MLSS to get baseline data? Am always curious how people are charting fitness, performance etc using different tools. Was thinking about adding a VO2 mask to my collection but $5,000 is too dang much for a hobby.
On Topic…
So tons of threads on Polarized v SST. As much as I want to commit to Polarized, am seeing SST as a plan I can be more compliant with. Given time constraints and desire to keep up with strength training.
Unfortunately, I agree. After months of doing low intensity work exclusively, I’d say my sweet spot for noticeable improvements is ~20 hours/week. I could probably decrease that volume if I added the 20% of high intensity, but probably not by much.
An SST plan is definitely shorter on hours but a lot more stressful on the body. I feel for those (almost all of us) who don’t have the opportunity (aka no time) to experience/experiment with a true high volume POL/80:20 training plan. Such is life. 
I did a step test, 10 minute warmup, then 5 minute steps. once readings were above 4 mmol, would take subsequent readings to see if measurement kept going up. Once i’m recovered from my race last weekend I’ll try a 10-15 minute test at 280 and 295 watts.
It’s really hard to see noticeable improvements from volume alone unless the volume is an increase in training load. I’ve been relistening to a few past episodes of that triathlon show, notably the ones that are related to the Jan Olbrecht/Sebastian Weber/Dan Lorang coaching philosophies. You can see how the ideas of using VO2 max and VLamax to guide your training.
Polarized training mainly focuses on raising VO2 max, Sweet spot training mainly focuses on raising fractional utilization of VO2 max. Once you get to a certain level of fitness, you can’t improve both at the same time. Judging by my baseline levels, I can still see some decent improvements in fractional utilization so I’m not going to throw out the sweetspot tool. I think what gets challenging is trying to balance doing SS + VO2 efforts as they have competing priorities, yet SSB2 is usually a very effective plan. How much intensity is enough, as the goal is to only do just the minimum it takes to get the desired adaptation. From listening to some other higher level coaches, when doing sub-maximal efforts as intensity, you definitely can spend a higher percentage of your time doing some quality work.
I’m probably going to do some alternating blocks this fall/winter SS1 to Polarized/VO2, SSB2, race build/specialty. Each goal block with be 2x(3hard +1 recovery) until race prep.
Article tweeted today by Seiler, was a 4 year study of 2 professional cycling teams, 1 men and 1 women. So there will be a bias towards the philosophy of the coach. But does confirm the slightly pyramidal approach in TID. HR numbers are skewed more towards zone 3 since the ranges used are different than the norwegian federation zones. Power zones tell the story though as they are the Coggan zones that most of us use, so IF and TSS is consistent.
Not polarized, but 80-85% of their time spent doing easier aerobic work. Average IF was .59 and average power output a mere 191 watts. However average training session was 3 hours… yikes! Lots of time in the saddle.
Did you only do low intensity? If so, that’s not polarised so your closing statement surely isn’t correct?
Unless I maybe missed something in what you said.
Yes, due to shitty and mysterious heart conditions I am currently flogging away doing exclusively Z2/Endurance rides (aka MAF Method).
I have previously engaged in SS training and HIIT-only training, this is my first go at slo-n-lo training. Correct, not technically Polarized, but just from doing only the ‘80’ part, and lots of it, I can definitely see both the allure and the effectiveness of a Pol plan, given that one has the time and patience to dedicate to such a scheme.
What I was getting at was that if I went Pol, I could reduce my current total hours by adding high intensity work, i.e. MAF (probably) requires greater volume than 80/20.
Sorry for the detour.
w/r to TID I find it actually more revealing to look at actual power output distribution. In the zone distributions Zone 1 is inflated by coasting or “almost-coasting” which is simply part of riding outdoors. I don’t think those threr bar pairs to the left are actual sessions with the intention of riding slow.
While it does get inflated the average IF is still only .6. The full download is on my work computer but many power charts do not include zero with z1, giving null power its own bucket. Strava is the only one i know that includes 0-x in the distribution chart. Meanwhile there is a null grouping.
To combine some of the pro/elite thread posts you started here, michi weiss was doing his long rides around 200-220 watts for something like 4 to 5 hours for his base period. That’s like a very fit age group athlete riding at like 160 watts. For him, that should be around z1 to very low z2.
Also correct me if I’m wrong but most elite men at the international level are pushing 6w/kg right?
Depends on weight and rider type. Tyler Farrar was a grand tour stage winner, but was only a little over 4 w/kg at FTP. Taylor Phinney is about 5/kg, but when you weigh 85kg, that’s a whole lot of watts…
A lot of this comes back to sustainable training load. A 5 w/kg rider training 10-12 hours a week can probably tolerate an average IF of .8 for three or four weeks. Bump up to 25 hours a week and that IF plummets to .6 – or, that rider trains into a hole.
It reminds me of what Weber said about Tony Martin, in the context of sustainable training load. For Tony Martin, .7 is 300 watts. 6 hours at 300w? That’s Paris-Roubaix – so he’s not going to try that on a weekly basis, let alone on a daily one.
When I was in my 20s (and, from where I am at 53, I’d guess maybe 5.4 w/kg) I got the chance to train with some pro riders – doing one five or six hour ride with them was “easy” (or so it felt). Doing two in a row was hard. Doing three was impossible. But they would do that five or six days in a row…
That is helpful. Especially as I am facing a long old ride tomorrow and I can feel myself procrastinating already. 68% sounds way more fun than 0.70 IF.
Can I just check, HR Max is sport specific, not the HR max I’ve recorded for any exercise? I might be repeating the question, but I want to make sure I’ve got it right.
So my running max is 194, my cycling is 184. For my long ride it I should be shooting to keep my HR between 125 and 134 i.e. 68% - 73% of my cycling HRmax.
Then here’s that other question… Is that training intensity the magic bullet (i.e. promotes aerobic adaptions), or just being able to handle high volume of training. I suspect a bit of both, so people who say you have to train a s-ton when doing low intensity are forgetting the context… You have to train at a load that is right for you when doing lower intensities. If you are going from 10-12 hours at high intensity, you will probably not see much adaptions doing 10-12 hours of low intensity, but if you bump it up a few hours you’ll start to see those positive developments. Sometimes people throw out doing volume as an either or situation, but there should be a spectrum based on previous training history… many younger athletes cannot hang with the large volumes professional riders do, and it can take them several years to build up to that sort of workload.
your true max is probably rarely reached in training. Depends on the race type to generate it, or there are protocols to try and figure it out. Mostly it’s something along the lines of doing 3 or 4 minute VO2max style intervals on low rest, then for the last one you do 1 minute FULL gas, as hard as you can go and that should be your best estimate for sport specific max.
At risk of being Captain Obvious…
My time in zone (power) chart looks a lot like figure D. Except my total time is estimated at 1/3 to 1/4 of a pro’s week. So… how much of what we are seeing in pro training logs is first burning 2,000 calories “just riding tempo” for a few hours before or after doing the work bouts (intervals) for their day?
Since I never have to perform after riding 4-5 hours of tempo, because my races are TTs of 10-25 miles which start after a 15-20 min warm-up, I’m never going to take the start line (or hit a hard race effort) in a depleted state.
The questions we keep seeming to come back to for “regular Joe’s” are:
a) What’s your potential so you know how close you are to extracting max performance?
b) What’s the optimal training plan for 8 hours a week?
c) What’s the potential gain if I somehow manage to get to 16 hours a week or 20+ hours a week (and of course what are the best plans for 16 and 20+ – e.g loop back to B)?
All of this “what the pro’s do” seems somewhat not useful other than for fun. I’m struck by a comment in one of the podcasts (paraphrased): “When you see certain training and diet plans remember those methods were to extract the last 1% of potential performance from a single specific athlete, not a recommendation for other athletes”. Essentially saying: you aren’t Froome or Sagan so don’t replicate their training.
After about a year of really interesting discussion, it seems to me the recipe for Joe’s returns to:
- One to two good structured interval workouts per week during the work week
- Long tempo rides on the weekends for as long as you can fit in (3-5 hours)
- Pick a reasonable plan and be as compliant as possible in sticking to it
- Work toward actual riding at FTP (MLSS) for a real hour (durability, resilience, etc)
If you aren’t working, or are amazingly motivated and able to add time… the prescription of 1-2 hard workouts a week still stands, then you add a lot more time in Z2 and reap those benefits.
*** Looking forward to the ML/AI analysis of TR logs when that finally comes out.
-Mark
We also need to remember that there’s more than one reasons why the pros train as they do, e.g. Pol.
Yes, they do have to train to perform after a high level of kJ depletion but that same depletion (aka Endurance work) is also developing a strong aerobic system which provides the basis for (and greatly contributes to) most other levels of intensity.
So even if you (or any of us) personally are never having to race past a state of depletion, a ‘pro style’ aerobic development will still greatly serve your 20mi TT efforts.
That said, Joe Average can still adapt and apply the same kJ depletion training to his/her own specific situation.
I did an hour of power on the indoor trainer by setting off at just below FTP for the first 10 min in erg mode, then upping the % of FTP intensity to FTP for minutes 11-45. From min 45-60 I had to adjust the intensity back down to 99%, when my cadence dropped from the previous 90 rpm average down to 84 rpm.
Yeah, we dont’ get to see when they are applying those power in relation to the segment of their ride. From the many posts @sryke has posted, many of the pros are doing significant tempo periods in their longer rides. I think that long distance athletes also do more of a periodization strategy with regards to intensity distribution than the athletes Seiler has studied for the polarized model. Also, he usually only studies VO2 max increase, while fractional utilization is a big part of race specificity for cyclists, but not quite as important for athletes doing 10-50 minute races.