Polarized can’t be taken as literally as some people here are trying to. 80-20 isn’t some patented set formula that solves everything and Seiler is definitely not presenting it as such if you listen to him going more into detail. His “80-20” and “3 zones” are just simplicification to better describe a model and he will admit as much. One of his most used phrases is how athletes need to “solve an equation” because there is no set formula for success. Main points of polarized are basically
everyone has a limit how much intensity they can handle so find that limit and when you train it go hard up to that limit
fill other sessions with as much volume as possible without going so hard to risk being fatigued on high intensity sessions
make sure to have some really long sessions because some adaptations come only after certain levels of fatigue
So it’s basically couple of principles and not a set formula. Everyone needs to figure out how much time and what intensity brings them most benefits and also what specificity in their training are they looking for so they can adjust their time in zones.
This is why you can hear Seiler talking about some percentages and zones but never 1 set prescription, because there is none, there are some core principles of polarized model and after all, it is just 1 model, not a rule.
I never said they were the same. And Seiler never gave a “definition” either. It was an observation in a research paper and the name stuck. Here is from 2004 - the earliest I can find:
the intensity distribution recommended for highly successful international cross‐country skiers, adopt a polarized model of intensity distribution. About 75% of their training sessions are performed with essentially the entire session below the first ventilatory threshold (≤2.0 mM blood lactate). In 5–10% of training sessions, major portions of the training are performed between VT1 and VT2. The remaining 15–20% of training sessions are performed as interval bouts, with substantial periods of work above VT2.
There ya go: 75/10/15. Call it pyramidal or polarized. Debating the terms is pointless.
From Seiler’s first paper on polarized training, published in 2004:
“In contrast, a polarized ‐training model emerges from a limited number of published observations of international class rowers (Steinacker, 1993; Steinacker et al., 1998), gold medal winning time‐trial cyclists (Schumacker & Mueller, 2002), and internationally elite marathoners (Billat et al., 2001). These studies suggest that at high‐performance levels, athletes generally train below the lactate threshold intensity (perhaps 75% of the sessions or training distance), or clearly above the threshold intensity (15–20% of the time), but surprisingly little at their lactate threshold intensity. In essence, the training intensity distribution is polarized away from the moderately hard intensity range represented by the lactate threshold. This appears to be true even for marathoners of international class, who compete at an intensity approximating their lactate threshold (Billat et al., 2001).”
So, no, he didn’t originally make an exception for cyclists, or for marathon runners either. Instead, he claimed that all elite endurance athletes followed a polarized distribution, with emphasis specifically on avoidance of his zone 2. That he - or others - may be saying something differently now doesn’t change this.
And what is the point of bringing this up over and over? To prove a point of semantics? That “polarized” training doesn’t work? That Seiler wrote polarized in a paper 10 years ago and that the concepts can’t evolve?
He wrote “generally” not always. Nowhere in that paper mentions avoidance. It’s an observation not a prescription by him.
That paper also mentioned “training”. I think pro cyclists are more polarized in training than their racing. Paris-Roubaix, for example, is 7 hours long with most in the middle zone. That skews total time in zone distributions.
Billat calls it polarized in that 2001 paper, and at the end of that sentence credits a 1981 paper on elite marathon runners. I’m digging the flashback to 70s running craze. Everything old is new again!
Joking aside, was watching a womens biathlon event last night and everyone crossed the finish line and collapsed. Those short XC events are legendary in my mind for showing just how hard you need to train in order to push the body to its absolute limit. I salute all the bad asses of this world that train that hard (and easy)!!! Ride on my friends, and excuse me while I psych myself up to tackle a polarized build
I think another key takeaway of all of this is that appropriate training distribution is dynamic, is not fixed in time, and that optimally athlete and coach take a long-term view. E.g., an overload of Z3 might have had her going fast at one point, but at some point the returns diminished while the costs did not. Other evidence is how many people improve simply by changing up their training, regardless of what the training is changed to.
Another example, someone who has 10 hours to train might get benefits for a while from only doing z1–that’s not too little time to get training stress, at least at first. But then, the returns will top out, and they’ll have to change up. but only AFTER the returns top out.
@iamholland Can’t remember exactly what percentage I mentioned in the episode, but it’s been almost a year and I have a lot more data points now for different athletes. Based on that I would say that on average 92-93% of 20-minute power would be a good estimate.
However, if you know your athlete type (sprinter, breakaway specialist vs. GC, time trialist) you could modify the coefficient to be 90-92% for the former and 94-95% for the latter.
EDIT: As a decent guideline. It’s not going to be perfect, but if your limited to field tests this would be a reasonable approach IMO.
@bbarrera In terms of average power, INSCYD and classic steady state 20-minute power will be pretty darn close, so you can apply it for both scenarios.
Thanks @Mikael_Eriksson can’t recall the last time I’ve done an overpaced 20-30-minute effort as they are usually time-trial focused with a negative split. The reason for asking is that I purchased INSCYD testing from you this weekend as a b-day present to myself. Looking forward to doing the field test and working with the zones from the test.
On Physiological Performance Analysis — INSCYD you can look up local trainers that do INSCYD testing. If you only want to do field testing (no lactate testing), then you can either work with a local training company or a remote training company.
okay interesting. what do you get out of it if it’s only field testing? Do they use performance to make estimates of the parameters? I thought the whole point of it was getting to really look under the hood.
The field test has 3 maximal efforts: 15-seconds, 4-minutes, and 20-minutes. The training company will review your field test to determine if it is a valid test, before feeding it into the INSCYD model. If the test is not valid, you redo the field test. If the test is valid, the INSCYD model will provide the same information as a lactate based test. The model has been refined over many years, and INSCYD claims a high level of accuracy for the field testing protocol.
craze. Everything old is new again!
myself up to tackle a polarized build