Thanks for this and your other posts above. I come from more of a running background and after training for a few years and following a variety of plans from 10k to the marathon, my conclusion was the same. 2 “hard” sessions/week, which could be shorter intervals (e.g. 800m repeats) a tempo run (usually 20 to 40 minutes long) or a very long run (90+ minutes). The rest was easy Z2 (out of 5 zones).
Also lines up with the whole 80/20 approach. Cycling training does seem to be more complex, but I doubt it needs to be. My best cycling season came when I wasn’t following a plan. I just rode a lot (commuting during the week and a long ride on the weekend) and then threw in a VO2max or threshold workout (or a Zwift race) in now and then when I was feeling frisky.
This is a very long thread with a lot of posts… Genuinely not trying to troll, but can someone TL;DR this:
Are SSB MV/HV I and II, General Build MV/HV, and Rolling Road Race MV/HV garbage? Or awesome?
I know that’s a “cheeky” (as the Brits would say) way to phrase it but I don’t see a definitive answer in all the posts above. It seems a surprising (to me) number of people are using TR workouts but creating their own plans for them…
You won’t see a definite answer because one doesn’t exist for training; as it doesn’t for diet, religion, politics, etc. TR plans will work for most and when it doesn’t, try something new (ie: polarization). If you read enough forums you’ll realize that the minority opinion is a small percentage but very vocal. So you could literally see a few people taking up the majority of comments. Don’t be swayed by appearance.
Yeah, I guess if one goes by sessions then you’ll have to do multiple of 5 workout session each week to always hit 80:20, but that was not my approach and I don’t think that’s seriously the intent of anyone.
I’m a simpleton and am not claiming to follow any particular plan/system/dogma. I’ve read where people use # of workouts, miles, or time to calculate their ratios. Seiler goes by sessions and it “should be used as a guideline rather than a strict rule” (see below).
Personally, just for example, if I was doing a 40 mile week I’d end up doing about 32 of those easy (Z2 out of 5) and the remainder would be faster/harder (intervals or tempo runs). My intention wasn’t to do 80/20, but that’s close to what it ended up being (mileage wise, not sessions) based on the training plans I had followed.
From an article on Runner’s World:
Seiler says the 80/20 split should be used as a guideline rather than a strict rule, so he “can live with training 85/15 or 75/25”. But he stresses that you shouldn’t veer too far away. And don’t overcomplicate things: “The 80/20 rule is based on categories,” he says. “I class a session as either hard or easy. If I do an interval session, even though the effort and heart rate will fluctuate, it’s hard. If you run four times a week, no matter the length, if one run is hard then that’s a 75/25 split.”
Seems pretty clear, hope that helps clarify what I was saying above vs. what Seiler describes.
I also did not feel this was a dig at TR. He isn’t saying Sweet Spot intensity is BAD, he is saying TOO MUCH Sweet Spot per week is bad. Its the same as thinking doing 3-4 vo2 max sessions a week is good if you are a time-crunched athlete. It’s more about the distribution than intensity itself.
I recorded a podcast interview with Dylan last week where we talked on this topic. If anyone cares to listen and hear him talk on this topic.
Since sport was invented? Across all endurance sports, I think you’ll find it has been a lot of money. Probably, not billions, but a fair amount. I didn’t say just cycling…
You do realize that governments only really started significantly funding any type of research after WWII? And that there is a difference between basic physiological research and applied sports science?
Here’s a question for you: how much money has the US Olympic Committee spent on such research? The International Olympic Committee?
Don’t hold your breath. The folks involved in this took a couple of years to even agree on a standardized training program. Now with the pandemic, things are bound to be going even slower.
“The Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium (MoTrPAC) aims to uncover at the molecular level how exercise improves and preserves the health of the body’s tissues and organs. By tracking exercise’s impact on biological molecules and creating a molecular map, MoTrPAC will make exercise better understood by researchers and enable clinicians to make more specific recommendations when prescribing exercise to their patients.”
ETA: Note the focus on health, not sports performance.
That’s because probably 90+% of all exercise training studies ever published have utilized “sweetspot” training.
IOW, it’s the norm, so doesn’t deserve any special mention.
ETA. To give but one example. Our European Society of Cardiology recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity per week for healthy adults of all ages and individuals with known cardiac disease. The define “moderate exercise” as that resulting in an RPE of 12-13 (“somewhat hard”) on Borg’s original 20 point scale of perceived exertion. That would be a 3 or 4 on the newer 10 point scale, which aligns with Coggan’s level 3, “tempo”.
Viewed or stated another way: the ESC considered “moderate exercise” as being between the “aerobic threshold” and the “anaerobic threshold” (i.e., corresponding to Seiler’s/the Norwegian’s zone 2), and recommends that everyone exercise at this intensity.
The norm for general health and/or disease studies is either LIT or HIIT; POL marries the two.
Yup, lower tempo – not sweet spot – as per Borg’s “somewhat hard” = “slight breathlessness, can talk”/70% HRmax – which, again, even if coincidently, is MAF ~VT1, and in-line with POL being a mode of “healthy” exercise (~65% VO2max/78% FTP).
No, it is not. Amongst experts, LIT is considered too low of an intensity to provide significant benefits, whereas HIIT is the “new kid on the block”, with many afraid to push patients that hard. That’s why position stands from bodies such as the ECS, AHA, or ACSM routinely recommend moderate intensity training, the health benefits of which have been studied extensively since the 1950s.
Here’s Coggan’s sweetspot figure. Training at level 3 would put you right in the center of that oval.
