The one endurance ride on SS Base LV plan was 90 minutes (always on Saturday for me), but I generally stretched it to 120 to 180 depending on my trainer tolerance that day. The other two rides were generally 60-minute rides.
For reference, here is a quick snap of SSB LV1 & 2. Keep in mind the actual workouts are setup based upon my current PL’s, so any view from others will look different. So just focus on the “zone labeling” of the workouts.
- Notably, there are only Sweet Spot & Threshold in LV1.
- There are VO2 Max, Sweet Spot & Threshold in LV2.
- Neither has any Endurance workouts outside of the Recovery weeks.
2 Likes
As I understand Seiler’s statements in the latest Dylan video that prompted the bump on this thread, his take is that efforts below LT1 are easy, and those above it are hard. To me it really sounded like he is leaning towards a 2 zone model (above/below LT1), whereas previously he was proposing a 3 zone model (below LT1, between LT1/LT2, above LT2). How ‘correct’ this perspective is is a matter of much debate 
I think there is fairly broad agreement that efforts below LT1 are easy, and those above LT2 are hard. (for some definition of ‘below’ and ‘above’.) When you get into the details of issues like this, you find that there is disagreement about what LT1/LT2 are, and if they even represent a physiologically significant “threshold” or transition point. If you don’t think LT1 exists, then you likely won’t see it as something to base classification of efforts on.
2 Likes
If you don’t test it, then practically speaking it doesn’t exist in your world. And trying to estimate LT1 without blood lactate testing (remember that thread?) will just result in estimates without any basis in reality.
So you get back into what I call belief systems around ‘easy’ endurance training:
- test blood lactate and base low-intensity training on LT1
- the KM / Empirical Cycling observation that endurance adaptations don’t require much intensity, and KM wants to give all his athletes the same instructions, so just ride endurance by RPE
- the FasCat we used to do lactate testing, and now base endurance training off your FTP from a 20-min field test and as long as you don’t compromise the quality of your intervals
- the Seiler original “y’all are riding too hard and doing it wrong” just ride really slow, don’t cause any stress to your nervous system
- the INSCYD targets based off a series of power tests conducted over a day or three in order to estimate your lactate curve
- etc., etc.
I think you just exposed how little I know. I figured the first two workouts of the week were the “hard” ones, with very little time way below the FTP line. The third workout, while still having time near the FTP line, were the “easy” ones because, even thought there was time near the FTP line, they had much more time in the valleys than the first two workouts of the week. That’s why I was asking about whether a ride with some “hard” parts but lots of time in between them was considered “easy” for the sake of categorizing. From your response, I guess this means that the “easy” ones need to have no “hard” parts at all, or at least, not very many at all.
Yeah. I saw a lot of reference to LT1 and LT2 start happening in this thread. I have never been able to figure out what that meant as a percentage of FTP or if the only way to know what they were was with a professional test with mask / blood draws. I guess that is partly what led to me asking my original question.
-
At the risk of oversimplification… Yes, the “easy” workout is focused on the lower level work with a minimal amount above the LT1, VTT1, whatever magic line people define to split “easy/hard” level work. There are numerous comments elsewhere about how much over (time and amount) can be had during those easy rides and still meet the intent, but cutting excess time/effort above those magic lines is the ideal.
-
The other overly simple statement is “Keep easy rides easy, and hard rides HARD.” That means really hurting on those days with actual “work” intervals, and roll with deliberate ease on all the other ones.
4 Likes
Attempting to add to, not detract or contradict, I would say:
- Don’t forget “hard” can be duration-based, not just more intensity. Going longer makes it harder (think 2 hours of SST not a 20 min interval).
- The purpose of cutting that time above the “magical line” is to do more work. There is nothing magic about any of the zones. Nothing fundamentally different is happening at .65 IF than .80 IF (in terms of endurance adaptations). All of this is about finding a way to do more work (be it kjoules, TSS, however you measure / track work). Then the high intensity or race-specific or whatever intervals.
2 Likes
I think putting these up as different “belief systems” is making things a little more - well - polarized than necessary. To me these are basically just different ways to quantify something similar. Whether you use lactate testing, HR, RPE, a fraction of your FTP (based on 20 minute test) or take care that you endurance rides do not compromise intervals. Same idea. Different methods.
The only thing I am certain of is that many peoples LT1 is likely lower than they think (just like FTP). So personally I just heed the message and try to err on the easy side. I do that by looking at a combination of HR, RPE and looking at failed interval sessions as a sign I am going too hard.
Yes, there will probably be nuances or differences based on methods, but I don’t believe LT1 is an exact point anyway. So would my result really be radically different based on which method you choose?
2 Likes
Here’s a good template for training.
1 Like
Didn’t fully read your response, my bad
Great post! Informative and helpful, with personal experience anecdotes.
Leaning? I thought he was already there. Discussion starts around 4 minutes into the podcast on YouTube. And then at 5 minutes into the podcast he talks about his latest thinking.
I’m going to paraphrase it for you: Subsequent research on the stress aspects of it, using HRV recovery and things like that, once you induce a big stress response, the body doesn’t distinguish between mid intensity and high intensity work as they are both stressful to the nervous system. Now 25 years or 27 years on, training comes down to two zones. Low stress zone and high stress zone. Seiler believes its supported by subsequent research.
Simplifying down to low/high stress, everything with a higher volume of easy training can be classified as polarized. Cynically it can be seen as a preemptive strike to what Stoggle/Sperlich pointed out about pyramidal vs polarized.
Again the context for those statements is observational studies of elite, coached athletes, across many endurance sports, and those elite athletes are training at high volume and high frequency.
You know I love a good pun! FWIW I’m invested in HRV, as my belief system includes Garmin’s use machine learning (ML) on my HRV, HR, and power data. It has some interesting points of view on low intensity 
4 Likes
I was reading a couple of articles yesterday where they linked VT1 and LT2 (in runners). It’s obviously not going to be precise, but I honestly don’t think it needs to be in this range as long as you are paying attention to the other inputs (outputs?).
(They also linked LT2 and VT2 with MLSS occuring between the two, but I’d have to go back and double check that as I was only reading about VT1)
Are the Polarized experimental plans also modified for individual PL’s or are they static? The HV 8 week is showing 6 rides a week.
Tuesday is Supra threshold (3x4min 106% with each week decreasing the recovery period)
Friday is a threshold day (4x8 min at 100% with each week decreasing the recovery period)
The remaining rides are between 0.6 and 0.7 IF
I’m sure we could all argue for pages about if 3x4min and 4x8min are the perfect intervals and intensities, but I could see this plan as refreshing for folks used to SSB and Builds.
Here’s the first three weeks:
Looks like these are adjusted to individual PL’s too. Here are the same weeks of 8wk HV for me right now.
2 Likes
I disagree: regardless of whether or not you get a coach, you should strive to learn more yourself so you can give better and more informed feedback — whether to yourself or your coach doesn’t matter.
I have to say that this is the most confusing aspect about “polarized” training: it has morphed significantly over time and people on the internet keep arguing in circles also because they have different conceptions of what it actually means.
Personally, I don’t think it is too helpful to reduce the number of zones from 6/7 to 3 (in actuality often 4 if you distinguish between higher and lower) and now apparently 2 (easy and hard). It further muddies the water especially when “hard” rides are discussed.
Although I’d argue that the 2-/3-/4-zone system is still a bit of a smoke screen and decidedly unhelpful: in practice you’d still delineate between sweet spot, threshold and VO2max workouts. That is, you’d still use Coggan’s 7-zone system to characterize the “hard” efforts. I’d also distinguish between recovery rides and endurance rides — both are easy, right? (To be clear, I’m not arguing against anything you said, just airing some grievances I have had with Seiler’s approach to classifying efforts.)
2 Likes
I accept your challenge - I have a 1 zone model, which I call “riding your bike, and enjoying it”. 
In all seriousness, I think for some descriptive uses, the lower zone count is appropriate, and in particular for the kind of studies Seiler did that started all of this, I think 3 was likely the most he could have used to actually categorize the workouts from various sports. I also think that this surveying of athletes makes the counting of workouts reasonable vs time in zone, as the time in zone is likely not available for many of the athletes. The difficulty is going from these somewhat imprecise descriptive observations, to prescriptive plans, which is what many of us want.
3 Likes
Bingo.
I agree, as far as I can tell the motivation for that came from other sports where quantifying efforts is either impossible or at least not as easy. There is no running power (only attempts as far as I know), ditto for cross country skiing or high speed ice skating.
But cycling is different in that we can quantify our efforts very, very precisely. Forcing the cycling square into the round hole is not a good fit. Plus, it makes a difference whether your “hard effort” is sweet spot, threshold or VO2max. Polarized plans (at least the way TR has implemented them) incorporate both, threshold and VO2max workouts. Zones should help you understand, plan and structure your workouts. Seiler’s 2/3/4-zone system doesn’t deliver IMHO.
the guys have stated again and again on the podcast that they believe sweet spot training is the most efficient not the best. most of us are time poor and simply dont have enough time to dedicate to a properly structured polarised plan to see the gains most of us are chasing. seeing that consistency is key when it comes to progression sweet spot training is easier to consistently fit into an otherwise busy lifestyle.
4 Likes
ridiculous
Unless you are a full distance triathlete, and then the gains you seek have a TR cycling path that includes a lot of endurance training. Okey dokey.
1 Like