Quality over Quantity vs. 80/20 (or Chad vs. Matt ;))

Training
439

I would definitely give it a go, at least do a proper old school base period for at least 8 weeks if you can afford the time.

The beauty of Seiler’s model is the top of zone 1 (3 zone) corresponds to your aerobic threshold, not any power output or percentage of FTP. It has nothing to do with FTP. It’s so easy to do Seiler type training with just an HR strap. Yes, 65-70% of HRmax is a guesstimate but I think it gets you into the ballpark. It’s not like you will find some magic fitness adaptations being 5 beats in either direction. You could get a lactate curve test to find it more exactly.

I feel like this training method has totally transformed me. I’m 53 and my FTP has gone:

FTP @ 95%

03/14/2017 198
11/21/2017 222
11/1/2018 243
04/30/2019 231
06/18/2019 259
11/22/2019 272
now guessing 285 (based on the way I’m riding, setting new PRs on Strava right now without even trying)

By mid-May, after 10 weeks of polarized I was busting all my PRs on local climbs.

So I went up 40 points in FTP through the year but most importantly my endurance improved enormously. I was no longer wrecked after a 3 hour group ride.

As I said above, I started my base phase a few weeks ago and I’m setting all new PRs and have gotten 2 Strava KOMs in the last couple of weeks. I don’t know why I have this January fitness. I wasn’t even going for those KOMs at 100%. I added weight lifting to my routine starting in November so maybe that explains the new found fitness.

What I do know is that those LSD endurance rides are my bread and butter. I add a bit of high intensity to it and I get good, sustainable gains. If I was killing myself doing sweetspot 3X per week plus a group ride I’d be exhausted, fatigued and not improving.

440

I can’t train by HR as I’m on a beta blocker that seriously reduces my HR ceiling. I have to train by power alone. That’s why I was asking about the 65-78% of ftp recommendations as per Chad’s chart.

441
  • You’ve mentioned the 65-78% of FTP a couple of times, and I am confused where you see that?

Primary 3-Zone Chart: (from the “Full Models” tab)

Alternate 3-Zone Chart: (from the “Simple Models” tab)

442

Your bullseye shows 78% with the next number below it being 65%. Am I reading it wrong?

443

I see, you were bracketing from the 78% down to the next step of 65%. But note that the “General Info” section includes “About 70% HR Max, 65% VO2 Max” as part of the “Low Intensity Bullseye” info.

That step from 78% to 65% FTP on that chart is a byproduct of the goal to capture the noted points of interest from the podcast. As such, the 65% can more from the “65% of VO2 Max” in the podcasts. It just so happens to align with the FTP at that point, but is not “exactly” the boundary of the Bullseye.

The “Bullseye” is a name I used, to cover what I saw as confusing language by Dr. Seiler in the podcasts. See the excerpt I wrote about the term and intention at the bottom of the chart.

“Bullseye” refers to a spot that Dr. Seiler says is rewarding for the training time done there.

  • This is not necessarily a preferred area in the zones for many riders.

  • I chose “Bullseye” to identify the area of interest, replacing “Sweet Spot” as used by Dr. Seiler in the podcasts, because Sweet Spot is commonly used with the 7-Level model. That shared term lead to confusion between the training models, so I designated a unique term for the 3-Zone model.

As you can see in the “Simple Model” version, I broke the cells at 5% steps of FTP, to see a more linear spacing within the Zones and Levels. For that, you see a Bullseye that ranges from 70-75% of FTP cells. I did this as a more broad sweep in that display.

The whole Bullseye / Sweet Spot from Dr. Seiler was is a bit wishy washy in the podcast. He never listed a range, just a single number for each in the Z1 & Z3 sections. So taking that wider is a guess on a rough estimate (meaning kind of likely for error?). I have had several questions about it over the years, and it all makes me want to strip it from the charts. It seems to lead to more questions than answers.

If you want, I can try to identify the part in the podcast where he mentions it, but be careful about taking his Sweet Spot (my Bullseye) too literally. I think it is likely overly restrictive and narrow to be used for the entire range of Z1 work required. Point being that it is one place of many that can and be used for Z1 (Low Intensity) training as part of a Polarized approach.

Using the broader range from 40-80% of FTP, and more likely 60-75% of FTP range, may prove more practical and effective for some riders. I am no coach or expert, and make no prescriptions here.

I tried to distill the data from the Fast Talk podcasts into a complied chart, that can also be cross-referenced along side the Dr. Coggan 7-Level model.

444

Thanks for the explanation. It’s very much appreciated.

445

Based on the discussion, I removed the basic coloring of the Bullseye section. But I left the main comments in the “General Info” section, and the notes below, since I think it is interesting info. But I think removing the direct highlights may prevent confusion in the future.

Thanks for your use, comments and discussion. I know the charts aren’t perfect, but things like this help me try to make it better for me and anyone else wanting to use it :smiley:

446

Thanks for this. I’ll give it a go over the next 12 weeks

447

You just experienced the MAF Method. :+1:

448

Those percents of FTP seem way too high. 200 watts for a rider with a 256 watt FTP doesn’t sound like low intensity. When I ride at Seiler’s 65-70% of HRmax I’m only putting out maybe 100-125 watts and my FTP is 275.

I wonder if % of FTP is even meaningful at lower sub-threshold intensities. I could see a scenario where two riders have the same FTP but put out a very different wattages at LT1.

451

I thought that was what a Conconi test was for?

452

That’s not what Coogan says. He always posts some chart showing how everybody rides at the same %FTP for many hours. I looked around for it just now, but can’t find it. Maybe somebody else knows what I’m talking about and can post it?

454

I see, you were talking about HR? I thought you were agreeing w/ AJS914 that %FTP wasn’t meaningful at long distances?

455

I’m sure age is also a huge variable. My HRmax is 177 at 53. 25 years ago when I was racing, I’d hit 205.

456

Found it! It was in one of the webinars Coogan did when WKO4 first came out.

image
image1069×797 136 KB

457

I thought the Conconi test found LT2. And I’ve also read that there are disputes on how accurate it is even for that.

460

I was just thinking the exact same thing. I’ve used MAF with running, but not cycling, and had good results.

461

As I understand it the first deflection point should be equivalent to LT1. I have looked at my ramp tests and also performed a modified version with 3 minute steps. From a single measurement I have found it difficult to identify a clear LT1 heart-rate but by looking at a couple of tests I think my LT1 could be in the upper 130’s, probably about 138. My max HR is ~170bpm so roughly 80% of that. Translated to %FTP it makes more sense; My FTP is 243 and 138 bpm is at ~180w which is 75% of FTP and lines up nicely with Chad’s sheet.

462

I think going off % of max HR or FTP is a more reliable way to estimate LT1, vs trying to eyeball a chart.

In a previous job I had 20+ years ago, I spent a decent amount of time trying to determine a mathematical approach to identify breakpoints is charts. It’s very hard to do reliably. The human eye has a way of seeing trends it wants to see, that are not there when you try prove it using appropriate math.

463

Agreed. I also don’t think an exact percentage of max hr nor FTP is very important when building the aerobic base as long as you’re in the ballpark. I usually close my mouth and breath thru the nose for a minute to make sure I’m not riding to hard.