Questions for Stephen Seiler interview (Polarized Training)

There’s so much out there on this at the moment, it’s easy to miss it. For me, personally, it’s also hard to believe.

I’d encourage everyone on the TR community to keep an open mind and really listen to what Seiler says and not try to strawman him. He has never said that there is one way to skin the cat or that “sweet spot doesn’t work” - on the contrary, he explicitly recommends 16min intervals at “sweet spot”. His argument is that what he sees is too much training below anaerobic threshold/FTP creates a lot of sympathetic system stress that builds over time and leads to training monotony (he has a favorite horse study he often quotes about training monotony). This is perhaps why we “periodize” (which itself is a controversial topic, especially for amateur athletes - Mikael addresses this issue a number of times on his podcast for the curious).

Instead of trying to amateur hour outsmart an established expert and “prove” sweet spot, we should take a seat back and listen to what he is trying to teach us and how he can inform our training.

8 Likes

Not something I’ve heard, however there are more Seiler podcasts on my playlist saved for a future listen.

The few podcasts I’ve heard Seiler talk, if memory serves correct that he was pretty explicit “sweet spot = zone 2” and should be avoided. At least on Fast Talk episode 54 where he defined zones.

Are the 16 min intervals you are referring to from the Seiler/Joranson/Olesen/Hetlelid 2013 “Adaptations to aerobic interval training…” study involving 37 recreational cyclists?

Because Seiler isn’t a coach, my question for @Mikael_Eriksson is to ask Dr Seiler the following questions:

  • which cycling coaches have adopted polarized training?
  • do those coaches only use polarized training, or do they only apply it to certain phases of the training year?
  • do those coaches use sweet spot and/or tempo training with their athletes, and if yes, during what phase of the training year?
  • I’d also like to hear what Dr Seiler thinks of Sebastian Weber’s remark (paraphrasing here, from EP#169) about how if sweet spot training works, and polarized works, they both have something valuable to offer and which to use depends on the specifics of the athlete at a particular point in time (its similar to Joe Friel’s comment on Fast Talk episode 68 podcast)
3 Likes

Your work (Seiler) reflects some insightful commonalities among endurance sports. Do you see any high level and noteworthy differences? For example, in what ways should we approach training the run (for example) differently than bike and swim? (e.g. two per day sessions). Does it differ outside of triathlon?

Does the effectiveness of the polarized model vary based on athlete profile?

For example, if an athlete has high VLaMax, will polarized be effective/sufficient to raise FTP?

The chart below indicates that sweet spot intervals are effective at reducing VLaMax. Polarized does not include any sweet spot - is this a “flaw” in polarized training for an athlete with high VLaMax?

Looking forward to the interview!:+1:t3::+1:t3:

2 Likes

Which would be preferable, 1 by four hour ride or 2 three hour rides back to back at the weekend, and why in terms of adaptation etc

1 Like

bbarrera - the article you point out has the 16min intervals at 88% of HRMax +/- 2%. For me, that is high-end sweetspot work to just sub-threshold. I think that’s what I was going on. FastTalk episode 68 has some discussion of this, but I don’t remember exactly where in the episode.

3 Likes

I wouldn’t necessarily look to Seiler for that, his realm seems much more performance focused. For a mix of fitness and health/longevity I would recommend reading more into the coaching of Maffetone.

Simon Ward has an interview with Phil Maffetone if you are interested Simon Ward and Dr. Phil Maffetone

  1. how to combine weight training with the HIT training recommended in a polarized training plan? Do weights count in the “high intensity” quota?
  2. What is his opinion on the efficacy of ‘micro intervals’ of say (30s on/15s off x ~10) instead of solid blocks of 8mins?
1 Like

I’ve yet to hear him answer it directly or even speak about evidence that addresses the real question:

What evidence is there that a polarized approach is more effective than sweet spot at low volumes (4-7 hours) per week? I don’t doubt that you can improve following either approach, the question is which is most effective in this specific case and that which applies to a majority of riders…

1 Like

How much intensity (mid/high) is too much – both in terms of training stress and cumulative duration (i.e. builds over time)?

I would like him to comment on Lance Armstrong’s podcast comment that was something like:

you should train below FTP to raise your FTP but if you train above FTP you will lower your FTP.

It seems to imply very little time above FTP in training but does not hint at the distribution of training zones below FTP. You could apply this practice either through a lot of Z1 (i.e, endurance) work or relatively fewer hours of Z2 work (i.e., SS) or some combination of the two. Could you comment on the distribution of training below FTP to elicit the biggest gains in FTP if you agree with Lance’s comment.

everyone is in love with 4 x 8. Wrote a blog about it and am still using the other intervals when appropriate. How about everyone else, what did you decide to do? Thanks!

Complete Polarized Cycling Training Guide, With Calculator | EVOQ.BIKE

2 Likes

Hey Mikael,
Great idea to create this topic!
Most of the questions I had were already mentioned.
However, I would reformulate some in a very simple way.
Q1: is traditional periodification dead?
Q2: is Sweet Spot a conflicting training concept with the polarized approach?
Q3: what is his take on the front loading concept that Ronnestad has been working in?
Q4: if the adaptation to a consistent and prolonged stimulation will diminish in time, wouldn’t be a good idea to alternate polarized macro blocks with piramidal macro blocks with the majority of the stress in the Z3 region?
Take care and keep on doing a great service to our community!

1 Like

Does power/pace at LT1 compared to VO2 Max power/pace move much? As in, is the percent of max our power/pace at LT1 occurs something that can be improved with training or is it more static within an individual and only increases in conjunction with increases their in VO2 max.

For the Jan-Feb I’d just do those at longer durations; the 4m and then 1m rest is teaching your body to recover and rest during that portion of high intensity; that isn’t very realistic in my opinion.

200k rides will be amazing. Would love to be there Lol!

If you’re doing 20h weeks, you should REALLY do a full rest week; be careful with that!

Maybe change things up since you have lots of the same things going on over and over for 2 months; don’t get stale from the same stimulus.

If you want me to take a look at your training peaks set up i’d love to.

I start doing threshold (100%-105%) work closer to my events and vary the interval length based on those events. For example, I have a race in 3 weeks that is 80mi (all gravel) and features 5 “climbs” that are between 5-11 min long and a lot of rolling terrain throughout. I plan on riding these above threshold.

In the last couple of weeks I’ve been incorporating threshold workouts with intervals that are 8-10 min in length that are either at or above threshold and have me doing at least 40 min of total work. Those are on Thursdays. Easy Z2 ride on Wednesday, and longer (3-4 min) VO2 workouts on Tuesday. Weekends are reserved for long (3x20, 2x30) Sweet Spot rides.

I don’t have enough training to comment on efficacy of 4, 8 or 16 min workouts and how I adapt based on which I’m doing.

sounds like you are on a great path; i like the vo2max, z2, z4 set up throughout the week. For the weekends, try a 1 x60 Sweet Spot, that’s a great gravel effort!

keep me posted how things go!

I would add to the idea of crowdsourcing, that this would include women, who adapt and recover differently than men…so maybe their training should be different.

4 Likes

Has he killed off the need for professional coaches prescribing overly complicated training sessions to make their clients feel they are getting value when really all you have to do is train easy for a very long time and very hard for a short time?