I agree with everything your wrote except maybe this part. Five minutes might be a waste, but gunning for the 2 min rest interval is also missing the point. Resting however long you think you need to complete the next interval is the goal of these types of sessions. So 3 minutes, for example, should be fine.
2 Likes
In my mind it’s a good starting point, that is all. Maybe it’s a bit too high for some, but it could be too low for others. As you’re suggesting, there is no prescription of 108%.
I couldn’t agree more that the intensity has to be self-selected. The goal of any of these sessions, whether they are 4 x 4 minutes, 4 x 8 minutes or 4 x 16 minutes, is to go as hard as you can for the duration, keeping an even effort: If you can’t do it adjust downwards until you can, or if it was too easy, adjust up.
Mike
4 Likes
I wouldn’t try to combine Seiler’s zone description to use it as prescription for his interval research.
100% of VO2max definitely doesn’t line up with HR Max.
1 Like
Yes, I think the point here is that all of the tests are estimates of LT2 and, depending on the individual, could be out by a considerable margin.
As it is, to carry out these intervals, you don’t even need to know what you FTP is - you just need to be able to go as hard as you can for 4 x 8 minutes without a significant drop in power.
My own experience is that the ramp tests probably over-estimates my LT1 but self-prescribing the intervals as a percentage of that makes it much easier to do on the trainer and, since the ramp test is easy to do on a regular basis, I can track progress and adjust the intervals accordingly.
Mike
1 Like
I don’t understand this? I was explaining where I believe the 108% came from. Have you looked at @mcneese.chad’s chart?
That’s what Dr. Seiler said on the FLO podcast. Just listened to it again last night.
A 6 minute max effort may generate HR Max at the very end, but absolutely does not line up with it. And a 6 minute effort may or may not line up with VO2max. And as such, 90% of VO2max does not necessarily line up with 90% of HR Max and most likely will not.
There is a reason that Seiler is a research scientist and not a coach.
1 Like
Fair enough.
I see it this way: the goal is to induce a greater total training stimulus per workout. The studies showed that 4x8 were optimal and 2 minutes rest were sufficient. So to me it makes sense to lower intensity slightly to allow for the highest training stimulus in the shortest amount of time possible. Get in and get out. Especially if you’re trying to polarize the sessions. But I agree with you, being a stickler for exactly 2 minutes is probably missing the point.
2 Likes
I recently questioned this because my own abilities at MLSS/FTP are lacking compared to my VO2 abilities. Thing is, as with all zones, VO2 has a very wide berth – ~110-130% FTP. If my ceiling is 124% I might find doing FTP-based VO2 intervals much easier than someone with a 114% ceiling. Whereas my low-ended/untrained Threshold capacity would make the 108% intervals very hard for me.
As the Seiler subjects were “recreational” we can assume their VO2max was also untrained, i.e uncorrelated with MLSS/FTP. I can only assume that with training, the “weak” zone would become more correlated with MLSS/FTP.
Yes, I see your point. The average HR for 6 minutes will not be at HR max. But if you look at the studies, the intervals the athletes performed for 4x8 minutes were solved at ~90%± of measured Vo2 max and ~90% HR peak. Which is why I believe he made that statement. But I am neither a scientist nor a coach.
I will admit that if I could start my cycling life over at the very beginning, I would go polarized. There are adaptations which years of compounded “vast amounts of aerobic miles” provide that other training methods just can’t, or at least don’t do as well. One would be the ability to ride at a higher percentage of VO2max for a longer duration (think pro riders or 108% intervals). This can’t be achieved doing VO2 intervals. But I can’t start over so I’m picking the next best thing – TrainerRoad.
2 Likes
I would simply caution against using the “descriptive” as “prescriptive”.
The “prescription” was “go as hard as possible for 4x4, 8, 16min” and the description was the HR and VO2.
If you plan on using HR and VO2 as your “prescription”, you are doing a different interval than what Seiler was comparing.
1 Like
What you’re saying is, if you take descriptive as prescriptive it can quickly get restrictive?
1 Like
This is not true afaik. The studies for these intervals were done on both “trained” and “well trained” individuals.
But yes the subjects were able to perform at higher % of peak power as the 7 weeks progressed, indicating you can get better at performing these intervals. Interestingly the HR peak did not increase over the 7 weeks but the RPE did.
This seems to be the consensus. Albeit finding your MLSS/FTP is not as straight forward as we would like it to be, unfortunately.
For me, the conclusion I’ve personally come to is, I cannot simply take a ramp test and use a percentage of that FTP for 4x8/2 Vo2 Max intervals. I can use it as a starting point, but it will have to be through trail and error to find a repeatable power number. But I am not married to that number and might have to adjust session by session. I will also not feel I’m missing the mark or a less fit cyclist if I cannot maintain exactly 108% of my so-called FTP for 4x8 minutes. I know my HR max pretty well, and if I see it going up too high as I progress throughout the interval I’ll dial it down a notch.
I see others have also come to this similar approach.
1 Like
I don’t see a problem with using the description as a prescription.
If that was the result of the research and they saw the most improvement through those methods, that’s good enough for me. When the athletes “solved” the workouts that way, and the numbers showed it was at about 90% of Vo2 max or about 90% of peak HR, then that’s a pretty good starting point for me. When Dr. Seiler himself recommends using 90% of HR peak or 90% of Vo2 max for these intervals, then that’s a great target for me to aim for. Sure I don’t don’t know my exact Vo2 max but I know my 6 minute power and my HR peak. So I take it from there.
I 'm not quite sure what you are cautioning against. Please expound if you wish.
1 Like
We are all using TrainerRoad - the best thing 
you can still apply a more polarized method to your training while still using TrainerRoad.
1 Like
#1. It’s a single study that hasn’t been replicated.
#2. Mental priming is a thing. Not going to go into detail about this since it’s for a different day, but the way you set up a subject in a study and the way you think about performing a task will affect the outcome. Thinking “I’m going to go all out” versus “I’m trying to hit 90% max hr” can produce different effects in the body.
#3. This study is comparing interval durations to each other. Whether 4x8 is actually good for your personal training is a whole different discussion.
At this point, I’m going to remove myself from further Seiler/polarized conversations. If people want to discuss further with anything I’ve posted, PM me.
1 Like
It seems to me the for anyone wanting to pursue a polarised method of training, then a Lactate Test using the Power Meter you normally use could be one of the best training investments you could make. I’ve just seen that at our local University they are available for £80
2 Likes
Yes I’m looking into getting one. Would be very cool to explore.
Me too. Can get LT & VO2 tests for C$200 total. But only makes sense to do if you plan on doing multiple follow-up tests ($$$).
Fine by me. I don’t think the purpose of this discussion was to debate the validity of Dr. Seiler/ polarized training or the research involved abd how that applies to individual training etc. There are enough threads already on the forum. My comments are directed specifically at the OPs question regarding experience with 4x8 intervals at 108% FTP.