Those are all pyramidal.
3 Likes
Yeah, interesting what he said about LT1. So if I understand him correctly, he’s suggesting that it has basically been arbitrary all along. It’s protocol dependent and therefore when you say LT1 you must attach the protocol to it. Moreover (and perhaps more importantly), nothing remarkable physiologically is happening there.
2 Likes
Hi, thanks a lot for the sharing! I’m doing some kind of self prescribed POL on my training currently.
I think it’s working. As you said, I felt on the edge when using the SS style TR plan. The fatigue is lot more manageable with POL.
Allow me to ask some questions
- When you’re in a POL, do you never did an ftp interval? Like 2x20, 3x15, etc
- What kind of recovery week did you do (and how) when in POL?
Thanks in advance 
1 Like
You’re being hyperbolic, correct?
Most folks here (finger in the wind estimate) don’t really do a lot of 4 hour easy rides … so the thought that you need to do 4 hours at tempo for it to be “hard” seems a bit much. I know Keegan said he did 4 hours, but he’s a pro rider … not a average guy like me.
I’m a big believer in long tempo — but the biggest session I’ve ever done is 2x90. The last two weekends I’ve done a 1x120 which I consider “hard” - and given my training volume, I consider anything that is 1x90 and up to be “hard”
Curious if the 4-hour number is based on something specific, or just an exaggeration.
LT1, LT2, it’s all smoke-and-mirrors.
1 Like
I’m not kidding. I’m the kind of guy to do 3x20 threshold workout and follow it with 80 minutes of sweetspot straight after.
Keep your easy days easy and your hard days hard.
2 Likes
Well then probably best to ignore what RONDAL and I said about 3 days in a row, over in the sweet spot progression thread!
Have a look at this method for estimating LT1
3 Likes
Can you link it please…
Yes they are, realised that went I attached the pictures after writing the text. Should have changed the text, it was getting late. All the weeks so far 100% pyramidal, moving the ‘blend’ / raitos of TiZ slightly. The weeks I mentioned as Threshold were actually recovery weeks and still pyramidal… a lot less volumes but still some intensity.
1 Like
On the face of it, I would tend to agree so I thought I’d try and find out what boundaries Intervals.icu uses for the different classifications. Here are the criteria in hierarchical order:
HITT: S3 > S2 and S3 > 0.499 x (S2 + S1)
POLARIZED: S3 > S2 and S1 > S2
BASE: S1 > 3.99 x S2 and S1 > 3 * (S2 + S3)
PYRAMIDAL: 1.4 x S2 < S1 < 3.01 * S2 and S2 > 1.4 x S3
THRESHOLD: S1 < 4 x S2 and S2 > 0.5 x S3
UNIQUE: None of the above satisfied.
(S1 = Z1 + Z2, S2 = Z3 + Z4 and S3 = Z5 + Z6 + Z7)
1 Like
It should be
POLARIZED: S3 > S2 and S1 > S2
PYRAMIDAL: S1 > S2 > S3
THRESHOLD: S2 > S1 and S2 > S3
I have not seen anyone in the scientific literature refer to TIDs of HIIT or BASE (or UNIQUE, obviously).
LT1 and LT2 are not smoke and mirrors.
They are quantifiable points along a blood lactate curve.
3 Likes
Yeah, they’re so quantifiable that there are only over two dozen definitions of “lactate threshold” in the scientific literature. 
Tesch showed 40 years ago that power outputs corresponding to various fixed lactate concentrations (e.g., 2 mmol/L, 4 mmol/L) were all highly correlated with one another, demonstrating that “differences between individuals in the lactate response to submaximal exercise are already evident at low intensities, and are maintained throughout higher submaximal intensities.”
Shortly thereafter, Jacobs demonstrated that simply measuring the blood lactate response to 6 minutes of exercise at 200 W was just as predictive of endurance performance ability as measuring OBLA.
LT1, LT2, the distinction is all smoke-and-mirrors.
1 Like
I agree. I’d also argue that the zone boundary between S2 and S3 is not the same as between Z4 and Z5, certainly when looking at whether the distribution is Polarized or not.
Mike
@old_but_not_dead_yet Do you agree or disagree with the following:
The historical use of LT1 is arbitrary but happened to be low enough that it served as a somewhat effective demarcation in terms of fatigue management, and high enough to incur an acceptable level of aerobic adaptations, given sufficient volume.
2 Likes
Use by whom? Coaches? If so, I don’t really know. Endurance training is endurance training, however, so I don’t see why you’d have to rely on it for the second use you mention.
As for the first, it is as good (or bad) as any other measure of “lactate threshold”.
Yes.
Fair enough. What would you rely on? Coaches have (and do) rely on this, so I’m trying to get to the bottom of it. The “crossover point of substrate utilization” has been one common justification, but no need to go there with me. I think that is old thinking.
I’ll say it a different way, if I’m not going to use something like LT1 (or some other “close enough” intensity), then I’ll just ride around slow enough that I feel like it’s slow. Why even have a power meter? It doesn’t tell me how I feel. My feelings aren’t arbitrary 
Does Seiler post his training or workouts anywhere?