In fact, prior to Pog winning the Tour and more attention on ISM from the rank and file rider, guys like Jonathan Vaughters actually called it “high Zone 2”, to differentiate it from “just ride lots of endurance and race” style of training more popular in the World Tour.
Interestingly in HighNorth polarized article, they have seen good results going more polarized in over 100 “time-crunched” athletes at 5-8 hours/week. An example polarized week at 5 hours would be 1 hour vo2 day Tuesday and Thursday, a 2 hour endurance ride on Saturday, and 1 hour (fasted) low-cadence tempo ride on Sunday: Polarised Cycling Training: A Detailed Guide — High North Performance
re: your 8 hour dividing line. I’m averaging close to 8 hours/week this year, with big loading weeks up to 11+ hours. For the year (Jan 1 to Oct 19) the split is 75% low, 22% mid-intensity, and 3% high-intensity in a 3 zone model. Its working very well for me.
On Strava the other day, Frank at FasCat posted that Optimize has been submitted to the App Store. So I will have access to it soon as my coach is with them. My initial reaction is simple curiosity, I rarely abandon a workout or feel the need to modify.
4 Likes
ISM seemed to suggest that one could see significant performance gains with 5-7 hours a week, depending on your fitness levels.
1 Like
I am doing a High North plan right now for a 12 hour mtb race next year. First time dipping into this “style” of training but I love it. I’m around 8-9 hours. I just feel really good. Actually found them because of one of your mentions somewhere
1 Like
Polarized?
2 Likes
Their words not mine! They do say something about having to modify polarized principles given time constraints, or something like that.
This thread could have been titled Pedantic Semantics. But, then again, so could most of the internet.
8 Likes
I was the same with the SS being the same as Z2.
4 Likes
I’m just using numbers like 5-6, 8-12 and over 12 as convenient dividing lines for discussion. I think those are common weekly training times for people.
From what I’ve seen, in the 5-6 hour arena, folks do pretty well with a couple really hard days a week. Some can add a third. The rest of the time is just riding along “endurance”. But I’d bet that 1 hour “endurance” rides aren’t doing much.
Interesting what High North is finding. So 2 days really hard, one day of pressure work (high torque). That’s not a bad way to spend five hours of training time.
Am guessing they are saying it works well compared to other 5 hour plans and not that those athletes reach higher levels than if they had more time and a different structure? Hard to know as we get back to how much potential is being extracted with a plan/ program and since we can’t know potential, all we can do is switch athletes to a different program and see if they improve. But in real world, if all you have is 5-6 hours, you can’t do 12-15 on a different structure and see what happens.
Limitations stink!!!
I do other “stuff” including some intensity. It’s just that in base, and with enough time to commit to riding, accumulating time in that LT1 and 2mMol power ranges yields a good fitness at a reasonable fatigue level. To sharpen for racing I still need a build block with more focused threshold and supra threshold work. But a focus on ISM type work seems to build a better foundation for me. Everyone is different though so need to experiment.
Looking back on decades of training, if I’d been more aware of the LT1 / ISM 2mMol stuff earlier in my life, I think I’d have done better and for longer periods.
All of this stuff is about trying to get more bang for your buck. Optimizing the hours spent and progress toward your goals. I think what we all want is to spend time and effort as wisely as possible. But, there is no singular answer and we only have ourselves to experiment on. Hence all the anxiety about using our time and years as wisely as possible.
In some ways it’s a curse. The simple pleasure of riding a bike can be spoilt by training knowledge and too many discussions like this one!!
Cheers,
Darth
13 Likes
I agree that comparing single sport to triathlon is a little tough. I know there are aerobic gains from swimming and running, so my 5 hours riding is probably equivalent to somewhere between 5-11 hours riding 
. My training protocol came from my PT. He specializes in rehab and training endurance athletes. He recommended it because I have a history of reoccurring calf injuries, so lower intensity was to help me get to the starting line healthy. I followed this basic weekly structure:
- 3 swims per week. 1 hard and 2 easy
- 3 runs per week. All easy, all governed by heart rate. This was to try to reduce my chance of injury. My average easy pace was around 9:00 min/miles based on my LT1 heart rate. I was shocked when I ran a 6:51/mile 5k in my sprint distance race following this protocol.
- 3 rides per week. One hard workout approximately every 10 days.
I used AIEndurance to find my LT1 heart rate. They use an HRV ramp test (I know there is debate about how accurate that is). I pushed watts and pace at a heart rate just below my LT1, which raised my floor a lot and helped me stayed healthy for the entire summer (first time in a while).
While this worked for me, I understand it might not work for everyone. I do not believe there is a one “perfect” way to train. Endurance sports are a long game and consistency is key. Whatever keeps you on the bike, out running or in the pool consistently (without injury and too much fatigue) is the best training plan, in my opinion.
4 Likes
Any thoughts as to which is more effective for time crunched cyclists - the ISM approach or Polarised training?
I guess real polarized and time-crunched do not go well together as you would need loooooooong easy rides for polarized. The question is than more ISM Z2 vs. SST.
5 Likes
Interested to hear thoughts on this as well… I did do a short block of SST last year and found it made quite a difference to fatigue tolerance.
Can we just start calling ISM Zone 2 Coco Pace and Coggin Zone 2 Maria Pace from now on to avoid confusion?! 
13 Likes
Sure, if you only have 3 hours a week, then you need to push that intensity, but 5-6 hours and above I believe that you’ll probably be better off with a model with more Z2.
Yes.
Basically you need an hour or so of hard (z5) interval training per week. Adding any other time and it will be low intensity or you’ll burn out.
So if you have 3 hours a week it looks Pyramidal/Sweet Spot and if you have 20 hours is looks Polarized but the main training block is exactly the same. There may be some specific training in the gym added into the mix.
1 Like
For the life of me I wish cycling coaches would come to a consensus on Zones. The 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 zones is just crazy talk someone creates to try and sell training plans and books.
2 Likes
Or at least name their zone system and each zone differently. The idea that all of these use the same naming scheme is confusing and annoying…
1 Like
I get what you’re saying but then they would have to all agree on a coaching system, and why would we expect that? Most of the discussion and confusion around this stuff comes down to ppl trying to reconcile two different systems. This isn’t a “why can’t we all just get along” thing. It is a competitive sport. If I think I have a better way and I want to use specific terms to describe it, I’m going to do that.
If you’ve only ever dealt with a single zone system (most ppl on this forum, I’m guessing), that might surprise you. It’s understandable, as a single, codified zone system A) simplifies things for self-coached, B) gives a sense authority and objectivity to something that is neither, and C) …I forgot my third point.
Anyway, they merely exist to assist athlete-coach communication. As long as they make sense to the two individuals involved in that communication, they work. If you’re self-coached, you likely don’t need a zone system anyway. I know how to talk to myself.
4 Likes
I’m not familiar with an HRV ramp test - are they essentially running a ramp test until something changes in your HRV? I had thought there was barely even consensus on HRV as a recovery metric (measured at rest), let alone during exercise - so I’m curious about this. Perhaps HRV in this case stands for something else entirely…
Probably referring to using dfa alpha 1 for LT1 estimation
1 Like