Originally Posted by
hamster
I've seen Seiler's article before. The biggest problem I have with this approach is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logic. Pro athletes train 20 hours/week. They do so because they are pro athletes and they have nothing better to do. I am willing to accept that an athlete who trains 20 hours per week achieves optimal results when he spends 75% of the time in Z1. After all, there's likely diminishing returns to time you spend in higher zones. Question is (the talk alludes to this, but I don't see any evidence in its favor): is it still optimal to spend 75% of time in Z1 if you only train 8 hours a week, or is it optimal to hold Z2/Z3 time constant?
Good question, good point...
As with most things, when you change the foundation, the shape of the structure above it changes as well...
It seems that, since we know so little about human physiology, we often over generalize the few things that we do know... Much like 20 blind men touching different parts of an elephant and each claiming to know what an elephant looks like: which one is correct? The one touching the trunk claiming it looks like a snake? Or, the one touching the leg claiming it looks like a tree? Or, maybe the one...