Great thread guys.

But, why is zone 4 or above considered "dead end road for racing" in this context?

Ago Velox

So, did you stay with the Super fast and super hard ride group and was this actually detrimental to your program?


Ago Velox

Only training at the high end is bad because you're only training your anaerobic energy system. You won't have the power you'd have if you'd trained your aerobic system a lot more than you'd trained anaerobic.

I am currently doing all zone 2 on the trainer and rides on my own. Interestingly enough, zone 2 is not super easy, and like someone else mentioned, I started off not enjoying my rides. That is changing. I feel fresh before, during and after riding. To answer if I am still doing those hard rides the answer is yes, because I love them, and I to note I am at the front at any point in time I want to be, which is different than previously. I consider this my 20% hard riding.

I am seeing results with training in zone 2.....I enjoy riding fast and hard much more......but I am training to race....and who better to guide me on how to train than a former pro.

You can't do enough volume in zone 4 to fully develop aerobically, and you will never get enough recovery to make your zone 4 work really hard/fast. You end up pretty good at going 23mph, a dead end for a racer.

I posted this somewhere before, but I think it's worth another look, even though it's more about zone 1 than zone 2.

Case study. I assume the guy's focus was time-trialing.

Very short version: former Norwegian pro soccer player, Knut Anders Fostervold, took up cycling and, after training very intensely for a couple years, he did "well". After ~2.5 years of doing lots of 4min zone 5 intervals, he drastically altered his training by cutting his zone 5 stuff heaps, increasing his z4, and more than doubling his time on the bike, almost all of which was done by quadrupling his time in zone 1.

After 18 weeks of his new program, he improved markedly, and eventually got himself on the podium of the Norwegian road TT national championships, beaten only by 2 pros, one being Thor Hushovd.

Summary (sightly longer version): before his training program was modified, he was doing 45mins/week of 4min intervals in zone 5, no zone 4 stuff, some zone 3 (~30min/week), and a few hours a week in both zones 1 and 2. His new program cut the zone 5 stuff dramatically (to 5min/week), increased zone 4 from nothing to 40min/week, increased zone 3 a little, cut zone 2 work to very little (to 1hour/week), and virtually quadrupled his zone 1 work from ~4hrs/week to ~15hrs/week!!

The revised program resulted in an increase of his Vo2 by 11%, and his threshold power increased 14%!!

It should be mentioned that the guy has a naturally high VO2, and was possibly frying himself for the previous 2.5 years with all the Zone 5 intervals, right? Also, perhaps he simply needed a change and/or a 'rest'. Perhaps the intense stuff built a good foundation.

Longer version (the article):
-----------------------------------------------

Case study #1
From Soccer Pro to Elite Cyclist

Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training

"Knut Anders Fostervold was a professional soccer player in the Norwegian elite league from 1994 to 2002. A knee injury ended his soccer career at age 30 and he decided to switch to cycling. Knut had very high natural endurance capacity and had run 5 km in 17:24 at age 12.

After 15 y of soccer training at the elite level, he adopted a highly intensive training regime for cycling that was focused on training just under or at his lactate threshold and near VO2max; for example, 2-3 weekly training sessions of 4-5 × 4 min at 95 %VO2max. Weekly training volume did not exceed 10 h.

After 2.5 years of this high-intensity, low-volume training, Fostervold initiated cooperation with the Norwegian Olympic Center, and his training program was radically reorganized. Weekly training volume was doubled from 8-10 h to 18-20. Training volume in Zone 2 was reduced dramatically and replaced with a larger volume of training in Zone 1. Training in Zone 5 was replaced with Zones 3 and 4, such that total training volume at intensities at or above lactate threshold was roughly doubled without overstressing the athlete.

The typical effective duration of interval sessions increased from ~20 min to ~ 60 min (for example 8 × 8 min at 85-90 %HRmax with 2-min recoveries). The intensity zones were initially based on heart rate but later adjusted relative to lactate and power output measurements made in the field. Table 7 shows the training intensity distribution and volume loading for the athlete during the season before and after the change in training to a high-volume program. Table 8 shows the outcome.

Table 7. Comparison of weekly training intensity distribution and total volume in 2004 season and 2005 season – Case 1.
Intensity zone

.Zone...................old program.............new prog
(%HRmax)..............hours:min..............hours:min
5 (95-100 %)............45m (8.5 %)..........0:05m (0.5 % of week)
4 (90-95 )................0..........................0:40m (4.0 %)
3 (85-90 %).............0:30m (5.5 %).......1h:00m (5.5 %)
2 (75-85 %)............3h:05m (36 %).......1h:00 (5.5 %)
1 (55-75 %)............4h:20m (50 %)......15h:20m (85 %)
Weekly totals...........8hr40m................18h:05m

Table 8. Physiological testing before and after training reorganization – Case 1.

...................Pre......after 8wks......18wks......improvement
VO2max.........81............90................88...............11 %
VO2max........6.8............7.3..............7.3................7 %
LT power......375w.........420w............440w............14 %
W/kg-1:........4.5...........5.2................5.2..............15 %

The athlete responded well to the training load amplification and reorganization. During the 2005 season, after 2.5 y performing a low-volume, high-intensity program, a season training with higher volume and lower average intensity resulted in marked physiological and performance improvement. Although the athlete’s training de-emphasized both training near his lactate threshold intensity and training at near VO2max, both of these physiological anchors improved markedly.

Fostervold won a bronze medal in the Norwegian national time-trial championships, seconds behind former world under-23 time trial champions and Tour de France stage winners Thor Hushovd and Kurt Asle Arvesen. His failure to perform even better, given his exceptionally high VO2max, was attributed to poorer cycling efficiency and aerodynamics and a lower fractional utilization at lactate threshold compared to the best professionals with many years of specific training. In 2006 and 2007 he represented Norway in the world championship time trial. His absolute VO2max in 2005 was equal to the highest ever measured in a Norwegian athlete.

This is a problem though. We don't know if his power went up because he doubled his volume or because of the changes made to the time in the various zones. Those zones look a little different than the Coggan/Allen zone percentages.

Another question: Did he mostly just increase his volume without changing the regimen much at all?
Specifically: He shifted from 45 minutes/wk of Z5 to 40 minutes/wk of Z4 -- although, because of the increase in total volume, the percentage to the total changed substantially. But he added 11 hours a week to Z1 with only a 1 hour reduction to the total of all the other zones.

Another interesting thing: he decreased his time in Z5 (95-100% MHR) while adding substantially to Z3 & Z4 (85-95%MHR). It seems to me that Z3 & Z4 might be the sweet spot for high output cycling since nobody can really maintain Z5 for long...

This guy's top of Z1 (75% max HR) puts me at about 190 Watts on my trainer, which is 73% of my FTP and near the top of Joe Friel's Z2. It would put me well into Z3 on smart phone apps designed to appeal to vanity.

Heaven only knows what 75% max HR implies for a world class athlete with 440 W FTP, but it's bloody obvious that it involves quite a lot of respiration, metabolism and power.

Thanks for posting. Interesting stuff.

We also don't know what else he might have done in training, such as explosives and weights. It seems to me a bit odd because it's hard to develop the leg strength to TT well and pretty much only ride in z1. We also don't know if he would have done even better had he used the polarized recipe. And finally, his metabolism and talents may be such that what he did is peculiar to only him. We just don't know. That's the problem with anecdotal accounts.

There might be more info in the rest of the article, but it's bloody long :D

It also spends a fair bit talking about running
Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training

Now that the holidays are mostly gone (not much of a New Year's Eve kind of guy) and company is gone, it was time to resume training today.

I had been off for a week so was well rested. This workout was to be indoors and a typical workout under these conditions might have been something like 70 minutes on the trainer with half or more in (as defined by Joe Friel) Zone 4 or higher.

While I don't yet have a plan in place I am going to try a 'more Polar approach'. So today was 95 minutes with almost all of it well below Zone 4. It felt kind of weird to be so well rested, yet do such an easy workout. Interesting to see how this goes (and what my ultimate training plan looks like).

dave

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...

Somewhere in the middle of the Seilor lecture video that kicked off this thread, is a reference to a single study of 'more normal athletes' where the results, surprisingly, showed similar advantages to training via a more 'Polar approach'.

dave

That's a good point. Most of these studies have a selection bias, athletes with naturally high VO2. Don't think there is a magic percentage, it boils down to how well you can recover? Take an 8 hr week, 25% of that is 120 min so that would be 12 x 10m or 24 x 5m intervals spread out over that 7 days. Myself I know that I would be challenged doing 4 really good quality 3x10 workouts in 7 days.

I've tended to hold a constant % of volume as high intensity (15% to 20%), cycling overall volume up and down. Rather than hold my low intensity work volume constant and pile more or less high intensity on top of that. I don't think this needs to be "perfect". As long as you find an approach that lets you recover & keep the quality of your intervals high you are going to get fit and be able to maintain some consistency.

I believe the time percentage is supposed to be 90/10. So in an 8 hour week, you'd have 48 minutes of z3 (above VT2) work. So one day, you'd do 4 X 8 (32 minutes), and then you'd include another couple 8' intervals in one of your endurance rides. 20% of workouts, not time, are supposed to be z3. The z3 intervals are intended to be done in a separate workout, which may or may not work, depending on the number of workouts one does per week. I think that's doable for most folks, but one would have to try it and see. I think most folks' experience is rooted in doing mostly z2 riding and then trying to add in that much z3 stuff, which would overtrain one very quickly.

I started polarized training for the first time when this thread was published. So far, I've mostly done zone 1 (below VT1) with very little z3 (above VT1) work, and no z2 work, partly because I've had the flu for 2 weeks but am almost over it now. And partly because I'm still ramping up endurance hours and want to get my aerobic zone better before I start really working the anaerobic end. Some athletes in the video did almost no z3 work for quite a while in early season training so I'm OK with that. IME z3 trains up much more quickly than z1.

Just looking through my GC data for the past 3 months (GC uses a 7 zone approach):

12% Z4+
10% Z3
78% Z1/Z2

I recently subscribed to Joe Friel's newsletter. His most recent newsletter was relevant to this thread.

In 1999 the U. of Montana did a 2 year study using 14 amateur (but clearly serious) cross country skiers. The first year they performed an exercise regime of 12 hours per week of 'Polarized Training' with roughly 17% being at/above Lactate Threshold (or in this context at/above FTP I assume).

The 7 who responded "the best" to this training were called "high responders". The others were the "low responders".

In the second year the 'high responders" continued with the previous year's training regime. The 'low responders" ....

1) Dropped their total training volume by 22%
2) Upped their above LTHR training to 35% (which is larger by EITHER a percentage measurement or a absolute time measurement)

After the second year the 'high responders' results were unchanged. The 'low responders' results had caught up with the 'high responders' group. Of course this implies that, to the question, "which is best" the answer is "it depends".

Responses to training in cross-country skiers : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise is a link to the (somewhat dated) study.

Joe Friel - What?s Better for You: High Volume or High Intensity Training? is a link to this particular piece of Friel's blog.

Interesting (IMHO).

dave

Yes, that is interesting.

An unanswered question is, "How did they do it?" During the second year, the control group (high responders) had a TRIMP (TRaining IMPulse) total of 91,013, while the treatment group (low responders) had a TRIMP total of 102,023, 12% more TRIMP! For those of us who use a Performance Manager, TRIMP is equivalent to TSS. If I were able to recover well enough to peak at a Chronic Training Stress that was 12% higher, I would sure as heck be faster. So that's how they did it. Not a great mystery. So how were they able to recover from what is effectively a 12% increase in training? More talented? US program too regimented, not allowing athletes to self-select training volumes?

The researchers do question what would have happened had the treatment group increased their TRIMP volume by that same 12% (which is in addition to the prescribed 6% annual increase) while using the previous year's distribution of intensity? So the treatment group increased their TRIMP by 18%? IOW did the treatment group just need a greater challenge to develop their potential, which could very well be greater than the potential of the control group?

There's also the technical question of the difference in reps done during weight training by the two groups. The treatment group used fewer reps during the endurance phase of the weight training program than did the control group, and used 3 sessions per week rather than the 2 sessions used by the control group. This is in line with current thinking, to use 15-30 reps during the endurance phase. Again there is the question of recovery talent or perhaps prescribed training volumes rather than athlete-selected volumes.

So, what do we think is the main reason this guy improved? The increased volume? The 'rest' he got from cutting almost all of the z5 intervals? The increase of z4 work? Or a bit of all of the above?

Interesting question. Something missing from a lot of these study summaries is a measure of the quality of the high intensity work. My experience has been this goes up because you are fully recovered.

I think a big limiter for cycling is the burden put on a few muscle groups to get the necessary aerobic work in for the whole body (vs say XC Skiing). Getting in the volume w/o breaking down your legs is a real balancing act & I think polarizing gives you more margin for error.

Guess I'm saying I think both, don't think they can be separated.

Thanks. Interesting. Your bit about balancing volume with not hurting the legs too much reminds me of another anecdote; this one about Freddy Rodriguez from the Weight Weenies forum:

"Freddie Rodriguez, who won his fourth national road race championship in 2013 at age 39, does virtually all his training in zones 1 and 2; as in, over 95 percent. He is adamant that people train too hard, putting too much stress on their bodies (leading to injuries), and requiring too much recovery time. In fact, his preparation for the US Championship last year was four weeks of z2 with zero time off until taper time. The lack of high intensity allowed him to ride daily and bolster his aerobic engine. That consistency, he believes, is more beneficial than interval sessions.

That's not to say he doesn't do higher intensity work. He gets some of that while racing. But even at nationals, he rode most of the race in z2, and crept up into z3 and z4 only when climbing the hill on the circuit and the final sprint (obviously). But when he trains, it's virtually all z1 and z2. Just go through his rides on strava to see that in action.

In his view, intervals are only necessary to reach peak performance after you've maxed out your aerobic engine, which he believes most people (including many pros) haven't done. That means being able to ride in z2 for hours without heart rate drift.

So yeah, he does consider z3 junk miles. Z1 burns fat. Z2 develops the cardiovascular system and teaches the body to more efficiently burn fat as energy. Z4 improves the body's ability to manage lactic acid. Z3? You can ride in Z3 and build endurance in Z3, able to ride longer in Z3, but it doesn't make you more efficient or faster. That's the theory, anyway. Freddie's success, particularly at his age, lend it support.
SST & Riding Tempo & Training in "No Man's Land" - Weight Weenies


So yeah, anther anecdote about a talented rider; is it useful? I suppose at least it's interesting. As expected, the Weight Weenies thread consists of many counter views. The thing that stands out to me is that he was in zone 2 for most of the national champs race!!! WTF?! :D Either he was doing it on his ear, or the race was unusually slow. I've only done criteriums, but I doubt that I've spent more than one second in zone 2 in a race.

It's been my understanding that a key to developing aerobic power is to increase hematocrit by causing new red blood cells to be created. This is what exogenous EPO does. However, it's also my understanding that this is the purpose of Z5 intervals: to create sufficient oxygen debt for the kidneys to kick out endogenous EPO. Hence the emphasis on doing that Z5 work. IIRC one has to get oxygenation down to 87% for this to happen, usually done with 3X3' intervals. I have an oxymeter which I've used for altitude training, but haven't experimented with it on the bike.

I haven't read any research suggesting that high volume z2 work would have the same effect.

refs please? That's a pretty interesting line of research.