Update for me:
All my training is with my wife, because we're a tandem team. We are 134 y.o. We've been polarized since 12/13/14, about when this thread started, though when we started the program we had the flu for 2 weeks. We started with 6 hours/week and are now up to 10-12, including 2 hours of whole body hypertrophy weight workouts. My body weight is down 1-2 lbs. Upper body is more muscular, lower body no change. We're doing all z2, as much as our bodies will absorb, including the 2 hours of weights. This, our 7th week, we had to take a couple days rest: body weight down, MRHRs up, hunger up, poor sleeping, etc. So at our age, it's possible to overcook it while staying in z2. We've tried a little z5 here and there, but nothing like 10%, and we haven't done a real interval series. We're always too tired.

I haven't noticed as much change as denvertrout, perhaps because I've been riding doubles and brevets for many years, so I was already fairly fat-adapted. However, now I'm more adapted. I eat about half of what I used to eat per hour on these long z2 rides. We have a tandem Strava account. Our average Strava watts for z2 rides of around 40 miles and similar elevation gain has gone from ~138 to ~152. On the tandem this means we are now cruising at 18-20 on the flat in z2. I know, we suck, but not so very bad for a 134 y.o. mixed team. My personal hrTSS on TrainingPeaks has gone from an average of 350 before starting the program to an average of ~525 the past few weeks.

We are doing 2 weekend group rides and do workouts on 3-4 weekdays depending on how bad we are on Monday. On our 2 strength days, we've been doing 1 hour of z2 on our rollers or trainer, and then going to the gym for the strength work, sometimes right after, sometimes many hours later. Sometimes we do OLP workouts in z1-2 instead of the steady state.

I'd planned to do z5 intervals on rollers and trainer on one weekday, but when that day comes, we just don't have the energy for it, so we haven't done it. We've been taking Fridays off, and seem to be more able to go hard on Saturday.

We plan to keep doing this same thing until about the end of March, trying to gradually increase weekly hours. Then we will cut back the volume a bit, start doing z5 climbs on one group ride, and switch to strength weights and fewer exercises. Or we may switch out the weight work earlier, IDK.

Our goal isn't racing, only to do better on events and tours.

Comments and suggestions are appreciated.

I've been alternating days of:
one day: 40 minutes HIIT (including 10 minutes each of warm-up & cool-down), followed by 15 minutes cool-down & stretching, then 40 minutes of weight training (mostly upper body).

2nd day: 40 minutes of steady paced treadmill or trainer at z2 level, then 15-20 minutes of light weight training. (Or, alternatively, once or twice a week, 2-3 hours of downhill skiing.)

And, most everyday: 30 minutes of stretching and core strength (including some rehab of my still recovering right hip & leg)

All of which compares to what I had been doing: 75 minutes most days (5-6 / week) of outdoor cycling in mixed z2, z3, and z4 in a bell shaped curve.

I find my weight is stable or maybe increasing a bit (that could be that I'm no longer monitoring my intake), my resting HR is down from 60 to 50 and my BP is down from mid-120's to mid-teens. Also, I find my 2nd & 3rd intervals are getting stronger. Plus I feel better and stronger in all ways (mentally, skeletal strength, cardio fitness, energy level, etc...)

... But, I suspect most of the benefit is due to simply upping the intensity from the moderate level to the intense/vigorous level (and I count weight training in the intense level even though it doesn't show that on a heart monitor).

Total volume is a bit higher than prior. I have ridden 23 out of the 28 days so far this month. Two days of snowboarding thrown in there, and a couple days of too much kids stuff. I have not done any intervals, except counting my 3 outdoor rides as zone 5-6 work at times. I did a FTP 20 minute test, (wish I had done this prior to this training type), and what I learned the most is that I can sustain 163 bpm for 20 minutes, that is the very top of zone 5 for me.

I lift legs once a week, followed by 30 minute zone 2 spin at the gym. My legs have hurt for the past 3 seasons, that has not changed one bit, but what has is my lack of fatigue. My legs are not tired, they just are sore like always. I don't eat on rides, never did, and am working on drinking more when outside. My goal is racing, and from my results so far can't wait for the season to start.

CFB - what are you doing in the gym when lifting for 2 hours? My leg and upper body workout is under 30 minutes. I don't know what hrTSS is? Increasing numbers area good thing? I was a pure "sugar burner", when it came to riding. What my test also showed was that at low HR I burned fat really well, I just never worked that prior to the past month. I think that is a big source of weight loss. I tested at 12% body fat, that has certainly come down.

I have a buddy I ride with that crushes me. He rode over 11,000 miles last year. I asked him the other day when he is just cruising along at his normal pace, 23-24mph on the flats what his HR is? 120bpm. He is the epitome of this type of training. He goes at that pace all day long without thinking about it. That is my goal!!! I am getting much closer to him in just this past month and a half.

We've been doing body recomposition work to get our lean muscle mass and metabolism up, and thus lose some stubborn belly fat. Seems to be working. We've been doing 9 exercises, different ones for each day, 3 X 12, failing the last set on each of them. We're at it for about an hour twice a week. On some exercises we have to trade sets where there's just one piece of equipment or we want to spot each other. We move right along and can hardly walk when we're done. Even so, I don't count them as intensity.

hrTSS = heart rate training stress. It's a number like a TRIMP (TRaining IMPulse) which the software assigns to each workout, depending on how much time was spent at various HRs. Yes, higher is more work. Our double last summer got me a 645 hrTSS.

That's my dream. I have 10,000 kilometers in my legs from the past couple of years, and I want to ramp up the volume. But when it keeps alternating between snow and frozen sleet and it's 2 degrees outside, it makes it very hard to do the sort of fun long rides that I love.

Soon. Soon.

Being winter, I decided to experiment and lose my Z3-oholic ways for a while. So 90% of what were Z3 trainer rides have been Z2 for about 6 weeks.

I didn't really like this to begin with. No endorphin buzz. I found an hour of Z2 to be weirdly fatiguing in the upper legs.

After 4 weeks, I noticed that I was becoming more efficient in Z2. Lower HR at fixed power and maybe a little more power at VT1. Now at six weeks, that trend continues. I haven't been doing any HIIT, so this really hasn't been polarized training, per se.

This week I thought it was time to dial things up and get a sense of where I'm at performance wise and figure out what I want to do for the next six weeks -- which is roughly when I'll be able to get outdoors again. And I like what I see. The best quantitative A/B comparison I have is on a 5 x 3 minute HIIT session with 3 minute recoveries, 30 minutes total. I did this workout yesterday and flat out killed my old performance from November. I'm up 7% on average "on" power... but I'm up 20% (kJ) for the whole session. My ability to continue to put power down during the recovery phase is just *amazingly* improved and I was able to hit the same average power for all five intervals, which I have never done before.

I'm not training for racing, but I do have a goal this year, which is an honest 25 mph 1 hour ITT on a closed course. Well, it's loftier than that, even. It's 25mph on a 90% effort, because I really don't like to suffer all that much, lol.

So the plan is obvious. Keep the Z2 and add HIIT twice a week. I'm going to be fast this year, yeeeee-hah!

Interesting to me that you mention that. I've been doing a polarization of easy efforts (75-80% maxHR?) and hard efforts (90% maxHR) on rollers and I am finding my legs far more achy towards the end of the hour-long easy sessions. Sure, the hard sessions with the 4x8minute intervals are challenging, but my legs don't really ache (though they feel more tired the second day) even though those hard sessions last as long as the easy once warm up, cool down and recoveries are added in. But the easy efforts, which are really easy from a cardio point of view, become challenging starting around the 55 or 60 minute mark because of my legs. I kind of wonder if it is a saddle issue as the ache seems to start around the sit bones and then adds in the hamstrings and then the calves and then seems to be everywhere.

Same here. The VT1 roller rides have become more comfortable as well as faster over time. I think I could keep going for well over an hour now but that's not on my schedule.

I had been wondering if the polarized training would have any effect without the intensity pole. It looks like you've been seeing some gains without intervals?

Oh yes! Big gains, but not so much at the high end. OTOH, the high end comes up by far the quickest. Nancy's speed on her trainer at VT1 is up from 7 mph to 11. My speed on my resistance rollers is up from 16.5 to 18.2.

Carmichael puts it this way (paraphrased): Imagine you have a straight string of all the intensities, from zero at one end to 100% at the other. When you work at a particular intensity, you pick up the string at that point and make a graph of improvement something like that. However when you increase your VO2max, the whole string raises, since power at every intensity is a function of VO2max.

I rather doubt that it's that simple. Experience says that it is not, at least in terms of endurance. When we have done climbs recently of up to 8 minutes in zone 5, it's been easier for me to hold the intensity than it has been in years. And for Nancy, it's now possible. I'm not sure that we're faster in zone 5, at least not yet, but we passed a relatively fit single on a 15% grade the other day.

Oh yeah, I really doubt it is that simple. Just as that polarised training is not the only--or best--way to train for each and evert individual.

A very good and informative site about the importance Zone 2 training can be found here, here and here.

Especially the last one seems to make a lot of sense to me. With regards to Carmichael's idea of "pulling" from the VO2max side, I think it is important to "pull" and "push" from all zones occasionaly.

While I started out rather polarized this winter (80% Z2, 5% Z3 and 15% Z4/Z5) I found the lack of Z3 training holding me back. Although all the Z2 training did allow me to have a proper base, the next 2 months I will increasingly incorporate Z3 as well. Aiming for (70% Z2, 15% Z3 and 15% Z4+).

Mind you; I'm 28 y/o, been riding for just over a year again somewhat seriously and ride 4-7 hours on the trainer only during the winter. Once the spring comes I will probably start logging 8-10 hr/wk.
My goal this year is to increase my base significantly so that next year I might compete in Crit/Road Races and Cyclosportives here in Europe.

No real performance goals this year, just improving my Power at VT1 (or LT or AT) and Power at FTP (or MLSS or VT2). (I say power but I don't have a powermeter yet maybe next year, I ride by HR).

Good links, Dutch, thanks!

The first link is confusing and much of it is just plain wrong.
When we discuss anything, the first thing that is necessary is to define our terms. There are two basic systems of zone definition currently in use. The most common is that popularized by Friel and others, consisting of 5 numbered zones. The polarized system uses only 3 numbered zones. These two systems approximately coincide at two points along the intensity continuum: VT1 and VT2. I say approximately because in the Friel system, zones are defined as percentages of HR or power. In the polarized system, the zones are defined around VT1 and VT2, rather than around HR or power.

In the Friel system, VT1 is approximately but not exactly the boundary between zones 2 and 3. VT2 is the boundary between zones 4 and 5.
In the polarized system, zones 1 and 2 are separated by VT1. Zones 2 and 3 are separated by VT2.

The first link conflates the two systems. Early in the article, it states that the upper boundary of zone 2 is at LT, which approximately coincides with VT2 depending on how LT is defined. As I said above, in the Friel system, LT is the upper boundary of zone 4. The rest of the article than describes training in zone 2 as though it were in the Friel system, including a recommendation to train for 2 hours at the upper boundary of zone 2, which is obviously impossible and certainly is not an "endurance ride" in anyone's vocabulary. Zone 1 is not even mentioned.

The second link is a mishmash of confusing verbiage. For instance
This after defining zone 3 as above LT. No one recommends this even in Friel's zone system. These are called junk miles.

The 3rd link continues the confusion and misinformation. For instance
Both these statements are known to be false and are mistaken interpretations of studies in the early 80's. For instance take the (5) linked study:
Does this sound like the glycogen depleted subjects increased their LT? It's the same with the other link: simply nonsense.

Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true or that the authors understood their subject. They have obviously confused you about VT1 and VT2.

Not to say that training in zone 4 in the Friel system is a bad idea at all. I trained that way for years, logging an hour or so in zone 4 (Friel) every week and many hours in zone 3 (Friel). I switched to polarized this year because all that zone 3 and 4 left me without enough energy to ride much in zones 2 and 5 (Friel). I was fast enough, but lacked power at the high end and endurance at the low end.

Oh, I think something went wrong here, and quite possibly due to all the different Zone-definitions and LT-definitions. Probably my fault for not pointing out, sorry.

The articles actually use Coggan's 5 (HR-)zones; so their Z2 ends (roughly) at VT1. Their Z3 is (roughly) between VT1 and VT2, and their Z4 around VT2 and their Z5 above VT2.

However, where things get more difficult is their use of LT. They describe LT as the FIRST lactate treshold (when lactate in the blood rises but is still stable) , which again roughly coinsides with VT1. For the second treshold (at VT2) they use the term MLSS (above this point lactate accumulation is no longer stable and you muscles fatigue quickly).

I can imagine, being posted in this thread it can become confusing very fast, but with the previous mentioned knowledge they actually are not that far of of what you mention.

Where they do differ is that they say that it is also worthwhile to train and ride in Coggan Z3 (polarized zone 2) because of the slightly different adaptations in that zone compared to below Z2. And I think that they are not very wrong with that. They describing it as "pushing" power-output up by riding below VT1 and then "pulling" it up by riding between VT1 and VT2.

Translating that further:
Means being able to ride between VT1 and VT2 for three consequtive days. (They note that it is actually very difficult.)

My personal experience so far is that just riding below VT1 and occasionaly above VT2 just misses out on adaptations that are also useful for my conditioning. Especially considering the time available to me to ride polarized (again in my opinion and experience) just isn't as effective as training in all zones occasionally.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way CFB, I always find your posts very meaningful and informative, but I just think you misunderstood the site.

Another quick reply on this bit.

I completely agree. Last year pretty much all my training was Z3 (Coggan) or "Sweetspot" borderline Z4. Just rides of 60 to 90 minutes blasting around the lake. It left me tired all the time and when I did longer rides I was terrible after 120 min because my body was so inefficient.

That's why switched to polarized this winter, after reading this thread. And the principle still holds! I'm sure my body has become much more efficient by riding lots below VT1. It's just that I feel that for my riding style I feel like I'm missing out because of lack of riding between VT1 and VT2.

Thats why I swithched (am switching) from (polarized)

• 80% < VT1
• 5% between VT1 and VT2
• 15% > VT2

To a more (traditional?) diffused:

• 70% < VT1
• 15% between VT1 and VT2
• 15% > VT2

In the hope to maintain the gains from the low intensity (polarized) and add the gains from moderate intensity (especially because my time is limited to 8hrs max).

I've been trying to understand all of the training info in this thread, but I think I'm getting tripped up in the various zone definitions. How are you calculating the zones you're riding in?

I find it amazing that you're going 18-20 in (what *I'm* thinking of as) Z2! ... and, then, you qualify that by stating that you suck! :)

I didn't think I was *this* out of shape, but for me to stay in Z2 for an entire ride, I'd have to stay in my lightest gears and I'd probably be going all of 10mph! :)

My understanding of zones (up to now) had been that Z1 is practically doing nothing (pretty near resting HR), Z2 is the Recovery zone, Z3 the Aerobic zone (and best fat-burning zone), Z4 the anaerobic zone (good for pushing your anaerobic threshold up) and Z5 is basically your max. Am I using different zone definitions?

I think of Z1 as Recovery, Z2 as Endurance/Aerobic, Z3 as Tempo, Z4 as Threshold, and Z5 as Supra-Threshold (basically VO2Max and higher). Those are HR-based zones assuming you know your LTHR. FTP-based Power zones are similar except that Z5 gets broken down into additional zones (V02Max, Anaerobix Capacity, and Neuromuscular).

Even though I train with power, I tend to focus on the HR zones for recovery and endurance rides. Usually my Z2 pace will be around 19mph or so. Power zones are most useful for intervals and threshold pacing.

For the purposes of this thread I'm using Z2 to refer to below VT1. I mostly don't calculate these zones. No need, since it's obvious to me when I'm above and below VT1 and VT2. As folks who train with power are constantly pointing out, HR values in the various zones will vary with time spent in a zone and with recovery, etc. The top of my Z2 (VT1) will vary between 118 and 126 depending on how rested I am. Same speed on my resistance rollers, so same power, but different HRs. My VT2 will vary between 142 and 148, depending. I do calculate Z1, since there's nothing there to tell me where it is. I use 72% of LTHR or 65% of possible MHR. For illustrative purposes in this paragraph, I'll say my LTHR is 146 and my MHR is 162, though as I said, that all varies.

So for purposes of using this thread, the first thing to do is to find one's VT1 and VT2 and try to relate those to your HR and, power or speed on your rollers or trainer.

A tandem has only about 1.5 X the resistance of a single bike on the flat, so it's normal for them to go faster than one might think for the power they're putting out. We once had the opportunity to draft a national champion tandem team for about 15 miles on a fairly flat road at speeds between 28 and 30. We were working quite hard. They described their effort as "faster than sightseeing." So like the song says, "compared to what?" The captain's back was hurting, so they did pull over and let us pull them up the last rise. We were like ecstatic and solidly in Z5.

That said, the more time you spend being very disciplined about staying at a constant effort just below VT1, uphill, downhill, and on the flat, the faster you'll become in that zone.

I'm very curious to see what happens when the weather gets better and we enter our "competition season," which is just us beating our brains out trying to hang with or defeat our usual riding companions.

Thanks for explaining that. It wasn't clear.

Looking back through my records, I was unable to find 3 days when I had done that. By the 3rd day my Z3 had definitely fallen off and my Z2 increased. Effort was the same, so if I had been using power it's possible that I have succeeded. But definitely not using HR. I've never recovered well. Not part of my resumé.

I'll see about the rest of it. Since I don't compete formally, I can experiment on myself all I want and just for my own enlightenment. The Norwegians make a pretty good case: train below VT1 to lower lactate production throughout the intensity range. Train above VT2 to improve lactate clearance, the glycolytic pathway, and raise VO2max. Since the aerobic and glycolytic pathways govern the entire intensity range below a full sprint, these trainings benefit that entire intensity range. Or so they say . . .

Here's a new video by GCN, thought it would be germane to this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTuaxOGdeXU

I rode my first century of the year yesterday. Stoker was sick, so I had to ride my single. I did very well. In a group of ~100 very experienced long distance riders, only 2 guys much younger (20-30 years younger?) than I could stay with me when I wanted to go. I put in a lot less time in zone 3 and twice as much in zone 4 compared to when I rode this same century last year. Plus I had ~20 minutes in zone 5, whereas I had 0 in that zone last year. For me, the polarized plan has worked very well. My VO2max is obviously up and I have decent endurance. This was my first ride this year of over 50 miles.

In lieu of a power meter I am thinking of using my HR monitor, which will also record bike speed, to do a fixed test on the rollers once a week to gauge my progress. Rather than go by HR I can use the same gear every time ( after a suitable warmup ) maintaining the same speed for a fixed duration. I should be able to track how my HR corresponds to my effort.
Does anyone here track performance like this?

I have a set of rollers with resistance which gives me a speed for effort similar to riding on the flat outdoors. I hold VT1 and let the speed vary. Until recently, I've been training almost entirely at or below VT1 since mid December when this thread was started, I've picked up my hour's average from 16.7 to 18. I have no incentive to hold the speed and watch HR, since that doesn't tell me much or contribute as much to training impulse. My VT1 HR will vary between 118 and 126 depending on the time of day, training load, time on the rollers, and who knows what else. But speed on my rollers is a direct analogue of power and VT1 is a good marker, better than HR IME. IOW, the change in speed had nothing to with variations in HR, which average for that VT1 hour on the rollers hasn't varied much since December.

If you want to do a test, about once a month do a CTS Field Test on your rollers. That will track your overall improvement.

Hey CBF, maybe this is an oddly specific question, but could you tell me how that HR (118-126) relates to your LTHR (or HR at FTP)? Is it for instance in the 80%-range or lower/higher?

Lately I've been rethinking some things and I was wondering this. Also maybe you could tell me how to determine VT1 (and VT2) more accurately based on breathing.

For example (my LTHR is 175), suppose I was to do a sort of ramp-test, starting out at a very easy HR of 115, with very easy breathing etc.
And if I increase resistance slowly, say 20bpm every 10 min (2bpm/min), what should I notice in my breathing to make me say: "Hey! This really feels like my VT1!" ?
And then the same for VT2?

Last time I did this I thought I had it at 153bpm or thereabouts, but at 87% of LTHR it seems too high maybe?

I hope I made my self clear, thanks in advance!

For me, LTHR is usually quite clear, but VT1 not so much. My usual VT1 is 83%-85% of LTHR. We can't really tell our VT1 without testing our blood for lactate, but I think I'm close anyway. Keeping up a steady hour of it on the rollers, i.e. holding HR about the same - maybe climbing 1-2 beats, my legs never burn but are starting to ache some at the end. I use the alphabet method: if I can recite the alphabet comfortably in one breath, I think I'm at or below VT1. Just a couple beats higher and my breathing rate picks up quite noticeably.

I think VT2 is easy to tell: it's when I can no longer breathe deep and fast - I start to pant. It's quite uncontrollable for me. I have to pant when I'm over VT2. Breathing deep but controlled and I'm below it. LTHR is just a bit below VT2 for me, maybe 2-3 beats.

Great. That helps a lot. Thanks.

Like I said, last time i did it I was able to hold 153 for an hour after a slow 20min warm up. It felt like I would have been able to continue for another hour maybe. It's funny actually tjat that is mid-Z3 in Coggan HR zones. And now Seilers zones seem to make much more sense. Doing this for most of the time is hard.