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.