Carbonfiberboy 

Google is your friend. You could start with "hypoxia red blood cell production" and go from there.

biciklanto

This is all really interesting to me. As an undergraduate student working 15 hours a week, I realistically have a lot of training time, and I've wondered what'd happen if I just kept upping my training time. I've always intuitively liked the idea of lower intensity and higher volume—you get to see more, for one!—and when I was much younger even subscribed to the Maffetone Method of riding aerobically for as much time as I possibly could.

I'm preparing for a couple of sportives this year (Tour of Flanders / L'Etape du Tour) that require me to be in pretty good shape, and what I'm seeing here seems to encourage more time in lower intensities, and more specific and higher intensity workouts in the upper zones. Were it not for the fact that I snapped my derailleur hanger last night and it being a public holiday today, I'd be out now.

Carbonfiberboy 

You never replied to my suggestion that you do a little research. I had a few spare minutes this morning, so here you go:
Daily Peloton - Pro Cycling News
https://www.clinsciusa.org/cs/098/0039/0980039.pdf
Note that's just one 3' interval. I think 3 X 3 is better.

As an addendum to the above PDF, I used to sell my plasma as a research standard for perfect about once a month. I guess it's pretty good or at least used to be. That's technically known as plasmapheresis. My hematocrit stayed around 45, without doing intervals. So that works as advertised. I don't think there's a downside.

and for you pros out there reading this (and of course you have doctor who'll help you out) there's this:
Molidustat | BAY 85-3934 | CAS#1154028-82-6 | prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor | MedKoo Biosciences
Undetectable EPO stimulation?

no sweat

Interesting, thanks. As it happens, I have a pulse ox. I ran myself into the ground on the trainer in 3', three times this evening. HR well above LT, P O2 never went below 95%. My (made in USA Nonin) pulse ox did have some trouble tracking pulse above 150, which may mean that's a worthless data point... I'd have to dig for info on that.

Carbonfiberboy 

I'll give it a try tomorrow. Haven't tried it before because I'm scared to try to do that and read it on the rollers. Maybe I can find a position that works. I use a separate recording HRM. Heck, they paid me for the plasma . . .

no sweat

Good luck (I'd use a spotter!). Yeah... bad HR = bad P O2, so I have an invalid test. But 95% (which I did record with a valid HR) was still a significant drop from the steady 99 - 100 I was showing in Z2.

Man (just based on a quick survey)... what a(n apparently) ripe area for abuse. Glad I'm in this sport for health, well being and fun. Not really too interested in all those risk factors associated with high hemocrit.

Carbonfiberboy 

Well, either we don't know what we're doing or the folks in the study were a little different:
(EIH: Exercise Induced Hypoxaemia)
Maybe it takes some really incredible legs!

Or those finger oximeters aren't accurate at measuring what we want measured. Mine measured HR accurately most of the time. In the study, they used a forehead sensor rather than finger. Beats me. On my best 3' interval, I was panting hard for 1.5 minutes, with the last minute spent accelerating hard, right at my limit. The ox said 98%, dropping to 97% for a few seconds after the interval. Nowhere near the <91% described in the study. My HR was 6-8 beats over LTHR, maybe 6 beats below absolute max.

Once I figured a way to tie the ox onto my finger, I didn't have any trouble on the rollers. Felt kinda good to play at being the kilo man again.

OTOH, I've always figured that VO2max intervals do their work by stimulating RBC production and 3' intervals are the standard for that. So . . .

GeorgeBMac

Or, maybe a third possibility:
VO2Max is restrained by two criteria: 1) The body's ability to take in oxygen. 2) The body's ability to utilize that oxygen.

The test was restricting the athlete's ability to take in O2 by subjecting them to high altitude and forced a hypoxic state much the way a person with COPD or pneumonia becomes hypoxic -- they simply can't take in the oxygen (in their case because it just wasn't there to take in...).

Conversely, you may have hit the limit on your body's ability to utilize the O2 it had taken in (rather than its ability to take in O2) and thus your O2 saturation remained steady....

In the study, it sounds to me like they were actually trying to replicate the conditions whereby those starved for O2 by things such as COPD generate additional levels of endogenous EPO...

no sweat

A couple of you guys sound like you have medical backgrounds. I don't.

A couple of questions: what happens to blood pH during really vigorous exercise? Does dissolved CO2 (carbonic acid?) cause the pH to go more acidic? Does this have an effect on the hemoglobin oxygen saturation curve? Maybe that's why a really committed athlete can force his PO2 sat to drop?

I wish I had some time to delve into this... I simply don't right now (I'm a working stiff, and...).

GeorgeBMac

I would have to go back to my medical books for a definitive answer. But, off the top of my head: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) is produced by muscles at work (its what the lungs exchange for oxygen when you breath). As you exercise, the CO2 builds and combines with water (H2O) to produce Carbolic Acid which is unstable and generates bicarbonate (HCO3 plus the extra H).

The body however is both very finicky about maintaining its acid/base balance and very capable of maintaining that balance.

The body has various ways of maintaining that balance -- one of which (the primary method) is respiration. As you breath, the lungs expel the CO2 -- which decreases the whole reaction. And so as you exercise you breath harder to expel the CO2 and return the body to equilibrium. Surprisingly to most people, the body triggers the pulmonary system to breath harder NOT because of a lack of oxygen but rather because of an excess of CO2! That is, the body does not have a "pulse ox" meter -- it uses a CO2 meter instead to determine how hard you will breath!

If respiration fails to return the body to its preferred equilibrium state, it then goes on to other, more extreme measures of maintaining that balance. In the end, the body either maintains its acid/base balance or it dies -- so it takes that chore very seriously and has multiple methodologies always in readiness to maintain that balance.

Carbonfiberboy 

There's a third thing that enables both those other things: the body's ability to move oxygen, i.e. RBC count. Which is what they're trying to increase through various legal means. High hematocrit is the key to increased performance.

The skaters who got down to <91% for 30" were only at 1000 meters, their home altitude. That's not high altitude. At 10,000', I can get my oxygenation down to 93% without too much stress, so that does work of course. Never tried long anaerobic efforts at altitude. But I don't think that's quite what was going on for the 1000 meter skaters.

One of the interesting things in this study was the failure of simple hypoxic exposure to increase RBCs. Recently researchers have been saying that the whole "sleep high, exercise low" strategy actually does't seem to produce results. Your $10,000 hyperbaric tent maybe was a waste of money.

So I'm going with the "not strong enough" idea. Can't use the oxygen fast enough. Or maybe can't transfer the oxygen fast enough. Need stronger legs, be able to make stronger anaerobic efforts, then need more RBCs to move that oxygen into the muscles. Kind of a chicken and the egg thing. They don't say what distance these skaters specialized in . . .

So this all takes us back to looking at results rather than theories, which says that 4 X 8' worked best for polarized trainees, for whatever reason.

GeorgeBMac

Yes, I agree that transport is part of the process -- and an important one. But my point was that one of their variables was in fact restriction of O2 input by increasing the elevation:
"Five athletes cycled for 3 min at supramaximal
power outputs, at each of two different elevations (1000 m and 2100 m)."

And, yes, their main outcome was an indirect factor of transport:
"Despite similar
degrees of arterial desaturation, only the hypoxaemia induced by exercise was associated with
an increase in serum Epo."

But, that is the danger of these highly controlled studies because it is well known that those who actually live at O2 depleted higher altitudes compensate for it via increased levels of hematocrit/hemoglobin to more efficiently transport the reduced quantity of oxygen they are able to bring in...

So, what did the study prove? Perhaps simply that exercise induced hypoxemia stimulates the production of EPO...

Carbonfiberboy 

Exactly. We were trying to verify their results, but were unable to do so. Typical, eh?

The problem with trying to use altitude to increase EPO is that exercise capacity is reduced at altitude, so living and training at altitude results in reduced performance at lower elevations. Then upon returning to lower elevation, the body immediately scavanges out the unnecessary RBCs. It takes ~2 weeks for even a Tibetan to de-acclimatize. Ordinary folks much quicker.

denvertrout

I figured I would give an update after training with this model for the past month and a half, and hoping that there are others who will do the same...

All but 3 rides (the only ones outside so far this year), have been in zone 2. For me that means 125-135 bpm. I have not worried about power/watts when riding.

My results -- On the trainer, I am now 2 gears higher at the same cadence at the same heart rate 125-135 bpm. My resting heart rate has dropped. My exercising heart rate drops much quicker than it used to when I slow down. My speed has increased on the trainer and outside, at the same heart rate. On my fast group ride that I have been doing for 2 years, I am on the front, with the fastest group that always pulls ahead of the rest. I used to be there, but now it is much easier. I have lost 6 pounds while eating breakfast twice, lunch twice and snacking before and after dinner. I have also found that riding indoors at 135bpm is much more of a workout than outside at the same heartrate, (not sure why that is?) maybe lack of airflow??

Anyway, wondering if anyone else has stuck to this training style and if so what are you finding? Expect that my lactate response will be greatly changed the next time I get tested.

DaveLeeNC

Interesting information. Can you share how your total volume of work over this time period was different from what was 'normal' before - thanks.

dave

Carbonfiberboy 

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.

GeorgeBMac

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).

denvertrout

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

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.

biciklanto

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.

no sweat

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!

Igualmente

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.

Carbonfiberboy 

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.

wphamilton

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?

Carbonfiberboy 

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.