denvertrout

I am looking for a lecture that was linked here that I watched, about an hour in length and was from this summer I believe. Was on a different forum, doh. I am trying to find it again, but do not know when or specifically where I found it before. Hoping someone else remembers it and can link me to it.

Training periodization. Deep-root cultural heritage and innovative paradigms (2013) - Managing the distribution of training intensity: the polarized model

DaveLeeNC

This is a very interesting presentation (I wish that it was in text instead of being a video).

About half way through my thought was "OK, for elite athletes training 20+ hours per week, a whole lot more easy training and a whole lot less (on a percentage basis) hard training is proper. Does this have anything to do with mere mortal folks who train much less - kind of doubt it".

Then at around 27:00 some data (kind of hard to figure out) is presented that says that even at much lower levels of training this same 'way more easy stuff' seems to work. It is hard to tell exactly what those levels are in that part of the presentation as total time was stated but not over what time period, but way less than 20 hours per week I feel sure.

I really wish that I had a text version of this thing - I think that it is pretty good stuff. Thanks for posting.

dave

Carbonfiberboy 

Wow - I'm blown away. Because I have never seen published data on how elite athletes actually train, I've always assumed it was a trade secret. I mean, I've you're a winner and you hope to repeat, why would you tell everyone exactly what you did to achieve your results?

I think he states quite positively that the proportions stay the same at the 8 hour level as at the 20 hour level.

I'm busily trying to figure out how to apply this to my training. That's not so easy, because it means cutting out a lot of the fun stuff, like long sweet spot climbs and long paceline runs.

One major omission was that it seemed to me that the exercise zone totals were for training only and excluded competition. If they included competition, I think the competition phase totals would look very, very different.

achoo

What's a plot of power/HR zones for a race look like?

I know my power profile for a race tends to be pretty even - about 10-20% in each zone, 1 through 7. Some races I'll have more at one end or the other - biggest disparity was a real short crit where I spent 52% of my time in z6 or z7 power.

Try to train like that and you'll burn out FAST.

denvertrout

I just did some testing with a former pro and he basically said the exact thing as this talk. I burn fat really well at low levels of exertion and then I switch to huge amounts of sugar as I move up in intensity. I have only trained at zone 4 or above for the past 3 years. He said that is a dead end road for racing. He advised zone 2 training, and stated that I will see physiological changes and become better/faster. He trains current pros and still races himself. In his mid 40's he is faster than when he was racing at the pro level. I have only given it a week so far, and mentally it is hard to go that slow. I rode at <130 HR for 2 hours yesterday, shifting down as soon as my HR started getting up. They only time I felt I could push a bit was going downhill. There is a group ride that I do that is super fast and super hard, I asked if that would be detrimental. Bottom line, I was told that I can train to train, or train to race. I am going with what he told me to do.

I questioned him about everything that I read is different than what he is telling me and that the video says to do. "lots of misinformation out there".

I had many follow-up questions after working with him, and this is the answer to one of them:
You mentioned your TT pace. Are you at zone 2 for a TT? In pro races when cruising along are those guys primarily in zone 2? and then kick it up when attacking, climbing, etc...?
Answer-
The normal tempo in Pro Tour is 5w/Kg. Yes, they are in Z2 here. The separation occurs at 5.5 paired down to 20 or so guys and then when you see the 2-3 guys off the front, that will be about 6.
In the domestic scene in States, the action here is at 4.5, so the levels are very different. TT’s are done in Z4. But my Z2 will be higher than most can sustain for 20min and I go all day long here as per definition.

Carbonfiberboy 

Here is a PDF of the study on which some of the talk was based:
https://www.antoniocgomes.com/wp-con...e-enduran1.pdf

DaveLeeNC

Thank you VERY much.

dave

Carbonfiberboy 

So we went out today and did a "group ride" on our tandem, except that we left about 15' before the group. I redid my zones using Friel's 7 zone system in TrainingPeaks. We tested Friel's zone 2 to see if it accurately predicted VT1. It seemed to both of us that it did. Right at the top of z2 our breathing rate would increase noticeably. We kept our HRs and thus breathing below VT1 the whole ride, except for a couple spots where we did a little z5 to see what that was like, and a few hills that we simply couldn't get up below VT1 and had to go a couple beats over.

It was a little weird to climb so very slowly, but being a tandem we could make up for a lot of that on the flats and descents. We stayed ahead of the group for the whole ride. 32 miles and 1850'. Very nice and interesting ride. We'll do more of this. It's fairly obvious that is one is going to train this way, one only needs the 3 zones, and one tries to never ride in the middle one. I'll try to report back in a few months, if I remember . . .

denvertrout

I definitely think there is something to this slower training. In just two weeks of training this way, on my fast group ride yesterday I was at the front leading a paceline, would drop back recover very quickly and take the front again. On my rides by myself I intend to continue zone 2, and then let this group ride be my high level training. I did feel really good to go fast though.

DaveLeeNC

Just out of curiosity (in the context of 'how to train' like a mere mortal instead of like a TdF rider) I took a look at the "Time Crunched Cyclist" Century Training Plan (New Century rider). I did the following 'Zone Assignments' in the context of the link above.

EM - Zone 1 (Endurance Miles)
SS - Zone 2 (Fairly hard Steady State riding)
Tempo - Zone 2 (Tempo Riding)
CR - Zone 2 (Climbing Repeats)
PI - Zone 3 (Power Intervals)
SEPI - Zone 3 (Steady Effort Power Intervals)
PFPI - Zone 3 (Power and Fade Intervals)
OU - Zone 3 - Over/Under Intervals (alternate moderate/hard with no rest in between)


The results were interesting. It came out roughly 80% in Zone 1 (where my reading of TTCC would put this clearly toward the top end of of Zone 1.

FWIW.

dave

no sweat

Joe Friel on polarized training: Joe Friel - Polarized Training Update

Carbonfiberboy 

^Coach Friel raises some good points, particularly about athletes in their first years of training, although some of the studied athletes were HS juniors who still trained polarized.

My take on the video presentation is that it rather blows the theory of specificity out of the water. Thoughts?

Another rather obvious point is that VT1 and VT2 are quite easy for an experienced athlete to notice in training. Particularly, using the polarized system to train either below VT1 or above VT2 gets rid of the necessity of a HRM and perhaps even a PM, except as aids for recording training. I've been training with a HRM for 15 or so years and it's easy for me to see, going by either VT, when my HR is depressed from previous hard training, being tired, etc. Probably much more accurate to go by the VTs. Thoughts?

Some of the comments on the training studies linked in the blog remark on the distribution of HR in the various zones. Anyone who is doing polarized training has seen that basically HRs above VT1 should be during efforts above VT2: it just takes a while to get there. On a 4 minute interval, as little as 1.5 minutes might be in HR z5. My understanding is that it's the duration of the effort, not the duration of the HR that we are interested in measuring. So that's still the value of a PM since it helps to even out interval power. Of course experience will do that, too. And of course PMs don't help anyone but cyclists while they are cycling. Thoughts?

Edit: It comes to me that polarized training is very simple to implement and to a large degree removes the coach from the training process except for form and training volumes. Thus I would expect to see some resistance from coaching firms.

denvertrout

There are about 12 pages of discussion on another forum (ST). Not sure I am allowed to link to them. Search by "seiler" and you will find "Polarized training - interesting lecture video". On the video site there is also a round table forum that is interesting as well.

Carbonfiberboy 

I can't think why not. It's a public forum and not password protected. Of course one would have to join to comment, but no need of that as every good question seems to have been asked and answered, though with quite a few poor questions unanswered:
Polarized Training - Interesting Lecture Video : Triathlon Forum: Slowtwitch Forums

DaveLeeNC

FWIW, Stephen Seilor (the speaker in the video that originated this thread) responds to questions in the link above. Worth your time, IMHO.

dave

GeorgeBMac

Yes, very interesting...

One thing that I think could be better teased out though is: absolute duration vs relative duration

That is: While keeping high intensity minutes fairly constant, did they simply shift the remaining minutes from moderate to easy (with the total minutes staying constant)? Or, did they shift the minutes from moderate to easy AND add additional easy minutes (thus increasing the total minutes of training)?

The studies were maybe a little inconsistent in that -- but my sense is that, generally, they increased the total training time to increase the total minutes below VT1. That is, that there was BOTH a change in percentages (from the middle levels out to either side) as well as a change in total training time with most of the increased time in the low intensity levels...

no sweat

It's an interesting departure from my 1970s highschool days... when we were all assured that the path to strength and endurance was through breaking ourselves down to rubble first.

Okay... so going forward I will keep in mind that the primary goal of efficient training shall be to provide the necessary stimulus to trigger the desired response... at the minimum possible cost in fatigue. As a process engineer, this is an appealing intellectual model.

Unanswered question: do the long Z2 (Friel definition) efforts have to be substantially all Z2?

There is nothing on earth so boring as 90 minutes of Z2 on a trainer. I've been doing a fair number of Z2 trainer rides lately, and one way I deal with the boredom is inserting a few 10 second all out sprint efforts (say every 5 - 10 minutes). This has been good for my sprint power (I need that!) & doesn't seem to come with a big cost in fatigue.

It's interesting that the 8 minute intervals were found to be so effective. Actually, it's confusing as hell. Is the training response of 32 minutes (4 x 8) @ threshold plus a 5% really that much superior to a 32 minute session at threshold plus 2%? Perhaps it's all about volume: the four minute efforts don't allow enough time in lactate accumulation mode to get the desired stimulus/response, 30 minute & longer threshold intervals allow too much and invite over training.

Can't argue with a 70 ml/kg/min VO2.

wphamilton

It seems like there's a caveat here.

"Assuming similar active muscle mass, the athletes here training at 65% of their maximal oxygen consumption would have about the same muscular oxidative flux as an untrained person performing at or near VO2max."

So the high volume of low intensity training is, in at least one physiological respect, equivalent to maximal intensity training for untrained or less highly trained athletes. To me it implies that the polarized training model could be inappropriate below some threshold of fitness.

f4rrest

Yes, there was an observation on the other forum that the a similar effect may occur at the high end as well. Training above vt2 is much more demanding on an elite athlete than for a novice in terms of actual work output.

It might be that threshold training is reasonable for the first year or two for new athletes. It worked for me for a while.

GeorgeBMac

There was a lot in that video -- which leads to a lot fine, possibly conflicting points, but, as I remember it:
I think the comparison (at least the one I paid attention to) was between 4x4 @ 95% vs 4x8 @ 90%. True, there were two other ranges in there, but I don't think either of them were intervals...

Right now I am doing 3x4 @ 95% and planning to go to 4x4 after the New Year. But, 4x8 at 90% sounds very interesting... I think mostly because of the duration factor: 12 or 16 minutes just doesn't "feel" long enough to do much good. Granted it is actually twice that long with the low intensity part of the interval -- and even longer if you add in warm up and cool down. But, still, it feels kinda short...

Edit:
I might add: it would be impossible (in my opinion) to do this without a heart monitor. I know in his studies, the perceived effort and the actual, measured effort was always very close. But I can't do it without a heart monitor -- especially if I'm shooting for a difference of only 90% - v 95%.

But, DigiFit on my IPhone (along with the Polar H7 monitor) does a great job: You set the blocks to show the target heart rate range and duration -- and then 'just' raise or lower your heart rate to stay in the appropriate block. Sweet!

Carbonfiberboy 

I think these questions are answered in the ST forum link I posted. However, this is my understanding:

The training specification is very simple: there are 3 zones. 1 = below VT1, 2 = above VT1 and below VT2, 3= above VT2. All training is to take place in zones 1 and 3. Of course if using a HRM there will be transition HRs in 2 while heading for z3. These count the same as 3. However, you don't really need a HRM. You just have to know where VT1 and VT2 are and what they feel like. This takes a little experience. It doesn't matter the exact HR or intensity you feel, only that you are going as hard as you can for however many minutes. FI in 4 X 4, you go hard enough that you'd blow up if you extended an interval even another minute. The same for 4 X 8: you can't do 10' at that effort level, only 8. This automatically puts your HR or effort in the correct percentage of MHR, FTP, or RPE. Once you've done a few intervals, you'll know what it should feel like. As was said, it's important not to go out too hard and blow too soon, and also that it's important that your first interval be the easiest so you'll know where you are.

What was found to work the best is to do 20% of training sessions in zone 3. So if you trained 10 sessions/week, 2 would be interval sessions; at 5/week, 1 would be intervals. The z3 volume that is recommended for optimal performance is 2 sessions of 4 X 8 per week. To keep the percentage of volume ~10% or less of z3 per week, optimal training time would therefore be 10 hrs or more total. Z1 volume could be then most anything, say from 5 to 20 hrs./week. At the low end, you'd do 1 interval session/week. At the 10 hrs.+ level, you'd do 2 sessions. They were a bit unclear on that detail. There is some suggestion that 2 sessions should be done no matter how many hours of z1 you have. I think one would have to experiment and see what worked best. That's a huge takeaway: each athlete has to develop their exact approach to these things based on their personal experience.

Yes, the entire volume of easy workouts must be below VT1. One should learn to recognize VT1 by oneself. However going by Friel's zone 2 would be a good start. Throwing even a little z2 or z3 into a z1 workout is not recommended. It's a lot less boring inside on rollers. If more than an hour drives you nuts, do two a day.

They found the stimulus of 32 minutes (4 X8) at maximum 8' intensity to create the best response. Longer intervals would necessarily be done at a lower intensity. The whole long-intervals-at-or-below-threshold thing is out the window. In this plan, you don't do them except during competition. The principle of specificity is out the window.

No, what they mean by oxidative flux is the amount of oxygen consumed, nothing to do with intensity. This model works equally well for the trained and untrained: they don't do anything differently. The untrained just process less oxygen for the same RPE and thus go slower. It may be true that the untrained will have less trouble working beyond VT2 than a trained athlete, but I doubt it.

Carbonfiberboy 

I find it's sometimes harder with a HRM because my HR will be different on different days, depending on recent training. I prefer using VT2. For me, breathing deeply and about as fast as possible works for 8 minutes. I can't keep it up for much longer. For 4' intervals, I'm in panting mode. I can't pant hard for 8', only for 4'. So my 8' HR would be ~1.5% over LT, and 4' HR ~3-4% over LT, LT being taken as the same as VT2. Trying to go by some percent of MHR is really tough. Who knows what one's MHR or even LTHR is on any given day? That's the utility of using a PM, though I don't.

wphamilton

It doesn't appear to be that simple though. As they continue., "This magnitude of cellular energy turnover coupled with therelatively long duration the workloads are sustained appears sufficient to provide an effective stimulus for the induction of the various genes involved in mitochondrial biogenesis "

Apparently the authors believe that the energy turnover per muscle mass is an operative factor, not simply the quantity of O2 2 consumed.

Carbonfiberboy 

That's a very interesting point. I would then suppose that the way your are reading this, the more watts one can put out at VT1, the stronger the stimulus becomes, so it's a thing that builds on itself. However I think that while the lower energy turnover of an untrained person would then supply less stimulus, they would perceive an intensity similar to that perceived by a trained athlete. I did read that the same polarized workouts are prescribed for all athletes regardless of training status.

Carbonfiberboy 

Another point perhaps pertinent to this discussion is that, IIRC, Seiler does not talk at all about diet required to maximize this type of training. IOW, eat whatever makes you go.

Chapple, in Base Training for Cyclists, says that this low intensity training stimulates fat burning. Unless I am mistaken, always possible, fat is the only energy source which does not generate lactate and Seiler says that the response to this large volume of base is to reduce blood lactate levels at base intensity, which then would mean the same thing Chapple is saying: increase the fat burning percentage of the various energy sources.

So does this mean we don't have to go out for base training with only water in our bottles to increase fat burning? In fact does what we consume before and during exercise matter at all as long as it's calorie appropriate and meets our body's needs, as long as we obey the dictum to stay under VT1?