Polarized Training with Stephen Seiler, PhD | EP#177 That Triathlon Show

[sryke]

Probably to fatigue fast twitch fibres.

[Bioteknik]

I am really curious what my first 2-3 years of training look like zone distribution wise, but I completely avoided as much intensity as I could, only working it in once the weather was finally nice enough to ride on dirt, and did almost no planned run intensity except for races. I was trying to stick with Zone 2 back then as well, but some of zone 2 in a 5 zone model is above LT1, but still fit the bill of trying to be mainly easy work. By year 3 though I had worked up to 8-10 + hours and was at least getting some age group awards

[oggie41]

Sounds like a good approach to me for when getting started. How much higher intensity training did you end up introducing? How did that affect your performance?

[Bioteknik]

Now that I’m really looking at it… During year one, I was training too hard, then I started reading the message boards and most of the suggestions were to go easier, and that is when I saw a rapid increase in training paces. Intensity was introduced as trail days. Trail running and MTB were my intensity. If I did all training on the dirt, eventually things broke down and I needed more time to recover. I am noticing that HR averages for all training trended downwards after the first season of training and paces went way up.

When I first started TR, it was my first introduction to true structured intensity and it worked really well, FTP jumped by 30 watts when talking about year over year peak, 40 watts when talking about pre-season to race-season. In year 2 my FTP was basically the same, but my power profile did change a bit increasing most 5 minute and lower power PRs, so I was still fitter and more appropriate for MTB. This year I’m getting a nice boost by trying to limit my intensity, and thus volume is increasing by being able to fit a bit more in duration, but also by increased consistency. Consistency should be factor #1 for an endurance athlete, and never do so much intensity that it throws off your consistency. Easy to say after 10 years… not always easy to execute.

[carytb]

I saw on a podcast or read on a blog (honestly there is so much of this stuff around I’m getting that I don’t know whether I’m coming or going) that a training partner of Phillipe Gilbert says he just does long easy rides and then when he feels like it throws in an all out 60/90 sec efforts at crazy high wattages. He then just carries on riding easy.

[carytb]

Good advice. Mix it up and be consistent.

[Supermurph19]

That was Hincapie talking on Lances Podcast.

[Mikael_Eriksson]

@mcneese.chad Thanks for the breakdown of your experiment! It does answer my question.

Just a thought on the “no-coasting” philosophy - I wouldn’t obsess about that. The body doesn’t care or react differently to your long indoor ride if you get off the bike a couple of times for a bio break or just to rest your butt (I have to do this on long indoor rides). In the name of minimising mental/psychological load I would relax on this principle if I were you.

@DarthShivious

Since I’ve been training for TTs over the last many years, when I try short power build or other heavy VO2max type workouts I really suffer. That’s specificity in training revealing itself.

It could also just be your physiological makeup. Either way, it’s not a bad thing, not everybody’s VO2max is 120% of FTP. Just adjust the intensity to something that suits you. It’s not failure, it’s success.

@mcneese.chad

More than words, the approach applied by hundreds and even thousands of TR athletes seems to point to reasonable success from their plans. The big data thread was a small window into some of the info they have in the hands.

I would love to hear TR’s take on this and a deep-dive into this data. I’m a big fan of sweet spot training, but I do think that the high proportion of intensity in the TR plans is a risk factor, and personally I wouldn’t have as much intensity for athletes I coach for the fear of breaking an athlete (even if 90% of athletes might do ok on that same amount of intensity). Perhaps with the exception of a 5-6 h per week athlete.

@JulianM

I’d be interested in yours, or if there is to be a follow up interview Stephen Seiler’s, opinion about how to manage high intensity training when threshold HR is a high percentage of HR max.

For those intense workouts, I would focus more on RPE and power, and HR will follow. That’s what they’ve done in Seiler’s studies, and then they retrospectively found that on average 90% of HRmax seems to be were people land. But the training prescription has been e.g. 4 x 4’ - maximum sustainable effort or 4 x 8’ maximum sustainable effort. The duration of intervals and recoveries dictates intensity. Simple as that. So when you do VO2max work, do 2-4-minute intervals, when it’s threshold-work, do 10-20 minute intervals, or do those in-between 5-10 minute intervals and simply see how hard you can go and keep the same output throughout the workout.

@iMatt66

Hi Mikael, I wonder if you could outline what you do for your high intensity bike workouts. I believe you suggest two a week but wonder how you structure these and whether you vary HIIT prescription or stick to one approach eg two 4x8 workouts each week.

I’ve been doing one VO2max workout (2-4 minute intervals, 15-24 minutes work duration, 1:1 work rest ratio typically) and one threshold workout (e.g. 4 x 9’ or 3 x 12’ or some sort of pyramid) or sometimes suprathreshold (e.g. 4 x 7-8’), and this last Sunday I raced my first half distance triathlon of the season and had an awesome race so this approach has worked for me.

@Peter

I don’t know if he really agrees with that. The research concerning actual distribution probably isn’t as strong as the stuff concerning volume, for example. And, anyways, it’s a funny pyramid he describes (the split is like 70 z1/ 15 z2/ 15 z3 and some other variations that are nonetheless very bottom heavy.

Yes, pyramidal is bottom-heavy by definition. For example, my training is pyramidal, and my distribution is 85/10/5. What Seiler is saying is that it’s just as bottom-heavy for pretty much all elite endurance athletes across disciplines. What changes is the distribution of work in Z2 and Z3. So it might be 90/2/8 in a truly polarised approach, or 90/7/3 in a pyramidal approach. The bottom of the pyramid is still the same.

@themagicspanner

One thing that was missing was how the HR% calculation works which is pretty important to understand. When Seiler is talking about 90% HRpeak he’s actually talking about a heart rate that is 90% of the way between your resting heart rate and you’re peak.

90% HRpeak = 0.9 x (HRpeak - HRrest) + HRrest

I know what you’re referring to, but it’s not exactly like you describe. This calculation is if you want to get an estimate for what your HR at e.g. 60% of VO2max is, or 90% etc. But in this interview, and in the research on the intervals etc. when they talk about 90% of HRpeak it really means simply 90% of HRpeak. @Peter this answers your question too! The table in @mcneese.chad 's table is correct.

@themagicspanner

The FLO guys did a sample calculation during the podcast demonstrating how it works.

Mike

This example demonstrated finding a HR corresponding to a certain % of VO2max.

[Mikael_Eriksson]

@kajet

The constant references to % of your max heart rate are annoying. HRmax percentages as a way of setting zones have been discredited more times than I can remember. These things really vary athlete to athlete. Why not use percentages of your LTHR or at least FTHR? Seiler wants you to run for an hour (max effort), so if you follow his prescription, you should be able to estimate your LTHR or FTHR with reasonable precision.

Using HRmax is a more easily attainable and less error-prone way of doing things. Sure if you have a lactate test then you could use percentages of LTHR just as well. I would trust the HR from a 60-min test less than % of HRpeak to be honest, due to cardiac drift, condition-dependent changes in HR on the day, etc.

@kajet

Speaking of which - his only idea for estimating your FTP is the one-hour test

The best way is still a lactate test, as Seiler also says (see the comment by @themagicspanner). And I think pretty much anybody could fairly easily go and get a lactate test done. I disagree that it’s “not available to most athletes” - it is. And as @redlude97 says, getting incorrect estimates isn’t exactly a great alternative either.

@bbarrera

I’d still like to know:

• if there is any research on 5 hour/week cyclists?
• how many studies on 8 hour/week athletes have been done?
• actual pre-season training distributions for Pro and Amateur cycling teams

Off the top of my head, I’ve seen maybe 5-8 studies in amateur athletes. Probably only 0-3 of them have been in the 5-6 h/wk range, I really don’t remember. But I think most would be closer to that 7-10 hour range.

@redlude97

What if you instead did 2x1 hour with 1x3 hour(what seiler suggested)?
I think people are getting too caught up in the 90:10/80:20 thing. The main takeaway that he’s been very consistent on is that you need to make your hard rides hard(really hard) and your easy rides easy enough to recover for your hard rides.

@redlude97

So someone only doing 5 hours/week could probably get away with more than 10% of their time at intensity, but still have a total Z3 time(in mins) lower than someone training say 10 hours even though their percentage time at intensity would be lower.

Really great summary, I completely agree with this.

@anthonylane

It sounds like the point is to do the intensity at a level that gets you to 90% of HR max. Whether it’s 4x4@115%, 4x8@105 or 10x1@130% doesn’t seem to matter, no?

I think the 90% HR rule is a good guideline for what might be a staple HIT workout, but it doesn’t mean that VO2max-work and sweet spot work doesn’t have a place. The athlete’s profile and goal event and limiters would determine how you plan out what you do in the more intense workouts.

@iMatt66

or this reason clarity on the correct approach at the low intensity range would be welcome and perhaps Mikael can provide that.

See above. It’s the simple percentage when we’re estimating the thresholds.

@oggie41

For the volume I’m doing (5-7 hours p/w) my low intensity training % would be more like 60%-70%. There’s no way doing 80% easy training would be the most effective approach for me personally.

anthonylane:

Hmm, I would really question that only 60% at low intensity could possibly be the most effective way for you to train, even at 5-7 hours. Maybe, just maybe 70 might work. 80 over 60 any day of the week though if I were you. What does your training week look like? But yes, there are no “magical” numbers/distributions, it is a range of course, but IMO not anywhere near as big as what you suggest.

@oggie41

Fitzgerald’s approach isn’t confusing… I was just referring to him pushing the 80/20 intensity split

One thing that IS confusing is that he is pushing the 80/20 time distribution, rather than sessions if I recall correctly? So this actually goes against what Seiler is saying and obviously against Seiler’s research.

@Bioteknik

Consistency should be factor #1 for an endurance athlete, and never do so much intensity that it throws off your consistency. Easy to say after 10 years… not always easy to execute.

Mic drop!

[DaveWh]

@Mikael_Eriksson

So someone only doing 5 hours/week could probably get away with more than 10% of their time at intensity,

Yeah - seems like any athlete should be able to do 2 hrs of intensity a week, without overloading themselves.

[bbarrera]

@Mikael_Eriksson

Mic drop!

LOL, thank you, and have a great weekend!

[pvolb]

Agreed, and if REALLY pushed Seiler would likely agree. I think the problem comes about with those other 3 hours - the training should still be very bottom (Z1 in a 3 zone) heavy. That’s where people seem to make mistakes with their lower volume is the bottom heavy piece still needs to be 60ish %, but in reality they push to 75-80% which has negative repercussions on the workouts that “really count”.

[themagicspanner]

@Mikael_Eriksson

I know what you’re referring to, but it’s not exactly like you describe. This calculation is if you want to get an estimate for what your HR at e.g. 60% of VO2max is, or 90% etc. But in this interview, and in the research on the intervals etc. when they talk about 90% of HRpeak it really means simply 90% of HRpeak.

Just listened to the sections of the two podcasts again and I can see that the numbers don’t really line up with one-another unless you do one by the absolute percentage method and the other by the range method.

And, just to convince myself, I calculated the Norwegian Zones outlined on the page I linked by the two methods:

Equivalent HR to %VO2max by the HRrange method and absolute percentage of HRmax which works out quite nicely.

Thanks for the clarification.

Mike

[oggie41]

@Mikael_Eriksson

Hmm, I would really question that only 60% at low intensity could possibly be the most effective way for you to train, even at 5-7 hours. Maybe, just maybe 70 might work. 80 over 60 any day of the week though if I were you. What does your training week look like?

To give context, I train for sprint/olympic distance triathlon & 5K/10K runs. This would be a typical week…

Mon:

• Lunchtime 20 min strength & conditioning, plus easy Z2 1 mile run to/from the gym - low intensity.

Tue:

• Lunchtime ~40 min run intervals or threshold run - high intensity.

Wed:

• Lunchtime 20 min strength & conditioning, plus easy Z2 1 mile run to/from the gym - low intensity.
• Evening 1 hour CSS swim session - never worn a HR monitor for this, but guessing falls in moderate HR zone.

Thurs:

• Lunchtime 45 min easy Z2 run - low intensity.
• Evening 1 hour TR interval workout - high intensity.

Fri:

• Lunchtime 30 min technique swim - low intensity.

Sat:

• Rest.

Sun:

• Morning 1 hour TR interval workout, plus 2 mile brick run - high intensity.
  In the summer I’d usually do a longer ride outside.

It’s not ideal in tems of spacing out the different sports, although it’s the best I can do with fitting in full time job, 2 young kids etc…

In terms of sessions it actually falls at 50% low intensity (although that depends on how the CSS swim would be classified). I’m not sure exactly what the intensity split would look like with TIZ… I’ll work that out when I get more time.

After training for triathlon for 3 years, with plenty of trial & error, this is the kind of week that seems to work best for me.

The couple of races I’ve done this year have gone well… I got a PB in my local duathlon, plus ran a new 5K PB last week, so I’m heading in the right direction.

I’d be interested to hear your take on the sessions I’m doing @Mikael_Eriksson. If you think I’m doing too much intensity which workout(s) would you change?

[kajet]

@themagicspanner

Lactate levels are next to useless in the field for actually training with.

As a tool for performing intervals %HRmax is ideal because it is actually usable in sports where power isn’t an option.

Seiler isn’t saying that you should just go with 90%, 60%, or whatever and be done with it - that’s just an estimate. If you have access to a lab you would carry out lactate and VO2max testing to determine where your turnpoints are and then calibrate that against percentages of HRmax so that you have a tool to work with. You can do exactly the same with power.

Mike

You said “% HRmax is exactly how the Norwegian Olympic Federation prescribe training zones”.

Even if true (which I doubt), Norwegian triathletes don’t seem to be paying attention.

And yes, setting zones based on lactate levels is practical. You test once and you get your heart rate zones. Simple as that. You don’t have to re-test all over again in training like Blummenfelt.

And if you don’t do a lactate test, there are much better ways than using HRMax which render more accurate estimates of your HR zones. Like % of threshold, for instance.

As you can see, my issue is not with using heart rate zones but with using % of HRmax as a benchmark.

[themagicspanner]

Maybe I’m wrong and misunderstood what you said, but I think what you’re talking about is calculating zones based in HRmax (such as the Karvonen method) rather than as a way to describe the zone.

The Norwegian zone model is based on a series of lab test but is just used as a guide. It uses %HRmax to describe the zones. Calibration of your particular physiology is obviously important.

Edit: Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the word prescribe when talking about the Norwegian Zones.

Mike

[Bioteknik]

As s small quip, the zones used by the Norwegian federation are closer to the % of vo2 max chart. I’ll link the actual article I’ve been using as a reference but zone 1 up to 72% of max, zone 2, 3, 4 > works oot to 72-82-87-92-max. This really lines up with the notion that the hard intervals are mainly zone 4. Need to read a bit more in an article to really see how this is calculated since many of the figures show an increasing hr over the individual, and then series of intervals.

[REEDBOY]

Wow great thread love this stuff! I’m a reformed tri guy who now loves xc.
Finding it hard to ride long on the road.
Just want to make training simple so…
Could a guy just do 2x trainer ride a week
1 vo2, 1 threshold and then spend as much time as possible riding the trails at a easier pace. Say 10-12hrs total for the week. Just want to simplify this stuff

[DaveWh]

@REEDBOY

Could a guy just do 2x trainer ride a week
1 vo2, 1 threshold and then spend as much time as possible riding the trails at a easier pace.

Yep. That’s basically the approach I take. I usually add an indoor sweet spot ride also.

I follow the low volume TR plans, swap the weekend ride for a long outdoor ride, and add either Eichorn or another outdoor ride. Or at least that’s what I try do when my schedule allows.

[themagicspanner]

Is this the table you’re referring to? This is from a Seiler paper.

The article I linked, and subsequently made the table from did say that it was a slightly altered version of the standard table.

Mike