Where is that Pinot article located? I don’t think I’ve read it and would like to.
Thanks!
Magazine article:
Original research paper (abstract only):
3 Likes
Thank you! And fast too 
I’ll probably read it later after work, but I notice that the 29000km/yr total on the front page is very similar to the 30000km/yr that Andrea Tafi mentioned in his interview with Peloton Magazine. I don’t have it front of me but I think Tafi threw that out as a comparison between how much he had been riding lately and how much he had ridden when at his peak.
So there it is, I’ll just shoot for 29500km this year and the rest will take care of itself.
1 Like
The German Olympic 4,000m world record team also did ~30,000km that year. Magic milage? 
Also:
Overall distribution of training intensities showed that, out of track competition or stage racing, 94% of the training was performed at levels below the anaerobic threshold (IaT), 4% around IaT, and 2% above IaT. These numbers might seem low, but during road stage races, a main part of the presented training program,
higher intensities are reached.
They also did only ~4 days of race-specific training about once every 8 weeks.
Just to muddy the waters even more! 
Make of that what you will!
Just jumping in here without any research to back it up, but it would seem that quantity IS quality BUT only after a certain threshold of time is reached.
Pros numbers notwithstanding, every rider I know that has 15hrs+ to train rides less intensity (closer to traditional/polarized/whatever) because they physically couldn’t handle more and not crash and burn. Higher volume requires lower % high intensity.
The opposite is true for the rest of us. Less hours, less stress, higher intensity, sweet spot/time crunched/whatever you want to call it.
Having done both I can attest to the benefits of both. The training philosophy that will lead to improvement is the one you can maintain. I got back on the bike this year after four years completely off and started by following a very polarized model. Got a big FTP bump. But rode 14hrs/week and a lot of climbing to get it. Now on TR HV plan and picked up 45 watts since October on 8-10hrs.
Being a fan of Seiler and Trevor Connor in general, as well as Frank Overton and Chad of course, I’ll still use a TR plan because I’m pragmatic and know what I can reasonably handle and maintain. Currently 600-700 TSS for me is about right having a job, family, four kids, and about 1,000kj of physical daily labor on the farm I can find 10hrs to train, maybe 12-14 on very rare occasion. I’m 38 and chasing 5w/kg as a stretch goal (currently 4.3). Sweet Spot is perfect for my goals, time and potential race demands. I’m not trying to be world class, just as strong as I can be.
If I were 21 racing elite amateur with no responsibilities and dreamed of racing 250k races week in week out with a WT team I’d probably be training polarized.
I really appreciate TR for creating the trad plans and also coach chad for regularly pointing out SS is the answer for 99% of TR users and cyclists in general. Whenever I’m asked by another cyclist which approach will make me faster in the least time, the answer is always the one that you can consistently follow. Ride your bike and you get faster.
6 Likes
FWIW, in my first few years of training I followed the whole “No intensity during the winter” mantra, and I was able to take myself from barely finishing a sport class MTB race to getting an AG podium in both xterra and expert mtb race… So really not much different than a SS based approach. Looking back at my old logs, I was usually at a Maff HR on the bike ( I did run harder though… ) averaging usually between 125 and 135 for most rides, with a cap of usually 150-155. Much of the other newbies who were consistent with their training were doing this too. I followed a guy who did his first marathon in 3:45, then get a 9 hour IM in about a year and a half. Very little intensity, mostly volume, 4-6 hours of cycling a week, 10-12 hours of total activity.
Bad part is I never did structure for VO2 max, I just did drop rides on my mountain bike, so I’m one of those with a relatively high FTP compared to VO2, or is it a low VO2 compared to FTP…
I am curious if I was just born that way, or if it happened through training. Some of the articles posted either in this or the other thread have made it seem like HVLI increases power at LT1, but not necessarily FTP. But when most of the training advice I was getting was from long distance triathletes, power increase at target hr was a desired outcome of training.
Now that I’ve been on the forum long enough, I’ve worked up some courage…hahahahhaha…so here goes:
Curious to know how many folks on this thread have actually read Matt Fitzgerald’s book? What’s your take on it? Not the concept, or what you think the concept is. But THE BOOK. 
(edit: I’ve participated extensively in this thread as well as the Polarized thread. No need to give me a run down of the topic. I’m good there)
I really enjoyed this write up http://www.srm.de/news/triathlon/2018-season-observations/
Very transparent in terms of the training process of one of the most successful and consistent iron man performers Michi Weiss and talks about polarized training as well. Useful advice here
I didn’t see anything polarized except for one quote from Seiler.
Plus, look at his intensity distribution, this is classic pyramid
Should pure cyclists adopt the training methodologies of a different sport?
2 Likes
No, but they should pay attention to them. And experiment with them.
Whatever you call it, it looks almost exactly like my intensity distribution. So is it safe to say that when most ppl read “polarized” they think that second from the left bar should be really low or zero?
Not sure, cycling and triathlon however are both forms of endurance sports, maybe, maybe not. As I understand a lot of data that forms the basis of the polarized training discussion were sourced from different endurance sports - eg skiing, running, cycling, etc
Agreed, I think experimenting is a fun way of training and an opportunity to learn what works or doesn’t work for you and to get to know yourself better as an athlete
He was a pro mountain biker first. Of note, he did have to serve a suspension for possible blood doing a few years back.
@JulianM shared a link to a real interesting podcast episode from the Magness & Marcus On Coaching podcast over on the running thread. It’s one of the best training podcast episodes I’ve listened to.
It’s a good discussion about training intensities. For the non-runners who haven’t seen that post, I think you’d find it a good listen…
3 Likes
Have not read every post and late to the party so apologies if this has been covered before…
I would credit a huge chuck of what we now do in cycling to the basic methods of Arthur Lydiard who developed the classic training pyramid for runners. His pyramid is (bottom up):
Aerobic Conditioning
Strength
Intervals
Speed and Skills
Taper
Peak
Aerobic Conditioning is what we would call BASE and it is the #1, 2 and 3 priorities. It is that important. For recreational athletes it is often referenced as the only thing you must do to have fun (recreation = fun).
Strength and Intervals would be BUILD
Speed and Skills would be Speciality
Taper and Peak are self evident.
My book - we can get very detailed for a specific sport, but the basics of endurance training are same.
Aside #1 One of the real treats of Joe Friel is he is an amazing aggregator of knowledge. His books summarize and synergize a great deal of research, practical experimentation and history of training for the endurance athlete.
Aside #2 Base is not a pair of 6 week plans. Real base is earned over many years of training. Probably the biggest mistake athletes in cycling, running, weightlifting make is thinking there are is magic training plans. They start one, get some portion through and didn’t add XYZ percentage to the FTP, 5K pace, 1RM and they change plans. Durable gains come from years of consistency.
Hope that is fun and cheers,
Mark
p.s. Quick read on Lydiard for those interested: https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20797781/essential-lydiard/
5 Likes
Being such a Lydiard fan myself, when I was participating in this thread a few months ago, I was very tempted to start a Lydiard appreciation thread. I thought better of it because
a) my past (negative) experience with letsrun.com Even when ppl disagree on this forum, everybody so far seems to keep it more or less civil
b) I was still reconciling my prior life as a collegiate runner and the language/jargon of that endurance training with the language/jargon of “Coggan/Peaks power meter metrics based bike racers”. It’s been a struggle, but it’s fun. Fun example: ask a cyclist “what is tempo?”. Now ask a runner “what is tempo?” Good times!! 
(ok, don’t EVER do that)
c) there is always a “lydiard guy”. I mean, I’m a the lydiard guy hahaha but sometimes it feels like yelling at a bunch of electricians about Tesla. They “get it” (or they think they do), but they just want to build the building
For those runners out there, Matt Fitzgerald’s 80/20 is probably more based on Lydiard’s ideas (as well as contemporary running approaches) than it is some “polarized training” fad. Besides the Runner’s World article you posted @DarthShivious, Keith Livingstone distills Lydiard’s principles down in a modern, applicable methodology in his book.
The other thing I realized about this thread is that not too many ppl participating in the conversation actually read Fitzgeralds book (he’s the “Matt” in the title). You don’t have to buy the book (libraries?), but if I was in school and we showed up to class without reading the book the professor would just send us home. In fact, I think someone even wrote: “i didn’t read the book you’re talking about but here’s my opinion”. Maybe now we can talk about it
2 Likes
I read it. Used it to train for a my first 10 miler and half marathon with good results. Easy concept but not much different than Jack Daniels. Matt uses time and HR to train and JD uses pace and miles. I’ve also read and tried many different concepts including Maffetone method. Out of the many books I’ve read Matt’s 80/20 and Jack Daniels are by far my go to books (for running).
Matt’s 80/20 = 10 miler 64 minutes
Next year same race but Jack Daniels approach = 60 minutes. That’s a nice gain but could have just been because I wasn’t as new to running. I’d say both equal out to around 80/20 if you break it down. But does this translate to cycling? Still trying to figure that out…
2 Likes