Based on your Spreadsheet (thank you for that), appears that to do Polarized Training I need to spend 80% of my time in Tempo Range. 2.5 to 8 hours per workout? is that correct?
No, you are a bit off.
This is my data with both charts:
Background:
- The ~Duration column is related to the Coggan zones and is an effective approximation of what is possible in each level.
- It is NOT a prescription for how much time you are supposed to spend in that Level.
- I renamed that column to āPossible Durationā in an effort to avoid future confusion.
- I have the two charts side by side for the pure purpose of seeing the general relationship between the 7-3 areas.
- It is meant to highlight the fact that the common Sweet Spot method focuses lots of time in the Level 3-SS-4 Level range (which correlates to Zone 2 - Moderate Intensity of the 3-Zone model).
- And the Polarized method spends most of the time in Zone 1 - Low Intensity (which correlates to Levels 1-2 from the 7-Level model).
- The basic difference in time and level-zone distribution between the two methods is very stark, IMHO.
To follow the Polarized Training Method:
- Only look at the 3-Zone model on the right side.
- Looking at the 7-Level model on the left side should only be done for reference.
- Do not āMIXā the two methods. That will lead to confusion and likely problems in training.
- You need to focus 80% of your time in Zone 1 Low Intensity, based on Session Goal Zone (see * notes at the bottom of the POL chart).
- That is NOT precise minutes in Zone, but overall time with each session that is based on the Zone 1 - Low Intensity efforts.
- Do NOT use the term āTempoā when discussion the POL method. That is only relevant for the Coggan 7-Level model and will only lead to confusion.
- You need to focus 15-20% of your time in Zone 3 High Intensity, based on Session Goal Zone (see * notes at the bottom of the POL chart).
- That is NOT precise minutes in Zone, but overall time with each session that is based on the Zone 1 - Low Intensity efforts.
- Note the Low Intensity and High Intensity Sweet Spot lines in the POL model.
- These are considered some of the best places to spend time when in Z1 and Z3 for most effective use.
- However, avoid the temptation to push too high in Z1 Low Intensity, because you can miss some of the desired changes if you donāt keep the āEasyā workout āEasyā.
Caution:
-
I think this general confusion is one of the reasons getting into the Polarized Training method can lead to problems. Without proper instruction, it is easier to get off base and possibly make incorrect choices in training. Please use care and ready carefully. I have spend many, many hours listening (and re-listening) to the podcasts linked and converting that info into my sheet.
-
But you have to make sure you understand the goals and reasons things work in that system. Missing some key features will lead to problems and undesired results.
12 Likes
The distribution is not ātime in zoneā itās āsession goalā. Any easy workout with some Seiler2/Coggan3/4 would still be classified as an easy session in the 80/20 provided they happened naturally.
4 Likes
Thank you for the clarificationā¦ now just finish brushing my teeth for me and show me the Workouts on TR I Should be doing?!
1 Like
So, itās best to look at the one Polarized Training model only.
Here is that chart, along with sample weeks showing possible workout distribution (with Session Goal Time in Hours) for various time options in a given week.
You could pick one of the 6.3, 7.5, 9.0, or 10.0 hour weeks, and perform workouts that conform to the given Zone and Time.
Note: This is not a specific prescription, but my basic understanding of ways that might be used to apply the POL method.
2 Likes
Thanks Chad,
Isnāt VO2 max too high? Your spreadsheet says to use 108% of ftp which would be threshold intervals.
Or am i reading it wrong?
I am stopping short of prescribing workouts for others right now. I am testing this method myself for a month. But I hesitate to offer direct advice right now as I am still not confident that I know what I am doing well enough to help others.
All of the info I provide is done so with the caveat that I am transcribing the thoughts and discussion of others. I may well have errors in my sheet or complete misunderstand of the ideas behind them.
I think I am on the right track, but I reserve the right to be wrong 
I might just have to add that disclaimer since I know some people are taking this for their use (which I am happy to provide), but I do not claim to be an expert at this topic. I am learning more every day and every time I edit the sheet.
Feedback and discussion like this helps me solidify my understanding and hopefully improve the sheet to be really useful. That is my goal at least.
Thanks to all who have offered comments and help.
6 Likes
Chad,
Keep us informed of your Journey with Polarized Training as we are all going to soon start referring to you as Coach Chad 2.0!
2 Likes
Seiler is inconsistent for his targets for high intensity. Sometimes itās 88-92% of HR max, sometimes its 90% of VO2max. But as a general rule, maximizing time spent above 90% of measured VO2max (not pVO2max) is a goal for driving adaptation in that area. Since most of us donāt do regular VO2 testing, pVO2max has to do.
As for LT2, I believe he is using MLSS/FTP as his definition there, which also isnāt hour power, itās the proper Coggan definition, even though Seiler is incorrect for saying to do an hour test, since some people canāt hold their MLSS for an hour.
3 Likes
If I were to implement this system for myself (which I wonāt be), I would suggest using one of the following tests to get LT2 rather than using the Ramp Test to establish FTP: The Physiology of FTP and New FTP Test Protocols
The ramp test is great, but it relies on a wider variety of energy systems (which matches the TR plans). Since polarized is really focused on either exclusively aerobic or the higher side of threshold/VO2, I think the test below would get you closer to Seilerās intended zones.
PROGRESSION 1, 40-50 MINUTES OR TTE + 10 MINUTES
- 10 minutes at 95 percent of target FTP
- 20-30 minutes at 100 percent of target FTP
- 10 minutes gradual power increase, if possible, until exhaustion
(take the average from the whole test to establish FTP)
You should be able to get a pretty accurate look at LTHR as well from that test (by looking at the 20-30 minute period at target FTP which can give you an additional data point to try and target the zones better (assuming you have a known HR max).
That only leaves LT1. You would be able to ballpark it pretty close by doing a low end aerobic workout and slowly turning up the wattage until you feel a āshiftā in your breathing. That should be close to LT1.
1 Like
-
Per the POL chart, Z3 runs from 100% FTP up to 120% FTP.
-
I see general VO2 Max ranges listed from 105% to 120% of FTP according to Dr. Coggan (See my 7-Level chart).
So I think a POL Z3 High Intensity goal of 105-115% of FTP is still true VO2 Max work (by a broader definition when you consider that VO2 Max work is a range, not a singular value).
Threshold on the other hand, is commonly considered to range from 95-105% of FTP.
(See the Training Peaks link under the 7-Level chart for details and source data for my chart)
1 Like
Indeed, and the fact that they bounced between HR & FTP percentages was one of the most frustrating aspects of trying to make my chart. Itās the very reason I had some serious errors in the beginning of my chart. They freely change between measurement methods/prescriptions and you have to listen REALLY close to catch which one they are discussing at any moment.
It took over 3 rounds of listening to each podcast in the series to confirm and place the data I have. There are still some differences because Dr. Seiler says 90% on one cast and 88% in another cast for the same area.
It would have been much easier if they actually provided a defined chart (like mine) with any of the particular podcasts. But other than the generic ones that simply list LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2, they provided no specific links to FTP, VO2 Max or HR charts that offer any real value or practical use. Hence the reason I had to make my own.
4 Likes
This is the difference between research scientists and us mortals. We donāt have access to the tools that allow us to establish these values consistently so as such, most of the methods wonāt be reproducible.
The reality is that LT1, LT2 and VO2max are going to differ in each person, potentially by a substantial amount especially for LT1.
2 Likes
I just want to add that Iāve heard Seiler say 80/20 really started as the actual workout ratio so in 10 workouts only 2 would be Z3. If going by minutes itās more like 90/10 but only count the minutes you are in Z3. Do you agree Chad? When I was running I trained using Matt Fitzgeraldās 80/20 running book with very good success. Iām still new to bike training but I definitely believe this method works. I also truly believe volume is key.
He also said he has a problem with current FTP tests. I donāt think he is a fan in the shortened versions of actual 1hr power
1 Like
Yeah, I agree. I wish they would step down from the ivory tower of perfection and recognize that:
-
Most people that can and want to benefit from their knowledge do not have access to the same tools.
-
Per #1, if would be best for the general public, if they need to provide reasonable proxies for those more specific values.
- Of course we must recognize that there are likely to be variations from this transition, but we have to recognize that there is a notable difference between āThe Idealā that they live and āThe Realā that we live.
- To that end, close counts for plenty of us weekend warriors.
- However, because of the additional variation, we need to be mindful that the values are less controlled and we may need to adjust based on āfeelā and experience to get the specific training to match our physiology and training history.
-
Per #2, give us the basic info, but supplement with enough instruction to recognize the true effect and feel in each of the given situations, so we can adjust as needed.
2 Likes
Yes. 80/20 relates to what he calls āSession Goal Timeā. Per my sheet summary on the topic:
- Percentage refers to the Total Session Time with the Goal at the intended Zone Intensity.
- This is called āSession Goal based Intensity Zone Distributionā.
- (It is not specific minutes of time spent in each of the three training zones.)
When you look at actual minutes of time in zone (power or HR from post ride analysis):
- The distribution is more 90/10 or even 95/5 in some cases.
So, itās not a matter if āI agreeā or not, it is what their data shows and precisely the way you look at it. I have done my best to capture the specifics (and differences) in a way that can be applied if desired.
- i.e. Session Goal Time vs Actual Time in Zone
2 Likes
That is another example where he (and Trevor) are simply stuck on their perspective and refuse to recognize that there is more than one way to get to an āacceptableā value, rather than their āperfectā value.
3 Likes
Not a coach (right now, but that could change in the futureā¦ I got the USAC coaching book).
For now, I prefer #TheOtherChad
or even just mcneese as that might be less confusing 
POL Training
I will report some results when I get done with the next couple of weeks. I am doing a Ramp Test tonight and this is my first planned week of POL training. I have 3 weeks setup already and will see how it goes.
I am testing because I have time to play a bit before I start my official TR plan in mid Nov. So I want to see how this goes and if I am even close on the ideology.
2 Likes
But, he prescribes doing an actual hour test to get what you can really produce for an hour. Not any shorter duration multiplied by some factor, SmO2, blood lactate. Just ride as hard as you can for an hour presumably on a flat course so you donāt get the benefit of climbing. This is difficult to do outdoors unless you have a NASCAR circuit nearby!
Yep. Plausible on the road/gravel for me, as thereās routes I can ride where I could stay zone 1, with some zone 2.
Pretty much all my local MTB trails however have pretty long and usually steep climbs, so would be harder to do low intensity rides. Thisāll make it somewhat of a challenge for me to fit MTB rides into a polarized model. Maybe its just a case of getting good at riding very slowly uphill!