I think this is what they were alluding to on the TR Podcast - that at Z1 on a MTB climb you are going to fall over. I guess you can just get off and walk to stay in Z1?
1 Like
An hour test may or may not produce a number that represents MLSS depending on the individual. In the context of Seiler’s research, him referring to LT2 as the power you get from a one hour test is likely incorrect for most people.
1 Like
Within all of this I think it’s important to remember 2 things (possibly more but these are the most important IMHO)
-
This is work derived mostly from looking back at what Olympic and/or professional athletes have done in their training with researchers then trying to apply descriptive narratives to a prescriptive one. In Coggan’s case he is one of the first to say that the zones he developed are “descriptive” not “prescriptive” and that is why they moved to the ilevels methodology which uses the individual athletes power maxes in certain time zones (1 min, 5 min etc) to try and illicit a response for those particular time zones. Specificity would be an apt term in this regard. If you want to develop yr VO2max, work with the Power that represents your Vo2max range. Want to increase one minute power, work within that power range of the individual.
-
The descriptive zones and their prescriptive percentages are RANGES. especially when one is using estimates. It’s important to realize that you should not think that if a zone is at 85% that you can’t conjure up an adaptation you are looking at being at 84% or 86%. Other than LT1 and LT2 if measured via blood work (and even then this is still an estimate, albeit a more accurate one until a better methodology is developed) there are no definitive markers. Everything becomes a sliding scale of grey. Therefore using ranges is far more productive in most cases.
My background is in physiology and I am a coach that works with Athletes who are developing all the way though to Olympians and I can say with certainty that there is almost nothing that is certain when it comes to training. We have best guesses and estimates (which are what zones are, and again, they are simply descriptive despite the fact that we use them to anchor training) and we do our best to figure out a methodology that then allows us to try and produce the best results.
Most importantly there are no magic pills (I guess that’s three things). If you keep in mind the aspects or variety, specificity, consistency, and recovery, it will take you a long way. There are as many approaches to success as there are coaches. There are many many many ways to implement programs within either methodology and neither side likes to admit it, but there are more similarities than differences in both methods. These are the two most commonly written about methods but there are others out there. Having been exposed to Bondarchuk and his methodology of periodization I can suggest that this may be an even more successful method of training. But I digress.
@mcneese.chad has done a fantastic job of summarizing and putting all of this in a great visual aid but as I mentioned, looking too much at the fine granular aspects of this will not make it any easier to produce results. i.e. think ranges not a specific number.
I highly manage and direct programs for Olympians and I can tell you it is still about trial and error, and in the end, ranges rather than a specific percentage, will be far better for managing ones mental health around trying to be precise.
*steps off soapbox, mic drop
12 Likes
@stevemz further to that, in fact Seiler says that. He even suggest that he would use a 40min test for athletes who are not highly trained. As per my post above, there are no cookie cutter approaches that will work for everyone and we need to adjust accordgly and with our educated best guesses.
2 Likes
Based on my takeaways from the FastTalk podcasts, I think you have the right Seiler zone boundaries, on average, indicated in your spreadsheet Chad.
And like coach Chad has said, there are not step-changes in body physiology when you move between zones, rather, its a continuum. So being off +/- 1 or 2% of FTP or HR max doesn’t substantially change the nature of the workout and adaptations you are getting.
1 Like
OK Coach TheOtherChad,
I await your experience and then the workouts to do!
1 Like
Actually, in the VeloNews Podcast, Seiler says that you can do Two-a-days (hard morning, easy evening) or put your easy z1 at the beginning of the workout and conclude with your z3.
I’ve created a team for Polarized Training with many of the custom workouts I have created and use: http://www.trainerroad.com/teams/8889-polarized-training . The team is public, so anyone can join and use the workouts.
Steve
6 Likes
Thanks for the confirmation @DaveWh.
And I totally agree, we need to look at these as blended zones, not discrete/hard transitions. We all vary a bit and even on any given day, we may need to swing a bit up or down in the spectrum of the desired training area.
One of the biggest takeaways in all of this for me, is to look at a training plan and related zones as general guides rather than a tight prescription (even though we might want that level of precision).
Know that there are plenty of approximations along the way and be open to adjusting based on feel as much as necessary, all while keeping the real end goal in mind.
Great stuff Steve. I may borrow these. Thanks for sharing 
I already snagged some close ones in the TR catalog, but yours are closer to Seiler’s specific workout descriptions.
Listened to the podcast today and v interesting. However my (personal) issue is the need for long rides. I can train say 4-5 days a week…but only really for 60-75mins each time due to family commitments. With this constraint I just can’t see polarised training working since no time for adaptations to occur at low intensity at that short length of time. Seiler said as much in podcast when asked about low hours. Said it works well for people on (say) 6 hrs BUT needed at least one long 2.5-3 hr ride, then say 2x 60 mins at fairly low intensity and 1x60mins hard. So although only 5.5-6 hr total you still need 1 long ride. So my personal constraints make polarised not an option in my view as doesn’t work with 5x60mins workouts a week. V interesting podcast though.
1 Like
Haha, I live near the Circuit of the Americas (Formula 1 track, not NASCAR) and let me say… it has to be a NASCAR track. If I recall correctly Turn 1 at COTA tops out at like 18%… not great for zone 1 work. 
1 Like
Yup. That 6.3 hour example week I have in my sheet is based on the idea of a 3 hour long ride and the others as needed to meet the 80/20 distribution.
That long ride is key. Dr. Seiler somewhat reluctantly says 2 hours can work, but leans towards 3 hours or more as being the most beneficial. Splitting it into 2-a-day or doing less than even 2 hours will not likely provide the stress and related adaptation as required.
As such, the SST 7-Level method is still quite applicable for many, many riders. The Fast Talk emphasis that nearly implies people are training wrong is a bit frustrating. Their earlier #2, 3 & 14 podcasts did a better job of recognizing the pros and cons of the SST and POL methods.
The reality is that both can and do work, and people need to look at the particulars of each carefully. Then they should choose to meet their needs but keep in mind that one isn’t necessarily right or wrong, but what is best for a person and their situation.
I have 3 years of TR training under my belt and a pretty good feel for what it provides me. I am trying POL because I have a life (and amazing wife) that will facilitate the need to get in a 4 hour ride once a week (per my 9 hour week goal). And I am ahead of my typical start time for a TR plan, so I took the chance to see if I can experience what this other method can provide.
2 Likes
Totally agree. A lot of people (and scientists) seem to be of opinion ‘this is only/best way’…and it may be for them and their circumstances…but as you correctly say many different ways can work for different people. If there was just a single best way then training would be much simpler process but also very boring!
1 Like
Thanks for the link. Sounds interesting. Still. 
Seiler says: if to have three buckets. Low, middle grey zone and high intensity. You do a workouts and at the end you look at it in what bucket it would suit. You did a 90 min ride with a short high intensity effort to get a green light. Low bucket. And so on,…
Did you listen to the Velonews Fast Talk Episode? Or do you talk about the FLO one? I didn’t listen to it with paper, pencil and a calculator but I think he explained it very well.
Yes, of course, I listened to all of them (FT Ep 2, 3, 14, 51, 54 and the Flo 13), over 3 times each.
(There’s a reason each one of the episodes is linked in the “Power Zones 2.0” sheet I created.)
Other people may well have gotten the content on a single go, but I found it quite confusing. They instantly swapped between zones and percentages based on HR, VO2 Max, and Power (FTP). And they did it by using any and all of the variables… “this much in VO2 and that much in HR max”… and then the mix of LT1 and LT2 along the way. I found it far from direct or easy to follow.
And between different podcast episodes, certain zone and percentage discussion gives different values for the “same area”. So I had to do some creative editing when moving from one episode to the next. I took a few guesses as to which value was “right” to add to my chart. They were very free-form discussions, seemingly from memory, rather than prepared data to present, that lead to the semi-random bouncing between percentages and variation from one to the next.
I made my charts by listening closely and grabbing one value from one part of the discussion and related ones from different segments. I find it hard to believe that people truly got useful info without further study or deeper research from a single listen to the episodes. I have no idea how you would take a listen to those episodes and apply the info from them without active work, like I did.
5 Likes
Your totally right. If you go deep and calculate you will find the mistakes and guesses. By just listening to it I thought it was ok.
Trevor and Seiler are very…Special. They just try to be perfect in every little thing. That’s sometimes hard to follow for us non pro athletes.
2 Likes
@mcneese.chad @Turtle_Express even with my post graduate work in the area of physiology (specifically lactate threshold and recovery) I find it confusing the way the terms are thrown around. This isn’t uncommon however. Terminology and lexicon has always been an issue in this area, even with the scientists involved. Your summary IMHO is well done and about as accurate as anyone can do given the circumstances.
As mentioned there is a lot of grey areas and overlap with too many people taking the zones literally to the point of dogma. If one looks closely, there is still a fairly large part of the middle zone work done in a polarized approach. If spread across the season it may seem small but often this is done in chunks or blocks which change the ratio at that point in time but appear small when looking at the broader strokes.
Any complete program excluding ANY zone, however they are defined, does so at their own peril. Everything works at one time or another, but everything stops working at one time or another as well.
3 Likes