Quality over Quantity vs. 80/20 (or Chad vs. Matt ;))

Totally agree. I ended up majoring in exercise science in college because I was a Jack Daniels nerd in high school.

Join the club :smile: I’m the president hahahaha…

I’m currently building CTL doing a fair amount of “low tempo” (75-85% FTP) , or what Lydiard would call “high end aerobic”, combined with a weekly 95-105% Threshold ride. Stretch out interval length and TiZ.

1 Like

That’s awesome. I’ve probably read the JD book 5 times trying to make sense of it (slow learner). But once you put it all together it’s a amazing training tool.

I am trying to figure out if the 80-20 methods (which worked great for my running) will translate to cycling. I’m going to go through an entire season using the 80-20 plans in Matt’s book. I’m using the 1/2 ironman “maintenance” plan until I start the 1/2 ironman training plan. I guess I’ll let you know my thoughts at the end of the summer :-).

4 Likes

I was using Matt F. 80/20 full IM plan. To my surprise it wasn’t Polarized plan as to what would one expect by reading Seiler’s et. al work. Majority of hard workouts were in 91-100% FTP and only few targeting higher zones. These Z4 (102-110% FTP), Z5 (above 110% FTP) workouts were present only in general phase. Later in the plan you will see only Z3 hard workouts. (Zone 3 in his book being 91-100% FTP).

So Hard vs. Easy were set to match 80/20 but “sweetspot / FTP” sessions were counted as Hard and used frequently during the plan.

@gtom And moreover, some of the sessions in the “80%” part of the distribution (in the 80/20 split) could be as high as 83% FTP, correct? In other words, ppl aren’t just noodling around in (Coggan/TR) Zone2.

Correct. Matt sets Z1 & Z2 (the easy 80%) at 50-70% FTP for Z1 and 70-83% FTP for Z2. Matt’s 80-20 is very different than polarized.

1 Like

This caused much confusion months ago when this thread started. I thought it was a shame because I didn’t think Matt’s approach got a fair shake. It’s different than TR (as the thread title alludes to), but it’s not that different in many ways. Seiler’s polarized (or what many think is his polarized, even though he is not a coach and doesn’t design training plans), is from a totally different planet. It’s only recently–with all the discussion of VLamax–that I have been able to reconcile why two diabolically different training approaches yield success. It’s simple. They are used for two different purposes. I wasn’t satisfied with the “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” thinking when it came to “Seiler style” polarized vs. SS training. They are just too different.

Matt’s approach is similar to the types of training that drives VLamax down. So when comparing Matt’s approach with TR approach, it’s very easy to look at both and say: “well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat”. They just aren’t that different in the grand scheme of things.

2 Likes

I agree with your view on Matt’s training approach and TR. I started Matt’s plan as a step away from several seasons of Threshold training but soon realized I was far from being “really polarized” and quite close to threshold training. :slight_smile:

did they ever talk about it in a podcast? ive browsed this discussion and cant seem to find anything saying they did.

I don’t think they have hit this yet - or at least, not as a prioritized topic.

My understanding was they plan on discussing this at some point, but that’s all I know.

I actually think the topic is broader than polarized vs SS. I think the better way to frame the discussion is what kind of training is best given the athlete goals, physiological profile, and training history.

That’d be a lot to cover though - and is what every coach / athlete has been trying to figure out since bikes were invented - so we’ll see if they ever get to it!

2 Likes

I suspect we won’t hear this discussion from the TR AACC until they release the app changes that may well correlate to the overall training discussion.

I suspect many of their choices in the app are tied closely to their perspective on the training history they are reviewing and the knowledge from Coach Chad, Nate and others, in the overall goal of improving the training results for all of their users.

4 Likes

Yes

Whoa, this is a bear of a thread! Unfortunately I don’t think I really gathered that the 80/20 method was better than the structured plans in TR, and I am still curious to find out if an 80/20 program would be effective. I am even more confused after reading this post.

That said, I would like to weigh in on my own experience: the only way I have EVER gotten faster is by doing structured interval training; threshold and VO2 max workouts. I don’t know how the 80/20 transfers to half distance and full ironman, but I have put all of my eggs in the low-volume half ironman track, with incredible results to show so far. While my overall volume increased, after two base blocks my power and run times were more or less the same as when I started (I have the FTP tests to prove it). However, after a single low-volume build phase, my 10k run time dropped precipitously (from 52+ min to <48min), and I can comfortably bang out 7.5 minute miles. I have been a chronic 9-min miler my entire life. On the power front, I’ve been able to do 10 minute intervals around 200W which would have been impossible just a few months ago. Do I think the speed work is what’s driving both base fitness and speed? I do. I can run faster, AND go longer. Not denying that the longer base workouts on saturday/sunday probably contribute to the overall fitness, but I think it’s pretty well understood that interval work reduces your blood lactate levels at higher speeds, and thereby makes base work easier. Anyway, I’ll do an FTP test to see where I am at next Monday. Versus my base phases, I expect that I will have a measurable bump in FTP of 3-5%, based on my ability to hold on during the build phase intervals (which have sucked, btw).

Summary: I am sold on the build phase’s structure to drive improvements in speed and endurance. Excited to do another one (and then a specialty phase) before the 2020 season really kicks off!

2 Likes

Late to the party but here a few interesting read:

https://alancouzens.com/blog/volume-vs-intensity.php
https://alancouzens.com/blog/vol_int_responder.html
https://www.peakendurancesport.com/endurance-training/training-structure-and-planning/polarised-training-goldilocks-approach-training-intensity-wrong/
https://www.peakendurancesport.com/endurance-training/training-structure-and-planning/polarized-training-really-work-recreational-athletes/

1 Like

Thanks for linking these articles.

Polarized training: does it really work for recreational athletes?

I found this comment to strike a chord:

“The conventional ‘middle of the road’ approach on the other may be flawed; it could mean that you spend much of your time training hard enough to tire you out and never leave you feeling really fresh, but never hard enough to provide the training stimulus your muscle fibers need to make maximum fitness gains.”

TIRED is usually how I feel when I’m following a Sweet Spot Base approach. Especially considering there is only ONE easy ride in Sweet Spot Base Mid-Vol plans. It’s very taxing mentally and physically and I’m always left wondering if I’m actually doing too much work early in the season and whether or not I should structure my weeks to include 2 sweet spot workouts and the rest endurance.

What I have a hard time with though is committing to a polarized approach when I only have, at-most, 10 hours a week to train on a perfect week. It’s more likely 6-7 hours. Getting out for the weekly 3-4 hour ride sounds great on paper, but is hardly a reality with 3 young active kids. For that reason alone I’ve opted for a Sweet Spot approach to my training thinking I’m getting the most bang for my buck. However, after 3 seasons of training (with excellent commitment in the winter months) I’ve plateaued at around 4w/kg. Which I think could be .25-.50 w/kg higher if I were to carry on training indoors through the spring and summer.

The notion of polarized is always dangling in front of me and I’m left wondering if I’m missing out on something that could yield better gains.

Edit: I feel like I have recovery (always a slight challenge with a family) and especially nutrition down

1 Like

A couple of my friends have been racing and training hard all summer and winter. When I look at their data on Strava, I have noticed their max HR is lower than would be expected. I think this is because they are too tired to do real high intensity and have underestimated max HR.
Every ride they are in that middle zone. No recovery rides, no V02 max. And they add things like “still feeling fluey”.
I think this is the population Dr Seiler et al are rolling their eyes at.
(I have tried to talk to them, but they’re not listening.)
My point is that as long as there is differentiation and structure and as long as we are honest with ourselves as to what our bodies can manage there will be progression without burn out, whether we choose SS or 80/20
I like the idea that the most effective session is the one you do. For many people, that’s SS.
My kids have grown up and my partner trains as much as me. I prefer 80/20. He prefers SS. We both target 12 hour pairs.

Something I want to change is swapping a HI session for a tempo/SS session. Within the 80/20 model, would this work best for a build phase or specialism?
Should this have a HR limiter as I build up time in interval?

(When I say my partner trains as much as me, I mean as often :wink:)

1 Like

Depending on the responses you get from people who know more than me, if it’s not a workable scenario you could always try something like a recovery period/week every 3 weeks. This would give you more family time, increase your motivation and maybe even give you a bit more time to train when you are “on it” ??

Listening to FastLabs (nee Fastalk) as well as their usual guest-coaches (Colby Pearce, Grant Holicky) they emphasize this so much. Amateurs are REALLY bad at giving themselves proper recovery and more importantly a proper off-season. They (we) are always riding in a state of fatigue.

1 Like

This is an interesting idea. Rather than just repeat the “out of the box” plans I’ve been swapping workouts and modifying them a bit. I might try a 3-week cycle and see if that changes anything. I really only start to notice this fatigue when I get into the latter portion of SSBII and Build. It’s the VO2 on Tuesday followed by threshold on Thursday cycle that is extremely taxing. The “easy” day (usually Pettit) on Wednesday doesn’t give me enough rest to feel ready for that hard workout on Thursday.

I’m not at that point in the season so I plan to progress naturally and deviate only if I’m not able to handle the workload.

1 Like

Good luck with it. Im sure there are plenty of people who have felt the same and have come up with a range of solutions.
:crossed_fingers: