Agreed here. It seems that if you evaluate your interval sessions and find that you're doing a lot of 95%+ HR Max wor, just dial it down a bit to 90%. It's a small tweak that cuold lead to great returns. My best years have been when I stuck to this training intensity for the majority of mmy interval sessions. It can be hard to complete intervals with sommething left ni the tank when you've trained to exhaustion for most of your life though.....

Instead of implying that some are doing something they should not do. Would it not be better to point it out?
I have good experience with this system and as long as you keep the easy days easy (a lot harder than it sounds) you will do ok.
Have I had friends that over trained trying to become top level skiers in Norway. Yes, and the reason was that they pushed too hard during the intervals (tried to keep up with better skiers), and/or pushed too hard on the easy days, and/or ended up in the black hole (lapskaustrening), and/or increased training load too fast (tried to get to 800h).

From an athlete point of view. Following this way of training makes things easy. You do not need a lot of gadgets to succeed.

from background discussions i've been having with physiologists and other coaches is that the 80% is providing a platform of sorts to allow for the 20% to happen. Get the cocktail off by too much and that supporting structure evaporates and the high end doesn't work as well.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

First off I'm not implying, I'm telling. Based upon what people wrote they jumped or were about to without looking. They missed the forest through the trees.

Go read his 2009 research piece and watch the video lecture then read this thread. There are a handful of key take away points. Yet there are many people here on this thread that saw 1 tree and think they found the forest. They failed to step back and find, evaluate or even bother to assimilate all the key points. They failed to figure out how to implement or put them in place.

You may have good experience with this system but if being on ST has taught me anything over the last decade, it's that people have a very poor grasp on designing effective training programs. Don't assume your N=1 applies to the masses on here.

Finally it's not my job to hand out parachutes. I pointed them out, if someone doesn't want one, they don't want one.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

lots of us use it, but we just refer to it as "coaching" :)

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

You wrote:
You may have good experience with this system but if being on ST has taught me anything over the last decade, it's that people have a very poor grasp on designing effective training programs. Don't assume your N=1 applies to the masses on here.

This system of training is a little bit bigger than my N=1. You can just look up results in xc-skiing and biathlon the last 30 years in worl cups, world championship and the Olympics for Norwegian athletes (the athletes used in the research). This way of training is also used to develop skiers with great success, just look at the NTG and the activities in the different clubs.
So it is more than just my middle of the pack racing. By the way, I have been a cross country ski coach in Norway.

Harvard, can you give a quick rundown of how applicable xc skiing is to cycling training?
I'm not saying that it is/isn't, but I don't know much about the sport.
Clearly its an endurance sport, but I personally tackle my running and cycling in different ways owing to the differences in the sports. Cycling tends to have more of physiological approach compared to biomechanical for running.

As I mentioned above I still have not seen convincing evidence that the polarized model is more applicable to triathletes and time-triallists than the threshold model. Simply because of the difference in specificity of the racing between triathlon/TT and road racing.
I would always prefer to have a very high FTP and a moderate power at VO2max and no sprint, it wouldn't win me any road races but will get the best out of time-trialling.
I understand that training your VO2max will drag everything up so to speak, but is it really necessary?

You will find a case study from the article. Fostervold was a soccer player turned cyclist.
In the presentation Seiler also reference research from Germany with track cyclists.


http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm


Case Studies of Training Manipulation[/url]
Case studies are the weakest form of scientific evidence. But, for coaches and high performance athlete support teams, each elite athlete is a case study. So, we present here two case studies that we think are instructive in demonstrating the potential physiological impact of successfully manipulating training volume and intensity distribution variables at the individual level. Both cases involve Norwegian athletes who were followed closely by one of the authors (Tønnessen). Both would be considered already highly trained prior to the training reorganization.
[/url]Case 1–From Soccer Pro to Elite Cyclist[/url]
Knut Anders Fostervold was a professional soccer player in the Norwegian elite league from 1994 to 2002. A knee injury ended his soccer career at age 30 and he decided to switch to cycling. Knut had very high natural endurance capacity and had run 5 km in 17:24 at age 12. After 15 y of soccer training at the elite level, he adopted a highly intensive training regime for cycling that was focused on training just under or at his lactate threshold and near [/url]VO[/url]2max; for example, 2-3 weekly training sessions of 4-5 × 4 min at 95 %VO2max. Weekly training volume did not exceed 10 h.
After 2.5 years of this high-intensity, low-volume training, Fostervold initiated cooperation with the Norwegian Olympic Center and his training program was radically reorganized. Weekly training volume was doubled from 8-10 h to 18-20. Training volume in Zone 2 was reduced dramatically and replaced with a larger volume of training in Zone 1. Training in Zone 5 was replaced with Zones 3 and 4, such that total training volume at intensities at or above lactate threshold was roughly doubled without overstressing the athlete. The typical effective duration of interval sessions increased from ~20 min to ~ 60 min (for example 8 × 8 min at 85-90 %HRmax with 2-min recoveries). The intensity zones were initially based on heart rate but later adjusted relative to lactate and power output measurements made in the field. Table 7 shows the training intensity distribution and volume loading for the athlete during the season before and after the change in training to a high-volume program.

Marcell, I will corroborate some of what Halvard is saying. There is also a huge cross over from XC skiing to cycling and triathlon if you are technically proficient in all 4 (XC ski, swim, bike, run).

Every year, my highest FTPs and best race performances are off XC ski season in March to early May. I just can't generate the amount of intensity in SBR....and I (and most skiers) can do it much more often on XC skis for longer duration. In general, I can't ride as long at the same intensities as XC skiing. I can do the same intensities in swimming just as often, but I can't hold the workout length. On the running from I can hold the same intensities, but less often and for less duration. On the cycling front, I can go just as hard as often but not for as long.

So basically coming out of XC ski season, the aggregate intensity of a given week is much higher than in tri season, because I don't need as many easy days in between (you still need them) and when I am going hard, I am generally going either way harder, or just as hard for longer duration.

Also interesting thing....after XC ski season, I am often 4-6% up on body weight, yet my 10K times are just as fast as late season when my weight is down. Now I have to find the secret as to how I can keep my engine up at the same level during tri season, but there must be a reason why the XC skiers routinely have the highest VO2max numbers of endurance athletes (OK, let's put aside the EPO era in this discussion as that will cloud everything).

Slight misunderstanding. I meant your experience with it and your understanding of it and how to apply what has been discussed. I realize it's much, much bigger than N=1 or even 1000.

What I meant is that you may have a good grasp, but if anything ST has proven over and over that people have a poor grasp of training concepts, how to apply them and what to do when and why.

Sorry for the confusion.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Thanks for this great detail of information about Olbrecht's work.

So it seems, from your post on Olbrecht's polarized model, and what Seiler and Halgard wrote about the Norwegian polarized model, that both use the same hi-lo pattern, with similar high volume at low intensities as the absolute requisite, but then the work at high intensities is much different between the two models.

Seiler and the Norwegian model advocate to spend as much time as possible (build to 30+ minutes) of work at about 90% HR max (or about 110% FTP?), with the duration (as much as possible) at this intensity being the key component (doesn't matter if you do 10x3min or 4x8min).

On the other hand, Olbrecht's polarized model calls for much shorter intervals (100-200m intervals) at even higher intensities, with the intensity being the key component?

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that both agree on a polarization model (not many workouts target the grey zones, race pace, LT or sweet spot training), but they differ on how to train the hi in the hi-lo model?

Thanks, cheers,
Laurent

so what are elghufs/moosewalk ?
I saw a moose while x-c skiing last weekend, but he was walking slow (and kicking big divots out of the trail, the slob ;-)

Everything Olbrecht does is based on how it will affect the two energy systems (aerobic and anaerobic glycolytic.) He has a model of energy metabolism developed at the Sports School in Cologne that provides the effects of any type of workout so the choice of sprints is based on this model which he has verified with the testing of over a 1000 athletes. This model has been verified for swimming, running and rowing and I believe cycling is in the process of verification.

So his high stuff is based on how these types of workouts affect each system. What he recommends will depend on the distance and the current conditioning level of the athlete. So I think he believes the higher the better for this specific objective (building anaerobic capacity and along with it aerobic capacity for some fiber types) but not too much because the hard efforts can break down too much.

Few coaches/training advisers of endurance athletes consider the anaerobic system in their training plans but it is an essential part of Olbrecht's system even for one preparing for the Ironman.

Departing from this hi-lo approach, he will include a couple workouts near the threshold during the pre-competition if he believes the anaerobic capacity is too high for the race. This type of workout near the threshold will lower anaerobic capacity and make the athlete faster as they are now able to access more of their VO2 max after recovering from such a workout.

Essentially such a workout raises the threshold. The lactate curve will shift to the right not because the aerobic system is stronger but because the anaerobic system is weaker. But these workouts are very stressful so they are surrounded by long slow workouts to prevent much deterioration of the aerobic system and at most one or two are scheduled leading up to the race.

For his athletes in shorter events, the number of high intensity workouts will represent a much higher percentage of their program. One of his athletes broke the Olympic 50 m and 100 m freestyle records in London so her high intensity workouts will be much more frequent. Olbrecht also says the anaerobic system responds much quicker to training than the aerobic system.

Again, not every athlete responds the same but a lot of athletes get better after they learn to train slower. He mentioned one in the last couple years who resisted it but after being convinced by a coach to follow instructions, this athlete then won a world championship.

One of the things not mentioned in all this is that for elite athletes their threshold is around 90% of VO2 max while a good recreational or serious triathlete is at a much lower percentage of VO2 max. So threshold workouts for the elite athlete are much more stressful than a similar workout for a good but far from elite athlete. There is a much higher level of contraction and along with this there is a lot more metabolic activity per second including substantially more heat generated.

It is a paradox. Who can better withstand a threshold workout, a world class athlete or a good recreational athlete. The answer is the recreational athlete. But the elite athlete's threshold pace may be close to or faster than the VO2 max pace of the recreational athlete. The black hole is much more significant for the elite athlete.

----------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

Man, I really have to read this book by Olbrecht. Thanks for all of the insight!

90% max hr doesn't seem very high for such short bouts. Surely there were athletes with a threshold upwards of 91-92% max hr?

How do you differentiate between those with thresholds closer to 88% and those with thresholds closer to 93%? Seems like a pretty large range.


EDIT: Maybe you alluded to this in your other post when you said that training in that range of 89-93% is really effective? But then we're right back in the sweetspot-low L4 range which people are typically doing for 20-40 minutes straight at a time. So why the need to shorten the duration so much?

it's fun watching people jump. why? because they are attempting to learn but then when the chute didn't open and they crash into the ground with lots of questions they come to me or you to fix it

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

This is elghufs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-rRldLHKNc

You can also walk them.

Thanks for the inputs Harvard and Paul.
All helping the understanding.

Interesting, I have just analysed some files from one of my favourite (and what I believed to be my most productive bike session). It was an adapted session from a similar style running one on the treadmill with increasing incline.

Its basically 10 min intervals, every 2 mins moving up by 10w, then 1 min rest, then the next block of 10 min is started 10w higher than the first. The aim being to start off the first one about 30w below FTP, so you end up around 10w above FTP on the first, 20 on the second, 30 on the third.

I turned some of the last 4 min sections for each interval into their own interval and found they were generally around the 1.10% mark (probably having overdone it slightly from the plan). Each week this 4 min interval power was gradually increasing, by 5w or so.

This session was being done when I was heavily loading on threshold and to be honest had never considered that it was a session that could eek into Vo2max.

Halvard,

In reading through this thread, I didn't see a reply to your question of how to handle a polarized approach with triathlon. It seems that two session a week of 4x8 effort is quite manageable. For the 3 disciplines in triathlon, it is easy to schedule the sessions but does it overload the body with all of the effort? Would you do hard efforts for more than one discipline in any given day? This could lead to hard efforts every day, albeit in different disciplines. Thoughts?

I think it would work the same way for tri (in theory) as it does for a single sport. You may be missing a big part of the thinking behind the system. That is, you have one hard workout for every ~4-9 easy ones. So if per week you swim 3x, bike 5x, run 5x, (just a made up distribution) you have 13 total workouts and probably aim for 1-3 hard workouts depending on the focus of the week, individual response, etc. In slowtwitch/BarryP-ese, I believe it's "train a lot, mostly easy, sometimes hard."

The goal is not really to log the most hard training hours in a vacuum. In this system, if you do the 2/wk hard sessions without having a tremendous volume to support those intervals, you fry. At least, as a novice to all this, that's how I read this "system". -J

---

----------------------------------------------------------------
Life is tough. But it's tougher when you're stupid. -John Wayne

The book is on swimming but the ideas will work on any type of metabolism that a person might have. He has supervised the training of world record holders from the 50 m freestyle to the Ironman. Olbrecht's has three concepts that most do not use when assessing an athlete. These are

1. energy metabolism - a much different understanding of energy metabolism and how the various energy systems drive performance.

2. testing approach - a different testing approach to measuring the conditioning level of an athlete (the strength of both the aerobic and anaerobic systems.) He measures the anaerobic as well as the aerobic metabolism. This is important because the two interact and without this assessment a coach could be missing something important.

3. training effects -how a particular workout will affect the two main energy systems. This is probably the most important part of his approach since while it is nice to know how to measure the energy systems and assess how they interact, it would all be pointless unless one knew how to affect changes in these systems. This knowledge of what works led Olbrecht over 25 years ago to adopt mainly a Hi-Lo approach. But he will use workouts in between when it is called for.

His book is mainly about the types of training that can accomplish this third objective. But in it he includes information on the first two. For a detailed discussion of the first part see our discussion on the lactate threshold.

http://www.lactate.com/lactate_threshold.html

It is essentially a discussion of just what the LT is and what causes it. For a discussion of the testing approach, the Secrets of Lactate CD covers most of it.

http://www.lactate.com/cdrom.html

But you have to read the book to start to understand the rationale for his training advice. It is not an easy read for some because it represents a new way of thinking.

An aside: the most prominent coach that Olbrecht has worked with is Jacco Verhaeren who is moving from The Netherlands to become Australia's top swimming coach

http://www.smh.com.au/...-20140117-310kv.html

------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

I guess I should have been more specific in my question to Seiler. I should have asked if he knows about any research regarding triathlon and/or swimming. I have good experience with this way of training since I grew up in this system as a cross country skier in Norway. But as a skier my knowledge is on activity on frozen water, not int he water ;-)

Hi Stephan,

Thanks for responding and coming onto the forum, you now have enough posts to PM people and have access to the classifieds ;-)

I had a question about specific cell signalling, In your research you indicate how when you apply work load it elicits a cellular response and then there is an adaption or change in the athlete (better, worse, or neutral depending on the athlete and the stimulus)

In simple terms I guess this would be:

the athlete executes a training session -> there is an internal response to the session -> then after a certain amount of time the athlete has adapted.

If possible could you go into more detail about the response? IE is it localized (working muscle group) or systemic? I think most of us understand that it is localized. If you swim bike or run more you will usually become a better swimmer, biker or runner.

Just wondering if you could go over your views on the general (systemic adaptations) vs sport specific (working or specific muscle group) cellular response?

Thanks for your time,
Maurice

Halvard wrote:

I guess I should have been more specific in my question to Seiler. I should have asked if he knows about any research regarding triathlon and/or swimming. I have good experience with this way of training since I grew up in this system as a cross country skier in Norway. But as a skier my knowledge is on activity on frozen water, not int he water ;-)

There is:

This is a good one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23921084


Here is the complete study:


http://journals.humankinetics.com/AcuCustom/Sitename/Documents/DocumentItem/Munoz_ijspp_2012_0352-in%20press.pdf

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

THANKS

Some interesting points from the paper: (and of course more research needed as always :-)


"There were significant positive correlations between competition time and % of total
training time in zone 2 (r= 0.939, P=0.001). That is, greater time spent in zone 2 during
training was associated with slower competition performance."

"Cycling training in Zone 1 was related to
the competition running performance (r= -.925 ; P=0.001). On the other hand, cycling
training in Zone 2 correlated inversely with running performance (r=.912 ; P=0.001)."

"The key finding of this study was that intensity distribution was correlated with
performance in the Ironman triathlon such that greater absolute and relative loading of
training in intensity zone 1 was positively correlated with performance, while greater relative
training load performed in intensity zone 2, or ‘between-thresholds intensity’ was negatively
correlated with triathlon performance. That is, a training distribution focusing on
accumulating a larger volume of low intensity training, but not more ‘between-thresholds’
intensity training, was associated with better performance. "

"Nevertheless, it does appear that a small portion of the event is performed above the
lactate threshold (15% in swimming, 4% cycling, 0% running, all according to HR-based
zones). Despite this, more lactate threshold intensity training during the 18 weeks prior to
racing was negatively associated with performance. "

"The most common deviation from their training prescription was that athletes cycled
at higher intensity when they were not supervised by a coach. Zone 1 training became zone 2
training many times. About 64% of the overall Zone 2 training was found to be during
cycling training. "