Since I have experience from cross country skiing in Norway I can give some insight on why it works.

First of all the sport has a culture of sharing knowledge among coaches, team and athletes. No one is talking about intellectual property on training program. It is common to talk about what you do, get input from other and to share successes. Most coaches want to educate their athletes so they can coach themselves. That is why many on the top level do not have a coach writing them a program, but the coach is more a person to discuss with, sparring partner.

The polarized model works. Just look at the results. Is it the only way, most likely not. But it works, it is simple, you do not need a lot of gadgets and it gives power to the athlete since they understand what and why they are doing specific things.

I think triathletes and triathlon coaches have a tendency to make things really difficult. You need a power meter, you need to log everything on your Garmin, you need to know your TSS, you need this, you need that. Well, has any of this improved the athletes, or giving the athletes a better understanding of why they are doing what they are doing. Or is it a job security for the coach.

Some times a triathlete is a person that is trying to find the most complex way between A and B, some times helped by a coach.

Jack- I do not have a statistical set. Just anecdotal from the hundreds of tests I do per year. Add to that the thousands that have been done at this facility prior to me. We tend to be on the "polarized training" side of the debate, with recognition that different things work for different athletes, with different goals for different reasons.

Shirtman- This female is an example I chose because we have approximately 6 tests per year for 2 years. I could have very easily grabbed other examples. This individual was a us marathon trials qualifier. I believe her PB was ~ 2:30. 10K PB ~ 33min. A very solid runner, but not international caliber.

Throughout the course of this testing she was a well trained athlete.

You'll have to forgive, I couldn't attach the pdf's to this post. My apologies


Example 1: Mostly Base training. http://www.bcsm.org/...-Y-PRe-Post-Base.pdf
Example 2: Some Threshold, mostly base. http://www.bcsm.org/...Y-More-anaerobic.pdf
Example3. More High intensity at the expense of base. http://www.bcsm.org/...Y-More-anaerobic.pdf

First Example: Mostly "base" training, which corresponds, typically, to paces below 1.5mmol (in our opinion).
Changes we see: (after 3 months)
1. Lower absolute lactates. Instead of starting at 1.5ish mmol, she is below 1.0
2. Less upward slope of low intensity lactates. The aerobic system is better handling the workloads and the anaerobic system's contribution is not needed.
3. Major inflection point at a higher workload- At some point in time we're going to have an imbalance between production and removal. Here is happens later.
4. Decreased RPE per workload. Each stage is easier on the body and also feels easier. This is happening due to improved fitness.
5. Lower HR per given stage. Whether improved stroke volume or peripheral economy, there is less cardiovascular work.

2nd Example. (after 2 months) Training had not changed too much. This was a pre-check prior to a race A slight increases in the amount of Threshold and above work, but not at the example of base volume. 2 ish weeks following this test she ran a 20K PB at just over 1 hour at Sea level. Pace was high 5:30's which would be appropriate given a threshold of 5:55, plus sea level, plus during a high priority competition.

1. Low workload Lactates essentially the same. Slightly better in post
2. HR essentially the same
3. RPE Essentially the same. Slightly better in post
4. Lactate inflection point, slightly delayed in post.

3rd Example. (~2.5 months later). Between August and November a significant amount of high intensity work was done to prep for another race. This was at the expense of low intensity work (the %'s shifted a lot)

1. Low intensity lactates were similar. This indicates the aerobic engine is still there
2. Lactates at ~ 6:40 pace tend to differ. From here on, the post testing has more lactate. The anaerobic system has a significantly greater contribution. More anaerobic = Lower threshold
3. HRs are higher per given stage
4. RPE is similar.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

Are we reading the same thread? I am not seeing this at all. The same coaches are laughing and shaking their heads about this or that.

And, to be honest, if you'd followed said "coaching elite" over the years of their posts, you'd find what is being summarized here falls largely in line with their own principles. Like they'd, um, read this stuff before...

I see a fair number that are hung up on xyz point or another (perhaps including myself).

---

The question of who is right and who is wrong has seemed to me always too small to be worth a moment's thought, while the question of what is right and what is wrong has seemed all-important.

-Albert J. Nock

PK,

Thanks for replying. I appreciate you taking the time!


We're in agreement. I think DD said something similar earlier.


Ok, I guess that clarifies this. But Brian may not like his new handle. ;-)



Agreed that changes have to line up with long term goals. I think that Seiler's work is more a reflection of understanding what coaches have done that has proven results than trying to really drive new lines of thinking. I'm sure many roads lead to Rome, but I think many roads also say they lead to Rome and just end up dumping you in the middle of nowhere.

I also don't think we're talking about one study any more. The video atop this thread cited about a half dozen studies, some of which probably don't include cultures of excellence (I like that term, btw).

-J

---

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

Maybe it is because English is not my first language and I misunderstand you. But if not, what you wrote is quite condescending.
For my part I think it is positive that people are trying to get more knowledge about training and that they ask questions.
But what do I know, I am not a coach....

stover is being condescending... i'm not. i'm saying i like watching people try to learn, but much more often than not they get 95% of it and by missing the last 5% of it end up crashing and burning. So I am also agreeing with stover.

---

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

Mark, I'm not being condescending. As I've said before, always read my posts like 2 people having beers and debating something.

I was pointing out that people were on the ledge or already over the ledge before they grasped the bigger picture.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Do you really think *I* think you are condescending? He'll no. But Halvard likely thinks you are.

---

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

Do you know a reasonable way for recreational athletes to measure their LT and MLSS using an hrm and whatever other commonly available gear? It seems that could be interesting info to track in order to put some of these intensities into context.
Thanks!

If you put these intensities in terms of power I know a very easy way to measure that.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

It seems at least some of the work measured blood lactate, correlated that with heart rate and prescribed training zones based on that. It seems that time spent between LT and MLSS indicated who responded well to training and who did not. So it would be interesting to have a way to measure the heart rate zones for myself. I know folks come up with all sorts of field tests, but it's hard to tell what the most sensible thing to do is.

I think it is more a lost opportunity. This thread was build on a really interesting presentation showing descriptive data from world class athletes. Then linked those findings to research on both high level athletes and more recreational. The researcher even answered questions here. Also in this thread a research paper on Ironman athletes came into light showing that the sweet spot/threshold training did ok on the cycling leg, but the athletes preforms worse on the run leg. I personally think it is interesting, and I understand why people have question especially since the focus on ST has been on power training, threshold training and TSS.

I would love if professional coaches who use power over HR and that prescribed threshold training to their athletes contribute to the discussion.

As a coach do you prescribe to training by power, TSS and threshold. What is your view of using HR monitor? What do you think about Seiler's findings and the implication of triathlon training.

Thanks for posting the charts and the comments. Quite informative. I think the 2nd example chart is the same as the third, though. That being said, to my untrained eye, the runner in the example would seem to be slower (not less fit) in November than she was in either June or August. I'm curious as to why the change in training strategy in the third example? It looks like she was making substantial and continuing progress with her previous plan up through August. Was she planning to race less than a mile? Or, compete in some type of non-traditional race, ie trail or substantial climb, where strength and anaerobic capacity would trump LT?
Regards,
Ryan

part of it is, if i/we pointed out every poster that sounded like they jumped or were abouread would get to jump, the thread would get diluted with N=1 examples, which may or may not confuse others.

It's hard to go through, especially when so many are saying how they are going to change their training, and point out each of these instances. Hence the blanket statement that looking before leaping isn't a bad idea.

In some respects ST is a great place for discussion but in other instances it falls short.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Do you have erg setting for power?

or at least a reasonable ramp curve gearing vs your own pm?

Maurice

I have no idea what ramp curve gearing is. I have a powertap and a tacx trainer, but I'd be willing to do this for running, so I could use a tread mill as an erg of sorts, in so much as it dictates the pace.

What does training with a power meter or hr monitor have to do with what training model you use? Seems like training with a pm could be equally useful in polarized approach.

Re threshold training I'm not sure it has to be either or. It's something you can use at various times of the year depending on the specific demands of the event and taking long term development into consideration. Doesn't mean it has to make up a major part of the training schedule.

I need to read the study you quoted more carefully but I'm guessing the group that did better also spent more time training in the zone they raced in during specific prep. In that case it's not surprising they performed better. Principle of specificity still applies.. Training studies can be tricky because there are many things to consider and account for.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

You could start with a few tests:

First a ramp test, start at 100 watts and increase 10-20 per min until you fail at about 20 min (10 watts is 300 watt failure 20 watts is 500 failure)

Second test is take 75% of peak and try to extend at steady state for 20 min, if you extend by more than 22 min then you might be a long responder or might just be in *long* shape, if you are short, say 16-18 min then you *might* be a short responder, might just be in *short* shape or might just be out of shape.

Third, look at the link from my post above. It applies to the specific relationship between high threshold and high an cap.
You can use this test as you see fit, if you run pursuit or are a 1500m specialist then executing the test will be a lot different than from the marathon or IM marathon.

IE a test for 10000m runner was about 5X2000 at 27:30 pace with a last 1200m "free" this was always date pace as opposed to goal pace, you can decide on % of FTP but if you had to correlate running to cycling........

You could say 5X3 min at 30 (100-110% depending) min pace with only 1 min rest and then 2-3 min all out and see what power is.

Caveat.....I haven't done this test in cycling yet.

So this would give you peak abilities, sustainable abilities, and the relationship between AT and ANcap. Which are all important depending on the event you chose to race in.

Or you could just buy a BL meter... they are only 600$

As others have said one training model does not preclude another....

The thing is that some people have very different definitions for Maxlass or LT depending on who you talk to they could both be the same thing or an
associated pace at anywhere from 8-10 min to 2 hours depending on the event that an athlete trains for.

They are very model specific or athlete specific or zone specific.....or coach specific...... or researcher specific......

Maurice

In the US the cost for one is $280. One needs the test strips too which are an additional expense.

http://www.lactate.com/


This controversy is covered in detail at

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

and

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

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

---

Jerry Cosgrove

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

A lot of it _is_ interesting, but for a lot of us this is old hat. This is just the way we work. This is the way we've worked for a long time. Like I alluded to earlier, we don't have a marketing name for this sort of thing, we just call it coaching. It ain't sexy but it sure works damn fine. I find your interest in it fun. You crave the knowledge, that is good. A lot of my athletes are the same way. They want to know sooooo much. And they do, but mostly on the science side of things, but what befuddles them is how to take the knowledge and turn it into a multi year program of execution and application. That's where Brian and I and others come in. You see a lot of folks here running off with one tiny little tidbit of knowledge and its like 1/10000th of what they need to do it right.

I'm not sure how you would want us to contribute to the thread. Give case studies on our own derivations of some portion of this that is exhibited in our own methodology of a particular athlete?

---

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

,

Yeah, this is SO new to me. I started using this kind of training as a cross country skier for the 1985/86 season, as a coach in 1988 back in Norway. This is why I know this way of training, I got introduced to it 29 years ago. I even still have the training diary for that season it is fun reading. If you looked at the video, the descriptive research was done in Norway.

I also started with triathlon the year Never gonna give you up was a hit, and stopped again while Snap was singing I've got the power on the radio. You maybe find my interest in this kind of training fun, just remember my interest in this started in 1985.

So I start using this way of thinking as a coach in cross country skiing in 1988. When did you start, it must have been before since I am apparently new to this according to you?

Halvard
I think it would be better not to take this thread to personal
you made some very good contributions but I think you are now arguing a bit to much like a scientolgy person that tries to convert everybody to your own thinking. I am not saying you dodnt have a case for it)

Darren Smith once made this comment on twitter that involved polarized training.
Make things interesting: evoke diff internal loads/speeds/torque/RFD incl tech & tactical-whammo!
In that discussion which included dr skib

And to be fair what tools you use for each system as bjorn pointed out is not really relevant. I totally agree that triathletes have a tendency to make thinks to complicated, but it is not a case that for any training philosophy certain tools are needed ,

Bjorn I think in the triathlete study the guys that trained less in the race zone seemed to perform better and seemed to perform better in the run. I am not quite sure how that works out in a study that has 9 participants ranging from 58 - 90 min Ironman swimmer, but that was the result if I am not wrong.

That's what the authors said based on HR but, if you look at average pace/power the event was contested in Z1:

• AeT swim speed 0.92m/s in the last test and average speed in IM swim 0.84m/s
• AeT run speed 13.1km/h in the last test and 9.7 km/h in the IM marathon.
• Something similar would apply to the bike since AeT power average is 242w and bike splits are close to 6hs...

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

Thanks, just read the whole study and was thinking that heart rate is probably not the best measure to conclude which zone they raced in relative to the zones they trained in.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Hi Stephen, a quick further question about how you quantify HR - are your %s of max HR straight %s, or do you work them out as ( resting HR + % (max HR - resting HR) )? It makes a small but significant difference when trying to understand your zones.