thank you for sharing this.....really good stuff

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

thank you, an interesting read..

It is nice to get it from the source, not in a magazine article.

Really interesting thanks.

Question: How much does the high relative % of low zone work idea apply to an amateur cyclist training only 6ish hours a week with the main goal being 16km TT's.

Shoud they also spend 70+% in and around zone 2?

Your question about zones depending of how many zones you have. The easy training should be in the green (Z1&Z2 in a 5 zones scale).
Intervals should be in Z4.

6 hours training, 2 x intervals sessions a week with 4x8m or 5x6m with 2m rest beween.
Then you have 5h Z1/Z2 training.

Thanks
So you are advocating that regardless of how many hours you train that that is the kind of zone distribution that is likely to be optimal?
Even with a very specific performance goal like a 20 minute TT?
Extremely interesting.

I think some guy in Spain wrote a paper on this

It turned out that even moderate and low volume athletes benefit from the 80/20 polarized approach to training

The Z4 intervals are not all out with long rest between. They are hard, trust me, but with short rest you have to make sure you do not start too hard. The first intervals should not be faster than the other.

A Z1/Z2 easy has to do with effort and not speed. If you are fit your easy will be faster than a person that is not so fit.

Seiler's name is also on that paper - Iker Muñoz, paper here,

http://journals.humankinetics.com/...1123/ijspp.2012-0350

Some graphs from polarized training

On my phone now so don't have the link, but Joel and Paulo discussed this on the real coaching podiatrist.

Cheers,