Seiler spelled it out pretty well for even time crunched athletes in one of the fasttalk podcasts. With as little as 5 hours/week, one needs to be a long workout 3+ hours, and then 2 days of high intensity(1 hour).
Triathlon Forum
Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
Re: 80/20 training method [cartsman]
[ In reply to ]
Re: 80/20 training method [redlude97]
[ In reply to ]
It's been a while since I read Matt F's 80/20 book, but I seem to remember that if you're running 80/20, then you really need to be doing high volume. You might read about elite runners doing their long, easy runs a 6.00min/km pace, but then they're doing 250kms a week...
Re: 80/20 training method [cartsman]
[ In reply to ]
cartsman wrote:
desert dude wrote:
cartsman wrote:
At the other extreme, if you're a time-crunched amateur who struggles to consistently hit 7 hours a week, then you can go hard pretty much every session without risking over training, and if you spend 80% of your limited training time in zones 1 and 2 then you're going to plateau pretty quickly.are you sure you're not backwards on this? Not the over training part the plateau part.
You know, after I wrote that I realised I hadn't put it very well! Guess I don't mean "hard" as in above threshold every session, I just mean "more than zone 1 and 2". Certainly with cycling I think spending 80% in zone 1 and 2 (using power-based zones) is a waste of time if you only have 7 hours a week and therefore only 3-4 hours of cycling time (unless you're starting from a very low base). Swimming likewise. Running I agree that time in zone 1 and 2 is more beneficial. So replace "hard" in my OP with "zone 3 or above" and it's more what I meant.
You should also keep in mind that the Fitzgerald book defines zone 2 as 70%-83% FTP. So a lot of the 'easy' work in the Fitzgerald training plans is at high aerobic / low tempo power (TR defines tempo as 76%-87% FTP).
This differs from Seilers work, where easy rides are done below VT1 (if I remember correct ~ between 65% and 70% of FTP).
pdgf wrote:
cartsman wrote:
desert dude wrote:
cartsman wrote:
At the other extreme, if you're a time-crunched amateur who struggles to consistently hit 7 hours a week, then you can go hard pretty much every session without risking over training, and if you spend 80% of your limited training time in zones 1 and 2 then you're going to plateau pretty quickly.are you sure you're not backwards on this? Not the over training part the plateau part.
You know, after I wrote that I realised I hadn't put it very well! Guess I don't mean "hard" as in above threshold every session, I just mean "more than zone 1 and 2". Certainly with cycling I think spending 80% in zone 1 and 2 (using power-based zones) is a waste of time if you only have 7 hours a week and therefore only 3-4 hours of cycling time (unless you're starting from a very low base). Swimming likewise. Running I agree that time in zone 1 and 2 is more beneficial. So replace "hard" in my OP with "zone 3 or above" and it's more what I meant.
You should also keep in mind that the Fitzgerald book defines zone 2 as 70%-83% FTP. So a lot of the 'easy' work in the Fitzgerald training plans is at high aerobic / low tempo power (TR defines tempo as 76%-87% FTP).
This differs from Seilers work, where easy rides are done below VT1 (if I remember correct ~ between 65% and 70% of FTP).
OK, missed that detail, makes more sense in that case.