I've had good success with an 80/20 mix of intensity. The 20 being the high portion. It depends on the person really though. If there wwas a new athlete asking me this question, I would tell them to do exclusively (100%) low intensity. That's just me though.

---

- Jordan

My Strava

I'm also have good success with 80/20 mixture.

Right now my opinion is that if a person is not time limited then 80/20 is likely the best mix of low/high intensity.

If a person is time limited then that 20% could be higher depending on the athlete and their particular situation.

Thanks - I’ve been looking into that 80/20 idea. Been starting to follow it roughly. I’m used to doing a lot of hard efforts in the past and very little easy efforts, it seemed to work until it didn’t as I got really burned out this past season, felt crappy and my results reflected that. Trying to do more volume overall now, and keep the majority of it at relatively low intensity - I tend to think that this approach is better, it’s just that subconsciously I’m thinking I won’t be as fast as a result (especially since I mainly race oly distance) but I’m trying to convince myself that it’s a better approach - certainly has made training more enjoyable thus far. Thanks for the input.

I'm training 4-6 hrs/week. 50% HI because not enough time available. If I had 10-12 hrs/week available, I would probably drift towards more low intensity. But not 80-20, personally. I did this for cycling 10 years ago, but had lots of time on my schedule, did the Joe Friel plan with lots of low intensity miles. I had a good season back then, but don't know if it's because of the science behind it or just because I did ride more.

Louis :-)

Consider whether it may make sense to adjust based on the intensity of your high intensity efforts. If the high is around sweet spot, then maybe 60/40. If the high is at threshold, then maybe 80/20. If the high is 5x5s, then maybe 90/10, etc. etc.

If you are talking about cycling, then after reviewing the evidence on time-in-zone (https://fft.tips/vtiz) we made a free automated periodization planner which will tell you how much low / medium and high intensity to do all year around personalized to your hours, aims and ability. It's here: https://fft.tips/tpp. bw alex from FFT

Hello

what are you training for (distance) ?

For 70.3, I'm doing between 7 and 10 hours / week for bike + run (swim is different beast) :

- base / build period : from 100 to 80% low intensity (so 0 to 20% high)
- specific (2 or 3 month before objectives) : from 70% low 30% high to 60/40 the last block (because more race pace)

Low : base endurance (below maxFat, between 58% and 69% of maxHR)
High : mostly 70.3 race pace, some sweet spot, little FTP, very little PMA

Swim : as a 2km race is a "short" endurance race (less than 45mn), I'm doing more intensity (average 70/30), and more FTP and PMA, as race pace is near/above FTP (arm/shoulders muscle point of view)

70% is at 80-90% max HR
10% is at all out death max HR
20% is at 40-50% max HR

Do as much at high intensity as you can comfortably recover to do it day in and day out.

Hello

radically opposite method as the one I (and other peoples) propose. Probably need some clarifications, I will try...

You propose to do mostly FTP, some VO2max power, and 20% recovery.
You are only working on the sugar / lactic zone. Never working on fat sucking.
This can work short term for Sprint Tri, or cycling TT, or intense crits.

I hope (for you) that during winter (or some other time) you work on basic endurance to develop.... what is described here for long run :
https://www.podiumrunner.com/...y-long-runs-be_60984

I've honestly found it literally impossible to push my abilities past my typical limits if I'm doing more than an 80/20 mix. I've absolutely found for myself that those slower easier paced extra volume miles set the groundwork for taking it to the next level of performance. This of course, necessitates the time to do it, which gets fairly substantial once I'm pushing for that next level.

For maintenance though, and definitely if I'm training with less hours than normal, I can do a lot more than 80/20, definitely more than 50/50 hard easy, and even more skewed toward hard the lower my hours go. This type of skew even works if I'm going from out-of-shapeish toward prior race ready condition, meaning I can make good gains with that mix. But, for me at least, it doesn't work for pushing past my prior peak performance boundaries - only to get back up toward that level.

I will add that for me, those extra 'easy effort' miles that add volume on top of what I'm already used to on my 80/20ish type standard builds, definitely do NOT feel 'easy' even if they're still slow. Sure, they are a lot slower and HR is a lot lower than a typical hard effort, but usually by that point, my legs or arms are so toasted from the weekly volume/intensity that it's quite a chore to slog through those added miles. But that's what you get - no free lunch - gotta work for your gains, and you'll def feel even the slower miles in any legit buildup past your prior level.

Very cool - thx for sharing

I mainly race oly distance but shoot for 10-12 hrs of weekly volume. I’m in the process of sorting out the weekly structure. Buried myself with too much weekly high intensity workouts last season so trying to find the right balance

Yeah, per P-Wolf this is the opposite of what I do.

85% at ~60% or less of max HR.
Maybe 14 % at Sweet Spot-to-VO2Max.
<1% at truly all out.

I would absolutely crumple into a fetal position in a matter of hours at 70% at 80-90% max HR. Either that or my weekly average volume would drop from ~15 hours/week (pure cycling) to 1-2 hours per week.

Going to throw in with the low intensity athletes. My enjoyment and results have improved with only 1 high intensity day a week.

There was recently another thread that talked of 80/20 in terms of extend / intensify. So I consider my easy (breathe only through the nose easy while cycling / running) as extend where it's two to three hours easy.

On the one hard day a week, I'm a mouth breather and pushing it.

It feels great not having dead legs from overtraining. Now I generally feel healthy almost seven days a week.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

You forgot to put this in pink.

That's a recipe for disaster.

 
I will add that for me, those extra 'easy effort' miles that add volume on top of what I'm already used to on my 80/20ish type standard builds, definitely do NOT feel 'easy' even if they're still slow. Sure, they are a lot slower and HR is a lot lower than a typical hard effort, but usually by that point, my legs or arms are so toasted from the weekly volume/intensity that it's quite a chore to slog through those added miles. But that's what you get - no free lunch - gotta work for your gains, and you'll def feel even the slower miles in any legit buildup past your prior level.[/quote]
Ok - this last paragraph is were you lost me. You’re saying that when you follow an 80 (easy) / 20 (hard) plan, which has been discussed here. So, what “extra ‘easy effort’ miles” are you referring to...80/20 should be 80% low intensity: 20% high - where do these mystery extra easy effort miles come from, are they in addition to the 80% easy workload you’re putting in (not sure how that makes sense), and why are you so toasted from 20% weekly volume being hard efforts?

or a recipe for Lionel Sanders.

---

80/20 Endurance Ambassador

People are understanding what 80/20 is a percentage OF, right?

By the Stephen Seiler definition and the Malcolm Brown presentation that we all used to drool over, the polarized model was always 80/20% of workouts and most definitely not 80/20% of time spent exercising at intensity x.

As in, 1 in 5 of my workouts are focussed on intensity, eg one workout is 3 sets of 5 x 3min VO2 intervals with active recovery, the other four workouts are easy effort. Definitely bloody NOT 1/5th of my workout hours in a week spent at VO2 max. Because that'd kill me.

People understand that, right? One of the main points was that all that easy meant you could do the hard bit HARD.

Rich.

Edit to add.. replying to thread in general, not Damon who knows his shit.

Ok - this last paragraph is were you lost me. You’re saying that when you follow an 80 (easy) / 20 (hard) plan, which has been discussed here. So, what “extra ‘easy effort’ miles” are you referring to...80/20 should be 80% low intensity: 20% high - where do these mystery extra easy effort miles come from, are they in addition to the 80% easy workload you’re putting in (not sure how that makes sense), and why are you so toasted from 20% weekly volume being hard efforts?[/quote]
I'm saying that it works well for me at 80/20 or 90/10 easy/hard ratios for actually improving past my plateaus.

I can do a lot more hard stuff, like 50/50, even 75/25 hard:easy if I cut back volume a lot, but there's no way I'm breaking through any of my performance plateaus on that regimen. I can get old fitness largely back with it, but I can't get a new level of performance without that slow easy incremental stuff that I'd get with 80/20ish or even 90/10ish (with higher overall volume).

I can get EASILY toasted on 20% hard weekly efforts if I'm cranking up total weekly volume past my norm, and I'd anticipate that most people would too.

Hello,

You understand that high intensity is not only maxVO2 HIIT, right ?
And you understand that low intensity is not everything below max Vo2 HIIT, right ?

If you consider (like I do, like Arild Tveiten do, like many coaches do, ....) :

1) "low intensity" as "base endurance"

2) "high intensity" as : "race pace for IM and 70.3 (below sweet spot)" or "sweet spot (approx. race pace for Oly)" or "FTP (approx. race pace for sprint)" or "maxVO2 (race pace for individual pursuit)"

then it make sense to talk about "time spent exercising at intensity x".

In my IM70.3 specific block I do per week something around (as an average) :

few minutes VO2 (max HR) - like you do
30mn FTP (around 87% max HR)
1h SweetSpot (around 80% max HR)
2h IM70.3 Race pace (around 74% max HR)

Total 3h30 of high intensity (around 35% of my bike + run time)

The 65% rest is easy (below 69% of max HR). And during the "base/build" phase, this is 100% to 80% of the time spent.

So, yes, talking "time spent exercising at intensity x"

Stephen Seiler was pretty explicit about what high intensity meant, and I'm pretty sure it didn't include sweet spot. Polarized in its truest sense was meant to mean opposite ends of the spectrum, no?

Agree a lot is open to interpretation, however.

Stephen Seiler is pretty specific in what he considers High and Low intensity.

Everything for him is based around the Lactate turn points.

He specifically talks about lactate testing to find them. Hr can be used as a proxy but can miss the mark.

He also considers that this translates at all training volumes NOT just those doing 15+hrs a week.

The main take away from any time I listen to him is that idea that training takes time to build and do properly, if you what to stay healthy for an extended career.

People can always use intensity to make short term gains, but this usually comes at some expense.
80/20 is the sessions, 1 out of 5 is above LT2. The rest are below LT1

In terms of time in Zone, its at least 90/10 if not 92/8.

 
Yes, very much open to interpretation.

This is why, giving the %, I also detail the content (intensity).

For endurance athlete, I read in several book the polarized thing as being :
1) on one side : "mostly fat" using effort (below max Fat) so, base endurance
2) on the other side : "mostly sugar" using efforts, sweet spot being the right place to work it efficiently, in addition to FTP, VO2

Sweet spot being 60% or 70% of energy used is sugar (vs fat), positioned around 90% of FTP.

Then of course, you need some work around you race pace. These could be VO2 (if you are an IPursuiter), FTP (TT or Sprint Tri), Sweet Spot (Oly Tri), or lower (70.3 or IM).

I agree the IM and IM70.3 race pace are not far from half sugar / half fat efforts (mostly below, for normal diet peoples, I guess), so they are not clearly on one side or the other of the polarization.

Personally I consider my 70.3 race pace as part of the "high intensity", but this is possibly a personal choice, as it is slightly more based on fat than sugar.

I could consider it as "low intensity" (so increasing my "low intensity" percentage), but still I will differentiate it in my training from the base endurance, which I need to keep above 60% of my training.

I think you mean misunderstanding.