Are we seeing the end of the theory that athletes avoid training at zone 3/tempo? It seems “polarized training” is no longer a hot new buzzword.
I just read Phil Skiba’s new book which advocates including work in zone 3 (also doing sessions in zone 4 and 5 too). It’s clear the Norwegians are spending considerable amounts of time doing long intervals at LT1 (based on their youtube videos, Iden’s previous strava data, Lionel’s recent livestream Q&A).
Just a handful of years ago there were blog posts by top IM pros saying they do more interval sessions at threshold and vo2max rather than tempo pace. Then spend the rest of the time riding easy.
I am far from an expert but I do wonder what role volume plays in this debate. If you have time to hit aerobic training, this “grey area” sub LT2 training you describe, and top end V02 max type efforts in sufficient quantities, good on ya but if not, are you better off sticking to the 80/20 approach?
Are we seeing the end of the theory that athletes avoid training at zone 3/tempo? It seems “polarized training” is no longer a hot new buzzword.
I just read Phil Skiba’s new book which advocates including work in zone 3 to improve LT (also doing sessions in zone 4 and 5 too). It’s clear the Norwegians are spending considerable amounts of time doing long intervals at LT1 (based on their youtube videos, Iden’s previous strava data, Lionel’s recent livestream Q&A).
Just a handful of years ago there were blog posts by top IM pros saying they do more interval sessions at threshold and vo2max rather than tempo pace. Then spend the rest of the time riding easy.
Thoughts?
I am getting confused
Doesn’t one of them refer to a 3 zone model
and the other about a 6 zone model?
based on their youtube videos, Iden’s previous strava data, Lionel’s recent livestream Q&A
Might be a good basis for ideas on how to formulate new studies. But I don’t think this, in itself, constitutes a definitive advancement of our knowledge of training science.
Correct those few examples are not scientific based.
However, my other example Dr. Phil Skiba is as science based as you can get. His book suggests including zone 3 tempo intervals in the long ride and long run.
Depends how nerdy you want to get. I’m going to start with I’m just an AG athlete that really likes training and a lot of my info comes more from cycling than triathlon.
Basically their point is the average 80/20 is also a false number, 80/20 might describe a years worth of training but not necessarily a weeks, or a months. It’s all periodization and there’s a time for less and a time for more. Even in the 80/20 plans the workout notes say things like: you might need to be in zone x (grey zone) to train if doing 70.3.
Now I’ll wait for someone to tell me how wrong I am.
Also, not going to touch individualized response to stimulus which throws so much mud in the water.
I think most long course pros have always done a fair bit of “grey zone” training at some point before races as that is specific to the intensity of the event. It’d be unlikely that specific training is not beneficial at some point during the training year regardless of sport.
Re polarized training and what is the new thing at the moment I think it’s fruitless to try and keep up with every trend and find a single training “system” that works best for any given individual. Only in recent years we have gone through threshold, hiit, VO2max(4x4min), polarized and now back to (sub)threshold again as the “best way to train”. Trying to follow every new trend will make training very scattered and inconsistent. One part of being a successful athlete is finding a way of training that works and through a lot of consistency and repetition build on that with a steady progression for a number of years.
There are differences in how athletes respond to training as well so not every system will be as successful for every athlete. Individual physiology, training background, available training time, age etc all plays a part. Some athletes don’t respond well to high intensity at all whereas others benefit a bit more from it during parts of the training year even for long distance. Key is finding that out for each athlete.
Not all successful endurance athletes train exactly the same way or according to the same system either, which is easy to forget when there’s a lot of talk about a small number of athletes who do well and create a buzz around a certain way of training. Question is always what of that is relevant to you and your situation.
Not a coach, but may as well muddy the waters further.
N=1, One thing I noticed over my own years is what my body responds best to changes as well. When I was younger and transitioning from swimming to tri, polarised training worked. It let me get in easy volume to build the musculature on land, with just enough intensity to keep the engine running fine.
Now that I am older, I can handle a lot more threshold work but on the other side of the coin, higher higher intensity is now a heavier recovery burden/injury risk.
Depends how nerdy you want to get. I’m going to start with I’m just an AG athlete that really likes training and a lot of my info comes more from cycling than triathlon.
Ask what outcome are you trying to achieve through this training? Base phase? VO2 max? FTP? I heard someone say SST vs 80/20 is a false narrative years ago and Empirical Cycling podcast just did an episode about exactly that: https://open.spotify.com/...lBw0rSTRG75zHfJRpQAQ
Basically their point is the average 80/20 is also a false number, 80/20 might describe a years worth of training but not necessarily a weeks, or a months. It’s all periodization and there’s a time for less and a time for more. Even in the 80/20 plans the workout notes say things like: you might need to be in zone x (grey zone) to train if doing 70.3.
Now I’ll wait for someone to tell me how wrong I am.
Also, not going to touch individualized response to stimulus which throws so much mud in the water.
I never thought I’d hear a bigger pair of navel gazers than Magness and Marcus until I tried listening to Empirical Cycling. Geez. What bloviators.
It’s all trends for the mortals. The “new†trend is LT1 and LT2 work because of the Norwegians and the off brand Sanders is conducting and documenting in Arizona. I’m sure lactate monitors will sell out soon because of them. It all gets bastardized and commercialized (Fitzgerald) to sell to the masses. Or perhaps the masses want to get it down to the most basic level in order to understand it and try to implement it. It has and always will be gray because training is very specific to the individual, goals, time available, experience, a multitude of factors. Who it should not be trends for are the elite coaches and programs who may implement new methods based on research and experience and not based on following the las test winner or biggest social media star.
I am far from an expert but I do wonder what role volume plays in this debate. If you have time to hit aerobic training, this “grey area” sub LT2 training you describe, and top end V02 max type efforts in sufficient quantities, good on ya but if not, are you better off sticking to the 80/20 approach?
Yeah, exactly. Volume of those folks versus single digit hours per week folks.
I don’t know how useful a bunch of low z2 upper z1 group rides do for a 6 hour a week person other than enjoy the beer after.
And where does Renato Canova’s training system fall into? He has his athletes do VERY high quality long runs and the like with lots of recovery around them and he talks about increasing the ‘polarity’ of their running. but that long run of 2 hours or so for marathoners is done at a pace in the 90s% range of marathon pace - which is most definitely ‘grey’ zone training under the 80/20 approach, but it is also polarised in the sense that other runs are very easy. As I understand it, Kipchoge’s training is centred around a quality long run, lots of intervals at slightly faster than marathon pace and a fartlek each week, with the rest at a very easy pace. So definitely not 20% above the ‘grey zone’ approach that 80/20 advocates.
Almost makes me think the 80/20 discussion was specific to athletes in other specific sports which don’t make up the constituent elements of triathlon and its various distances. Eg cross country skiing…
I agree with this after some self experimentation.
I have found that 80/20 or a polarised approach doesn’t work so well for swimming as an example.
Say if you can commit to about 3k each swim, I have found that its best that as much as possible is intense (whether that is swim or pull buoy/paddles, but hard efforts over 50-100 or short rest 200-400s). Any easy swimming should just be the cool down and warm up (300 each warm up and warm down). If you want to tack on a long cool down for relaxation then that’ss another thing. I’m assuming that this is for someone whose technique is fine and they just need fitness
His book suggests including zone 3 tempo intervals in the long ride and long run.
Sure. That’s not inconsistent with almost any type of training methodology.
Except it is inconsistent with polarized training. The amount of Zone 3 suggested in Skiba’s book is definitely inconsistent with a truly polarized approach.
Though I do agree with you that this is the exception and that all the training methodologies that I have seen fully laid out in books (Skiba, Dixon, Friel) include lots of Zone 3 work, especially for long course triathlon.
That’s my uncertainty with polarized training, that I’ve heard Seiler and others advocate for it in general (though on That Triathlon Show, Seiler does hedge a bit that pyramidal may be more appropriate for long course triathlon), but I haven’t seen anyone lay out a year long strategy for triathlon. I’m aware there is a book 80/20 triathlon or similar that I would assume lays out a full season approach to polarized training, though I have not read this book. Hard for me to believe that there is no or almost no Zone 3 training suggested for a half ironman race. Perhaps someone who has read it can chime in.
There was another coach interview on That Triathlon Show (can’t remember who), where he basically said he had his athletes train polarized almost the entire year except for maybe a week or two right before a race where they train specific to the race intensity.
Just recently listened to this Science of Ultra episode that is very strongly against polarized training (for ultra runners, though triathlon is touched upon as well): https://www.scienceofultra.com/podcasts/148. Super heavy content as the host is basically just reading conclusion sections of journal articles the whole time, but it was interesting.
And where does Renato Canova’s training system fall into? He has his athletes do VERY high quality long runs and the like with lots of recovery around them and he talks about increasing the ‘polarity’ of their running. but that long run of 2 hours or so for marathoners is done at a pace in the 90s% range of marathon pace - which is most definitely ‘grey’ zone training under the 80/20 approach, but it is also polarised in the sense that other runs are very easy. As I understand it, Kipchoge’s training is centred around a quality long run, lots of intervals at slightly faster than marathon pace and a fartlek each week, with the rest at a very easy pace. So definitely not 20% above the ‘grey zone’ approach that 80/20 advocates.
Almost makes me think the 80/20 discussion was specific to athletes in other specific sports which don’t make up the constituent elements of triathlon and its various distances. Eg cross country skiing…
FWIW, assuming the bolded means “slightly slower than marathon pace”, Skiba’s book would place this intensity in the moderate domain (below lactate threshold - LT1), which is Zone 1 in the 3 zone polarized model.