I’m really confused about the mixed messages about low intensity training.
On the one hand the message is that if I train 12.5 hours in the week then 10 of those hours should be at a low intensity. That leaves three hours of hard effort. Very little time for some track/intervals, threshold runs, hill runs, bike intervals, speed work in the pool, …
On the other hand there are tons of articles that suggest to cut down on ‘junk miles’ and make sure every training hour counts. In addition, there are tons of suggestions to replace some runs and rides with weight/strength training. And throw in some Crosstraining for mobility and stability and you are very quickly running out of training hours.
So here’s my question: is the 80:20 rule really geared to professional athletes who can spend so much time training that they can throw in all the hard training they need and then still have loads of time left over to fill up with low intensity runs and rides? But if you have less that 15 hours a week to train then isn’t it better to hit all the high intensity workouts if you can handle it?
You are on the right track. The ideal ratio of high intensity training as a function of total training time follows an inverse power law relationship. So the less you train, past a minimum, the more intensity you should have as a percentage of total time (not in absolute time)
But if you have less that 15 hours a week to train then isn’t it better to hit all the high intensity workouts if you can handle it?
That may or may not be right, but injury prevention plays a part in how intense you train, especially with running. I’ve seen a lot of people picking up long term injuries in triathlon because of running, specifically high intensity stuff. Tendon injuries, stress fractures etc stuff that can take months to heal.
I think the reality for faster athletes is that zone 2 still a pretty decent clip.
I’m far from a true speedster, but even for me and my arthritic ankles, zone 2 pace (by HR) on the run is 7:30-7:50/mi on the run and 190-220w on (by FTP) the bike, which isn’t exactly a relaxed easy pace.
I just did a block of 80/20 advanced, and all those z2 miles accumulated felt plenty hard enough to go fast when I needed to. For sure, it’s not effort as such an easy pace that I can relax completely or watch movies (I can only do that in z1 efforts).
I’m still consistently amazed and horrified with what a decent effort a true z2 HR/power is for myself. I just did the 80/20 Oly Advanced book plan with great results, and that averaged about 11hrs/wk of training, peaking at 14, so not even a zillion hours required to train. (Honestly felt like my very upper limit of training volume at peak with all that z2)
Triathlon is aerobic. You’ll be hard pressed to accomplish any mileage at all that is not somewhat beneficial.
Most of the “junk miles” articles are (should be) directed at folks who are essentially being lazy and never doing anything hard, OR are training 5 hours a week, and still never doing anything hard.
“Junk miles” applies a great deal more if you’re training for an event that lasts less than 5 minutes. If you’re running the 800 or mile, you have to do quality work or you won’t succeed. I’d say that this extends out to about the 5k, especially at more competitive levels. But if you’re training for a >2-hr event, aerobic fitness and movement economy are everything, and both of those can be developed quite well doing >>80% of your training in zone 2. This can easily be extrapolated down to 1-hr sprint triathlons. 1-hr is still a VERY aerobic event with little need for speed or supra-threshold ability.
Distribution of training intensity should also vary with a needs analysis of the athlete. My wife, now a pro triathlete and cyclist, comes from a speed/power/strength sport background with zero cardiovascular fitness. In her first 4 years of triathlon and cycling we took an 80-20 approach or maybe closer to 70-30 sometimes. Results were fine. The last 2 years we’ve realized through a bit of burnout with higher intensity stuff, that she can get amazing fitness improvement with more like a 95-5 approach. She has a speed and power reserve that’s never going to disappear. Simply doing massive “base” type training (z1 & z2, almost exclusively), she’s improved things like her 5minute power, 20min power etc etc.
If you come from the opposite end of the spectrum and have never spend much time in the weight room, then you might benefit from incorporating more of that, or doing more of an 80-20 or 70-30 approach, at 12hr/wk, assuming injuries don’t crop up.
How old are you? How well do you recover from hard training? Figure out where your line is, so you train as hard as your body lets you, while still absorbing the training and getting stronger. Intensity in the different sports is also variable in how easily you can recover, so quantifying by time won’t work because two hours of intensity in the pool will affect your body very differently than two hours of hard running on asphalt. Also, life stresses will affect how much intensity you can do. I have some weeks where half of my workouts are intense and then others where the proportion is much lower.
I agree with you about the mixed messages out there; you can find an “expert†who will recommend pretty much anything you can imagine, as long as you pay for the book, the article, the training plan… I have come to the conclusion that the way to go is to train as hard as you can whilst staying healthy and making positive adaptations (which you can measure) and listen carefully to your body every day before, during and after training.
That may or may not be right, but injury prevention plays a part in how intense you train, especially with running. I’ve seen a lot of people picking up long term injuries in triathlon because of running, specifically high intensity stuff. Tendon injuries, stress fractures etc stuff that can take months to heal.
Of course. Totally understand and agree. Considering I’m turning fifty next year injury prevention is actually always my primary goal in training or events. It always trumps performance.
I think the reality for faster athletes is that zone 2 still a pretty decent clip.
Interesting. I have a very low resting HR (40-42bpm) and with the Karvonen estimate to stay in Zone 2 I have to keep things nice s and easy on the bike and I can barely even get into a run without my HR going over 140 and slipping into Z3. There’s really nothing taxing about either effort for me. I wonder if maybe I didn’t get my max heart rates right, but I went for repeated full on 30sec max efforts with maybe a minute of lighter recovery in between. Don’t think I could be that far off.
Thank you, Alex. Very comprehensive explanation. I don’t really come with much training one way or another. I only got into Tri (mostly 70.3) with 47 and that was three years ago. But if anything then I’d say I’m much stronger in my endurance base than in speed/strength. So I’m compelled to try and build up that deficit much more than I’m worried about my overall aerobic fitness. So maybe that’s why I’m trending towards more high intensity workouts rather than cutting those out for more low HR efforts.
But I do see the need to not push it on all rides and runs so I’m fresh enough to really push myself in the high intensity sessions.
Thank you also for the perspective, Sam. I’m turning 50 next year and have only found Tri a couple of years ago. I think the ‘listen to your body’ and ‘don’t wreck yourself’ should take priority over anything else fir training. Every day where I don’t injure myself is a good day.
And I like the attitude about doing what works. For now I’m getting faster and stronger. And I hope I’ll be able to transition from doing 70.3s to a full Ironman by next year. So as long as I’m able to accomplish that goal I’m certainly doing something right. Yes, maybe with a better training plan I might get better faster, but as long. As things are going in the right direction I probably shouldn’t sweat it too much.
I think the reality for faster athletes is that zone 2 still a pretty decent clip.
Interesting. I have a very low resting HR (40-42bpm) and with the Karvonen estimate to stay in Zone 2 I have to keep things nice s and easy on the bike and I can barely even get into a run without my HR going over 140 and slipping into Z3. There’s really nothing taxing about either effort for me. I wonder if maybe I didn’t get my max heart rates right, but I went for repeated full on 30sec max efforts with maybe a minute of lighter recovery in between. Don’t think I could be that far off.
I can almost guarantee your HRs are not calculated correctly if you can run for 60 minutes at your HR of 140range and feel like it’s not taxing at all.
There is a range of z2 as well, remember. My low z2- range which is closer to z1 is fairly non taxing, but the mid and especially upper z2 I have to actually focus to keep it going, and it’s definitely getting uncomfortable.
Repeated 30sec max efforts generally are too short to get your full maxHR. Run a 5k all out in a race situation, then you’ll know. Seriously, if I did 30 seconds of max effort running with 1 minute rest, I’d be lucky to even get into to lower z4, and wouldn’t even touch z5.
I can see if I can push up my HR even further to get a higher Max. I should have added that I measured these near the end of a respective tempo run or ride (about 30 min run and 60 min ride). So my HR was already well up there in Z3 but I wasn’t tired to the point that I couldn’t push myself anymore.
That said, when I run a half-marathon training run at my slow and easy pace (~8:30min/mile) my HR is in the 160ies. So to drop it by 20 bpm I can barely ‘run’ and would be completely unable to keep any kind of reasonable form.
80% is sessions not time, so 20% of sessions are hard not 20% of time. At least that’s what I understand about the recommendations for ‘polarised training’
80% is sessions not time, so 20% of sessions are hard not 20% of time. At least that’s what I understand about the recommendations for ‘polarised training’
IIRC Stephen Seiler has mentioned that in terms of time ***in zone ***rather than sessions, it usually works out to something more like 90/10.
80% is sessions not time, so 20% of sessions are hard not 20% of time. At least that’s what I understand about the recommendations for ‘polarised training’
Im fairly certain it’s time in zone 2. I forgot the study, but the authors looked at overall time spent in the different zones throughout a whole year. There was no breakdown by activity at all.
80% is sessions not time, so 20% of sessions are hard not 20% of time. At least that’s what I understand about the recommendations for ‘polarised training’
IIRC Stephen Seiler has mentioned that in terms of time ***in zone ***rather than sessions, it usually works out to something more like 90/10.
I think folks on lower volume really need to see this post and put that together with the calculation against their training hours.
If a person is a low level local “for fun” bike racer on 6 hours a week ride time, multiply 6hrs x 10%. That’s only 36min of “intensity” per week. You’re going to get shot out the back or finish DFL of most any crit, road race, TT that you do. Maybe finish a gravel race and finish bottom 1/3 of a cyclocross race.
When you think about it that way, it’s grossly too little intensity for a low volume person.
Apply the same math to someone riding 15 hours a week. That’s 1.5 hours of intensity per week. On a “time in zone” basis, that’s pretty solid. You’re looking at easily double that time just to include proper warmups, cooldowns, and rest between sets for those workouts.
Apply that to a pro on 20+ hours a week. That’s 2 hours a week in the zone.