I confused, Stephen Seiler polarized model which recommends around 80% low intensity and 20 percent high intensity over LT2 or in a 3 zone model 80% zone 1 and 20% zone 3 with none or very little zone 2. Many recent studies say this is the most effective way to train for endurance events.
Then you have the African runners and Norwegian Triathletes and Ingebrigtsen clan, among others , doing a significant level of high zone 2 work with much lower amount of high lactate zone 3 work.
I come from a easy high mileage background and believe in a get that part but I don’t understand the role of tempo or sub threshold or threshold work in current training.
I’ve heard him on many recent podcasts etc where he’s re-framing it slightly (at least in my mind), where he’s saying you could almost have 2 zones. Simply put 80% of sessions below LT1 and 20% above, i.e. Z2 and Z3 can be considered ‘hard’. So polarized and pyramidal are similar in may ways. He prefers polarized in most cases, but can see pyrimidial working well too as long as the majority of the athletes time is below LT1 and in Z1. Also, its very dependent on the block of training the athlete is in and what you want to get out of it. 70.3 and full distance triathletes (or marathoners) are more likely to do allot of Z2 work in a 3 zone model as they build closer to race day as mimicking (and extending time), at goal race pace.
Can’t speak about the african runners etc with too much info, but I do know allot of the African long distance runners under Canova look to ‘extend’ time at race pace. So as they get closer to race day, they do allot of load around this pace. But its not all year round. Also, Seiler is a fan of ‘hard’ sessions around 90% of HR max. I.e. Hard enough to have long intervals, but not too hard to blast the athlete. Even in his polarized model, hes a fan of extending time of intervals before increasing speed. But again, dependent on athlete, sport, training block etc.
I confused, Stephen Seiler polarized model which recommends around 80% low intensity and 20 percent high intensity over LT2 or in a 3 zone model 80% zone 1 and 20% zone 3 with none or very little zone 2. Many recent studies say this is the most effective way to train for endurance events.
Then you have the African runners and Norwegian Triathletes and Ingebrigtsen clan, among others , doing a significant level of high zone 2 work with much lower amount of high lactate zone 3 work.
I come from a easy high mileage background and believe in a get that part but I don’t understand the role of tempo or sub threshold or threshold work in current training.
What am i missing here?
there is scant evidence that world class runners follow 80/20. It’s mostly nordic sports as he points out over & over in his talks/ in podcasts etc. Also 80/20 isn’t going to be a format you see world class athletes follow to the letter all year long. At times it could be 95/5 and other times it could be 60/40. One needs to see the forest through the trees and apply the info to their situation instead of trying to fit their situation into a box that probably doesn’t work for them.
The way you state it is 80% zone 1 training and 20% higher intensity training. That is not correct.
It’s the # of sessions that have intensity in them. Only 20% of sessions will have any intensity in them which means that < 10% of your actual training time will be at intensity and probably around 6-9% after you factor in warm up/cool down.
Bottom line, do a lot of easy/aerobic volume, do little bit of fast and you’ll be fine. It’s more important to be consistent and less important to adhere to any sort of 80/20 or whatever training system.
The best system never followed is less good than a half ass system adhered to in most cases
ETA: There is a thread on here where Seiler actually chimes in as well as other threads that go into a lot of detail regarding 80/20. Searching the archives is a smart call, or use google bc it seems the search function on here kinda sucks according to many others.
Yes, sorry I get the 80/20 by sessions not time. My main question was around the use of so called sub lactate tempo work or strength work, it seems that the Norwegian model uses a lot of this type of training year round, but I’m seeing many papers that say this type of training isn’t as effective as higher lactate session. I understand that it depends on the time of the year as to where your focus is. Am I wrong that the Norwegian model does a lot more slightly sub lactate or anaerobic conditioning then many other polarized models?
The best system never followed is less good than a half ass system adhered to in most cases
Thank you, Brian!
So many stressing about this - CONSISTENCY trumps just about everything else in training. It’s something you can do 6 days/week and it not kill you, and you don’t have work-out hangover the next day - that’s about the right amount, at the right intensity.
Too many people getting too worked up and Zones, numbers, data and details.
Yes, sorry I get the 80/20 by sessions not time. My main question was around the use of so called sub lactate tempo work or strength work, it seems that the Norwegian model uses a lot of this type of training year round, but I’m seeing many papers that say this type of training isn’t as effective as higher lactate session. I understand that it depends on the time of the year as to where your focus is. Am I wrong that the Norwegian model does a lot more slightly sub lactate or anaerobic conditioning then many other polarized models?
This is what I’m confused about too. The Ingebrigtsens are a good example, and Sondre Moen is a Norwegian marathoner coached by Canova. Canova training calls for a lot of work at tempo and threshold intensity as you approach goal race. So regardless of how exactly you split the 80/20 I thought you avoided zone 2, but these examples would not follow that.
I confused, Stephen Seiler polarized model which recommends around 80% low intensity and 20 percent high intensity over LT2 or in a 3 zone model 80% zone 1 and 20% zone 3 with none or very little zone 2. Many recent studies say this is the most effective way to train for endurance events.
Then you have the African runners and Norwegian Triathletes and Ingebrigtsen clan, among others , doing a significant level of high zone 2 work with much lower amount of high lactate zone 3 work.
I come from a easy high mileage background and believe in a get that part but I don’t understand the role of tempo or sub threshold or threshold work in current training.
What am i missing here?
Well, if we’re talking about the Norwegian triathletes, then Blu and Iden are definitely doing most of their volume as easy. In his lead up to the Olympics, Blu had 51% of his volume at <55% of FTP, or what most of us would call a recovery spin.
Yes, sorry I get the 80/20 by sessions not time. My main question was around the use of so called sub lactate tempo work or strength work, it seems that the Norwegian model uses a lot of this type of training year round, but I’m seeing many papers that say this type of training isn’t as effective as higher lactate session. I understand that it depends on the time of the year as to where your focus is. Am I wrong that the Norwegian model does a lot more slightly sub lactate or anaerobic conditioning then many other polarized models?
This is what I’m confused about too. The Ingebrigtsens are a good example, and Sondre Moen is a Norwegian marathoner coached by Canova. Canova training calls for a lot of work at tempo and threshold intensity as you approach goal race. So regardless of how exactly you split the 80/20 I thought you avoided zone 2, but these examples would not follow that.
Seiler has said you don’t need to avoid zone 2 but that it needs to be considered as a hard session. You have enough stress it should be considered a high intensity session and should therefore have an appropriate amount of recovery. The zone 2 sessions (in a 3 zone model) should be long enough and taxing enough that they become the quality work and then recover appropriately. Because you can only handle so many hard sessions per week they will have to come at the expense of something else but depending on the event, time of year, etc. that can be a good thing. What he does not advocate is spending the majority of time in zone 2 because there isn’t enough recovery and you can’t push the quality sessions.
This is what I’m confused about too. The Ingebrigtsens are a good example, and Sondre Moen is a Norwegian marathoner coached by Canova. Canova training calls for a lot of work at tempo and threshold intensity as you approach goal race. So regardless of how exactly you split the 80/20 I thought you avoided zone 2, but these examples would not follow that.
Again, it’s not about making the training fit some model, it’s about doing the training that will yield the fastest time on race day. Too many people do the former and not the latter.
Who cares what model you use if it produces results? Figure out how to produce results be it for yourself or the people you coach.
This is what I’m confused about too. The Ingebrigtsens are a good example, and Sondre Moen is a Norwegian marathoner coached by Canova. Canova training calls for a lot of work at tempo and threshold intensity as you approach goal race. So regardless of how exactly you split the 80/20 I thought you avoided zone 2, but these examples would not follow that.
Again, it’s not about making the training fit some model, it’s about doing the training that will yield the fastest time on race day. Too many people do the former and not the latter.
Who cares what model you use if it produces results? Figure out how to produce results be it for yourself or the people you coach.
I agree with this to some extent, but what is the purpose of scientific research if we don’t use it to further our understanding. Of course one doesn’t have to follow a model exactly and put data over everything when making training decisions, but it’s pretty hard to figure out how to produce results when starting from nothing. Plus each of us only has one body and a limited amount of resources, we can’t try everything.
I agree with this to some extent, but what is the purpose of scientific research if we don’t use it to further our understanding. Of course one doesn’t have to follow a model exactly and put data over everything when making training decisions, but it’s pretty hard to figure out how to produce results when starting from nothing. Plus each of us only has one body and a limited amount of resources, we can’t try everything.
It’s pretty rare that you can transfer the results from training studies straight off. There are always some takeaways but they almost always have to be adapted to your situation after you have done an analysis on the specific requirements of your event. In the case of long distance triathlon and marathon running the specific element is more towards tempo/mid zone, or in the case of some very elite marathon runners approaching threshold, so it’d be unlikely that you shouldn’t do quite a bit of that sort of training at some point(close to tapering and racing).
Seiler actually advocated never including that type of work for any sport/event initially, but that has changed in recent years which is very logical when looking at what type of work longer events consists of.
It’s pretty rare that you can transfer the results from training studies straight off. There are always some takeaways but they almost always have to be adapted to your situation after you have done an analysis on the specific requirements of your event. In the case of long distance triathlon and marathon running the specific element is more towards tempo/mid zone, or in the case of some very elite marathon runners approaching threshold, so it’d be unlikely that you shouldn’t do quite a bit of that sort of training at some point(close to tapering and racing).
Seiler actually advocated never including that type of work for any sport/event initially, but that has changed in recent years which is very logical when looking at what type of work longer events consists of.
Yeah this makes a lot of sense. At a surface level it seems like every training philosophy I’ve come across, whether it be Seiler, Canova, Lydiard etc. , boils down to doing more volume with some intensity and staying consistent and healthy.
That tweet doesn’t tell us much. He could be doing 47% of his training at 85-100% of FTP, which would be the very definition of a “threshold” model in Seiler’s terms.
Also, if you look at the code snippet, Alan is adding time in Zones 4-6 and calling it >105% of FTP. I’m not sure what zone system has Zone 4 at 105% FTP, but it isn’t the standard one.
In summary, who knows what we’re looking at with those incomplete stats.
This is what I’m confused about too. The Ingebrigtsens are a good example, and Sondre Moen is a Norwegian marathoner coached by Canova. Canova training calls for a lot of work at tempo and threshold intensity as you approach goal race. So regardless of how exactly you split the 80/20 I thought you avoided zone 2, but these examples would not follow that.
Again, it’s not about making the training fit some model, it’s about doing the training that will yield the fastest time on race day. Too many people do the former and not the latter.
Who cares what model you use if it produces results? Figure out how to produce results be it for yourself or the people you coach.
I agree with this to some extent, but what is the purpose of scientific research if we don’t use it to further our understanding. Of course one doesn’t have to follow a model exactly and put data over everything when making training decisions, but it’s pretty hard to figure out how to produce results when starting from nothing. Plus each of us only has one body and a limited amount of resources, we can’t try everything.
As I vaguely remember Sousa and Filliol saying on their podcast many many years ago, sports science is not really science. They need to put out some more content.
Yeah this makes a lot of sense. At a surface level it seems like every training philosophy I’ve come across, whether it be Seiler, Canova, Lydiard etc. , boils down to doing more volume with some intensity and staying consistent and healthy.
The #1 determinant of every endurance athlete at some point is volume. At some point if you want to succeed, if you want to climb from the jr ranks to the senior ranks to national level to world level each step there is an increased demand for more volume. There is also an increase in intensity. Yet it would not be uncharacteristic to have a jr training ~ 550h with 50h of that being hard work go to 700h with only a 10-15h increase in hard work. Then go to 1000h and only add in 10h of hard work.
Volume is what underpins success. Here’s something worth reading:
Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
Stephen Seiler and Espen Tønnessen
Sportscience 13, 32-53, 2009 (sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm)
That tweet doesn’t tell us much. He could be doing 47% of his training at 85-100% of FTP, which would be the very definition of a “threshold” model in Seiler’s terms.
Also, if you look at the code snippet, Alan is adding time in Zones 4-6 and calling it >105% of FTP. I’m not sure what zone system has Zone 4 at 105% FTP, but it isn’t the standard one.
In summary, who knows what we’re looking at with those incomplete stats.
And adding to that, his “easy” does not account for coasting/descending. It’s likely overflated. I did a similar analysis for road pros <50 watts accounted for up to 30%, depending on where they live/train. I does not have to be that high for Blu but a serious analysis should consider this. You can get the power data from Strava in a similar fashion, not just the time in zones.
I often wonder why Alan fights so hard to bring across this we-all-have-to-train-slow-to-race-fast narrative. Isn’t this clear these days that at that level they guys train a lot LIT? Who questions this, seriously?