Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Training & Nutrition
Reload this Page >

80/20 Rule -- Is This a Meme?

Training & Nutrition Learn how to develop a training schedule that's good for you. What should you eat and drink on your ride? Learn everything you need to know about training and nutrition here.

80/20 Rule -- Is This a Meme?

Old 04-23-19, 10:46 AM
  #51  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,968

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1789 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
Seiler would disagree with your assessment. https://www.velonews.com/2018/07/new...-seiler_473325
Thanks for posting that podcast. Everyone who's interested in the subject of this thread should listen to it.

I think I see where the problem is. My guess is that you were looking at that graph in the Velonews article, showing VT1, VT2, etc. I don't know know who drew it - it certainly wasn't Seiler. That graph is incorrect. The narrator in the podcast makes the same mistake. In terms of cycling power, MLSS falls almost exactly midway between power at VT1 and power at VT2. I should mention that VT1 and VT2 are ventilation thresholds. That is, they are defined by changes in breathing. Because of our physiology, these breathing changes coincide with changes in blood lactate accumulation. Below VT1, no accumulation. Above VT2, unlimited accumulation. I've never heard of anyone who can ride for more than 12 minutes above VT2. Most riders only do 3 to 4 minute intervals above VT2. That's nowhere close to FTP or MLSS.

I read the study included in Seiler's comment in that first tweet: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ained_cyclists

That was mildly interesting. At the bottom of that PDF is a list of associated studies. One of them: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ateur_cyclists
provides a quick and relatively easy method of estimating MLSS, which is about the same as FTP and LTHR. You find power at the two ventilation thresholds and your power at MLSS will be very close to midway between them. If one has ever trained in polarized fashion, either staying above VT2 or below VT1, I think one develops a sense that this study is in fact correct. Give it a try, see if your FTP is halfway between your power at the two ventilation thresholds. While doing that, see if you can hold FTP on your trainer for an hour. Seiler says that's a big mistake made by many riders enamored of shortcuts. I've held my LTHR for an hour on a pass climb, so I know it's about right.

I should mention a terminology problem. Some researchers define LT as being approximately at VT1, the point where lactate levels begin to rise. More commonly among riders, LTHR refers to the same thing as MLSS, maximum sustainable HR without dysfunction due to lactate buildup. As Seiler said, training has a language, so let's make sure we're all speaking the same language. His zone 2 is that zone in which blood lactate will stabilize at whatever level. This includes FTP, LTHR, etc. Zone 3 is that zone in which blood lactate accumulates without limit, that is until you stop. The boundary between zones 2 and 3 is VT2, defined by breathing as well as unlimited lactate accumulation.

I think the most interesting thing Seiler said was that most people don't do enough hours in his zone 1, that is below VT1. Not nearly enough. Like Lance doing 6 hour zone 1 rides in December. I notice that on my rollers. Holding a no-breaks hour at VT1 on my rollers isn't particularly hard. The second hour is very difficult for me. Seiler says that's the first problem I have to address. Folks who won't do more than 45' below VT1 on their trainers don't have a clue. So says Seiler. It's not supposed to rain here this afternoon, wonder of wonders, so we'll go out for 2.5 hours of VT1 on our tandem this afternoon. Nancy says thanks so much, redlude97.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 11:01 AM
  #52  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
For an even bigger deep dive with the big guns in the field, Allen, Coggan, Sieler Weber etc https://www.velonews.com/2019/04/tra...r-allen_492863

Big takeaway as mentioned. Make your hard days hard, and make your easy days easy enough to recover for your hard days. Cyclists use a pyramidal distribution more than polarized
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-23-19, 11:51 AM
  #53  
burnthesheep
Newbie racer
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 886

Bikes: Propel, red is faster

Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 399 Post(s)
Liked 67 Times in 44 Posts
I'm starting to understand some more of this as I've started my own Excel sheet to track CTL, ATL, and TSB. I notice, for me, I need a little better "balance" in my TSB bank to do "real" VO2 and those 100/105/110% workouts.

My last thing I need to do better on is figure out a concise pair of once a month "tests". So that I can get a real attempt in the books I can track. Like, one workout do the really short items, another do the middle distance item(s), but only maybe quarterly really do the ball buster duration test.

I've not really good data just having it from generic workouts or hammer rides. Maybe the 5 sec, 30 sec, 1 min, 2 min stuff. But nothing longer.

I'm also toying with how much "steady state" I can substitute running versus riding. It feels like running can be very economical on time for zones where you might not be challenging your lactic tolerance or whatever people call that crossover point.
burnthesheep is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 01:05 PM
  #54  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
Thanks for posting that podcast. Everyone who's interested in the subject of this thread should listen to it.

I think I see where the problem is. My guess is that you were looking at that graph in the Velonews article, showing VT1, VT2, etc. I don't know know who drew it - it certainly wasn't Seiler. That graph is incorrect. The narrator in the podcast makes the same mistake. In terms of cycling power, MLSS falls almost exactly midway between power at VT1 and power at VT2. I should mention that VT1 and VT2 are ventilation thresholds. That is, they are defined by changes in breathing. Because of our physiology, these breathing changes coincide with changes in blood lactate accumulation. Below VT1, no accumulation. Above VT2, unlimited accumulation. I've never heard of anyone who can ride for more than 12 minutes above VT2. Most riders only do 3 to 4 minute intervals above VT2. That's nowhere close to FTP or MLSS.

I read the study included in Seiler's comment in that first tweet: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ained_cyclists

That was mildly interesting. At the bottom of that PDF is a list of associated studies. One of them: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ateur_cyclists
provides a quick and relatively easy method of estimating MLSS, which is about the same as FTP and LTHR. You find power at the two ventilation thresholds and your power at MLSS will be very close to midway between them. If one has ever trained in polarized fashion, either staying above VT2 or below VT1, I think one develops a sense that this study is in fact correct. Give it a try, see if your FTP is halfway between your power at the two ventilation thresholds. While doing that, see if you can hold FTP on your trainer for an hour. Seiler says that's a big mistake made by many riders enamored of shortcuts. I've held my LTHR for an hour on a pass climb, so I know it's about right.

I should mention a terminology problem. Some researchers define LT as being approximately at VT1, the point where lactate levels begin to rise. More commonly among riders, LTHR refers to the same thing as MLSS, maximum sustainable HR without dysfunction due to lactate buildup. As Seiler said, training has a language, so let's make sure we're all speaking the same language. His zone 2 is that zone in which blood lactate will stabilize at whatever level. This includes FTP, LTHR, etc. Zone 3 is that zone in which blood lactate accumulates without limit, that is until you stop. The boundary between zones 2 and 3 is VT2, defined by breathing as well as unlimited lactate accumulation.

I think the most interesting thing Seiler said was that most people don't do enough hours in his zone 1, that is below VT1. Not nearly enough. Like Lance doing 6 hour zone 1 rides in December. I notice that on my rollers. Holding a no-breaks hour at VT1 on my rollers isn't particularly hard. The second hour is very difficult for me. Seiler says that's the first problem I have to address. Folks who won't do more than 45' below VT1 on their trainers don't have a clue. So says Seiler. It's not supposed to rain here this afternoon, wonder of wonders, so we'll go out for 2.5 hours of VT1 on our tandem this afternoon. Nancy says thanks so much, redlude97.
I'm confused here. You say:
Because of our physiology, these breathing changes coincide with changes in blood lactate accumulation. Below VT1, no accumulation. Above VT2, unlimited accumulation.
But isn't MLSS the threshold where unlimited lactate accumulation occurs? That certainly seems to be what they are referring to in the podcast.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 01:40 PM
  #55  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
VT1~1mmol lactate(steady state), VT2~4mmol lactate(semisteady state ie MLSS). Its actually just a continuum since its just a shaky balance between lactate production and lactate conversion back to ATP and lactate being an indirect measure of fatigue inducing metabolites. So small differences in power output or unsteady pacing or terrain can easily throw this balance off.

VT2 or Z3 in a 3 zone model is the middle of zone 4 in a 7 zone(level) model as pointed out by Carbonfiberboy above.
Over at the trainerroad forums someone has done a great job building an excel file to calculate your zones in both models based on your FTP/LTHR

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

If you're interested in more discussion
https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/pola...g-podcast/1766

https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/pola...lon-show/14690

And Sieler's outline of his philosophy Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-23-19, 01:55 PM
  #56  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,968

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1789 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
I'm confused here. You say:

But isn't MLSS the threshold where unlimited lactate accumulation occurs? That certainly seems to be what they are referring to in the podcast.
MLSS is maximum lactate steady state, IOW effort at FTP and LTHR. Above MLSS, lactate continues to accumulate but the rate increases greatly when one gets over VT2. IOW FTP is supposed to be an hour effort. What do you call what you can maintain for 1/2 hour? 20'? 15'? VT2 is a breakpoint that's easily observable to any athlete even one with no instrumentation at all. https://www.acefitness.org/fitness-c...ng-vt1-and-vt2

Thus it's used as the upper breakpoint in the polarized 3 zone system. As described in the study to which I linked, MLSS is halfway between the two breakpoints, at least in terms of power.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 02:10 PM
  #57  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
MLSS is maximum lactate steady state, IOW effort at FTP and LTHR. Above MLSS, lactate continues to accumulate but the rate increases greatly when one gets over VT2. IOW FTP is supposed to be an hour effort. What do you call what you can maintain for 1/2 hour? 20'? 15'? VT2 is a breakpoint that's easily observable to any athlete even one with no instrumentation at all. https://www.acefitness.org/fitness-c...ng-vt1-and-vt2

Thus it's used as the upper breakpoint in the polarized 3 zone system. As described in the study to which I linked, MLSS is halfway between the two breakpoints, at least in terms of power.
Okay thanks for the clarification.

However, it seemed pretty clear to me that they were using MLSS, not VT2, as the border between zones 2 and 3 in Seiler's model. He's quite clear about heart rate not getting too high in the interval sessions trying to keep it in the 90-92% range and going for increased time over increased intensity. VT2 as you describe seems more intense than this.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 02:19 PM
  #58  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
VT1~1mmol lactate(steady state), VT2~4mmol lactate(semisteady state ie MLSS). Its actually just a continuum since its just a shaky balance between lactate production and lactate conversion back to ATP and lactate being an indirect measure of fatigue inducing metabolites. So small differences in power output or unsteady pacing or terrain can easily throw this balance off.

VT2 or Z3 in a 3 zone model is the middle of zone 4 in a 7 zone(level) model as pointed out by Carbonfiberboy above.
Over at the trainerroad forums someone has done a great job building an excel file to calculate your zones in both models based on your FTP/LTHR

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

If you're interested in more discussion
https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/pola...g-podcast/1766

https://forum.trainerroad.com/t/pola...lon-show/14690

And Sieler's outline of his philosophy Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
Okay, this matches what I had thought (and, incidentally, the rider in the example lines up fairly closely to me). Doing something like 4x8 at 105% of ftp (or MLSS) would be an example of zone 3 work in Seiler's model. What confused me about carbonfiberboy's post was that he made it sound like zone 3 started at something significantly more intense than this. Seiler mentions doing 16 minute intervals while carbonfiberboy is saying no one could hold VT2 (zone 3) for more than 12 minutes.

Thanks for the links. I'll definitely check them out.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 10:14 PM
  #59  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,968

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1789 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Okay, this matches what I had thought (and, incidentally, the rider in the example lines up fairly closely to me). Doing something like 4x8 at 105% of ftp (or MLSS) would be an example of zone 3 work in Seiler's model. What confused me about carbonfiberboy's post was that he made it sound like zone 3 started at something significantly more intense than this. Seiler mentions doing 16 minute intervals while carbonfiberboy is saying no one could hold VT2 (zone 3) for more than 12 minutes.

Thanks for the links. I'll definitely check them out.
What's been confusing me is the varying references to VT2 in the literature. My supposition is that the experienced posters to this thread have used these methods and markers and are speaking from personal experience, as have I for years.

Here's the thing: I don't have a portable blood lactate analyzer. Therefore I have no way of knowing when I'm training at 1.5 or 2 or 4 mmol BL. My guess is that very few riders do. We have no way of knowing our BL, and thus using BL to define zones is useless outside the lab. We have to rely on our sensations.

VT1 and VT2 are supposed to be the zone dividers. Below VT1, one can say the alphabet in a single breath without great difficulty. Above, one cannot. Below VT2, one can speak. Above, one cannot, because one is panting. VT2 is much easier to recognize than VT1 as it's the onset of uncontrollable panting. I'm pretty sure I can feel VT1 too, though it's trickier. Interestingly if I tire from long VT1 sessions, I can kick it up for a bit, generate some lactate, and then feel more comfortable with some fuel added to my muscles.

Now then, from my personal experience, I can maintain deep rapid belly breathing well above my LTHR. I fail to see how anyone can hold a pace which requires constant panting for an hour. So maybe that's just me, and everyone else pants like crazy at LTHR or FTP. But somehow I doubt that. And the whole point of having VT1 and VT2 as zone breakpoints is that those ventilatory thresholds are easily recognizable in the field without a blood draw. Plus there's the issue of that study which found that FTP fell midway between the ventilalory breakpoints.

So for those of you who put VT2 at MLSS/FTP/LTHR, how do you recognize VT2? I mean, the whole point of using ventilatory thresholds is that they are obvious to the athlete in the moment and don't require a month of testing to establish, nor do they move around. Those breakpoints are always exactly in the same place, not as measured by power or HR, but as measured by breathing rate, since that is how they are defined.

Please comment on your experience with these thresholds.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 10:19 PM
  #60  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,968

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1789 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by OBoile View Post
Okay, this matches what I had thought (and, incidentally, the rider in the example lines up fairly closely to me). Doing something like 4x8 at 105% of ftp (or MLSS) would be an example of zone 3 work in Seiler's model. What confused me about carbonfiberboy's post was that he made it sound like zone 3 started at something significantly more intense than this. Seiler mentions doing 16 minute intervals while carbonfiberboy is saying no one could hold VT2 (zone 3) for more than 12 minutes.

Thanks for the links. I'll definitely check them out.
If one can do 16 minute zone 3 intervals, how is that different from sweet spot - meaning how would one know where one is training - on skis, rowing, etc., not just on a bike with a PM? So can one only use the polarized method on PM-equipped bikes where the rider has been lab tested on that bike for BL levels? This makes no sense to me.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 04-23-19, 10:46 PM
  #61  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
What's been confusing me is the varying references to VT2 in the literature. My supposition is that the experienced posters to this thread have used these methods and markers and are speaking from personal experience, as have I for years.

Here's the thing: I don't have a portable blood lactate analyzer. Therefore I have no way of knowing when I'm training at 1.5 or 2 or 4 mmol BL. My guess is that very few riders do. We have no way of knowing our BL, and thus using BL to define zones is useless outside the lab. We have to rely on our sensations.

VT1 and VT2 are supposed to be the zone dividers. Below VT1, one can say the alphabet in a single breath without great difficulty. Above, one cannot. Below VT2, one can speak. Above, one cannot, because one is panting. VT2 is much easier to recognize than VT1 as it's the onset of uncontrollable panting. I'm pretty sure I can feel VT1 too, though it's trickier. Interestingly if I tire from long VT1 sessions, I can kick it up for a bit, generate some lactate, and then feel more comfortable with some fuel added to my muscles.

Now then, from my personal experience, I can maintain deep rapid belly breathing well above my LTHR. I fail to see how anyone can hold a pace which requires constant panting for an hour. So maybe that's just me, and everyone else pants like crazy at LTHR or FTP. But somehow I doubt that. And the whole point of having VT1 and VT2 as zone breakpoints is that those ventilatory thresholds are easily recognizable in the field without a blood draw. Plus there's the issue of that study which found that FTP fell midway between the ventilalory breakpoints.

So for those of you who put VT2 at MLSS/FTP/LTHR, how do you recognize VT2? I mean, the whole point of using ventilatory thresholds is that they are obvious to the athlete in the moment and don't require a month of testing to establish, nor do they move around. Those breakpoints are always exactly in the same place, not as measured by power or HR, but as measured by breathing rate, since that is how they are defined.

Please comment on your experience with these thresholds.
I use the 7 zone system, but I put VT2 at FTP power. I test using the 20 min test so ~105% of FTP or just above VT2 and by the end I'm panting like crazy and my legs barely move. I do FTP intervals between 15-20 mins long and I'm panting by the end also. I would guess that if you're keeping your HR at your LTHR during these types of intervals, what you are actually doing is decreasing power substantially over the interval, especially if you tried to do LTHR for an hour. I used to use HR too and once I switched to power that was what I saw. If I hold power constant then my HR drift ups like 10bpm over 20 mins and my breathing will get ragged by the end. I don't thing VT2 your breathing should get ragged right away otherwise you're actually working suprathreshold. Once you start using power and HR together is clicks
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-23-19, 10:50 PM
  #62  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
If one can do 16 minute zone 3 intervals, how is that different from sweet spot - meaning how would one know where one is training - on skis, rowing, etc., not just on a bike with a PM? So can one only use the polarized method on PM-equipped bikes where the rider has been lab tested on that bike for BL levels? This makes no sense to me.
Why do you think a 16 min interval needs to be below FTP? By definition FTP power should be 40-70min power so 4x16=64mins total work with breaks. If you don't have power you just do the intervals as hard as you can
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-24-19, 12:18 AM
  #63  
Clyde1820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 743

Bikes: 2012 Trek DS 8.5

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 151 Post(s)
Liked 14 Times in 14 Posts
Originally Posted by dooner90 View Post
What's the group consensus on the 80/20 rule? For those not familiar, it's a training regimen which suggests that the athlete train their body at a slow, slow rate for the duration of their exorcise (80%), while exerting themselves maximally for the remaining 20% of the exorcise. Has anyone tried this practice for an event? Cat V, Triathlon, etc.?
Did this, more or less, for my performance running training, back in the day.

~80% or more of training was at "training" or slower-than-training pace, to get a good "base" level of cardio fitness.

~10% or so (of overall time commitment) was with very focused strength exercising and stretching, ensuring greatest range of motion, greatest power potential, greatest injury avoidance (from a strength+flexibility standpoint).

~10% or so (of running time) was spent doing variations of Fartlek/interval type runs, at a range of speeds.

Some runs would be simple "telephone pole" play ... a given speed from one pole to the next, followed by a surge in speed to the subsequent pole, another surge to the next pole, etc, until a given peak speed was reached, at which point the surge would relax and the cycle would start over once recovered.

Sometimes, "wind sprints" would be part of the session.

Many times, simple terrain variations would suffice, such as a hard hill/ridge run on one day, followed by a comparatively shorter, flatter run on the sand at the beach.

Very effective, actually. Almost without regard to how many miles we put in. With sufficient fuel, sufficient fluids, and sufficient recovery times between workouts, it was amazing how much greater performance we could squeeze out of ourselves, as compared to seasons when we didn't combine workouts in this way.

At 70+ miles per week, it could yield solid marathon-distance capability and speed. Even at 30 miles per week, it was still varied enough to afford very respectable times at distances from 5K through half-marathon. Was nothing like the 90-100+ miles/week that many contemporary "marathoners" do. But then, we were training more for an overall blended mix of strength, power, speed and stamina.

Never did train like this for cycling, myself, as for the most part cycling has been a mode of transportation and basic enjoyment for me, not a competitive sport.

But I have done much the same in swimming, both in the pool and ocean. Occasional hard sprint work, occasional surge/intervals work, lots of "long/slow base" swims, and much work on basic expansion of cardio (breath holding) via underwater challenges.

I suppose calling all of that an "80/20" approach is as good as any other name for it.
Clyde1820 is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 07:03 AM
  #64  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
If one can do 16 minute zone 3 intervals, how is that different from sweet spot - meaning how would one know where one is training - on skis, rowing, etc., not just on a bike with a PM? So can one only use the polarized method on PM-equipped bikes where the rider has been lab tested on that bike for BL levels? This makes no sense to me.
Presumably the 16 minute intervals would be at or slightly above MLSS.

But I'm just going by what I heard in the video (he was talking about 4x4 vs 8 and 16 minute intervals). I'm not an expert and may well have misinterpreted what I heard.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 07:06 AM
  #65  
OBoile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,262
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 728 Post(s)
Liked 63 Times in 31 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
What's been confusing me is the varying references to VT2 in the literature. My supposition is that the experienced posters to this thread have used these methods and markers and are speaking from personal experience, as have I for years.

Here's the thing: I don't have a portable blood lactate analyzer. Therefore I have no way of knowing when I'm training at 1.5 or 2 or 4 mmol BL. My guess is that very few riders do. We have no way of knowing our BL, and thus using BL to define zones is useless outside the lab. We have to rely on our sensations.

VT1 and VT2 are supposed to be the zone dividers. Below VT1, one can say the alphabet in a single breath without great difficulty. Above, one cannot. Below VT2, one can speak. Above, one cannot, because one is panting. VT2 is much easier to recognize than VT1 as it's the onset of uncontrollable panting. I'm pretty sure I can feel VT1 too, though it's trickier. Interestingly if I tire from long VT1 sessions, I can kick it up for a bit, generate some lactate, and then feel more comfortable with some fuel added to my muscles.

Now then, from my personal experience, I can maintain deep rapid belly breathing well above my LTHR. I fail to see how anyone can hold a pace which requires constant panting for an hour. So maybe that's just me, and everyone else pants like crazy at LTHR or FTP. But somehow I doubt that. And the whole point of having VT1 and VT2 as zone breakpoints is that those ventilatory thresholds are easily recognizable in the field without a blood draw. Plus there's the issue of that study which found that FTP fell midway between the ventilalory breakpoints.

So for those of you who put VT2 at MLSS/FTP/LTHR, how do you recognize VT2? I mean, the whole point of using ventilatory thresholds is that they are obvious to the athlete in the moment and don't require a month of testing to establish, nor do they move around. Those breakpoints are always exactly in the same place, not as measured by power or HR, but as measured by breathing rate, since that is how they are defined.

Please comment on your experience with these thresholds.
Before yesterday, I'd never given serious consideration to VT1 or VT2 which is why I'm asking questions. I genuinely don't know.

I would say, on a bike at least, my VT2 is likely at a higher pace than MLSS based on the description you give. But, MLSS, or slightly above is likely accurate for hitting the heart rate values Seiler suggests.
OBoile is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 10:29 AM
  #66  
Carbonfiberboy 
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 14,968

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1789 Post(s)
Liked 37 Times in 29 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
Why do you think a 16 min interval needs to be below FTP? By definition FTP power should be 40-70min power so 4x16=64mins total work with breaks. If you don't have power you just do the intervals as hard as you can
I didn't say that. I said take away your power meter and how would you know what you were doing when supposedly doing those over-VT2 intervals, if VT2 is defined by a power level rather than breathing? A PM's what one uses to train in the 7-zone system. Try turning it off. I don't use HR when I train in the 3-zone system other than to upload for hrTSS.
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 11:12 AM
  #67  
wphamilton
Senior Member
 
wphamilton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 14,535

Bikes: Nashbar Road

Mentioned: 65 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2506 Post(s)
Liked 55 Times in 33 Posts
I'm reluctant to simplify the technical discussion, but for some of us 80/20 is a sort of practical limit, in the higher impact work such as running. I'd do sprints or intervals 3 or 4 times a week if I could, but unfortunately more than once a week slams me with niggling pains and weakness for the next week and I can get nothing done.

Cycling sidesteps that problem to some degree, and it's a mostly aerobic sport the way most of us do it, so it's not necessarily analogous. Just to caution against cross-sport generalizing.
wphamilton is offline  
Old 04-24-19, 12:43 PM
  #68  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
I didn't say that. I said take away your power meter and how would you know what you were doing when supposedly doing those over-VT2 intervals, if VT2 is defined by a power level rather than breathing? A PM's what one uses to train in the 7-zone system. Try turning it off. I don't use HR when I train in the 3-zone system other than to upload for hrTSS.
You just do it based on RPE or maximal sustainable intensity. I guess I'm confused why you wouldn't be able to differentiated between a below threshold interval(sweetspot) and an above threshold interval even without power and even then the physiological adaptions at SS and threshold are almost the same
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/p...aining-levels/
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-25-19, 09:45 AM
  #69  
Hermes
Version 3.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,342

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 283 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 563 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 47 Posts
Here is an interesting podcast on "Do we need training zones? With Dr. Andy Coggan, Hunter Allen, and Dr. McGregor". Included in the discussion was Colby Pierce, Seidler and a UCI world tour coach who coaches Dan Martin.

I could not get the link to post which is totally weird. If interested search coggan allen mcgregor polarized training.

The catalyst for the podcast is Coggan and Hunter's new 3rd addition of Training and Racing with a Power Meter that increases the number of power levels and adds iLevels or personal levels based upon the shape of ones power curve. iLevels are above FTP meaning that certain athletes have different abilities. As an example, some athletes can hit much higher percentages of FTP than others giving them an advantage in certain situations.

They discuss polarized training and Seidler is interviewed. Editorial: IMO, after listening to Seidler, I would not believe anything he says. His primary reason for 3 zones was to protect athletes and have a simple construct. He goes on to say that he enjoys Zwift because he has a power meter on his trainer and knows his power but does not have power meters on his other bikes yet. His "worry" is that cyclists will set FTP too high or push too hard on workouts. He is not my father or father confessor. I can take care of myself. Dude, buy power meters for your other bikes, get some experience and then develop a training construct with or without power levels and FTP. Give me a break. Coggan's response to Seidler's three zone system is hey, one can still use his construct and ride in z2 or above FTP. Done. Effectively, one guts zone 3 / sweet spot. My impression was that none of the other panelists thought polarized training had any legs. YMMV.

The entire discussion is about power training versus heart rate versus zones versus FTP versus VO2 max versus home many zones versus ranges on zones. It is a delightful potpourri of smart guys discussing their take on training zones.

My take, which is said several times throughout the podcast is that training is a continuum and breaking it up by zones or levels is a construct. Every construct will have a weakness with respect to some athletes and events. For example, Colby Pierce, who is a track coach, said that the new iLevels do not seem to work for his endurance track clients.

I am glad I have a coach who is a former UCI world tour racer who coached two USA olympic teams at the track who is sort of old school. My head is still exploding from Coggan increasing the number of zones from 7 to 9.

Last edited by Hermes; 04-25-19 at 10:03 AM.
Hermes is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 11:14 AM
  #70  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
For an even bigger deep dive with the big guns in the field, Allen, Coggan, Sieler Weber etc https://www.velonews.com/2019/04/tra...r-allen_492863

Big takeaway as mentioned. Make your hard days hard, and make your easy days easy enough to recover for your hard days. Cyclists use a pyramidal distribution more than polarized
Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
Here is an interesting podcast on "Do we need training zones? With Dr. Andy Coggan, Hunter Allen, and Dr. McGregor". Included in the discussion was Colby Pierce, Seidler and a UCI world tour coach who coaches Dan Martin.

I could not get the link to post which is totally weird. If interested search coggan allen mcgregor polarized training. https://soundcloud.com/velonews/do-w...ephen-mcgregor

The catalyst for the podcast is Coggan and Hunter's new 3rd addition of Training and Racing with a Power Meter that increases the number of power levels and adds iLevels or personal levels based upon the shape of ones power curve. iLevels are above FTP meaning that certain athletes have different abilities. As an example, some athletes can hit much higher percentages of FTP than others giving them an advantage in certain situations.

They discuss polarized training and Seidler is interviewed. Editorial: IMO, after listening to Seidler, I would not believe anything he says. His primary reason for 3 zones was to protect athletes and have a simple construct. He goes on to say that he enjoys Zwift because he has a power meter on his trainer and knows his power but does not have power meters on his other bikes yet. His "worry" is that cyclists will set FTP too high or push too hard on workouts. He is not my father or father confessor. I can take care of myself. Dude, buy power meters for your other bikes, get some experience and then develop a training construct with or without power levels and FTP. Give me a break. Coggan's response to Seidler's three zone system is hey, one can still use his construct and ride in z2 or above FTP. Done. Effectively, one guts zone 3 / sweet spot. My impression was that none of the other panelists thought polarized training had any legs. YMMV.

The entire discussion is about power training versus heart rate versus zones versus FTP versus VO2 max versus home many zones versus ranges on zones. It is a delightful potpourri of smart guys discussing their take on training zones.

My take, which is said several times throughout the podcast is that training is a continuum and breaking it up by zones or levels is a construct. Every construct will have a weakness with respect to some athletes and events. For example, Colby Pierce, who is a track coach, said that the new iLevels do not seem to work for his endurance track clients.

I am glad I have a coach who is a former UCI world tour racer who coached two USA olympic teams at the track who is sort of old school. My head is still exploding from Coggan increasing the number of zones from 7 to 9.
Good takeaway, do what works for you. For example my long Zone 2 rides done by HR avg Zone 3 power because my VT1 is probably a higher percentage of my MLSS/FTP as I'm a diesel with lots of long distance riding under my belt but my V02max+ zones are bit under my FTP based zones. Sieler and Coggan etc all agree that the most important thing is to know the purpose of a ride/training session which is more important than the difference in 5W above/below your target
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-25-19, 11:49 AM
  #71  
Hermes
Version 3.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,342

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 283 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 563 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 47 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97 View Post
Good takeaway, do what works for you. For example my long Zone 2 rides done by HR avg Zone 3 power because my VT1 is probably a higher percentage of my MLSS/FTP as I'm a diesel with lots of long distance riding under my belt but my V02max+ zones are bit under my FTP based zones. Sieler and Coggan etc all agree that the most important thing is to know the purpose of a ride/training session which is more important than the difference in 5W above/below your target
Sorry for not giving you credit for posting the podcast first. I missed your post but great minds think alike.

My power curve is pretty steep with higher 5 second power and lower FTP. Theoretically, I would benefit from iLevels. I can hit high percentages of FTP for a couple of minutes...just not high enough to stand on the top step at track nationals.
Hermes is offline  
Old 04-25-19, 12:54 PM
  #72  
redlude97
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,190
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1668 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 19 Posts
Originally Posted by Hermes View Post
Sorry for not giving you credit for posting the podcast first. I missed your post but great minds think alike.

My power curve is pretty steep with higher 5 second power and lower FTP. Theoretically, I would benefit from iLevels. I can hit high percentages of FTP for a couple of minutes...just not high enough to stand on the top step at track nationals.
I've not looked at iLevels yet, but started using Xert trial last month, and from my understanding WKO4 metrics are similar. I think these new algorithms with power will provide more individualized zones for training. Do you use any of them currently or how do you set your interval levels?
redlude97 is online now  
Old 04-25-19, 01:41 PM
  #73  
Hermes
Version 3.0
 
Hermes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 11,342

Bikes: Too Many

Mentioned: 283 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 563 Post(s)
Liked 62 Times in 47 Posts
I have two months worth of workouts for the road, track and trainer along with a manual. So I do not set my levels or workouts, my coach does. I have a track workout on my schedule this week and tonight I show up at the track and he will give me the workout. I am racing on Sunday. Whatever is on the workout for tonight, it will be hard and prep me for Sunday.

IMO, one of the most important aspects of training is having someone else physically see you when training. Coaches are amazingly good at observing athletes and making training adjustments based upon those observations. I just ride these things but even I can observe others and see when there is something going right or horribly wrong. Tonight, my coach will observe me, time me on the track, observe me in relationship to others and probably motor pace me. And he gets my post training data. I do not need iLevels per se.
Hermes is offline  
Old 04-26-19, 10:21 PM
  #74  
Road Fan
Senior Member
 
Road Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 14,203

Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 805 Post(s)
Liked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by rubiksoval View Post
80/20 refers to the percentage of workouts, not time in zone.

That is, you do 4 easy workouts and 1 hard workout. Nothing to do with 80% of your time you're riding easy and 20% hard, which would be nigh impossible at higher hours.
So it's plausible for me to do four days a week of riding moderate speed on level ground, then do a day of attempted quick hill climbs or hill repeats, an hour each ride, if I can also schedule it so I balance some recovery in there. 40 minutes a day should be a decent start!
Road Fan is offline  
Old 04-27-19, 10:37 AM
  #75  
rubiksoval
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 2,903

Bikes: Felt AR

Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1686 Post(s)
Liked 69 Times in 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Road Fan View Post
So it's plausible for me to do four days a week of riding moderate speed on level ground, then do a day of attempted quick hill climbs or hill repeats, an hour each ride, if I can also schedule it so I balance some recovery in there. 40 minutes a day should be a decent start!
It's plausible to do a lot of things. Whether or not doing so is a good use of your time is the million dollar question.

I'm not sure what a moderate speed on level ground or hill repeats entails for you, but I tend to do a good bit of tempo/sweetspot with some threshold and harder workouts myself.

I think 80/20 is a bit of a farce, personally.
rubiksoval is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.