80/20 Rule -- Is This a Meme?
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
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.?
Thanks
Thanks
#28
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Quite so. The 80% is supposed to be done below VT1, the 20% above VT2. Use your google machine. A 3 zone system is widely used in Europe. Holding VT1 on the trainer, rollers, or flat for an hour and a half will not feel like "slow, slow." Old men like me cruise at about 18 at VT1. Above VT2 is not maximally either. It's just impossible to hold it for more than about 10-12 minutes. An interesting thing about that system is that below VT1 very little glycogen is burned, mostly fat. Above VT2, vast amounts of glycogen are burned. It stresses both ends of the energy spectrum.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#30
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
If one is doing that, what do you suppose the optimum work/rest times are? I've used everything from 3' to 8' and rest from half the interval to twice the interval. Not sure where in the season to do which.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#32
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
#33
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
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.?
*My girlfriend got me a book on this subject and instead of returning the book (because it sounds like BS) I figured I'd at least ask others for advice first.
Thanks
*My girlfriend got me a book on this subject and instead of returning the book (because it sounds like BS) I figured I'd at least ask others for advice first.
Thanks
I use coaches and my current coach provides his training manual and structures a program with workouts for me that supports my goals. My endurance work is zone 3. Also, I do active recovery rides. And my program is periodized. And I have had several coaches and none of them have used an 80/20 approach as defined above.
Having said that, I do not do centuries, gonzo endurance rides / races and etc. If one is going to ride long distances then one has to train at a level of effort that supports the distance and develop strength and adaptation on the bike for the duration of the event.
If you just want to get in better cycling shape, any consistent workout program that you are willing to do will get you in better shape. "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is not an act but a habit." Aristotle.
Last edited by Hermes; 04-17-19 at 11:12 AM.
#34
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
Sprint efforts require 20 minutes of recovery between efforts. The shorter and more intense the effort, the longer recovery the period before the next effort.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
Sure, those are neuromusclar types of adaptions, not really what I was thinking was being discussed here in regards to the types of training to classify in the 90:10%
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Quite so. The 80% is supposed to be done below VT1, the 20% above VT2. Use your google machine. A 3 zone system is widely used in Europe. Holding VT1 on the trainer, rollers, or flat for an hour and a half will not feel like "slow, slow." Old men like me cruise at about 18 at VT1. Above VT2 is not maximally either. It's just impossible to hold it for more than about 10-12 minutes. An interesting thing about that system is that below VT1 very little glycogen is burned, mostly fat. Above VT2, vast amounts of glycogen are burned. It stresses both ends of the energy spectrum.
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.
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
For VO2 max workouts, 75%-100% recovery, so for 5 minutes on, 4-5 minutes off works well for me. The shorter the recovery duration, the more aerobic the interval, which is precisely what 3-8 minutes is generally concerned with, improving max aerobic abilities. 8 minutes is getting to the higher side of things and I'd probably cap that at 5 minutes myself, though I would almost never do an interval set with that duration.
#39
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Back in my mid-50s, I could do 5X8' once a week. I have a couple low-traffic steep 8' hills not far away. Mentally I like a steep hill so that the focus is just on turning the cranks.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#40
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
For VO2 max workouts, 75%-100% recovery, so for 5 minutes on, 4-5 minutes off works well for me. The shorter the recovery duration, the more aerobic the interval, which is precisely what 3-8 minutes is generally concerned with, improving max aerobic abilities. 8 minutes is getting to the higher side of things and I'd probably cap that at 5 minutes myself, though I would almost never do an interval set with that duration.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#41
Senior Member
The psychology of it is that if one tries to constantly ride faster, one then becomes faster. While it is true it is not optimal and there comes the term junk miles.
In the junk mile mode (the mistake many beginners make) one rides relatively little in terms of time or miles at medium highish intensity. However doing this one neither gains the benefits of high to maximum interval training nor the time and volume on low intensity training. The end result is sub par when comparing to polarized training where one would gain immense volume (by comparison) by doing long low intensity rides and also the beneficial effects pushing the body to the max gives through doing interval training once or twice a week.
Doing long duration low intensity rides hardly stresses the body enough to require proper recovery but it does give major benefits in fitness especially when volume is high. High to max intensity intervals require extensive recovery but also grant extensive increases in fitness. Constant medium level intensity requires relatively high amounts of recovery but give relatively little in terms of fitness because the intensity or volume just isn't there.
Of course one could then think that constant high to max intensity interval is the key but they require seriously a lot of recovery time. Doing too much HIIT can in will start breaking the body down instead of making it stronger. Thus it is recommended that a very small portion of time used is HIIT training, ie. 10 - 20 %. Rest should be low intensity work. Medium intensity work is targeted training and is really only necessary if one uses that specific intensity level extensively. Crit racing is a good example for that. However if one does longer distance events such as centuries, doing medium intensity training is not optimal.
But of course as a disclaimer, almost everything is better than nothing. Hence should beginners try to ride as fast as they can every time they ride, well it's still better than nothing and riding fast is just fun. Learning to ride slow is something one really needs to learn because it also emphasizes good riding position. When one ride fast even a sub par bike fit can work wonderfully. However when one starts riding slow, a bad fit can lead to all kinds of nasty stuff.
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
I've understood junk miles are miles done at constant zone 3-4 where one tries to ride really fast for relatively short distances, ie. 20-40 miles. This means that one rides for a couple of hours feathering the red line and being completely spent afterwards.
The psychology of it is that if one tries to constantly ride faster, one then becomes faster. While it is true it is not optimal and there comes the term junk miles.
In the junk mile mode (the mistake many beginners make) one rides relatively little in terms of time or miles at medium highish intensity. However doing this one neither gains the benefits of high to maximum interval training nor the time and volume on low intensity training. The end result is sub par when comparing to polarized training where one would gain immense volume (by comparison) by doing long low intensity rides and also the beneficial effects pushing the body to the max gives through doing interval training once or twice a week.
Doing long duration low intensity rides hardly stresses the body enough to require proper recovery but it does give major benefits in fitness especially when volume is high. High to max intensity intervals require extensive recovery but also grant extensive increases in fitness. Constant medium level intensity requires relatively high amounts of recovery but give relatively little in terms of fitness because the intensity or volume just isn't there.
The psychology of it is that if one tries to constantly ride faster, one then becomes faster. While it is true it is not optimal and there comes the term junk miles.
In the junk mile mode (the mistake many beginners make) one rides relatively little in terms of time or miles at medium highish intensity. However doing this one neither gains the benefits of high to maximum interval training nor the time and volume on low intensity training. The end result is sub par when comparing to polarized training where one would gain immense volume (by comparison) by doing long low intensity rides and also the beneficial effects pushing the body to the max gives through doing interval training once or twice a week.
Doing long duration low intensity rides hardly stresses the body enough to require proper recovery but it does give major benefits in fitness especially when volume is high. High to max intensity intervals require extensive recovery but also grant extensive increases in fitness. Constant medium level intensity requires relatively high amounts of recovery but give relatively little in terms of fitness because the intensity or volume just isn't there.
You can overtrain doing too many slow miles, you can overtrain doing too many medium miles, you can overtrain doing too many hard miles. None of that has antyhign to do with whether or nto you can improve at a specific intensity, ESPECIALLY an intensity that drives aerobic performance benefits while also being repeatable multiple times a week.
#43
Senior Member
You can overtrain doing too many slow miles, you can overtrain doing too many medium miles, you can overtrain doing too many hard miles. None of that has antyhign to do with whether or nto you can improve at a specific intensity, ESPECIALLY an intensity that drives aerobic performance benefits while also being repeatable multiple times a week.
It is not nearly as difficult to overtrain when doing medium to high intensity stuff as it is really quite taxing to the body. On the other hand paradoxically it isn't really effective in forming the changes in the body that HIIT does. So you don't get the volume but neither do you get the intensity training.
Overtraining when doing HIIT is incredibly easy so one should limit that to one to max two times a week.
But you can combine the volume of the slow miles and the intensity of the HIIT so you get both benefits. You can't do that if you feather the red line all of the rides you do.
And again, the point you missed in my earlier post. This is theoretical. Doing something is always better than doing nothing. More people should do stuff even if it is the dreaded 'junk miles'. But for optimal training polarized training makes the most amount of sense while going at medium to high intensities for a relatively limited amount of time per week does not make nearly as much sense.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Music City, USA
Posts: 4,444
Bikes: bikes
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2622 Post(s)
Liked 1,429 Times
in
711 Posts
Any activity that progressively induces stress and adaptations is "valid" in the sense that improvement can result to a point. You don't even need a "plan" to have "valid" training. Hence any person that starts riding is going to get better up to a point, regardless of what they're doing.
No, I got the point. But training at a particular intensity, especially in that particular zone, is the antithesis of "junk". Especially for those not training a significant amount of time.
And the fact that hardly anyone does it speaks volumes to the practicality of such a training methodology. And the fact that people have been very successful doing the polar opposite reinforces the notion that there are a great many paths to performance, and labeling one as "junk" is silly.
No, I got the point. But training at a particular intensity, especially in that particular zone, is the antithesis of "junk". Especially for those not training a significant amount of time.
And the fact that hardly anyone does it speaks volumes to the practicality of such a training methodology. And the fact that people have been very successful doing the polar opposite reinforces the notion that there are a great many paths to performance, and labeling one as "junk" is silly.
Last edited by rubiksoval; 04-19-19 at 12:06 PM.
#45
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Any activity that progressively induces stress and adaptations is "valid" in the sense that improvement can result to a point. You don't even need a "plan" to have "valid" training. Hence any person that starts riding is going to get better up to a point, regardless of what they're doing.
No, I got the point. But training at a particular intensity, especially in that particular zone, is the antithesis of "junk". Especially for those not training a significant amount of time.
And the fact that hardly anyone does it speaks volumes to the practicality of such a training methodology. And the fact that people have been very successful doing the polar opposite reinforces the notion that there are a great many paths to performance, and labeling one as "junk" is silly.
No, I got the point. But training at a particular intensity, especially in that particular zone, is the antithesis of "junk". Especially for those not training a significant amount of time.
And the fact that hardly anyone does it speaks volumes to the practicality of such a training methodology. And the fact that people have been very successful doing the polar opposite reinforces the notion that there are a great many paths to performance, and labeling one as "junk" is silly.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Salt Lake City, UT (Formerly Los Angeles, CA)
Posts: 1,145
Bikes: 2008 Cannondale Synapse -- 2014 Cannondale Quick CX
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 83 Times
in
54 Posts
Where I become skeptical is when I see this 80%/20% ratio applied to so many things in life. Consider it more a concept than a set in stone golden ratio.
#47
Version 7.0
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,127
Bikes: Too Many
Mentioned: 297 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1340 Post(s)
Liked 2,482 Times
in
1,457 Posts
Joe Friel joins the list of posters who do not understand polarized training. Who would have known.
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/1...ng-update.html
"In December last year I posted here a review of some of the research about a way of training that scientists call “polarized.” That’s just a catchy way of saying do workouts with an intensity that is either high or low while avoiding moderate efforts. So train mostly at opposite ends of the intensity spectrum. There is another, more recent study, the best one done so far, which adds greater credibility to this concept. Before getting into that, however, let’s review what high, low and moderate intensities mean."
Does Joe conclude anything? It depends.
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/1...ng-update.html
"In December last year I posted here a review of some of the research about a way of training that scientists call “polarized.” That’s just a catchy way of saying do workouts with an intensity that is either high or low while avoiding moderate efforts. So train mostly at opposite ends of the intensity spectrum. There is another, more recent study, the best one done so far, which adds greater credibility to this concept. Before getting into that, however, let’s review what high, low and moderate intensities mean."
Does Joe conclude anything? It depends.
#48
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Joe Friel joins the list of posters who do not understand polarized training. Who would have known.
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/1...ng-update.html
"In December last year I posted here a review of some of the research about a way of training that scientists call “polarized.” That’s just a catchy way of saying do workouts with an intensity that is either high or low while avoiding moderate efforts. So train mostly at opposite ends of the intensity spectrum. There is another, more recent study, the best one done so far, which adds greater credibility to this concept. Before getting into that, however, let’s review what high, low and moderate intensities mean."
Does Joe conclude anything? It depends.
https://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/1...ng-update.html
"In December last year I posted here a review of some of the research about a way of training that scientists call “polarized.” That’s just a catchy way of saying do workouts with an intensity that is either high or low while avoiding moderate efforts. So train mostly at opposite ends of the intensity spectrum. There is another, more recent study, the best one done so far, which adds greater credibility to this concept. Before getting into that, however, let’s review what high, low and moderate intensities mean."
Does Joe conclude anything? It depends.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#49
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,533
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3888 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Here's the study referenced by Friel: https://www.tradewindsports.net/wp-co...%B6ggl_141.pdf
I read the polarized group as having 2 HIIT workouts and 4 low workouts per week for 2 weeks, followed by a recovery week in which there was 1 HIIT workout and 2 low workouts. Therefore that wasn't 80/20 but rather 66/33. IIRC, Sieler's work is based on an analysis of a season's workouts, not on one week's schedule. A seven day week is a bit difficult that way. What is one to do, 1 HIIT and 4 low in a week? Not enough high time to get much adaption. That said, I'd be interested in seeing time in HR zone of someone doing the workouts done by that polarized group.
Reading the comments to the Friel blog entry, it would be good to point out that Sieler's work was based on the training of elite XC skiers. They don't have PMs. The polarized zones are based on breathing. It turns out that breathing and HR are closely related, not exactly, but more closely than breathing and cycling power. IOW don't use power, use breathing, VT1 and VT2 or AeT and AnT, whatever you want to call those breakpoints. As has been pointed out, while one can and should record one's time in zone, that's not how the training schedule is set up, though it's useful for keeping track of TSS.
OTOH, if you want to use power instead of breathing, go ahead, but you'll be doing your own thing, not what was was researched in the above study or by Sieler.
I read the polarized group as having 2 HIIT workouts and 4 low workouts per week for 2 weeks, followed by a recovery week in which there was 1 HIIT workout and 2 low workouts. Therefore that wasn't 80/20 but rather 66/33. IIRC, Sieler's work is based on an analysis of a season's workouts, not on one week's schedule. A seven day week is a bit difficult that way. What is one to do, 1 HIIT and 4 low in a week? Not enough high time to get much adaption. That said, I'd be interested in seeing time in HR zone of someone doing the workouts done by that polarized group.
Reading the comments to the Friel blog entry, it would be good to point out that Sieler's work was based on the training of elite XC skiers. They don't have PMs. The polarized zones are based on breathing. It turns out that breathing and HR are closely related, not exactly, but more closely than breathing and cycling power. IOW don't use power, use breathing, VT1 and VT2 or AeT and AnT, whatever you want to call those breakpoints. As has been pointed out, while one can and should record one's time in zone, that's not how the training schedule is set up, though it's useful for keeping track of TSS.
OTOH, if you want to use power instead of breathing, go ahead, but you'll be doing your own thing, not what was was researched in the above study or by Sieler.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times
in
173 Posts
Here's the study referenced by Friel: https://www.tradewindsports.net/wp-co...%B6ggl_141.pdf
I read the polarized group as having 2 HIIT workouts and 4 low workouts per week for 2 weeks, followed by a recovery week in which there was 1 HIIT workout and 2 low workouts. Therefore that wasn't 80/20 but rather 66/33. IIRC, Sieler's work is based on an analysis of a season's workouts, not on one week's schedule. A seven day week is a bit difficult that way. What is one to do, 1 HIIT and 4 low in a week? Not enough high time to get much adaption. That said, I'd be interested in seeing time in HR zone of someone doing the workouts done by that polarized group.
Reading the comments to the Friel blog entry, it would be good to point out that Sieler's work was based on the training of elite XC skiers. They don't have PMs. The polarized zones are based on breathing. It turns out that breathing and HR are closely related, not exactly, but more closely than breathing and cycling power. IOW don't use power, use breathing, VT1 and VT2 or AeT and AnT, whatever you want to call those breakpoints. As has been pointed out, while one can and should record one's time in zone, that's not how the training schedule is set up, though it's useful for keeping track of TSS.
OTOH, if you want to use power instead of breathing, go ahead, but you'll be doing your own thing, not what was was researched in the above study or by Sieler.
I read the polarized group as having 2 HIIT workouts and 4 low workouts per week for 2 weeks, followed by a recovery week in which there was 1 HIIT workout and 2 low workouts. Therefore that wasn't 80/20 but rather 66/33. IIRC, Sieler's work is based on an analysis of a season's workouts, not on one week's schedule. A seven day week is a bit difficult that way. What is one to do, 1 HIIT and 4 low in a week? Not enough high time to get much adaption. That said, I'd be interested in seeing time in HR zone of someone doing the workouts done by that polarized group.
Reading the comments to the Friel blog entry, it would be good to point out that Sieler's work was based on the training of elite XC skiers. They don't have PMs. The polarized zones are based on breathing. It turns out that breathing and HR are closely related, not exactly, but more closely than breathing and cycling power. IOW don't use power, use breathing, VT1 and VT2 or AeT and AnT, whatever you want to call those breakpoints. As has been pointed out, while one can and should record one's time in zone, that's not how the training schedule is set up, though it's useful for keeping track of TSS.
OTOH, if you want to use power instead of breathing, go ahead, but you'll be doing your own thing, not what was was researched in the above study or by Sieler.