Feb 15, 2014 at 01:28 PM
Develop your power by working developing your power.
Training to Race: Faster, Stronger, Awesomer
Feb 15, 2014 at 02:30 PM
Let me try English when addressing the polarized approach referred to by Seiler. Here is the best understanding I can share of it at the moment. I am still digesting things.
He breaks things down into three zones based on VO2Max. When you take those zones and transfer them to the standard power training zones, it is not as simple as easy, medium, hard training. Plus, Seiler's approach deals with athletes that have much more training time than we do. Professionals let's call them. Thus, unless some of us have much more training time that I realize, we just don't apply to the Seiler model.
Feb 15, 2014 at 02:59 PM
It was a pretty interesting video, but clearly uses select cases that back up the polarized theory. And the overall idea I got from it was that you get better when you train more, not when you train harder. Isn't this the idea behind base miles? That you build your aerobic engine, because without that, you're not going to be in place to contest sprints, anyway.
The charts showed hours trained, with big blocks at low intensity, small slivers at very high intensity (though he demonstrated 90%, over higher efforts, as having more effect), and it seems to me that's exactly how we do train in the park. When doing sprints in the big chainring, 3 sprints on 3 laps accounts for, what, 5 minutes of sprints in an hour to an hour and a half ride at way below threshold, including getting to and from the park.
I don't want to minimize these ideas, like cutting many training zones into just 3, but I'm trying to figure out how, if at all, this can apply to us.
Certainly, when he discussed the 'black hole' when hard training isn't hard enough, and easy training isn't easy enough, is a misstep we can make, especially when recovery is crucial to getting stronger. But that isn't informed by the polarized approach, more than the general idea of training.
Eric, while the pros can devote a lot more time to training, are you suggesting that, because we have limited time, it should be devoted to high intensity training to maximize that time, or that a general training schedule of low, medium, high efforts throughout a week doesn't necessarily need to change (dropping medium efforts per the polarized approach), due to the fact we're simply not putting in enough time?
Feb 15, 2014 at 03:24 PM
Andrew Coggan just posted a reply to this whole discussion of the polarized approach, He said:
- 1) I have never seen anyone advocate that endurance athletes in any sport distribute their training as portrayed by Seiler (and others, don't want to point the finger just at him) as "the threshold model". Indeed, I find it quite noteworthy that it is alternatively referred to as "the ACSM model", apparently alluding to the guidelines ACSM (and AHA, etc.) provide for developing fitness and/or maintaining health in the NON-athletic population. 2) As for the opposite stance, i.e., the polarized, or "80:20", approach, the criteria used to define the three intensity zones vary somewhat from author to author, as does the method of classification (i.e., session number or total time). In turn, this opens up the possiblity of at least some degree of confirmation bias, i.e., elite athletes merely *appear* to be distributing their training according to some pre-conceived pattern. 3) Taking a step back, unto itself the 80:20 rule-of-thumb isn't particularly useful, because it is both A) common sense, but
entirely too superficial: A) you don't have to be a genius to realize that to maximize your performance ability, you need to train hard and you need to train a lot, but that it is hard to do both at the same time. Thus, as others have pointed out there's nothing really unique or novel about the idea of making sure that you don't compromise the quality of your high-intensity training by training too hard and/or too much on your "off" days. at the same time, expressing the above idea as some idealized ratio provides little-to-nothing in the way of concrete guidance, while reinforcing the misconception that there is "magic" to be found in training at particular intensities. Indeed, by deliberately excluding zone 2 from the mix, individuals are discouraged from training at an intensity/in a manner that clearly provides a potent stimulus for adapation (but can also engender significant fatigue - more below). The biochemical evidence for this is really beyond the scope of this list, but from a practical perspective it should be clear based on the way that elite cyclists and/or their coaches around the world seek out lengthy climbs (e.g., in California, Colorado, South Australia, Italy, Tenerife, etc.) upon which to perform "threshold-style" training that it has long been recognized that such training can be highly effective.
Feb 15, 2014 at 04:00 PM
The other thing is that polarized training is what happens when you have finished base building.
Feb 15, 2014 at 06:00 PM
Four things jumped out at my from this talk:
1) Clearly, it's application was mostly for high volume professionals doing > 60 hours per month - although the study of 8 hours/week amateurs was interesting, if small.
2) The V02 Max gains he pionts to in Olympians (1990-early 2000's) coincides nicely with the appearance of Oxygen vector doping, which he doesn't address
3) The large amount of very moderate training corroborates what I'm hearing form the Canadian XC ski teams, and Helen Wyman - who are all doing a TON of volume at relatively low intensity. Some of the rationale (at least what they discuss) has to do with keeping blood plasma volumes high enough. The XC ski team is doing 4+ hour sessions the day before competition in some cases (!)
4) Lastly, I wonder about the physiological "ceiling" effect. A once highly trained athlete can get into very good shape much faster than a never-trained subject. Is the lack of need for very high intensity training that he points to a reflection of a lifetime accumulation of high intensity that diminishes it's necessity for these athletes?
I didn't post it as a "how-to" for amateurs, only as a fascinating discussion that was interesting to watch & think about. I would like more information on the "easily accessible" markers he mentions that make "three zone" studies so appealing from an experimental perspective. It's often the case that data on hand takes precedence over "data you want" which in turn leads to some very funky studies.
Feb 15, 2014 at 06:01 PM
Plus, funnyeragot said:Let me try English when addressing the polarized approach referred to by Seiler. Here is the best
Feb 15, 2014 at 08:03 PM
I find this entire debate....shall we say...POLARIZING !!!!!!
Feb 16, 2014 at 12:04 AM
Where is the "groan" button?
Feb 16, 2014 at 04:25 PM
cross posted
Here's an interesting quote from Sven Nys...
At the finish in Middelkerke many riders were clearly longing for time off the bike. When talking with Nys it became obvious that he thought completely differently. "I will not rest a lot. For a few years now I've been advised to keep the engine running. At my age it's hard to get back to a high level when you're off the bike for a month. I'm not tired of the competition, I'm actually longing for more," Nys said.
I wonder how this concept meshes with the commonly accepted wisdom that it's easier for the well trained athlete to more quickly get BACK in shape? I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive, but as I sit here typing this with my love-handles getting in the way of my elbows, it's something I'm thinking about.
Here's an interesting quote from Sven Nys...
At the finish in Middelkerke many riders were clearly longing for time off the bike. When talking with Nys it became obvious that he thought completely differently. "I will not rest a lot. For a few years now I've been advised to keep the engine running. At my age it's hard to get back to a high level when you're off the bike for a month. I'm not tired of the competition, I'm actually longing for more," Nys said.
I wonder how this concept meshes with the commonly accepted wisdom that it's easier for the well trained athlete to more quickly get BACK in shape? I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive, but as I sit here typing this with my love-handles getting in the way of my elbows, it's something I'm thinking about.
Feb 16, 2014 at 05:54 PM
@Marc I think it hinges on what you consider "shape." I suspect both are true; it's much easier for a formerly fit person to get back to 90, 95% of their best.
Probably much harder to get back to 99, 100% with big (complete detraining) breaks.
Feb 16, 2014 at 07:33 PM
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format not-found
Feb 16, 2014 at 09:16 PM
I think it also has to do with knowing how to race 'smarter' and how to use your energ in an efficient way. Nelson Vails talked about this last night and I definitely focus on managing my resources in races and hard group rides. It's not all about physiology.
Nelson said that he has printed on his shorts in small print 'ride the wheel'. He said that you have to get close enough to his wheel to read it. Then you are riding smart.
Feb 17, 2014 at 01:38 AM
I'm willing to be a six pack that it is much more than being "wiser" or an "ambition" thing.
Check this out: Left Ventricular remodeling persistent after significant (1-13 year) detraining
I'm sure there is more, haven't had time to dig for it.
Feb 17, 2014 at 03:02 AM
@Jules. I didn't mean to imply that racing smarter was the ONLY factor.
Feb 17, 2014 at 03:48 AM
Feb 17, 2014 at 05:11 PM
Some good advice for training "by the numbers"
Feb 19, 2014 at 10:22 PM
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format not-found
Feb 20, 2014 at 01:02 AM
Feb 20, 2014 at 02:57 PM
Warning
No formatter is installed for the format not-found
Feb 21, 2014 at 02:07 AM
Feb 24, 2014 at 08:16 PM
cross posted:
A quick note/addendum regarding the Grant's Tomb Clinic on March 2. It seems there is now an AVD race in CP and so in efforts to accommodate anyone who wants to both race and get "clinic-ed" on Grant's Tomb, I'll be doing two "shows" back to back/overlapping as necessary. It's just a short 10 minute or so ride north of CP to get to the Grant's Tomb clinic. Just give me some notice if this applies to you, so I'm not standing around in the cold waiting for no-one.
Feb 24, 2014 at 11:53 PM
cross posted:
Okay, so I'm about to drop another TWO clinics on you and make it official. So there...
"Olmsted's Order: Deciphering Central Park" (two separate dates)
Where: East 79th (?) in the park; traditional start/finish line of CP races
When: March 1 AND March 15, 7:30-8:30am
What: Course review/ride through and tactical notes. Will work on approach to final sprint as time/crowds allow.
Who: All KCC members (friends/family welcome too, but let me know ahead of time so I can bring release forms or something)
Additional notes:
Okay, so I'm about to drop another TWO clinics on you and make it official. So there...
"Olmsted's Order: Deciphering Central Park" (two separate dates)
Where: East 79th (?) in the park; traditional start/finish line of CP races
When: March 1 AND March 15, 7:30-8:30am
What: Course review/ride through and tactical notes. Will work on approach to final sprint as time/crowds allow.
Who: All KCC members (friends/family welcome too, but let me know ahead of time so I can bring release forms or something)
Additional notes:
- Again, lots of stopping and starting here to allow me to point out lines, approaches, exits, etc., in a way that everyone can hear. Dress appropriately.
- Also, I've ADDED a second date on March 1, for those who are planning to race the first AVD Spring Series race and want to get clinical the day before. As of now, however, it seems the more popular date will be on the 15th, when several from the women's team have already written the date in their calendars.
- While many
chose not race CP in the spring there are two bigger later season races
in CP that are very popular with the club. And being successful in CP is
challenging. Can be easy to finish with the bunch, but placing is a
whole 'nother thing. So, you know, something to think about...
Feb 25, 2014 at 02:44 PM
I had been planning on an elaborate post covering my "getting back into shape" campaign of 2014 - but who am I kidding; I ain't got time for that. Let me summarize: I started on Jan 1st with very little fitness.
I came into last fall raging; 30+ hours in August and then flamed out pretty spectacularly (same old story; burned out, ill, etc) and finished with 7 hours in November, and 9 in December.
Long story short, after a diligent January (including a week off because of illness) and early Feb I was pretty shocked and delighted to find myself breaking 20 minute power records in California.
Long story short - it's never as bad as it seems; especially if you've been in shape before - even after a couple of months of neglect.
Consistency and the ability to "not look at the numbers" got me through to where I'm not flying - but I'm feeling pretty good about the upcoming season.
So the next time you feel like you've been off your bike for "WAY TOO LONG" and all is lost - take my word for it - you haven't, and no it isn't.
Six weeks can make a world of difference and twelve even more. Just stick to it, and remember:
You will be fast.
You will be fast.
You will be slow.
You will be light.
You will be heavy.
You will be sick.
You will be well.
You will be keen.
You will be burned out.
It's all part of the big picture. Don't let any one piece of it derail you.
Feb 26, 2014 at 02:40 AM
More on the Polarized Training debate
Results: POL demonstrated the greatest increase in VO2peak (+6.8 ml·min·kg−1 or 11.7%, P < 0.001), time to exhaustion during the ramp protocol (+17.4%, P < 0.001) and peak velocity/power (+5.1%, P < 0.01). Velocity/power at 4 mmol·L−1 increased after POL (+8.1%, P < 0.01) and HIIT (+5.6%, P < 0.05). No differences in pre- to post-changes of work economy were found between the groups. Body mass was reduced by 3.7% (P < 0.001) following HIIT, with no changes in the other groups. With the exception of slight improvements in work economy in THR, both HVT and THR had no further effects on measured variables of endurance performance (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: POL resulted in the greatest improvements in most key variables of endurance performance in well-trained endurance athletes. THR or HVT did not lead to further improvements in performance related variables.
Feb 26, 2014 at 03:52 AM
Another pretty interesting study, Jules. And it has charts and graphs which, by my standards, makes it science!
So, looking at chart 1C, two days of intervals with the other days low intensity training. In week 3, lots of recovery time. This is the chart of training that saw the most improvement.
I'm concerned about this quotation, though:
'Retrospective analysis of training protocols over 6 months prior to the study revealed that none of the participants had regularly executed HIIT. All had followed a HVT training protocol with a maximum of two THR training sessions per week.'
Really? 48 amateur athletes and not one of them had done any kind of high intensity interval training in 6 months? All had done low intensity, high volume exercise, or THR, lactate threshold training. These were endurance athletes. But I'm still surprised none did this kind of exercise.
Ok, and I get that's what this study was about: 'Six weeks of cycling using POL resulted in greater systemic adaptation in already well-trained athletes when compared to THR (Neal et al., 2013). However, no study has investigated the POL concept in well-trained endurance athletes to determine whether this concept may be superior to the aforementioned training strategies.'
Intervals are definitely crucial to us cyclists because that's what we do when racing, catching up, bridging, making a break. So I don't know how far this study can apply to us, since these were endurance athletes.
My main concern, though, is that, in looking at the charts and the studies, I find myself weighing two options, training to win, or training to have fun. I don't like breaking them up into a binary, but with so much low intensity training, and so much recovery time during week 3, I'm not sure I would actually enjoy the training. Even if that allowed me to win or place. I really like riding my bike. I like training, and training hard. It's how I get rid of the work day. Or prepare for it. Staying off the bike, or riding in the small chainring, because I thought it would help me win, doesn't sit right with my purpose of having fun (and not winning).
Good things to think about. I'm hoping someone tells us they're going to follow the Polarized method and can give us their report.
Feb 26, 2014 at 04:04 AM
@bruce - I know this is antithesis to how a lot of stronger guys here train, but IMO we aren't paid to ride and the only reason to get on your bike is that you enjoy it immensely. Do what you must to have a good time, whether it is immediate or delayed gratification.
Feb 26, 2014 at 06:03 AM
Bruce
I think the takeaway is interesting if the volumes you are doing approach 60 hours a month. I would t worry too much bout it as amateur volumes and year long consistency don't really make this applicable... At least that's my take on it.
I think the takeaway is interesting if the volumes you are doing approach 60 hours a month. I would t worry too much bout it as amateur volumes and year long consistency don't really make this applicable... At least that's my take on it.
Mar 04, 2014 at 10:38 PM
It seems everytime I sprint I really beat the crap out of my back.
Eric suggested trying a higher rep sprint. A kiwi friend mentioned this workout is really good:
Eric suggested trying a higher rep sprint. A kiwi friend mentioned this workout is really good:
Anyone know anything about this? Suggestions?
Mar 05, 2014 at 12:10 AM
@John I've been doing loads of core & body weight exercises this winter. Body weight squats, planks, "mountain climbers" and burpees. (My top goals this year include injury prevention)
Other than that for a sprinter of your caliber I'd just email Kieran directly and ask for his advice.