Yes, totally. I saw that, too. I was thinking about specifically addressing some of his science recap videos. Most of his content is pretty good, but sometimes isn't totally right... I may address them in the future, but for now, I thought this account was actually pretty good. ruclips.net/video/NOcGfbdctb4/видео.html
One thing I've been thinking about recently is that the way that pros ride is different than how AGers ride. For instance, a pro just needs to put down watts to not get dropped on a moment's notice and then hang out for as long as he can. AGers on the other hand can just put out a steady W all day long, and so time at that power level I have to imagine is invaluable. It's kind of a NP vs AP type of distinction maybe. Also I do non-drafting triathlon so that's the lens I'm using here
Ride easy (60-65% ftp)(the more hours a week the better) and race once a week. That's all you need to do. If you don't race, your race can be an FTP test or HARD chain gang/group ride.
Sure. That can work for a lot of people that just want to have fun, do some social rides, and go hard for fun. It's not going to get you into peak shape, but not everyone wants to put in the work to do that. It's fine for different people to have different training practices, but it's clear that going randomly hard on a race ride or racing once on the weekend will not get you into peak shape.... What any individual athlete may choose to do and may be willing to do is totally dependent on their goals, constraints, and what will be satisfying for them. for some people, simply being fit and hammering on the weekend is fun. For others, it may be unsatisfying to do anything less than their best training with a lot of focused workouts and going into their goal events knowing that they did everything they could to get ready. Just because one strategy is fun or emotionally satisfying for one person doesn't mean it will work for another.
That's basically it but group rides and racing are not as effective as brutal repeated interval sessions to the point of puking...I know this for certain...it bears out.
Good video....I think that there is A LOT of info out there, much like dieting in general, that gets folks tripped up. Not only is everyone different, but training for events as a pro is different than for those of weekend racers, and what the event is, or performance goal, all are variables that can change a training regime. Too many think sweet spot is better than polarized or some other training program when it is merely different, not superior or vice versa. Different tools for different jobs kinda thing.
Yes, totally. There's a lot of info and opinions out there, some of which are more useful than others, and some are more valid or sound than others. Of course, we should all follow reasonable principles, but also you should think about what's going to be effective in your specific situation with your training history and goals, and not just copy-paste something that works for a pro but at 30% the volume or what some random training article or video says. It's always good to think critically, and also be self aware and pay attention to what works for you.
@@englishendurance Absolutely...like many things in life there are no short cuts to fitness. Sometimes a technique is efficient but not necessarily most effective and vice versa. One thing that really separates the elite pro’s from others, even the really good riders, is not genetics, though many are gifted, but the mental training and attitude to stick to and endure a tough regime. I have bagged out of plenty of training sessions simply because they were too tough for me, and I couldn’t/didn’t want to punch through the barrier, mostly pain/mental at that stage of my performance. But more often than not, you gotta push to improve...and sometimes the discipline to hold back and rest is just as difficult and important. We can be so very myopic these days....
@@marklohnes6313 The one thing that absolutely separates elite pros from the rest IS genetics. Just check out any of their stats where you can find them. The difference is then pretty small: if you look at the span across finishing times between the TDF winner and lanterne rouge it’s tiny in % terms and they ALL train frickin hard … no question. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be in pro teams riding Grand Tours. All of the above of course doesn’t consider additional saucy vitamins they may be taking or blood changes etc.
Thanks for watching and the kind words, Joe! We appreciate it. I'm planning on doing a little more of a deep dive on this topic because it's a popular topic, and more importantly it teases out some fundamental principles.
Those are some generic TRX style suspension training straps I got a few years ago. I'm not sure they're still available, because it's been a while. TRX is the original suspension trainer, but there are many others out there, because they're essentially just nylon straps with some handles and loops. You will need a place to hang them, but a sturdy door or rafters in a garage or basement should usually do fine.
Yes, it's a good idea to include all intensities in any training program. The amounts will vary at different times in a training cycle, and you're totally right that the emphasis on each system is simply different when different athletes or coaches employ different training philosophies. Strictly speaking, Seiler's description of polarized training is focused on above threshold intensity that will get HR above 87% of max, and sub-tempo work at 98% of FTP to get into "zone 3" HR territory. But, it really depends on where it is in your training program how much you may do of any intensity, and I think even Seiler and "sweetspot" advocates would agree on this. For most athletes, focusing almost entirely on training just below threshold makes no sense. Likewise, never doing substantial training at around threshold intensity also makes no sense. It just depends on what your goal(s) are and how far out from those goals, what it is that any athlete will want to focus on.... I think some of the confusion and lack of nuance comes out of the ways in which people talk about training and over-emphasize certain things without acknowledging that there are a lot of variables and that things are dynamic. E.g. you're not going to have your best season if you're doing truly polarized work in December with easy miles and very hard interval sessions, which Seiler and others do actually describe when they talk about specific training plans, but that doesn't always come through when talking about "polarized" training as an overall idea. I think most coaches and athletes have a lot more in common than they disagree about, but the discussion tends to become more ideologically polarized sometimes. :)
@@englishendurance I think part of the prob is Seiler zones are 1- recovery, 2 just sub 2mmol lactate, zone 3- btw 2-4mmol of lactate, Zone 4- above threshold but below vo2max or about 90 - 95%, and 5- all out short stuff. Bike guys work off FTP so they think differently. And everyones definition kinda varies. For me most prescriptions of tempo, sweetspot and threshold all fall in Seiler Zone three wh is the zone he tends to do some but not much work in. Bikers seem to be the last endurance group to not embrace lactate markers as training markers. I am not sure why. Even swimmers take lactate test pool side. Go figure
@@scooterc2006 Yes, for a lot of athletes and coaches, it's at least a little challenging that Seiler's 3 HR zones are fundamentally different than the power or pace based work that many athletes focus on. And, HR as a function of intensity varies from person to person enough to make it ideal to customize for everyone at least a little.... On lactate in cycling, people use it for lab testing a lot (VO2 and MLSS testing), but it's not cheap and power is easier to work with in the field, so it makes sense.
@@englishendurance disagree part of the issue bikers ahve with polarized is they talk from diff choir books. Temp threshold and sweet spot are all zone 3 in 5 zone or 2 in 3 zone. I gwt ao tired of bike guys confusing the issue that seller does not rec any zone 3. He does just not as much as pyramidal or TR. AND THE WHOLE POINT is what stem provides the best training changes. Stoogl et al pretty much settle that.
Yes, totally. It isn't fundamentally different, but I think it's a good counterpoint to two trends of either focusing on high-intensity work only or focusing on a lot of high-aerobic, sub-threshold work (i.e. Sweetspot) as the main training focus. All are good in the right amount, but not getting enough aerobic conditioning or enough of a mix of intensity is not ideal. Old fashioned "build a base" and "add progressively more intensity" is much more aligned with Seiler's description of "Polarized" training, but I think one take away from studies he has done with others is about how much of each seems to be effective in the later stages of a training program to reach peak fitness. There seems to be a lot of good institutional wisdom in endurance training circles, but it's mixed in with some guidance or rules of thumb which may not be the most effective, so even if it's not new, it's good to see refining of the ideas. So especially for mid-distance runners or cyclists who want to have a lot of high-end, it's good to be reminded that you may not want to focus on doing more than 2-3 very hard sessions each week during the racing season or training for a peak.
Such a timely video especially considering it came out before the Dylan Johnson vs Trainerroad video about the same topic.
Yes, totally. I saw that, too. I was thinking about specifically addressing some of his science recap videos. Most of his content is pretty good, but sometimes isn't totally right... I may address them in the future, but for now, I thought this account was actually pretty good. ruclips.net/video/NOcGfbdctb4/видео.html
One thing I've been thinking about recently is that the way that pros ride is different than how AGers ride. For instance, a pro just needs to put down watts to not get dropped on a moment's notice and then hang out for as long as he can. AGers on the other hand can just put out a steady W all day long, and so time at that power level I have to imagine is invaluable. It's kind of a NP vs AP type of distinction maybe. Also I do non-drafting triathlon so that's the lens I'm using here
So a well balanced training plan with a mix of all intensities is good...got it! lol.
Ride easy (60-65% ftp)(the more hours a week the better) and race once a week. That's all you need to do. If you don't race, your race can be an FTP test or HARD chain gang/group ride.
Sure. That can work for a lot of people that just want to have fun, do some social rides, and go hard for fun. It's not going to get you into peak shape, but not everyone wants to put in the work to do that. It's fine for different people to have different training practices, but it's clear that going randomly hard on a race ride or racing once on the weekend will not get you into peak shape.... What any individual athlete may choose to do and may be willing to do is totally dependent on their goals, constraints, and what will be satisfying for them. for some people, simply being fit and hammering on the weekend is fun. For others, it may be unsatisfying to do anything less than their best training with a lot of focused workouts and going into their goal events knowing that they did everything they could to get ready. Just because one strategy is fun or emotionally satisfying for one person doesn't mean it will work for another.
That's basically it but group rides and racing are not as effective as brutal repeated interval sessions to the point of puking...I know this for certain...it bears out.
ohh..I do love SST...so in the winter it is fun to do 2 or 3 x 20min at 85% of FTP
Excellent video. Helped me a ton. Thank you
Good video....I think that there is A LOT of info out there, much like dieting in general, that gets folks tripped up. Not only is everyone different, but training for events as a pro is different than for those of weekend racers, and what the event is, or performance goal, all are variables that can change a training regime. Too many think sweet spot is better than polarized or some other training program when it is merely different, not superior or vice versa. Different tools for different jobs kinda thing.
Yes, totally. There's a lot of info and opinions out there, some of which are more useful than others, and some are more valid or sound than others. Of course, we should all follow reasonable principles, but also you should think about what's going to be effective in your specific situation with your training history and goals, and not just copy-paste something that works for a pro but at 30% the volume or what some random training article or video says. It's always good to think critically, and also be self aware and pay attention to what works for you.
@@englishendurance Absolutely...like many things in life there are no short cuts to fitness. Sometimes a technique is efficient but not necessarily most effective and vice versa. One thing that really separates the elite pro’s from others, even the really good riders, is not genetics, though many are gifted, but the mental training and attitude to stick to and endure a tough regime. I have bagged out of plenty of training sessions simply because they were too tough for me, and I couldn’t/didn’t want to punch through the barrier, mostly pain/mental at that stage of my performance. But more often than not, you gotta push to improve...and sometimes the discipline to hold back and rest is just as difficult and important. We can be so very myopic these days....
@@marklohnes6313 The one thing that absolutely separates elite pros from the rest IS genetics. Just check out any of their stats where you can find them. The difference is then pretty small: if you look at the span across finishing times between the TDF winner and lanterne rouge it’s tiny in % terms and they ALL train frickin hard … no question. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be in pro teams riding Grand Tours. All of the above of course doesn’t consider additional saucy vitamins they may be taking or blood changes etc.
super informative
Thanks Bobby! Let me know if there's anything specific you'd love for me to cover in the future. :)
Great video don’t know this doesn’t have more views keep it up guys
Thanks for watching and the kind words, Joe! We appreciate it. I'm planning on doing a little more of a deep dive on this topic because it's a popular topic, and more importantly it teases out some fundamental principles.
What's the brand name of those ropes at 07:15? Seems like a very good core training. Thx!
Those are some generic TRX style suspension training straps I got a few years ago. I'm not sure they're still available, because it's been a while. TRX is the original suspension trainer, but there are many others out there, because they're essentially just nylon straps with some handles and loops. You will need a place to hang them, but a sturdy door or rafters in a garage or basement should usually do fine.
you do some some threshold in zone 3 with polarized just not as much as pyramidal or TR versions
Yes, it's a good idea to include all intensities in any training program. The amounts will vary at different times in a training cycle, and you're totally right that the emphasis on each system is simply different when different athletes or coaches employ different training philosophies. Strictly speaking, Seiler's description of polarized training is focused on above threshold intensity that will get HR above 87% of max, and sub-tempo work at 98% of FTP to get into "zone 3" HR territory. But, it really depends on where it is in your training program how much you may do of any intensity, and I think even Seiler and "sweetspot" advocates would agree on this. For most athletes, focusing almost entirely on training just below threshold makes no sense. Likewise, never doing substantial training at around threshold intensity also makes no sense. It just depends on what your goal(s) are and how far out from those goals, what it is that any athlete will want to focus on.... I think some of the confusion and lack of nuance comes out of the ways in which people talk about training and over-emphasize certain things without acknowledging that there are a lot of variables and that things are dynamic. E.g. you're not going to have your best season if you're doing truly polarized work in December with easy miles and very hard interval sessions, which Seiler and others do actually describe when they talk about specific training plans, but that doesn't always come through when talking about "polarized" training as an overall idea. I think most coaches and athletes have a lot more in common than they disagree about, but the discussion tends to become more ideologically polarized sometimes. :)
@@englishendurance I think part of the prob is Seiler zones are 1- recovery, 2 just sub 2mmol lactate, zone 3- btw 2-4mmol of lactate, Zone 4- above threshold but below vo2max or about 90 - 95%, and 5- all out short stuff. Bike guys work off FTP so they think differently. And everyones definition kinda varies. For me most prescriptions of tempo, sweetspot and threshold all fall in Seiler Zone three wh is the zone he tends to do some but not much work in. Bikers seem to be the last endurance group to not embrace lactate markers as training markers. I am not sure why. Even swimmers take lactate test pool side. Go figure
@@scooterc2006 Yes, for a lot of athletes and coaches, it's at least a little challenging that Seiler's 3 HR zones are fundamentally different than the power or pace based work that many athletes focus on. And, HR as a function of intensity varies from person to person enough to make it ideal to customize for everyone at least a little.... On lactate in cycling, people use it for lab testing a lot (VO2 and MLSS testing), but it's not cheap and power is easier to work with in the field, so it makes sense.
@@englishendurance disagree part of the issue bikers ahve with polarized is they talk from diff choir books. Temp threshold and sweet spot are all zone 3 in 5 zone or 2 in 3 zone. I gwt ao tired of bike guys confusing the issue that seller does not rec any zone 3. He does just not as much as pyramidal or TR. AND THE WHOLE POINT is what stem provides the best training changes. Stoogl et al pretty much settle that.
I like the content.......but it does just sound like a good old fashioned pyramid: big base then working your way up to short-high intensity stuff
Yes, totally. It isn't fundamentally different, but I think it's a good counterpoint to two trends of either focusing on high-intensity work only or focusing on a lot of high-aerobic, sub-threshold work (i.e. Sweetspot) as the main training focus. All are good in the right amount, but not getting enough aerobic conditioning or enough of a mix of intensity is not ideal. Old fashioned "build a base" and "add progressively more intensity" is much more aligned with Seiler's description of "Polarized" training, but I think one take away from studies he has done with others is about how much of each seems to be effective in the later stages of a training program to reach peak fitness. There seems to be a lot of good institutional wisdom in endurance training circles, but it's mixed in with some guidance or rules of thumb which may not be the most effective, so even if it's not new, it's good to see refining of the ideas. So especially for mid-distance runners or cyclists who want to have a lot of high-end, it's good to be reminded that you may not want to focus on doing more than 2-3 very hard sessions each week during the racing season or training for a peak.
@@englishendurance excellent answer. we don't have enough of these on the internet :)