I hadn’t seen that before.
50, 10, 30, of course, isn’t right as it only adds up to 90%!
50, 10, 40 is classified as HIIT. but would satisfy the POL criteria.
Mike
Thanks. So there’s a small deviation in the approach for HIIT as considered in literature (S3>S1 | S3>S2) but probably an isolated case. I’ve personally never fallen into this bucket.
Good to have this clarified and documented. I’ll need to bookmark this thread for later reference 
1 Like
+1. Our discussions on POL vs non POL training is centered just mostly just on intensity and power output. I don’t feel its correct, we need to bring other things into the picture and find a way to integrate. Part of the reason to map 3-zone to 7-zone is also to capture things other than power output.
What is “easy” and what is “hard” is known to most people, they’ll tell you that in a couple of seconds after the fact. The closest metric that achieves that perception is RPE. This is just another reason why we need to integrate the sRPE based load and stress information into intervals.ICU. See my previous thread on this : https://forum.intervals.icu/t/towards-load-strain-based-on-10-pt-session-rpe-rating/2936/3
So then, you end up with a precisely calculated TID according to the classification in the algorithm but also a crude but highly subjective form of “easy” and “hard” in terms of sRPE load and strain. And my hypothesis is that most serious athletes will have “fun” when a) training is not overly easy but b) training is also safe yet athlete challenged just to the right level.
Can we then think of a way to combine the two metrics and provide an index of polarization to user? Not sure, but this needs more research.
Here’s a hypothetical case :
Athlete A had a fantastic week of POL training. Good amount of volume in Z1, lots of variation so less monotony and training just right in Z3 so stressed just right. Eating well and resting well.
Week TID & RPE strain = POL, 1000.
Athlete B had a disastrous time after a week of POL training. Lots of volume in Z1 yes but high monotony, tried Z3 and nearly twisted an ankle on training day and unable to cope well with the training.
Week TID & RPE strain = POL, 1500.
2 Likes
Certainly, I’m no coach. Just a ‘serious’ amateur with a day job, family and no hobbies other than cycling … 
I’ll leave the complicated math to others!
I don’t remember which one, but on one of the FastTalk podcasts with Dr. Seiler they spoke about intervals. He prescribes very simple interval workouts, his favourite being the 4 x 8 min workout. He also prescribes shorter and longer variations of the same, like 4 x 4. When asked how hard the athlete should go for the 4 or 8 or 10 min he just said ‘as hard as you can!’ Essentially the athlete has to pace themselves to JUST BARELY be able to complete the 4 intervals. No power as a percentage of anything or zone is specified. The duration of the interval will naturally dictate that. He also says that relatively little rest is required between these intervals, usually less than the interval itself. Once again, not very prescriptive.
Of course, Seiler works with young, highly-motivated professional athletes that have the discipline and understanding of their capabilities to pull that off. Me? Maybe not. For me I’ve created a series of un-complicated workouts for myself that follow this ‘simplicity’ ethos, but help me do the right thing at the right time in my season (in terms of energy system targeted, intensity and duration).
I apologize for the digression! 
3 Likes
I’ve tried this and it matches my lab tested LT1 HR within a beat or two!
1 Like
Yeah I’ve listened to that podcast too, it was a series of 3. When he analyzed the different time intervals he said the 4x4 was the worst for consistency (ie. athletes being able to achieve similar power outputs over all intervals), 4x8 was the best. With the rest intervals, his analysis was that once you’ve rested “enough”, resting for longer doesn’t actually improve performance.
Yes! Makes you wonder about all those complicated, fancy-looking workouts many coaches or training platforms prescribe …
2 Likes
Yeah, in one of his other podcast/interviews he said that those elite athletes tend to do the same simple workouts over and over. I think the complex ones are more for giving less disciplined athletes some variety to keep it interesting
That’s what I’ve done. I’ve created a small number of simple workouts that target different energy systems that I use at different stages of my season and I just use them over and over again. For sure it doesn’t provide much variety, but I usually execute them in Zwift or outdoors, so that provides the distraction factor for me.
Also, the meaning of ‘intensity’ varies for me - early on it will come in the form of sub-threshold work twice a week (my ‘20%’ of sessions). Later I’ll do actual threshold work and only really reach into the true POL Z3 stuff (120%+ of FTP) in the 4 or so weeks prior to my ‘A’ events given that it doesn’t take much to build that system especially once you have a solid base foundation. This works for me as my events tend to be in the 100 to 180km range. I’m no crit racer!
1 Like
Not a digression at all. This study you mention is one of the Dr. Seiler’s highly cited studies into interval training adaptations using an iso-effort protocol.
The gold nugget in that paper is one statement within the Discussions section, which most people do not talk about but you bring up rightly.
“We also found that RPE of the interval training programs was more strongly associated with work intensity than accumulated duration.”
This bit right here takes the cake. As I mentioned before, we need to find a way to bring RPE into the weekly TID analysis to provide an overall picture of the “how hard” part and help facilitate a conversation between coach and athlete.
I’ve written the HOW-TO part, now someone just needs to help make that happen.
As for the 4 x 8 mins at 90% HR, if you map it to the 3 and 7-Zone map in my map above, you’ll see it clearly falls in the Z3 and S3 areas respectively. Those looking for a “bang for the buck” HIIT workout for POL training can experiment with incorporating 4 x 8 min intervals as part of the HIIT.
The exact protocol was 2 days of 4 x 8 minutes with 2 minute recoveries, in addition to 2-3 weekly endurance sessions at low intensity, for a total of 5 days/week of training. Clearly this was Polarized.
The study lasted 7 weeks.
1 Like
+1. My takeaway was this.
-
For a HIIT session, the shortest intervals with the highest RPE didn’t confer the same benefits as slightly longer intervals at lower RPE in recreational cyclists.
-
The study was done on 35 trained recreational cyclists. I have some reservations about extending the findings of this paper to highly trained and elite athletes; the latter section tends to have different recovery characteristics and different training needs to elicit performance gains. Not sure if Dr. Seiler ever thought of repeating said study in a different class of athletes.
2 Likes
Thanks. There are “levels” to periodization of Polarization, if you will.
Currently its an interesting question how the intensity levels can and should progress but I suspect this will always be what works for n=1’s main event. You can either :
- Keep LOW at the same level and increase HIGH as race approaches with volume reduction.
- Intensify both LOW and HIGH with volume reduction, since VT1 and VT2 could right shift over time.
- Or you try a mixed approach between both based on how you are adapting (“adaptive” strategy)
There are no cookie cutter methods as you highlight.
2 Likes
Hoo boy. The thought of a 4 x 8 min ‘as hard as you can go’ workout is something I’d have to really psyche myself up for! 
2 Likes
I did the 2x8m FTP test (10min rest in between). That was after an hour endurance ride as a warmup. I know it’s not supposed to be an hr warmup but I didn’t have a trainer then so had to get to the spot I’d chosen to do the test. I had just got my power meter the day before. Like TrainerRoad’s ramp test, it’s only the final part (2min maybe) of each interval that is really hard. It’s not supposed to be easy
I’ve loaded a 4x8m workout onto my Wahoo Bolt and will probably do it next week. I’ve set it at 10% FTP but will adjust if necessary.
I actually like the 2 x 8m FTP test. It seems to produce what seems like the right FTP number for me unlike the 20m test which I struggle to pace or the ramp test which doesn’t seem to suit my physiology and under-reports my FTP (despite it being an all-out eyeballs bleeding, max HR effort).
All this means that one’s results may vary and with estimations getting as good as they are, you may as well take those if they ‘feel’ right.
But, still. 4 x 8m max efforts doesnt seem like it would be a regular feature on my training plan.
1 Like
Where do you and @Judah_Rand see your LT1 HR falling with DFA alp1 method? And where does it fall on the 3-zone and 7-zone map I drew up.
I tested mine this morning but I’ll reserve my thoughts to Twitter in a bit; thought I’d hear your take on it first.
I had a lab test a few years ago and have been using HRV Logger recently. The DFA a1 measurement is a tricky one, but when it seems to go right it matches my tested LT1 of 142 - 144 BPM on a 190BPM Max HR. This fits the standard models surprisingly well.
That’s promising. Could you explain “tricky”? Is it an equipment issue, or issues with post-processing?
Well, I didn’t have so much of a good luck on the initial try.
The 3 and 7-zone were far out of DFA a1 indicated power and HR. Reptitions of trial to be done in the following days.
I laid out a Twitter thread on my trial this morning.
https://twitter.com/RonGeorge_Dubai/status/1365939113111789571
I found that on yesterday’s long easy Z2 rides the DFA a1 seemed to jump around a bit, making it difficult to get a good number from it. However, I did an easy interval workout targeting my LT1 HR (5 x 8 min) last week and once I was warmed up, it ended up matching pretty well on each interval. That’s just two recent examples.
As I said, hit & miss and I only know that because I know what my LT1 HR is from a previous lab test. Lots of apparent equipment-related challenges too! Anyway, it’s a promising idea, hopefully it develops further.
Long easy rides done indoors? (or out?)
Not sure why the hit and miss, but I have more testing to do. From reading Rogers et.al’s paper, HRV signal is suggested to be strongly correlated when you’re riding well below VT1. It transitions to uncorrelated and less complex at the value of HRVT = 1.0 - 0.5 as intensity increases, in a rapidly linear drop fashion.
Maybe it is during the intervals that this signal makes a pronounced crossing into uncorrelated territory and you see the nadir? Have you tried reaching out to Rogers or Gronwald?