Which is Best? Polarized vs. SweetSpot Training for Time-Crunched Cyclists

[@rickbowker]

I cycled raced 10 years then switched to running, what really seemed to work for me was building a really good base in the winter which included quite a lot of hills twice a week, then moving into training races and faster efforts! Think it's important like you say to have variety in training to keep the body and mind fresh! Cheers great podcast.

[@richardkaiser3756]

I have always bounced back and forth between both.

[@bmp713]

One of the best explanations I have heard. I'm trying to figure out what will build the most heart and cardiovascular adaptations with 60 mins/day. I can't go above 85% HR because of joints/tendon strain. Zone 2 feels kind of pointless at low volume, whereas Sweetspot feels too much to do daily. How effective do you think it is spending 80% in upper Zone 2 around 75% maxHR, and 20% doing moderate intensity intervals around 80-85%? What do you think would work best for building heart, stroke volume, and cardiovascular adaptions in 60 minutes per day?

[@jeremyleake6868]

I agree with this, ie mix is best, but to emphasise a few points and some caveats. First, consistency of training and recovery is far more important than training distribution. You will make more progress with a consistent and well recovered ‘bad’ distribution than an inconsistent or poorly recovered ‘good’ distribution. Avoid extremes of gaps in training or getting over fatigued - the latter is more common for many athletes as they are driven. Second, on ‘optimal’ distribution the science is less clear than what the practitioners do and say. Seiler does not claim polar is best from a physiology perspective, he says that’s what he observes when he looks at elite athlete training across endurance disciplines. Andy Coggan says ‘all roads lead to Rome’ on training distribution. So there is not common agreement. Seiler says much of the science is behind where the practitioners (coaches, top athletes) are. Third, more hours spent training (upper limit may be 25-35 hours per week) for a well balanced distribution and recovery typically leads to more fitness and performance. But Olav Bu says training intensity and recovery gets more difficult to balance (ie avoid under-recovery) the more training you do, around 10 hours / week or more. That’s when training distribution makes the most difference. Its much easier to overdo a middling intensity distribution than a polar one, as one increases it in an attempt to get fitter. Hence burn out rates are higher for those. Seiler is coming to the view that the polarised distribution he sees for many hour trained elite athletes is about ‘training efficiency’ - the stimulus per strain or fatigue. Ie Z2 gives you good stimulus for low fatigue, and while increasing intensity increases stimulus it increases fatigue by more. So when you go for the high intensity stimulus, make it very high and keep it short. Finally, the practitioners say their training is rather aimed at type of stimulus - fat burning or glycogen burning or lactate shuttling or increasing VO2 max . Eg For fat burning you train up to fatmax (around 70-80% max HR for the elites, lower for other athletes) and do so with few carbs. Eg for lactate shutting do over-unders around threshold to teach the body how to use lactate but have plenty of carbs. For lactate tolerance do some extended threshold efforts etc. So its a mix. But aerobic fat burning needs more time in zone (hours) than say VO2 max stimulation (16-25 mins). Hence the polarisation. But the science hasn’t proved that and even Seiler agrees, though his training efficiency point is likely linked to what the top coaches are saying. What all this means on training distribution for time crunched athletes is you will probably want to still polarise a bit but not as much as athletes who put in longer hours. And your distribution will depend on your event (eg iron man will need high aerobic, racer needs more of a mixture), and also there’s a benefit in timing through the season even for racers - ie aerobic build in offseason and getting more race specific as you approach races.

[@TirnanHealy]

Interesting comment, what’s your opinion of zone 1 running? Could I get a similar (but milder) stimulus to zone 2 running by doing a ton of zone 1?

[@jeremyleake6868]

@@TirnanHealy A few things changed my mind on Z1. Used to think it wasn’t good use of exercise time. Seiler also seemed to dismiss benefits of Z1 ‘recovery’ rides. I see 3 main potential benefits, though bear in mind you have limited time for exercise so the question is where this fits in. First, the pro cyclists spend a lot of their long aerobic rides in Z1 - just look at a lot of their Strava rides at low 200Ws (some lower still). I suspect this is a volume thing - the more volume you do the more polarised your training should be. If you’re training up to 8 hours I suspect you’re better off doing Z2 rather than Z1 for aerobic base. Second, the short recovery ride - pros do this immediately after hard rides and sometimes between rides. It is 30 min and often less eg 10-15 mins. I think this is partly ‘massage’ and partly teaching the mind not to tense up muscles on the bike. I’ve weirdly experienced my hip flexors tensing ahead of a ride even before I’ve got on the bike! Third, you likely benefit from Z1 as part of your mobility work. No cyclist should spend 100% of their aerobic exercise time on the bike. We need to function as humans too, so that should include at least brisk walks and possibly light jogs and swims to make sure we keep our range of motion, balance muscles and see if any need attention, plus a bit of loading for maintaining bone density. At a minimum I’d be doing that.

[@TheCyclingCardio]

Question coach: does doing some low volume intensity ride like 4x5 min at FTP or sprints during off season, helps maintain and carry through the acquired FTP to the next season training? As usually, during off and base phase, we loose some upper end fitness..would appreciate the answer..thanks

[@gerrysecure5874]

Doing Z2 for 2-4 hrs is NOT easy slow.

[@bmp713]

Which heart rate range would you define as Zone 2? Most say 60-70% max heart rate but many say 180-age or 70-80%.