Is Polarised Training A Lie? | A Counter Argument To 80:20

We always want to share the most accurate and up to date training advice, so in this video we are dissecting polarised training a little further and asking is it really all it’s cracked up to be? With the help of Dr Mark Burnley of Loughborough University we investigate!
Useful Links
Submit your Photo and Video to us 👉 gtn.io/UPLOAD
Check out the GTN Shop 👉 gtn.io/TeamKit
Watch more on GTN...
📹 GTN Talks Science With Stephen Seiler 👉 gtn.io/8020
📹 Watch our Editor’s Choice Playlist 👉 gtn.io/editorschoice
📹 Watch our weekly show, The GTN Show 👉 gtn.io/GTNshowPlaylist
Photos: © Triathlon / Getty Images
🎵 Music - licensed by Epidemic Sound / Artlist 🎵
Fallin' Thru Time - Guustavv
It Must Be - Justnormal
Mint Conditions - Dusty Decks
Quiet in the Garden - Justnormal
Soul Single Serenade - Dusty Decks
Swing Platter - Dusty Decks
When the Noise Settles - Dusty Decks
White Linens and Wheat Fields - Jobii
#gtn #triathlon #swimbikerun #swim #bike #run
The Global Triathlon Network (GTN) is the world's biggest triathlon KZbin channel, with new videos every day! GTN is for anyone who loves triathlon: from seasoned triathletes to first-timers - and everyone in between!
With the help of our former pro and Olympic medal-winning team, we’re here to inform, entertain and inspire you to become a better triathlete; including videos on:
- How to swim, bike, and run faster with expert knowledge
- Try our session ideas
- Investigations into wide-ranging topics
- The best triathlon bike tech and gear with pro-know-how
- In-depth, entertaining features from the heart of the sport
- Chat, opinion and interact with us across the channel and on social media!
Join us on KZbin’s best triathlon channel to get closer to the sport and to become a better, faster and fitter triathlete!
Welcome to the Global Triathlon Network.
Thanks to our sponsors:
Canyon bikes: gtn.io/canyon-bikes
THEMAGIC5: gtn.io/TheMagic5
MET Helmets: gtn.io/MET
ON Running: gtn.io/On-Running
Orca: gtn.io/Orca
Park Tool: gtn.io/parktool
Precision Fuel & Hydration: gtn.io/PrecisionHydration
Selle Italia: gtn.io/SelleItalia
Trimtex: gtn.io/Trimtex
Wahoo: gtn.io/Wahoo
Zwift: gtn.io/zwift
Watch our sister channels:
Global Cycling Network - / gcn
GCN Tech - / gcntech
GCN Racing - / gcnracing
GCN Italia - / gcnitalia
GCN en Espanol - / gcnenespanol
GCN auf Deutsch - / gcnaufdeutsch
GCN en Francais - / gcnenfrancais
GCN Japan - / gcnjapan
GCN Training - / gcntraining
Global Mountain Bike Network - / gmbn
GMBN Tech - / gmbntech
Electric Mountain Bike Network - / embn

[@gtn]

What training method do you follow? Do you follow one? Share your thoughts with us 👇

[@Ajumi-]

polarised training, but currently 80% zone 1&2 and 20% zone 3. (recovering from injury) So getting faster is no goal at all currently and those minutes spent in zone 3 is just the moments when i don't get the zone 2 training right. So i don't go outside for a zone 3 training, but there are moments (hills for example) where i struggle to stay in zone 2. (5 zones in total)

[@ironmantooltime]

Go a bit harder than my Garmin tells me, and pay close attention to hrv, and try to manage it leading up to key training. So long run, will be looking to make sure my hrv is in the green zone. Garmin always says base (I suspect its a firm 80/20 advocate) but I throw in some cheeky tempo as I don't think it realises I'm not a pro and don't follow a pro schedule 🤭 Looking at my hrv impact, a long day in the office is easily equivalent training load to an easy 1 hr bike set. So now very unlikely to take a rest day on the weekend. Working from home is a training day (obvs), so rest days are office days 😎

[@shaylorcyclingwahoolecol8313]

Pyramidal, even Seiler said on Dylan Johnson’s podcast that he doesn’t think harder sessions HAVE to be 105%+ anymore. I Zwift race for fun at least once a week and those are too messy to fit a strict polar interpretation. Plus I love a good tempo run once a week. Would hate to do running strict polar. What I do believe in though is still loads of Z2, whatever I’m doing above that.

[@lisapet160]

I am following revised polarized training concept, which is still 80:20, but with no "no go" gap between. Having more or less (more with less efforts) uniform distribution of time spent in 80% domain, which, again, is for any effort lower than max. Recovery and variety are the part of "my training method" and "my recovery method" too.

[@waltertakano6706]

80% under LT1 , 15% aprox between LT1 & LT2 and only 5% above LT2 some weeks 0%. I'm amateur triathlete 53 years old.

[@andycleary]

Sometimes as an amateur runner, I wonder if we over analyse our training and should remember to enjoy our training more than analysing all the data we have available to us.

[@tom_sorrell]

So true. I have friends who consider a workout failed if they forget to record or upload to Strava. Rather than focusing on zones, 80/20 etc, simply exercising at a conversational pace is enough to improve fitness without digging yourself in a hole.

[@boydsharp]

This is exactly what I do.

[@morosis82]

Indeed. A balance is necessary, I used to have a couple of sessions that were very data driven buty long run was just I'm going to run for 2hrs, usually as an extended commute to work so that it was easier to fit in time wise. Also I did a couple short stingers but they were hill climbs and I'd just take my dog for a run up my local mountain. I enjoyed the structured session, but mostly because I had those others I think so it was good contrast.

[@ljadf]

Couldn't agree more, I make sure I get one to two "fun" workouts in a week, alongside my structured training to ensure it doesn't seem like "work".

[@jameshegeman5660]

IMO this is one of the key takeaways from Nils van der Poel’s “How to skate a 10k” document.

[@patrick7228]

As an amateur, I enjoy 80/20 from a psychological perspective. It's been much easier to consistently train over the years knowing if I'm running or biking, lets say 5 days a week, I'm only going to do one hard session. It makes working out more enjoyable and I never really feel burned out.

[@joernsiemen]

Absolutely true! This is my top argument pro 80/20 for amateurs. I enjoy training most, if I can do it consistently and pain/injury free and 80/20 is helping me to achieve this.

[@ironmantooltime]

Agree. Before 80/20 I'd make recovery runs progressive but now if I'm tired my easy is easy. I find hrv invaluable in telling me I need to take it easy. Then like you I almost never have that burnt out feeling.

[@matthiaswuest7271]

So true! My training mantra is to push hard on the hard days and just enjoy taking it easy on the easier days. That way 80% of the training is relaxed physically and mentally

[@Thatmanz2212]

The best part is still being able to do most normal stuff I’m not running so hard it makes it hard to walk around 24/7 I can take it slower some days and recover which also seems to help me run faster on those harder days since I’ve been able to recover more I get more out of life than I would from going hard every single workout

[@technoracko]

Its healthy for sure

[@klewis2048]

As a middle-aged guy, literally the best thing I've learned is to give myself permission to not have to go and smash every single session, and to just enjoy the training.

[@triathlonsushi]

I thought smashing every single session is 'to just enjoy the training'!? Isn't that the whole point of Sunday rides!? (I'm kidding!)

[@goodyeoman4534]

I was in the military and later did kickboxing, both of which expect you to give 100% every single workout. That's fine when you're 17, but when you're 37 you need to get a bit more tactical. I have only just learned of the 80/20 approach and am going to apply it for 12 weeks and see what happens.

[@backofthepack4553]

As a dedicated amateur I have found 80:20 training utterly beneficial. I’m late 50’s with more injuries and fatigue now, still have a job and life! I’m as fit as I was in my 30s and 40s and this method gives me lots of flexibility and motivation. I adapt around my program to add in some stuff that I enjoy rather than just being a robot and follow what the books say.

[@BeyondLumination]

Consistency beats all. Whatever you prefer, just stay consistent with your training

[@FreeKingZeek]

I cannot agree with this enough. Nothing works if you aren’t constantly going out and doing something

[@ljadf]

As an amateur, you keep having to remind yourself that you're not a professional, so will always fail to train like one. Doing three to five workouts a week at whatever intensity will still bee enough to keep you fit.

[@ironmantooltime]

@@ljadf I watch my hrv and if I do a 12 hour work day (+ commute) and get

[@technoracko]

Its healthy for sure

[@burhanwijaya580]

@@FreeKingZeek consistency meaning if you feel hard enough or fatigued, you lower intensity/threshold. So no golden rule for anyone, it's adjustable for individual. Amateur/med/pro. The more experienced runners could implement more intensity trainings

[@gerrysecure5874]

I never was in a cycling club or had coaching. When I was young the only training advice was from bodybuilding magazines touting no pain no gain. Translated to cycling this meant every training ride was an attempt to beat the personal best. The occasional slower very long ride always pushed the level up but was too rarely applied. The result was stagnation at roughly 3.8 W/kg threshold. At age of 45 I got me a powertap and developed a tendency to polarize. Now I am 60, fully polarizing, can enjoy life more since I am not always trashed and age adjusted I have about the same level as before. So polarized is a life saver for me. Its not only about performance, its also about health and quality of life. For a high level athlete this probably translates into sustainability over 10-15 years.

[@slingy81]

I literally dont understand enough to have a full picture - however, Z2/low intensity training has been a game changer for me. I committed to it for several months and have seen such a benefit over my previously uneducated 'grey zone' efforts... it is so repeatable and enjoyable once you get past how slow you are 😅 the message I'm getting here is maybe sprinkle in a bit more tempo/sweetspot work once you've built your base... seems both sensible and doable

[@ironmantooltime]

I think just save the high intensity stuff for focused efforts when you're fresh and fit and injury free. For the rest of the time, z2 is your friend. But z2 alone doesn't provide any stress so you won't improve. Imagine trying to run a fast half marathon having only done long walks.

[@jonedmonds1681]

@@ironmantooltime zone 2 may have started out barely more then 50% slow jog 50% walk, but 2 years later I am jogging the whole 80 min only 1 min per km slower than my best ever 10 km pace (done 20+ years ago). Adaptation takes time but not getting injured allows consistent improvements (if you put the hours in) and I am energised not tired after a run.

[@triathlonsushi]

It's great to hear that Zone 2 training has been a game changer for you. For my clients I never write high intensity stuff till they get consistent low intensity stuff in their bags. Once they have done and ready for higher intensity stuff, I drop some short 30/15 or 60/30 intervals, then they just can't believe what their bodies are doing! I write more tempo/sweet spot sessions as race pace sessions, if someone is preparing for a race or something.

[@triathlonsushi]

@@ironmantooltime It's interesting you wrote 'But z2 alone doesn't provide any stress so you won't improve.' Perhaps you didn't get the Zone 2 correctly or there are some other factors hindering you. That happens quite a lot. I tend to get my clients to do performance tests to get their FATmax if they are performance-orientated. The benefit is too big to be ignored.

[@karlbratby4349]

@@triathlonsushilike your thoughts here, coming fresh to this it confuses me with the content of this video the dr had only 3 zones in his method and training philosophy, are we talking different to the 5 zones of HR that we amateurs use, is the 3 zones he talks about not HR zone but intensity zones. I’ve watched twice but still clear as mudd 😢

[@TheLiberatedMonkey]

From personal experience, I find that the more you train, the more you intuitively understand when to recovery and when to push. I love Sprint Tris and the training required to win them is hard. It wears you out. But put simply, you need recognize how your body heals after you subject it to a hard session or two, then back off with some easier sessions or even a day off and hit it again. The older I get, the more easy sessions I need between the super tough stuff. It’s not that complex once you reorient your perception of recovery and why it is needed to prepare you for another hard session. Recovery and CONSISTENCY are the most important, IMO to see change over time. That is of course, after you understand the purpose of different intensities in your training sessions.

[@ironmantooltime]

I suspect winning sprint tris also has something to do with a lifelong attitude to training as well as a certain amount of natural talent. Winners aren't the only ones that train hard 😘

[@WadeHumeniuk]

I currently stick to 80/20 (more like 90/10). I need the structure to discipline myself and not let my ego think that I am fitter than I am. I have got into trouble multiple times by allowing my efforts to creep into Z3/Z4sweet-spot like training. Injuries and having to take a few weeks off because of fatigue. I’m 60+ now and need to be more careful (currently rebuilding my aerobic engine, repairing my injuries and developing a healthier neuromuscular system, which I think will take a good year). Triclub coaches are very careful with the youth groups (under 17). Pushing them too hard and long is not good for them, they need a good decade of build. I think the same applies to an older athlete like myself.

[@theunknown21329]

I used to train 60% hard maybe 20% easy, rest moderate. Used to get injured so often. Switched to 80/20 and my injuries have disappeared and PB have improved so fast.

[@topcat304]

80:20 is not a training 'method' but instead was just observational study of how Elite Athletes (World Champions) train looking at a one year period of data.

[@garthly]

Made a lot of sense to me. Vary the intensity of your training, don’t be scared of the middle zone as you have to go through it to get to the higher zones anyway, watch your recovery and avoid burnout (over training). The keep-in-zone 2 (ie easy run) model for me is very frustrating because I have to walk when I don’t want to (I am 72 yrs old but have a wide heart rate range, 50 to 185). I am glad to hear that I should not worry about that too much, but rather just avoid pushing myself to exhaustion too often.

[@MD-uu5nt]

185 at 72 is impressively high

[@triathlonsushi]

@@MD-uu5nt I was gonna write the same!

[@AnvilAirsoftTV]

If you listen to Stephen Selier talk about the 80:20 training theory he pretty much covers all of this anyway. Much of it is down to what you measure and how you measure it. It’s also individual to the athlete.

[@PhiyackYuh]

If you also listen carefully, 80/20 are not effective for time crunched amateur athletes thats why he suggest pyramidal. Let me know if you can go sub 5 hours on half ironman training 8 hours a week only.

[@triathlonsushi]

@@PhiyackYuh I actually did sub 5 Half Ironman with training only 8 hours a week, but I think that's because I have a good training history before that. Adding to Anvil's point, it also depends on what phase we are in too. If someone is performance-orientated, we need to adjust the stimuli according to what we need to achieve.

[@davesharratt917]

Exactly Anvil. Seiler states in his GTN interview that it is 80:20 based on counting the number of sessions that got high intensity. Obviously you move up and down through zones in one session including warm up and cool down but also between intervals and working up through zone 3. If you do it based on time in each zone it is pyramidal... if you count it on number of sessions (1 interval session, 3 easy runs and a long run in a week with occasional temp run) then it's 80:20. They are making a different way of describing the same distribution and turning it into a hyped argument for content and sales.

[@goodyeoman4534]

It's the 20 but that confuses people

[@rustyheyman214]

Great job guys! Great guest! I really like the deep dives.

[@donishcushing8223]

Idk... speaking just as a beginner I found it super helpful to learn that I can still call it training even if I'm working out at really low intensity. I had thought it was imperative to go hard every time, but since I started increasing volume by adding lower intensity work I've gotten to be in much better shape. Beyond that, marginal differences from fine-tuning isn't really relevant to me since I'm simply not working out enough yet anyways

[@ljadf]

Lower intensity training is the biggest part of pyramidal training too, it only suggests you also add in a moderate amount of threshold training. You do have to remember that although easier, lower intensity zone 2 for an hour should still feel nearly as tough.

[@ironmantooltime]

I think you're doing it exactly right 👍

[@technoracko]

Intervals with good technique will reward you huge

[@Avianthro]

Right on! Always take recovery and nutrition into account! Don't worry so much about precise distribution of time in various zones...Just stay aerobic. Do a variety of zones, even in a single session if you'd like. Remember that training is progressive overload + recovery. Measure or guesstimate load of each session the best you can. Listen to your body, maybe use a HR monitor too, to check your recovery.

[@stuartmisfeldt3068]

I wish he would be consistent with his terminology. He talks in three zone, when most athletes refer to 6 or 7 zones. Polarized Zone 2 is his Zone 1, below Lactate #1, or Aerobic. Polarized Zone 3 & 4 are his Zone 2, Tempo and Sweet-spot, up tho the Lactate Threshold or #2. Polarized Zone 5 & 6 is his Zone 3, or VO2 Max and Anaerobic. He makes it more confusing. Steven Seiler makes it more understandable.

[@KlemenSuligojTri]

In short: There is no magic intensity and no magic distribution. It all comes down to qualities of the athlete and demands of the event. For everyone confused, I highly recommend listening to "Sweetspot vs Polarized Is Kayfabe" podcast by Empirical Cycling. Well and thoroughly explained

[@codemonkeyalpha9057]

Great video, I think it is all about finding different ways to segregate the adaptations you are targeting. That comes down to targeting different energy systems and different muscular recruitment. You really want to be training at the top end of each boundary without going over it for the optimum adaptation. 3 zones makes a lot of sense really. Zone 1: Predominantly Slow twitch, mainly fat as energy with low lactate production Zone 2: Mixed Slow/Fast twitch, more even glycogen and fat mix as energy with high but sustainable lactate production Zone 3: Predominantly Fast twitch, mainly glycogen as energy, high lactate production above what can be sustained Might not be precisely the zones he was talking about, but there abouts. Having more zones really just breaks these down into more grades of the mix, but in real terms you don't ever want to be training in the lower half of these three zones, which is probably why some traditional zones naturally get shunned (Normal Zone 3 would be bottom half of Zone 2 here)? Sweetspot is just below the top of Z2 about the optimum point where the exact amount of lactate produced in the fast twitch muscles equals the max amount that can be utilized by the slow twitch muscles. Maximal muscle recruitment & maximal energy use. I'm trying to do 80/20 but it is more above managing volume, recovery and fatigue. I'm not enslaved to it, and I often end up doing too much higher intensity as I am basically unfit and that's how things pan out. I try and just be mindful of how I am feeling and do as much as I can without overtraining.

[@iancollinge2254]

it's generally accepted that training at z2 to get a substantial base is the way to go, to avoid injury etc. then, once you plateau, introduce additional sessions to 'spruce' things up, whilst not going ott. at the end of the day, it's about listening to your body esoecially when out comes to recovery👍🏻

[@leebrown3645]

As an old,fat runner, I use 80:20 as it is easier on my body. Simple as that.

[@GimmeMoeProductions]

Thanks for the great content

[@anunprofessionaltriathlete]

I think something that blurs the argument is the use of different measurement systems. In this video 5+ zones are smooshed into three, in particular zones 2-x-3-y-4 all become zone 2 and that change in metric necessarily smooths out the distribution and one measurement systems polarised training is another measurement systems pyramidal training.

[@tnan123]

Really interesting discussion. Lots of nuance to all of this

[@josephgonzalez_]

I personally don’t polarize my own training, but I know athletes who do. One, a 56 year old who runs VERY slowly for 90% of his runs and then races one or two 5ks per week during the summer, ran a 16:18 5k. At 56. Mind you, he does run 110 miles a week.

[@houstonlundy5888]

This changes throughout the year for me. Late fall/winter/early spring is pyramidal since it’s cooler and makes inside rides more entertaining. In the warmer months it’s 80/20 since I’m outside more and the heat forces me to keep the power low so I don’t overcook on a 4-6 hour ride. Favorite workout is 3+ 20min sweet spot intervals so good to hear pyramidal is a good training distribution.

[@nitinvarshney4966]

I got best results when I used to do most of my training in easy zone in treadmill for long distances , than when I stated going speed repeats outdoor gave me very good results … I even unable to find those results since last 1-2 years after injury , I need to try this again !

[@ironmantooltime]

Long runs give me most bang for buck. More than 2 hrs at whatever pace I can manage will always jump my fitness. Whereas high intensity shorter stuff, more about muscular and tendon strength I would say.

[@willmcelgunn1207]

I'd be interested to see the effects of using both methods throughout the year, I could certainly see a use case for switching between training methods as needed by race type, where in the season you are, current fitness level, etc. Especially since physiology is so unique to everybody it'd be interesting to see how periodizing them together works.

[@micksmith397]

I think both methods are best. The intensity of the next race would dictate which of them should be done closer to the race. Or what intensity the person wants/needs/should be working on to improve. I struggle to see how this is a debate between the academics.

[@pirminborer625]

I find it very interesting that after 45min of low intensity, I can ramp up to moderate intensity without having HR going up a lot, whereas if I would start at this pace, HR would start high and then never come down to lower levels. So for me it seems that the most of a session should be at low to moderate intensity, and then start to push it for the end of the session. Is there an explanation for this difference in HR after having done a certain amount in zone 1 the ramp it up?

[@2spoons]

The Maf Method and 80/20 work very well for me - reducing the heart rate and starting your approach to running right from the start and keeping my heart rate nice and low.... but as the years go by you are running at in you zones - zone 1 / zone 2..... 80% and zone 4/5 20%

[@jackmason2226]

I have always just loved training but found a ballance works best. Some weeks I do a max of 2 sessions but normally I do 3 intense sessions a week, 1 in the middle and 4 light sessions. Light sessions I just run or ride the bike nice and chilled. Intense I do two structured work outs for run and bike and a zwift race. The 1 in the middle normally is the free sessions that gets dropped. I couldn't do more than two sessions following a structure as it puts to much pressure on me with a busy job.

[@rickbowker]

The Marius Bakken method seems to be what a lot of top runners do now! He helped me run my fastest marathon at 49 years old and my 1/2 marathon p.b. at 50! And this was after 17 of run training.

[@giovanbattistafichera8439]

I think ultimately the true question is: how do we optimise lactate shuttle? Is it by doing sweet spot training, or is it by building a solid base + high intensity? I think the answer is both. Busting intervals aren't really all that effective if you're not able to recover (shuttle the lactate) during and in-between intervals. In a way, this would mean that you need to earn the right to do interval training by first building a solid base (=effective lactate shuttle). It's nothing new, but I think 80:20 can be criticised in that the portion of truly high-intensity workouts should be way less than 20. Probably something more like 80-15-5 in a three-zone model.

[@munchkinfreddie]

I am certainly no expert but I have tried the 80:20 approach and found my power and speed numbers drop over time and not able to hold the higher intensities when needed. I much prefer listening to my body and going hard/fast when I can without pushing myself too much to risk injury. I also swear by multi sport training. I never do 2 runs or cycles in a row, this allows me to push on the next session while leaving the muscles rest from the previous session. It all depends on the person, find what works for you and do it consistently.

[@hikerJohn]

I wish I knew what the optimum training method is for hiking up and down mountains all day. Sometimes I'm burning over 6,000 kcal on a day hike and sometimes only 2,500. Sometimes it's 700 kcal per hour and sometimes it's 1,000

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Great interview and he really argued his points well and my experrnce of walking in the exercise pool for 30 mminuttes to an hour has been much like what he said. As I'm great at listening to my body so I can keep my exercises in the sweet spot and I also know when to push and when to relax and it has been work as I've been building up my muscles.

[@alisonwilks302]

Another great Job HF . ♥️♥️♥️♥️♥️

[@kirkprl]

80/20 isn't necessarily polarized. Read 80/20 Triathlon by Matt Fitzgerald and David Warden. They discuss different methods of 80/20 as being either pyramidal or polarized.

[@davidrunsworld]

was just thinking this as I just listened to this chapter in the audio book

[@xosevi17]

Heather is an elite athlete, it's like perfection in human body form.

[@stefanoviviani6064]

Very informative, thank you! However, for the sake of understanding I find it quite confusing that Dr Burnley uses a 3 zones system while the narrator refers to a 5 zones system

[@mo-215]

My training week is a success if I even get a few swim, run, bikes in during the week, period. I do enjoy the discussions even if they are above my realm.

[@Daniel-df1dt]

Hey! Betteridge's law of headlines in the wild!

[@ChristianLemon]

I’ve been doing 80:20 for a couple of years. For me the biggest benefit has been really being able to hit workouts hard when I go. For me, I’ve felt it has been pretty decent for marathon and half. That said, I do think you have to commit to the increased volume. If you aren’t going to commit to an extra 20 - 30 percent, I don’t think you will see the benefit

[@Ultimaus]

I've been on an off the couch to marathon journey for about 6 months now my race is in May. I have doing mostly base training for about ³ months to adapt myself into a runner of sorts to take on a marathon training block. I run a lot for someone that's off the couch averaging 70km weekly before my block started. Now that I've entered a structured block with workouts at intensity I find myself in that state of stale and lacking feeling. I am way faster and my aerobic ability is close to spec with an average runner now but I'm feeling it difficult to keep it up. As I progress I think it's not necessarily effectiveness of training that's the barrier it's always fitness vs intensity. An elite athlete who has been training 800+ hours a year for 10 years has the fitness to be repeating higher intensity workouts to hit the targets they're trying to achieve. Both mental and physical adaptation is much more matured. If I were to add on more kms or intensity it just bolsters my mood to quit. I think it's important to adapt your training as you gain fitness if you're looking for improving goal paces. But also to do the opposite lower intensity if you are running or being active for health benefits. When doing so You want to do it more and you enjoy it. But when you are nearing your max efforts... You're just looking for an excuse to not do it or stop.

[@eric-running-to-chamonix]

This parallels my own experience from couch to marathon. In fact, max efforts were making me feel sick. Running "easy" translated to a shuffle, which was obviously bad for developing proper running form. I'm much fitter now, which allows me to target adaptations more precisely, all along the range of intensities. I suspect that the "80:20" marketing is doing a disservice to beginning runners who may be running too slow as well as not quite fast enough to help them achieve their best. I don't imagine experienced runners pay much attention to it at all.

[@triathlonsushi]

Big respect to 70km/wee off the couch!

[@PerryScanlon]

Race distance matters, and 7 zones is more descriptive: Z1 capillaries Z2 mitochondria slow twitch, Z3 mitochondria red fast twitch, Z4 and Z5 high HR increase in cytochrome C, Z6 mid distance development of lactate transporters, Z7 sprints AMPK pathway mitochondria increase and economy stretch cycle shortening.

[@FlaminalLow]

I personally believe that high-tempo/threshold paces are crucial…the trick is to do them just enough as to not get injured or overly fatigued. Low tempo I think should just be brought down to easy paces, so skip low tempo.

[@joejordan401]

His zones had me confused lol! His conclusions are not too different from the advice in the 80:20 Triathlon book, which is what I'm following this summer - work in all the zones, count the Z1-2 time (below lactate threshold, his Z1) in your sessions when trying to compute %, etc. It is still hard work building up my fitness (especially in swimming), whatever training I follow, but I'm doing Z3 Intervals and Tempo, (his Z2), Zones 4-5 intervals (his Z3), along with long slow runs in Z2 (his upper Z1). Sprint Tri here I come...

[@quengmingmeow]

Wish there was a summary about the actual physical benefits of Low intensity and actual physical benefits of high intensity….and if you want to say 80:20 is not optimal, then actually give specific reasons--physiological or psychological--that it isn’t. Simply put, in a 5 zone model, zone 3 is sub optimal for mitochondrial gains, Heart gains, capillary gains, Lactate threshold gains, and VO2 max gains. Show me where zone 3 is better than any other zone in SOMETHING, and I’ll consider signing on to the pyramid method. Til then, I’m going to get the most bang for my time doing zone 2, 4, and 5, with the majority in zone 2.

[@waynejones9189]

From research and personal experience I favour a pyramidal system, with emphasis switching according to where in the season you are. I do wonder whether there’s a personal physiology element to it though. I’ve naturally got good 5 min power and a decent sprint but am a poor time trialist and find that work in between the two thresholds (sweetspot) is extremely beneficial.

[@josephlaviolette146]

I've found structure matters way more than training philosophy. Find a training plan and see it through. I've experimented with both bock periodized 80/20 and with pyramidal training. For me personally, polarized training works really well when I have A LOT of time to train - both in weekly availability and lead time to what I am training for. When I only have 10 to 15 hours a week or only 6 to 8 weeks to an event, I get more out of a STRUCTURED pyramidal plan. The pick-and-choose random workouts doesn't do much for me in either training discipline. AI training platforms have become quite good for us amateurs (Humango and Xert if you strictly cycle) so cost can be minimal compared to working with a coach

[@Drew_Warner]

Been doing polarized for over a year, but could never get fast enough. Switched to more pyramid and speed has shot through the roof. Obvious I know, but just giving my experience if you’re looking to try a different style

[@maryskelcher8979]

Really interesting vid. Thanks

[@gtn]

Glad you enjoyed the video! 🙌

[@quovadis5172]

Magnificent standing clock, with a "Tempus Fugit" mechanical time piece, in the background. As the saying goes, money can’t buy class. That comes with appreciation of value. Excellent choice.

[@brandonposey8855]

I run today so that I can run tomorrow. If tomorrow is a rest day ... guess who get's to run fast? THIS GUY. I would say i'm closer to zone 2 for a few days. I probably average zone 3 a couple of days. But intervals hit zone 4 or zone 5 for short intervals and zone 3 to zone 4 for longer intervals. I did like his explanation.

[@defeqel6537]

Thanks for this. It's good to challenge "established" knowledge, especially when the evidence base is lacking. 80:20 is still a good general rule of thumb for us beginners IMO, as it allows for routine and habits to form relatively safely, but still allows a bit of variety.

[@herbertbloch4167]

Sorry, but no. The arguments are poor and it sounds like a personal gripe he is voicing.

[@ljadf]

Yes I agree, if you're interested in only training like a professional, you need your own coach. If you're anyone else, 80:20 or pyramidal will still work, there is plenty of evidence for both, but the best evidence is to try both, and see what works for you using the scientific method, for example one year of 80:20, one year of pyramidal, and one year of your own mix. If you race faster using one of those, that's your workout type.

[@PhiyackYuh]

@@herbertbloch4167 its not personal gripe when you use critical thinking. You probably believe the latest “trend” training program aka polarised since most pros are doing it. But are you a pro athlete or an amateur athlete? 80/20 will never work for time crunched athletes. When i say time crunched, weekend warriors wanting to go sub 5 hours on half ironman training only 8 hours max without higher base. Now, show me amateur athletes who trains 8 hours on a weekly basis who can go sub 5 hours and see if their training is based on polarised training 80/20. You wont find many of them. Dont tell us show us.

[@herbertbloch4167]

@@PhiyackYuh There is so much I would like to reply to that and hardly know where to start. Best would be to go on a nice Zone 2 ;-) ride together and delve into it. Let me insist on saying, that it's Physiology, Biochemistry, ... Important chemical signals are induced by long slow rides, that you don't get doing your harder rides. But The question being raised wasn't if 80% Zone 2 rides are any good. The discussion as I understood it here was about the other 20%. If you are interested, please take a closer look at Dylan Johnsons KZbin videos and even better, the "That Triathlon Show" podcast. See what Dan Lorang, Sebastian Weber or even better Inego San Milan have to say. And in the right interviews they will also talk about the time crunched athletes. The problem when you do any endurance event longer than 2 hours, is how to produce enough ATP. The better you are at that, the faster you are. Any training towards improving your Vo2max, Fatmax, your FTP or VLaMax in the end all aim at that.

[@triathlonsushi]

I think 80:20 could be OK, if a beginner is a relatively healthy person up to their 30s or something, but if someone even in their 40s off the couch wouldn't be able to safely execute high intensity sessions. As a coach myself, I always get them to build a good base only with low intensity aerobic training even after I get them to do an exercise ECG test. I have seen/heard too many heart attacks during exercise (they were not my clients) in my life.

[@bui340]

Everybody should be a bit flexible when deciding training load and take into account how one's sleep been lately for example. If you're totally stressed out just rest.

[@gabouel]

My 2 cents: the ceiling or threshold of professional athletes is so high that when doing low intensity, they are still going quite fast which means they are able to get great muscular endurance stimulus for a low cardiovascular taxation + other benefits (big mileage, fat burning, active recovery...). Whereas an amateur doing intensity work at 4:00/km (for example) will drop to 6:00/km or more which isnt much running and will get them poor muscular stimulus and poor mileage if they only have an hour of free time to spare. Apart from the recovery side and injury prevention (which are big, but could get done elsewhere) there isnt much benefit. I've always thought 80:20 is probably the best method when it is your job, training 20-30hrs a week.

[@deanculshaw712]

Not convinced that this is a valid argument really, I think he ended up saying 80/20 was good for amateurs but better for pros, and don’t forget to do some sweetspot training. Well I know for this amateur that my 20 contains sweetspot and higher efforts but my 80 stays in zone 2/easy. This way I avoid injuries and burn out.

[@basildaoust2821]

Mark Burnley I wish you would use science to talk, list papers that have been verified by others and not just say what feels like random statements of life expectations and abilities of athletes. I mean just standard normal human training seems far too hard for me and maybe your statements are true if I try, hell I get worn out by walking for 30 minutes and I know I'm now in terrible shape since my walking speed has dropped in half and I easily get tired, that was not always the case.

[@iberiksoderblom]

One litle detail is, that most people doing training is not elite athletes. And those people have to be very carefull copying what elite athletes do. To counter injuries for those amateurs the 80-20 is actually very efficient. There is also a difference in, if you train 10 km running twice a week, 35 km pr.week or 150 km pr. week. The longer the distance, the more likely that you will benefit from 80-20. And remember that you also have to be able to be active when you get to be 60+ years old.

[@Alecmcq]

Disappointing interview… lots of words and no meaning or message. I haven’t a clue what this bloke was trying to say. I was hoping to hear some science that suggests exercise specificity is much more important than it is given credit for… but no, just a meaningless jumble of words.

[@olivermay7552]

There is far less disagreement between what is presented in this video and the classic 80:20 model. Dr Burnley's description of 'Zones 1, 2, and 3' doesn't map neatly over the classic 5 heart rate zones (HRZ) we've all been taught. What he describes as 'Zone 2' and 'Zone 3' training *both* fall within the common understanding of the 20% in the 80:20 model: i.e. intervals at threshold (HRZ4), and sprints (HRZ5). His 'Zone 2' is not the "grey zone" commonly referred to as heart rate Z3.

[@JackMott]

He is talking about Andy with a partially skeptical take on the polarized training mantra, so I'm assuming its Andy Coggan. Wrong Andy! heh

[@BethanyBlount]

He makes a good point about pyramids and the real world, but he also says (7 minutes) that up to Lactate Threshold has the same physiological response. This means in a five zone system Recovery, Endurance, and Tempo all have the same effect on the body... Did I misunderstand him somewhere?

[@pierce9128]

In regards to the zones my coach says forget heart rate. Just use REP and zones don't matter. Just each training session has a target of 5or6, 7, 8 or a max session. Since starting with the coach I have improved my ½marathon PB by 20min, 10k by 10min and 5k by almost 3min. We never use zones

[@triathlonsushi]

REP can be used at any level. Even used by Brett Sutton in a way, I guess. Sometimes simplicity is gold. What works the best is the best method for you. You found a very good coach!

[@jonedmonds1681]

You’ve just described a perfectly valid way of determining zones. REP or power or heart rate, I believe it doesn’t matter how you measure intensity as long as you listen to your body, do most of your sessions easy and if / when you are ready throw in some hard intervals and the occasional sweet-spot. And only increase work load gradually.

[@sefintri]

Entrenamiento polarizado de Seiler con Frecuencia cardiaca zonas y potencia zonas es diferente. Atletas con 20h o mas por semana es mas por frecuencia cardiaca analisis, LT1 VT1 is 85--% fcmax (70-75%vo2max) pero Potencia/Ritmo en menor LT1 (zona1) 80%VAM-PAM) , LT2 VT2 es mas 90-95%fcmax in elite (85-92%vo2max) = zona 3 de Seiler, pero 80:20 es muy dificil 100% del volumen semanal 20% de 20h es 4h de zona 3 (4x1h /semana in 90-100%fcmax) . Piramide Training es mas representativo en volumen total por microciclo o mesociclo (3-4 weeks) Poralizaded training es concepto de frecuencia de entrenamiento (objetivos)

[@jonr6680]

For anyone who isn't literally a professional athlete, or an Olympian... What matters is how sedentary the rest of your life is. Meaning that someone who works a physical job is doing the baseline training every day, whereas an office worker is doing worse than nothing. So the proportion of time to warm up, low intensity, high intensity... Is trying to mimic the human adaptation to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. This is why modern lifestyles are so toxic and the fitness/running is trying to compensate for this, but squished into a few hours... This scientist isn't able to give your life more hours a week. It's the death-hours at the desk, car, tv, we need to reduce...!

[@jonathankitto7771]

Different people, different training backgrounds, training for different events, with different lifestyles. There's no single formula. Most approaches work - if given enough time to take effect. Most people don't give training methodology long enough to take effect before switching to a different one.

[@greece_crypto]

Hello from Kenya! Don't misinform the world! The words of the researcher in the video are almost the same as what Seiler says! Anyone who has really understood Seiler's philosophy knows that he simply mentions two zones based on physiology, the one that stresses the organism a lot and the one that the organism simply accepts the stimulus very smoothly without any significant burden! Seiler has never talked about athletes who are not at a very high level and research has been done based on this! Like me, as a runner for the last 23 years at a high level, I do 160/210km a week, the training automatically goes towards the polarized! It doesn't take a researcher to explain this to you! The organization itself imposes it! it doesn't matter so much whether the distribution will be 75/25% or 80/20% or 85/15%! But what matters is how each organization responds individually, and that's where the coach who is not a researcher comes in!

[@steveforde7475]

A rather nit picking item, Might as well criticise the font Stephen Seiler used. His main points appear to be that people misunderstand 80/20 or miss apply it therefore 80/20 is somehow in error. I'm not sure if there is a real point to this, but being a cynic I do wonder if the fact that we are approaching the end of the financial year and it's grant application time in academia, is someone short of his social media minutes target?

[@pauldavies9085]

Swimming, cycling, running. Ive always had big jumps in fitness by just trying to keep up with someone who is just a bit better than me. Hang on as long as you can.

[@pauldavies9085]

And ive no idea what this guy was on about. The guys in the bike club used to drop me, not now. I just sat on their wheel until i blew or was sick. Recover. Repeat. Longer rides ( 5+ hrs) and runs ( 2.5hrs) just keep it steady but negatively split.

[@deNudge]

There's no polarized training based on bike power or run/swim pace without pyramidal distribution in HR zones anyway. Your heart rate can't jump from zone 1 to zone 3 and back immediately.

[@jonedmonds1681]

So 80:20 is wrong if you have a different definition of what is hard?? Felt like click bait. If he is defining pyramid as mostly easy with 20 % hard and 10% very hard, feels very like 70:30 which pretty close to 80:20! My takeaway is do lots of easy miles, and do some fast and some moderate intervals! Which is pretty much what I’ve been calling 80:20. As a 50+ yo runner 20% in zone 4 is too much for me anyway.😅

[@alfredongos]

Totally agree with Mark Burnley: my best half-marathons were while reducing the base of "the pyramid", right before tapering. Thanks GTN!!!...

[@jnstroik]

It creates confusion when people talk to amateur athletes (that almost all use a 5 zone model) but the researchers use a 3 zone model.

[@tommyrq180]

80/20 for how long? Over what period? How does that allow for periodization? Seiler’s “theory” is not something he found from the lab, but from analyzing actual training programs. Actual training programs are not necessarily a function of science-they are subject to a whole set of biases and distortions. In my view, as an endurance athlete for over four decades and an elite coach for over three decades, modern training design is way, way more complex than 80/20 and is subject to quite significant individual variability. Only through very rigorous, systematic experimentation do you find what works. For example, I have always had my elite athletes experiment with feeding in events ranging from unimportant to world championship events. EVERY race is an experiment to learn from. EVERY race is subject to uncontrollable variability. You cannot plan for every contingency. Bottom line is that if you follow 80/20 then how can you build and rest? Periodization provides that structure, and I’ve been prescribing periodized training since the late 1980s. For people like me, the discussion about whether polarizing is better than whatever else is an argument missing the point. I learned very early on that if I can get my athletes to do more very easy training than they have before, and to periodize it to very long bouts, and I can present that with very, very intense and selectively different intense challenges I can generally get a performance increment. Easier than the athlete is comfortable with, and harder than they are comfortable with. But some athletes are just endurance monsters and that’s what works. Some respond to VO2 Max type work even in the off season because they have very different body chemistries. Every athlete is a unique, complex, and mysterious entity. My job as a coach is to get them to expand their horizons, to illuminate their blind spots, and to imagine and achieve great things. Without that, they would just be them. With it, they become more. 😊

[@jobanski]

I think the only way to answers my opinion on the 80/20 rule is by using the GTN answer of…”well, it depends…” 😂 😉

[@user-kl3lg7tf3n-anx1ous]

I've seen a lot of Seiler's videos and TBH he' never said anything fundamentally different than this scientist.

[@KS-go2ig]

I use the LS zones, 80% hard and 20% finding a new coach

[@triathlonsushi]

What does LS stand for?

[@marcuswills6569]

@@triathlonsushi I can only imagine Lionel Sanders 🤣

[@triathlonsushi]

@@marcuswills6569 Oh I'm so embarrassed! What else!? 🤣🤣🤣

[@nicholasgiles500]

Going out to cruise on the bike, still means you are out and doing something of the bike.... But I am FAR from being professional. Personally, I would prefer to be out five times a week with one hard session than having three hard sessions

[@perro0076]

I think one also needs to be honest with oneself. Is the training to 1/ stay healthy? 2/'take part' in an event, 3/compete in an event. If if is the last one, then that clock is your guide, and you do what-ever-it-takes, short of taking drugs and/or cheating. I'm sorry to break it to you, but unless you're challenging for a top 10 finish, you're only 'taking part', and don't forget, 2nd place is the first loser. You must do those winning times in training I'm afraid. Unless you do, you're won't be competing.

[@laasmimaher]

The answer is at 05:30

[@clarklight2918]

I just run by feeling 😂😂 if I can go far I go far, if I can go fast I go fast, and target 80km a week

[@Tri_Stag_Dustin]

*buys lactate measurement device*

[@kyotoisinthesnow]

So MMM Moderate-Medium-Mad...that's Brett Sutton method is it not?

[@johnwilson1321]

Pick a plan and stick to it !

[@technoracko]

Good research, but u guys broke peoples heart 80 20 is generally a good thing for amateur self train. Better than doing nothing drinking beers everyday

[@bikeinmotion]

I'm sorry but he doesn't even get the thresholds labeled correctly. At 7.20 zone 2 is between lactate threshold and ftp.... well welll... what he means is aerobic threshold but well :)

[@markdyer2155]

Far too complicated with academic gobblegook for a recreational fat guy like me. Like a lot of academics aiming to complicate issues there's too much clouding the debate by introducing different definitions ( only 3 Zones?). 80/20 has been my saviour and I see no reason to change. Those at representative or olympic level might understand and find it useful but without some form of visual aids most of this went straight over my head. I like most of your other output though .....

[@larrylem3582]

So we learned that polarized training is pyramid training... They're all just terms and you need to listen to your body as the more tired you get, the more you drift into the next higher zone attempting to maintain the same power or speed.

[@falsificationism]

I’m confused on the takeaway from this.

[@nk-dw2hm]

The less consistently I'm training the higher my average intensity is

[@Namoraslife]

I couldn't really grasp what he was trying to say. He was talking a lot without really saying much, sadly. Maybe it's a language barrier thing, as English is not my first language. My takeaway from this video was that as an amateur runner, you shouldn't worry too much about in which zones you're training in, instead focus on balance (varying intensities and duration) and not overtraining, giving your body enough time to recover.

[@donwinston]

Progressive overload and recovery!

[@donishcushing8223]

I think he's saying that the 80/20 rule is correct in terms of how much time you should spend working out at lower and higher intensities, but that it's not necessary to avoid working out at middle intensities - as long as you are still doing most of your work at lower intensities.

[@glywnniswells9480]

There are lots of ways to train there is no way to avoid the amount of work needed overall. I used to use a step training programme all of it was hard efforts just increasing the distance each time. It worked. So ride 15k mon, 30k Tue, 45k Wed, 55k Thur then 70 on Sat Next week 20k, 35k, 50k etc so u go up on a daily basis and a wrekly basis and all the rides were hard.

[@FreeFallRacer]

Going hard in the paint with the clickbait titles. I know the algorithms favor non-nuanced, but wow….a lie?

[@jonathanwofford2413]

Running in the middle of the street.. seams smart and safe... hop no one following your channel actually does that haha

[@i.am.waveguide]

Extremely confusing.

[@jimjamthebananaman1]

Basically do what works for you. Variety is the spice of life and make sure you are recovered well before each session

[@shoqed]

80/20 IS A LIE!!! Well not really, but maybe try this slightly modified 80/20, it could be good too

[@curtismorrison357]

The premise of the entire video is flawed. 80/20 is not polarized training. 80/20 is a pyramidal intensity model. Expected more from GTN.