What is your view on the following SST related question? I’m wondering 
When doing power based SST training, you typically do this in blocks. The hardest sessions in 20min blocks. Since the HR target function is available, I started doing SST training based on HR. What is interesting, is that you can basically go longer. After 20min on power, you see your heartrate really starts to go up, into the anaerobic zone. But after 20min on HR, no problem, the app just adjusts the power and you can keep going. What I wonder now : what would be more beneficial : stick with blocks (like 2x20min), or go for a 1x40min HR based session. Would there be any training benefit in the break in between or is it exactly the opposite…
That is a great question
SST is typically a Power type target and I have never seen HR targets for that type of workout.
It’s not actually a distinct zone, it’s something that was ‘discovered’ and advocated to be ‘the best bang for the buck’. TR was all over the place with this and marketed SST as the best (and almost unique) workout for Time Crunched Athletes. And the result was that many users abused of this type of training, plateaued, overreached and even overtrained.
Now, if you go further on the Zone 2 Base training philosophy, together with the 80/20 principle, SST is simply a ‘hard training’.
For any type of intensity target that is related to physiological markers, there is always at least two approaches:
- Push up the floor
- Pull up the ceiling
Pulling up the ceiling became very popular because everyone was still in the ‘no pain, no gain’ thinking style. But depending on your talents and goal events, you can make the other choice or even mix both choices.
What follows is by no means ‘scientific work’, but it’s my point of view and based on very limited experience. I’m not a coach, but I like to know what happens in my body. I experiment a lot, but let’s be clear: this is what I found out, for my unique body and my specific goals.
When using a 3 zone system based on physiological markers AeT and AT you can use both push/pull and get different results. For base training, the message is starting to become clearer. Work below AeT and push up the floor. AeT HR will not change big amounts but it will slightly move up if you train for long enough with this methodology. Power on the other hand can really significantly increase as you become more efficient. But at a certain point in time, much later then most think, you will plateau and both AeT HR and Power wil stagnate. Then it’s time to start thinking of raising the ceiling by introducing smart work in between AeT and AT. By the time you get there, your AeT power is probably already in the lower part of Z3 Tempo (based on 7 zone Cogan system). And the gap between AeT HR and AT HR is becoming smaller. By now using the same system on the AT point, you can push up the floor by doing high tempo blocks (upper Cogan Z3 which is around SST). That will create more room in between AeT and AT. And it will happen rather quickly because you have such a large base. After that period, you can return to Z2 and further deepen out your base. Or when you equally find yourself on a plateau, start to pull up the ceiling by doing VO2 work.
Now which method do you have to choose?
If your events are long and steady state (Ironman, Ultra, TT,…) your best bet is to push up the floor. That favorises more durability just below those markers and is often a better solution then having a slightly higher threshold (be it AeT or AT) that you can’t hold for long enough.
If you’re more of a Crit rider, a sprinter or CycloX and aim to improve performance in the shorter events, you may be better of by pulling up AT. For AeT, I really can’t think of any reason to try pulling it up. Work above AeT is much more taxing then below and you will never be able to do enough volume to get a better result compared to pushing it up.
If you want to start out with Z2 (may get confusing now but here I mean Z2 in a 3 zone system) based on HR, add half of your age to your AeT HR and use that as a HR target. Start with multiple shorter blocks and work up to one large block. As a start, 4 x 10min seems reasonable. Then 3 x 15, 2 x 20 up until 1 x 60 or even 1 x 90min. Your guide is performance improvement. As long as you are improving, you’re training efficiently. Improvement here can be a higher power output overall or the ability to hold the power for a longer time.
I think it is apparent that the method of pushing up the floor is more conservative and implies less risk of overtraining/injury. So why would you want to do anything else if this works?
If it doesn’t work for you, try some pulling up but don’t just assume that if it works, it is the only thing that works for you. Keep the periods of this sometimes extremely demanding work short (4-6 weeks) and go back to the less demanding way of pushing up. There’s a very big chance that you will break that plateau after those 4-6 hard weeks. And you may be on your way for several more months of increasing performance.
1 Like
Nice, if simplified, this would make a nice blog article.
While I agree with the nature of what you are saying completely, the only questionable thing is trying to throw sweet spot into the same zone as vo2max or higher, as though they are going to provide a similar training benefit is questionable in my book. So while I agree with the keeping zone 3 volume in check and it can be treated equal in that respect I think you will get a very different training benefit. Also if you were looking at time in zone of (Seiler 90/10) then doing 10% of your workout at SST would be seriously different than 10% of your time at 150%.
I think some people have the desire to raise the floor while still holding on to a bit of that sustained performance. Maffetone suggests this may not work for some people, or some people can handle very little intensity while trying to maximize low HR training. So adding intensity can slow or even stop your floor or aerobic improvement. Regular MAF tests (i.e. aerobic vs power improvement tests) tell us the answer.
I am not sure if the following is true or not, I tend to think their is a little truth in it but not black and white, but Joe Friel suggests for older riders 1 day a week of very high intensity should be considered year round, even if it’s short in duration but he has never been a low heart rate advocate, maybe he is now. Many/most people come up with a plan they like and then justification for why it makes sense. Confirmation bias
1 Like
Well, that’s not questionable, that’s plain wrong 
, but I didn’t make myself clear enough.
When considering the latest evolution in Seiler’s Polarized model, any training above AeT goes in to the ‘hard’ session bucket. Anything below AeT goes in to the ‘easy’ bucket. And there’s only 2 buckets when it comes to session distribution. And that’s what I use, 2 buckets for sessions. But the sessions going in to te ‘hard’ bucket are different depending on the training block and phase you’re in. A building phase will start with SST, followed by Threshold and then some supra-threshold (over-under being my personal favorite). A peak block will be VO2 and/or anaerobic.
But you’re right, I should have mentioned the way I’m thinking about all this…
The problem for me is that there is an ever growing community that jumps on the Polarized wagon without understanding what it exactly is. You see plenty of people stating that they train polarized but they interpret the basic rules wrong.
- Some do 80/20 TIZ distribution
- Some do 90/10 TIZ distribution, but they do it on each and every session
- Some do the same thing year round
I can sort of live with 90/10 TIZ when it’s done to define the duration of the hard session but when I see people posting the workouts they made up where each and every session is about 90/10, I’m about to freak out. That’s plain nonsense and it’s nothing more then unstructured work.
Make it simple and keep it simple. That’s the best way to success. Seiler’s interview with NVDP and his coach made me aware of that…
- Base and build periods are 80/20 session distribution
- Peak periods can be 60/40 session distribution but don’t make the superhard sessions too long to avoid lingering fatigue
- Base is base: avoid as much as possible going over your first threshold and do it for at least 8-12 weeks
- Build period is for the sustainable efforts, 4-6 weeks followed by another shorter base period if there is enough time left
- Peak periods are for the short and really hard efforts, 4 weeks. Remember to drop total volume considerably to avoid too much fatigue. No more then 2-3 peak periods per season. If the circumstances ask for it, you can extend a peak period to around 6 weeks.
Yeah, it’s funny that everyone even listens to Seiler Meaning it’s not like he is some amazing coach that has produced a host of amazing athletes. What has he really done? Came up with a theory and in a very limited study proved it’s true. He talks well and says what I believe is the right stuff for the most part. He’s pretty fast/strong so he coached himself just fine. I think all this stuff is theoretical but again I fully agree with the premise of what you are suggesting here.
- Base is extra focus on easy
- Build you can go a little harder
- Peak you can go hard or very hard, but not so hard you can’t recover adequately.
Andrea would say peak periods could be 4-8 weeks but again they are graduating in intensity so not all out for 8 weeks.
These 80/20, 90/10 ratios can help someone make sure their definition of each of those phase are not completely wrong but it’s easy to try to cheat the polarized idea. Also yes 90/10 with every day high intensity goes totally against the premise. You could do 7 days a week of HIIT and keep it 90/10 and completely destroy yourself. I also noticed Seiler saying sweet spot is hard so that band between easy and hard is so narrow it almost does not exist especially as people raise their aerobic efficiency.
I know you and I are on the same page, so we are just clarifying these ideas.
For me, he’s the one who made more people aware af the fact that world class athletes train much easier then what was generally thought.
The statistics to prove that, were not from a limited study but based on loads of data. The way he worked was top-down while coaches work the other way round. Coaches follow well-known and proved things as a basic grid and then search what’s specific per individual. Seiler deducted some general rules by running statistics on all the data he had available and found correlations between intensity distribution and top performance. Alan Couzens, who is a well known coach for triathletes, did comparable work. Also based on loads of data, also constantly looking for correlations that can sometimes be surprising. He’s probably going to lead us towards an AI supported sports science. Coaches who follow-up on all this, be it in a critical way, will be the ones with the most chance of succes in my opinion.
From everything I’ve read and seen around here, Andrea jumped on that wagon long ago or was maybe one of the pioneers that triggered all this to happen. The results of his coaching are proof enough that he’s seeing things that others are not even thinking about yet. One-on-one coaching is more then following some basic rules. You also need to be able to connect to your athletes, get the correct information from them and be able to mix it all together in a better plan adapted to the individual.
For most of us around here, simply starting with getting the basics right, will do wonders.
1 Like
Oh don’t get me wrong. I see huge value in Seiler changing the cycling world. I am just saying, it’s not that he is some cycling guru that we should all just follow blindly. Seiler had the right message that resonated at the right time and the data/proof to back it up. My point is more that people need to not take his continued ideas as facts and more just use his basic concepts as guidelines. Which I am sure you feel the same. I want to be clear, while I am a strong Seiler advocate it’s more of the fact that he is moving the needle and making people healthier and in many cases faster because people are buying into it and trying it. I am not sure we should continue to delve into the nuances of what he says today is my point. We should keep listening to him and learning but I think he nailed it the first time and the rest is not so critical
Yeah, Andrea does not think in a polarized way at all or time in zone or anything like this yet ultimately the way he suggests training ends up fitting within the more polarized model (he never focused on Z2 HR or below AeT for example). He looks at time in zone a bit it just does not dictate the way he suggests training. He thinks many pros are closer to 95/5 for a lot of the season and many other people should be too. But again his easy (or let’s say dominant training) is more mid-z2 power with a decent amount of lower z3.
Seiler said this early on. European coaches were suggesting more easy and Andrea is a part of that group. Andrea has always put a strong emphasis on health first and even fun first approach (when his athletes would listen :))
It seems that many pros in Europe are moving the other direction as well. Which is a bit more super hard, maybe not more hard duration but more intensity on a more regular basis.
Wow this question triggered a real interesting conversation. Very insightfull.
I’m actually picking ideas from all over the place. And since I’m not supposed to win the Tour de France, it’s totally fine if I try something in the winter and it turns out to be less of a success. Last winter I mainly did Z2. Unfortunately not yet with the HR function, since it didn’t exist. My goals were to do a couple of Alpine gran fondos and a couple of Flanders based rides (like the “Ronde van Vlaanderen”). 2 very different animals. You need a solid base for both. For the Alpine stuff you rather need a zone 3.5 (my invention) as high as possible. While for the short, steep cobble climbes in Flanders you will need aerobic capacity. It worked quite well with mainly Z2 training. This winter I’m trying to evolve. The goals are the same, so now I’m putting in once a week a SST session and once a week a HIIT session. Rest of the week Z2. We’ll see from April onwards how that is different from the year before
Yes, the main risk you likely face with this is by not putting as much intensity in the spring because you already did a fair amount in the winter and that spring time intensity is what really gives that final boost. To help with this you could always see if putting two weeks of pure zone 2 in say early February could help you recover before a steeper ramp build period Feb-April. Just giving an example. Really you might be just fine pushing harder and harder all the way to May depending on personal physiology, how well you sleep and other factors. It just feels amazing to feel super fresh in May and ready to go which is more likely what you felt last year. If you can feel fresh and strong in April and ready to do some harder riding then all is golden. So I don’t see your plan as so bad and I fully agree with experimentation to find what works for you.
Ronde Van Vlaanderen for recreational cyclists comes early next year, March 30 already.
I’ve started 3 times, DNF’ed one because of ridiculously bad weather (wind, snow, freezing temp). That was over 10 years ago. I no longer participate in the event itself because it became a money making machine. I live pretty close and almost yearly ride the hill zone with our cycling club in June. It’s a very difficult ride for me because I’m small and lightweight, not ideal for cobbled power climbs 
I feel much better on longer climbs. Once settled, I can go pretty long at intensities only slightly below FTP.
I’m with you. Not doing the “real money” event. 1. it’s too early in the season. 2. it’s too much of a mass hyped event. I’m doing it with a small group when it works for us Last year I did it in towards the end of July. Perfect day out on the bike.
@MedTechCD and @Alex As a ‘time crunched athlete’ (max hrs per week is probably 7-8, and more often 5-6) I really struggle with trying to get my head around Z2 training (80/20 in base for example). I enjoy the Z2 stuff, but at the same time I fear that I have already maxed out my fitness level at the lower volume.
Is there a place for the following scenario:
- 5 days a week, 4 days easy (Z2) and 1 day intervals (SS or Threshold)
- Ramp volume (load/TSS) from 5-6 hr to 7-8 hrs over 4-5 weeks (to get the bump in load)
- Z2 sessions are all 1.5 hrs or less (often less)
- This part is the tricky bit for me, do I really at my current fitness level benefit from 45-60 min of proper low Z2 (RPE pretty darn easy)?
- It should be noted I basically have done 5-6 hrs a week all year (for the past couple of years), so yes the 7-8 hr weeks will be bumps in volume, not that much.
I know the above will benefit anybody due to the consistency, but when I compare it to say 2 days easy and 3 days hard (45 min intervals of SS, threshold and even Vo2 occasionally). What is more beneficial? Goal is larger aerobic engine (FTP, CP, whatever you want to call it). I’m a fast twitch guy, high intensity intervals are more enjoyable for me… so I’m trying to work on the lower end.
Curious to hear the reply!
Did you try to do 1 or 2 of the 4 sessions following the SFR routine?
This will keep your HR low, but target your muscles more. So you will become stronger peripheral without losing the benefit of the Z2 for your central (cardiovascular) fitness.
This does mean that you do Z2 based on HR not Power. Power will probably end up in Tempo zone, but HR will still be Z2 if you do them correctly.
1 Like
I think this is an ideal plan, especially for someone who is not trying to beat Pogacar.
I do much the same, with a threshold level ride of 30-50 minutes once a week and some form of short interval workout. The rest is Z2
1 Like
haha, if even the 25 years old pros can’t beat Pogi, who am I as a 50+ amateur
but indeed, it’s working and paying off big time !!!
on a serious note : the only thing “missing” in this approach, is hours on the bike. But since I don’t have that much time, this is the best thing I could do. Getting into the summer, it’s clear all indicators are “green” : FTP, VO2Max,… everything has gone up. But spending 4 hours on a bike is still something different. But I’m not complaining, I bet this will come fast when the weekend allows for outside riding.
1 Like
As amateurs our limit (besides our different genes and talent ) is time.
The interval sessions are really short, they don’t need to be long and twice a week is enough.
The rest of your time can be spend in zone 2. How much that is, is totally up to you, your agenda, kids, partner and all the other stuff that keeps us of the bike.
So it makes sense to arrange that life as well as you can to free up the most of your time.
For instance, right now I’m on holiday with my family. Tomorrow we are going to visit the city of Málaga.
I get up an hour before the rest and get of on my bike, they will catch in one and a half hours. To me, that is other valuable training.
Much better than ride with them in the car.
Try to find where you can make those small arrangements to free up time for extra hours of training. I’m sure you can be creative.
adding one topic to the limits : the weather I’m very sure Malaga is totally fine, but I live most of the year in Belgium… Since I’m not Remco (who lives very close when he’s not in Spain), I’m not going out if the weather is too bad. I don’t care about a bit of rain, but the last months it was just horrible (and still is in Belgium btw).
i do the same as you do : when we go somewhere to visit, I ask if I can take a shower and ride my bike over there…
1 Like
You are doing great, Diederik. And yes, the weather was horrible. That’s why I fled to Malaga. It’s funny you mentioned Remco. I ran into him twice in Sierra Nevada. It’s a beautiful climb with a lot of pros riding there.