This is gold to those who are trying to understand fitness for once and all

Seiler is great, I really want to get a better understanding of how to work this out with FTP rather than VO2 max as it is much easier to work with

NZ track coach Arthur Lydiard wrote about this in the 1960s in relation to mid distance running. Guess who won the 1500m at the Rome Olympics? NZ Runner Peter Snell. NZ has a ridiculous number of Olympic and World champ mid distance records given their population size of 4million people.

@richardggeorge

2 жыл бұрын

Snell won the 800m (my best event!). Herb Elliot won the 1500m. Cheers from Australia!

Thanks for posting and really confirms my training principles, cheers

Just came across this video, very great information!

@jamesprivate9832

3 жыл бұрын

This is not the type of video I like to come across. But to each their own.

@KyleKranz

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesprivate9832 why don't you like to come across this type of video?

TINSTAAFL. Polarised is KING

In a recent podcast,he explains 80% training segments are "easy" and 20% is short time intense intervals. He explains that in total weekly TIME it is 90% of time is "easy" and 10% of time is intense interval. If training time is limited, it is better to do 2hr,off a day,2hr then off a day, 1hr, then intervals then to do 5 one hr days plus intervals. ie longer training session is better

@jackcarpenters3759

3 жыл бұрын

There was a study about people who trained 3 hours a week. for them polarized 80/20 was also the best. However there was also a study that showed that polarized didn't work for everyone, when they switched those people to 55/45 that worked for them. i am guessing these were sprinter types, fast twitch dominant people. just a guess.

Is it possible to get the power-point for this? This is a great talk, and I would love to read some of the primary literature that is discussed! Thanks for your insights Dr. Seiler! And thank you for saying there is always a chance that what evidence is shown can be disproven! The scientific process must always push forward!

@chrisharnish6824

8 жыл бұрын

+Nicholas Patenaude Ditto. I'd like to get this as well.

@georgechristiansen6785

8 жыл бұрын

+Nicholas Patenaude Me three!

@Livi792

6 жыл бұрын

if you type the abbreviated literature sources into here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed you might have a chance to get a hold on some of the primary literature

@Livi792

6 жыл бұрын

the whole presentation can be found here: www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiHkbTCh5zYAhVDvRQKHcvGANgQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cerism.it%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2FSeiler_MSH_november_12_2015.pdf&usg=AOvVaw36BKSz406ahzn_IwWCeUUh

Polarized/pyramidal is suspiciously close to what is the most fun to do, isn't it. Going slow is fun (if you can handle the damage to your ego), enjoy nature and not working too hard. Going fast is also fun. Going extremely fast is only rarely a bit of fun. This so-called “sweet spot” area, to ride that way for a long time, is quite painful. You don't get to enjoy the sight seeing or just rolling on and potentially going further than ever, and you don't get to enjoy going really fast either. This leads me to the following hypotheses: the best training might be, there where it is most fun, although I don't have any experience or knowledge to back that up in any way whatsoever (yet). It makes sense in several ways, however. If the data about what is best has been created by researching the best performing people, it makes sense that the people who have most _fun_ during their training, also manage to do most of their training, and just generally best adapt to it. If you have more fun, you do it more, and probably you do it better, and you are less likely to damage yourself (because that is not fun). This could translate in a larger volume, fewer injuries, and less over training as well, while being able to naturally build in enough rest days when the body asks for it. People with a more obsessive attitude, “train for pain to reach ego boosting goal”, might over train easier, will potentially enjoy the activity less, therefore might in the end still do less of it than they otherwise might have, might create more injuries by going over the edge too often, and not put in enough rest days when they need them. Then there could be a psychological-biological effect as well, that your body just adapts faster and better to activities that are being enjoyed, instead of those that are not really that enjoyed so much. When it comes to intervals and going fast, it makes sense that those cyclists who enjoy going a bout of distance very fast, will also end up the fastest in races. You can turn the logic around and say: going fast is fun, versus those who find that fun end up going fastest. If the latter is true, some people are just predestined to be the fastest. If the former is true, anyone could learn to go fast, or benefit from the fun factor on this issue. So this thinking leads me to the _hypotheses_ (completely unproven at this point!): cycling in such a way that you have most fun with it, adjust your speed to the fun factor you are experiencing at that moment, could be an interesting approach. There was some research that showed that best cadence was around what people just felt like doing, which seems to suggest a similar effect. You would probably need to caveat this though, because what is fun ? You could just think it is fun to do extreme hard training all the time, because you want to reach that goal and that gives you fun, and/or cannot manage to go slow on a road bike because it looks lazy/dumb. I think a lot of people have the problem of going too fast, wanting to go too fast (including me). The fun factor you're after, is apparently not that kind of fun, because it leads to bad results. You then end up with this kind of mix: _fun plus wisdom_ yields best results. Have the wisdom not to go too fast too long too much, even if you think that is fun, but you might misread even yourself. Have the wisdom to overcome the need to go fast even if you think you look stupid going slow. I don't know if the _fun_ factor is the answer to everything. It is interestingly opposite of the American saying “no pain, no gain”, which probably also has truth in it. You could also turn that logic around and say: those people who enjoy challenging themselves the most, despite a level of discomfort, end up going fastest in the end. The psychological logic of that seems rather obvious: enjoy something, you do more of it, with less objections, more focus, etc. You could also bring this logic to a certain final point, and say: having a good time that day, and all those many days that you are out riding, might be more important than winning a race later. If you want to win races, however, you could perhaps attempt to try to have an optimal mix of having fun and doing some things you think you really need to achieve that goal, but with sufficient wisdom not to damage yourself. With this kind of logic at the root, you could get this kind of decisions: Standard thinking: “I need to put in a 3 hour long ride at slow pace today, even though I'm not sure I feel too well for it.” Standard thinking: “I need to do 1.5 hours of sweet spot urghhhhhh”. fun factor: “I feel like going for only 1-1.5 hours right now in the morning, at a casual speed or we'll-see-what-happens if I throw in some sprints for the heck of it, or go wild for 5 km if I get inspired … and then this afternoon, who knows if I feel like it I'll ride another round.” fun factor + training wisdom advice: “I did loads of easy riding already, let's see if I can set a record today on this/such a climb/distance, give it all I can.” standard thinking: “I need to do 2 × 5 intervals, 2 minutes worth each, 1 minute rest in between … ride in for 20 minutes, out for 20 minutes … and let's see whatever else for kind of homework I got.” The end result of these could be: under standard thinking you do that “job” and that's it for the day. You feel great, you did what you wanted to do. With _fun factor_ training (the meme starts here, lol ;-), you didn't overstretch yourself in the morning, so you felt great. You felt so good, you can't resist going out in the afternoon again. You're pumping well, you feel good, and when you get back after mostly casual riding with some fast parts when you just felt like it for some reason, you clock another 2.5 hours. You did more than under standard thinking. Now of course this is pure fiction, but it feels like it could track fairly close to reality. (More and shorter/less, is also often said to be better than larger/fewer, for all kinds of things.) If you end up feeling bad the afternoon, you just skip, rather than having gone out a long way “because the schedule demanded it” so you are forced to get back. You could argue that this is another part of putting in more low effort, because two shorter distances is also less effort than one longer. I think shorter/easier rides, plus hard record challenges, are the more fun oriented rides (right?). Too short becomes always the same route, though, and very long are the most interesting new sight seeing. Under _fun rules_ you go really slow on the very long rides, until you can handle those distances ? (I guess this is already conventional wisdom, just trying to think it all through thoroughly.) I don't know about all of this, mind you, it is an hypotheses, but I just think it is suspicious that if “sweet spot” is disproven, that evidence seems to converge on forms of training and effort levels that seem to go toward what most people will find fun to do (subjective impression only!). Maybe its just me. It seems to be a fun way to look at it, and having a good time is its own goal, isn't it ^^. Oops, now this leads to another thing: trainers might themselves be disproven. If you go like this, with the _fun_ factor and some general points of wisdom that anyone could tell you in a broad sense, than coaching becomes the negative, because they are the outside factor putting on all these complex training systems which might not be fun, and fun is subjective so how can they feel what the rider is feeling. Eddy Merckx is quoted for saying _ride lots._ When thinking in the above direction, it makes me think about that simple statement. Was he just having a lot of fun _riding lots_ ? No complex periodization plan, tapering pyramidal, HIIT intervals with carefully tuned rest days, 50%-60% rest weeks, base training months, lactate threshhold 2 heard rate monitored wattage/kg objective sprinkled in with neuromuscular 8 seconds hits at 3 minute rest periods at low air pressure parts of the world, it seems. Hmmm.... (lol). I think it's worthwhile to go the simple _fun_ way, and just ditch all the over complex stuff, save for a few important tips like don't try to go too fast all the time (it's not fun!). Should work to keep up with the group, and if not, at least you have all the fun ;-). Sorry about typing so much. I seem to enjoy typing, that's why I'm comparatively quick with it, which again proves the point. This way i'll never end up being a quick rider, though ;-). lol You can't win them all …

@josboersema1352

3 жыл бұрын

P.S. I know this is an insane monogolue, but someone plussed it so I'll just add my subsequent experience after this comment. I have been studying just about everything in cycling, since I got back to it half a year ago. I took my own advice, and so I went the day of this comment for a medium long ride that I thought was most fun (my standard route), although I thought I could have gone further and might have if I hadn't thought about the _fun factor._ Then in the afternoon, I did another medium ride, which I would not have done had I taken the longer ride. This indeed did result in riding more. I also think it was more fun to do two shorter rides, rather than one bigger for a total of 75% effort compared to the two. Then after my usual rest day, I did the same: 3 sprint intervals on a ride as short as I could make it (need to reach a safe road first). Later that day I did another 1.5 hours over all the bridges, going hard up each one (19×). So again the _fun factor_ caused me to do two rides. This also leads me to think about intervals differently. It is so much more fun and natural to create a course where you have a sprint interval “after that bend, up that bridge” and so on, rather than count down 2 minutes. I don't like counting when riding, it is distracting. Someone else might like it, but I doubt it. The bridges interval course is also fun. Here the intervals are quite varied, they don't follow a mathematical pattern, it is however so much more natural and less “doing boring homework”. Furthermore, it seems that _fun factor_ training induces that _variety_ that I have often read about. The fun is often in the variety: going different places, different speeds, and so on. This goes back to the original point: the need for variety is also suspiciously the same as what _fun factor_ training would be about, because you will avoid boring routine. So my thinking now goes in the direction: let's say half of the decisions are based upon what seems to be wise (pyramidal/polarized overall distribution of effort, variation), and the other half is fun based decisions, which ideally line up with each other. So … what happened along the way … I can't describe it in any other way than that I suddenly seemed to have found another gear in my legs. I was just steaming up the hill (well, compared to my usual that is, I'm not fast you know, but I try). In trying to have fun, I did indeed have (more) fun, and this gave me an interesting feeling of being one with my rear wheel, if that makes any sense. Then I didn't want to exploit that feeling, so that it might blow up and go away again (turn into non-fun by exploitation), but I did try to utilize it to go harder than before (also so it wouldn't go away). It was raining, fairly cold and dark, so the fact that I still had fun seems to mean something ;-) (lol). That's where I am currently, if this will stay going well I don't know, but I think it will, and it is also a goal in itself (having a good time that is). British proverb: “all work no play, makes Jack a dull boy”. Seems to be the same effect. I understand this is purely anecdotal, and as such has no solid scientific value. Some things that also made recent rides different than others before. I have done intervals based on timer and so on. When I did my usual round three days ago, I paced it to slow, because that was my schedule, even slower than usual slow. I found it interesting that I saw new great farm houses and things I never saw before, but anyway … at some point another rider overtakes me, and I let him go. At the point he is almost out of sight, maybe 300 meter up ahead, I decide I go see if I can still catch him, _because_ I was following the _fun factor_ principle. So I do, and with reserves still there I go fast for my case, and overtake him zooming forward in the aero bars. Then I let him overtake me again because the road changed and I didn't feel like continuing, and got back to the slow pace. This resulted in a vague comment from the other rider, but meanwhile I was having fun. In effect I was doing a longer interval, an interval that is a lot more fun than counting down 10 minutes on the clock. Had I been on a clock based system, I would have ignored the other rider (except for greetings and salutations), not have fun chasing him, and possibly done a similar interval on another part of some other round. The sprint interval course: there is a speaker on youtube, who said that 3 sprint intervals in a very short ride, 3 times a week, produces results. This was a minimum training investigation. How much can you achieve with minimum effort/time. They did: 2 minute, 20 second sprint, and that 3 times, end. So in order to make that work with the _fun factor_ principle, I simply designed a course which more or less would by distance cause a rest period in the order of 2 minutes, with the sprints on stretches of road where it would be safe (one up a bridge). So now I don't have to think or look at the clock. The 20 second sprint I reduce to going maximum until exhaustion, so that I don't have to think or look at the clock. I have this kind of round in my system, because when you really want to ride but at the same time you don't or the weather is bad, you can do this kind of very short thing. Incidentally it goes past the farm made yogurt stand, something not to be missed either ! So in conclusion, the trainings are in one sense quite different, and in another sense they are the same as a clock and schedule based system. Since there are such wide uncertainties regarding a schedule based system, I guess it can be argued that within that uncertainty, you can put in almost all of the _fun factor_ objectives, perhaps all. Then you have both. By the way, funny how they call “sweet spot” that, when it should be called “bitter spot”. Just more lies I'm guessing, marketing. So glad that is disproven, otherwise I would probably be doing it.

@nicholasforbes7223

3 жыл бұрын

Z

@jasonhendrickson2289

2 жыл бұрын

That's a lot of words to completely miss the point of this talk. Riding to have fun is one thing (and likely varies greatly between cyclists). Training for optimal performance is another. The venn diagram overlaps a fair bit but you're going to win far fewer races if your "training" is just riding for fun.

@josboersema1352

2 жыл бұрын

@@jasonhendrickson2289 Thank you for your reply. The point was to say polarized training and having fun seem to be the same, or could be if you prefer. I also didn't suggest “just riding for fun” only, but rather to be inspired from both ends, to get the best out of both and have things re-enforce each other. I was just having some thoughts I guess. Example: I could do much of my riding on rollers or on a trainer, and have a power meter to accurately keep to zones and have a super efficient training program, which would be boring as hell. Would I be better on that program within a year or two, or would I be better if I went outside and “have more fun”, while still trying to conform as best as possible to the best training advice. I think I would have quit cycling altogether within a week if I was forced on rollers like that, which isn't getting anywhere, despite knowing the perfect training load (say). If I hadn't quit, it would be hard to stay motivated (for me at least), thus the volume would likely drop a lot. Example: While it should be enough as far as training goes to ride a certain distance at a certain high intensity, and perhaps it is superior, it makes me have fun to ever so many weeks ride my standardized time trial circuits and try to beat my record. You don't have to do that if you want to ride polarized or any other zoning program, however it's just a lot of fun and it pushes you further to the edge (yes I know, average speed means nothing yaddayadda, but it's fun and averaging out many rides under differing conditions does say something). See my point ? Polarized itself already lends itself to having more fun, both due to the variability (hard and slow) and the nature of going as hard as you can or just relaxing or going as far as you can but slowly, and that was sort of the point. Personally I like all kinds of riding … except this constant in-between not-hard/not-slow similar speed kind of riding (middle zone). So … I just see a lot of overlap between having fun and following a polarized program, and you can build on that to maximize the fun factor without taking too much away from the best training load. That was the point, but perhaps it was lost due to excessive volume, sorry about that. I don't really know much of anything, but I was just trying to figure out how to spend my time most wisely to get the most bang for the buck (quite to the contrary as to what you where suggesting). Having fun can mean lots of things, many of those things don't conflict with a polarized or “good” program, and some might conflict but they could be worth it due to increasing motivation. Just my opinion at this point ;-). Basically just common sense. I thought it was interesting anyway, that apparently training science of today seems to match with what most people would find most fun & engaging, except it is often described as zones and seemingly boring things like that, and I imagine it can be hella boring on a trainer.

@josboersema1352

2 жыл бұрын

@@the_fast_life More proof that polarized is the way then. On that note, I had some experience recently which might be worthwhile to share. I had strained my back by pulling too hard on bean poles. I could ride no problem, but it was difficult to get up from laying down. A week later I rode a little over 7 hours at what felt to be a slow pace (156 km). Oddly enough, it cured my back pain. Earlier I had ridden 113.km or so at a pace which was a little above what I thought was wise (someone said I could do it faster), and I got away with a slight hip discomfort. (I guess since I'm still so new at less than 1.5 years or so, I get easier slight injuries.) I guess this also votes for polarized, that there can be a level of recovery if you go slow enough, even if it is very long.

The issue with all this data and research is that it does not take into account the removal and then re administration of BBs.

What does the protein intake of an athlete experiencing rhabdomyolysis? Would it have been low prior ?

How do you distribute the high intensity parts of training? Is it better to distribute it throughout each workout or across different workouts? i.e. a lot of low intensity workout days and a few high intensity workout days? Is there a difference in outcome? I'm a beginner (sort of) and I never do tempo runs because I run/walk trails with steep hills so my HR is up and down throughout my 2.5 to 5 hour sessions. I've just recently decided to try and train for a cross country half marathon. (66 years old) How many days a week should I run hills and how many should I just run easy track? Though running is never easy at this point. I can hike long distance with a 30 pound backpack for 10-12 hours a day and cross 13,000 ft mountain passes for weeks at a time but I cannot run a mile on a track without walking.

@Eldooodarino

8 ай бұрын

You sound a lot like me. Similar age and I do a lot of walking and a bit of running. Lately I've increased my running a lot. Before I did that though, I had the same issue as you, not being able to run a mile without walking. At some point I started doing hill sprints. I do mean sprints, going absolutely as hard as I can for 10-15 seconds. I do that on a hill with a roughly 7% grade. I run roughly 65-70 yards and go up about 15'. I was doing that maybe once every 8-10 days. Most of the time I do 5 of those sometimes 7-8 and probably started with fewer than 5. I'm not sure. Anyway, after doing a few of these SIT sessions I found it much easier to run long slow distances. Six mildly hilly miles is pretty easy for me to run without stopping now but before the SIT I always had to walk somewhere in 6 miles. Oops. Now I see that your post is 2 years old so this comment probably won't help you. Maybe it will someone else.

Any research on how volume and intensity are distributed for sprinter/speed athletes?

@jackcarpenters3759

3 жыл бұрын

i've seen one that said 80/20 was best for them. however also seen a study where 80/20 wasnt for everyone the best, some need 55/45. Also interval gives sprinters more testosterone, and less cortisol, tempo runs give endurance types less cortisol than sprinters.

Question for Dr Seiler. In the 4x8 HIIT group what was rest period betweeen sets?

@gilleek2

3 жыл бұрын

If i recall correctly, not sure if it was from Seiler or someone else, but i THINK you don't get much more recovered after 2 minutes complete rest. You could perhaps eek it out to 3 minutes if you're not on a good day especially if you think that the extra rest is gonna be what gets you through the 4th rep rather than bailing after the 3rd.

No solutions in this vid... I guess it has to do with fast twitch dominant or slow twitch dominant. A graph i saw grouped tertiles based on their times in long distance, the most talentend group also had most benefit with training high volume, the least talented (more fast twitch?) benefitted the least from high volume, actually declined after 25 miles pw. This is how you might individualize training.

I don't really understand this - if zone 1 is recovery with no benefit to fitness, zone 2 is the "low intensity" that 80% of time should be spend at, and "high intensity" is zones 3-7 (tempo through threshold, VO2 MAX and neuromuscular) in which you can do intervals... what is "Zone X", the moderate zone that should be avoided? I struggle to understand this in this video and many others on this topic

@WauWau36

4 жыл бұрын

80% of the sessions should be easy (i.e. focus on zone 1-2 in Coggan's zone model), 20% hard. The hard sessions obviously also include zones 1-2 (warm-up, rest intervals), but the focus would typically be zone 5, but depending on the goal race and time of year this could also mean zone 3, 4, 6 or 7. In this talk the zones have different names, but the examples are zone 4 and 5 (again in Coggan's model). There really is no zone "that should be avoided", even though if you don't need it in your sport there probably would be little focus on zones 6-7 (again in Coggan's model). And for zone 3, for it to be categorized as "hard", the workout will probably need to be very long and require a lot of recovery, so that in most cases this would only make sense if you are close to an event that requires zone 3, such as a long triathlon.

@Northwindbreeze

4 жыл бұрын

@@WauWau36 thanks buddy

@nech060404

2 жыл бұрын

You are referencing Fitzgerald's model which is different then the traditional model.

Does stretching time count as training TIME?

@nickelsnbills

3 жыл бұрын

No - skip stretching

Well that’s 37 minutes of my life that I’ll never get back. Poor sound quality too.

@robertstott2405

4 жыл бұрын

are you kidding me? I've listened and relistened to this at least 10x the past 5 years- it is gold !!