# I'm converted to the 80/20 training method.



## Bridgey (Mar 26, 2003)

I watched a youtube video the other day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf3tczZrUgs - From polarized to optimized? Moving towards 2025 by Dr. Stephen Seiler. 

In short he claims that many world class elite athletes knowingly or unknowingly use the 80/20 method for training which suggests that 80% of your training time/sessions should be at level 1 and 2 low intensity and the other 20% should be at moderate to high intensity (Level 3 to 5) but with a preference towards Levels 4 and 5 (no more than 2 sessions of this a week). High volume low intensity 80%, low volume high intensity 20%. 

He uses quite a few examples to prove it. I know it sounds like polarized training, but is much more defined. I've done quite a bit of research and testing and have to say that I wish I had adopted this years ago. I was one of these sweet spot trainers. Ride moderate to hard every where I go. He shows how this only has limited benefits. 80/20 is a whole lot more enjoyable, guilt free and you have so much more power and energy for the 20% stuff that really benefits you. 

Is anyone else here doing this or similar? I think with this style of training it is possible to stay relatively strong all year round. I often wondered how some of these pro riders are able to keep on winning all year round e.g. Froome, Valverde, etc. Perhaps they use this method too (please no dope talk). 

Another useful link was Best Ways To Build Endurance , How Heart Rate Zones Work and the book 80/20 running. Pretty cheap to purchase on Kindle.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Search this forum using "polarized training". We've had quite a bit of discussion on the topic.

An important point to note - most of Seiler's work that led to his characterization of polarized training was with elite athletes that train at very high volumes. In recent years research attention has sought to determine if a polarized protocol is advantageous vs. other methods for recreational athletes who train at significantlyy lower total volumes. While the results thus far have been conmsistent with Seiler's polarized model being superior, it is not yet clear that is the case broadly.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Search this forum using "polarized training". We've had quite a bit of discussion on the topic.
> 
> An important point to note - most of Seiler's work that led to his characterization of polarized training was with elite athletes that train at very high volumes. In recent years research attention has sought to determine if a polarized protocol is advantageous vs. other methods for recreational athletes who train at significantlyy lower total volumes. While the results thus far have been conmsistent with Seiler's polarized model being superior, it is not yet clear that is the case broadly.


You lnow, I wonder what happens if you replace the zone 1/2 80% with nothing? Just 2 rides a week that make you see dead relatives?

OP, this thread has spun gold in it.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/co...html#post4913857?highlight=Polarized+training


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> You lnow, I wonder what happens if you replace the zone 1/2 80% with nothing? Just 2 rides a week that make you see dead relatives?


Without the low intensity work for volume, the limit of improvement is reduced.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Trying to emulate world class athletes is wrought with problems on so many levels. It has absolutely nothing to do with what normal people can or should do. It's just dumb, to be frank. 

Now he's said that polarized training will work for time crunched, regular joes, too, but so will going out and riding every day. Meaning, 99% of people don't need anywhere near the structure or specificity of that methodology to improve and be successful.

Consistent, progressive training, however you want to do it, will get the vast majority of people where they want to go if they just stick with it long enough. It's so not rocket science.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

ibericb said:


> Without the low intensity work for volume, the limit of improvement is reduced.


To paraphrase Hunter Allen, at some point you just got to go out and do those 5 hour rides if you want to continue to improve.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

pedalbiker said:


> To paraphrase Hunter Allen, at some point you just got to go out and do those 5 hour rides if you want to continue to improve.


The basic issue is how to get the most benefit for your available training time. Volume rules, but it gets better when it includes an appropriate amount of high intensity effort. The trick is to not overstress things to the point something breaks.


----------



## Bridgey (Mar 26, 2003)

I agree, just getting on your bike will help anyone become better. When I was a teenager, I'd TT every ride, regardless of distance. I thought the quicker the time was on my 50km ride, the better I was. I became a good time triallist, but wondered why I still suffered like a dog in races where the finish avg speed wasn't much higher than I could do myself (especially in the first 1/4 of the race).

In short, I couldn't handle the changes in speed. Had no ability to accelerate into Zone 5. So I think you can only progress (respond) so much with sweet spot training.

For me, it is good to have this type of research though. I enjoy riding so much more as I don't feel guilty just going for a soft ride. Given up the no pain, no gain theory. Enjoy the scenery more. And on the 1 or 2 days I actually do Zone 3, 4 and 5 intervals, I'm ready for it. Looking forward to it, because I'm fresher and know the benefits it will provide me with. Unfortunately I currently don't have a power meter to compare it to my old data, but hopefully soon will. 
Has anyone else here noticed the difference in ability since adopting 80/20 training?


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

ibericb said:


> Search this forum using "polarized training". We've had quite a bit of discussion on the topic.
> 
> An important point to note - most of Seiler's work that led to his characterization of polarized training was with elite athletes that train at very high volumes. In recent years research attention has sought to determine if a polarized protocol is advantageous vs. other methods for recreational athletes who train at significantlyy lower total volumes. While the results thus far have been conmsistent with Seiler's polarized model being superior, it is not yet clear that is the case broadly.



 Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners? 



> Due to variation in the actual execution of the training plans, we also identified the subsets of athletes in each group whose training-intensity distribution was most highly zone 1 oriented and most highly zone 2 oriented. Six subjects from PET were identified whose mean intensity distribution was 78% zone 1, 11% zone 2, and 11% zone 3 during the intervention period. Their mean 10K improvement was 7.0% ± 3.6%. Six subjects from BThET were identified with an intensity distribution of 32% zone 1, 53% zone 2, and 16% zone 3. Their mean 10K improvement was 1.6% ± 4%. Expressed in standardized Cohen effectsize units, the difference in improvement between the subgroups of runners training most in zone 1 and those training most in zone 2 was 1.29 (90% CI 0.31–2.27, P = .038; Figure 4). These 2 subgroups did not differ in training experience (8 ± 3 vs 6 ± 5 y), preintervention 10K time (42 ± 6 vs 41 ± 3 min), or total training time during the intervention (37 ± 9 vs 37 ± 11 h).


Where Z1 is < AeT (77% +/- 3 of MHR in the polarized group, 79 +/-5 in the between thresholds group), Z3 > AnT (91 +/-3), and Z2 between the two.

The intervention period was 10 weeks, so 37 +/- 9 is 2.8 - 4.6 hours a week.

The test subjects who did not follow the polarized plan as well also did better but not enough to be statistically significant.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Does polarized training improve performance in recreational runners?


Changing up the stimulus is likely going to lead to an improvement up to a point. 

Change that methodology to Tabatas or more threshold or more 10k pace or whatever and keep the control group doing the same thing and you'll likely see significant improvements. 

So what? 

Again, consistent, progressive overload. And maybe some variation from time to time!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

pedalbiker said:


> Changing up the stimulus is likely going to lead to an improvement up to a point.
> 
> Change that methodology to Tabatas or more threshold or more 10k pace or whatever and keep the control group doing the same thing and you'll likely see significant improvements.
> 
> ...


Yep, there are a lot of training prescription fashions that come and go, and some persist longer than others.

Instead people should focus their attention on applying the small number of training fundamentals proven to work. They are relatively simple but seemingly remarkable difficult for people to execute.

That's not to say that there are not subtleties and nuances along the way, of course there are. But these are largely irrelevant if the fundamentals are not consistently put into practice.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

pedalbiker said:


> To paraphrase Hunter Allen, at some point you just got to go out and do those 5 hour rides if you want to continue to improve.


oh sh*t not those 5hr rides. Lots of guys can go out and hammer hard as sh*t on them 30 mile coffee rides. Once the ride is a 5 hr one, especially with lots hills, suddenly the room is blossomed with excuses with the kids, wives, dogs, work around the house. blah blah. After 2-2.5 hrs is when the real endurance training starts IMO, that's where the real adaptative phase kicks in


----------

