Training at FTP

BenderRodriguez

DeVlaeminck wrote:

What would people recommend as a mix looking at 2/3 cat racing - which I guess describes many on here?

From my experience of road racing, races are generally won and lost when the 'hammer goes down' in a break-away attempt, or on the climbs. If I had my time again I would focus much more on losing weight so as to be able to avoid going into the red so much when climbing, and on developing my anaerobic capacity so that I was better able to make the cut in the decisive moments of the race. So, plenty of short interval sessions, complimented by a few longer endurance rides, possibly taking the climbs at threshold.

For testers '2 x 20's and so forth will probably take you along way, but the demands of road racing are rather different, which is perhaps why even club level riders these days seem to specialise much more than they used to.

Team4Luke

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

because they underperform in the race by riding at set power and not at the threshold they may be able to achieve that particular day, because like I keep saying the body is different every single day you wake up regardless of training/tapering. Some days you can just give it more and others not for no understandable reason, learn to know your body and race on feel.

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I think sweet spot or training at or near FTP has become far too fashionable.

Do you think the principle of specificity is too fashionable? - since you aim this at TTers, for whom specific training would basically mean L4.

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

Perhaps because many people don't have the time to 'get the miles in' these days?

No doubt that is part of it but I think also many assume spending their limited time available at or near FTP or threshold is more effective because it generates more TSS points per hour than riding at mostly lower intensities most days then doing some very specific intervals at much higher intensities on hard days.

It depends what you mean by 'effective'. I would argue that it is a good way to train at certain times of year. In a polarized approach, how effective are e.g. 1 minute intervals in November?

Max Bridges wrote:

The fashion now is to accumulate TSS points. In the past it was adding up miles. When heart rate monitors came out the fashion was for adding up heart beats, now with power meters it is adding up watts and playing with mathematical models.

There is more to training than any of these fashions.

They are ways of quantifying training load. If you have some evidence that anyone thinks they are any more than that, show it. Until then, please stop being so effing patronising.

Specificity specificity specificity. Here is the paradox, if that were true all a 25 mile timetriallist would have to do is ride 25 miles as hard as he can 4 or 5 times a week. Does that work?

As for TSS points and power duration mathematical models and power analysis software and ignoring heart rate, all that is, is a fashionable way of quantifying training load, we agree there.

Max Bridges

Team4Luke wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

If training at or just under or just above FTP is so effective, how come so few people improve by racing every week? So many timetriallists seem to lose form as the season goes on yet by definition riding 10s above FTP and 25s at FTP and 50s etc under FTP should be optimal training. Perhaps riding at FTP does not in fact improve FTP? Doing a lot of training at or around FTP seems to work only for a limited number of weeks before stagnation.

Should a Polorised approach be considered?

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

because they underperform in the race by riding at set power and not at the threshold they may be able to achieve that particular day, because like I keep saying the body is different every single day you wake up regardless of training/tapering. Some days you can just give it more and others not for no understandable reason, learn to know your body and race on feel.

I agree, feel is more important than any numbers. Not only for racing, how you feel should also dictate what training you do and when you do it and how you do it and when to rest. Learning how to race and train by feel is far better than relying on watts output and TSS points. Man is not a machine or a mathematical model.

charlie_potatoes

Max Bridges wrote:

I agree, feel is more important than any numbers. Not only for racing, how you feel should also dictate what training you do and when you do it and how you do it and when to rest. Learning how to race and train by feel is far better than relying on watts output and TSS points. Man is not a machine or a mathematical model.

But some of my best training sessions have been when I have felt knackered/sore legs or just not really feeling up for it.
If I went by how I was feeling then I'd be doing a lot of recovery rides? :oops:

ozzzyosborn206

BenderRodriguez wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

if you are doing the same level races you are going to stagnate because you adapt to that level and then do not continue to push, I would bet if you were to race every week but race at a higher level as and when you are able to you would continue to improve.

I would think that most people don't 'stagnate'. Rather, they simply reach the natural limits of their ability, and once this happens no amount of racing harder events and such is going to change things much.

Despite the traditional fetish that is made of 'work', the level you perform at is largely a matter of what genes you have. Sure, you still need to train to make the best of what you have been gifted but, for example, one's VO2 max will in all likelihood be at 98% plus of what it ever will be after perhaps just 6 months of dedicated training. One's lactate shuttle system can be developed for perhaps a couple of more seasons, and one's efficiency can always be improved, although this give marginal gains.

That said you might be one of the unfortunates for whom training has next to no benefit, no matter how much they do or what form it takes!

I'm not saying that you are wrong when you say genetics are the main limiter on how good you can become, but I doubt many people actually reach their full potential due to reasons that have nothing to do with what genes they have. I also believe that the majority of people could make it to continental level if they dedicated enough of their time and money to doing it. I bet lots of people get to a certain level and then use their genetics as an excuse as to why they cannot continue to see improvements

Tom Dean

Max Bridges wrote:

Specificity specificity specificity. Here is the paradox, if that were true all a 25 mile timetriallist would have to do is ride 25 miles as hard as he can 4 or 5 times a week. Does that work?

It might, in certain circumstances. I don't really see the logic though - 'as hard as he can' is not necessarily race intensity and you have pulled '4 or 5 times a week' out of your ass. Whatever, I repeat that no-one is advocating training like this. The principle of specificity does not require that 100% of training time be spent at race intensity.

Please explain why you think spending 0% at race intensity is a good idea.

Max Bridges wrote:

As for TSS points and power duration mathematical models and power analysis software and ignoring heart rate, all that is, is a fashionable way of quantifying training load, we agree there.

I think these methods become fashionable when people find that they work.

Max Bridges

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I agree, feel is more important than any numbers. Not only for racing, how you feel should also dictate what training you do and when you do it and how you do it and when to rest. Learning how to race and train by feel is far better than relying on watts output and TSS points. Man is not a machine or a mathematical model.

But some of my best training sessions have been when I have felt knackered/sore legs or just not really feeling up for it.
If I went by how I was feeling then I'd be doing a lot of recovery rides? :oops:

By feel does not mean be lazy. But how do you define a best training session?

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

Specificity specificity specificity. Here is the paradox, if that were true all a 25 mile timetriallist would have to do is ride 25 miles as hard as he can 4 or 5 times a week. Does that work?

It might, in certain circumstances. I don't really see the logic though - 'as hard as he can' is not necessarily race intensity and you have pulled '4 or 5 times a week' out of your ass. Whatever, I repeat that no-one is advocating training like this. The principle of specificity does not require that 100% of training time be spent at race intensity.

Please explain why you think spending 0% at race intensity is a good idea.

Max Bridges wrote:

As for TSS points and power duration mathematical models and power analysis software and ignoring heart rate, all that is, is a fashionable way of quantifying training load, we agree there.

I think these methods become fashionable when people find that they work.

I don't advocate doing no training at race intensity.

charlie_potatoes

Max Bridges wrote:

By feel does not mean be lazy. But how do you define a best training session?

I mean struggling through the warm up and sometimes the first interval and then it often all comes together and I'm easily hitting/exceeding the numbers. I'm the opposite of lazy when it comes to cycling but there are always days when you have to find some extra motivation. I have only backed out of one interval session this winter when I felt too fatigued to carry on.

BenderRodriguez

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

I also believe that the majority of people could make it to continental level if they dedicated enough of their time and money to doing it.

Fantasy I am afraid...

To start with one would need to be right up in the upper tail of the distribution curve for V02 capacity, which is genetically determined, AND amongst that select group also fall in the upper part of the distribution curve for responsiveness to training, ability to recover and a whole host of other things. One in every 1000 might have what it takes, perhaps a lot less, but certainly not 'the majority of people'. I have known a lot of talented riders, some of whom even earned a living at the sport, and even they recognised the huge gulf between themselves and the pukka continental pros that no amount of coaching, training or anything else could bridge.

As Michael Hutchinson said in his book The Hour, this truth is often ignored, largely because we live in a world dominated by the myth that with 'hard work' you can be whatever you want to be. (And in turn the parallel myth that those who reach the top in any field deserve all they get because they must have 'worked' for it.) The reality is that 'The meritocracy myth' is one of the biggest confidence tricks of our age, propagated by the lucky, well-connected and wealthy '1%' in order to justify the continuation of the status quo, as well as continuing to blame, demonize and exploit those who don't 'succeed'.

It has to be said, sport is one area that is ruthlessly and cynically exploited in order to push this world view. Just look how Armstrong was portrayed as the living embodiment of 'The American dream', beating all-comers by virtue of his dedication to 'busting his ass six hours a day'. Appropriately enough, Armstrong himself has now been proven to be just another fraud.

Anyhow, on the subject of 'Hutch' here are some of his words of wisdom from his book The Hour. (A great read, by the way.)

The concept of physical training - all physical training – is a simple one. You subject your body to a physical stress. It adapts to the stress, and grows stronger. In short, the more you do it, the better you get. However, for the hundreds of university exercise physiology departments around the world to justify their existence, this simplicity has to be played down. In all areas of life, the more complicated it looks, the easier it is to get funding for it. (For instance, it’s easier to get money to develop a stealth fighter than fund a health-care system. But I digress.)

Fortunately most of the difficulty that the physiologists deal with concerns why training works. If you’re an athlete, you can trust that it does, and go back to keeping it simple.

For aerobic endurance events, from cycling to marathon running to long-distance kayaking, the basic model usually works like this. You spend a while doing long, slow to moderately paced training. The exact length of ‘long’ depends on your boredom threshold as much as anything else. I used to manage six- and seven-hour training rides, but as I got older I found I couldn’t cope with that kind of thing any more.

Interestingly, cutting down the length of the rides didn’t seem to make much difference to the response I got to them. Initially I found that a bit depressing; all those wasted hours. Then I met an exercise physiologist who assured me that the long, long rides were still part of the equation, they were still ‘in my legs’ as the traditional expression has it. An eminent physiologist recently came up with the notion that a major determinant of cycling ability was simply the number of pedal revolutions you had clocked up in your life. Naturally this embarrassingly simple idea was hushed up.

After a few weeks or months of the long, slow (dull) rides, you move into a phase of final preparation. Six to eight weeks before your major target you start what is often known as ‘speedwork’. Total volume of training is reduced, but you incorporate faster rides. Often these are races, or sometimes ‘interval’ sessions, where you alternate riding hard and riding easy. How long the effort and recovery periods are, and how many efforts you make in total, are matters clearly liable to become quite complicated quite quickly, hence the enthusiasm for interval sessions in physiology departments the world over.

The speedwork, on top of the longer easy base, hopefully brings you to a peak of condition to coincide with the target, where you wipe the floor with the opposition and send them home, their bodies and minds destroyed. Hopefully.

It’s not foolproof. The human body is a wilful thing. You never get the same response twice; sometimes the peak of fitness takes ten weeks of speedwork, sometimes four. Sometimes you can do three hard sessions in a week, sometimes only one. There is an art to training; to feel the fatigue levels exactly, so that you can back off before you overdo it, or know to press on when things are going well. Elite athletes, especially old, creaky ones such as myself, have to be able to read their body’s signals. A scratch taking too long to heal, odd facial spots, dizziness on standing up suddenly – things like that are my alarm bells that I’m training too hard. Eventually I go deaf in my right ear, at which point it is definitely time to take it a little easier.

There is a dirty secret about training – one that no one tells because it undermines a fundamental modern belief. It is this: you can’t be anything you want to be. Not so far as sport is concerned anyway. You have to train, but for all except a lucky handful it’s not enough. The greater part of athletic ability seems to be genetic rather than trained.

A very rough guide to endurance athletic ability is a thing called VO2 max: it’s a measure of how much oxygen you can use at full stretch, and it indicates the size of your endurance ‘engine’. It’s expressed in terms of millilitres per minute, usually per kilo so that you can compare athletes of different sizes. An average for my age group and sex would be about 50. My highest measured value in the hour-record season was 83ml/m/kg. Training does not have all that much of an effect on VO2 max. For most people a 15 per cent improvement is as much as they can hope for. If we do the obvious sums, we find that the average man of my age might make it to 57.5. Meanwhile, if I had never started training at all, I’d still probably have a figure of 70ml/m/kg. I could turn up to a national championship after a year off and have a good chance of making the top twenty.

VO2 max is a nice simple measure, but it’s not the whole story. There are issues like efficiency: a bit like fuel economy, a question of how much energy you can produce for a given amount of oxygen consumed. Some people adapt better to training than others. But these appear to be largely genetically determined as well. Most people could do the same training I did, or any top athlete did, but they would not be as good. It works both ways: there are plenty of cyclists in the world a lot better than me, and pretty much whatever I do, they will stay better than me.

Max Bridges

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

By feel does not mean be lazy. But how do you define a best training session?

I mean struggling through the warm up and sometimes the first interval and then it often all comes together and I'm easily hitting/exceeding the numbers. I'm the opposite of lazy when it comes to cycling but there are always days when you have to find some extra motivation. I have only backed out of one interval session this winter when I felt too fatigued to carry on.

I had one like that today. Felt under par in the warm up and was on the point of easing off after 10 minutes but ended up putting in a hard 2 minutes at the end above what I planned. Often I find how easy or hard I find sessions tells me more than the numbers themselves. Today was a god example, I did a lot yesterday but despite feeling yesterday in the legs, what I did today was only 3 watts down on what was my best ever at the end of October, and I had plenty in reserve, heart rate, breathing and leg feel.

ozzzyosborn206

just out of interest bender, what level do you race at, and how long have you raced?

ps. when i say continental, i mean being on a UCI ranked conti team such as Rapha, NFTO etc.

BenderRodriguez

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

just out of interest bender, what level do you race at, and how long have you raced

I am now in my 50's and no longer really race. Instead I am riding a few Alpine 'sportives' and so forth. (Looking to do under 8 hours in the Marmotte this year.) When I was in my late 30's I regularly pulled out 20 minute 10s, doing around a '54' for a 25 and able to get into the top half dozen in E/1/2 events as long as the course wasn't hilly. First race was in 1974. When I am 'going well' (relatively speaking) my performance ceiling has not varied much over the last 30-odd years, no matter what I have tried to improve things, including, I am ashamed to say, being a habitual 'winter warrior' for many years. :oops:

Tom Dean

Max Bridges wrote:

I don't advocate doing no training at race intensity.

This clearly addresses all the issues I have raised in this thread. Thank you.

DeVlaeminck

BenderRodriguez wrote:

ozzzyosborn206 wrote:

I also believe that the majority of people could make it to continental level if they dedicated enough of their time and money to doing it.

Fantasy I am afraid...

........ One in every 1000 might have what it takes, perhaps a lot less, but certainly not 'the majority of people'. I have known a lot of talented riders, some of whom even earned a living at the sport, and even they recognised the huge gulf between themselves and the pukka continental pros that no amount of coaching, training or anything else could bridge.

[/quote]


OK so the majority of people would have no chance - but 1 in a 1000 seems a bit of an underestimate. If you have been around racing a while you will know people that have made it as lesser pro riders and you'll also know others with as much talent who - for whatever reason - didn't. The majority of those racing now didn't get into the sport until they were past the age when a pro career was a possibility - of those that were young enough I'd suggest that quite a few more than 1 in a thousand have the talent.

BenderRodriguez

DeVlaeminck wrote:

OK so the majority of people would have no chance - but 1 in a 1000 seems a bit of an underestimate. If you have been around racing a while you will know people that have made it as lesser pro riders and you'll also know others with as much talent who - for whatever reason - didn't.

I would certainly agree that, even if you have the genetic ability, this is still no guarantee that you will succeed, so the pool of those who truly 'have what it takes' is actually even smaller.

The problem with this 'I know someone who made it' type of thinking is that it tends to vastly underestimate the base rate, that is the number of people why tried and didn't succeed. In 40-odd years of cycling I must have personally known thousands of riders, and yet I know one rider who had the ability to make a modest living from their winnings from the French amateur scene. (And this back in the day when that scene was many times bigger than it is now, with many times more events and more money up for grabs.) I know one other who 'turned pro' in Holland, but he was essentially a fantasist who, aided by the copious use of drugs, managed to hang on for the first couple of hours in a few local kermesses.

Rolf Debelli's book The art of thinking contains an essay on 'Survivorship bias' in which he discusses exactly this point:

In daily life, because triumph is made more visible than failure, you systematically overestimate your chances of succeeding.

...Behind every popular author you can find 100 other writers whose books will never sell. Behind them are another 100 who haven't found publishers. Behind them are yet another 100 hos unfinished manuscripts gather dust in drawers. And behind each one of these are 100 people who dream of -one day- writing a book. You, however, hear of only the successful authors ... and fail to recognise how unlikely literary success is. The same goes for photographers, entrepreneurs, artists, athletes, architects, Nobel prize winners, television presenters and beauty queens.

Of course this does not mean that you should not try, but when you have given it your best shot and failed, don't blame yourself, or allow others to tell you that 'you simply didn't want it enough'. It is a harsh reality but for the vast majority 'failure' (as measured against the 'winners') is the norm, not success.

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

I don't advocate doing no training at race intensity.

This clearly addresses all the issues I have raised in this thread. Thank you.

I think you should read the article I originally posted.

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Tom Dean

I read this part

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question.

did you miss it?

DeVlaeminck

BenderRodriguez wrote:

[

The problem with this 'I know someone who made it' type of thinking is that it tends to vastly underestimate the base rate, that is the number of people why tried and didn't succeed. In 40-odd years of cycling I must have personally known thousands of riders, and yet I know one rider who had the ability to make a modest living from their winnings from the French amateur scene. (And this back in the day when that scene was many times bigger than it is now, with many times more events and more money up for grabs.) I know one other who 'turned pro' in Holland, but he was essentially a fantasist who, aided by the copious use of drugs, managed to hang on for the first couple of hours in a few local kermesses.

.

I've been cycling for less time at a lower level and I've known more people who have made a living out of it than that. Of those with the genetic talent very few actually take up cycling as kids and give it a good go, then of those that do how many are in the right place at the right time, get the right advice, stay fit, stick with it etc.

The physiological talent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making it big, it's almost certain that the most talented Tour rider in Britain isn't even a competitive bike rider, they probably play football or swimming or do no sport at all. Then there are those that were lucky enough to find the sport but also found drinking, women, sleeping or got injured or whatever.

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

I read this part

BenderRodriguez wrote:

Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question.

did you miss it?

The fact there are almost no published studies merely proves my point. People assume they are training optimally when an alternative method has yet to be studied and tested. People have closed minds and react badly to being asked perfectly reasonable questions. If you took the trouble to read on you would have seen this,

Intensity for Recreational Athletes
Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question. Recently Esteve-Lanao (personal communication) completed an interesting study on recreational runners comparing a program that was designed to reproduce the polarized training of successful endurance athletes and compare it with a program built around much more threshold training in keeping with the ACSM exercise guidelines. The intended intensity distribution for the two training groups was: Polarized 77-3-20 % and ACSM 46-35-19 % for Zones 1, 2, and 3. However, heart-rate monitoring revealed that the actual distribution was: Polarized 65-21-14 % and ACSM 31-56-13 %. End quote.

Now what I'm doing is keeping an open mind and questioning what seems to be the fashionable way to train, and asking if there might be a superior approach.

Tom Dean

Max Bridges wrote:

The fact there are almost no published studies merely proves my point.

Hilarious.

Max Bridges wrote:

People assume they are training optimally when an alternative method has yet to be studied and tested. People have closed minds and react badly to being asked perfectly reasonable questions.

No, people do the best they can with the information available. Should I change my training based on information that is not available?

Max Bridges wrote:

If you took the trouble to read on you would have seen this,

Intensity for Recreational Athletes
Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question... <something about recreational runners>...

And?

Max Bridges wrote:

Now what I'm doing is keeping an open mind and questioning what seems to be the fashionable way to train, and asking if there might be a superior approach.

Good for you. I am interested in the answer to that question, although the premise of what this fashion consists of seems rather confused. At this stage, none of what you are saying is of any use to anyone. Makes a change :P

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Max Bridges wrote:

The fact there are almost no published studies merely proves my point.

Hilarious.

Max Bridges wrote:

People assume they are training optimally when an alternative method has yet to be studied and tested. People have closed minds and react badly to being asked perfectly reasonable questions.

No, people do the best they can with the information available. Should I change my training based on information that is not available?

Max Bridges wrote:

If you took the trouble to read on you would have seen this,

Intensity for Recreational Athletes
Elite endurance athletes train 10-12 sessions and 15-30 h each week. Is the pattern of 80 % below and 20 % above lactate threshold appropriate for recreational athletes training 4-5 times and 6-10 hours per week? There are almost no published data addressing this question... <something about recreational runners>...

And?

Max Bridges wrote:

Now what I'm doing is keeping an open mind and questioning what seems to be the fashionable way to train, and asking if there might be a superior approach.

Good for you. I am interested in the answer to that question, although the premise of what this fashion consists of seems rather confused. At this stage, none of what you are saying is of any use to anyone. Makes a change :P

Tom, do try to keep calm and stop getting personal.

The article by Stephen Seiler is worth reading and his ideas worth considering. As is this by Dr Coggan, who's views on 'sweet' spot are fashionable.

http://www.freewebs.com/velodynamics2/loadeffect.pdf

Tom Dean

Sorry Trev, this: :P was meant to denote light-hearted joke.

I never said anything was not worth considering.

Do you have a problem with the concept of sweet spot?

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Sorry Trev, this: :P was meant to denote light-hearted joke.

I never said anything was not worth considering.

Do you have a problem with the concept of sweet spot?

No not at all, but over the years I have found it loses it's effectiveness after 6 to 8 weeks, running rowing or cycling. So I'm interested in a Polorised approach as an alternative. I can always smack in a few weeks of threshold when I need to, as I know exactly how much and for how long I need to do it.

Tom Dean

So intensity distributions that could be described as polarised and non- or less- polarised both have their uses in a cycle of periodisation?

I ask because up til now it looks like you were arguing for one over the other.

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

So intensity distributions that could be described as polarised and non- or less- polarised both have their uses in a cycle of periodisation?

I ask because up til now it looks like you were arguing for one over the other.

No, I'm experimenting with a more Polorised approach, and was trying to stimulate debate. In fact my natural bias is always towards shorter harder efforts as I find easy all day level 2 pace excruciatingly boring. I can't really bring myself to believe 3 x 20 min on a Wattbike at level 2 is better than 20 min at FTP. But I'm prepared to try things.

I like to test the veracity of opinions and views, sometimes that means I have to argue an opposing view or opinion because so few are prepared to question accepted wisdom. L

Tom Dean

Whether 3x20 L2 is 'better' than 1x20 L4 is entirely dependent on the situation. Good luck with trying a different approach but why do you assume the choice is a clear either/or?

Max Bridges

Tom Dean wrote:

Whether 3x20 L2 is 'better' than 1x20 L4 is entirely dependent on the situation. Good luck with trying a different approach but why do you assume the choice is a clear either/or?

I don't think it is, but for me, who has been doing lots of sweet spot, hardly any level 2 and hardly any intervals, a Polorised approach is going to be a big change.

BenderRodriguez

Max Bridges wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

Do you have a problem with the concept of sweet spot?

No not at all, but over the years I have found it loses it's effectiveness after 6 to 8 weeks...

You could probably say the same about almost any training load....

What's more, no one can continue to get better indefinitely.