Sweetspot vs. "polarised training" for increasing FTP
neeb
Posts: 4,473
Anyone else see the article by Andrew Hamilton in the current issue of "Cycling Active"? It's a nice non-technical summary of exercise metabolism, but he was also really plugging the idea (as I read it) that counter to intuition and common sense, the best way to increase FTP is not to train at or just below FTP, but to combine a high volume of low intensity work with a smaller volume of high intensity work well above FTP (e.g. 4 sets of 4 mins at 90-95% Mhr, so I guess about 105-120% FTP?). But even if you aren't doing the large volume of low intensity stuff, the high intensity training alone supposedly works better than training at FTP..
This seems to be almost the exact opposite of the idea of sweetspot training, i.e. that the most efficient way to increase FTP is to train at about 90% FTP (combining most of the advantages of training at threshold with considerably less fatigue and thus greater repeatability).
Both of these ideas seem to be based on solid evidence and widely recommended, but surely they can't both be right?
If I did nothing else, would I increase my FTP faster by doing 2x20s at 90% FTP, or 4x4s at 110-115% FTP?
This seems to be almost the exact opposite of the idea of sweetspot training, i.e. that the most efficient way to increase FTP is to train at about 90% FTP (combining most of the advantages of training at threshold with considerably less fatigue and thus greater repeatability).
Both of these ideas seem to be based on solid evidence and widely recommended, but surely they can't both be right?
If I did nothing else, would I increase my FTP faster by doing 2x20s at 90% FTP, or 4x4s at 110-115% FTP?
0
Comments
-
It depends on how you respond.
I improved loads last 2 years by doing z2 work interspersed with intervals of varying length at threshold HR zone (Threshold Bpm down to 10w below) which is pretty much sweet spot and some at my Maximal Aerobic Power (these were during race season to keep me 'topped up' without hammering the volume).
All the zones garnered through lab testing every 3-4 months.
My z2 HR has gone from me doing 160-170ish watts to 210-220ish.
FTP 230 to 280 (or 300 on the road bike) although it's slipped a bit since I had an operation a couple of months ago. The maximal stuff was 3 minutes at my tested max Aerobic power.Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
So you were almost taking both approaches. The data cited in the Hamilton article compared three groups, one doing +/- sweetspot/FTP level work, another doing only high intensity, and a third combining high intensity with lots of z2 ish work (he calls it zone 1 in the article but referring to a simple three zone system). The third ("polarised") group had the biggest gains, followed by the HIT only group, with the sweetspot/FTP group last. But there wasn't any comparison with a group combining sweetspot with HIT. Maybe if you don't have the time during the winter to do the high volume z2 work, sweetspot stuff can plug the gap to some extent?It depends on how you respond.
I improved loads last 2 years by doing z2 work interspersed with intervals of varying length at threshold HR zone (Threshold Bpm down to 10w below) which is pretty much sweet spot and some at my Maximal Aerobic Power (these were during race season to keep me 'topped up' without hammering the volume).
All the zones garnered through lab testing every 3-4 months.
My z2 HR has gone from me doing 160-170ish watts to 210-220ish.
FTP 230 to 280 (or 300 on the road bike) although it's slipped a bit since I had an operation a couple of months ago. The maximal stuff was 3 minutes at my tested max Aerobic power.
In my case I think I'm a slow responder. I've lost about 10-20w at FTP in the past 18 months due to moving, starting a new job, then latterly a couple of viruses in succession the autumn/early winter. But for me that's a fairly massive dip and the lowest I've been in about 6 years. Previously I might have lost, say, 10 watts over a fairly short period and then quickly regained it again, but this drop seems to be harder to reverse because I suspect it's happened more gradually over a longer period. But I'm ready now to put in some serious effort over the next few months (it'll need to be all indoors during the week until the clocks change..).0 -
Good article. Thanks0
-
Yes, interesting article. Seems to be saying similar things to Andrew Hamilton (probably based on the same studies).
I wonder though how it works if you are "time crunched" and can't do very large quantities of low intensity work. Intuitively it would seem better to do a lower volume of FTP work rather than a lower volume of low intensity work (combined with the high intensity stuff).0 -
not seen the article, but they selling point of sweetspot work is that it improves your ftp but doesn't put massive strain on you so you can train hard again the next day which you can't do when doing the really high intensity interval sessions. It depends how much your are training a week, if your only doing 2/3 sessions mon-fri then you probably best of doing the higher intensity stuff, if your training everyday then you'd be better of doing more sweetspot stuff as your CTL wouldn't climb as quickly then0
-
I am following the high volume low intensity method with high intensity efforts mixed in. I think it is working. You do have to learn to manage tired legs but oddly enough after a few month you perform with tired legs. It is odd. The coach I use thinks sweat spot or time crunched training is not the best way either. However 20 hrs a weeks is too much time for many but to do the high volume method this it what it takes apparantly so I am doing it.
I am inclined to agree as I tried "sweat spot" and all it did was leave with very variable performance although FTP did increase so it did that.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
Anyone else see the article by Andrew Hamilton in the current issue of "Cycling Active"? It's a nice non-technical summary of exercise metabolism, but he was also really plugging the idea (as I read it) that counter to intuition and common sense, the best way to increase FTP is not to train at or just below FTP, but to combine a high volume of low intensity work with a smaller volume of high intensity work well above FTP (e.g. 4 sets of 4 mins at 90-95% Mhr, so I guess about 105-120% FTP?). But even if you aren't doing the large volume of low intensity stuff, the high intensity training alone supposedly works better than training at FTP..
This seems to be almost the exact opposite of the idea of sweetspot training, i.e. that the most efficient way to increase FTP is to train at about 90% FTP (combining most of the advantages of training at threshold with considerably less fatigue and thus greater repeatability).
Both of these ideas seem to be based on solid evidence and widely recommended, but surely they can't both be right?
If I did nothing else, would I increase my FTP faster by doing 2x20s at 90% FTP, or 4x4s at 110-115% FTP?
Beware advice that says there is an optimal way to train and it is "X". Simple fact is there is no single optimal strategy that works for everyone. That's why the principle of individualisation is important.
The polarised strategy emerges from study of elite aerobic athletes who do large volumes of training. If you do large volumes of training it goes without saying that your training, if it includes some intensity, will at best be polarised. It would be nigh on impossible to train with a high proportion of intensity when volumes are high.
Sure polarised training works, as does a sweet spot approach, as do 3 weeks on / 1 week recovery, or time crunched training as do lots of other methods, systems or training fads promoted by various folk. They generally work because they still follow some broad training principles, but as to what is optimal for an individual, well that depends, as does what is right for an individual now as opposed to at another time.0 -
I am following the high volume low intensity method with high intensity efforts mixed in. I think it is working. You do have to learn to manage tired legs but oddly enough after a few month you perform with tired legs. It is odd. The coach I use thinks sweat spot or time crunched training is not the best way either. However 20 hrs a weeks is too much time for many but to do the high volume method this it what it takes apparantly so I am doing it.
I am inclined to agree as I tried "sweat spot" and all it did was leave with very variable performance although FTP did increase so it did that.
Say if you were doing high volume though - like your 20 hours - that would mean a lot of high intensity stuff if you followed the advice in that article about polarised training (not saying you are). 15-20% of your time at over 106% of your 1 hour power would be a big ask I'd have thought. What kind of high intensity are you putting into the mix and how much ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
This week not alot of intensity there is ice about and it too cold.
A normal week looks like 2hrs morning 6 days a week 1 hrs evening (evening rides are normally easy) 6 days a week sunday 4 to 5 hrs endurance pace.some rides are shorter depenidng on life stuff.
Within that time i do;
hills reps on a 6 min hill 4 times at ftp two are above ftp once or twice a week then easy in between then ride for hour,
Sub threshold very low cadance hill intervals (35 rpm to 45 rpm) 8x 3mins roughly or however long the hill is.
Some HIT 3 minite intervals. I dont do enough of these.
One ride a week is in at pressing on pace (that at about 2hrs a week).
2 mid week endurance rides.
Sunday is a 5 hrs ride at an endurance pace. Morning rides are normally 2hrs 6 days a week and this is where the i do the training. Ride home is 1hrs but this is at a steady pace.
Ice means i am just riding straight to work and home again without an intensity but that means my legs get a well needed rest.
A good 20% of my riding time is spent doing intense stuff. If i do too much i have to back of the intensity the following week for my legs to recover (like this week for example), getting it right is tricky. I know it is working though as my recovery times are coming down.
Sweat spot does not work for me as i refuse to spend a second on a turbo. Everyone i know who makes the sweatpost method work has diet of turbo work. I would rather gut myself than spend a second on one as i find the prospect that unappealing. Different strokes for different folks.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
The thought of long intervals on a turbo kill me. And by long I only mean 20 mins lol. Even if its only at tempo or whatever. Whereas on the road sweetspot for an hour is easily do-able especially on a short evening ride.0
-
We're all different I guess! I absolutely love riding my bike, but there's no way I would want to do it for 20 hours plus a week while also holding down a full time job. Apart from the fact l'd be riding in the dark for half the year, l'd pretty much be spending all of my free, awake time on the bike, and if my life became just work and cycling I'd quickly lose motivation, there are too many other things I also want to do.
I don't mind regular turbo sessions in the winter. An hour (to an hour and a half at max) is about my limit and I can happily manage that a majority of evenings during the week. They're no less and no more enjoyable than, say, running, but as soon as the clocks change I'll abandon them for regular weekday evening rides.0
