Hate to turn this into an 80/20 talk but the whole concept around 80/20 isnt that someone made it up, its what people area actually doing and having success with! So you cant say it doesnt work?! Having said that, I have NEVER been quite sure where Seiler puts threshold work? If he puts it at the top end of the "80" the 80/20 holds up. If Threshold is "no mans land or part of the "20", then something is off. Do we have a sure answer to what constitutes the 80? Is is everything below interval/vos2 max training? I think the 80/20 is impossible to follow unless we know where tempo threshold is.
My understanding of 80/20 is:
80% 75% of max hr and below
20% 88% of max hr and above
The middle/moderate zone is AeT/marathon type pace. Spend little time in this zone.
The exact numbers change a bit depending on what studies they are quoting. At the top end it is largely about do you count HM/mp work.
There is a lot of ancedotical evidence that doing a lot of volume around mp is tolerable and leads to good aerobic growth. See the classic Lydiard base with those hour runs at 3/4 intensity. It doesn't test as well as higher intensity in 8 week studies but that is to be expected. There is a reason why people do peaking phases.
Does anybody experienced with innacurate lactate reading from finger? I have some troubles while taking samples from fingers, during relatively outside temperature around +15 degree celcius, my hands are always quite cold due to might be poor blood circulation🤦♂️. How do I suppose to take samples in order to minimize the error?:
1) use gloves?
2) maybr take from leg?
3) from ear is not possible to do so fast when you are running along and withing 60s rest.. and you need to carry a mirror too, it is very unusefull... 😏
4) some other ideas?
Definitely use gloves if you hands are prone to being cold.
Whats your protocol for taking the sample? Puncture, wipe, take the second drop?
Some below info might be helpfull, if you don't want to buy a lactate meter:
1) AM session pace - MP+5÷10s or slowest range of the Tinman calculator "Easy tempo"
2) PM session 10x3min -fastest range of the Tinman calculator "Tempo"
3) PM session 25x400-slowest range of the Tinman calculator "CV"
More higher VDOT value has a runner more closer his AM session will be to the marathon pace and PM sessions to the threshold pace and to the fastest range of the CV and faster...
Above mentioned ranges are good starting point in order not to be busted after couple of weeks.
Hate to turn this into an 80/20 talk but the whole concept around 80/20 isnt that someone made it up, its what people area actually doing and having success with! So you cant say it doesnt work?! Having said that, I have NEVER been quite sure where Seiler puts threshold work? If he puts it at the top end of the "80" the 80/20 holds up. If Threshold is "no mans land or part of the "20", then something is off. Do we have a sure answer to what constitutes the 80? Is is everything below interval/vos2 max training? I think the 80/20 is impossible to follow unless we know where tempo threshold is.
My understanding of 80/20 is:
80% 75% of max hr and below
20% 88% of max hr and above
The middle/moderate zone is AeT/marathon type pace. Spend little time in this zone.
So the Norweigan threshold model has basically nothing to do with Seiler's polarized training model.
For the bulk of the training, the Norweigan threshold model essentially looks like trying to get a lot of sub-threshold running done with a very small fraction of running done at around VO2 max or faster - some 200m repeats uphill etc...
In many ways the Norweigan threshold model looks like a more scientific and regulated version of Lydiard who essentially proposed doing a lot of fast but relaxed aerobic runs....
The middle/moderate zone is AeT/marathon type pace. Spend little time in this zone.
So the Norweigan threshold model has basically nothing to do with Seiler's polarized training model.
For the bulk of the training, the Norweigan threshold model essentially looks like trying to get a lot of sub-threshold running done with a very small fraction of running done at around VO2 max or faster - some 200m repeats uphill etc...
In many ways the Norweigan threshold model looks like a more scientific and regulated version of Lydiard who essentially proposed doing a lot of fast but relaxed aerobic runs....
I'd say its still polarized. Those morning Thresholds are almost Zone 1 in a 3 Zone model, so i wouldnt count them in the 20%.
Think of the 3 zones as 1: Up to LT1, 2: LT1-LT2, 3: LT2-beyond
Your action, when you ran for ex. 6x30s @03:10min/km hill sprints with 60s rest and got lactate after last one 8.4 mmol (+-4.5% manufactured error of the device) and you want lactate to be <8mmol:
lexel: My question is, do you think Tinman's "Threshold" pace on his calculator is faster or slower than your TH60 pace? Or do you think Tinman's "CV" pace is faster or slower than your CV pace? Or do they both differ? Thanks
So, I calculated now CV pace and %CV for Lauren, based on 15:16 for 5K race: CV pace: around 03:11/km 10k: 99,8% CV (as mentioned a hair below CV) LT1 is 3:50 : 83% CV LT2 is 3:20-3:22: 95%CV (50-60 minutes pace, e.g PM 10 x 1km at LT2 with 60" rest, exactly same unit as Ingebrigtsen does) Easy paces: 05:00/km to 04:50/km: around 65%CV, which is surprisingly very low
Tinman calculator (see slide ‘training paces’): CV pace: 03:14-03:10 LT1: between easy tempo and moderate Tinman category (these are just names) LT2: Threshold category, so I would say Tinmans ‘Threshold’ is 95%CV pace 04:50/km: just on the slowest ‘very easy’ Tinman category 05:00/km: not on the calculation list 😊
👏👏👏
To the same paces ratio I came thrue the multiple lactate tests trials & errors:
AM 5x6min even for the athlete like 5K@15:16 should be not at MP pace like many posters mentioned here, no way! It must be way too slower! I would confirm that the difference between LT2 pace at 10x3min around 30s slower for me!!! Otherwise your lactate will not be in proper range and you will be busted after of couple of weeks for sure....👏🤣
Regarding debatable 25x400 @10K/30s rest, Sage Canaday noted and nailed! This is another nonsence here, yes, for top athlete the speed might be @10K, but for joggers and even for athlete like Lauren, no f@cking way it is 10K pace... and the rest way longer than 30s, toward 1:2/1:1.5, it is threshold pace and maybe 3-5s slower.
On threadmill all 3 paces:5×6min; 10x3min; 25x400 will be again different! I studied Ingebrigtsen brother Krisstofer all his training on strava with lactate and interesring thing is that his lactate value much slower on a treadmill than outdoor, ok, some of his treadmill might be not calibrated, but anyway, the difference is huge and noticeable paces ratio difference!
Without lactate meter and lab threshold test it is absolutely impossible to set up correctly all 3 paces for yourself, as all are different and this pace ratio also will be very different, more complicated is that the pace ratio is not fixed, but will change upon you complete more and more threshold weeks and as soon as you approach to your peak period...
Regarding more FT runners, picture might get more complicated, as you need more multitear system and those AM/PM pace ratio definitely should be a different (more lactate at the evening session), I think Tinman knows this very well and have a lot of success with it and other coaches, I noticed for myself if PM session closer to my CV pace (even if lactate goes way higher than my LT2) works better, and I response better at least during building & peak phases. I did not test yet in lab my LT2, but by some lactate tests and tendency for better response to more CV oriented training I would say that it is closer to 4.5mmol rather than to 3.0 mmol.
So the Norweigan threshold model has basically nothing to do with Seiler's polarized training model.
For the bulk of the training, the Norweigan threshold model essentially looks like trying to get a lot of sub-threshold running done with a very small fraction of running done at around VO2 max or faster - some 200m repeats uphill etc...
In many ways the Norweigan threshold model looks like a more scientific and regulated version of Lydiard who essentially proposed doing a lot of fast but relaxed aerobic runs....
I'd say its still polarized. Those morning Thresholds are almost Zone 1 in a 3 Zone model, so i wouldnt count them in the 20%.
Think of the 3 zones as 1: Up to LT1, 2: LT1-LT2, 3: LT2-beyond
No they are zone 2 workouts. The ones you aren't supposed to be doing. You need to squint very hard to fit it into a polarized model when they are clearly doing a pyramid of easy(say 120km), threshold(say 40km), hard(like 3k) in the base phase.
The 3 zone model just doesn't have enough precision to be very useful. A 10mile run at MP+10s/mi or at MP+60, might both be zone 1 runs. One is much harder than the other and you will struggle to do it every day. Same thing at the upper end when the difference between 3k and 10k pace is really noticeable.
At a high level 80/20 basically repeats the standard run easy most of the time with 2-3 hard days/week. Nobody is really going to argue that. I would argue it does help with how easy to run (MP+60s not MP+20) but doesn't help at all with higher end stuff. As an elite athletes should I be doing 8*1 mile at MP pace (thresholdish) or 6*1k at 5k (high intensity) during my base? Research will go those fast 1k will give better results. Experience goes after 8 weeks, you will be fried doing them and stagnate. You will get better results doing threshold work and then 8 weeks before your race doing the specific stuff.
If they backed off definition of intensity to marathon pace instead of about 15k pace, nobody would really argue. Other than progression runs, nobody really advocates running at lot between easy pace and marathon pace... Now the split of fast running between MP and up to 3k pace is debatable. Do you go for the hour of work at MP, 40mins at HM , 25 mins of CV, or 15 mins of vo2? What is the optimal mix? I am not sure anyone can answer that. Doublendouble thresholds work well. But maybe replacing every 4th day with a CV workout would be better... But that is a fine enough level of detail where we don't really have enough evidence to support either one...
She said that it was hard and she blowed off, her pace noticeably dropped at around 32km... a classic wall? But as per her 10K PR & HM PR a marathon time was prety even correlate to 10K×2+7min=HM, HM×2+7min=02:27:×× Marathon 👐
I'd say its still polarized. Those morning Thresholds are almost Zone 1 in a 3 Zone model, so i wouldnt count them in the 20%.
Think of the 3 zones as 1: Up to LT1, 2: LT1-LT2, 3: LT2-beyond
No they are zone 2 workouts. The ones you aren't supposed to be doing. You need to squint very hard to fit it into a polarized model when they are clearly doing a pyramid of easy(say 120km), threshold(say 40km), hard(like 3k) in the base phase.
The 3 zone model just doesn't have enough precision to be very useful. A 10mile run at MP+10s/mi or at MP+60, might both be zone 1 runs. One is much harder than the other and you will struggle to do it every day. Same thing at the upper end when the difference between 3k and 10k pace is really noticeable.
At a high level 80/20 basically repeats the standard run easy most of the time with 2-3 hard days/week. Nobody is really going to argue that. I would argue it does help with how easy to run (MP+60s not MP+20) but doesn't help at all with higher end stuff. As an elite athletes should I be doing 8*1 mile at MP pace (thresholdish) or 6*1k at 5k (high intensity) during my base? Research will go those fast 1k will give better results. Experience goes after 8 weeks, you will be fried doing them and stagnate. You will get better results doing threshold work and then 8 weeks before your race doing the specific stuff.
If they backed off definition of intensity to marathon pace instead of about 15k pace, nobody would really argue. Other than progression runs, nobody really advocates running at lot between easy pace and marathon pace... Now the split of fast running between MP and up to 3k pace is debatable. Do you go for the hour of work at MP, 40mins at HM , 25 mins of CV, or 15 mins of vo2? What is the optimal mix? I am not sure anyone can answer that. Doublendouble thresholds work well. But maybe replacing every 4th day with a CV workout would be better... But that is a fine enough level of detail where we don't really have enough evidence to support either one...
The polarized zone cutoff are lactate not pace. so <2.0mmol, 2-4mmol, >4.0 mmol is not squinting too hard.
Those morning thresholds are under 2.0 mmol in real lactate #s. You’re seeing 2.0-2.2 on a LP2 which always reads high.
So, I calculated now CV pace and %CV for Lauren, based on 15:16 for 5K race: CV pace: around 03:11/km 10k: 99,8% CV (as mentioned a hair below CV) LT1 is 3:50 : 83% CV LT2 is 3:20-3:22: 95%CV (50-60 minutes pace, e.g PM 10 x 1km at LT2 with 60" rest, exactly same unit as Ingebrigtsen does) Easy paces: 05:00/km to 04:50/km: around 65%CV, which is surprisingly very low
Tinman calculator (see slide ‘training paces’): CV pace: 03:14-03:10 LT1: between easy tempo and moderate Tinman category (these are just names) LT2: Threshold category, so I would say Tinmans ‘Threshold’ is 95%CV pace 04:50/km: just on the slowest ‘very easy’ Tinman category 05:00/km: not on the calculation list 😊
👏👏👏
To the same paces ratio I came thrue the multiple lactate tests trials & errors:
AM 5x6min even for the athlete like 5K@15:16 should be not at MP pace like many posters mentioned here, no way! It must be way too slower! I would confirm that the difference between LT2 pace at 10x3min around 30s slower for me!!! Otherwise your lactate will not be in proper range and you will be busted after of couple of weeks for sure....👏🤣
Regarding debatable 25x400 @10K/30s rest, Sage Canaday noted and nailed! This is another nonsence here, yes, for top athlete the speed might be @10K, but for joggers and even for athlete like Lauren, no f@cking way it is 10K pace... and the rest way longer than 30s, toward 1:2/1:1.5, it is threshold pace and maybe 3-5s slower.
On threadmill all 3 paces:5×6min; 10x3min; 25x400 will be again different! I studied Ingebrigtsen brother Krisstofer all his training on strava with lactate and interesring thing is that his lactate value much slower on a treadmill than outdoor, ok, some of his treadmill might be not calibrated, but anyway, the difference is huge and noticeable paces ratio difference!
Without lactate meter and lab threshold test it is absolutely impossible to set up correctly all 3 paces for yourself, as all are different and this pace ratio also will be very different, more complicated is that the pace ratio is not fixed, but will change upon you complete more and more threshold weeks and as soon as you approach to your peak period...
Regarding more FT runners, picture might get more complicated, as you need more multitear system and those AM/PM pace ratio definitely should be a different (more lactate at the evening session), I think Tinman knows this very well and have a lot of success with it and other coaches, I noticed for myself if PM session closer to my CV pace (even if lactate goes way higher than my LT2) works better, and I response better at least during building & peak phases. I did not test yet in lab my LT2, but by some lactate tests and tendency for better response to more CV oriented training I would say that it is closer to 4.5mmol rather than to 3.0 mmol.
Sorry for my english...
Bump
25x400 is definitely around 10k. If you cant do this workout or something similar with 2:1 work to rest ratio and have it be threshold effort you’re not running it correctly.
6 min reps are marathon pace essentially. if you are a 15:15 5k guy you can do 5x6min @ 5:35 pace w/2:00R no problem.
You also ought to be able to do 20-25x400 @:76 w:30-38 seconds Rest with no problem
Also, if you’re not disciplined on both AM and PM sessions youre not going to last more than 3 months doing this system. So, no, 4.5 mmol on your PM sessions is not sustainable unless you’re morning sessions are only some slower non threshold work
No they are zone 2 workouts. The ones you aren't supposed to be doing. You need to squint very hard to fit it into a polarized model when they are clearly doing a pyramid of easy(say 120km), threshold(say 40km), hard(like 3k) in the base phase.
The 3 zone model just doesn't have enough precision to be very useful. A 10mile run at MP+10s/mi or at MP+60, might both be zone 1 runs. One is much harder than the other and you will struggle to do it every day. Same thing at the upper end when the difference between 3k and 10k pace is really noticeable.
At a high level 80/20 basically repeats the standard run easy most of the time with 2-3 hard days/week. Nobody is really going to argue that. I would argue it does help with how easy to run (MP+60s not MP+20) but doesn't help at all with higher end stuff. As an elite athletes should I be doing 8*1 mile at MP pace (thresholdish) or 6*1k at 5k (high intensity) during my base? Research will go those fast 1k will give better results. Experience goes after 8 weeks, you will be fried doing them and stagnate. You will get better results doing threshold work and then 8 weeks before your race doing the specific stuff.
If they backed off definition of intensity to marathon pace instead of about 15k pace, nobody would really argue. Other than progression runs, nobody really advocates running at lot between easy pace and marathon pace... Now the split of fast running between MP and up to 3k pace is debatable. Do you go for the hour of work at MP, 40mins at HM , 25 mins of CV, or 15 mins of vo2? What is the optimal mix? I am not sure anyone can answer that. Doublendouble thresholds work well. But maybe replacing every 4th day with a CV workout would be better... But that is a fine enough level of detail where we don't really have enough evidence to support either one...
The polarized zone cutoff are lactate not pace. so <2.0mmol, 2-4mmol, >4.0 mmol is not squinting too hard.
Those morning thresholds are under 2.0 mmol in real lactate #s. You’re seeing 2.0-2.2 on a LP2 which always reads high.
Supposedly are 2.5 in the morning and 3 at night. I.e. solid zone 2 workouts. Note they are using numbers from testing and their LT isn't at 4. It is right around 3. 2 and 4 are good starting points but you need to use your athletes actual values not those for populations.
But sure call them zone 1 workouts. You still aren't doing polarized training. Polarized training doesn't say do 80% of the work in zone 1. It says do 80% easy. Easy is down at ~70% hr and lactates closer to 1 than 2.
You would be better off arguing that they are really zone 3 workouts. But they really aren't. They are zone 2 workouts. The exact ones your supposed to be avoiding.
It is a classic pyramid program with a base of slow running, lots of quality threshold, and a bit of fast stuff (x days)...
I am sure if you asked Seiler would hand wave and count those threshold runs as quality. It is what he did for Seidel's program with all it's threshold work and MP work. His general point about threshold being bad was more about the stuff that was 30s too fast to be easy but 30s to slow to be quality work. Again not too many people would disagree with that.
She said that it was hard and she blowed off, her pace noticeably dropped at around 32km... a classic wall? But as per her 10K PR & HM PR a marathon time was prety even correlate to 10K×2+7min=HM, HM×2+7min=02:27:×× Marathon 👐
She run the marathon at around 91%CV which is very strong. So she performed very well for her performance. She can be happy, that was basically the maximum.
I am sure if you asked Seiler would hand wave and count those threshold runs as quality. It is what he did for Seidel's program with all it's threshold work and MP work. His general point about threshold being bad was more about the stuff that was 30s too fast to be easy but 30s to slow to be quality work. Again not too many people would disagree with that.
A little bit of a counter paper to Seilers work is the paper from Stöggl and Sperlich (2015)
Researchers have retrospectively analyzed the training intensity distribution (TID) of nationally and internationally competitive athletes in different endurance disciplines to determine the optimal volume and intensity for m...
I am sure if you asked Seiler would hand wave and count those threshold runs as quality. It is what he did for Seidel's program with all it's threshold work and MP work. His general point about threshold being bad was more about the stuff that was 30s too fast to be easy but 30s to slow to be quality work. Again not too many people would disagree with that.
A little bit of a counter paper to Seilers work is the paper from Stöggl and Sperlich (2015)
which reveals that the most pros do a pyramidal training distribution in the base phase and not a polarized. This makes a lot of sense to me.
Just small reminder what does it mean low volume in miles in order not to have any illusions of hobbyjoggers mind 😆 it is about 100-115 miles, high volume is about 120+ miles
Many respectfull runners noted here, that double threshold does not work even if you are suited well for it if you do not have support training by sufficient miles which should be a lot, for me as a hobbyjogger:
1) 80miles -absolute minimum and even time to think to cut 1 double
2) 100-110 - looks optimal up to now
3) >120 - I did not try...👐😆 as I am little bit afraid these numbers... 🤦♂️🤣 but who know?
The polarized zone cutoff are lactate not pace. so <2.0mmol, 2-4mmol, >4.0 mmol is not squinting too hard.
Those morning thresholds are under 2.0 mmol in real lactate #s. You’re seeing 2.0-2.2 on a LP2 which always reads high.
Supposedly are 2.5 in the morning and 3 at night. I.e. solid zone 2 workouts. Note they are using numbers from testing and their LT isn't at 4. It is right around 3. 2 and 4 are good starting points but you need to use your athletes actual values not those for populations.
But sure call them zone 1 workouts. You still aren't doing polarized training. Polarized training doesn't say do 80% of the work in zone 1. It says do 80% easy. Easy is down at ~70% hr and lactates closer to 1 than 2.
You would be better off arguing that they are really zone 3 workouts. But they really aren't. They are zone 2 workouts. The exact ones your supposed to be avoiding.
It is a classic pyramid program with a base of slow running, lots of quality threshold, and a bit of fast stuff (x days)...
I am sure if you asked Seiler would hand wave and count those threshold runs as quality. It is what he did for Seidel's program with all it's threshold work and MP work. His general point about threshold being bad was more about the stuff that was 30s too fast to be easy but 30s to slow to be quality work. Again not too many people would disagree with that.
The point was Polarized is pretty arbitrary.
I know their cutoffs. And 2.5 in the morning is too high with 3.0 in the PM probably being too low. The sessions that polarized allegedly says ‘your not supposed to do’ are the PM sessions, not the AM ones btw. The PM ones in a lot of ppls thinking would be ‘not hard enough’ in a lot of ppl that espouse generic Polarized programs which is why many advocate CV.
Trust me, if you are doing 4-5x6:00 @ M pace w/2:00R and you read 2.5 mmol, even on a Lactate Pro 2, you are going too hard for the intent of the AM session
Trust me, if you are doing 4-5x6:00 @ M pace w/2:00R and you read 2.5 mmol, even on a Lactate Pro 2, you are going too hard for the intent of the AM session
