I’ve listened to a lot of interviews/podcasts with Seiler lately. He has said that the top endurance athletes don’t do threshold training or, if they do, they do very little. It seems like most of the top runners do a lot of threshold training (regardless of what they call it). The Ingebrigtsens, BTC, NAU, Colorado, Kipchoge, Melbourne Track Club, the list goes on, they’re all doing tempo runs and threshold at least once a week, if not more.
Polar Vortex wrote:
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews/podcasts with Seiler lately. He has said that the top endurance athletes don’t do threshold training or, if they do, they do very little. It seems like most of the top runners do a lot of threshold training (regardless of what they call it). The Ingebrigtsens, BTC, NAU, Colorado, Kipchoge, Melbourne Track Club, the list goes on, they’re all doing tempo runs and threshold at least once a week, if not more.
He is doing a lot of stuff at 90% max HR. His philosophy is to train 80% easy, and 20% hard, and most of hard at or slightly above 4 mmol lactate.
He only uses some progressive tempos that touch on threshold a bit, but rarely. He also doesn't do much VO2MAX work, above 95% HR, usually just to peak.
Typical intervals are 5x8min@90%HR, or 12-10-8-6 min all@90% HR, which is around 4-5 mmol lactate.
This pace/intensity works threshold just as well as the slower threshold running, and also works VO2MAX more. Great system.
In running he uses zones:
Zone 1 - Easy
Zone 2 - Moderate
Zone 3 - MP/Tempo, 80-88% max HR, 2-4 mmol lactate
Zone 4 - CV / 90+% max HR, 4-8 mmol lactate
Zone 5 - VO2MAX / 95%+ max HR 10+ mmol lactate
He found out that elite athletes do 80% of their training in Z1&Z2, and can be successful with training most intensity in Zone 4. When analyzing elite marathoners, he found out they did 80% in Z1, 18% in Z4, and only 2% at MP. This is also how Brogan Austin trained, US marathon champ, did ZERO miles at MP in his build-up (but lots of 1k's at CV, or long temp intervals around 4 mmol/HM-pace).
He does not like the zone between 2-4 mmol, which he refers to as threshold and how most new runners train (somewhat hard, but not really hard - he calls it "no man's land". Jack Daniel's calls it the same). Essentially his famous 4-5x8 min intervals at 4-5 mmol are threshold training, just a slightly bit faster than the Ingebrigtsen who might do 3.5 mmol for such a session.
As far as I know, the only athlete he is coaching right now is his young daughter, who is a 1:16:02 half runner (after only 2 years of training). She improved massively under his system.
Just rambling here, not a qualified academic. Maybe you can tweet at him or something, lol? Seems like a good question.
Maybe the sample size of elite athletes is so small that it's bound to be governed by traditions-- so if the majority of athletes do more Zone 4/5 than threshold, maybe it's because that's how most have trained in the sport's recent history. It could be that majority threshold is just as effective-- it certainly seems to work for the Ingebrigtsens-- just that Seiler uses observational studies to focus on single athletes and limiting his data pool.
Also, from a non academic, observational physiological studies may be limited by methods-- labs use terms like 'threshold' and 'VO2 Max' because they are quantitative measures which stand out on a graph and are comparable between samples; therefore, can be used to observe progress or compare two training methods, e.g. group 1 improved threshold by x% compared to group 2 by x%...etc. No doubt they are to some degree relevant, but to what extent, and are they determined by what we can measure? Real world paces lie on a continuum, and this is just how the data suggest they be separated.
In addition, maybe most athletes don't do lots of training at threshold because most aren't racing half marathons (which would correlate to anT), so is the relative intensity under 'hard- Zone 3/4/5' correlative or causative? Real world training depends not on physiological variables but on the race.
Best to keep the main point: 80% easy, 20% hard-- what is in that 20% probably matters less than the general principle.
Malus wrote:
Just rambling here, not a qualified academic. Maybe you can tweet at him or something, lol? Seems like a good question.
Maybe the sample size of elite athletes is so small that it's bound to be governed by traditions-- so if the majority of athletes do more Zone 4/5 than threshold, maybe it's because that's how most have trained in the sport's recent history. It could be that majority threshold is just as effective-- it certainly seems to work for the Ingebrigtsens-- just that Seiler uses observational studies to focus on single athletes and limiting his data pool.
Also, from a non academic, observational physiological studies may be limited by methods-- labs use terms like 'threshold' and 'VO2 Max' because they are quantitative measures which stand out on a graph and are comparable between samples; therefore, can be used to observe progress or compare two training methods, e.g. group 1 improved threshold by x% compared to group 2 by x%...etc. No doubt they are to some degree relevant, but to what extent, and are they determined by what we can measure? Real world paces lie on a continuum, and this is just how the data suggest they be separated.
In addition, maybe most athletes don't do lots of training at threshold because most aren't racing half marathons (which would correlate to anT), so is the relative intensity under 'hard- Zone 3/4/5' correlative or causative? Real world training depends not on physiological variables but on the race.
Best to keep the main point: 80% easy, 20% hard-- what is in that 20% probably matters less than the general principle.
But that's his key point - that the 20% are mostly in Zone 4, and not in Zone 3 (which is not even very hard, just moderately hard - MP to HM pace for most runners, except for elites where HM pace falls in Z4), and also not in Zone 5.
He also said that rowers do a lot of training in Zone 5, because their race duration is only 6-7 minutes. Makes sense doesn't it? But why should a 10k guy, that's racing for 30-35 min, do lots of training at that intensity? Injury risk is higher, and he can get most of the adaptions by training in Z4, which also includes 10k pace and is highly specific.
Sure, a 800/1500/3000 runner would obviously include more Z5 work. But they still would try to avoid Z3, or in other words: MP and HM-pace! Seiler isn't the only scientist who came up with 90% of VO2MAX as an ideal training stimulus. Tinman set his CV pace at exactly that effort - in Z4, at 90-94% HR. Lots of people also always say Tinman didn't invent CV, but top runners around the world have trained at this effort level (a pace they can hold roughly 30 minutes) for a long time. Success is not coincidence!
His words on the recent podcast were along the lines of “Threshold training is too much pain for not enough gain.” Sounds like they’re doing it wrongZ threshold/tempo shouldn’t be that painful.
Polar Vortex wrote:
I’ve listened to a lot of interviews/podcasts with Seiler lately. He has said that the top endurance athletes don’t do threshold training or, if they do, they do very little. It seems like most of the top runners do a lot of threshold training (regardless of what they call it). The Ingebrigtsens, BTC, NAU, Colorado, Kipchoge, Melbourne Track Club, the list goes on, they’re all doing tempo runs and threshold at least once a week, if not more.
I think some of the confusion is just due to labeling differences.
Seller says 80% of workouts are zone 1/2. That fits with almost everyone (outside of Ingebrigtsens). If they double most days, those runners would have 12-13 sessions in a week, meaning that about 2-3 would be higher intensity. That fits.
Sub marathon pace runs would fit in zone 2. So those long hard runs that the Kenyans do could still fit as “easy”.
Seiler would put Daniels T pace as lower limit of zone 4. So the standard cruise intervals that runners do (BTC for example) are essentially Seilers zone 4.
Seiler has said that his main tenet is that high volume of easy training is the most important thing. All those pros you mentioned do this. My opinion: using arbitrary cutoffs to say 85% is vastly different than 90% is misleading. Intensity is a continuum.
Finally, Seilers high intensity studies always have the participants do the workouts at hardest possible effort they can sustain for the whole workout. This is a flaw for runners, because if you actually did this you’d end up overtraining.
I think he is saying 'pain' in the colloquial sense of the term, that of a 'hard' effort ie above easy pace, zone 3/ 4/ 5.
What I am trying to say, and I think you are too, is that we don't have to agree with that. Tempo/ zone 3 is a very important component of training. My possibly incoherent point above is that Seiler's limited methods may lead to his limited conclusions.
Take, for example, limited sample populations. In the paper below, Casado, Hanley, and Ruiz-Perez look at the differences between world-class Kenyan and European-class Spanish runners. In their 'deliberate practice', ie hard (zones 3, 4, and 5) the Kenyans and Spanish have different distributions of high-intensity training. Kenyans spend ~25% of volume in zone 3/tempo, ~5% in long interval/zone 4, and ~8% in short interval/zone 5. In contrast, the Spanish runners spend ~6% in zone 3/tempo, ~10% in long interval/zone 4, and ~7% in short interval/zone 5. Now, the Kenyan runners' distribution of zone 3/4/5 is completely different form Seiler's prototypical distribution, but the Spanish runners' distribution almost exactly lines up with what Seiler would expect! Now, what I might suggest is that perhaps the majority of sports science data comes from sources that examine athletes similar to the Spanish-- it is highly available (Europe and N America), they are still 'elite' ie not typical sports science typical recreational athlete, and they adhere to what most coaches prescribe ie long intervals and easy runs. Seiler can only make conclusions from the evidence he has, and it may be that it comes from more sources more similar to the Spanish than the Kenyans, even though both are 'elite athletes.' It could be that zone 3 is just as effective as zone 4, but that observational data will always report what is most commonly done in most athletes.
See graph at bottom of page, below references.
Malus wrote:
I think he is saying 'pain' in the colloquial sense of the term, that of a 'hard' effort ie above easy pace, zone 3/ 4/ 5.
What I am trying to say, and I think you are too, is that we don't have to agree with that. Tempo/ zone 3 is a very important component of training. My possibly incoherent point above is that Seiler's limited methods may lead to his limited conclusions.
It's not just Seiler saying this, but also Jack Daniels. Daniels stated many times that running at MP, which is essentially Z3/Tempo, has ZERO additional physiological benefits compared to running in Z1/Z2 (easy pace). That's what Seiler means with "too much pain for no gain", a MP run is harder than an easy run, not enough to recover from workouts, but doesn't give any more fitness than just running at the easy pace.
If you want to build stamina, anaerobic threshold (low end of Z4) up to CV (upper end of Z4) have a huge benefit - these were proven to actually make your threshold better, like from 5:30/mi to 5:15/mi.
Like peekay said, the Ingebrigtsen are essentially doing this (train in low end of Z4). They don't have any workouts at MP, or between 2.0-2.5 mmol, they do lots of 1000s, 2000s, and 400s in Z4.
The thing you can argue against Daniels/Seiler etc, is that running at 2.0-2.5 mmol actually has more benefits than running at easy pace. If you think that it works as spectrum/continuum between paces, it's hard to believe that 2.3 mmol doesn't offer anything more than 1.1 mmol, but 3.5+mmol suddenly does. Tinman has his "Tinman Tempos" at exactly this pace, Lydiard had his 10-milers at decent pace, etc.
But when structuring a plan for a 5k/10k runner, with 2 workouts a week, how do you fit in the MP run? If you add it as 3rd workout, you probably won't recover fast enough. If you turn 1 workout to a MP workout, you probably get less than you would get if you train at slightly faster paces, around 10k pace-1h pace.
...have you ever thought that the actual practitioner might know much more than the theorist who publishes papers ..?!
He also mentioned in this podcast (The GAINcast with Verne Gambetta) that the numbers are actually closer to 90% easy, 10% hard, especially at the higher end, higher volume elites.
Hey nitwit ... Z 3 is not HM or MP paces... zone 3 is 70-80 % hrMx. Zone 4 is 80-90% hrMx HM and MP will reside in Z4. No one runs HM or MTHS between 70-80% hrMx..unless maybe you’re walking or training through the distance. Along with cardiac drift you’ll see HM paces push over and into Z5 90-100% hrMx. Lots of great aerobic training is done in Z3 (70-80% hrMx) ... The actual practitioners (the real athletes) are wayyyy ahead of the theorists and the numbers people ..., stop with the mental masturbation.
co rona wrote:
Hey nitwit ... Z 3 is not HM or MP paces... zone 3 is 70-80 % hrMx. Zone 4 is 80-90% hrMx HM and MP will reside in Z4. No one runs HM or MTHS between 70-80% hrMx..unless maybe you’re walking or training through the distance. Along with cardiac drift you’ll see HM paces push over and into Z5 90-100% hrMx. Lots of great aerobic training is done in Z3 (70-80% hrMx) ... The actual practitioners (the real athletes) are wayyyy ahead of the theorists and the numbers people ..., stop with the mental masturbation.
You can't use your own/individual definition of zones. This thread is about Seiler, a leading exercise scientist who has done plenty of research.
His definition of Zone 3 is 2.0 mmol to 4.0 mmol lactate and 80-87% max HR. He also stresses there are individual deviations (for example XC skier have extremely low lactate even at 80% HR), but that's his general zone.
I don't know where you get your Z3 = 70-80% from. That's the standard range for easy range, Tinman, Jack Daniels, Salazar, all coaches use 70-80% for easy runs. That's not the "no man's land" but an extremely important zone.
This is the image from Seiler's newest YouTube video on his channel:
https://i.imgur.com/lGWTtRK.pngWhat he says, that the cut-off between Z1 and Z2 and Z4 and Z5 is arbitrary, so you could even have 3 zones - 55-80% max HR, 80-87%, and 87-100%. But his point remains the same - training a lot in the 80-87%, which includes moderate running and MP, is ineffective.
Daniel's tempo/threshold runs are at 4 mmol, or 88-92% max HR, so they are well in the effective zone.
Daniel's MP runs are at 2-2.5 mmol, and would be in the "no man's land" zone.
If you knew how to read the image/labeling, you’d realize I’m correct ... but have it your way. I hope you’re all warm with whatever you think you’ve accomplished here ...little bit of nothing.
Seiler uses 3 HR zones. He studied logs of elites and found that almost all elite endurance athletes practice an 80-20 split. That's percentage of bouts of work. So if you run 10 times in a week, 2 should be in zone 3 and 8 in zone 1. Mileage wise it is more 90-10. Zone 1 is under 77 percent HR and zone 3 is 88 and up.
jersey Shore's Finest wrote:
Seiler uses 3 HR zones. He studied logs of elites and found that almost all elite endurance athletes practice an 80-20 split. That's percentage of bouts of work. So if you run 10 times in a week, 2 should be in zone 3 and 8 in zone 1. Mileage wise it is more 90-10. Zone 1 is under 77 percent HR and zone 3 is 88 and up.
The Seiller 3 Zone model is as follows:
Zone 3 High intensity (Hr >88%, Vo2max > 83%)
Zone 2 Moderate intensity (Hr 75%-88%, Vo2max 67%- 83%)
Zone 1 Low intensity (Hr 60%-75%, Vo2max 42%- 67%)
Average sessions/time in each zone as follows:
Zone 3 High intensity (15% - 20%)
Zone 2 Moderate intensity (5%)
Zone 1 Low intensity (80%)
So spend little time in the middle!
Note that the average time in each zone will change depending on the season (eg, base may be 75/25, pre race maybe 90/10 etc)
