Seiler 80/20 vs threshold

Lots of info here, but I think there are a few misconceptions of Seiler's ideas.

As far as I understand it 80/20 refers to sessions, not mileage. So 1 in 5 sessions is high intensity, whereas 4 are low intensity. In one podcast Seiler says that if calculating in terms of mileage or time 'in zone', it would be more like 90/10.

Threshold work ala Daniels fits in to a Seiler model as the low end of zone 4, and would be considered high intensity.

My understanding is that when Seiler refers to threshold, he is more so refering to that zone between the Aerobic Threshold (first ventilatory threshold) and the Lactate Threshold (second ventilatory). Hopefully I have the terms correct there. In that zone (3 of 5) you would find marathon pace, and HM pace at the top end.

The 20% of high intensity work still tends to be zone 4 and NOT zone 5. Seiler's studies showed most elite athletes rarely go to that zone 5 level in training, preferring instead to accumulate more minutes in zone 4. i.e. everything else being equal 4x8 minutes at a slightly lower intensity, is better than 4x4 minutes at a higher intensity.

Long runs at an easy pace can 'count' as high intensity sessions, if they are long enough. You should consider both pace and duration.

Makemegetfast wrote:

Seiler's studies showed most elite athletes rarely go to that zone 5 level in training, preferring instead to accumulate more minutes in zone 4. i.e. everything else being equal 4x8 minutes at a slightly lower intensity, is better than 4x4 minutes at a higher intensity.

Whether or not Seiler's studies indicate this (source link on runners instead of cyclists?), nonetheless, Jack Daniels Interval work absolutely calls for hitting them at high high intensity (>95% HRmax). Think any elites actually follow Daniels, or Seiler's findings?

qewjfwibvwier wrote:

Ho Hum wrote:

I'm curious what people think about the difference between "MP" vs. what you can actually run for a marathon. For example, Jakob Ingebrigtsen's predicted MP is 2:55/k (2:03 full), but no way he could run that without specific training. I think this would be true for most shorter distance runners, especially high schoolers. So if the pace you're calling MP is more like 20-30k pace, isn't that actually fairly intense?

I think the way the Ingebrigtsens do it the pace correlates more to lactate levels. So if Jakob's MP is 2:55 pace it doesn't necessarily mean he can run 2:55 right now. It means he is hitting the corresponding lactate level and training zone.

For non marathoners, I think MP pace is more of a theorical one as they haven't done the specific work to be able to actually run a a marathon at this pace. It is what the HR/vo2max/mmol of what a marathoner would be running. Something like 10-15s slower than HM pace.

Actual marathon race pace depends on things like ability to burn fat, ability to store energy, ability to refuel, and ability to handle the impact stress which don't really affect aerobic development.

Makemegetfast wrote:.

Long runs at an easy pace can 'count' as high intensity sessions, if they are long enough. You should consider both pace and duration.

Can you provide a source for that? Long runs can definitely be hard on the body but that doesn't make them intense sessions that count as anything but "easy" running.

But yeah the rest is right on so now think about how useless polarized training is for runners in terms of planning your training. You are doing 80/20. Great. For that 20 should you be doing 60min pace work, 30 min pace work, 15 min pace work, or 8 min pace work? They all could be consider legit 20% workouts....

I will suggest that the trend over the past 20 years is to reduce the intensity( more 10k-hm instead of 5k) and up the volume (30-40 mins of work instead of 20) during the base phases.

MadeInFrance wrote:

The point to understand in 80/20 model is that it is about the number of workouts in Z1/Z2/Z3. Z1 is <80% MHR, Z3>87% MHR, so our traditional threshold work is in Z3 (88-92%MHR). For an elite training 12 times a week, it means he/she will have 3 interval/threshold workouts. For use mere mortals, it means 2 high intensity workouts

In time spent during a week, it will me much more around 85-90%Z1, 5%Z2, 5-10%Z3

That Z3 definition is kind of nebulous, particularly since (if I'm not mistaken) at least one of Sieler's papers refers to Z3 being >92% HRmax.

The definition of 'High Intensity' can be nebulous in the scientific literature. For example 'The Norwegian Method' calls for 4x4min @ 85-95% HRmax, which actually is a large window of potential intensities. I can do a double 'threshold day' meeting their protocol when I keep the Heart rates in the low range of that window (i.e., 85-90% HRmax), but performing that workout in the high range of that window (90-95%) HRmax can be twice as intense (per Garmin EPOC Training Load) of workout, and then, performing a 4x4min per Jack Daniels recommended Interval, reaching 95-98% HRmax at peak of an 800m workbout, is a really intense workout, which can be at least >3x as intense (per Garmin EPOC Training Load) as a 4x4min performed at 85-90% HRmax.

Jack Daniels Calculator wrote:

Makemegetfast wrote:

Seiler's studies showed most elite athletes rarely go to that zone 5 level in training, preferring instead to accumulate more minutes in zone 4. i.e. everything else being equal 4x8 minutes at a slightly lower intensity, is better than 4x4 minutes at a higher intensity.

Whether or not Seiler's studies indicate this (source link on runners instead of cyclists?), nonetheless, Jack Daniels Interval work absolutely calls for hitting them at high high intensity (>95% HRmax). Think any elites actually follow Daniels, or Seiler's findings?

Yes, Daniels intervals are high intensity, and they clearly work. I just find its interesting that they were able to show in studies that longer/slower intervals (maybe in the ~10k range) resulted in more improvement in a lab setting. It doesn't mean that running 3k/5k pace doesn't work, or isn't better for some people/events; just an interesting observation that could have some use. I think training in that Z4 is quite common at the top level. Especially in marathon runners logs, I seem to see a lot of stuff like 10-12x1k, with the pace progressing from HM to around 10k.

That said, one of the biggest take homes I got from the research was that it largely doesn't matter what your interval sessions are. As long as you are getting over your threshold, into that ~10k kinda zone, then that's all that really matters. Then it's a consideration of doing as much work as you can in that zone (I don't really like that word in all honesty), while not doing too much (or going to hard) that you can't come back a few days later and do it all again. I really like the simplified approach to training, and I think it has a lot of merit - I think one could achieve 99% of their potential, just by keeping things very simple.

Seilers work covers runners, but the majority of it has been on cyclists as you say; so the ground impact factor does need to be considered, when thinking about things in a running context. My gut feeling on it is that the findings probably pertain more to HM and Marathon runners, than they would for 5k/10k; and I'd bet most of the runners studied were on the longer end of the spectrum.

On whether anyone 'follows' Seiler's training; I don't think that is really the point - the key thing to remember is that his findings are based on research in to what elites actually do - it's an observation not a prescription to follow - and for that reason I don't think it should be dismissed lightly; I really think there is some useful stuff here.

ddidididid wrote:

Makemegetfast wrote:.

Long runs at an easy pace can 'count' as high intensity sessions, if they are long enough. You should consider both pace and duration.

Can you provide a source for that? Long runs can definitely be hard on the body but that doesn't make them intense sessions that count as anything but "easy" running.

But yeah the rest is right on so now think about how useless polarized training is for runners in terms of planning your training. You are doing 80/20. Great. For that 20 should you be doing 60min pace work, 30 min pace work, 15 min pace work, or 8 min pace work? They all could be consider legit 20% workouts....

I will suggest that the trend over the past 20 years is to reduce the intensity( more 10k-hm instead of 5k) and up the volume (30-40 mins of work instead of 20) during the base phases.

I'd have to dig for that, it was buried in a podcast somewhere. Thinking about it, I think the gist was more that a very long day at an easy intensity, could stray in to being 'hard', in terms of overall fatigue - so it should be treated the same way as a intense session, when considering recovery. I'm not sure it was too important - I think he was just illustrating that it's the interaction between intensity and duration, that determines the difficulty of a session - which of course is kinda obvious.

I think a polarised model definitely has use in planning training - for me, it's made me more conscious of how many easy sessions I take/need between harder workouts, and has also helps me remember to keep those easy days low intensity. But again, it's the same ideas by a different name - just a slight elaboration on "hard day's hard, easy days easy".

I agree with you on that any of those workouts could be considered within the 20%, and like I said in my post above, I think that's one of the big take-homes - that it doesn't matter to a huge degree what the exact workout is, as long as it's in that Z4 or Z5.

In reality, I'm sure there are differences in what you get from running lots of HM/10k pace reps, Vs what you'd get from a lower number of 5k/3k pace reps; but I reckon these differences only become relevant when we get to capping off that last 1% of performance.

The trend you suggested at the end of your post agrees very strongly with Seilers observations.

This is a good point. Comparing across training philosophies, books, research papers is a nightmare (especially for just an interested amateur like me). I listened to something a while back (could have been Seiler again actually), where he said there were something like a dozen valid approaches to defining lactate threshold for example.

I liked the 4x4, 4x8, 4x16 study the best, as the instructions given to the cyclists (I think in this case?) were based on effort. No HR max, no target speeds, just max effort for the given session, whist being able to come back and do it twice a week for 'X' weeks

Three questions:

1) Should I do heavy and difficult lifting for injury prevention?

2) It seems to me that the top high school coaches (Bill Aris), not only does high milage, but hard workouts. Do you think that their "hard workouts" are Z4?

3) During Haile Gebrselassie base block, he did a weekly Track speed session 6x2000m in 5:40min (2:50/km, 4:33.5/mile pace). This is according to

https://runningscience.co.za/elite-athletes-training-log/haile-gebrselassie/

.

I do not know if this is actually what he did, but wouldnt this be well above his threshold?

Also, regarding the 4*4, 4*8, 4*16 study, I believe that that was done over a couple of months. If I ran a max 4*8 session twice weekly, according to what I have gathered from this thread, I would peak and then plateau.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Three questions:

1) Should I do heavy and difficult lifting for injury prevention?

2) It seems to me that the top high school coaches (Bill Aris), not only does high milage, but hard workouts. Do you think that their "hard workouts" are Z4?

3) During Haile Gebrselassie base block, he did a weekly Track speed session 6x2000m in 5:40min (2:50/km, 4:33.5/mile pace). This is according to

https://runningscience.co.za/elite-athletes-training-log/haile-gebrselassie/

.

I do not know if this is actually what he did, but wouldnt this be well above his threshold?

I'm no where near the best person to comment on this, but I'll give you my takes regardless.

1) Personally, I don't think lifting is necessary. Some people swear by it, others have never lifted a weight in their lives; and never done a days cross training for that matter.

2) I'm British so won't try and comment on US high school coaches as I know nothing about them!

3) Wouldn't that be right around HM pace for him? If so, circa 1hr pace, so right about threshold. It's late here, so maybe my maths is wrong; but that's probably low end of Z4 in a Seiler world, or around T-pace in a Daniels world. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way out here

You are right, my math was wrong. Thank you!

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Also, regarding the 4*4, 4*8, 4*16 study, I believe that that was done over a couple of months. If I ran a max 4*8 session twice weekly, according to what I have gathered from this thread, I would peak and then plateau.

Yeah. I think it could be an example of cyclists being able to handle regular longer sessions at intensity, without having to worry about the impact you get from running.

I have mixed feeling about lifting. On the one hand, I am rather week. I can't deadlift or squat my own bodyweight. On the other hand, many say that it would be better to run more instead of lifting.

Would intense (almost max 3 * 10 squats deadlifts lunges) be beneficial with plyos afterwards? Maybe 3x a week.

By bodyweight I mean that I cant deadlift with a trapbar loaded with my weight, I can do a bodyweight squat.

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

Do you think that hard lifting would then be beneficial for injury prevention?

It may help some if you do it right, but it needs to be well rounded. It is very easy to become "unbalanced." That is, maybe you do a little too much for quads and glutes, but not hamstrings (or some other combination). It also comes down to total body stress, it might make your legs too tired to handle the running. I would not advise adding it in the same time you're building mileage. It takes time to build up to heavy lifting too. You need to have the body do some neuromuscular coordination in learning how to lift the weight with proper form and just teaching it to generate a big force before you ramp up the weight.

Look up Lydiard's hill training, you might do well to (slowly) incorporate some hill skipping, bounding, and sprinting to address leg strength. Upper body and core strength would probably be more worth your time for rounding out your strength training.

That said, heavy lifting (or some form of strength training) is important to do as you progress down the road of life to have good strength as an old fart (coming from an old fart).

RunnerWithoutAnAerobicBase wrote:

I have mixed feeling about lifting. On the one hand, I am rather week. I can't deadlift or squat my own bodyweight. On the other hand, many say that it would be better to run more instead of lifting.

Would intense (almost max 3 * 10 squats deadlifts lunges) be beneficial with plyos afterwards? Maybe 3x a week.

You can't do everything you read. You will break down. Weighting is good. Do the minimal amount you can to get benefits. Why not don2x week and a few core sessions. And plyos on tired legs seems like another great way to get injured.

Heck even skip the weights and just do some body weight exercises 3x week. When you are at a place where you aren't do huge mileage increases, add in more lifting, or cycling time.

Makemegetfast wrote:

The trend you suggested at the end of your post agrees very strongly with Seilers observations.

The trend is moving away from polarized to more threshold. In the 90s pretty much workout was 1500-8k pace for track runners. Then daniels started pimping out low volumes of threshold work(right at the edge for sellers) and guys like Ingrebstein dropped the intensity some more while cranking up the volume.

At the lower end (say MP is 5 min and easy run is 6-7) there is about of a trend to back off a bit more. My impression is in cycling it is a bit easier to do that comfortably hard ( say 60 mins at say 5:20 effort) the most runners just can't do.

Obviously we are getting pretty nuanced here but the point is polarized training isnt much any different than most running programs for the past 60 years(Lydiard had his 3/4 efforts in base phase). You still have to decide what you are doing in the 10-20% work. Deciding you want to do polarized training really doesn't narrow things down much.

According to this source, some of the top distance runners trained 2 hard sessions per week when in high school. Does anybody know if these athletes continued their regime or if they transitioned to more threshold based training.

Also, does anybody know of any studies showing burnout from hard efforts?

Thank you!