Seiler 80/20 vs threshold

ddidididid wrote:
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.

With so many overlapping zones and definitions I think i have concluded that "everything helps-make sure you get 75-85% in zone 1 and 2 (of a 5 zone)" is the take home! The "high intensity" definitions are super overlapping. By the way Seiler very specifically states that threshold does not fit into 80/20 ( for the most part). Calling it zone 2 of a 1-3 model. But again, too much overlap.

This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.

bigmig19 wrote:
ddidididid wrote:
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.
With so many overlapping zones and definitions I think i have concluded that "everything helps-make sure you get 75-85% in zone 1 and 2 (of a 5 zone)" is the take home! The "high intensity" definitions are super overlapping. By the way Seiler very specifically states that threshold does not fit into 80/20 ( for the most part). Calling it zone 2 of a 1-3 model. But again, too much overlap.

Go watch his video of Molly Siedels Olympic training where he counts all the threshold work she does as part of the 20%. All that HM/MP stuff is right on the edge depending on how you want to define theshhold…

most of his complaints about threshold aren’t so much about HM/MP training as much as the runs 30-45s slower that a lot of runners can fall into the habit of doing. In HS we were a bunch of 16min runners doing 6:20 easy runs. They were doable. 30s slower and doing another 10mins would probably have been better…

Seiler 80/20 vs threshold

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Seiler 80/20 vs threshold

Jump To A Page

Follow bigmig19

Block bigmig19

Jump To A Page

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.