80/20 What?

[Jerome]

Hi all,

Probably nitpicking, but which factor is used to structure your polarized training?

Meters, workouts, time inc rest, time ex rest, etc.

The concept of mostly easy, sparingly hard is clear, but dependent on your chosen perspective, I can imagine you can end up with very different training distributions.

Cheers!

[Tony Cook]

Depends where I am in my training plan and what I’m training for. Currently doing 16 weeks for a 2k. Early weeks all UT stuff and 80-100k a week.
Last 3 weeks will cut volume to 50-60k a week with a couple of high intensity sessions per week. Still about 75% UT1/2 on time.

[btlifter]

Hi all,

Probably nitpicking, but which factor is used to structure your polarized training?

Meters, workouts, time inc rest, time ex rest, etc.

The concept of mostly easy, sparingly hard is clear, but dependent on your chosen perspective, I can imagine you can end up with very different training distributions.

Cheers!

Lots of different ways to structure a polarized approach.

But, the "proper" way - according to Seiller, the popularizer of the approach - is to distribute in a per/session basis. E.g. 4 easy sessions/ 1 hard session.

Depending on how much (or little) you train, you may find that to be an insufficient amount of "hard" sessions, however.

[Jerome]

Hi guys,

Thanks!

Structuring by session is probably also the easiest, but feels light on the intensity. Over the past year I’ve noticed that a moderate SS dominant approach helped with my overall fitness, but that I’ve lost a certain mental grittiness by biting down less frequently on harder pieces.

So I’m considering a 2:1 session approach, mainly to acclimatize myself again to pulling hard and being uncomfortable.

[Dangerscouse]

Hi guys,

Thanks!

Structuring by session is probably also the easiest, but feels light on the intensity. Over the past year I’ve noticed that a moderate SS dominant approach helped with my overall fitness, but that I’ve lost a certain mental grittiness by biting down less frequently on harder pieces.

So I’m considering a 2:1 session approach, mainly to acclimatize myself again to pulling hard and being uncomfortable.

Give it a go, but be very critical of your progress as you may not be recovering properly with that kind of intensity, especially if your harder efforts are truly hard.

I'd also suggest throwing in some grey zone sessions are a great way of toughening up, but not zapping your recovery. There's definitely a potential issue if it's too frequent, but it does help dip your toe in the water to make you feel like you can handle the harder stuff. I have found that there's quite a long lead in time before grey zone training really starts to affect progress.

[Jerome]

Hi guys,

Thanks!

Structuring by session is probably also the easiest, but feels light on the intensity. Over the past year I’ve noticed that a moderate SS dominant approach helped with my overall fitness, but that I’ve lost a certain mental grittiness by biting down less frequently on harder pieces.

So I’m considering a 2:1 session approach, mainly to acclimatize myself again to pulling hard and being uncomfortable.

Give it a go, but be very critical of your progress as you may not be recovering properly with that kind of intensity, especially if your harder efforts are truly hard.

I'd also suggest throwing in some grey zone sessions are a great way of toughening up, but not zapping your recovery. There's definitely a potential issue if it's too frequent, but it does help dip your toe in the water to make you feel like you can handle the harder stuff. I have found that there's quite a long lead in time before grey zone training really starts to affect progress.

Good suggestion, Stu!

A fairly common running approach (Jack Daniels running formula?) is one speed interval session, one tempo run and one long easy run per week.
I guess a tempo run could be considered a grey zone session. This seems like a fairly balanced weekly approach.

[mjk]

Determining percentage by number of sessions vs. number of meters is a matter of personal preference. I prefer to look at the number of hard meters in a given workout. I dont think the warmup/cooldown/between intervals easy meters should all count as "hard" meters even though they're on a "hard" day.

Lately, I've been doing less than 20% of my meters "hard". Most of my weekly volume comes in the form of r18-20 steady state, sometimes with a heart rate strap on, trying to keep my HR below 145bpm. Occasionally I'll do WP-inspired rate controlled workout. As for my hard work, I prefer to do one session totaling 4000-7500m of hard work each week. (The Pete Plan calls for Speed Intervals and Endurance intervals done in the same week, but I'll alternate weeks - do a speed interval workout one week, endurance intervals the next). Also my interval workouts do not exactly match the template given in the pete plan, I've edited some of them slightly (ex: 5x5min instead of 5x1500m).

[Jerome]

Determining percentage by number of sessions vs. number of meters is a matter of personal preference. I prefer to look at the number of hard meters in a given workout. I dont think the warmup/cooldown/between intervals easy meters should all count as "hard" meters even though they're on a "hard" day.

Lately, I've been doing less than 20% of my meters "hard". Most of my weekly volume comes in the form of r18-20 steady state, sometimes with a heart rate strap on, trying to keep my HR below 145bpm. Occasionally I'll do WP-inspired rate controlled workout. As for my hard work, I prefer to do one session totaling 4000-7500m of hard work each week. (The Pete Plan calls for Speed Intervals and Endurance intervals done in the same week, but I'll alternate weeks - do a speed interval workout one week, endurance intervals the next). Also my interval workouts do not exactly match the template given in the pete plan, I've edited some of them slightly (ex: 5x5min instead of 5x1500m).

Interesting, MJK!

I’ve been thinking myself about alternating one speed and one endurance interval session a week. This is also the structure of the beginner Pete plan, isn’t it?

Are all your hard meters in interval format, or do you also mix in hard distance sessions for speed endurance?

[mjk]

I think the beginner pete plan does have an alternating speed/endurance format, but those workouts seem to have a focus on progression through increasing number of intervals of length of intervals, where I'm on what is pretty much a 8 week cycle of repeating interval workouts.

I havent been doing any hard distance sessions yet, but I will likely add those in as I get closer to doing time trials.

[btlifter]

Determining percentage by number of sessions vs. number of meters is a matter of personal preference. I prefer to look at the number of hard meters in a given workout. I dont think the warmup/cooldown/between intervals easy meters should all count as "hard" meters even though they're on a "hard" day.

Lately, I've been doing less than 20% of my meters "hard". Most of my weekly volume comes in the form of r18-20 steady state, sometimes with a heart rate strap on, trying to keep my HR below 145bpm. Occasionally I'll do WP-inspired rate controlled workout. As for my hard work, I prefer to do one session totaling 4000-7500m of hard work each week. (The Pete Plan calls for Speed Intervals and Endurance intervals done in the same week, but I'll alternate weeks - do a speed interval workout one week, endurance intervals the next). Also my interval workouts do not exactly match the template given in the pete plan, I've edited some of them slightly (ex: 5x5min instead of 5x1500m).

I dont mean to be obstinate, and of course you are correct that - ultimately - these decisions do come down to personal preference. However, I would be remiss if I didn't reiterate that Stephen Seiller has explicitly addressed this question before and answered that the intention is that the intensity be distributed on the basis of sessions, not total time/meters.

[bobsacamano]

Also keep in mind that much (but not all!) of the research (including Seiler's) is done on elite athletes who are doing high volumes of training. So, while an 80/20 ratio might be ideal for someone who does, say, 10 workouts/week, it might not be ideal for someone who only does 3 sessions week. The benefit of such a high amount of low-intensity for elite athletes is that their high volume can easily lead to overtraining and injury, and that keeping your easy days easy saves your body/energy for the following day's high-intensity session. In principle, this is less applicable to us mere mortals who, in a sense, already have more recovery built into our 'programs' because we do far fewer workouts/week. This model is also mostly based on analysis of endurance athletes, and rowing (at least if you are focusing on 2000m) has a bit greater power component than most other endurance sports. Normal asterisks apply that, of course, this all depends on your goals, current fitness, etc., etc., etc.).

All of which is to say, it is a great question as to what's the best approach for rowing (meters, minutes, sessions?) and how do you identify the tipping point on how many meters, minutes, sessions/week where your volume has increased sufficiently to require a shift in ratios between easy:hard workouts.

[btlifter]

Also keep in mind that much (but not all!) of the research (including Seiler's) is done on elite athletes who are doing high volumes of training. So, while an 80/20 ratio might be ideal for someone who does, say, 10 workouts/week, it might not be ideal for someone who only does 3 sessions week. The benefit of such a high amount of low-intensity for elite athletes is that their high volume can easily lead to overtraining and injury, and that keeping your easy days easy saves your body/energy for the following day's high-intensity session. In principle, this is less applicable to us mere mortals who, in a sense, already have more recovery built into our 'programs' because we do far fewer workouts/week. This model is also mostly based on analysis of endurance athletes, and rowing (at least if you are focusing on 2000m) has a bit greater power component than most other endurance sports. Normal asterisks apply that, of course, this all depends on your goals, current fitness, etc., etc., etc.).

All of which is to say, it is a great question as to what's the best approach for rowing (meters, minutes, sessions?) and how do you identify the tipping point on how many meters, minutes, sessions/week where your volume has increased sufficiently to require a shift in ratios between easy:hard workouts.

All solid points! While I am a proponent of a polarized approach, my intention is not to be prescriptive for anybody else, simply to answer the questions asked.

I will say though, there is some newer research that has shown very positive outcomes with a polarized approach (compared to a more "sweet spot" based approach) for cyclists training at a "low volume" (5-6 hours/week, I think).

[jamesg]

80/20 is for 2k racing or trials, and can be referred to weeks in training plans such as the Interactives that show the details.

80% is endurance in the first 16 weeks minimum, mostly at lower rating than target 2k pace (usually called UT2, 1 and AT).
20% is tapering and faster than 2k pace in the last 4 (AN, TR).

[max_ratcliffe]

80/20 is for 2k racing or trials, and can be referred to weeks in training plans such as the Interactives that show the details.

80% is endurance in the first 16 weeks minimum, mostly at lower rating than target 2k pace (usually called UT2, 1 and AT).
20% is tapering and faster than 2k pace in the last 4 (AN, TR).

That is one way of defining 80/20, but not the usual usage.

You've talked about a periodized approach, such as used in the interactive plans. But the interactive plan and the O'Neil source allow for preparation with different plan lengths and there's no reason that the endurance phase has to be 16 weeks.

The op was asking about the polarised Seiler approach where 80% of training is slow(ish) and steady. 20% is faster stuff. This approach can be used in continuous plans (like the PP) and modern research seems to show that this is more effective than sweet spot training.

[jamesg]

My point was only that 80/20 can be seen as a distribution over a complete training cycle for racing, as described in the many Interactives. Single weeks are limited in range and progressive.

Our usual cycle (in the 50s) started in September - October, basic training and selection, head of the river in Spring, tapering, local racing and Henley in June - July, total 9 months.

Any other plan may differ, depending on what it's for, as the OP noted.