It's great to hear about a study confirming this, but it's self evident that a taller and bigger person can process more food (in this case, carbs). I'm 203cm, 101kg, a few years back in the saddle after 20 years off (since racing as a kid). I'm quite fast and love hill climbing, but I have to push ungodly watts to have a chance at keeping up with 60kg riders on hills. The only way I can fuel that (especially over a longer ride) is with a lot of carb consumption. I did a 6hr gravel ride yesterday with timed segments. Only 308w NP overall, but was averaging around 450w on the 6 segments that took a total of 55 minutes. I took in around 700g carbs during that time without pushing it at all. Big engines need a lot of fuel 😊
Brilliant podcast. It concisely encapsulates effective training. Progressive overload, hard/easy, training in zone, consistency etc. Glad to see the Nowregian Method seems to dovetail quite well with TR. I am looking forward to volume plan adjustments. Fantastic stuff!!
P.s. just seen the comments with all the Nate hate, Nate you're a dude and you add great summaries, humour, and quick analysis to the conversation - keep on trucking!
42 gold medals lol. In an Olympic structure where the medal tally has been made to boost the US medal tally. This was idiotic even by the low standards of moustache guy
It’s a counterpoint and an important one to make. Don’t get so butt hurt. Norway literally isn’t dominating the Olympics. By that logic, St. Lucia is the most athletic country on Earth. And all that said, he even agrees Norway is punching above their weight.
Also New Zealand actually beat Norway in the Paris Olympics for gold medals per capita as got 10 gold medals and has equal size population. A lot of them from endurance sports too. So perhaps you should review the Lydiard method (Arthur lydiard) that he used to produce many great runners from NZ in the 1960's and 1970's. Then his friend Bill Bowerman (nike founder) learned of when he visited NZ and took it back to the states and the running boom began. Lydiard then went off to Finland in the 1970's and had great success with runners there too, Lasse Viren and Pekka Vasala to name a few.
Stephen Seilers approach is roughly 80/20 but he classes it as low stress/high stress. So a long tempo session or even a long endurance zone 2 ride comes under the 20% high stress part. So it's not strictly either zone 1/2 and zone 4+. The 'grey' zone would be always doing your endurance zone 2 rides slightly too hard, or doing them strict but hitting zone 3/4 on short hills and labeling them as 'easy' rides.
You are misinterpreting Seiler. The 80/20 split is number of sessions by intensity(VT1/VT2). The stress argument came later to explain why not more intensity. He never said a long Z2 session falls into the 20% group.
@@gerrysecure5874 Regarding long Z2 - Seiler has said a long Z2 session may turn into a high stress workout. Try it yourself. Go out and hold Z2 power (especially mid to high Z2) for 50/100% longer than you normally do. The resulting fatigue, glycogen depletion, dehydration, etc., may be equivalent to a high stress workout.
Great topic and very interesting discussion. Was a pleasure to watch. @natepearson5317 There are two things I'd like to add which were not mentioned and I think they are important: 1. The intensity zones defined in Table 2 are very high and I would say much higher than what we typically use in cycling - e.g. Zone 1 is up to 72% Max HR. For me with MaxHR=193 that is 140 bpm which is quite close to the upper end of Zone 2 in pretty much all other models. This would explain why there is so much volume spent training in Zone 1 instead in Zone 2 which is what we would all expect. If we try to map those zones to TrainerRoad zones I think Zone 2 in the study would be more like a Tempo zone and Zone 3 would be more like a Sweetspot zone. 2. Numbers in Table 4 are not per week but per session instead. What that means is you can't calculate the weekly time spent in Z1 by just using the proportion of those numbers. You need to weight them by how often they are used in a training week and that information is available in Table 3 (e.g. Z4 is used 0.5x times per week on average while Z1 is used 4.5x per week on average). If you do it this way the results will say that 85% of the time is spent in Z1 which makes more sense and is in line with what dr. Stephen Seiler is usually saying
I hope Dr. Poglacar does a similar study to what Nate suggested. I also think it would be a really good idea for him to do the same study with fructose. To clarify if it is actually 1:1. But this study is great. With a 1:1 ratio that would put me at 110 grams for my threshold/VO2 days. Which is more than I take in currently. Curious how much these amounts change when doing endurance as well.
I mention this exact thing at 8 minutes into the video about how they get a gold medal for every 1.6m people and the USA gets one for every 8 million people. I then praise Norway for punching above it's weight. th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.html
I mentioned this at 8 minutes in. I do the math population per gold medal math and praise Norway. th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=axZYXlxrW72zeHUG&t=480
Nate was confidently incorrect. His only grace was actually looking at the data and admitting his mistake. But even a cursory knowledge of the world would have stopped him from putting his foot in his mouth in the first place.
The carb ratio at the end was very interesting. I remember on one of the earlier podcasts a recommendation was to switch from 2:1 to 1:0.8 (glucose:fructose) and my stomach felt better on 90g/hr. Doing the maths of 0.7g per/kg for my 71kg body weight puts the suggestion at 49.7g which is close to 50g glucose/40g fructose mix in the bottle.
All-time Winter Olympics Medals: Norway: 405 medals (148 gold) US: 330 Medals (114 gold) Norway population is 5.5 million. US population is 330 million. Norway wins not only per capita medal count, but also absolute. I think a little humility is in order.
When I get asked what this model is about and why it consists of the things it does, I like to ask trainers to add a bit of volume to a already high volume plan. What do you need to change? And then add a bit more volume. What do you change now? How do you make sure your athletes doesn't get injured? If you continue down this path, you will end up with only low intensity training and that will not win medals on these levels. Continously adding volume to a polarized traning plan will make it less and less polarized, because there is not more time to spend on training. That is why we see those distributions between low, mid and high intensity in this video. It will make sense when you look at the volume. Double threshold is just an interval of the interval, spent at an intensity where you still increase the threshold. The double threshold workouts might just let you spend a tiny bit more time towards the threshold compared to what you could do in one workout.
so if i or another rider, is accustomed to up 20 hours per week, will the new release TR reflect that in a plan going forward?, and then adjust as the feedback comes in?
I don't think the main goal of double threshold is to cram in more intensity hours. It is to have more time for recovery in between the hard days. I'm by far not a high performance athlete, but having 2 double hard sessions per week gives me 2-3 days between and still do 4 different interval protocols in a week while doing it on different days gives not enough easy days in between.
Links to the studies are in the description and below: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-024-02067-4 www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4530175/v1
Do I read the paper's tables correctly: basically, they do Z1 rides, or do intervals off of Z1 rides? I think some Z2 can be done continuously, but almost everything seems anchored in Z1.
@@TrainerRoad I think what struck me is how dominant Z1 is and how even Z2 rides are often structured as intervals with Z1 as the base (like 'Weld' in TR).
You forgot about the New Zealand method!? In Paris: a gold medal per 500,000 people; any medal per 250,000. Genetic pool v. environment v. method? Of course I’m not biased, but just saying. 😉
What about 'The New Zealand Method'!? We have the same population as Norway but got over double the golds (20) at Paris. Think NZ was second in 'per capita' golds. Si, Christchurch, New Zealand 🇳🇿 😊
The best Norwegian skier ever that is cykling pro now is Jørgen Nordhagen. His Vo2 is sky high, and his skiing tecnique in skate-style is on Nadia Comanechi level. He won 20 km skiing junior WC skate-style with more than two minutes.
You forgot about the British method , bend the rules as much as possible best tech of the era Boardman super bike for example the secret squirrels and the faster speed suits etc
Massively frustrated by this. After only 5 mins in, Nate chips in effectively arguing that the USA won more medals so we should listen to their approach and ignore the Norwegian one, completely undermining the point of the episode. (He even started arguing that his local area had olympic medalists). All completely irrelevant to the point of the paper being reviewed. Jonathan points out that Norway has a far smaller population than the USA and gamely pushes on. However I must admit i found Nate's early repetative interventions SO disruptive that I switched off and went in search of the original paper. I am a long time TR user and used to religiously watch the weekly podcasts. However I gave up with them a couple of years ago as they would wander off in all sorts of directions. I saw the title of this one and thought I would watch it. However I was immediately put off by Nate's pointless and distuptive interuption. I used to really appreciate the "Science of perfoemance' episodes that Sarah did, but they stopped. After this experience, I won't be returning anytime soon.
You are saying that Keegan went from mid-pack at World Cups to winning at Gravel races because his physiology is better suited. Have you considered that MTB World Cup events are more competitive and Gravel scene is less competitive and that his level hasn't actually changed.
Yes there is less competition in USA gravel - but the overall premise is true - World Cup requires a Formula 1 engine, whereas the 200 mile Unbound gravel race requires a diesel/highly durable engine. Jonas Vingegaard would love to win Paris Roubaix or Flanders, but it's not gonna happen.
Nate la población de Noruega es 61 veces menor que la de USA, con eso aunque sean muchas medallas de oro si lo reducimos una muestra igual de numero de personas creo que serian primer lugar sin dudarlo, no es lo mismo comprar 330 millones de personas en USA que 5.3 millones de personas en Noruega, es cierto que USA es una potencia en el deporte pero, como dijo Jonathan la cantidad de personas que vive en cada país es significativa para ver el potencial de sus deportistas, Saludos desde Mexico
I am not sure why you frame double threshold as something that is impossible for anyone that hasn't won the genetic lottery. It is all about intensity. "Threshold" in this model is a wide term, so it is not like hammering intervals at FTP or middle of zone4 (in the five zone model). Quite often there are intensities most of us wouldn't classify as threshold. This model is all about maximising time at the highest intensity where you still not get injured, over time. I kind of expect you to touch on this later in the episode..
That's a great point, and one we discuss as well. The context in which we are asked about double threshold is very often an athlete that fears they aren't doing enough, yet they are already filling their cup, so to speak, with training stress. In terms of the genetic lottery component, we were specifically discussing the athletes involved in this study.
Nate, just for your information. For every Norwegian gold in the Olympics, the U.S. would need to win 61 to equalize for population. If producing that many endurance athletes isn't dominant, then I’m not sure what is. The U.S. isn't the best, although you seem to think so...
Letting go of trying to become a climber is difficult, but a good thing. Rather have bigger power and durability as a human, certainly as a masters amateur
I don't think it really takes anything away from the podcast, but I can't help but think Sarah should have her screen closer to the camera, to help with "eye contact", like the other hosts. It's nit-picky, I know, but it's something I notice as a viewer here on TH-cam, and therefore assume I'm not the only one. Just some constructive criticism!
As it turns out, the “Norwegian Method” is the “way almost all elite coaches train their athletes.” Oh, and it’s NOT “80-20 polarized” despite Seiler being a co-author. So, live and re-learn… 😅
Seems like a lot of research deep dives are aimed at discrediting polarized training. True, it is based off of one main paper, but it is a well designed study. On the other hand, the paper covered in this episode and the one on pro cyclists from another episode, are just observational. I don’t think it’s a good argument to say, “pros and Olympic medalists don’t use polarized training, so it’s not as effective as it seems”. The TR community especially is interested in optimizing their training, so just because polarized isn’t the only way to get fast, doesn’t mean it’s not the most efficient and best supported way currently.
The Norwegian Method is succesful , but is it because of how they are training? Of course there is something correct with the training, but what we dont mention is the environment and the laws. In Norway and some other countrys (for example Sweden) we have "allemannsretten". "allemannsretten" is that everybody has the right to go on private property like the forests and mountains (but not the agricultural fields). This right to run in the forest is fundemantal for developing the kids physically. In many other countries in the world this is not a fundamental right and some places its dangerous too..
All TrainerRoad athletes have been able to manage and adjust training load for years now., and features like Adaptive Training have automatically adjusted ramp rate for them. These new features we will soon be launching utilize our models to remove the guess work from finding the right balance of volume, intensity, work, and rest.
@@TrainerRoad Yes, they adjust training load by manually (mis-)picking a static low/mid/high volume plan instad of contineous management of progressive overload. But anyways, better late than never!
Please view your video on a big screen TV Your heads are absolutely HUGE. The old format didn’t look like this Please consider something different Thank you
Yeah Nate is very arrogant in this this episode and cant seem to get passed how many Absolute gold medals the USA got in Paris. But per capita is valid too, nothing less, or nothing more. But lets also throw Para-Olympics in there too and China stomps all over the USA.... I'll leave that thought there.
The entire Nate thing about medals was UNNECESSARY at best and I’m a US athlete that was collegiate competitive in boxing and rowing. The US is WEAK in Ironman triathlon as well as in pro cycling. We have insane track subsidies so please leave it at the door. The US is awesome but pretty mediocre in long course racing. I attempt to mimic their methods and have qualified for World Ironman Championships 70.3 and 140.6.
Nate, cut the patriotic crap and stay focused and objective mate! If Norwegians doing better, then they are doing it better and there is an opportunity for all of us to learn from them! Norwegians are good but…! There is no but, but is dirty!
I'm sorry if I sounded patriotic. I wanted to emphasize that Norway isn't a dominant force in the Olympics, but it punches above its weight for its population size. th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=axZYXlxrW72zeHUG&t=480
Speaking for Sarah and myself, we prefer to have interjections from the people we are having a roundtable discussion with. It provides for a more fun, informative, and dynamic conversation about a topic. We preferred having Nate interject, just as we would anybody else. :) - Jonathan
I prefer the podcasts this way. It is like a normal conversation with friends. If there are no interruptions, it seems like a teacher doing a virtual course. I would get bored easily.
I’m waiting for the Slovenian method becomes a thing.
Maybe in 10 years We know what’s going on
It's great to hear about a study confirming this, but it's self evident that a taller and bigger person can process more food (in this case, carbs).
I'm 203cm, 101kg, a few years back in the saddle after 20 years off (since racing as a kid). I'm quite fast and love hill climbing, but I have to push ungodly watts to have a chance at keeping up with 60kg riders on hills. The only way I can fuel that (especially over a longer ride) is with a lot of carb consumption.
I did a 6hr gravel ride yesterday with timed segments. Only 308w NP overall, but was averaging around 450w on the 6 segments that took a total of 55 minutes. I took in around 700g carbs during that time without pushing it at all.
Big engines need a lot of fuel 😊
Brilliant podcast. It concisely encapsulates effective training. Progressive overload, hard/easy, training in zone, consistency etc. Glad to see the Nowregian Method seems to dovetail quite well with TR. I am looking forward to volume plan adjustments. Fantastic stuff!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
P.s. just seen the comments with all the Nate hate, Nate you're a dude and you add great summaries, humour, and quick analysis to the conversation - keep on trucking!
I'm looking forward to the strength training discussion. It'd be awesome if TR had strength training built into a training plan.
Hope he'll discuss why so many strongmen are from Iceland - population 382,000.😀
What a great podcast. Truly appreciate the discussion and information. Cheers !
Thanks for listening!
That face when Nate pulled the "They had four gold medals, we had fourty". USA also has almost 62 times the population of Norway.
Now do GDP per capita
Yes, i agree... he comes across as abnormally ignorant in this episode...
But he is US american... He dosent span that way. Otherways we should compare EU to the USA... and than your more than welcome
42 gold medals lol. In an Olympic structure where the medal tally has been made to boost the US medal tally.
This was idiotic even by the low standards of moustache guy
It’s a counterpoint and an important one to make. Don’t get so butt hurt. Norway literally isn’t dominating the Olympics. By that logic, St. Lucia is the most athletic country on Earth.
And all that said, he even agrees Norway is punching above their weight.
Also New Zealand actually beat Norway in the Paris Olympics for gold medals per capita as got 10 gold medals and has equal size population. A lot of them from endurance sports too.
So perhaps you should review the Lydiard method (Arthur lydiard) that he used to produce many great runners from NZ in the 1960's and 1970's. Then his friend Bill Bowerman (nike founder) learned of when he visited NZ and took it back to the states and the running boom began. Lydiard then went off to Finland in the 1970's and had great success with runners there too, Lasse Viren and Pekka Vasala to name a few.
Heck yes! Go New Zealand!
Stephen Seilers approach is roughly 80/20 but he classes it as low stress/high stress. So a long tempo session or even a long endurance zone 2 ride comes under the 20% high stress part. So it's not strictly either zone 1/2 and zone 4+. The 'grey' zone would be always doing your endurance zone 2 rides slightly too hard, or doing them strict but hitting zone 3/4 on short hills and labeling them as 'easy' rides.
You are misinterpreting Seiler. The 80/20 split is number of sessions by intensity(VT1/VT2). The stress argument came later to explain why not more intensity. He never said a long Z2 session falls into the 20% group.
@@gerrysecure5874 Regarding long Z2 - Seiler has said a long Z2 session may turn into a high stress workout. Try it yourself. Go out and hold Z2 power (especially mid to high Z2) for 50/100% longer than you normally do. The resulting fatigue, glycogen depletion, dehydration, etc., may be equivalent to a high stress workout.
Oo can't wait for the plan volume adjustments. Thanks TR!
You bet!
"it's training - simple & beautiful words! 😂 thx
Great topic and very interesting discussion. Was a pleasure to watch.
@natepearson5317 There are two things I'd like to add which were not mentioned and I think they are important:
1. The intensity zones defined in Table 2 are very high and I would say much higher than what we typically use in cycling - e.g. Zone 1 is up to 72% Max HR. For me with MaxHR=193 that is 140 bpm which is quite close to the upper end of Zone 2 in pretty much all other models. This would explain why there is so much volume spent training in Zone 1 instead in Zone 2 which is what we would all expect. If we try to map those zones to TrainerRoad zones I think Zone 2 in the study would be more like a Tempo zone and Zone 3 would be more like a Sweetspot zone.
2. Numbers in Table 4 are not per week but per session instead. What that means is you can't calculate the weekly time spent in Z1 by just using the proportion of those numbers. You need to weight them by how often they are used in a training week and that information is available in Table 3 (e.g. Z4 is used 0.5x times per week on average while Z1 is used 4.5x per week on average). If you do it this way the results will say that 85% of the time is spent in Z1 which makes more sense and is in line with what dr. Stephen Seiler is usually saying
The Norwegian method : follow the program, look at the data, adjust the program as necessary and do it consistently for years.
I hope Dr. Poglacar does a similar study to what Nate suggested. I also think it would be a really good idea for him to do the same study with fructose. To clarify if it is actually 1:1. But this study is great. With a 1:1 ratio that would put me at 110 grams for my threshold/VO2 days. Which is more than I take in currently. Curious how much these amounts change when doing endurance as well.
Yes, Nate, USA might get more medals, BUT Norway only has a population of approx. 5 million....
Yup
As if they didn’t come to that same exact conclusion in the video? What are you adding exactly here?
I mention this exact thing at 8 minutes into the video about how they get a gold medal for every 1.6m people and the USA gets one for every 8 million people. I then praise Norway for punching above it's weight.
th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.html
I mentioned this at 8 minutes in. I do the math population per gold medal math and praise Norway.
th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=axZYXlxrW72zeHUG&t=480
Nate was confidently incorrect. His only grace was actually looking at the data and admitting his mistake. But even a cursory knowledge of the world would have stopped him from putting his foot in his mouth in the first place.
For medals pro rata Netherlands is up there in longer speed skating. I would imagine very similar training methods to the Norwegian winter athletes.
The carb ratio at the end was very interesting. I remember on one of the earlier podcasts a recommendation was to switch from 2:1 to 1:0.8 (glucose:fructose) and my stomach felt better on 90g/hr. Doing the maths of 0.7g per/kg for my 71kg body weight puts the suggestion at 49.7g which is close to 50g glucose/40g fructose mix in the bottle.
All-time Winter Olympics Medals:
Norway: 405 medals (148 gold)
US: 330 Medals (114 gold)
Norway population is 5.5 million. US population is 330 million.
Norway wins not only per capita medal count, but also absolute. I think a little humility is in order.
When I get asked what this model is about and why it consists of the things it does, I like to ask trainers to add a bit of volume to a already high volume plan. What do you need to change? And then add a bit more volume. What do you change now? How do you make sure your athletes doesn't get injured? If you continue down this path, you will end up with only low intensity training and that will not win medals on these levels. Continously adding volume to a polarized traning plan will make it less and less polarized, because there is not more time to spend on training. That is why we see those distributions between low, mid and high intensity in this video. It will make sense when you look at the volume. Double threshold is just an interval of the interval, spent at an intensity where you still increase the threshold. The double threshold workouts might just let you spend a tiny bit more time towards the threshold compared to what you could do in one workout.
so if i or another rider, is accustomed to up 20 hours per week, will the new release TR reflect that in a plan going forward?, and then adjust as the feedback comes in?
I don't think the main goal of double threshold is to cram in more intensity hours. It is to have more time for recovery in between the hard days. I'm by far not a high performance athlete, but having 2 double hard sessions per week gives me 2-3 days between and still do 4 different interval protocols in a week while doing it on different days gives not enough easy days in between.
A link to the DOI for the articles would be great
Links to the studies are in the description and below:
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-024-02067-4
www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4530175/v1
Do I read the paper's tables correctly: basically, they do Z1 rides, or do intervals off of Z1 rides? I think some Z2 can be done continuously, but almost everything seems anchored in Z1.
According to Table 4, the data ranges per zone are as follows:
Z1: 55-67%
Z2: 9-10%
Z3: 10-21%
Z4: 8-9%
Z5: 5%
Z6: 1-2%
@@TrainerRoad I think what struck me is how dominant Z1 is and how even Z2 rides are often structured as intervals with Z1 as the base (like 'Weld' in TR).
You forgot about the New Zealand method!? In Paris: a gold medal per 500,000 people; any medal per 250,000. Genetic pool v. environment v. method? Of course I’m not biased, but just saying. 😉
Impressive work to NZ!!
What about 'The New Zealand Method'!? We have the same population as Norway but got over double the golds (20) at Paris. Think NZ was second in 'per capita' golds.
Si, Christchurch, New Zealand 🇳🇿 😊
The best Norwegian skier ever that is cykling pro now is Jørgen Nordhagen. His Vo2 is sky high, and his skiing tecnique in skate-style is on Nadia Comanechi level. He won 20 km skiing junior WC skate-style with more than two minutes.
Not watched in a while, is it me or is Nate's voice deeper?
It's the moustache.
When are y'all going to open your triathlon support team??
We have fast triathletes on staff as well!
I wonder if TR has a Volume increase Plan?
You forgot about the British method , bend the rules as much as possible best tech of the era Boardman super bike for example the secret squirrels and the faster speed suits etc
Massively frustrated by this. After only 5 mins in, Nate chips in effectively arguing that the USA won more medals so we should listen to their approach and ignore the Norwegian one, completely undermining the point of the episode. (He even started arguing that his local area had olympic medalists). All completely irrelevant to the point of the paper being reviewed. Jonathan points out that Norway has a far smaller population than the USA and gamely pushes on. However I must admit i found Nate's early repetative interventions SO disruptive that I switched off and went in search of the original paper. I am a long time TR user and used to religiously watch the weekly podcasts. However I gave up with them a couple of years ago as they would wander off in all sorts of directions. I saw the title of this one and thought I would watch it. However I was immediately put off by Nate's pointless and distuptive interuption. I used to really appreciate the "Science of perfoemance' episodes that Sarah did, but they stopped. After this experience, I won't be returning anytime soon.
Give it another go, Nate settles down. Flag waving aside, Nate is sharp and has some good contributions to make in this episode.
You are saying that Keegan went from mid-pack at World Cups to winning at Gravel races because his physiology is better suited. Have you considered that MTB World Cup events are more competitive and Gravel scene is less competitive and that his level hasn't actually changed.
Yes there is less competition in USA gravel - but the overall premise is true - World Cup requires a Formula 1 engine, whereas the 200 mile Unbound gravel race requires a diesel/highly durable engine. Jonas Vingegaard would love to win Paris Roubaix or Flanders, but it's not gonna happen.
@vantarpon6849 nailed it. Thanks!
Nate la población de Noruega es 61 veces menor que la de USA, con eso aunque sean muchas medallas de oro si lo reducimos una muestra igual de numero de personas creo que serian primer lugar sin dudarlo, no es lo mismo comprar 330 millones de personas en USA que 5.3 millones de personas en Noruega, es cierto que USA es una potencia en el deporte pero, como dijo Jonathan la cantidad de personas que vive en cada país es significativa para ver el potencial de sus deportistas, Saludos desde Mexico
I mention this at 8:00 in and praise Norway for punching above its weight class.
th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.html
wrong time stamp, here's the correct one: th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=axZYXlxrW72zeHUG&t=480
Table 4 Loading factor organization in typical training sessions across intensity zones. This is per session not per week.
5:23 Hocker (and Kerr and Nuguse) beat Jakob at the Olympics 🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸
I am not sure why you frame double threshold as something that is impossible for anyone that hasn't won the genetic lottery. It is all about intensity. "Threshold" in this model is a wide term, so it is not like hammering intervals at FTP or middle of zone4 (in the five zone model). Quite often there are intensities most of us wouldn't classify as threshold. This model is all about maximising time at the highest intensity where you still not get injured, over time. I kind of expect you to touch on this later in the episode..
That's a great point, and one we discuss as well.
The context in which we are asked about double threshold is very often an athlete that fears they aren't doing enough, yet they are already filling their cup, so to speak, with training stress.
In terms of the genetic lottery component, we were specifically discussing the athletes involved in this study.
Nate, just for your information. For every Norwegian gold in the Olympics, the U.S. would need to win 61 to equalize for population. If producing that many endurance athletes isn't dominant, then I’m not sure what is. The U.S. isn't the best, although you seem to think so...
Letting go of trying to become a climber is difficult, but a good thing. Rather have bigger power and durability as a human, certainly as a masters amateur
FYI the link to the "Training Sessions Models..." is broke but you can copy and paste the URL. Appreciate y'all.
Thank you! Fixed.
I don't think it really takes anything away from the podcast, but I can't help but think Sarah should have her screen closer to the camera, to help with "eye contact", like the other hosts. It's nit-picky, I know, but it's something I notice as a viewer here on TH-cam, and therefore assume I'm not the only one. Just some constructive criticism!
Norway is the size of Cook county Illinois.. therefore eight medals is pretty good..
Swimming with its some 50 contests is designed so that every athlete can bring home a medal. Number of medals is not a measure.
As it turns out, the “Norwegian Method” is the “way almost all elite coaches train their athletes.” Oh, and it’s NOT “80-20 polarized” despite Seiler being a co-author. So, live and re-learn… 😅
Seems like a lot of research deep dives are aimed at discrediting polarized training. True, it is based off of one main paper, but it is a well designed study. On the other hand, the paper covered in this episode and the one on pro cyclists from another episode, are just observational. I don’t think it’s a good argument to say, “pros and Olympic medalists don’t use polarized training, so it’s not as effective as it seems”. The TR community especially is interested in optimizing their training, so just because polarized isn’t the only way to get fast, doesn’t mean it’s not the most efficient and best supported way currently.
The Norwegian Method is succesful , but is it because of how they are training? Of course there is something correct with the training, but what we dont mention is the environment and the laws. In Norway and some other countrys (for example Sweden) we have "allemannsretten". "allemannsretten" is that everybody has the right to go on private property like the forests and mountains (but not the agricultural fields). This right to run in the forest is fundemantal for developing the kids physically. In many other countries in the world this is not a fundamental right and some places its dangerous too..
You introduce training load and ramp rate and it's only 2024?!
All TrainerRoad athletes have been able to manage and adjust training load for years now., and features like Adaptive Training have automatically adjusted ramp rate for them.
These new features we will soon be launching utilize our models to remove the guess work from finding the right balance of volume, intensity, work, and rest.
@@TrainerRoad Yes, they adjust training load by manually (mis-)picking a static low/mid/high volume plan instad of contineous management of progressive overload.
But anyways, better late than never!
8:21 guy on the right. Then you are involved in a norwegian discussion 😂
Please view your video on a big screen TV
Your heads are absolutely HUGE.
The old format didn’t look like this
Please consider something different
Thank you
Thanks for the feedback!
There are more Norwegians in the US than Norway.. Wrap your head around that.
Yeah Nate is very arrogant in this this episode and cant seem to get passed how many Absolute gold medals the USA got in Paris. But per capita is valid too, nothing less, or nothing more. But lets also throw Para-Olympics in there too and China stomps all over the USA.... I'll leave that thought there.
Still can’t get use to Nate with a tash
They left out doping….
South Africa has loadsa Penguins
Can that girl speak😮
Seems to be busy doing something else...
The entire Nate thing about medals was UNNECESSARY at best and I’m a US athlete that was collegiate competitive in boxing and rowing. The US is WEAK in Ironman triathlon as well as in pro cycling. We have insane track subsidies so please leave it at the door. The US is awesome but pretty mediocre in long course racing. I attempt to mimic their methods and have qualified for World Ironman Championships 70.3 and 140.6.
There are many norwegian methods 😂
Nate, cut the patriotic crap and stay focused and objective mate! If Norwegians doing better, then they are doing it better and there is an opportunity for all of us to learn from them! Norwegians are good but…! There is no but, but is dirty!
I'm sorry if I sounded patriotic. I wanted to emphasize that Norway isn't a dominant force in the Olympics, but it punches above its weight for its population size.
th-cam.com/video/2a_cVKwzHjM/w-d-xo.htmlsi=axZYXlxrW72zeHUG&t=480
Interesting on the medals
Nate constantly interrupting as usual
Good, preventing me from falling asleep
Speaking for Sarah and myself, we prefer to have interjections from the people we are having a roundtable discussion with. It provides for a more fun, informative, and dynamic conversation about a topic. We preferred having Nate interject, just as we would anybody else. :)
- Jonathan
No, it is because if you don't let him validate himself by voicing his uneducated ramblings, you'll end up like Chad- gone.
Everybody knows.
Really hard to watch....
I prefer the podcasts this way. It is like a normal conversation with friends. If there are no interruptions, it seems like a teacher doing a virtual course. I would get bored easily.
The stache doesn’t work unfortunately