The study is available here: https://journals.physiology.org/doi/pdf/10.1152/japplphysiol.00652.2012
- It compares the results of a 6 weeks polarized model with the results of a 6 weeks threshold model in 12 “well-trained” cyclists.
- The training distribution of the cyclists before this study were on average somewhere between pyramidal and threshold it seems. Definitely not polarized. So maybe at least part of the difference is that a change of training distribution in what they did the last couple of years, instead of something that is pretty close to what they did, causes greater adaptations? What if we take 12 cyclists that trained polarized for a couple of years, and then make them do threshold training?
- The applied threshold model is only zone 1 and 2. So no VO2Max at all. Not comparable to a trainerroad plan.
- The POlarized model uses on average 76 minutes of time in zone, out of the average 381 total minutes. That’s at least 2 VO2 sessions a week? Is that really much less intensity than a trainerroad plan?
I like the video for giving me some food for thought. But I don’t think there is scientific consensus on a 6-7 hour polarized model being better then a 6-7 hour pyramidal model (what intervals.icu reports my trainerroad mid volume training for the last couple of months to be). He does cite other papers as well, but it didn’t look like those did any claims on time crunched polarized training.
About his other claim: trainerroad plans have too much intensity. The only evidence he seems to give for that is anecdotal.
(yes i made a forum account just to post this…)