But isn’t that exactly the debate, best with limited time. Not genetic potential, just best can be within the parameters.
And I fully accept my volume is low (two rides on the weekend so you don’t think I’m a “hobbyjogger”) . Just trying to the best with what I have. Unless TR will make up my pay lost with the new job, now that’s a product I’d buy (with the limited funds I’d have left).
Yeah, we need some TR fanart / fanfic. The mental image of that is cracking me up.
And here I thought he was saying “wait a minute while I grab some popcorn.” I like your translation better! 
There are so many variables most of these arguments wouldnt stand scientific analysis - people use virtual power, trainers and power meters all of which have significant +- perfect ages when you’re arguing about zones. I’m lucky enough to have a power meter and a trainer - and yet everyone’s argument is based on similarly accurate equipment measuring their FTP. My trainer reads 10% below my pedals.
All of which is to say as others have, the numbers are useful and a consistent training environment is valuable, but you need to listen to your body and adjust intensity not be blind to anything but what the trainer says.
DAMMIT FOLKS. slow down the posting. I ran out of popcorn and just now started another batch. Can you allow my whirlypopper just a moment to catch up?
+2
This is how we race these days.
Bridge the gap, @Jack_Russell_Racing !!! You can do it
I’m not sure about that, I would say:
The distinction because plenty of sweet spot interval workouts are simply not hard, and conflating all intervals as the same is self evidently flawed. Plus all athletes are not the same.
Best with limited time is apparently to bust your arse almost every time you get on the bike. Have to be highly motivated to keep it up for a long time, though.
Stop using the “he’s too young to know” card, that’s just a stupid argument.
He’s clearly stating what research says. And backing that up with a good unbiased analysis. Secondly, being older is not necessarily a reflection of being better at something. It many cases it is, but in others it could even be quite the opposite.
So he pointed out that Seiler was wrong, and that most endurance athletes don’t actually train polarized? Cool. Good to see that people are catching on that everyone’s been sent down the primrose path.
Eh, I do like that he tries to bring in research, but let’s be honest, he presents a couple of studies supporting a viewpoint, covers the high level results, doesn’t look at strength/weakness of methodology. His videos can be informative but they are not definitely the hardest science
Another thought I just had.
I’m glad that TR doesn’t cater to the lowest common denominator.
I’d be really curious to know the completion success rate of those on the LV plans. I’m guessing it’s reasonably high.
If people are failing MV and HV plans, that’s their own damn fault. Drop back to LV and add Z2. There’s your polarized right there.
Don’t get caught up in petty details. Seiler et al didn’t discovered anything new, rather it’s a description of natural occurring outcomes, where only a few observations contribute to most of the variability.
See: Pareto Distribution
Yes but it’s slightly misrepresenting any plan purely in terms of volume, especially when we know TR plans are specifically designed to apply more intensity and reduce volume.
I’d guess that we’d be better off comparing weekly kilojoules if we all knew them 
One thing TR has, and continues to add to on a daily basis, is mountains of data. @Nate_Pearson has eluded to this on multiple occasions and I think one of their biggest challenges is figuring out how to interpret and use this data to make training better. This has got to be a monstrous task as there would be an incredible amount of noise in the data with riders of many different abilities, training histories, age, etc. etc. They may be holding back on updating TR plans and putting their resources into figuring out how the data they have can make the plans better.
Ultimately I believe it is this data, properly analyzed that would take them to the next level by being able to create smart AI enhanced training plans. Completely speculating here, but perhaps this creates a new level of TR subscription. A standard subscription for the current functionality and training plans, and then a higher tier “custom AI” training plan level. With the cost of personal coaching being out of reach for many amateurs, something like this might help bridge the gap.
The alternative may be that this bank of data is what triggers the sale of TR to someone who recognizes the value.
This is a fair criticism. But It doesn’t seem he is leaving out equally compelling evidence in favor of Sweet Spot. Mr. @old_but_not_dead_yet could only managed to post some 50yr old obsolete research to the table.
I’m looking forward for a high level response from coach Chad.
Most research studies deal with a small number of subjects.
TR has user data several orders of magnitude greater in size. While TR user data isn’t nearly as controlled, it still shows real world meaningful trends.
Is this an honest and genuine narrative?
From mocking polarized training:
To admitting a standard of varying modalities (yet ignoring the fact that TR pushes sameness):
To promoting the TR anchor modalities of threshold and tempo (aka sweet spot):
:
Why should I believe this type of clearly confused and disingenuous “dialogue” – from the CEO, no less – when I can look to actual coaches* whose goal is to create better athletes vs better bank accounts, e.g. Tim Cusick:
Wow, look at that! All kinds of training intensities and volumes prescribed at all types of different times throughout a season! Seems a far more realistic and honest approach (reflective of actual coaching) than what some other sources promote.
Bottom line, yeah, there’s a problem with TR.
*(to clarify, I’ve already stated that Coach Chad’s take on training, esp in this ep. was very good. They should have stopped with his reply.)
Maybe, but then again, think about how rowers or swimmers train, versus runners.
IOW, I don’t think that TR users have cornered the market on multiple days of intensity per week, not by a long shot. Yet, anybody who tried to be competitive in rowing or swimming on only a handful of hours per week would clearly recognize that they were fighting an uphill battle.
