Regarding Periodization, this is one of the common complaints from athletes about textbook Polarized approaches. It’s tough to fit that strict framework into Base and Specialty Phases.
We have some ideas on how to address that that we’d like to try.
All of that said, has your friend submitted a ticket to support? If they are telling Adaptive Training their workouts are too intense with post-workout surveys, then it will be giving them easier workouts that are more achievable for them.
Yes please.
I’m doing the LV climbing road race plan for the second time. Except this time I’m skipping the SS workout (3 intense sessions was too much for me) and replacing it with longer Z2 rides.
However, that side of my brain doesn’t like skipping workouts because I get a sense of completion knowing that I’ve ticked the boxes. And besides that’s why I’m paying for TR.
Ultimately what I would like (which may be in the works?) is the ability to do a mid volume polarised plan. Where I will have two intense workouts (as per usual), and 2 or 3 longer Easy workouts in the 3-4 hour range.
Let me determine how many days and what duration I want to train and customise a polarised plan that meets those needs.
Yes. Easier said than done. I respect that.
It appears as though a lot of people are Frankensteining their low volume plans in a similar way. Just wish it was more structured.
This describes what following a current MV Polarized block would be like. The “2-3 longer easy workouts in the 3-4hr range” is a longer than what our plans would have for most athletes, but you can easily swap the shorter workouts for longer ones using Workout Alternates.
We’d like to build this too
Honestly, I think AT fixed everything he’s mad about in his video. Since starting with AT, I’ve yet to fail a workout and have completed every block I’ve started.
C) All of the above
From my potentially questionable memory… TR did try A) initially. But there was more than a little pressure shown here in the forum, FB, etc. for them to answer the criticisms leveled by DJ. They did so with B) in answer to those requests.
Let’s also remember the years long comments in the same light as DJ’s, shared by forum members well before his video ever saw the light of day. He was far from the first to question TR plans, burnout and all that surrounds it. I dislike DJ’s approach and think he made some mistakes in his analysis, but the fact that it got some deeper feedback shared by Nate was a worthwhile result vs shallower comments from the TR team to similar comments up to that point.
Neither side is “clean” in my eyes as both took a few not-so-subtle swipes at the other in their discussions / reviews. Could be a little tit for tat, but either way there were comments made that I think distracted from worthwhile review and discussion.
Looking at the present state of TR via their altered initial plans (different than what DJ tried) and adding in AT/PL’s/AIFTPD and such lead to a very different experience for users now vs what was in place even 2 short years ago.
I used to have to apply lots of plan manipulation with the old system to get through training blocks. But with all I mention above, I am rolling through plans over and over a gain with minor tweaks beyond AT and having as good or better results vs the mega-mods I used to employ. People still leveling the same complaints of old without context of the current state are making a mistake, IMO.
TR is not perfect, and there is still room for improvement in the plans and service. TR would likely agree with that as they seem to have “continuous improvement” baked into their company culture. So I expect we will see more changes for the better as time moves on.
Thanks. On another note; how does TR define polarised? My understanding is it’s approximately 80/20 however, when you look at TR’s MV plan it’s closer to or less than 60/40. Assuming my 3rd grade math is correct… 
What exact metric are you using for your POL split evaluation?
Check out the intro thread for more than a little discussion on how & why TR set the plans the way that they did.
Can confirm. I am no amazing athlete by any means, but every workout I get served is challenging in the right way. If I answer honestly about how a ride feels, AT backs off what I struggle with. This works surprisingly well in the triathlon plans too, where training fatigue comes from swimming and running, which are outside of AT
The 80/20 rule? It’s in their literature, and their HV follows this model.
The high-volume 8-week Experimental Polarized Plan incorporates two 3-week loading cycles, each followed by a recovery week. Its total training intensity distribution is
92% Zone 1, 1% Zone 2, and 6% Zone 3
when measured by time-in-zone. Overall it averages about 9h training time per week, with a weekly maximum of 11.5h.
The plan’s 5th week serves as a good example of its overall structure. The previous week is focused on recovery, so this week begins the plan’s second load cycle.
It’s not a bad question. But perhaps mostly a sign that polarized is not that well defined.
Based on number of high intensity workouts, time in zone or the more pragmatic “Do 2 - or occasionally 3 - hard workouts per week - the rest endurance”?
I kinda like the part from the training program that you showed.
Good to discuss, but I am not the one to answer those questions. I just wanted to get more specific info from you so TR can make sure they see how you are evaluating the plans.
ETA: @AussieRider I will point out that there is some detailed breakdown of the plans and volumes in the first post I linked above. From memory, Jon also expands on the options and choices in the depth of that thread as well.
Aside from that, it’s best if we migrate that POL related discussion over to the thread I linked, since it is not the focus of this topic. I may move some of these posts over there to get things where they belong, but I’m evaluating if/when to handle that at the moment.
People would complain since what is listed above is not polarized training
Lately it seems like a lot of people seem to be clamoring for a plan that is just all Z2
I think 3 intensity sessions is probably too much for a polarised mid-vol plan. And I also think you’d have to define “the rest is endurance”. How many hours on top of intensity is that? If we’re doing 2-3 hours of intensity a week are we adding an additional 5 or 10 hours of easy riding? I don’t know the answers but I think lots of z2 is good and 2 really solid intensity sessions is good.
Probably the million dollar question is; is more Z2 better than some SS? I don’t know the answer.
This is very close to our Traditional Base plan.
I think the initial video Dylan Johnson posted had valid points… and criticisms and opposing views can lead to reflection and (potentially) lead to improvement. But to follow up with an “Anniversary” post is distasteful in my opinion.
Regarding burnout… I know we all come from different athletic backgrounds and experiences but are people so rigid in their thinking, that when/if a plan is causing them burnout that they keep doing it anyway, “because it is on the schedule”? Wouldn’t common sense tell you to substitute with an endurance ride? Or skip the workout and take a day off? If you know you do better with two workouts instead of three what is stopping you from hitting the trash can button in the corner and putting in a long Zone 2 ride? At some point you have to take charge of your own training.
No plan is perfect and will always need modification. No computer knows if you are getting enough sleep or properly hydrated or consuming enough calories to fuel the ride. It doesn’t know your life stress or how much you are willing to hurt. Sure, AI is certainly is a step in that direction but if you are burning out you gotta look inward. You may have the recipe but it doesn’t make you a michelin chef.
The premise that you can’t do intensity all the time is absolutely valid for those putting in consistent, goal focuses training. BUT… if you ride 1 hour rides, three times a week because that’s all you have time for, spinning your legs at 60% of your FTP is good… and will help you have a healthy lifestyle… but it not going to maximize your fitness compared to doing structured work at higher intensity.
Agree with some of the above. TR can’t go pandering to every fad.
Watch in two or three years time when the next thing is here and ISM is just another arrow in the quiver instead of the entire arsenal.
On the flip side. I wouldn’t be mad if TR said eff it, Sweet Spot only!
It’s a fad in terms of it’s not new, it’s just re-popularised.
But how did you come up with all the intense plans in the first place? From the beginning there has always only been the intensity based plans vs traditional but nothing between. Or has there ever been a a comparison of LV vs a LV version with one intense, one middle and one easy…?
D) It was even more messed up: Remember the discussion Pol (capital P) vs pol and then messing up time in zone statistics and correcting these in the forum and / or podcast later…
@Jonathan Hot take 1: WLv2 will make us all forget the pol discussion?! Hot take 2: WLv2 will not be ready for summer season June 2023?
