My 6 yr olds favorite some is Rime
Of the Ancient Mariner. Iron Maiden would attract him into the room like a magnet!
Even better that it’s also beer!
You bring forth good arguments, but a lot hinges on the word “optimal”. What is optimal very much depends on circumstances.
A Pro whose job it is to stay super fit and get faster has very different optimum than someone with a regular job and a family. We are looking to optimize under constraints, and these constraints are very different. For example, is a training plan that if athletes stuck to it in the setting of an academic study, but can’t stick to in reality better than one where the gains might be higher, but practical adherence is lower? That very much depends on what your definition of optimum is, and what your constraints are.
What you are missing is that both populations have very different constraints. The correct question is: if you have 6 hours to train per week, how do you get fittest? I don’t think a traditional approach (long times at low intensity) are the answer here. Pros do not have that constraint. Or rather, on a mere 6 hours per week I don’t think you can be competitive as a pro cyclist.
The other difference between TR users and pro riders is that the latter have (perhaps several) personal coaches, perhaps nutritionists, massage therapists and other support staff. Is TR going to be competitive with a training plan that is monitored by one of the world’s best cycling coaches? I don’t think so.
Right now TR’s selection of plans is coarse compared to what a coach can do. It cannot adapt to life situations like a coach can, e. g. when I get sick or to work on my weaknesses. TR cannot be kind to me like a coach can or give me a kick in my rear-end when I need to.
But a pro-level coach is not competition to TR, in most cases it is no structured training at all.
I will buy it. This time of year, I will try to include more zone-1 and zone-2 volume in addition to SSB. I will do it gradually and see what’s happening.
I’m not missing it at all.
I’m simply stating that TrainerRoads plans are not optimal endurance training.
I did not say what optimal for 6hrs is.
Would you like me to state what I think is optimal on 6hrs a week?
Given the constraint that my significant other only lets me train 6 hours per week (and this is really pushing it to the limit), what would an “optimal” base plan look like for me?
Hit the nail on the head. The problem(s) with the TR plans are not that they’re “not polarised”. It’s that they’re simultaneously too much, and too little. Too much intensity once you get above Low Volume, but still not enough hours in the saddle / Extensive work (both endurance and at FTP) . Too many “VO2max” workouts, but their intervals are often not long enough to provide sufficient stimulus.
With the way you use optimal, you can’t make a nuanced argument.
No, but you claimed that TR’s approach is far from optimal. When TR made some optimizations to increase adherence to training plans, which in a lab make it worse, are the plans better or worse?
Would you optimize training plans for greater gains among a smaller population of cyclists or would you sacrifice some of the maximal gains in favor of a larger adherence to training plans? How do you treat unusual riders, i. e. those that can take more or less stress of a certain kind?
Sure.
I see the LV plan combined with a moderate to high Z2 plan to be most effective (especially coupled with high volume). Three days on intensity would be pushing things but it’s doable if one of the days is at 85 - 95% FTP. My personal philosophy is two Z2 rides (at 3 hrs +) for every intensity ride.
But if you are just going to ride the LV plan with little or no Z2 then eventually FTP is going to flatline (and may even deteriorate) because the steady increase in lactate production from the sole training impetus (glycolytic in this case) is going to shift the metabolism to the right and eventually higher lactate values will be seen from Z1 all the way through to Z5. You will have become exclusively a carb rider with a substandard fat max contribution. This higher lactate production will arrive in the form of increased perceived exertion in all zones…except maybe Z5 and above. This is my take on VlaMax science. When you turn the dial to the right (glycolytic - intervals) it means something. When you turn the dial to the left (fat max - Z2) it means something as well. There must be a balance or performance will not always be optimal.
I also think that a Z2 plan should be progressive…meaning that intensity should be increased every 4 - 6 weeks, as long as you can stay at a set percentage of max heart rate (usually 75%). You should not be fresh as a daisy from these rides. I would reduce the cadence to around 80 - 82 rpm and try to increase the power by perhaps 5W every 4 - 6 weeks, which is what erg mode allows indoors. That way you can track it…heart rate vs. power…over time.
Yes, That is my dilemma right now. I have 6 hours per week to train but I don’t think I can handle SSB mid volume. My plan is to do LV with 2 extra endurance rides. Not sure how long or easy the extra rides should be.
I would aim at something like this for base training on 6hrs a week.
Monday - Rest
Tuesday - 1hr Z2 with short tempo or sweetspot intervals
Wednesday - Rest
Thursday - 1hr Z2 with short tempo or sweetspot intervals
Friday - Rest
Saturday - 3hr Z2
Sunday - 1hr Z2 with short tempo or sweetspot intervals
I believe the 3hr Z2 ride is absolutely the most valuable ride of the entire week. In fact I would probably just do a 4hr ride Saturday and skip Sunday.
The issue here is, I don’t think 2 day breaks are a good idea when building base. You’re trying to build load and the two day breaks makes this hard.
A single extra hour on Sunday, moving you to 7hrs would be fantastic.
I wouldn’t do this for more than a month or so. You’d adapt by then and need more stimulus. I’d simply swap the Saturday Z2 ride to a hard group ride with every zone possible for the following 2 months.
On such low volume, there really isn’t any other option than playing the dangerous game of increasing intensity.
So, band geek here, who started riding at age 39 after failing in other sports. Didn’t get any of these genetics you speak of, but instead, drifted toward cycling because heart, literally and figuratively, counts for so much more than anything else when compared with other sports. I was pointing out the difference between TR and Dylan Johnson using Nate and Dylan as a metaphor. Nate will push himself hard to the point of exhaustion rather than playing the long game. Dylan does more of the long game races than things like crits. Dylan is the science of cycling and Nate is the emotional, “I’ll try anything if it might make me better even if the evidence isn’t there yet kinda guy.” Tell me I’m wrong about these two or how this would play out. As a self made man like Nate, I have had to learn to control those emotions and become a grinder. I will cheer on the grinder every time, not because I like one better than the other, but because I’ve lived long enough to pick a winner over the emotional choice. So call me a troll. Tell me my comments are incendiary. I’m just saying we are seeing the two companies reflecting the direction of their leadership, and which I would want to see win.
I will say one thing, this thread is certainly polarizing.
I’ll show myself out.
What do you do if people just don’t want to follow such a plan? Is it really better? Is it optimal?
Like others have mentioned, the TR guys have taken out Z2 weekend rides in their plans because people weren’t doing them in the end.
It’s an interesting point, but I have to wonder if more people would have done them if their value beyond “TSS filler” was more clearly communicated. Yes it’s talked about on the podcast … sometimes at least. Usually Chad is championing their value, but lately more often than not Nate is downplaying it.
I’m also not convinced these need to be structured workouts either, and I wonder if simply including time and RPE would have led to more enjoyment and thus higher compliance - but that goes against the TR ethos it seems, where FTP is estimated to the Watt, and workouts are scaled the same way, etc…
Ron Burgundy: “In response to the entire thread. a Peloton spokesperson declined to comment”
That’s evidence of being confident. When someone being open to different ideas, it’s a much better start than just stopping them express their ideas.
What do you suggest to people who have 17 hours training per week?
I am currently on SSB II High volum?
@chidlow
Nice post 
That’s tricky even if the theory is clear. Related to that is the important question of volume: what to do with people who choose too much volume? Whenever this is covered on the TR podcasts, they all unisono say that in case of doubt, opt for the lower volume plan. But we are human, we are greedy, we want more and we want it now.
A coach we trust could use his authority and say “Look, you are overreaching, it’ll hurt you in the long run. Trust me.” But users can override the best judgement of the TR team with their own app. In practice, this is an important point.
Circling back to your point: I think you are right that if the purpose might be communicated more clearly, more people might do it. But perhaps you need another approach of having plans of different tiers. Advanced cyclists with a better background can then be trusted to make better choices.
If you look at Plan Builder, then the kernels are already there. One of the questions it asks is how much experience you have with structured training. So in principle, they could adapt the plans according to your capabilities.
Indoors, IMHO they need to be structured just for compliance. I’m pretty disciplined. But if I wake up at 5:30 in the morning, I don’t want to think what to do 
On the weekends that argument has more merit. Also, people forget to that cycling involves things you can’t train on a trainer, e. g. cornering, handling yourself in a peloton, how to ride trails, etc.
Just to be clear, I would like to hear an in-depth dive on this topic, because the TR guys are clearly aware of polarized training and consciously decided against it.
You do what TrainerRoad did.
You hit them with yet more sweetspot. You then run the risk of overtraining them.
This is the basis of the entire discussion here.
If you are coaching an athlete and they refuse to take the well intended advice. You stop coaching them. If customers are refusing to train in the optimum manner, then they risk having poor results.
Personally. I would be DRAMATICALLY more clear on the reasons for doing the lower intensity workouts.
It’s a rather complex issue. It’s partially a business decision. That in itself is a large portion of how we’ve ended up having this discussion.
We’re talking about small percentages here. I have no idea if the missed workout is worse than the repeated high intensity session. That is almost impossible to know.
I simply feel that many cyclists, especially beginners, simply do not understand the value of lower intensity endurance training. If they did, they would learn a system to do it, either indoors or outside.
Yes, pyramidal and some timed use of polarized training training is the optimal training distribution for a majority of cyclists.
If you’re talking under 6hrs of training a week. Well, it’s pretty much irrelevant. At that point you’re so far from optimal that literally anything goes.
Hell, if I was on only 6hrs a week I’d smash the Hickson V02s all day baby, I’d be a freaking monster 
Where were you when Alanis was writing her hit song?