Precisely. This is the kind of discussion I’d find really interesting, because having more people doing something that is less optimal individually could be more optimal in aggregate.
Exactly! 
Say more … 
All good points, I won’t counter-point anything as I’d have to raise some specific examples of what I’m talking about in order to differentiate as there’s a bit of nuance here, but that’s the subject of different threads.
I don’t believe in polarised as a perscriptive paradigm, no. I do believe though that:
- The vast majority of people can’t recover from more than 3 (at most) intense sessions per week.
- Way more hours per week are required for most people to reach their potential, than are prescribed even in TR’s HV plans - even their Traditional Base High Volume plan has less hours per week than I do on average, and I’m nowhere near the high side of things - still have a 9-5 job.
- As a consequence of (1) & (2), an optimal training load will for most people have large amounts of aerobic endurance riding.
- That said, even if (1) wasn’t true, I believe there are specific benefits to aerobic endurance riding, so I’d still say such efforts should constitute a decent percentage of Time in Zone even if you’re a unicorn who can hit the intensity more than 3 times per week and still recover.
If I had to choose between completely stock TR plans, and a by-the-book polarised approach though? I’d definitely go with the latter.
Edit: boy I really stuffed this post up trying to make it reply to the correct post…
This is some really profound wisdom here. And it has wide ramifications i terms of how you approach training programs. It is so easy to f.ex. turn SST sessions into threshold sessions, whether you tested too high on a ramp test or due to natural performance fluctuations.
If you don’t know the underlying principles and don’t listen to your body it is easy to fry yourself. Especially as you grow older.
We could always ask @davidtinker to do some analysis like this. He has access to a ton of data. Although intervals.icu skews heavily towards those on the more data driven training obsessive types.
Willing to bet vast majority of people are pyramidal
He has more subscribers on YT than TR does
I’m assuming you meant to reply to someone else, and not to my Monty Python joke?
Yes, sorry about that!
Great summary! I am nearly in the same boat. I was HV and then modified to MV and now as I approach a plateau with diminishing FTP gains and warmer weather, I will change to LV and adjust my TR session’s intensity based on prioritizing my outdoor rides’ intensities. It is unfortunate that DJ based his video on the premise that the TR prescribed plans must be followed. The TR calendar provides more than sufficient functionality to modify as needed. I don’t see why both SS & Polarized be both used in one’s training?
2 or 3 hard sessions / rides a week with intensity. 1 day off and the rest Z1 or Z2. Don’t under estimate the stimulus from volume of lower intensity riding.
It’s pretty obvious he’s just using the popularity of TrainerRoad to get himself in the spotlight. The same guy already attacked Zwifts training plans, that got him the attention he wanted so he’s just repeating the same trick with TR.
I subscribed to his YouTube account a couple of months back and have viewed and enjoyed much of his content but not sure I like this approach he’s taking. It’s a fairly pathetic way to promote yourself.
Remind me again when TrainerRoad came out with a click-bait video about how SufferFest plans are bad?
Sure.
The slowtwitch thread is obviously focused on TR’s triathlon plans. A number of stories from triathletes who went through death spirals of inflated FTPs and incessant hammering of intensity which led to burnouts.
Some interesting comments from a top triathlon coach (almost verbatim):
-
Suboptimal program design because it (the bike part) crushed the athlete for other sports
-
Estimated FTP was too high and it is very common. However people hate to be told that their true FTP is lower and therefore find it hard to adjust in training. Most people would be better off underestimating their FTP by 15w than overestimating by 5w
-
Erg mode is not always appropriate and can aggravate problems
-
If people keep on struggling even after adjusting resistance down by 5-10%, they should take an easy week
-
Too many intervals in the program
Hope this is helpful.
If you’re talking about multivariate linear regression, then yes the error terms can “account” for latent variables, sort of… but when you have latent variables that are causal factors for both your independent and dependant variables, things get… messy. Suffice to say, Excel will not do the trick, and you’re better off thinking in terms of probabilistic graphical models at that point. Then bam, before you know it, you have an NP-hard inference problem on your hands
Yes, same here, 45 been riding a long time too. Used to do 20 hour training weeks when I was 20 ish but yes way too much intensity. It’s a simple fix too. They just need to have Tuesday and Saturday SS intensity days for the base program and do the rest level 2. Call it the masters plan and it’s done. Easy as.
It looks like it’s definitely time to put this thread to bed.
It’s sadly become fan boy/girl vs non fan boy/girl.
We are no longer offering any useful information to each other. We’re simply participating in a mass confirmation bias festival.
I love these forums, I have gained a huge amount from the numerous experienced athletes posting here.
I wish each poster included a detailed summary of their training history and athletic journey. It would greatly help to legitimize the value we give to peoples comments.
Without it, it’s difficult to filter the noise.
I’ll take the bait. HV user here, plus I add on 3-6 more hours a week of Z2, time permitting. Just finished SSBHV 1 and 2 with 100% compliance + added rides. All of SSBHV2 was done at 108%, as I’m coming back off a fairly significant injury and fitness is coming back much faster than the scheduled ramp tests support. I’ll give a little bit of n=1 anecdotal data.
Background: I’m a 36 year old masters racer, who mostly focuses on time trials and flat road races.
Some history… I started with TR in 2016, completely untrained, and as a fairly new cyclist. Off the couch FTP was 261 @ 120kg. Started out with mid volume, thinking 5-6 hours a week was a “reasonable” amount based on my riding. Struggled big time, and learned quickly that 6hr/wk of riding != 6hr/wk of structured training. In any case, I was able to bump my FTP 100+ watts within about 9 months, to 372w (@95kg) on a hybrid of reduced mid volume SSB and build + outdoor group rides, etc.
Next comes the bad part… after seeing huge gains over the course of a year, I figure more has to be better, right? Wrong. More might be better if you can handle more. I switched to HV and thought I was ready to take on the world. In reality, I struggled. Not so much with the workout intensity, but more so the compliance… 10+ hr/week of indoor training is very hard. I ended up only doing about 50% of the scheduled rides, in favor of doing more “fun” outdoor rides with friends and chasing Strava segments. The result was exactly 0 gain in my FTP over the course of another year or so, and no other measurable performance gains.
In early 2018 I started racing, and decided it was time to get serious and hire a coach. The biggest benefit of having a coach was accountability. I told her I had ~15hr/wk to train, and she loaded me up. Because I had someone watching over me, my compliance rate was near 100%, save for the occasional life issue (but that’s the great thing about having a coach, the flexibility to move things around). I think it was the consistency and compliance more than anything that led to some huge gains in fitness and area under my power curve. My progression was very similar to that of TR, 12-16 weeks of base (mostly endurance and some tempo/ss work), 8-12 weeks of building, with threshold and vo2 work depending on what my race needs were, and then leading into my A events, 6-8 weeks of specialized focus (mainly TT work).
Fast forward to late 2020… I decided to give TR a go again after a successful (training wise) year under my coach with huge volume and some big PRs. My first ramp test in September netted me a 398w FTP (down 12w from a previous 20min test result in July), but unfortunately, I was injured shortly thereafter and was completely off the bike and barely even walking until late November, at which point I started over with a 337 ramp test, and bumped workouts up as necessary. After 12 weeks of SSBHV I’m back up to 382, and entering high volume build.
Most folks do exactly what I did in the beginning and bite off more than they can chew. Too much volume leads to mental or physical burnout, or both and you fall into the trap of “this program doesn’t work”; however, more often than not it’s just that the plan chosen isn’t the most optimal for your success.
ANOVA models have the same probabilistic structure as Multi-variate Linear Regression, except their input variables are categorical rather than continuous. First result on Google for explaining how they’re the same, in case you’re interested: Why ANOVA and Linear Regression are the Same Analysis
Why did you not continue with your coach?
Long story short, with COVID and no racing, it didn’t feel all that different from something like TR or a canned program, but for a lot more money. With the continued uncertainty, I didn’t think it made sense to continue. Once we get back to racing I may reconsider.
I never stopped my TR subscription all these years, so I’m grandfathered in at the original price, which is pretty impossible to beat (< $10/mo)
I’m going to venture that you’ve not read the thread, as this has sort of been discussed…