Make sure she’s in your headphones your next time out.
Based on the results reported in the ‘Your FTP improvements’ about 90% of users do LV and MV (evenly distributed) and ~10% HV. Did the analysis in another post, and put your own error bar on top as this is based on a limited set of self-reported results.
Yeah, ummm, I don’t think you fully understand what ad hominem attack means. When you describe the people disagreeing with you as “Those with an axe to grind, dogmatists, ideologues” that is an ad-hominem attack because you are directing your argument against the person rather than their position. You are basically just assuming you are right and your opponents have some character / mental failing or bias that doesn’t allow them to grasp the genius of your position. This does not lead to a very productive form of discourse which is why the ancient Greeks came up with a word to describe it.
7 Likes
I’m not going to read all the way through 1300 posts, but I want to clarify that “4-5 days of high intensity” is not what you get with SSB. Sweet spot is not “high intensity”. Polarized low volume is silly. It’s too little stress to adapt optimally over the long term. That’s key, too. Polarized provides the quickest bang for your buck over the short term, but that’s not how you maximize your potential over a season or a career. It takes long term view for SS to work best. That’s what TR looks towards. They are periodized, not polarized. That’s what virtually all cycling pros do. It only looks polarized because of the volume.
The science backs up TR’s approach, and it would be very easy for them to update and “improve the plans” if it was actually better. On lower volume (I’d say anything under ~8-10 hours is lower), polarized is not better for MOST people. Now, the ramp test is not perfect for everyone, but it’s not far off. For less than pro volume, SS is king. It’s not only the most logical approach, but the most data-backed, too. N=1 based on what even multiple people claim is extremely unhelpful. Maybe you don’t sleep? Maybe you don’t eat well? Maybe you have an insanely stressful job/life/spouse/circumstance? All those matter. Physiologically, SS is essentially defined by the level at which you can do the work while still recovering. If you’re killing yourself on LV or MV, you aren’t recovering well or your SS is set too high. That’s all there is to it, and TR does work phenomenally well IF YOU DO IT HOW THEY ADVISE. The best plan in the universe sucks if you don’t actually follow it, and that includes off the bike.
Finally, I don’t know where all this “I’m unique, SS doesn’t work for me” talk comes from. Physiology IS kind of a one size fits all unless you’re a very rare metabolic freak… the nuance is of minor importance until you’re training at an elite level. We all have 3 primary energy systems, and they respond to stimulus largely the same. That’s why SS and then further periodized plans work incredibly well for the vast majority, and perhaps not perfectly for the <1-2% who have MAY strange physiologically differences.
13 Likes
I have now read the study, thanks for the link.
If I read it correctly (which may not be the case as I am not that familiar with reading such studies) both the threshold and polarised groups had three lab training sessions a week - each session comprising 6x4min “VO2 intervals“ for the polarised group and 1hr at “threshold/sweetspot ” for the threshold group. I have put the power targets in inverted commas because I didn’t find it easy to relate the metrics given to to the usual “%of FTP” I am more familiar with.
In addition to this both groups did the same amount of low intensity training - it was a stated objective that both groups should do the same amount of zone 1 (threes zone model) training. Since the threshold group’s lab sessions were longer than the polarised group’s the overall training volume of the threshold group was described as “significantly” higher than that of the polarised group - though as we are looking at relatively low volume overall this seems to boil down to around 6hrs/wk vs around 7hrs/wk.
This paper is the only science Dylan offered in support of the argument that polarised training is the best approach even for those with only 6hrs/wk to train. However, I am not sure that three VO2 workout sessions per week in a 6hr training week is exactly what most proponents of polarised training on this forum have in mind for a long term polarised training strategy. It certainly produced good results in the study - which seemed to be attributed to a greater training effect from three VO2 sessions per week vs three threshold sessions - but on the face of it this particular paper doesn’t seem to quite offer a training solution for someone who for instance finds that a TR mid volume plan has too much intensity.
5 Likes
There are 369 Sweet Spot workouts in the TR library. 350 of them are classified under the “Hard” IF, the same IF which also covers 708 of the 719 Threshold workouts, and 549 of 599 Vo2 workouts.
So, yea, I’d say SS is high intensity in anyone’s book
12 Likes
I think that’s actually called endurance, or zone 2.
Man, TR does indeed have some cult-like support. All the best that it works for you, seems like a thread with 1300+ posts is an indication that, just maybe, it doesn’t work for all of us. 
10 Likes
Nice!
1 Like
I’ve been catching up on this thread and noticed several people use the term “grandfathered” to describe how much they pay for TR.
I don’t want to call out anyone specifically, I suspect most people don’t realize this, but:
Grandfathered is a racist term which stems from a systemic racist idea and law that was historically used to disenfranchise people of color.
19 Likes
I don’t imagine that it is a TR goal to have a monopoly over all training options for everyone - there are many different options out there Zwift, Sufferfest, personal coaching, etc. Each one will have its own pros & cons and individual decisions will be based on whether each specific offer provides sufficient value at the price point that is being charged.
Personally I subscribe to TR, Sufferfest & also have free Strada, Xert & TrainingPeaks accounts. I take elements from each platform as they suit me. I hope that there is a development plan for each platform and that they will continue to evolve and add further value to continue winning my financial support (or maybe to gain it in the future).
Why should TR - or any other platform seek to be ‘all things to all wo/men’?
1 Like
A simple (and in my opinion) important question is why someone (for example pro riders) with time to train as they wish (e.g. 20 to 30 hours a week) would do a polarised or pyramidal plan with plenty of z2, why not do half the amount (say 15 hours) threshold/SS and spend the remaining time in recovery? But it seems they choose the higher accumulated weekly hours using z2 so I assume it has a benefit.
I’m a long time TR user by the way, since 2012.
5 Likes
Yes…I don’t find it unjust. I was at the initial price then got a year off due illness and got back on TR to paying a lot more.
Not good dividing your community or society in a more general sense.
Thanks… I forgot about this … will be removing the term from my vocabulary…
Any other word that can be used to describe the same thing without racist connotation?
2 Likes
Sure, that’s fair. What I SHOULD have said is the maximal sub-threshold intensity at which you can still recover relatively quickly. I suppose it’s all “relative” and that’s the problem. SS is not a SUPER specific “zone”, but it is a little specific, and you’re right. Being on the wrong side of that line causes it not to work well.
1 Like
Holy shit. I had not clue. Thanks for bringing this up. I hope Nate is aware he (used to 
) uses this term quite often on the podcast
2 Likes
Again, nonsense.
We simply don’t know yet which training principle is the best. Neither do we know what volume is. Though what we know, and that’s what the papers highlight, is that genetics play a huge role. Hence it doesn’t make any sense to just look at professionals when we know they are likely genetically different. Which nulls your line of argumentation.
2 Likes
Nope. You claim to not to dispute science, and then post a paper which is wholly irrelevant to the topic at hand. That is the definition of nonsense, in the very literal meaning that it doesn’t make any sense. You cannot provide a single valid citation or argument beyond your dogmatic insistence that you alone are right.
6 Likes
Wow…you learn something new every day. Thanks for this.
3 Likes
In fact, some do. Chris Boardman, for example, was well-known for modest (by pro standards) training volume. Most, though, ride their bikes a lot, because 1) they can, 2) they’re paid to, and 3) they believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have to.
Here’s a poster child for how malaligned incentives frequently result in elite athletes making poor choices, such that you don’t necessarily want to emulate them.
4 Likes
“Hard” does not constitute high intensity, physiologically, and that’s what I wanted to address. I agree, they’re not easy workouts, and that’s a distinction I should’ve made. Regardless, I still stand by the point and I would still say SS is not high intensity because it’s sub-threshold. An ultra marathon is pretty inarguably hard, but not high intensity.
Yes, SS is a significantly harder effort than ultra pace, that’s not the point. The point is energy systems, and that doesn’t change very much at all across individuals. The goal of riding in SS is to maximize aerobic energy production stress to stimulate greater aerobic energy production adaptation. It does do that, if you do enough SS. Enough varies, absolutely. But the goal of TR’s plans is to hit the minimum of enough, then progress when it is no longer enough, and I don’t see evidence that TR plans don’t do exactly that. In fact, I believe there’s great evidence that they DO achieve that. LV is the start, and if that’s not enough, you move up to MV, and then finally HV. Do that, and you get better assuming proper recovery.
2 Likes