So how many ex fizz classes did those 7 years entail?
More to the point, if things work as you claimed in that blog post, how do you explain data like this, where everyone’s power as a % of FTP converges after just a few minutes? If there were significant differences at longer times (as you argue result from too much tempo/threshold training), then the SDs would “blow up” as the duration got longer and longer. However, they don’t.
you wrote very nicely. I agree with everything.
Some good points in the video. 
Between all the BS, this thread actually made me realize that it’s not a bad thing to slightly tweak my TR plans and tailor them to my needs. I always held back on modifying them in fear that I would mess up the process but I realize that most of those who find long term success with the platfrom do in fact adjust the plans a bit.
I guess I can thank DJ for that lol.
Wth is this thread anymore…
Interesting logic. What if you’d never ridden a bike before and went into a bike shop and bought a Trek Madone. Is the shop liable if you hurt yourself because you don’t know how to ride a bike? TR is pretty beginner friendly without much reading required but if you want to get the best out of it then best to RTFM so to speak.
Great point. The study of the 12 cyclists that DJ refers to might simply be showing that doing 3 Vo2 sessions per week will yield greater improvements than 3 longer SS sessions. Of course, how long one could maintain such a program might be a problem,
My point wasn’t whether what was done in the past was right or wrong, it was in defence of someone aged 26 not being hide bound as many people were suggesting Dylan was.
In the 3 zone model “polarized” is based on, the zones are technically defined by lactate blood levels instead of % of FTP. That kind of testing isn’t easily available to the masses. Thus, many coaches and training platforms choose to use the 5 or 7 zone models based more on % of FTP. While that may not be ideal in the sense that it may not be the absolute best testing protocol on paper, it is ideal in the sense that doing a FTP test is much more readily available to the vast majority of people and will generally get them in the ball park. In other words, by doing a simple ftp test more of us can train more effectively without having to have access to expensive lab equipment that can measure blood lactate levels.
A well trained athlete who is very aerobically fit may be training at over 80% of their ftp but still have blood lactate levels below LT1. In other words they would be training in zone 1 under the 3 zone model but zone 3 in a 5 or 7 zone model. As you can hopefully see, it gets very murky very quickly. A coach that operates under a 3 zone model might look at that, see the athlete training in “zone 3” under a TR program, and publicly declare that the athlete will become overtrained, even though the athlete is still training in “zone 1” under his system. On the other hand, an athlete that isn’t very aerobically fit would likely eventually crumble if they tried to ride at over 80% of FTP 4-5 days per week. TR offers programs for both athletes. Many of the problems occur when the unfit cyclist does not follow TR’s advice to start with low volume then slowly increase the volume by adding Z2 rides to the low volume plans.
Thanks for posting that video. Really enjoyed it - and it hits it right on the nail.
Your comment might be true if you are operating at 86% but not at 94%.
But they are both considered SS 
More reason to ditch SS and work from 5 zone model.
I think the outdoor rides was a highly requested feature. I have used it a couple of times and it makes for a more structured ride than just going for a cruise, but I haven’t been able to follow close enough to fully nail each interval.
I think the group workouts was a bit rushed out due to COVID, and I bet it sounded better in theory than how it actually turned out getting used. I haven’t done a single one, and I doubt I ever do. Maybe I would feel differently if I had more friends doing TR.
I’ll bet 99% of the staunch “P0lAriZeD trAiNInG iZ LyfE” defenders on here have never done a blood lactate test, and are performing their POL training based on FTP. Therefore, a fundamental piece of the training modality they are so adamantly defending is missing
While I don’t agree with your original post, this is funny! 
There is no call for that kind of insult on this forum, especially on Nate’s forum. Any future comments you make will be tainted.
Bruce
Jeez you changed your tone pretty quick.
I’m feeling as if I’m in a middle of 4th SS interval on Sunday.
Does your comment automatically become more serious and important when you sign your name here?
-Batman-
Perhaps. My point was simply that from a strict polarized perspective, a well trained aerobically fit cyclist could do a ride that would be classified as “easy” if the athlete is subscribing to a polarized protocol, or the same ride would be classified as 'hard" if the athlete is subscribing to a % of FTP protocol. The ride is the same.
Edit: And thus why I stated in my very first post that I believe Dylan and TR have much more in common than what they disagree on and that much of this is just misperceptions and lack of understanding.
Nah, my posts are already serious and important. 
Bruce
Kind of non-sense. You don’t need precise lactate numbers for polarized training. Seiler has said many times that you can use 65-70% of HRmax for LT1. You can also use the talk test or Coggan Z2. You can use FTP for LT2. There is no magical lactate number for MLSS. It’s different for each athlete.
