I’d like to reiterate and emphasize your point: an athlete who takes an FTP test (ramp or a full on 60 min test), gets an FTP value, and then rides their Z2 polarized rides at 60-70% of that could very likely be riding in polarized Z2. w/o a blood lactate test, they don’t know for sure. Conversely, their polarized Z1 cap could actually be around 80% of their FTP (as you said) and they could be riding well under that in an attempt to avoid the dreaded Z2. This means they could be riding harder while still adhering to a polarized model, and they’d be missing out on a lot of aerobic adaptations.
So to undertake polarized training as a way to “optimize” your training, but fundamentally miss the mark on the zones, is quite pointless, IMO.
You do know that they often run these studies on untrained individuals? Here’s one example, it’s just the first hit I found. If they are untrained individuals, it’s unlikely that they genetically gifted.
One thing DJ didn’t touch on that TR definitely factors in to the plan is compliance. They have data that probably shows more engagement and completion for the SS style workouts than for endurance ones, so they want to build a plan people will follow. There’s no point building a plan with workouts that most people don’t want to do, and I think TRs target audience are people new to training. Do they want to do more engaging SS work, or does TR want to prescribe a more POL approach that some people just won’t do? Probably more people will follow the more fun plan, and get more results, even if it’s not ideal, but that doesn’t make those plans ideal, if they were everyone would be on TR and other platforms wouldn’t exist
I’m not saying they’re gameifying the plans on a Zwift level or turning them into spin class, but if they know that let’s say 50% of users will dump a polarized plan but only 20% will dump a sweet spot plan, it may be worth it to prescribe the less effective plan to the masses because more people will make SOME progress, vs losing half of the audience because they get bored and gain nothing.
Which plan is BEST is debateable, but technically neither TR or DJ are wrong. DJ may be correct in saying that ultimately our plans aren’t the best bang for your buck, and TR may be right in saying that with their data they think otherwise. I do wonder how they would figure that out since I don’t recall TR ever having a POL plan, so I don’t know if they really know how much more or less compliance they would get
I really don’t understand the vitriol in this thread. Why is it so important to be right? I’m wrong all the time, it’s not that bad.
Don’t like the TR platform or their plans? Don’t subscribe. Like TR but want to follow a different plan? Buy one from TrainingPeaks and import it into TR. Love TR and their plans? Keep subscribing. No matter where you fall here you get to do what you want and you have the bonus of believing that those that disagree with you will be at a disadvantage. Win/win.
Great article in my point of view. It’s a simplified approach, which is stated by the author, so it’s not an exhaustive training guidelines or whatever… can be quite useful for many of us.
Agreed. But, again, a 3 zone model isn’t intended to be based on FTP. The cycling world has adapted it to be so because we love FTP, and polarized training is sexy, so we’ve married the two.
This adaptation can lead to flaws. My LT1 might occur at 50% of my FTP while yours occurs at 80% of your FTP. If we both train our LSD rides at 60% FTP, I’ll be going too hard and you’re short changing yourself.
And there are those who advocate for polarized training that suggest heart rate is a better measure than power if one cannot do blood lactate testing on a regular basis, particularly for the so called “easy” rides. I’m not saying they’re wrong either. In fact, I often use a combination of heart rate and power to help guide my endurance rides.
As has already been said you can use the talk test for endurance rides. If you’re going to test yourself, there’s plenty of advice on how to estimate LT1 and LT2 in the absence of testing, and what it should feel like. Another way is how long you can survive at the intensity. If your estimates are wrong and you can do “VO2Max efforts” for 30min, it’s actually not a VO2Max effort. It’s how I confirmed my FTP test was reasonably accurate - how long can I last at “VO2Max power”; can I sustain a “threshold effort” for 20mins.
Does TrainerRoad know you had an accident and broke your arm?
By definition, your optimum training plan needs to be highly specific. Specific to you.
Anything less is a compromise. Potentially, a large compromise.
If you lack the expertise to do it yourself, hire a coach. If that is either too expensive or possibly feels too ‘serious’, then follow a more generic plan.
However, don’t be fooled into thinking that what you are doing is optimal.
Dude, you are getting more and more petty with every post. Grow up. There is no reason to go around this community putting people down. If you really hate nate and TR and the type of training they promote, why not just go somewhere else rather than trying to piss on everyone you come across. Or maybe look in the mirror and see if what you are posting is really what you want your life to reflect
This . If everyone using TR gathers that piece of knowledge than this thread was worth the read.
Otherwise, this thread… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in the 1400+ rambling, incoherent responses were people even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone reading this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award it no points, and may God have mercy on our souls.
You would very likely improve greatly with a talented coach. Obviously, it is possible to get poor quality coaching. Selecting your coach carefully is vital. It’s hard to know exactly what to base this selection on.
Roster of athletes, results of those athletes. The coaches own results?
I would be fairly confident that if you hired Tim Cusick, Jim Miller or Kolie Moore you would make great progress. Particularly in the long term.
If I were going to come on a forum and attack an entire business, an entire community, and people’s sweat equity in hour and hours of past training, all in defense that my training method is better, I’d be sure I had firmer base than a “talk test” to establish my protocol.
Is a polarized method using an estimate on if you can comfortably talk really better than potentially heaping on too much sweet spot? Seems like there’s just as much potentially being left on the table following a poorly executed optimal plan vs. a well executed just OK plan.
Goes back to the overarching point of this whole thread: If you’re not racing at the high high highest level- the modality you use isn’t as important as your execution of whatever you choose.
Attack an entire community. We can be customers and fans but need to accept that they aren’t god. The anecdote of Chad not being able to follow through tells a lot. Through all the episodes they find “marginal gains” but turns out they don’t add up (MV+sauna+weights+beetroot+100g/hr+sleepinghacks =/= crazy gains). Humans are quite organic and people respond differently.
I know I respond well to SS, trying polarized with skepticism.
. If everyone using TR gathers that piece of knowledge than this thread was worth the read.
