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.
1 Like
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.
1,000,000% yes.
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.
It is not.
1 Like
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
5 Likes
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.
19 Likes
Says the 6th most frequent poster in this thread…?
4 Likes
Yes.
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.
4 Likes
Sounds like you’re not pacing yourself very well… again.
1 Like
Pretty sure that was meant as a joke, with a nod to this clip:
19 Likes
Ah, thank you! I do miss a fair few pop culture references 
4 Likes
reads all the way to post 14XX
BREAKING NEWS: Riding your bike will make you better at riding your bike.
8 Likes
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.
2 Likes
It cracks me up that polarized threatens some people’s world view and they feel the need to attack it. Attacking the estimate of LT1 is just dumb. Inigo San Millan prescribes the talk test. Seiler says 65-70% of HRmax. It’s really not hard or need be that scientific to get in the ballpark of the right zone.
And other people, training by the coggin zones, seem to be able to find zone 2 just fine without a lactate meter.
10 Likes
It’s a “great article” only if you like being misinformed.
2 Likes
That’s a great question.
Personally, and this is only my opinion. This opinion is based on observing many athletes and some research done by Alan Couzens. I run a cycling club and one my best friends is a well qualified cycling coach. So, between us, we see a lot of varied athletes.
Assuming everything is equal. Each athletes nutrition, sleep, training distribution and general maintenance is on point. The single largest influence on improvement is volume.
I have never met a truly elite cyclist who has got there on 4hrs a week. NEVER. Not once. I do not think it is even possible. Maybe for Remco, but not for any normal human. Especially, a masters athlete.
I have met people who have maintained incredible fitness on tiny volume, but this was still based on years of extensive training, with at some point earlier, high volume.
It is my opinion that increasing your yearly volume is the single largest factor in long term improvement.
I have post my hierarchy of training importance in other threads. Unsurprisingly, it is not dissimilar to what most endurance coaches and exercise physiologists recommend.
They virtually all lead with volume then frequency (consistency).
It is actually a very simple experiment, increase your volume substantially, adjust your training distribution to reflect this higher volume, then monitor your results.
I would be surprised if implemented correctly, it didn’t result in significant improvement.
7 Likes
According to the scientific literature, all “thresholds” are highly correlated with each other.
I refuse to learn😂
1 Like
Looking at “traditional” 6-zone FTP-based power as compared to polarized 3-zone power there’s a pretty clear delineation* going on based on %FTP. That is:
Polarized Z3 = 6-Zone zones 6, 5, and the top-end of zone 4
Polarized Z2 = Everything in between
Polarized Z1 = 6-Zone zones 1, 2 and the bottom-end of zone 3
*I am aware that 3-zone polarized training zones are not intended to be discovered via a traditional “FTP test”, but for most riders this is pretty good provided one is conservative. And by conservative, I mean really make sure you’re in the intended zone by either going a bit easier on the polarized Z1 stuff and a bit harder on the polarized Z3 stuff.
In the real world, it looks like this: on my Wahoo Elemnt Bolt, I set up 6 zone power and use the power zone field as follows:
- If I’m in zones 1-2 I’m polarized zone 1. If I creep up into zone 3 I know to ease off slightly (but am aware I am still technically in polarized zone 1).
- If I’m in zones 5-6, I’m in polarized zone 3. If I fall down into zone 4 I know to go slightly harder (but am aware I am still technically in polarized zone 3).
How so? Cardiac drift occurs at all intensities.
3 Likes