I get the 80/20 bit.
It’s Iike what happens when you hit the 8 weeks of Specialty in the TR plans? No?
Admittedly, the plans that I looked at had a SS workout thrown in there as well. Shock, horror.
I asked the question because it seems nonsensical to use a 9 week study with highly trained athletes that are slightly detrained to show that a reduction in training load, while maintaining high output ability, shows anything more than a fresh athlete.
Maybe I’m miles off the mark. I don’t know. This thread is a shocker
There’s many resources in this forum you can study about it. The point is that it takes time. The ongoing debate is somehow over a very tricky zone. It’s natural to have tons of different opinions with strong scientific evidence from both sides. I learn tons of things from this health discussion, but the most important thing for me is to adopt what I learn, try this and that, document them down, execute the plan, review different approaches, and enjoy.
Nah. TR Speciality plans are all about lower volume while maintaining intensity, with the idea of tapering / peaking before a target event.
Seiler’s Polarised training model involves spending the vast majority of your training time (think 80 or 90%) below LT1, and the remaining time above LT2. Without going down the rabbit hole of sessions vs Time-in-Zone, LT1 vs VT1, LT2 vs FTP etc… roughly this would mean spending the overwhelming majority of your training time in, for a Coggan 5-Zone model, Z1-Z2… maybe even low Z3 for some people. The rest of the time would be above FTP.
I can’t see any TR Speciality that come anywhere close to that sort of TiZ or session intensity distribution. Maybe full-distance triathlon? But seems to lack the over-FTP stuff.
PS Please … no one take this as an opinion or judgement call on either TR speciality or polarised… I have zero skin in either game.
I find myself lost in this ongoing debate. I believe there is so much
thing that TR users could learn from. I try to summary a wiki-style
like the page here:
This my preparation for next TR Thursday’s lecture.
Feel free to add questions. Or the structure of the note. I think TR
users could benefit from more denser information.
Nope I would not. I am by no means genetically gifted. Nor do I have the long term training background. So I would stick with a coach who has a track record with my peers.
For the same reason I always wave my right to be treated by the head of a medical department in the hospital. I rather go with the third or fourth in line who does that stuff I am in for on a daily basis.
@TheBandit I never argued volume isn’t important. My point is the amount needed for non gifted athletes to reach their potential and also the amount needed to get very close (see above). As I have said multiple times by now, we don’t know.
Plan Builder will present you with a training distribution to repeat again and again. The longer the time frame to your event, the worse PB becomes. And the next season…the same thing…again and again.
That’s exactly what TR plans do! SS, Threshold, and VO2 over and over and over…always gunning for that higher FTP.
My plan distribution is:
Z2 = 67%
Z4 = 16%
Z5 = 17%
(Sorry, no Zone TR, you get a long fatigue-free Z2 instead)
Sooo…almost exactly the same as a general TR full training phase…but without all the fuss and only TWO days of intensity. No chance of burnout with this simple baby! Guess no one would pay $20/mo for that.
Already a TR post about it…which I started…and trashed the author, just as I trashed TR for their approach toward training which conflicts with their commercial venture.
