DJ addressed POL vs Pyramidal in the video, and pointed to studies showing similar results from each.
I think this thread is missing the mark by arguing that point.
The really important question, as I see it, is whether or not the average recreational cyclist (TR user) benefits from increased frequency of high intensity work over 2x/week.
Chris Carmichael, in The Time Crunched Cyclist, argues, basically yes, reduced volume must equate to increased intensity, and prescribes plans that look very similar to TRās plans. The difference though, is that his plans are only 8 (maybe 12? itās been a while) weeks long, and he is explicit about
scheduling lots of recovery after the block. He does not prescribe 3-4 HIT sessions per week for 26 weeks.
As that Fascat podcast pointed out, the biggest ever increases found in VO2max and muscle characteristics were in studies that had subjects going really, really, really hard 4-6 days per week.
Most people donāt have the motivation to keep that up for more than a few months, but successful competitive athletes arenāt most people.
For how long did they do that? Most people I donāt think could physically handle it more than a few weeks, but done sparingly Iām sure it would produce good results.
FWIW, Iāve always thought that there must be a relationship between the human gestational period and how long folks are willing to keep their nose to the grindstone. Either that, it is the turning of the seasons that make even most elite athletes dial back periodically. (OTOH, you have roadies who go straight into racing 'cross or indoor track all winter, then straight into the Spring Classics, so is any off-season really needed?)
In any case, unless you are unusually fragile, youāre not going to become physically overtrained in just a few months, much less a few weeks.
But did it make you faster than if you had only done 2/3 HIT/week? If Iām so bold as to assume you were coming back from a hiatus or period of unstructured riding, then adherence to any plan could be assumed to make you faster.
TR talks about āminimum effective dosageā a lot, so itās hard to believe that they believe 5 days/8hrs per wk of intensity is the minimum required to create adaptations.
For the nth time ā itās not a āvsā condition. Both are utilised at different times for different goals.
To make it out that pros do POL 12 months of the year for their entire career is to not understand the construct of POL.
:
Nate states his FTP went from 275 to 345 doing only SS. Gotta ask why only SS? Was it because he had no time? Was it to keep inline with TRās brand?
I raised and extended my entire power curve, breaking all my lifetime power PRās, and pushing my highest ever FTPā¦on extremely little SSā¦but a lot of āPOLā. So whoās more right?
SS = less time, more stress
POL = more time, less stress
You can build workouts in TrainingPeaks, track metrics, and export those workouts to zwift or your Garmin//Wahoo head unit which will then control your trainer or do the workouts outside.
I think you have made a ton of valid points - but this feels like a real strawman. SSBHV is explicitly not the minimum effective dosage - itās the plan for people who really want to push the envelope. The advice with minimum effective dosage Iāve always seen them make, and have to think they believe, is low volume.
Their plans are not really about ādevelopingā riders. Just peaking them. IOW, the macro gets lost (meaning year on year improvement). From the issue of sustainability alone these plans are just not going to hold up over the long term and these plans have the potential to eventually cause deterioration of the lactate profile due to increased lactate production stemming from so much intensity work without commensurate levels of Z2 to compensate (keeping a balance between fat and glycolytic metabolism).
It really is too much intensity but those who are heavily invested in these plans it will fall on deaf ears mostly. No one likes to be told that there training methodology may be flawed.
As far Nate, Chad, Jonathan and others, I do think they have good podcasts and genuinely want to help riders improve. I enjoy their contentā¦particularly Chadās deep-dives. But saying thatā¦I have to be blunt. I think they all know that these plans are problematic (especially Chad who is most erudite) and I donāt think for one second that any of them would follow such plans long-term. Just my take.
@chidlow Not taking into account any genetic differences, just look at how much elite athletes train. Training up to 13 times a week is different than training say 4 times a week. Itās a lot more training, that is the difference. So maybe a 4 times a week person could benefit from more zone 2 (3 zone model) than a 13 times a week person would (Seiler et al. classify anything over zone 1 as high intensity). From the abstract of the study referenced, it looked at these well-trained athletes who train a lot. Therefore, you canāt take the conclusion from it and say that it absolutely applies to everyone. It might but from that study you donāt know.
The Neal study that DJ cites with much excitement is seriously flawed.
Only 12 people, 6 per group. Thatās a start - not enough to build an entire argument.
The Zone 3 workouts of the Polarized group were 6 x 4 minutes at ~110% FTP with 2-min rest of not pedaling or pedaling backwards. Hmm. The zone 2 sessions of the Threshold group were 60 minute rides at tempo pace (~78% FTP). Numbers are approximate of course. Note that the Threshold group still spent ~60% of training time in Zone 1.
No wonder some in the Threshold group lost fitness if the MOST they did in a 6-week block was 78% FTP. No interval training whatsoever. That is a very silly study design. The Threshold group has no resemblance to TR plans (except maybe traditional base).
That study actually offers nothing productive to the discussion. If anything it confirms that interval training is better than a vague mix of endurance/tempo pace riding.
Hmm. The zone 2 sessions of the Threshold group were 60 minute rides at tempo pace (~78% FTP). Numbers are approximate of course. Note that the Threshold group still spent ~60% of training time in Zone 1.