Definitely a low volume polarized approach is sort of new ground. 
But if not TR, then who?
My only observation is that when volume is that low I’m able to maintain incremental progression on that once-weekly hard workout for quite a while…and in fact I’m always looking forward to it. No need for 3 on/ 1off or even 4 on/1 off.
Not a researcher on Sports Physiology (although I am publishing in ML/NLP) but I have the impression that when Seiler talks in podcasts he is mostly referring to elite athletes. At least that’s where he got inspired to look further into the issue. Not sure if his published research concerns average Joes, as me.
I’m one of those people that use TR at least in part because I don’t want to put in the considerable effort to devise my own carefully timed and progressed training plan.
However, it seems to me, that every cycle through a training plan is a bit of an experiment because of all the variables specific to an individual at a particular time. Twice (two separate years) I have had to pull the plug in the second half of build due to accumulated fatigue. In retrospect it’s easy to say I should have done LV and supplemented with endurance rides to get adequate volume, but it’s hard to know that before you flame out. For me, the individual workouts were never a problem until all the fatigue that must have been building slowly in the background finally hit.
So, my only point is the even though the SSBMV plan is not experimental, when it is applied to me (or any individual) it is an experiment. Given what I’ve learned, trying a new approach, even one labelled “experimental”, seems far less risky than repeating past mistakes; I’m excited to be a guinea pig for a polarized plan.
Sorry if this has been covered already but on quick glance I don’t see anything.
From what i’ve been hearing on both your podcasts/forums is that a lot of users choose a low volume plan and then build a few lower intensity outdoor rides/commuting rides around it. With this polarized approach i’m not sure how that would work because technically if you were to add a workout to a LV plan, it looks like you might want it be a higher intensity workout? is that correct?
I guess i’m just wondering how adaptations to the plans such as this would occur and what would be recommended. In the SSLV all the intensity is built into the training plan and then you can add a few chill endurance rides, but what would be recommended for this polarized approach?
Probably the TrainNow function can address that through the ML/AT functions once its out
Well said. Here was my attempt at two polarized plans based on the progressions in Short and Sustained Power Build plans.
He will say something like, “This holds true for people on lower volume” but doesn’t give hard cutoffs. I suspect that there isn’t a hard cut off but a sliding window.
With polarized especially at lower volumes during base, I don’t feel like you need a full recovery week mid block. N=1 but I would prefer the 3rd week to be recovery-ish but not full recovery- have one intense ride but less time at intensity than the prior 2 weeks. Like you have in the tri plans now where the recovery weeks are lower time/TSS but still include some intensity. Then the 6th week could be a more standard recovery week.
if what he said was sessions at 80:20 (resulting in something like TIZ 90:10), then I think you are left with this sequence for LV:
I think you should, for nearly all of these workouts, follow a 2:1 work:rest ratio on the intervals. So for 4 minute intervals, 2 minute rest. 8 minute intervals, 4 minute rest, etc.
This makes sense to me
Honestly I think you should build them without recovery weeks, with fewer intense sessions they shouldn’t be as necessary. However, since I think many will disagree with this, I’d suggest you have only the last week be the recovery week
I’d suggest you simplify the warm-up. Leave it all in Z1, no need to stray into Z2 as long as you don’t drastically shorten the warm-up. Minimum duration 15 minutes, all in Z1
One other thing that you didn’t ask - but I’d like to see lower intensity on the Z1 rides than currently exist in the workout library. A 3 or 4 hour ride with IF at 0.65 is going to be beyond most people’s capability. I know AT will help with this, but you might want to include some lower starting points, even for shorter duration
Edit: Also I think the volumes are a bit low - particularly at high volume. The hours/week are pretty low for a polarized ‘high volume’
I covered that in the initial post.
I kinda agree here, but maybe tweak it a little.
Two 1 hr Z3 rides and a 2 hour Endurance ride. It bumps the volume a little, which is frequently possible for most people on the Low volume plans (given that we always have questions of how to add volume to LV plans). I don’t think this is ideal, but it is polarized (per the Polarization Index calc). And while, yes, more Z1 would be better as more volume is almost always better, someone should be able to handle the two Z3 workouts given the amount of rest days on the LV plan.
I completely agree that a single Z3 and two Z1 rides isn’t going to give the same benefit as the current low volume plans.
Back to a bingo card plan.
For a Low Volume Plan with 3.5h available, I think Seiler would suggest to do one long ride of 2hours and two short Rides of 45min (one of those in Z3). No rest weeks needed or only 5/1.
In general I Like that TR Sticks to seilers approach. He is the Mastermind behind this approach IMO. Also referring to 4/8/16min Intervals is valid. I would onkly think about implementing 30/15 intervals. In some interviews he said they would be valid. However the Z3 Sessions are supposed to be hard frome the beginning. I would rather see an increase in number of Intervals (e.g. 3x4, 4x4, 5x4) than starting with a very low Intensity. According to Seiler the goal is to accumulate time around 90%HR max. That will not happen with 4x4min at 105%.
You really should not, 4/8/16 is not real world. Those are not recommendations as such, just what he used in study and is therefore familiar with. I would argue progressive longer form steady state VO2max intervals far more appropriate, targeting ~ 20 to 25 minutes, 30 minutes if a very advanced athlete.
Example (ignore the threshold, that’s something unique for an individual)
Long Form Z3
Short/shorts (ignore the EN, and long VO2max, the short short occurs on a different date in these weeks)
Is the goal to be able to see what adaptations come from different training regimes without having people test? That would open up some huge possibilities of data collection, aside from the benefits to the AT model and to people who don’t want to test.
On the topic in hand I have been training since September either with threshold intervals or steady efforts, maximum 3.5 hours a week. Pretty sure that is more polarized than any other TID description. I’m not sure how much fitter I am but it’s been the best and most consistent training I’ve done for ages. I also took a rest week and felt terrible afterwards, I’m not doing that again. At most if tired I will drop a session so I’m in the ‘no rest week’ camp if LV POL.
Great work all of you.
My jaw dropped because the text preceded the graphic, I thought you were calling for 20+ min VO2 intervals #phew
Just TiZ, the actual time at VO2max on a good day is going to be around 15 - 18 minute for a intervals with a TiZ of 25 - 30 minutes. I didn’t copy a 30 minute TiZ session, what I posted is enough to get the idea.
Also do not need recovery weeks if only one or two Z3 a week.
Z3 should have a target but not be erg or if it is erg use the +/- button the average the highest possible average power over the intervals, have a prescription / target for the first interval but then average the most you can over the whole set of intervals.
This has been the biggest problem with VO2max and intervals over threshold in TR sessions, yes ML/AT might start to solve this issue but do the first interval at target pace, even erg, you should then know if on the day you can do a bit more or less, being a slave to erg or preset targets is leaving progress on the table IMO.
I wonder what percentage of users select the Low Volume plans because they do an equal amount of riding outside, unstructured (and potentially Z1). Could you work in the desired WO distribution while putting the onus on the user to make up whatever is missing outside the plan? Could it be a caveat or an opt-in?
